Thursday, 5 June 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill presented by Mr Hayden, and read a first time. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(10.01) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Bill is to give effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the Treaty on a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. This Bill is complemented by the projected amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 relating to the dumping of radioactive waste, and the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 relating to the application of safeguards to nuclear material which cover obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty referred to but not provided for in this Bill. Enactment of this body of legislation, and the making of some related regulations are prerequisites for Australian ratification of the Treaty. The implementing legislation in fact goes beyond the minimum that is technically required for the purpose of ratification: It covers all the substantive provisions of the Treaty. This course of action was chosen by the Government to reflect the Government's commitment to the objectives and provisions of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, as well as Australian Labor Party policy on the manufacture, testing and stationing of nuclear weapons in and/or by Australia. Honourable members will recall that on 6 August 1985, the fortieth anniversary of the first use of atomic weapons, the heads of government of countries members of the South Pacific Forum, meeting at Rarotonga, endorsed the text of the Treaty and opened it for signature. Nine of the 13 countries eligible to sign have already done so. Apart from Australia, they are the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu and Western Samoa. Three countries have already ratified the Treaty, namely, the Cook Islands, Fiji and Tuvalu. The Treaty will enter into force when the eighth instrument of ratification has been lodged with the depositary who, as established in the Treaty, is the Director of the Bureau for South Pacific Economic Co-operation at Suva. Many see the Treaty as the South Pacific Forum's most ambitious and far-reaching endeavour so far. Whatever the truth of that, the Treaty shows that the Forum has come of age not only as the authentic and collective voice of the South Pacific region but as an actor able to make that voice clearly heard on the world stage. The Treaty was an initiative of Australia's, and specifically of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Government, as soon as it gained office, began work to achieve consensus within the South Pacific on a nuclear free zone. Australia promoted the concept at the fourteenth South Pacific Forum which met at Canberra in August 1983. In August 1984, the fifteenth South Pacific Forum meeting at Funafuti, Tuvalu, endorsed a set of principles proposed by Australia as a basis for a zone and appointed a working group of officials, with Australia in the chair, to prepare the text of a treaty. It was that text which heads of government endorsed. If the initiative for a zone was Australia's, the Treaty itself constitutes a genuinely collective effort by the 13 member countries of the Forum. Not only was it endorsed by the 13 heads of government, but virtually every member country of the Forum contributed substantially to the work of development and drafting. Some countries made the main running on some aspects and some on others. Every country can see its hand in the text we now have. Forum governments, in drafting the Treaty, drew on, among other things, the provisions of existing international arrangements prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and establishing demilitarised and nuclear weapons free zones, notably the Antarctic Treaty, 1959-the earliest of the post-World War II arms limitation agreements-the Treaty of Tlatelolco 1967; the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968 and the Seabed Arms Control Treaty, 1971. Forum governments gave particular attention to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, with 134 parties, is the most widely supported of all international arms control agreements, and especially to its Article VII, which recognises the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties so as to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories. The Treaty of Tlatelolco, which broke important ground by establishing the first nuclear weapons free zone in a populated region, namely Latin America, created a precedent valuable to the work of Forum governments. That they were able to draw on the Latin American achievement is evident in the fact that the Treaty of Rarotonga goes beyond it in several respects. The Treaty is widely recognised around the world as a significant measure. It has been welcomed by the international community, especially at a time when the world has little to point to by way of progress on arms control and disarmament; and the Forum has been congratulated on it. I note in passing, for example, that in September 1985 the Third Review Conference of the NPT in its final declaration welcomed the achievement of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty `as consistent with Article VII of the NPT'. I draw attention also to the communique issued by 46 Commonwealth heads of government following their meeting in the Bahamas in October 1985 which welcomed the Treaty as `an important step in global and regional efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation'. The Treaty expresses the strong community of interests which members of the South Pacific Forum share in environmental and security matters and reflects the deeply felt and long-standing concerns in our region about nuclear testing, the ocean dumping of nuclear waste, and the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. It commits the parties to important obligations in those areas. It also reflects, in the words of the preamble, the determination of the people of the South Pacific `that the bounty and beauty of the land and the sea in their region shall remain the heritage of their peoples and their descendants in perpetuity to be enjoyed by all in peace'. At the same time the Treaty does not seek to undermine the factors that have created and sustained the very favourable security environment which the South Pacific enjoys. It does not in any way conflict with Australia's defence arrangements, notably ANZUS. It does not run counter to our support for stable nuclear deterrence. It does not impede in any way our ability to co-operate militarily with our allies. The same is true of this Bill. On the contrary, it seeks to build on those factors by, for example, the provisions against nuclear weapons which will help to ensure that the South Pacific, unlike other parts of the world, does not in the future become a theatre for nuclear confrontation. I turn to two important aspects of the Treaty: The boundaries of the zone and its title. Forum governments, in developing the zone, considered two approaches: * an incomplete `patchwork' approach, with the zone confined to the territories of countries which adhere to the Treaty; * a `diagrammatic' approach, with a boundary line circumscribing the Forum countries as well as large areas of the high seas. Forum governments strongly preferred the diagrammatic approach since it was easier to visualise and clearly identifies the region to which the zone was intended to apply. They set the boundaries of the Zone in the East, to abut on the existing nuclear weapons free zone in Latin America; in the South, to abut on the completely demilitarised zone established by the Antarctic Treaty; in the north, to follow the Equator but with some humps to accommodate the exclusive economic zones of Papua New Guinea, Kiribati and Nauru; and, in the west, to run along the outer limit of the Australian territorial sea. Australia's external territories in the Indian Ocean are also covered by the provisions of the Treaty of Rarotonga; but our Antarctic territories are not, since they have long been subject to the Antarctic Treaty. Greater detail on the negotiating history of the boundaries of the zone and other aspects of the Rarotonga Treaty is to be found in the report by the Chair of the Working Group of South Pacific Forum officials. The report is germane in interpreting the Treaty and bears on this legislation. Even though Forum governments choose the diagrammatic approach, I stress that Forum members like all other countries, are able to agree on provisions affecting the actions of other states, only in relation to their own territories and, to a much more limited extent, in areas of jurisdiction outside their territory. Beyond that, Forum members can only undertake Treaty obligations in relation to their own actions, and actions on their own ships and aircraft. The Treaty does not seek to mislead or create false expectations by pretending to legislate in disregard of these constraints. Neither does the Bill now before us. I refer also to the title of the Treaty and, in particular, to the appropriateness of the term `Nuclear Free'. Clearly it is beyond the legal power and practical capability of Forum governments, including the powers and capabilities of the Australian Government, to exclude all things nuclear from the zone. Moreover, whatever Forum governments sought to do within this zone, it would remain part of a world in which nuclear weapons exist and the peaceful use of nuclear energy and materials is widespread. I draw the attention of honourable members, in this connection, to the term `nuclear weapon free zone', which has long been established in United Nations and other international usage-for example, the Latin American and Antarctic zones which do not preclude transit or visits by ships. In the case of the Treaty of Rarotonga, however, its key obligations go beyond those relating to nuclear weapons and encompass as well the dumping of nuclear waste and strong safeguards on the peaceful used of nuclear energy. It is for that reason and because no freedom is absolute that Forum governments concluded that the term `Nuclear Free' should appropriately form part of the title of the Treaty and the zone. The Bill at hand gives effect to the provisions of the Treaty throughout the Commonwealth, in all States and in every external Australian Territory. It extends to the Australian Antarctic Territories since Antarctica too is free from nuclear weapons by virtue of the Antarctic Treaty. I turn now to the specific clauses of the Bill and draw the attention of honourable members to its interpretative provisions at clause 4. Honourable members will see that in clause 4 the term `nuclear explosive device' has the same meaning as it does in the Treaty, namely, `any nuclear weapon or other explosive device capable of releasing nuclear energy, irrespective of the purpose for which it could be used'. The term includes such a weapon or device in unassembled and partly assembled forms, but does not include the means of transport or delivery of such a weapon or device if separable from and not an indivisible part of it'. I stress that the inclusion of delivery systems in the definition of a nuclear explosive device would have presented serious difficulties since such systems capable of being used for nuclear weapons are also capable of being used with conventional weapons and some such systems are used by at least some Forum members in their conventional defence forces. How, for example, is a meaningful distinction to be drawn between military aircraft which could be either conventionally or nuclear armed; or, for that matter, between rockets that can and do deliver non-nuclear or even civilian payloads but may also be used to deliver a nuclear warhead? On the other hand, the term `nuclear explosive device' as defined in the Treaty, and thus in this Bill, included so-called `peaceful' nuclear explosive devices as well as nuclear weapons because, technically and in non-proliferation terms, it is impossible to distinguish between them. That is an important point of difference between the treaties of Rarotonga and Tlatelolco since the latter seeks to make that distinction. I now turn to the specific prohibitions in the Treaty of Rarotonga and the manner in which they are reflected in Part II of the Bill before the House. The Treaty includes an obligation on parties not to manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over any nuclear explosive device by any means anywhere inside or outside the South Pacific nuclear free zone. The Bill provides in its clause 8 that the manufacture, production and acquisition of nuclear explosive devices is prohibited. In its clause 9, it goes on to equally prohibit research and development for the purpose or directed towards the manufacture or production of a nuclear explosive device. And clause 10 prohibits possession of or control over nuclear explosive devices. These three provisions thus give effect to Article 3 (a) of the Treaty. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Rarotonga prohibit parties from having, among other things, control over nuclear explosives. In drafting the legislation and extending this prohibition to individuals it has been necessary to make provision to ensure that this prohibition was not interpreted in ways not intended by the treaties. Thus, for example, a visiting Head of State or senior military officer from one of the nuclear weapon states has `control' over nuclear weapons and vehicles which carry them although these weapons may be as far away as on the other side of the planet. A visit by such a person to Australia is clearly not contrary to the treaties and the Bill explicitly provides that it is not a contravention of the Bill. It could also be maintained that some Australians have control over nuclear explosive devices if they are in a position to interrupt communications between foreign ships or aircraft which carry such weapons and their foreign command centres. The example which springs to mind is an Australian employee at North West Cape where, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has explained to us, Australia could intercept and prevent a message to fire a nuclear device despatched to, for example, the commander of a nuclear missile-capable submarine. Clearly, this is not what the prohibitions of the NPT and the Treaty of Rarotonga on `control' of nuclear explosives were intended to cover, and the Bill explicitly provides that any such `control' would not be a contravention of the legislation. The Treaty, in its Article 5, requires parties to prevent the stationing of any nuclear device in their territory. The definition of `stationing' contained in the Treaty also applies to the legislation. It draws from the definition of stationing in the Latin American Treaty: That Treaty says that stationing means stockpiling or storage of nuclear explosives or their installation or deployment. Deployment of a nuclear explosive weapon in normal usage means that it is set out ready for combat. This definition of stationing was thought to be sufficient for the Latin American Treaty but the Forum Working Group which drafted the Treaty of Rarotonga wanted to make doubly sure that it had a fully comprehensive definition of stationing. It therefore added the concepts of emplantation or emplacement which come from the Seabed Arms Control Treaty of 1971. To ensure that the prohibition on stationing is all-inclusive, the drafters of the Treaty of Rarotonga added to these internationally established concepts a reference to transportation on land or inland waters, so that there could be no possible circumvention of the prohibition through the deployment of nuclear explosives on mobile platforms. Some may claim an inconsistency here with the fact that the Treaty of Rarotonga explicitly recognises the rights of parties to permit foreign ships and aircraft to visit their ports and airfields, to allow foreign aircraft to overfly their territory and to allow foreign ships to navigate in their territorial seas, over and beyond the rights of navigation which they already have under international law and which could obviously not have been abridged by the Treaty. A similar understanding was registered in connection with the Latin American Treaty. This is not an inconsistency but reflection of a deliberate intention to make clear the distinction between the stationing of nuclear weapons by the parties to the Treaty themselves or by others on their territory and each party's sovereign right to continue collective security arrangements with external powers. In the course of Australia's defence co-operation with the United States and the United Kingdom it may happen, for example, that nuclear weapons are temporarily present in Australian waters and ports by virtue of visits by those countries naval ships. Thus, the Treaty of Rarotonga and the present legislation, which gives effect to it, in no way impede Australia's ability to maintain military co-operation and exchanges with its allies and friends and particularly with the United States under ANZUS. We can continue to receive visits by United States ships and aircraft to our ports and airfields. United States aircraft can transit our air space and our waters. United States ships and aircraft can participate in exercises in Australia and its territorial waters. Allied and friendly warships can go into dry dock in Australia. All this is permissible under the Treaty and under the proposed legislation because it does not constitute stationing. The Treaty definition or stationing and Article 15 (2) of the Treaty of Rarotonga make this clear and it is reflected in clause 15 of the Bill. Clause 12 of the Bill prohibits the testing of nuclear explosive devices by rendering it an offence for any person to undertake or carry out a test of such a device. Following the text of the Treaty, the Bill in clause 13 prohibits any person from doing `any act or thing to facilitate the manufacture, production, acquisition or testing by any person (including a foreign country) of a nuclear explosive device whether in or outside Australia'. This gives effect to the Treaty obligation not to `assist or encourage' these activities. The concept of facilitation was extensively discussed by the working group of officials which drafted the Treaty. The prohibition is clearly against taking action to facilitate. This means action deliberately directed at the prohibited activities, not action undertaken for other purposes which can have the unintended effect of facilitating. For example, Australia and several other Forum countries regularly broadcast meteorological information which may be useful to the French authorities in deciding on the timing of nuclear tests at Mururoa. Clearly, the Treaty does not require Australia or other Forum countries to cease broadcasting meteorological information. Equally clearly, it would require us to refuse refuelling facilities for foreign military aircraft primary engaged in supporting a nuclear testing program. The prohibition on facilitating the production of nuclear explosive devices does not in any way interfere with Australia's ability to support stable nuclear deterrence. This fact is explicitly recorded in the report of the working group. But, equally clearly, the prohibition on facilitating the manufacture or production of nuclear explosive devices by any country means that Australian uranium cannot be exported for use in clear explosives. That would be contrary to the Treaty of Rarotonga and it would be contrary to the legislation I now propose. It has been the policy of successive Australian governments, since 1977 in fact, that Australian uranium should only be exported under conditions which give grounds for confidence that it will not be diverted into the manufacture of nuclear weapons or so-called peaceful nuclear explosives. The Treaty of Rarotonga makes this a binding legal international obligation. The Bill now before the House renders it a matter of Australian law. On safeguards to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear material, I simply note here that provision for imposing and maintaining such safeguards, pursuant to Australia's obligations under articles 4 and 8 of, and annex 2 to, the Treaty of Rarotonga, is made in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986 shortly to be introduced into the Senate. Similarly, provision for the prevention of the dumping at sea of radioactive waste and other radioactive matter, pursuant to Australia's obligations under article 7 of the Treaty, is made in the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 through the amendments recently tabled by my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment (Mr Cohen). That legislation also includes provisions against aiding and abetting activities which it prohibits, thereby giving effect to the Treaty prohibition on facilitating dumping. The Bill provides appropriately severe penalties, including up to 20 years imprisonment, for offences committed under Part II relating to the Treaty prohibitions. In view of the severity of these sentences the Attorney-General's consent will be necessary to institute any proceedings against individuals or corporations under Part II. Lesser penalties are imposed for offences under Parts IV and V relating to inspections, investigations into possible breaches of the legislation and hearings in camera. The Crown will be bound by the Act although it will not be liable to prosecutions for offences under it. The Treaty makes provision for special inspections in the event of an alleged breach of the Treaty by a party to it. These inspections are to be carried out by international inspectors appointed by the consultative committee established by the Treaty and on the basis of a directive given to them by the committee. These inspectors, referred to as Treaty inspectors in the Bill, will be subject only to the direction of the Consultative Committee. Nevertheless, to ensure that the Australian Government can comply with its Treaty obligations and take all appropriate steps to facilitate any such inspection in Australia, the Bill gives Treaty inspectors appropriate powers under Australian law to enable them to carry out their inspections. In addition, the Minister may appoint authorised officers to accompany Treaty inspectors, with powers under the Act to facilitate Treaty inspections, and may call upon inspectors from the Australian Safeguards Office to assist the authorised officers and Treaty inspectors in their work. It would be the Australian Safeguards Office inspector who would secure warrants, if these were needed, for the Treaty inspection. I should add that the Treaty expressly permits host governments to appoint representatives to accompany Treaty inspectors while in the country. Regulations conferring privileges and immunities on Treaty inspectors, as required by the Treaty, will be made under appropriate existing legislation in due course. The inspectors from the Australian Safeguards Office, in addition to their role in assisting Treaty inspections, are also given such powers as are necessary for them to investigate possible breaches of the legislation. These powers are substantially the same as those accorded inspectors under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986. May I reassure honourable members that this legislation will involve no financial expenditure on the part of the Government. The Australian Safeguards Office is already fully competent to discharge the tasks required of its inspectors under this Bill. I conclude by stressing that this Bill is not simply a legal instrument to give effect to Australia's obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. It is not simply an expression of the desire of the Australian people and of this Government to do whatever can be done to strengthen the peace and security of this nation. It is an expression of the urgent need for Australia to make the fullest practical contribution, within our means, to reduce for all humankind the risk of nuclear war. The Government cannot emphasise the point heavily enough that nuclear weapons, deployed in global defence systems for more than a generation, will not disappear overnight. The nuclear powers have made it clear that they will not disarm unilaterally or easily. The Government recognises that success in arms control and disarmament will be won, not by grand and satisfying gesture, but by painstaking and often tedious work. I instance the consistent effort that the Government and its officers have devoted to encouraging a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean, establishing a network of seismic monitoring facilities in Australia as part of a worldwide system to monitor a ban on nuclear testing, negotiating arrangements to keep the arms race from outer space and, most importantly, taking the initiative towards a comprehensive and verifiable ban on nuclear testing. The Government is proud to include the South Pacific nuclear free zone among these initiatives. I commend the measure to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(10.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and the phosphate fertiliser subsidy schemes at current rates for a further three years until 30 June 1989. The two fertiliser assistance schemes are due to expire on 30 June this year following several extensions. The current proposal for a further extension follows a review initiated by the Government in January this year of both the production and consumption of fertilisers. In deciding to continue the consumption subsidies, the Government is fulfilling the commitment given in the economic and rural policy statement, released on 15 April, that the overall cost of fertilisers to farmers would not rise as a result of the Government's decisions on the review of the fertiliser industry and the review of anti-dumping legislation. The fertiliser subsidies are the largest single item of Commonwealth Government assistance to rural industries. In 1985-86 they are expected to cost the Commonwealth some $55m. The continuation of this assistance to the rural sector is a central element in the recent package of measures announced in the economic and rural policy statement. As recognised in the statement, this sector is currently experiencing particularly difficult conditions. While these are primarily due to international factors which are beyond the Government's control, the Government has undertaken to take steps domestically to relieve the economic pressures on the sector and to assist rural industries to improve their competitiveness in world markets. The extension of the fertiliser subsidies is an important step in that process. While some have questioned the effectiveness of the subsidies, they remain an important measure in providing support for the purchase of a fundamental input into rural production. In saying that, let me emphasise the importance of the rural sector as an employer and contributor to our domestic economy and, perhaps more importantly, as a generator of export income. Rural industries continue to contribute about 40 per cent of our export income and, particularly in current circumstances, we need to ensure the continued health of our rural industries. As previously stated, the subsidy rates to apply will be the same as those currently applying, that is, a subsidy of $20 per tonne of contained nitrogen and $12 per tonne of single strength superphosphate or $138 per tonne on the available phosphorus content of other phosphatic fertilisers. This measure is expected to cost the Government about $55m in each of the three years. In relation to the production of fertilisers, the Government still has under consideration the question of short term assistance to local manufacturers. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Leave granted for second reading debate to continue forthwith. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(10.34) —The Opposition agrees to expedite the passage of the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill to extend the existing arrangements until 30 June 1989. It seems extraordinary that this legislation is being introduced at this eleventh hour, especially in view of the importance of the scheme. It was one of the most significant factors in the statement on 15 April brought into this House by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his economic and rural policy statement. The undertaking given in that statement was that the overall cost of fertilisers would not rise as a result of the Government's decision on the review of the fertiliser industry and the anti-dumping legislation. Fertiliser subsidies represent the largest single item of Budget expenditure on primary industry at about $55m per annum and will stay at $55m for each of the next three years. The total Budget allocation to the Department of Primary Industry will be about $340m, which is less than one-half of one per cent of total outlays although primary industry earns a gross 40 per cent export income. I think that is very important for people to understand. I am sure that the Minister for Primary Industry will be pointing that out as much as he can to his colleagues. There seems to be a perception around that Australian farmers are very heavily assisted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Farmers are not seeking subsidies or handouts as such. However, they do seek relief from some of the cost pressures that are imposed upon them through direct and indirect actions of government. In January the Government initiated a review of both the production and consumption of fertilisers, and this Bill extends consumption subsidies for three years. This is justified, as the Minister has so rightly said, especially in view of poor incomes and the need for improved productivity from the farm sector. We are still awaiting a decision on short term assistance to local manufacturers, and this is a matter for the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. The Minister will be looking into that aspect of the matter. I wish to make a brief reference to a related matter, the Western Australian election fiasco, when in early January the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised Western Australian farmers exemption from the anti-dumping duty. A fortnight later he finally agreed to extend the exemption to all Australians. That promise to extend the exemption to Western Australian farmers but not to those elsewhere was probably one of the most blatant things that any Prime Minister has ever done during a State election campaign. That was a stupid thing for the Prime Minister to have done. It turned out to be quite useful to all farmers throughout Australia because of the enormous pressure that was brought to bear as a result of protestations by the National Farmers Federation. I am sure that the Minister for Primary Industry would have raised his eyebrows somewhat when the Prime Minister loosened the money bags, as it were, because there was an election in Western Australia. I should like to raise a particular issue with the Minister, and I hope he makes a note of it. One farmer from southern Queensland has contacted my office. Last year he paid $405 to $410 a tonne. This month in Dalby, even with a 2 1/2 per cent discount for cash payment, he is paying $451 a tonne for MAP and $437 a tonne for DAP. He has informed my office that no one seems to know anything about the exemption. He agrees that prices may be $50 a tonne lower in southern States, but where is the benefit of the exemption from the anti-dumping duty? In Dalby at least, and I suspect in most other areas of Australia, there is a marked lack of information about the rebate. I would be pleased if the Minister could clarify that position. If any racket is going on, we need to get to the bottom of it. Assistance for the users of phosphatic nitrogenous fertilisers was initially introduced to improve soils, to enhance production efficiency, to improve productivity, and to redress to a small extent the disparity of assistance, or non-assistance, between industry and agricultural sectors. I think it is important to point out at this stage that the effective level of assistance for the agricultural sector in Australia is 9 per cent and for manufacturing it is about 26 per cent. Those are the latest figures I can get from the Industries Assistance Commission. When one weighs the effective level of assistance for agricultural industries at 9 per cent against what is applying in the European Economic Community at 160 per cent and in the United States of America at about 100 per cent one can readily see why the Australian farm sector and our balance of trade generally are being threatened. It is a very serious problem that governments, State and Federal, and the community must understand. No sector of the Australian community is less protected than is the farm sector. It is well known that the big producers in the agricultural area, the wool and wheat industries and the meat industry-that is, the cattle and sheep meat industries-are probably not assisted by more than 3 or 4 per cent. That 3 or 4 per cent is made up by sharing across the board some of the assistance factors in the phosphate and nitrogenous fertiliser area. Let nobody, either listening to this debate this morning or in the House, get the impression that Australian farmers are heavily assisted. In a note sent to me by the Minister recently he said that the farm sector is responsible for approximately 40 per cent of Australia's export or foreign exchange earnings. Taken in net terms, it could well be 70 per cent because in the case of the minerals industry there is so much international finance involved, so much importation of heavy capital equipment necessary and there has to be a fairly substantial repatriation of profits and payment of interest and fairly substantial loans to overseas lenders. When we deduct this from the gross earnings of the mineral industry and, to some extent, the manufacturing industry we find that the agricultural sector probably provides about 70 per cent of Australia's net export earnings. I have been trying to get from various departments information to substantiate that figure which has been bandied about by some people. I hope to get the information to justify the comment made by people who have done preliminary research work on this. I find it quite extraordinary that those basic figures basically are not available. There has been too much inclination by politicians and of the community generally to take the importance of agriculture for granted. That will not be possible in the future because of the very great pressures that the agricultural scene is suffering and the great competition that it will encounter in maintaining its share of world markets or, indeed, increasing its share. I have no doubt that the agricultural sector, provided we can keep costs down and keep governments out of its pockets, will compete satisfactorily on the world market, even against heavily subsidised competition from Europe and the United States, if quality of production is maintained. Mr Braithwaite —But we have to give them a go. Mr HUNT —They must be given a fair go and, unless they are, we will really run up against one of the most serious balance of payments crises that we could ever imagine. Let us not run away with the idea that there will be a sudden boost in foreign exchange earnings from the manufacturing sector or the services area. Perhaps tourism has more potential than most but the basis for Australia's export earnings will remain what is grown from our soil by our farmers. Although there are only 170,000 farms and those farmers do not represent a very significant percentage of the population in terms of political pressure, it is very important for the living standards of all Australians-I repeat, all Australians-to make sure that undue pressures are not exerted on this important sector that has a potential to remain the most important export producing sector in the Australian economy. We have enormous untapped agricultural and pastoral potential. Approximately half of the land suitable for arable agriculture is underused. About 12 per cent of our surface water and 3 per cent of our ground water resources are being used. Many high value commodities could be produced and, if properly promoted and marketed, would develop new and growing export markets. New livestock breeds and a range of new crops which produce new varieties of meat protein, fibres, oils, pharmaceuticals, seeds and a variety of nuts, flowers and herbs, offer enormous opportunities for development. Of course, aquaculture-that is, the culture of life in water, including that able to be harvested in fresh water-is already a growing industry with exciting potential. Australia has the potential to become the major food producing nation for half the world's population to the north of us. We have the potential to increase dramatically farm exports by producing traditional and new products. We can reduce our import bill by producing products economically and efficiently, such as tea, coffee and rubber. Such a program requires increased research effort into the development of new products, value added processes, market intelligence and promotion. There is a need for a major aggressive world-drive for new market opportunities for our agricultural products. I believe it is necessary that financial incentives, such as the one that the Minister has just introduced, be extended to attract capital investment. The introduction of equity capital rather than just relying on debt capital could develop Australia's untapped agricultural potential. This capital will not be available unless our economy is competitive. It is therefore essential that we formulate macroeconomic policies which provide a framework for improving profitability and international competitiveness of the agricultural, forestry and fishing industries. The time has come for governments, State and Federal-I do not care what party is in power, whether it is a Labor government of a Liberal-National party government-to remove the burden of government imposed charges on export industries generally. The tax system in this country has developed very largely as a result of Australia having the export capacity that it has. Many of the taxes have fallen disproportionately on the shoulders of the export industries of Australia, to a point where we are starting to bleed those export industries to an extent which threatens to place Australia on the same slippery slope as Argentina. I do not say that lightly. There is a very interesting book and I suggest that people who have not read it should read it. It is called Australia and Argentina on Parallel Paths and is written by John Fogarty and Tim Duncan. They put a very strong case that, unless the direction of tax and fiscal policies, and for that matter wage fixation policies, is changed in this country, we will put at risk the capacity of Australia to maintain its share of world markets. I just say to people generally, and to those listening, that I hope they will buy the book. Every Australian should read it, particularly members of the trade union movement. Every trade union leader should read it and every member of the Government should read it. I will bet there are not many who have. I wonder whether the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), who is in the chamber and who occasionally represents the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) here, has read it. Have you? Mr Hurford —I'm sorry, I was so busy-- Mr HUNT —Have you read Australia and Argentina on Parallel Paths? Mr Hurford —No, I have seen-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member should not ask questions across the chamber. Mr West —Have you read it all, or just the first page? Mr HUNT —I have read it in detail. It is a very good book, and I have quoted from it at length on different occasions. It is an excellent book and I suggest that if the Minister has not read it he should knuckle down and read it during the winter recess. He will not find it boring; he will find it very disturbing. The point made by the book needs to be recognised: The weight of taxes upon inputs that affect the competitive character of export industries must be removed. I refer to the weight of taxation imposed upon fuel. Take petrol, for example. Petrol used on-farm represents 40 per cent of the farmer's total fuel usage. The excise on petrol used on-farm, now at 19.2c a litre, is costing the farm sector $163m a year. The tariff on direct inputs, such as agricultural and veterinary chemicals, farm machinery and spare parts, is running at $80m or $90m. That is an area that needs to be tackled. I know that the Minister in his statement indicated that that was under consideration. Indeed, in his statement on 15 April he indicated that there was an inquiry in respect of agricultural chemicals and that relief is to be extended in respect of farm tillage equipment. Export inspection charges, increased 200 per cent by the Government, are another burden that should not be imposed upon the Australian farm sector. They are not imposed by any other country. How do we compete if we do these things to our export industries and other countries do not? The tariff burden alone is costing $9,000 per farmer per annum, against a net farmer income this year of $3,800. That is a quite extraordinary burden, and a burden of which the Australian farm sector must be progressively relieved. Take interest rates, which have been blown out by 5 to 6 per cent by the monetary policies of the Government. They are costing the Australian farmer an additional $500m a year. In a period of three years, as a result of budgetary action, the Government has cut the primary industry vote by $442m, yet that represents only 0.5 per cent of total Budget outlays. The benefit of the phosphatic and nitrogenous fertiliser subsidies incorporated in this Bill has been offset to a large extent by other distortions such as excessive freight rates from Christmas Island, the provisions of the Navigation Act and the imposition of dumping duties on imported high analysis fertiliser. It is essential that Australian farmers have access to fertilisers at world prices. Action needs to be taken to ensure that this objective is met by a combination of measures, including the assistance arrangements incorporated in this legislation, the review of the Navigation Act, future options from Christmas Island, dumping provisions, disposal options for stocks of phosphatic rock established by the British Phosphate Commission and the development of alternatives for Australian phosphate rock resources. It is essential to ensure that farmers have access to fertilisers at competitive prices. Although the Opposition will expedite the passage of this legislation, I would hate the Government to believe that, having renewed this provision for the next three years, it has done sufficient to offset the burdens and costs imposed upon the farm sector by actions of government. I believe a lot more has to be done. The statement brought down by the Minister on 15 April only nibbles at the edges, like a mouse nibbles at the edge of a wheat stack. It has not got to the heart of the problem. It extended $108m to the farm sector, $35m of which is to be spread over five to 10 years. Of course, by way of a fringe benefits tax, it will rip off $152m. So it has put a little bit in one pocket and taken a heap out of the other. In the months ahead the Government has to look at what factors are adding to the burden of costs in our export industries, including our agricultural industries. Unless it is prepared to do this in a meaningful and thorough way, all the meetings that it might be having with the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the trade unions will not yield the formula necessary to improve Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. The biggest single challenge confronting the Australian people, whether they be members of the trade union movement or in industry, or even members of this Government or this Parliament, is working together to ensure that we have policies that improve the trading competitiveness of Australia and allow us to get over some of the difficulties that are looking us fairly in the face right now-including our inability to overcome what is our worst threat since the 1930s, the trading deficit that we are accumulating month by month. Nobody in Australia can feel comfortable with a trade deficit of $14 billion in this financial year, and an ever-increasing overseas debt which in gross terms has now reached $87 billion. Our overseas debt is now larger than that of Argentina, and the most significant way in which we can wind back our debt load is to increase our foreign exchange earnings. That will not happen unless there is sufficient investment in our agricultural and export industries, and people will not invest in those industries unless they have some hope of being competitive in the market-place. The Opposition welcomes this legislation and hopes that during the winter recess the Government has a really good look at its navel, at where it is going and at where its policies are leading Australia, and I hope that in so doing it will come to grips with the need to improve Australia's trading performance. Debate (on motion by Mr West) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 25, clause 19, proposed new sub-section 169a (1), line 41, leave out ``the''. No. 2-Page 26, clause 19, after proposed new sub-section 169a (1), insert the following new sub-section: ``(1a) Notwithstanding sub-section (1), where, in a document furnished with a return of income of a taxpayer of a year of income and signed by or on behalf of the taxpayer, a question is raised that is relevant to the liability of the taxpayer to tax in respect of the year of income, the Commissioner shall give attention to that question.''. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.59) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The first amendment, which was moved on behalf of the Government in another place, is related to clause 19 of the Bill. Clause 19 proposes to insert new section 169a in the Income Tax Assessment Act to facilitate the introduction of a system of self-assessment of income tax returns. In describing a taxpayer's income tax return, sub-section 169a (1) refers to a return of `the' income of a taxpayer. Other provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act refer to a `return of income', and the amendment will do no more than bring proposed section 169a (1) into line so as to maintain consistency throughout the Income Tax Assessment Act in descri-bing a taxpayer's income tax return. The second amendment was moved in another place by the Australian Democrats and was not opposed by the Government. The amendment also is related to clause 19 and seeks to insert a further sub-section in section 169a . The sub-section recognises that a taxpayer may raise in his or her income tax return a question affecting the assessment. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I personally find very little in the way of justification of the Senate from time to time; but in this case it has given us an opportunity to make a few very technical amendments. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Mac-kellar (Mr Carlton) will take the opportunity to wax rhetorical on taxation matters generally; but I would hope that, as there is a lot of business on the Notice Paper and as he had a good go yesterday, he will confine himself to these very technical amendments. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.02) —It is the practice of the honourable gentleman opposite, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), to make such remarks about what I am about to say. After his introduction, I can hardly wait to hear what I have to say. The Opposition is very disappointed that the Senate did not refer this part of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1986 to a committee for proper analysis. I draw the attention of the House to just what it is that we are talking about-since the Minister did not deign to explain that. We are talking about the self-assessment provisions that are being put into the Income Tax Assessment Act. These are very substantial changes to the way in which people have their assessments made. Currently, when one puts in a tax return, the Australian Taxation Office has to decide whether the material one has put forward is acceptable, and it issues a notice of assessment and the taxpayer then knows where he or she stands. Under these new provisions, one will put in one's tax return and the Taxation Office, after a quite cursory inspection, will accept the taxpayer's assessment of his or her liability pro tem-it is not a final acceptance-and it will be subject to audit at some later stage. So, what happens under these provisions is that the current position of virtual certainty about a return is changed to a system in which, admittedly, one can get a faster processing of the returns but, basically, one in which no one really knows where he or she stands. At various times after that, the Commissioner of Taxation can reopen the whole matter. What we suggested, when this Bill was debated in the House-since it came in at the beginning of May and as it is a very complex and quite far-reaching measure-was that the sensible thing to do would be to have the House of review, the Senate, pass it on to a committee for that committee to have a close look at its provisions. There was one particular provision about which we were really worried. That was that the Commissioner was given the power to alter assessments subsequently on changed interpretations of the law. Currently that is not possible, but that was the provision in the Bill and we wanted that to be very closely examined. We had discussions with taxation experts outside. The Institute of Taxation, particularly, raised a number of problems and concerns. Normally, this is the kind of measure that in any civilised parliament one would let lie on the table over a period of recess so that people could look at it. But that is not the way with this Government. We have had 625 pages of new taxation legislation since the reform announcements by the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-and I use the term `reform' in its qualified sense under this Government. Those 625 pages have been thrust upon us over the last month or so, adding 57 per cent to the existing 1,100 pages of taxation legislation. Some of us would think that the 1,100 pages were vastly excessive; but now we have an extra 625, an extra 57 per cent, as a result of the so-called reforms of the Treasurer. In this particular case, the first amendment is a minor one and a wording one, and I am not taking any issue with that. But the second amendment relates to the problem that, when people receive their so-called assessment, they do not know where they stand, because it is based on their own material which was put forward and is subject to audit subsequently, and it can be changed. The Australian Democrats, in their token examination of all these taxation measures-I remind the House that the Democrats basically said that they would let all these measures through, with one or two minor amendments-every so often just to try to prove that they are fulfilling some useful function in the Senate in relation to these tax measures, put up some token amendment. In this case, they heard the concerns that people might not know where they stood, so they put up the amendment that is now before the House. The amendment would say only that when the tax return comes into the Commissioner and there is some request in it which raises a question about the liability of the taxpayer to tax in respect of that year of income-in other words, the taxpayer wants a ruling from the Commissioner on whether he is liable to tax, if matters are a bit obscure, and he wants some indication-the Commissioner shall give attention to that question. What a great victory that was for the Australian Democrats! What a major amendment to this provision! All that it does is require the Commissioner to give attention to the question. It does not say anything about when he has to give an answer. He could give attention to it and put it in the third drawer, and it could stay there forever. So, this is a most risible amendment put forward by the Democrats in their pathetic attempt to demonstrate some bona fides in their approach to these taxation measures. The Australian public are rightly fed up to the teeth with the Australian Democrats. The Democrats have let them down on the fringe benefits tax and they have let them down on the capital gains tax, and all this rubbish that is being put through the Parliament by the Treasurer is being accepted willy-nilly by the Democrats. All that the Democrats can offer on this particular measure, instead of agreeing with us that the matter should have gone to a Senate Committee, is to put up this pathetic little amendment which has no value whatsoever. I hope that all the Australian people who are voters in elections will recognise the Democrats for what they are-worthless posturers. They have conspired with this Government to allow some of the worst taxation legislation we have seen to go through the Parliament. That is the charge that the Opposition lays against the Democrats. Further evidence of it is with us this morning. Last night full evidence was there of the Democrats' failure to do anything to stop the fringe benefits tax, which is one of the worst taxes we have seen on the books this century, and today we have further evidence with respect to this self-assessment procedure. The Opposition will not vote against this amendment. I suppose that one might say that on a scale of 100 it was worth about two points to require the Commissioner to give attention to a question. The remaining 98 points might have been achieved if he had been obliged to give an answer within some period of time. This stuff is an absolute nonsense. The Minister will be very pleased to hear that I do not want to take up any more time of the Committee, but I do want to point out what these Democrats are like. They do agree with the Government on these tax measures. They have facilitated the passage of them. They have postured and gone on and said what they have done to assist taxpayers, yet time after time after time when the measures come back here with these little amendments that are relatively meaningless, we recognise that the Democrats have let the Australian people down yet again. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.10) —I, too, will make my remarks brief and to the point. I completely agree with the comments just made by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). I endorse everything he has said. It is appropriate again to remind the people of Australia that the Income Tax Assessment Act came into force in December 1936. It will celebrate its fiftieth birthday in December this year. The principal Act already consists of 1,100 pages. As the honourable member for Mackellar pointed out, in the Government's recent rush to legislate to `reform' the tax system, it has added another 600 pages. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, if one takes into account all the decisions of the taxation boards of review and all the official directions from the Australian Taxation Office, every businessman and businesswoman has to bear in mind something of the order of 2,000 provisions relating to the income tax laws of this country. The principal Act has been amended on over 70 occasions since December 1936, and the question of self-assessment by taxpayers is a completely new venture. I believe that the Government has treated the Australian public, and in particular the Taxation Institute of Australia, which comprises over 6,000 members, with absolute contempt. I remind the Committee that the Taxation Institute felt so strongly on the matter that it wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and asked for this legislation to be deferred so that there could be proper consideration of its implications. That reasonable and responsible request was treated with utter contempt by this Government. It was simply ignored. We now have a situation, as the honourable member for Mackellar pointed out, of an amendment coming back from the Senate with these words, and I want to dwell on them: `the Commissioner shall give attention to the question'. That does not even mean the Commissioner of Taxation has to answer it. It is not a question of when he has to answer it. As the honourable member for Mackellar said, he does not have to answer it. If one takes into account the other provisions that are part of this package, which I mention by analogy, we now have a totally new system whereby instead of going to a taxation board of review, the Supreme Court, or having a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia and a further right of appeal, by leave, to the High Court of Australia, we now have the situation that the poor unfortunate taxpayer will go effectively to the taxation section of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, from which there is only one further appeal, and that to the Federal Court of Australia. The question I put, in completely joining with the remarks of the honourable member for Mackellar, is that all this idiotic amendment by the Australian Democrats says-this sop of an amendment which does nothing-is that if a poor humble taxpayer asks a question about his liability `the Commissioner shall give attention to the question'. It does not damn well say that the Commissioner has to answer it. If the Commissioner issues a notice of assessment against that taxpayer and that taxpayer wants to appeal, it is possible for the taxpayer to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to the taxation section thereof, which might well comprise a single person-it could well comprise a retired Deputy Commissioner of Taxation-and the taxpayer has not got an answer to the question upon which he has raised issues and upon which the Commissioner has made a determination. It would be Gilbertian if it were not so serious. This taxation legislation, which is one part of a diabolical package, will bring about the defeat of the Hawke socialist Government. This legislation is the Government's death warrant. Mr John Brown —Do you want to bet? Mr HODGMAN —The Minister for koalas should be the last person to invite a bet on this one because the impact of this disgraceful fringe benefits tax and the outrageous capital gains tax and legislation of this ilk will be such that the Government will tax itself out of office. I conclude by saying that, with the way this Hawke socialist Government is carrying on, it might just as well change the name of our national anthem from `Advance Australia Fair' to `Advance Taxstralia Fair'. It is this Government's high taxes, its big spending and its socialist policies which have brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy. The Government is on the way out and its death warrant is a three letter word commencing with `t', followed by `a', followed by `x'. It is the first time I have been able to mention a three-letter word in this Parliament which is printable. That word is `tax', `tax', `tax', and in response the Government is going to be `out', `out', `out', and the sooner the better. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.15) —May I say in closing the debate that for an Opposition spokesperson to say anything on taxation is nothing short of cheek. This Hawke Labor Government inherited a great mess in the whole taxation field after seven or so years of the Fraser Government. Who did we have as Treasurer for those seven or eight years? It was none other than the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He left a terrible mess for us to clean up. The tax rorts which were being perpetrated then had to be witnessed to be believed. The bottom of the harbour scandal was only one element of the mess that had to be cleared up. In the past three and a quarter years we have had unprecedented action from the Hawke Labor Government in this area. I pay tribute to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for his energy and for the way in which he has pursued what was so necessary for Australians. All we heard from the Opposition in the two contributions we have had to put up with is: `Let the rorts continue; let us put it to a committee of the Senate; let us waste another six months; it is all too hard; there are too many sections in the Taxation Act'. Mr Moore —There are. Mr HURFORD —Of course we would all love the Income Tax Assessment Act to be simpler, but as somebody who had a taxation practice prior to coming into this place, I have agonised over how we could simplify the tax Act and at the same time stop the rorts from happening. It cannot be done. The fact is that if we are going to get at the rorts, unless we have a complicated Act, we have to put all the discretion into the hands of people outside this Parliament. If we want this Parliament to have its say on the details of the legislation and not give discretion to the Commissioner of Taxation, we have to put it into legislation, and that means we have to put additional sections in the Act. We do not like making it more complicated, but how else can we end the rorts? We are not prepared to allow the great bulk of Australian taxpayers to go on suffering taxes which are too high. This recent set of amendments to the taxation Act and this recent group of reforms will enable funds to be collected from those who have been rorting the system and they will enable tax cuts later on this year and then again next year. People on salaries and wages who have tax taken from the source of their income have been paying far too much in this country under the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. The Australian Labor Party will not allow that to continue. The Labor Party is seeking an equitable tax system so that people pay their fair share. These amendments are just another element of what the Labor Party is seeking, and I commend them to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with order of the day No. 3, the Industry Research Development Bill 1986. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.20) —The Opposition supports the Bills before the House today, namely, the Industry Research and Development Bill 1986 and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 1986. Although we have a number of matters to raise by way of query with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), I indicate that, on the whole, we have decided to support the measures. These two Bills are part of an overall package which may be considered to have developed over the last few years in terms of providing a structure for financial support for research and development to be undertaken in Australia. One needs to bear in mind that the two Bills before us are supported by a number of other initiatives, including the successful development over the last couple of years of management and investment company systems and the development of second boards on the stock exchanges of Australia, whereby a number of companies, particularly those in the high technology and venture capital area, have been able to be listed and to raise funds for research and development. The two Bills before us, which are measures to support industrial research and development by the provision of direct government financial assistance, are assisted by the management and investment companies and the second boards on the stock exchanges. I must comment on the growth that has taken place in the use of second boards on the stock exchanges of Australia. It is certainly a new development. By no means have all the listings been associated with research and development or the tax advantages associated with it, but the system has enabled a large number of smaller firms with turnovers of less than $20m a year to seek capital through this method of listing and also to seek some public support for their activities. I commend not only the Government's efforts here in terms of taxation but also the efforts of the financial community and the stock exchanges in acceding to this demand for funds and the particular way in which it has been embraced. I look forward to seeing many of those companies proceeding to the main boards. In his own way, the smaller entrepreneur has been able to capitalise his personal initiatives in this area and to gain some return at an earlier stage than he might otherwise have done with the older ways under which many people prospered in the past. One of the aspects of that was that on too many occasions when a small business was getting off the ground it was consistently short of working capital, and because of the lack of security and lack of profitability in the early stages of development it was not always possible for the entrepreneur to gain the full benefit from it and to maintain the control that he might have wished over it. Because of that, on many occasions these companies were sold off to substantially bigger Australian corporations or overseas corporations. I think the more recent developments in this field have been of great benefit to Australia. A policy commitment made by the previous Government at the last election was to give a 50 per cent tax incentive over and above the eligible expenditure, which is exactly the same as the Government's 150 per cent subsidy now being provided. When we are looking at research and development in an overall sense it is important to understand that it cannot simply be provided by financial assistance measures. There is a whole raft of areas, particularly those which come within the portfolio of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), which also need to be borne in mind. I shall mention just a couple of these. First is the development of an effective offsets policy. The Minister has been diligent in attempting to develop a more comprehensive and intelligent approach to offsets, but there is still a degree of reluctance within the Government to support Australian industry by means of a more positive `buy Australian' campaign. For instance, a letter in the 30 May edition of Business Review Weekly from David Reid, headed `R and D misses out', makes the point that Telecom Australia is purchasing about $1m worth of local area network equipment, but that it is purchasing it from overseas. There was an article in the journal Australian Society in October 1985 under the heading `Government won't buy Australian' which stated that the Government, which is res-ponsible for purchases of approximately 40 per cent of the material purchased within the information technology market, nevertheless conti-nues to pursue a policy of not positively buying and making a contribution in that regard. Further, one of the things that the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, which was passed by this House, attempted to do was to increase the tariff on the importation of optical fibres from a mini-mum of 2 per cent, at which it stands at the moment, up to 20 per cent. I cannot see how in terms of development of an integrated approach to support Australian research and development all of these policies are approximately co-ordinated. This legislation will go some way towards redressing the imbalance in expenditure by government, both previous and present, which has not been good news for science. I look, for instance, at the 1981 Budget Papers and at the allocations made under the Department of Finance for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Antarctic Division. I am pleased to see the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in the chamber. One can see from the figures for the three years that I have extracted that in the period of Liberal administrations there has been a substantial increase in budgetary allocations while in the period under Labor there have been substantial real decreases. My colleague the shadow Minister for Science has provided me with some figures which show the trends in these areas. For example, in the Department of Science, in 1980-81 there was a vote of $314m; in 1981-82, the amount rose to $393m, a rise in money terms of 25 per cent and a rise in real growth of 14.7 per cent; in 1982-83, $425m, up by 8 per cent; in 1983-84, $453m, up by 6 per cent; in 1984-85, $458m, up by 1.1 per cent; and in 1985-86, $479m, up by 4.7 per cent. These figures, translated to real terms, show that, following the 14 per cent real terms growth in 1981-82, we slipped into a series of negative real growth-minus 3 per cent, minus one per cent, minus 4 per cent, minus 4 per cent-in the Department of Science. Allocations for the Antarctic Division also show a very patchy performance. In the growth period of 1981-82, $21m was allocated; in 1982-83, $33m; in 1983-84, $35m; in 1984-85, $37m; and in 1985-86, $39m. In terms of monetary growth those figures represent plus 54 per cent, plus 5 per cent, plus 5 per cent, plus 9 per cent; and in real terms they represent plus 42 per cent, minus 2 per cent, plus 0.1 per cent, minus 2 per cent-not what one might call a significant commitment to the growth of investment in the area of research. Mr Barry Jones —A 312 per cent increase in expenditure on research, cutting back in other areas. Mr MOORE —These figures are purely straight from the Budget Papers. Mr Barry Jones —No, I said the proportion committed to research in Antarctica. Mr MOORE —But that is the gross vote for Antarctica within those figures. Mr Barry Jones —Sure, but a lot of that is infrastructure-transport and so on. Mr MOORE —It could well be; so, in other words, management was cut out and money went into research. That is what the Minister's claim is. This is not something new for the Australian Labor Party. I refer to an article by Westfold in the August-September 1985 edition of Search, the journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, headed `Research funding-The Whitlam debacle', which states: In the last days of the Whitlam Government it brought down a budget in which the 1976 allocation for the ARGC was reduced by 66 per cent and that for the NH & MRC by 42 per cent, notwithstanding an election commitment `. . . to expand research work in the universities'. The impact of those cuts on the research community and its limited success in recovering the situation are recalled, in the context of the most recent ARGS allocation. I guess that it is worth pointing out that one can look at a very glossy production entitled `Living by Our Wits', containing a selection of speeches by the Minister in which some thought was given to science. I do not know whether those thoughts can be properly fitted with some of the intellectual rigours of the publication, but it is probably worth continuing to look at the annual report of the Australian research grants scheme. The 1984 grants scheme, despite the very colourful publication by the Minister, read as follows: The funds available to the Committee were appreciably less than the amount required to maintain an adequate level of support under the Scheme and limited its capacity to provide proper support for its projects . . . The 1985 report states: This increase-- in other words, the vote for that year- was grossly insufficient to support the number of worthy projects that the Committee considered should be funded. That statement did not weigh up with the glossy publication from the Minister. Fortunately, a large number of Australian research and development policies have now passed to the control of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). There has been an appreciable increase in the significance given to the funding of research and development since Senator Button took over technology. The two Bills before us today are the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill and the Industry Research and Development Bill. The purpose of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill is to provide 150 per cent tax concession for eligible expenditure in research and development. This Bill is primarily one which will benefit companies whose expenditure on research and development is $50,000 or more. It is true that companies which spend $20,000 will get a phased-in tax concession between $20,000 and $50,000, which will be of benefit to them. If they spend less than $20,000, by contracting out the expenditure to an approved research institution they will benefit fully from the 150 per cent taxation concession. This scheme was criticised for not providing sufficient incentive and assistance for small and start-up research and development companies. The Industry Research and Development Bill, however, picks up the small companies and innovative new companies and provides them with financial assistance along reasonably similar but not identical lines. As I have said, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill provides for financial assistance to companies which undertake approved expenditure. That expenditure is to be judged in a number of ways. The legislation defines research and development activities as those which include the systematic investigation or experimental activities which are carried on in Australia or in external Territories; those which involve innovative or technical risk; those that are carried on for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge, whether or not that knowledge will have a special practical application, or those which create new or involved or improved products, materials, devices, processors or services; and those which are for certain other related activities. I think it is important to understand that this legislation provides some assistance for developmental activities. It allows the companies concerned to contract out their work to approved institutions. These institutions are approved under section 73a of the Income Tax Assessment Act. They, of course, include the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and a number of other worthwhile and highly regarded organisations throughout Australia. The proposed new section 73b (2) set out in the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill provides certain exclusions for expenditure. It provides that things such as market research, quality control, petroleum and natural gas prospecting, making cosmetic modifications to products, management studies, social science, arts or humanities research, the development of computer software other than for the purpose of sale, rent, licence, hire or lease, or the making of donations are not to be taken as being eligible expenditure under the Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could address himself to a number of questions that I wish to raise. I refer, first, to the question of patents. As I understand it, this Bill will provide that a patent which is taken out in the course of research and development activity in order to lead on to the next step of actual research and development is to be an allowable expenditure under the Act. However, the patent which is taken out at the end of the research and development phase, and prior to the moving into the commercial exploitation phase, is not to be taken as an allowable expense under the terms of the principal Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether my understanding is correct that expenditure is allowed in respect of a midway patent which leads to further development but excluded in respect of the final patent which leads to the development. If that is a correct understanding, will the Minister tell me why the Government has decided that the first patent should be allowable expenditure and the final one should not be? The other point I make is that the Industry Research and Development Board which will be established under the Industry Research and Development Bill will have certain powers. These powers include advising the Commissioner of Taxation whether, in fact, expenditure should be regarded as an expenditure which falls within the definitions provided by the principal Act. It was interesting to note that clause 35 of the legislation provides that once the Board has given advice to the Commissioner the Commissioner is in fact bound to accept that advice and, therefore, does not have a separate and independent discretion as far as that is concerned. I think it is interesting that there are very few other examples where the Commissioner's personal independent powers of discretion are taken away. Only two instances have been drawn to my attention-one in relation to assistance to the film industry and Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and the other in relation to certification of manning levels of coastal ships, which is determined by the Department of Transport under what I think is section 57AM of the Income Tax Assessment Act. This potentially leads to a slightly confusing situation in that, if the claimant for assistance is unhappy with the decision of the Commissioner, he must pursue his appeal through the normal process of the Income Tax Assessment Act. If, however, he is unhappy with the determination made by the Board established under the Industry Research and Development Bill he must pursue his appeals, as I understand it, through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. I think there could be some confusion arising in the minds of claimants as to the course of action that they would have to follow if they were to seek an appeal against a determination that certain expenditure was not to be allowed as a deductible item. The other point that I raise in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill is that it is interesting that clause 73B (2) exclusion of cosmetic modifications or styling changes to products is somewhat at variance with the way in which the Government was prepared to provide funding for the automobile industry. If one looks at the Automobile Industry Authority Amendment Bill, which was passed last year, one sees that under that legislation certain cosmetic and stylistic changes in the motor car industry are allowable deductions. So there again is a slight difference, depending on the particular field in which one is operating. The Industry Research and Development Bill allows the Government to provide financial assistance. Essentially, this will be done through the Board which is to be established. Classes of grants will be made available so that industry research and development can be undertaken. The first of these are discretionary grants in which the Minister may essentially declare an activity to be an eligible activity for the purpose of receiving financial support and assistance. Secondly, there are generic technology grants. The Minister may declare an area of technology to be one of generic technology and assistance may be provided under that heading. Thirdly, the national interest arguments are to be established. The Board, which in fact will be required to act on the direction of the Minister, will be allowed to enter into agreements with individual researchers, or presumably with research institutions, to undertake research in an area which is regarded as being of significant national interest. As part of the whole process, the old Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board scheme is being wound up. There are transitional provisions to allow grants made under the old scheme to continue in place and many areas of the old funding are being transferred, in effect, into discretionary generic technology and national interest agreements as provided in the Industry Research and Development Bill. The Minister may care to advise me as to why under the guidelines published by the Minister on this legislation once again the cost of patenting appears to be excluded as a matter which may be taken into account in working out the expenditure to be provided for companies receiving some sort of assistance under the provisions of this legislation. I am slightly concerned about the extremely wide discretion given in the legislation to the Minister to give directions to the Board. He may give directions to the Board about what is or is not a generic technology. We know that from time to time Ministers will take markedly different approaches as to what constitutes generic technology. I think there would be wide agreement in this chamber that items such as biotechnology, electronics and information technology are clearly part and parcel of the emerging frontiers of science and technology. Mr Barry Jones —And new materials. Mr MOORE —And new materials, which ought to be assisted. But from time to time undoubtedly favourites will be played by Ministers, depending on what they happen to be particularly excited about at the time-though I am sure that would not be true of the present Minister for Science. I would not like to see a situation in which some degree of uncertainty would be introduced, depending on whether a particular generic technology were fashionable or not. We know that scientific disciplines and scientific areas come and go as areas of high fashion, depending on a number of circumstances, very few of which have anything to do with the intrinsic merits or otherwise of the technology involved. The Minister has power under clause 26 of the legislation to declare `eligible activities'. He has power under clause 30 to declare what are generic technologies. He has power under clause 33 (2) to request the Board to consider entering into national interest agreements in respect of projects of research and development which the Minister specifies. So the Minister is put in a very powerful position to direct the nature of funding towards particular areas of research and development. We are not proposing by way of amendment to attempt to curtail the Minister's power in this regard. However, we indicate that it is a matter that we will be observing with some degree of caution over the years. As this is the first opportunity on which this situation has arisen, I cannot let pass clause 4 of the Industry Research and Development Bill. It is the first occasion on which I have had an opportunity to talk about the construction of government boards. It is always fascinating to point to government boards, but the particular wording of clause 4 (7) is quite a classic. It says that the Board is to consist of a chairperson and certain other persons, and continues: For the purpose of this Act- (a) the Chairperson may be referred to as the Chairman or Chairwoman, as the case requires. I am quite sure that that is a major contribution to scientific research and an insight into Government appointment procedures. Frankly, I feel that to clutter up legislation with such pathetic nonsense as `chairperson' and `chairwoman' is indicative of the extent to which we are bedevilled with the distortion of the English language. Another point I want to make is a general point about funding of research and development. I put it clearly on the record that I believe we have swung too far away from the funding of basic and fundamental research in this country. I understand the enormous drive which is being made for relevant research to be funded-research which will yield an immediate technological fix, economic fix or scientific fix. I understand the lengthy debates that have taken place over a number of years about the relevance of scientific research, but we have now taken that to extremes. We have moved away from the funding of absolutely basic and fundamental research to altogether too great an extent. I refer to research funding in recent times, particularly in the universities, and the matter of emphasis. When one meets members of professorial boards or the people concerned with research programs at universities or other institutes, one realises that undoubtedly demands are made on them to raise money. The granting of that money has been very much dependent on results, and in many cases in the universities this has been spread too thinly and little real input has been given to basic research. There would probably be great argument if one were to think in terms of the establishment of centres of excellence again in which these areas of basic research could be more directly funded, so that projects flowing from that exercise would have commercial expertise or expectations, or could be taken out and developed in other institutions which are more directly related to areas of interest. I refer to Queensland University with its particular emphasis on mining and mining engineering associated with the mining industry. Mr Barry Jones —And the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Mr MOORE —Yes, and the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, but I had mining particularly in mind since a lot of private money goes into the University there which is essentially short term rather then related to basic research in that area-although that might be disputed. I looked at an article by Leon Lederman in the Scientific American of November 1984 which indicates that, while the American taxpayers spend only about 5 per cent of the cost of applied research and development on fundamental technology, that is where most of the real innovations and developments originate. I refer also to an article in the Australian Financial Review in November 1984, headed `Japan downgrades development, beefs up basic research', and a research paper in the Journal of Political Economy in 1959 entitled `The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research', both of which indicate the trend. A large number of other areas are worth referring to. Those points indicate, probably as much as anything else, some of the concerns of the Opposition about this legislation. This brings to mind two other aspects, one I shall raise in a moment, and the other relating to the difference between the phasing in of research grants of nil dollars to $20,000 which get the whole 150 per cent deduction, and the phasing in element between $20,000 and $50,000. It strikes me as a strangely illogical process that sums up to $20,000 are to be fully allowable, sums between $20,000 and $50,000 are not allowable, and sums from $50,000 onwards are allowable. There seems to be a penalty on some forms of research activity. As a businessman I would have thought the use of the profit and loss account journal would be the easiest way in which to handle the matter. I imagine any accountant who put together a profit and loss account with such a variation would quickly find in the journal entry a way in which to make an item available for the full deduction. Therefore, the approach in the legislation seems to me to be somewhat irrelevant. Finally, I wish to raise a couple of matters which have been raised with the Opposition by the Cattle Council of Australia. This matter relates to clause 7 (8) of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill, which is one of the paragraphs determining eligibility for tax deductions for research and development expenditure. When the Government announced a 150 per cent deduction applying from 1 July 1985, a number of strict eligibility criteria were specified. Among these was the exclusion from eligibility of any research and development activity funded by Commonwealth grant or administered under Commonwealth contract. It is important that companies should not suffer discrimination over the funding of projects which in many cases are of critical importance in achieving productivity gains within farm industries. Contrary to original expectations- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(11.50) —I rise to speak today on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill and the Industry Research and Development Bill. These Bills are about stimulating research within Australia. It is just what our high-tech industries in Australia have been waiting for. Let me quote from the Computer Weekly, which is one of Australia's leading computer magazines: The Australian information industry has welcomed crucial Federal Government initiatives designed to counteract Australia's flagging research and development (R & D) situation. Prominent among the new policies announced last week is a Grant for Industry Research and Development (GIRD) scheme and an agreement to establish a National Industry Extension Service (NIES) to help companies improve their efficiency and competitiveness. The GIRD scheme has been hailed as a `positive move' by the deputy executive director of the Australian Information Industry Association . . . We specifically wanted the Government to include software in the scheme and we are pleased that this has occurred. Start-up companies have a vital need for these schemes. . . . . The new initiatives bore out the commitment of the Government towards `a broader involvement, extending into the whole area of macro-economic policies, across the whole frontier of technology development . . . Those sorts of comments have been echoed in many newspapers throughout the nation. Since I was first elected to this House I have continually pressed that Australian industry must move quicker into the high technology area. We suffer from a mentality of thinking our manufactured goods and our research must be inferior to overseas items. This is not so. We can, in this country, lead the world. We are not constrained by traditional thinking that has been passed down from generation to generation. We have in Australia the ability to think laterally and to turn what appear wild dreams of inventors into practical items. We have firms whose products are accepted overseas but cannot gain recognition in Australia. I mention a small company in Melbourne called Labtam International Pty Ltd, a computer manufacturer. It has world-wide recognition and exports approximately 60 per cent of its production, but I believe that the Australian Government, or the Public Service, has bought only a few of its items. It is about time we in government looked after our own industries; it is about time we made certain that the Public Service bought Australian made products. Recently I was in the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I noticed that he has bought a modern, up-to-date, Australian designed and manufactured piece of telecommunications equipment. He has set the example and we must follow it, not only in Parliament House but also throughout all of the Public Service. I would like to see our public servants give preference to Australian made products. If we purchased more of our own designed and manufactured equipment much more money would go into research and development. Another example of Australian innovativeness being at the forefront is the areas of robotics, biotechnology and specialised materials. Recently I attended a meeting held by the Commission for the Future at Parliament House at which the guest speaker was Gustav Nossal. He had some fairly harsh words for the Government in relation to research and development but he also praised the 150 per cent tax deductibility for money spent on research and development. He told us that he had had many calls from people asking about the tax deductibility scheme, but they were from multinational companies searching, I believe, for another way to rort our tax system. Where are the Australian companies? Why are they not beating a path to the Australian Taxation Office? Why are they not beating down its doors asking about this scheme? They cannot have heard about it; they must be slow on the uptake. We must promote this scheme more throughout the community. Why the silence? We have heard whinges and moans from some sections of Australian industry because they had to pay some more tax on their company cars. They might have to pay another 15 per cent. I have referred to a tax deduction of 150 per cent-10 times greater than those companies might have to pay. I can only reiterate that we have the ability right here in Australia to surge ahead of the world in many areas of technology. We have the inventors and the producers who can do it, but they are not taking up these opportunities. When questioned about approaches to sculpture, Michelangelo replied that he simply cut away the stone surrounding his vision. Our inventors and researchers have the same opportunities to put their dreams into reality. There is no better time than now to start. We are offering them, through this legislation, a fast track path into the future, an exciting future in which all Australians can share. This legislation will assist them to secure their place in Australia's destiny. I commend this legislation to all Australian industry, to all inventors and to this House. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.57) —As the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has already pointed out, the Opposition in general supports the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill and the Industry Research and Development Bill, and that is the position I shall be taking in this debate. It is axiomatic to say that research and development is absolutely vital to Australia's economic future, and it is vital for a couple of reasons. First of all, as the Myers Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia report pointed out, I think in 1981, Australian industry can become competitive and remain competitive only if it continues to adopt and utilise the latest technology. Secondly, if research and development in Australia progresses in a constructive way we have the opportunity in this country to develop new products. If we can put those new products into the market-place, obviously we can not only create wealth in our community but also we can export those new products on the international market. So it is enormously important that a government address itself to the vital issues of research and development, and that is clearly what the Government has done in this package of Bills. The 150 per cent tax deduction for expenditure on research and development was part of the Opposition's policy for the 1984 Federal election. So the Opposition is hardly in a position in which it can do anything but support this initiative. The Government has also offered grants which, in effect, would be grants to smaller businesses unable to claim the tax deduction under the other piece of legislation. Whilst those grants are a much less preferable way of providing assistance to industry to pursue research and development, they will at least be of some assistance to small business, although there will be the great weakness always overhanging those grants of the Public Service determining which projects to support and which projects not to support. I would much prefer to see the market-place and the entrepreneurs determine which projects are likely to reap rewards to them and to the community. Nevertheless, under the legislation as it is framed by the Government, there will always be those who will miss out on that tax deduction because of their incapacity to claim it. The grants system will offset that to some extent. These measures come on top of a number of different measures that the Government has introduced over the last three years, and indeed, on occasions, these have been supported by the Opposition. The Government, for example, introduced a system of management and investment companies, which is another way that research and development has been stimulated through taxation advantages. I note that there are now some 36 management and investment companies in Australia and I understand that some of them are doing quite well. That proposal to establish management and investment companies was really borne out of a proposal, developed by the Fraser Government and put to the electorate in March 1983, to establish a body which I recall was called ADTEC. But the loss of that election led to the demise of the ADTEC proposal. That proposal had many features similar to the management and investment company proposal. As well as these proposals the Government provides substantial direct funding for science and technology and research and development. We all appreciate the funding that is provided by the taxpayer to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and to various government departments, for example, the Department of Science and the Antarctic Division of that Department, which does such a good job. A large amount of funding is also provided to universities through the Australian research grants scheme and a number of other schemes. Government-funded programs within the confines of the Government are another source of research and development. We can also look to some of the Government's statutory authorities as a source of research and development. For example, Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission have done a substantial amount of work in developing optical fibres. Finally, through the Government's offsets policy-that again is an aspect of bipartisanship which has been part of government, industry and commerce policy for many years-assistance and encouragement for research and development is also given. All these policies, though, which basically involve the expenditure of taxpayers' money are, in effect, compensation for the failure of the private sector to pursue successfully research and development in the way that Australians could reasonably expect. It is well known nowadays that Australia has a fairly poor record in research and development. Only 0.95 per cent of our gross domestic product is spent on research and development, compared with the average of 1.65 per cent for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The area of research and development which is particularly weak is that of business. Only 0.2 per cent of our GDP is absorbed by industry or business for research and development, compared with the OECD average of 0.98 per cent. It is typical in most OECD countries for private sector investment in research and development to be greater than the overall government effort. It is also true that Australian firms appear not to be innovative because, whilst universities and various other government instrumentalities involved in research and development produce about 2 per cent of the world's scientific papers, Australia registers only 0.7 per cent of the world's patents. That performance is only confirmed by the fact that Australia is a net importer of technological know-how whereas many other OECD countries, in particular countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Sweden, are net exporters of technological know-how. I contend that there are four basic reasons for our having this problem. Some of those causes can be resolved by government policy and initiative and some are endemic to the structure of our economy and are perhaps insurmountable except by encouragement through government expenditure. The first reason that we have a poor performance in research and development is that we do not have an appropriate economic climate. There is no doubt that investment in research and development is extremely risky. For firms to pursue that sort of investment they have to be reasonably sure that if the investment proves to be successful they will get a substantial return. In terms of providing investment funds, the private sector at the moment, as everybody knows, faces extraordinarily high interest rates which makes the cost of investment vastly higher than it would be in many other countries. We have a problem with labour costs relative to other countries pursuing similar sorts of activities. Returns from investment are inhibited and reduced substantially by a whole range of taxation measures, which have only been exacerbated by the recent taxation package; by things such as the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the increase in company taxation from 46 to 49 per cent. All these reduce returns to companies from any investment-in research and development or in any other sort of activity. I must add, though, that this legislation will help to offset some of those costs. That is really an important part of the purpose of the legislation. However, there is no real substitute to having the appropriate economic climate to make investment in research and development effective. That point is reinforced by the Economic Planning Advisory Council's recent paper on technology and innovation, in which it makes this very telling comment: The economic environment is vital in persuading private enterprise to engage in effective technological development and innovation. This challenge has implications for broad ranging industry and macroeconomic policies. That is fairly clear. We can see the fundamental priorities there. The second reason that Australia performs poorly in research and development is that a high proportion of the larger companies are multinationals. I do not have any philosophical objection, as do some on the other side of the House, to multinationals participating in the economy. Goodness knows where we would be without them. But the simple fact is that, because a high proportion of economic activity is conducted by multinational firms, those firms are prone to doing their research and development at their home base, rather than in Australia. It is possible, and I think likely, that this 150 per cent tax incentive will be a direct incentive to some of those multinational firms to conduct their research and development in Australia rather than in their home countries. Nevertheless, that is offset by our cost structure and tax structure, which I have discussed already. The third reason for our low level of research and development is attitudinal: The private sector really sees investment in research and development as discretionary. When there is recession or an economic downturn the first area to be cut by the private sector appears to be research and development. During the Whitlam years, when the economy took a substantial downturn, there was an enormous slump in research and development activity. Over the last couple of years, at least until about six months ago, when Australia was going through a cyclical upturn in its economy, there was a significant improvement in research and development. The most recent statistics on research and development were fairly encouraging, showing that between 1981-82 and 1984-85 expenditure on research and development had increased by about 43 per cent. My concern is that now that the economy is turning down again, because of attitudinal factors, business will reduce that expenditure very substantially, particularly once profits are squeezed. Nevertheless, this legislation will help to offset that factor, although I think that it will be many years, and a great deal of convincing advocacy will be required, before the business community will change its attitudes towards research and development to give that area of economic activity a greater priority. The fourth reason that our research and development effort appears to be poor by international standards relates simply to the structure of our economy. In most OECD countries-there are some with a similar structure-involvement of agriculture and mining in the gross domestic product is substantially lower than it is in Australia. As one can see from looking at the statistics, the private sector effort in research and development in agriculture, to use that as an example, is extremely low. Only 17 per cent of expenditure on research and development in agriculture comes from the private sector. There is not much that can be done about that, in my view, because primary producers typically operate small businesses-I think one would call them that-and do not have the resources to expend on research and development in the way that large firms have. The converse of this is that in Australia the manufacturing sector is a relatively small sector. Therefore, when one looks at the overall research and development effort in Australia, most of the private sector investment is in the manufacturing sector. Because that sector is a small sector, the overall aggregate statistic looks worse than it might if we had a larger manufacturing sector. Nevertheless, that is no excuse for our performance being as poor as it is. Canada is a country that has a similar economic structure to Australia, yet in 1983 some 1.42 per cent of Canadian GDP was expended on research and development; I remind the House that in Australia the figure is 0.95 per cent. There are four basic reasons why research and development in Australia has performed very poorly. Inevitably, that has left governments, of whatever political complexion, having to do more than they might otherwise have had to do. It seems to me that the real challenge for the Government is to stimulate investment by the private sector in research and development. The 150 per cent tax deduction will do exactly that. Nevertheless, in the last few minutes available to me, I will try to make a few constructive criticisms about the whole issue of government involvement in research and development. First of all, the Government, particularly if it is to have a system of grants to support research efforts, is in effect picking winners. Where a government picks winners what we are really saying is that the Public Service picks winners. As I have already mentioned, that is much less desirable than having the market-place determine what will be effective or ineffectual investments. That is why, if one were to make a comparison between the two, my preference would be for 150 per cent tax deductions over the grants scheme also introduced by the Government. I will not go into why I think the grants scheme is in any case supportable because I have already referred briefly to that. The second criticism I have of government involvement is that the effort of the present Government-and indeed the efforts of governments over many years-has been fairly disparate. In a country like Australia with a relatively small economy by international standards, there is no point in Australia trying to cover every single aspect of research and development. I do not have enough time to go into how I believe Australia covers too broad a scope in the research and development effort. But I would like to feel that the Government will at least take note of the fact that I believe that our effort is too disparate and should be narrowed down and more specialised. The third criticism I have-I do not think the Government is unaware of this-is that for too long government efforts in science and technology, in research and development, have been too dependent on determining policy by government with too low a level of industry participation. We certainly find that in the research efforts of universities, where in my view industry participation is far too low. I would like to see greater efforts made-some efforts are already being made-to persuade universities to sell their research and development efforts and also to make industry aware of their research and development capacity. Many people in industry are really unaware of where to go in the academic world to get research done. Many universities have the capacity to do useful research for business, but often business does not know about it. That was one of the strengths of the Fraser Government's ADTEC proposal. One of the essential parts of that proposal was to link business with the other research institutions in the economy so that at least we would have a more concerted sort of approach. Very briefly, the fourth criticism I have of Government policy is that there is no real emphasis on the importance of technology transfers. I do not want to be dogmatic about this. I am not really certain of how Government could place more emphasis on technology transfers. Indeed, there is a lot of criticism around at the moment that Australia imports too much of its technology. In fact 98 per cent of technology used in Australia is imported. But it is interesting to note that some of the great success stories in Asia have been countries which have basically imported technology and turned it to their advantage. Everybody knows that the Japanese economic miracle during the 1950s, the 1960s and, I guess, the 1970s, but particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, was based on imported technology, not on developed technology. That applies to some of the other newly industrialised countries such as South Korea and Singapore, to use a couple of examples. So technology transfer is extremely important if a country can then manufacture the high technology products; in other words, if it can effectively utilise that technology to its own advantage. Other countries have done that. There is no real reason why in this country we cannot do it. We should not be defeatist about it. I would like to hear the views of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) on the issue of technology transfer. In any case, it is an issue that ought to be considered and debated in the months and years ahead. Finally, I wish to make one brief point about the Government's involvement in research and development in science and technology. The Government, in particular the Australian Labor Party, has for many years boasted that it is very strongly committed to these things. Anybody who has taken the time to read the taxpayer-published compendium of his speeches by the Minister called `Living by Our Wits' will see the great verbal commitment of the Minister and the Government to research and development. But I just make the point that in every year since this Government came to power there has been a reduction in real terms in expenditure of the Department of Science. In every year in real terms there has been a reduction in the budget of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. With the exception of 1984-85, there has been a reduction in real terms every year in expenditure of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science. So the Government's rhetoric is fairly dissimilar to the reality, at least in those areas. But in conclusion I commend the Government for at least taking some initiative, which it has done in the form of this legislation. Research and development is vital to our economic future but ultimately there is no substitute for macroeconomic solutions. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(12.17) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 1986 and the Industry Research and Development Bill 1986 because of my concern about the gaps that have existed in the types of assistance available to the innovative and pioneering industries that exist in our country. The key element in the Labor Government's scheme of assistance to encourage research and development has been the special tax concession of 150 per cent. I note in the second reading speech by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) that since July 1985, when this tax concession was introduced, this has meant something like $100m for the financial year. That is certainly significant and it certainly sets aside the type of criticism that we often get from the Opposition that we are doing nothing to help business in this country; certainly we are. Not only will expenditure be $100m for the financial year but this has benefited about 1,000 Australian companies. So many people, many employers and those working in industry, must be most pleased with the initiatives taken by this Government. The Hawke Government deserves commendation for what it has done. Certainly it deserves special applause for what it is doing in this measure. It is now recognised and appreciated that many firms have not been able to get the benefit of the tax concession. That is quite obvious. If one is not making a profit, the tax concessions mean very little. This Government has realised that, whilst the tax concession scheme is an excellent one and has been taken up by almost 1,000 firms, there are firms that have schemes and products that they would like to develop but they simply cannot take advantage of the concession. This is the case with many small firms that I have had brought to my notice. These firms do not need tax concessions; they need up-front money. They need hard cash to help them in their formative years. I believe that that is what the discretionary grants scheme will achieve for those who do not make profits but who have the initiative, the innovation, the skills and the products to develop. They need cash and they will be able to get that money over a three-year period. I congratulate the Minister and those behind this approach. It means another $12.5m to industry in research and development. Again, regardless of who are our critics, they will have to say that this is worth while and must be applauded. I will give an example of a firm in central Queensland that not so long ago invented a water clarifier-a machine, if we can call it that, or a product, that will purify any type of water regardless of how brackish it is and whether it comes from a bore or from a creek. If we can appreciate that throughout the world there are some 2,000 million men, women and children who do not have a safe water supply, who do not have safe water to drink-that is what it comes down to; decent water to drink-we can start to understand why this invention is so important. We can start to appreciate the potential of this machine, invented in the small town of Gladstone in central Queensland. It can be made the size of a washing machine, to meet the needs of a small family or group of people, or it can be developed on a much larger scale to serve the needs of a whole village. This Gladstone firm has built a pilot plant, it has been independently trialled, and there has been an excellent report-but, alas, no money. Phil Adam, with whom I have spoken only this morning about the proposals before the House, has been everywhere. He has tried extremely hard, having been to Austrade to argue his case and having talked to the Queensland Department of Industry, Small Business and Technology. Whilst he has received an excellent reception and has been given all sorts of advice, there has been no financial assistance. It is a scheme that deserves financial assistance, but not the sort of assistance he was offered prior to now, when he was told that, if he found the money and spent it, after about 18 months he could get some type of rebate-I think 70 per cent of the money he has spent in marketing the product for export. That is all very well and it is much applauded, but it is not what he needs. He needs money right now. That seems to be the trouble. The money that most of these firms require is not available in those formative stages, and I am hopeful that the proposals now being put forward by the Government will overcome that problem. It is always suggested that one can go to the banks, but it seems that the banks are not interested unless a person has substantial security. It was even suggested to me that people can get money from the banks only if they do not really need it. That is an indictment of the banking system, but it does seem to be the case that if there is some major risk element, regardless of the potential, one does not go near the banks. This scheme in Gladstone would employ somewhere between 12 and 25 people, but think of the export potential and the international advantages, the humanitarian good it would do. Think of the export advantages for Queensland and for Australia, especially in these times. I suggest that those advantages are unlimited. I have spoken to Phil Adam this morning and I am hoping that he will be the first cab off the rank to apply for the discretionary grant. But this scheme in Gladstone is not the only one. Some time ago, when I was in the State Parliament, an elderly Queensland grazier by the name of Lyn Jensen, who had invented a harvesting machine, came to me-- Mr White —You would not have had too many graziers in Queensland coming to you. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member would be surprised. I know why they tossed him out of his seat in Southport-he was not representing his people. Because of the representation I give, all sorts of people come to me, as graziers have done even today and yesterday. Mr Tim Fischer —Gladstone is well represented by the honourable member for Hinkler. Mr WRIGHT —That is why I am raising this matter; the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) did not bother to raise it. That is a great pity, but I am prepared to raise it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting across the chamber. Any point is to be made through the Chair. The honourable member for Capricornia has the call. Mr WRIGHT —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I take the point made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I happily represent the people throughout central Queensland, regardless of whether they come from the electorate of Capricornia. This elderly grazier has developed a machine that can harvest range grasses or stubble. Anyone who knows something of the grazing industry and knows the problems of adverse climatic conditions can appreciate the advantages of an on-farm machine that can cut grasses in the good times; but this machine does not just cut grasses. Mr Jensen has actually invented a system whereby a molasses-based nutrient can be injected into the bales of hay. As those who have worked on the land know, handling molasses is messy, but in this system it solidifies and later breaks down. Interest has come from all over the world. Lyn Jensen and those entrepreneurs behind him who have taken on the project have had expressions of interest and requests for information from countries such as Mexico and Egypt to find out more about it and develop it further. I believe this scheme could revolutionise the grazing industry in arid areas. As I said, there is interest from other countries, but regrettably there has been no way in which the scheme could have been backed by any sort of financial assistance from State or Federal governments. This invention could be of enormous value to the sugar industry because of the need for molasses. So not only would it greatly help graziers; it would certainly help the sugar industry. It would also be of significant value to the cattle industry. In recent years our national herd has been reduced by some 10 million cattle, down to about 23 million head, mainly because of droughts and bad calvings. With this type of equipment on-farm, we could greatly increase the calving rate and we could certainly rejuvenate the herds of this nation. The problem is to get these types of schemes off the ground, so I welcome these discretionary grants. As well, I welcome the generic technological grants and the clause that allows a national interest category, so that if something is in the national interest it can be given special assistance. I suggest that we need to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay, firstly in determining applications and secondly in making financial assistance available. It is great to have these schemes on paper but we want to make sure that the money is forthcoming. This Government has acted and is continuing to act to streamline assistance schemes for business and the community but, regrettably, delays have occurred. I have received some discouraging letters-I note that the Minister for Science is in the House-particularly about inventions. People have applied to promote inventions and it has taken two or three years to get an answer that says no, there is simply not enough money available. There seem to be long delays in determining these things. It has been claimed that we need to ensure that the board or body which assesses applications has both business and technical expertise. If it does not have that we will find that those who make the decisions may be well versed in all matters financial but lack the capacity to appreciate fully the technical significance of a particular product or project. I ask the Minister to think this through, because he is a man of deep thought and a man who moves quickly to overcome problems. We must doubly check to ensure that when applications do come forward they can be processed quickly and that not only those who understand the administrative matters but also those involved with the technical aspects play their roles. We must be sure to break down delays and problems; it is a costly business to go the rounds, from department to department. I hope that this Government continues to bring under the one umbrella the various departments responsible for these matters. We need to ensure that all the departments involved in business assistance come under the one administrative roof. They may be within the one building, but even if they are not we certainly need brochures available to business so that people know where to go and how to put their cases quickly without being fobbed off. I understand that governments have to be extremely careful when handing out taxpayers' money. They must be doubly sure of the bona fides of the applicant. They must be sure that the project will have the desired degree of success. I have been through the system and I am pleased and proud that the Queensland Government, backed by the Federal Government, has recently made available to an organisation which I head some $10,058 so I can start a boomerang manufacturing business in the township of Mt Morgan. It is the first of its kind in Australia. We are going to employ a lot of people. The training program involves the technical and further education system and the Commonwealth Employment Service is helping. The Queensland Government has given up-front money to get us going and the Federal Government has backed us with wages for the young people involved. We will employ 10 or 12 people. It took more than a year to get the project off the ground because all parties had to be sure it was worth while. I understand the carefulness of government when it comes to checking out and approving these schemes, because so many innovative schemes have gone bust. Too many rorts have been pulled, too much money has been lost, and governments, particularly State governments that have control over the corporate and registration aspects of business, need to be very vigilant when approving the prospectus of a scheme. Honourable members will remember that some some weeks ago I raised in this House what I described then as the greatest agricultural rip-off in our nation's history. I exposed a scheme operating around the township of Raglan in central Queensland involving the crop jojoba. I pointed out that some $10m was unaccounted for, that the project had been misrepresented, and that proper management of the scheme had not been carried out. I pointed out, for example, that 400 acres were sold as an irrigation plantation but that only nine acres had ever been irrigated. Immediately after I made that speech, the manager of the scheme, Mr Mader, sought to discount everything that I had said. He said that I was not telling the truth. He vigorously denied all my allegations. But the outcome has been that the Queensland Corporate Affairs Office has thoroughly investigated everything and the companies have now been placed in the hands of a receiver. I believe that somewhere down the track charges will be laid. Regardless of that, however, an attempt is now being made by a person who was closely associated with Mader and his cronies, associated very closely with the previous management of Jojoba Management, to get people further involved. I have had phone calls in the last few days from people from as far north as Cairns, and also from Brisbane, who have received letters from a fellow called Perry, asking people to continue to invest. They have been told that there is no prospectus, but apparently they will get around the law by selling on private placement under licence. It is no wonder governments must take such great care in assessing some of these schemes when these things continue to occur. I express my concern. Action is already being taken by the Corporate Affairs Office to investigate a number of schemes linked with Mader and company. But I issue the warning here, for people who may be thinking about getting involved: They need to doubly check. The Mader Group was once involved in another scheme. That was to sell hickory tree plantations. The idea was to harvest the wood for barbecues. There was another scheme to purchase paintings from overseas and involve them in some sort of lease arrangement. There was another land deal on the Gold Coast. There was also another scheme involving tea-tree plantations. The idea was to crop them mechanically and distil the oil for medicinal purposes. All sorts of things about this group are being brought to me. Another scheme is to grow an exotic pawpaw. This involves a group called Bangalow Farm Management-again, a group that was linked with Mr Mader. I am told that they are trading today as Australasian Exotic Fruits Pty Ltd. Part of their operation has recently been sold to a group called Australian Agricultural Development Foundation Incor- porated of Victoria. There have been all sorts of glowing reports-for instance, about the pawpaw scheme, the babaco scheme as it is called. I have a letter dated 20 January 1986, which says: Harvesting of Babaco continues at a level of over 500 cartons of fruit being shipped from Bangalow each week. It goes on to give a glowing report. But I have here a letter sent to me by one of the investors. He says: Recently I have been informed that the farm had been sold to Australian Agricultural Development Foundation Inc., of Victoria. A newsletter from the Office of that organisation, dated 20th June, 1985- that is a long time ago- amongst other things, that a dividend is planned for early March 1986. To date nothing has eventuated. Again, we have some problems. I suggest that there is a need for a very deep and detailed investigation of all aspects of the Mader enterprise, of all the types of schemes in which he and his cronies have been involved. I warn people who may be interested in investment in some of these things or who may be receiving letters from Perry that they should not get involved. They should double check with their lawyers and contact the Corporate Affairs Office, but they should not send any more money away because they could be the losers. Mr George Launder is one man who has been quite concerned about this matter and he has sent me detailed documentation on what has been going on. If there is one, there will be 101; and if there are 101, there will be thousands, because these people have been rorting the system for a long, long time. We need to encourage innovation, initiative and the pioneering spirit, and we need to develop all aspects of research. We need to help Australian firms when it comes to new products. However, we need also to strengthen the deterrents and to improve the protection against the innovative rogues and innovative crooks. I congratulate the Queensland Corporate Affairs Office on what it has done. I congratulate the Commonwealth Trade Practices Commission on what it is doing in these areas. I only hope that the people of Australia who have been written to by these groups or have some link with them will take my warning very seriously. I welcome the legislation that has been brought forward today. I hope that it will be the catalyst in the growth of new products and that it will further develop the pride that all Australians should have when we say that a thing has been `Australian made'. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(12.35) —Like the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), the Opposition welcomes the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill and the Industry Research and Development Bill. The latter Bill complements the tax assessment Bill implementing the 150 per cent tax deduction incentive for research and development in an appropriate way. In quite strongly supporting these measures and associated measures, I make the point that ultimately the most important factor bearing on industry research and development-on the urgent and crucial need for a manifold increase in industry research and development-is the overall economic climate. That embraces getting right the overall settings of the economy, the so-called macroeconomic settings-cost levels contained, inflation and interest rates down, productivity and profitability up-and, beyond that, changing other fundamental features and rigidities in the economy that hold back industry research and development and the development of industry in Australia. That includes most notably the inflexible and restrictive Australian wages and industrial relations system, the tax regime, particularly for business, which will be very significantly worsened by the fringe benefits tax which has just passed through this Parliament, and the profusion of regulations and interventions restricting competition and stifling enterprise. These factors are very important. Talking of those overall settings, I ask: What do we find? Instead of costs being contained, we have costs rising and, indeed, accelerating. Earnings in the last March quarter increased by 2.6 per cent-an annualised rate of 10.8 per cent. Nowhere among the countries with which we compete is there anything of that order. We have inflation at 9.2 per cent. We have very high interest rates inhibiting investment and development. We have the devalued dollar and the yawning balance of payments gap, which involves this nation spending `on tick' to the extent of about $50m every day. Those are the factors that really count. Nevertheless, the measures before the House are supported. The principal measure-the 150 per cent tax deduction-as the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) mentioned, was a central plank of the Liberal and National parties' policy for the 1984 election and, indeed, it was a matter for the carriage of which I had responsibility as the then shadow Minister. There has always been some confusion on that point because, dealing with some difficult views in the context of the Liberal and National parties, the emphasis was put on the essentially new element in this so-called 150 per cent deduction-namely, the 50 per cent part. What we provided for there was: . . . a tax incentive for private industry research and development expenditure in the form of a write-off premium of 50 per cent in respect of that expenditure. That is the important element in this. The 100 per cent deduction for research and development-although sometimes it could be argued to be not a current cost of production-is certainly a very important ongoing cost of business, and it has always been allowed. What is new is the additional 50 per cent, or the 50 per cent premium. That is, as I say, what was proposed by the coalition at that time, and that is what the Government has implemented in this measure. We are pleased about that and we applaud it. Its purpose is to provide a subsidy to industry research and development of about 23 per cent. The case for this measure is incontrovertible. It is grounded in the fact that industry research and development is typically an area of market failure. It is an activity of very high cost and very high risk, while there is difficulty in appropriating the returns from it because when the results of research become known other firms can readily take advantage of them. It is an area in which, generally speaking, too little has been undertaken, even in the most competitive situation, even with the freest of free enterprise. That is the basis for providing this subsidy. Such a subsidy was previously provided through the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme, the so-called AIRDIS, which provided a subsidy of 27 per cent. However, the Opposition made this point in its policy platform in 1984: While the scheme has been effectively administered within the constraints of the Act, it inevitably involves a bureaucratic `picking of winners'. That is the basic objection to providing the subsidy in that way for industrial research and development. In fact, in that policy platform it was argued that the 150 per cent tax deduction: . . . avoids this direct government involvement. It has the added advantage of being more market oriented and pervasive, and likely to lead to greater awareness in business of the incentive; there are less problems of confidentiality, and it is more predictable, thus facilitating business planning and decision-making. Those are the sorts of arguments that support the provision of this incentive in the form of the 150 per cent tax deduction. But that does leave the difficulty of small start-up companies, or other companies in a temporary situation of not earning profits, not being in a position to take advantage of this incentive. For that reason it is necessary to retain a system of grants. Our proposal was that there be a reduced AIRDIS. The Government, in making its clean sweep in this area, is phasing the AIRDIS out-it will be retained only for projects already in progress. In the Industry Research and Development Bill 1986 the Government is implementing a scheme of grants for industrial research and development, GIRD, which will assist in particular, small firms with considerable potential when they are starting up. That scheme thus complements GIRD. Notwithstanding the difficulties that are encountered in making grants, there have been some notable successes-the bionic ear stemmed from such a grant under that scheme. So it is necessary to retain AIRDIS to a limited extent. The Government has made available some $12.5m in 1986-87 for that purpose. In conclusion, the Government's objective of fostering industry research and development is an entirely proper objective and, indeed, is an objective of the highest priority. Performance in Australia in this area has been abysmal, as we have frequently remarked in this place. In scientific research and inventiveness Australia ranks high in comparative international terms. Reference has been made to the quantitative measure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(12.46) —In the context of what would have been the grievance debate I am in fact grieving about the very low level of industry research and development in Australia, which in fact was brought low by the onslaught on manufacturing industry in particular by the Whitlam Government. Dr Theophanous —Oh! Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The honourable member says `oh!' disparagingly. I suggest that he look at the statistics, which show that in the late 1960s and early 1970s expenditure on industrial research and development by industry was nearly 0.5 per cent of the gross domestic product. That situation continued until 1973-74 when, as I say, under the pressure of the massive increase in government spending, inflation and wage costs, the halving of export incentives, the abolition of the investment allowance, the appreciation of the currency, the 25 per cent across the board tariff cut and so on, manufacturing industry took a dive, and with it industry research and development, from which it has had a long, hard haul to recovery. Indeed, only in the most recent statistics, over the last years of cyclical upswing, have we seen any significant increase-and even then to a figure of the order of only 0.3 per cent of GDP, or just three-fifths of the level that prevailed in this country in the late 1960s and early 1970s. If the honourable member disputes those figures I would refer him to the report of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. We have in Australia, I repeat, a situation where our effort in regard to scientific research and inventiveness ranks very high but spending by industry on research and development is abysmal. In that context I recognise the importance of this measure. I recognise also certain other measures that have been implemented. I refer to the management and investment companies' framework, where the Government acted on a report, the Espie report, which had been commissioned by the previous Government and was implemented with the object of seeding a venture capital market in Australia. I believe it has been successful. Other activities, such as the proposed national industry extension service, one wishes well. Also, the proposed national preference agreement may produce a bit better order in government purchasing. There can be no doubt that government purchasing can be very significant in promoting industry development in Australia. There have been instances lately, such as the earth resources satellite project, where contracts that have gone to British and Canadian interests could well, I believe, have come to Australia and would have led to the development of an intellectual resource in that field which would have been the basis for activity in this country and indeed for export. I conclude on the note on which I started, that all of these measures will be inadequate unless the overall climate is gotten right. Industry research and development, new business investment and growth in a dynamic economy flourish together. While we compliment the Government on taking the measures to which I have referred, the fact is that we have a sorry situation in the overall settings of the economy, with costs accelerating and with inflation and interest rates very high. We see that reflected in the fact that we have the lowest level of investment, as a percentage of GDP, for more than two decades. So unless we get right these settings of the economy and address the other fundamental features and rigidities in the Australian environment to which I referred earlier, the pursuit of these particular incentives in the technology area will not alone, or even primarily, get us very far. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(12.50) —It is my great pleasure to speak on the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 1986 and the Industry Research and Development Bill 1986 because of their importance and because of the opportunity they provide to say something about not only research and development, but also industry development generally. Perhaps I could begin by quoting the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who said in a speech in September 1984: There is still a strong anti-intellectual tradition running through Australian life and a feeling that we don't really need to rely on using our brains if we have the minerals. This ignores the striking decline in economic growth rates for nations with rich physical resources during the period 1955-1980-The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand dropped in pecking order while the nations with the most dramatic rises either lacked mineral wealth entirely or had only a little-Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and Singapore. I draw your attention to the striking decline in our share of world trade in the 1970s, due to the decline in demand for the things we are good at producing-high bulk, low value added commodities-and the even more striking rise in demand for high value-added brain-based goods, where we are deficient. That was said by the Minister for Science in September 1984. Of course they were prophetic comments, because if we look at the situation at the present time- Mr White —It is a pity your Government did not take some notice of it. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Our Government did take some notice of it. I will get around to that in a moment. We all recognise that there is a balance of payments problem but suggestions have been made, by the honourable members for Mayo (Mr Downer) and Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) especially, that somehow the macro- economic policy is the basis and cause of our problems at the present time. In fact, of course, it is nothing of the kind. Indeed, if we look at just the essence of that quotation we see that it is that we should not emphasise the production of low value-added minerals and other resources of that kind; that we should emphasise the manufacturing and, of course, high technology areas. It is unfortunate that the previous conservative Government totally ignored that sort of message, totally ignored it. For honourable members opposite to suggest that the current balance of payments situation is somehow not connected directly to their pathetic record in relation to what was happening in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and to the way in which they handled our industry development, trade and indeed mineral development, is ignoring totally the facts that in that period they emphasised a mineral-led recovery, resources booms and all of that sort of thing. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that when you and I were first elected to the Parliament, there was discussion about a proposed investment of $30 billion in forthcoming resources and mineral projects. That was the famous resources boom-led recovery of the Fraser Government. What happened to it? It totally evaporated-with the Fraser Government itself, of course-because it was absolute nonsense to rely on those sorts of raw minerals as the only means of getting this nation out of its difficulties. The honourable member for Berowra had the cheek to refer to the Whitlam Government's record on manufacturing. What about the Fraser Government! Between 1980 and 1982 it absolutely devastated manufacturing in this country. I remind honourable members of the number of factories that closed down and became merely importing warehouses. If the honourable member for Berowra will go round the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney he will see what happened. The Fraser Government was responsible for the biggest decline in manufacturing since the Great Depression. Under that Government 250,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing and associated areas. Yet we are told today that somehow it was not responsible for what happened. Of course it was. It tried to re-orient the Australian economy in a completely wrong direction and is to blame for what has happened to our balance of trade and balance of payments. Let me make perfectly clear that it was the fault of the Fraser Government. It was responsible. Any person listening to this broadcast will recognise where the fault and responsibility lies. That point having been made, we are told that somehow the Government's macroeconomic decisions are contrary to the interests of business and business investment. We hear this story time and time again. Dr Harry Edwards —Why has not business invested? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Berowra will cease interjecting. Dr THEOPHANOUS —First of all, we have had an increase of $8,000m in business profitability in the last three years. Dr Harry Edwards —Then why did they not invest? Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member for Berowra says: If they have had that record increase in profitability, why did they not invest? We will come to that point, but let us first emphasise that they have had that huge increase in profitability under the Labor Government. It is untrue to say that the Government has not been fair to business. It has been very generous to business in this situation. In this context, in which workers have been asked again and again to make sacrifices in their standards of living and to restrain their wage demands, we are asked time and again to allow the business sector not only to continue on its high path of profitability but also to refuse to share any part of the burden at all. Thus we hear noises about the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, two taxes which themselves will raise only several hundred million dollars, most of which, I might emphasise, will be given back to people directly involved in the business sector-in two forms. Firstly, the majority of the tax cuts will fall in the richer, high tax, sector. I refer to the reduction from 60c to 55c, and then 49c, in the top rates of taxation. But secondly, and very importantly, the imputation system with regard to company dividends, represents one of the most revolutionary changes from the point of view of business and one which should have led people to invest directly in new industries in this country. But going back to the question asked by the member for Berowra, the fact is that Australian business is not interested in investing in direct productive enterprises. Over and over again, all it is interested in is speculative activity such as takeovers. We have the disgraceful situation in this country of a massive fight to takeover BHP by people-I am talking here not about any particular individual, rather of all of the individuals involved-who have thousands of millions of dollars to invest. Are they investing them in new industries? Are they investing them in new research and development? No, they are out to take control of an existing company, an existing corporation-which does not add any new jobs, does not create any new wealth for this country. Dr Harry Edwards —But why? Dr THEOPHANOUS —It is a disgraceful situation. The honourable member for Berowra asks why. Because during the long years of conservative rule, a tradition was created in this country against innovation, against investment in new enterprises, against investment in new production and, as I have already mentioned, during the period 1980 to 1982 the parties that are now in opposition virtually decimated the manufacturing sector. I dismiss the arguments of the Opposition that the macroeconomic situation is responsible for the difficulties in regard to investment-rather than those false attitudes which are disgracefully being promoted by some chambers of commerce and so-called peak councils of employers, who should know better about the environment in terms of investment, about the increases in profitability, about the positive consequences of the imputation system and the sorts of benefits which are being offered to employers who invest. Some of those benefits will result from the system that we are putting into place with the legislation that is before us today. Let me say something about them. The proposed 150 per cent tax concession represents a very important aid to promoting investment in these particular industrial areas. If those who falsely believe foolish theories that the free market will fix up everything were correct, there would be no need for these sorts of special systems. The fact is that the need for these concessions, and the grants under the related legislation for industry, research and development, is precisely because to get industry development moving intervention is always necessary. That has been proved not only by what has happened here in Australia but by what has happened in other countries as well. Let us not hear any more ideological claptrap against Government intervention. The Opposition is supporting this measure because it knows that it is necessary to have intervention in this form in the market-place. The honourable member for Berowra knows that it is necessary because the market-place does not of itself allocate sufficient resources to research and development. Let us get that quite clear-despite all of the ideological claptrap that we have heard from the Opposition during this session. These are very important measures which take care of all circumstances which may arise. Firstly, if a company is making high or good profits, it will be able to use the 150 per cent concession. It will be able to benefit enormously from that system and get into research and development. Secondly, if a company has just started, if it is not showing a sufficient level of profitability, it will still be able to get into research and development by applying to the Government for the special grants that we are putting through in these Bills. I would say to those smaller corporations and companies, even those small individual businessmen who are interested in getting into research and development: Put forward your proposals and apply for these grants because the Government is keen to ensure that all genuine cases are looked at in a very sympathetic fashion. Another provision in the legislation is that relating to the national interest. This provision that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Science have put forward is very important. It will help in certain special cases in which we want to get going in this country certain industries which are of national importance. Let me say that there is no doubt that there are a number of areas in which we ought to be promoting those particular industry sectors. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) talked a lot about how we should not intervene in the market, should not pick winners. The fact is, however, that where we have an advantage in a particular case, such as we have in biotechnology and in areas such as food production-which we are good at-and also mineral processing-which we should be good at, because we have the minerals here-we ought to be encouraging greater research and development, and investment. I hope that the Government will look to this exercise and will use the national interest provisions to promote areas which are identified as being important to Australia. In conclusion, I welcome these Bills. I believe that they are an example of the kinds of judicious intervention, by way of industry policy that we need to make in the market-place. I would say to the Government that we ought to be looking not merely at research and development but at other areas of industry policy as well. I am hopeful that next week when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announces measures to deal with our current account and industry development problems he will be announcing a further set of judicious interventions of this kind to deal with those problems. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(1.05) —I thank the six honourable members who have contributed to the debate for their support. Let me restate a few basic problems: Australian Government support for research and development is broadly comparable with that of other medium sized developed countries but business support for research and development is among the lowest of all industrial countries. Related to this, the quality and quantity of Australian research is high but its performance in applying that research in industry is dreadful. Australian science has very strong long links with international science as a major contributor, just as Australian industry is linked to international industry in a dependent, subordinate role. However, the links between Australian science and Australian industry are very tenuous. Hugh Stretton expressed it neatly: Australian science finds its practical application in Australian agriculture but in British, American or Japanese industry. I would have added mining to the sentence, but not much else. To take up the points that were made, especially by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) who led the Opposition, I think it is candid to say that there have been three lean years for science largely because science deals with long term, general problems and from 1983, on coming to office, the Hawke Government had to grapple with very serious immediate problems. Now that we are addressing the long term problems and the community is, I think, responding very well, we will see the need to strengthen links between industry and scientific capacity. That is what this Bill addresses. A concern is expressed that we should redress the imbalance between our expenditure on basic research and that on applied research. There is a major discrepancy, because in Australia the proportion of financial support going to fundamental research is higher than that in Germany, the United States, Japan or Great Britain. This is partly because the Government contribution has tended to be in fundamental research and the contribution of the private sector has been very low. There is some agreement in the House about this. Obviously there are two ways of changing that proportionality. If (a) is high and (b) is low, you can either cut back (a) so that it is level with, or even lower than, (b) or you can raise (b) so that it is as high or even higher than (a). The latter is precisely what we are trying to do with this legislation. Mr Downer —You are doing both. Mr BARRY JONES —Well, we are trying to do both. How do nations develop a reputation for excellence where they have not had it before, particularly in the fastest growing area in world trade, brain-based goods? In the past we have acted on the delusion that the only factor that affects sales of commodities or goods is price, but that is a fallacy. Consumers will often pay a premium price where they think that there is an assurance of quality. For example, the products of the Swedish motor and electronics industry penetrate the Australian economy in a way that Australian goods certainly do not penetrate the Swedish economy. It will not be easy to bring about the change. To say that we could do it, given the opportunity, is a little like the man who said: `I could play the violin like Heifetz if only I had learned to play'. We have extraordinarily weak industrial infrastructures in Australia and strengthening them will be a necessary precondition to developing new products, finding world markets, ensuring quality control and delivering the goods, both literally and metaphorically. At the moment few if any people storm into an overseas showroom or department store and say: `We want an Australian product'. In delivering brand name goods throughout the world, it is not that we have a bad reputation. We simply have no reputation at all. There has been some little debate about the relative emphasis to be put on two forms of technology development. There has been a contrast between what is sometimes called `market pull' and `technology push'. In the case of market pull, players in the market express a demand for a new or improved product. They know what they want and demand, pull and invest until they get it. In reading the literature, I can identify a number of products that fit into the `market pull' category-pneumatic tyres, the steam engine, the storage battery, the electric motor, better candles in the nineteenth century and the internal combustion engine. But there are also a number of developments that are often described as `technology push'-where demand follows technological development. The invention comes first, then the demand follows. Included in that `technology push' list are the gramophone, the telephone, radio, aviation, the electric light-which, curiously, even Edison thought was scientifically interesting but had no economic potential-the computer and very recently, VTRs and lasers. There has been some discussion about the economic climate. I modify something that the honourable member for Berowra said: To a large degree we lack an intellectual climate which is conducive to heavy emphasis on R and D. Years ago we adopted a `cargo cult' approach to technology. We wake up some morning and find a computer in our laps; we do not understand how it got there; we do not understand how it works; we are psychologically quite remote from the technology. No wonder that we do not advocate new technology or use it with much enthusiasm or understanding! Management, and bureaucracy and politicians generally have been quite retarded in recognising how technology transforms society and the economy. We are eager but somewhat passive users. It is not often that Ministers get a chance to say what they want to say in debates like this, but I am going to take advantage of the opportunity for the next few minutes. I want to take up the specific points raised by the honourable member for Ryan. I am sure that those who are in this crowded House will pass on my replies to his questions. First, he asked about patents. The cost of taking out patents will be an allowable expenditure when it is part of the development process but the cost of taking out the final patent is not allowable. He said: `Why the difference?' I think the reason is quite clear. There are two phases in the process-first the R and D phase; next is the commercialisation phase. This legislation is intended to assist procedures to the point of commercialisation. After that, in a sense, you are on your own, although clearly there are banks and organisations such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation to whom one can turn. One can claim expenses in the acquisition of other patents as part of the development process, but once one has the finished product and can say: `That is it; we are now into the commercialisation phase', that opportunity ceases. Dr Harry Edwards —It is not so clear cut; it is not as neat as that. Mr Downer —It is fairly arbitrary. Mr BARRY JONES —Every piece of legislation is arbitrary. That is its whole nature. The criterion adopted is that of `eligible R and D'. We have used not only the definition of eligible R and D, as it is understood in the market community-of whose judgment honourable members opposite have such a high regard-but also the test used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development. I am sure that even if the unthinkable occurred and honourable members now opposite were on this side-and government supporters over there-they would apply the same test. Secondly, the honourable member raised the question of the new board providing grants for industrial research and development, to be lovingly known by the superb new acronym GIRD. The board of GIRD is to advise the Commissioner of Taxation as to whether the R and D is eligible or not. Once the board has given its advice, the Commissioner of Taxation is bound to accept it. The honourable member said that there were not very many precedents for this but one precedent to which he did point was the film industry or as they say in the National Party, the `fillum' industry. As to films, that is perfectly correct. The reason is quite clear. There is no sense in doubling up an area of expertise. We give GIRD responsibility, in effect, to make a decision about eligibility and say: `We do not propose to go behind your judgment.' It would be foolish to have a group in the Australian Taxation Office whose task was simply to second-guess GIRD. The same principle is in the legislation about manning levels for coastal ships, as the honourable member for Ryan has pointed out. To reply to his third question, if people feel disadvantaged they will have a right of appeal under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. It is true that it is not specifically mentioned in the legislation but the intention is that the general rule shall apply. If one feels that there has been an adverse administrative decision there is the right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia under that Act. The honourable member noted the contrast-I suppose it would be question 3 (a)-that this legislation excludes cosmetic or style changes but, on the other hand, the provision for the new automobile plant provides funding for cosmetic and style changes. I think the answer to that is fairly clear. Notoriously, within the motor industry from year to year, there is the same basic box and often changes that assist export potential are external, cosmetic, not related to the car's fundamental structure. We are aiming here at the development of new or radically changed products that is a legitimate distinction. He also referred to the fact that the Minister would be able to direct the Board. He just raised the old bogy about `picking winners' and the question about generic technologies. There always was a power of direction under the Australian industrial research and development incentives legislation, which ceases to take effect on 30 June 1986. It is not quite fair to say that that scheme is being `wound up'. It always was sunset legislation. It was always intended, when introduced by the Fraser Government, that it would end on 30 June 1986. The honourable member also expressed some concern about the targeting of generic technologies, and said that it might mean that in changing fashions somebody-I think he might have been referring to me-would develop a particular enthusiasm for some area. He misunderstands the nature of a generic technology. `Generic', as the Oxford Dictionary says, is `characteristic of a genus or class, general not specific'. Generic technologies, by definition, do not refer to a particular gizmo that could be produced out of one's pocket at Question Time, something which has applicability across a very wide range of activities-such as microelectronics, new materials or biotechnology. I think that is reasonable. Generic technology must be applicable to a variety of different industries. He asked about the question of `phasing in'. The reason that there is an arbitrary cut-off, that a company has to spend $50,000 a year `in-house' before the claim is met, is simply that $50,000 is the approximate equivalent of the cost of one person employed full-time, with appropriate resources, for a year. Our view is that to claim on the basis of half a person for a year, or one person for half a year, would be probably just a token effort. But, if companies want to spend $25,000, or even $25, on research outside, and sub-contract the work to an organisation such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or a university-which would be a more cost-effective way of doing it-they would get the benefit of the tax deduction. I think that is reasonable. The honourable member raised a question in the rural interest about the relationship of this legislation to the work of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. Could private sector participants, undertaking joint R and D with the Corporation claim 150 per cent deductibility for the company's share of the cost, he asked. Honourable members will be shocked to learn that we are not intending to provide for double-dipping in this regard. If direct Government funding is provided, the project will not be eligible. If there is a sharing of costs in a project as between the private sector organisation and a government-funded body, such as the Australian Meat and Livestock R and D Corporation, and the benefits are shared, the company's share will be eligible for support under the two schemes. I conclude with a few observations about what was said by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). They made, in one case, a very passionate and, in the other case, a mildly passionate, appeal for the market to predominate in this matter. A fundamental problem has to be recognised. The honourable member for Mayo conceded that industry had a poor record, that it gave research and development a very low priority. The question then asked is. `Who should make the fundamental decisions, and the answer given by honourable members opposite is'? `The people who give it a low priority and do not know much about it'. Mr Downer —You need a change of attitudes as well. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course, but I find it difficult to say that the people who regard R and D as a purely discretionary activity, who give it the lowest priority in spending and dump it at the first opportunity, are those whose basic judgments about individual developments which they do not understand should be the only factor involved. The people who, on a scale of zero to 10 in regard to knowledge of a specific subject would score seven will be in a better position to make judgments than those who score three. I am deeply suspicious of the idea that people with inferior knowledge will have superior judgment. When I went to the Ottawa science `summit' in October 1985 I found it interesting that there had been a shift in emphasis from the catch phrase, `You cannot pick winners' to the concept of targeting. All of the seven governments represented there, even the United Kingdom Government, said: `We recognise the significance of targeting, particularly in the generic areas'. One ought not to be too specific about which company will be the winner in a particular field, but we can say: `It looks to us that biotechnology has a greater future than has sausage casings or raincoats as a priority area'. Targeting is now back in fashion. To conclude, Sir Gustav Nossal, in talking to the seminar for parliamentarians that was run by the Commission for the Future here last Friday, told of strong approach that he had made to leaders of the Australian business community seeking to explain to them the good prospects for developing internationally competitive industries with excellent prospects based on biotechnology, in pharmaceutical and medical treatments, vaccines and so on. But he said that of all the industry heavies to whom he had spoken only one, Sir Roderick Carnegie, acted positively in response. The others had all said, `It is too hard, it is not our field, we do not really want to get involved' and so on. That is a very typical Australian story. Dr Harry Edwards —It is very sad. Mr BARRY JONES —I hope that what we are doing here will change that direction. On technology transfer, and this is positively the final word, there is not much of a problem. Because of the penetration of Australia by multinationals-and I do not use that term pejoratively in this case-they have access to the latest technology. It is only a telex away. As a result, we get the latest technology here but there is not much that we can do with it. We can use it, but it has no export potential for us. Technology transfer is a one way passage here. All too often, when technologies are brought into Australia, there is a franchise limitation under which a firm in Australia can use it, but only on the condition that it does not market it outside of its own domestic area. That is the problem, the target area is then too small. I thank honourable members for their support for the Bill. This is an historic day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(1.24) —I thank the Government for the opportunity it has given me to say a few words at this stage. I am very concerned that in time the Government should look further at this particular legislation in the interests of the small business community. Firstly, I draw attention to the fact that, as I read the explanatory memorandum, the Bill is addressed to companies, to the corporate structure only. I attempted to get that information from the Bill itself, but its complexity was such that I do not think the average small businessman would be able to learn much from it. Firstly, under proposed new section 73b, again the corporate structure, not the small business community, is being considered. But more importantly, even the threshold or partial threshold of $20,000 per annum for expenditure, is not the sort of money that many small employers-particularly those that are not incorporated-could afford. I am well aware that provision has been made for that and am well aware that such people can invest with such institutions as universities, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and, I think, the Joint Coal Board, but that in itself concerns me greatly. I, for instance, remember well some of the backers of Ralph Sarich. I am a personal friend of one of them. There is no way in the world that that man would have ever had $20,000, or even $10,000, with which to assist Sarich, who was originally a backyard innovator. The point is that I am now afraid that, because such an individual could have the opportunity to invest with a university, he might not invest with Ralph Sarich-if Ralph Sarich were not in the position that he is in today. So really I am saying that there is the opportunity for people with small amounts of money to place their investments with a contractor, namely an institution; that they may be attracted to it because of the 150 per cent deductibility provision when, in fact, if the deductibility was equally available, they might prefer to assist some small innovator in his garage in the early stages of his work. The reality of the process of invention, as I am sure the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will agree, is that it is initiated by very small people-frequently in the backyard or the household kitchen. I am not being critical in this. I just see it as a situation that must be addressed. We have to look, firstly, at the role of the unincorporated person because if he has a good invention and is prepared to risk his money, he should have the same rights as has a corporation. Secondly, I think it is very risky to try to direct small amounts of money to universities only because, as I have said, I have had personal experience in observing people and assisting an innovator who has now created great inventions for Australia. I promised to speak briefly on this matter, about which I am concerned. I hope that the Government, as it sees this Bill develop, will do something about that aspect. Let us remember that Ralph Sarich probably at that time did not have the cash to attract even the grants that the Government is making available. He needed someone else's help and, as the film industry has made very clear, people will invest, if only for the tax deduction involved. I guess that the Government recognises that and sees the tax incentive as a worthwhile means of attracting investment. However, I ask it please not to direct those small amounts of money away from the small innovators who might bring us great inventions. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(1.28) —in reply-If I could just respond briefly, I think that the honourable member has made a very reasonable point. It will be taken into account. In my enthusiasm I should have commented earlier that if companies are spending less than the $50,000, which is the cut-off figure in-house, a $20,000 threshold applies. I said that they could spend $25; that was a bit of hyperbole. What I meant was that if companies paid for a number of small developments and aggregated them, they could pass that $20,000 threshold. In a period like ours, there will probably be more return from the development of processes than the development of a single invention-the better mousetrap. We need to create stronger industrial and research structures. There may be merit in small entrepreneurs banding together to form new corporate structures. I put that to the honourable member very strongly. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now a read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Taxation Laws Amendment (Foreign Tax Credits) Bill 1986 Income Tax (Securities and Agreements) (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1986 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 4, clause 11, proposed new sub-section 128a (1a), line 15, leave out ``For'', insert ``Subject to sub-section; (1b), for''. No. 2-Page 4, clause 11, after proposed new sub-section 128a (1a), add the following new sub-section: `` `(1b) Sub-section (1a) applies as if paragraph (c) of the definition of ``qualifying security'' in sub-section 159gp (1) were omitted.'.''. No. 3-Page 27, clause 21, proposed new sub-section 221yma (6), line 33, leave out ``For'', insert ``Subject to sub-section (7), for''. No. 4-Page 27, clause 21, at end of proposed new section 221yma, add the following new sub-section: `` `(7) Sub-section (6) applies as if paragraph (c) of the definition of ``qualifying security'' in sub-section 159gp (1) were omitted.'.''. No. 5-Page 29, clause 25, proposed new sub-section 221ysa (4), line 5, leave out ``For'', insert ``Subject to sub-section (5), for''. No. 6-Page 29, clause 25, at end of proposed new sub-section 221ysa (4), add the following new paragraphs: ``(c) expressions used in this section that are also used in Division 16e of Part III have the same respective meanings as in that Division; and (d) sections 159gv (other than sub-section 159gv (2)) and 159gz apply as if references in those sections to ``this Division'' were references to ``section 221ysa''.''. No. 7-Page 29, clause 25, at end of proposed new section 221ysa, add the following new sub-section: `` `(5) Sub-section (4) applies as if paragraph (c) of the definition of ``qualifying security'' in sub-section 159gp (1) were omitted.'.''. No. 8-Page 30, clause 26, proposed new sub-section 223 (9e), line 36, leave out ``For'', insert ``Subject to sub-section (9f), for''. No. 9-Page 30, clause 26, after proposed new sub-section 223 (9e), add the following new sub-section: `` `(9f) Sub-section (9e) applies as if paragraph (c) of the definition of ``qualifying security'' in sub-section 159gp (1) were omitted.'.''. No. 10-Page 31, clause 27, lines 1 to 13, leave out the clause. No. 11-Page 31, clause 28, proposed new sub-section 265b (1), line 17, leave out ``For'', insert ``Subject to sub-section (1a), for''. No. 12-Page 31, clause 28, after proposed new sub-section 265b (1), insert the following new sub-section: `` `(1a) Sub-section (1) applies as if paragraph (c) of the definition of ``qualifying security'' in sub-section 159gp (1) were omitted.'.''. No. 13-Page 34, clause 32, proposed new sub-section 8j (16), line 18, leave out ``For'', insert ``Subject to sub-section (17), for''. No. 14-Page 34, clause 32, after proposed new sub-section 8j (16), add the following new sub-section: `` `(17) Sub-section (16) applies as if paragraph (c) of the definition of ``qualifying security'' in sub-section 159gp (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 were omitted.'.''. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(1.33) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. These amendments were moved on behalf of the Government in the Senate. Amendments numbered 1 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11 to 14 will correct a drafting error in the definition of `qualifying security', as that term is to apply to the measures contained in the Bill to strengthen the interest withholding tax provisions of the income tax law. The definition of a qualifying security is contained in those provisions of the Bill that will implement an accruals method of assessment to eliminate the tax deferral that discounted and other deferred interest securities offer resident taxpayers. As a drafting technique, that definition and others that are also relevant are imported into the interest withholding tax provisions of the Bill. Because deferral of the tax is not an issue with securities having a term of less than one year, one of the tests contained in the definition of a `qualifying security' for the purpose of the accruals method of assessment is that the security is issued for a term in excess of one year. On the other hand, one of the interest withholding tax avoidance techniques being addressed by the Bill-broadly the sale of a qualifying security before its redemption-can occur regardless of the term of the security. Due to an oversight, the definition of `qualifying security', as it is to apply in the interest withholding tax provisions, was not expressed to do so, omitting reference to the term of the security. The unintended effect of this is to exclude from the scope of the interest withholding tax measures relevant securities issued for a term of one year or less. These amendments will rectify that. We are glad that they were picked up, of course, in the deliberations in the Senate. They have been corrected there and are now brought here for this House to agree to. Amendment No. 6 will remedy a technical omission in clause 25 of the Bill by incorporating relevant definitions from an associated measure that were inadvertently omitted from that clause. The final amendment, No. 10, will omit clause 27 of the Bill. Clause 27 effectively provides that a person who relies in good faith on a false notice issued for the purpose of either of the measures applying to a `qualifying security', will not be liable for penalty additional tax which, by reason of other provisions of the Bill, is to be imposed in relation to the making of false or misleading statements. On further examination it has been concluded that those other provisions are so drafted that, in conjunction with the proper interpretation of the existing law in this area, the person concerned would not, in the circumstances I have described, be regarded as having made a false statement attracting penalty additional tax. Accordingly, we have decided that there is no need specifically to provide for the remission of such tax as is proposed by clause 27 and it is to be omitted from the Bill. Once again, I am glad that this was picked up before the Bill had gone through the Senate. It is complicated legislation. I do commend the Australian Taxation Office, the tax branch of Treasury and the Parliamentary Counsel for the hard work done in order to bring to fruition yet another measure which is part of the Government's taxation reform-a reform designed to get rid of so many of the rorts that existed in the taxation system that it inherited from the previous Government. We are anxious to make sure that all honest taxpayers-that includes of course wage and salary earners in particular who have the tax taken from the source of their income-should enjoy a reduction in taxation. There will, of course be a taxation alleviation, a little later this year and again next year, as already promised. These measures help to receive, from those who have been getting away with some form of taxation avoidance, the funds that are needed in order to relieve those who have been paying too much tax. I commend the amendments to the House. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(1.38) —It might have been better said by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), when he was congratulating the Australian Taxation Office on its work on this particular measure, that the amendments relate mostly to changes in interest withholding tax which were announced in December 1984. The Taxation Office had a very, very long time indeed-from December 1984 until May 1986-to prepare this particular piece of legislation, yet we find that 2 1/2 pages of changes, 14 amendments in all, come back to us now. The reason for that, I presume, is that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in introducing all the other tax Bills as part of his so-called reform-involving an additional 625 pages of legislation since last September-has been over-working the Tax Office and that some material its officers has sitting around in the drawer since December 1984 inadvertently got rolled over by the steam roller. The Opposition does not oppose the amendments. They are necessary for this particular provision to work and of course we, as I indicated before, supported the changes in interest withholding tax to close some loopholes according to the Treasurer's announcement of December 1984. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 47, clause 138, proposed section 39a, definition of ``refund decision'', line 38, after ``a decision'', insert ``made on or after 1 July 1986''. No. 2-Page 48, clause 139, at end of proposed sub-section 40 (3), add ``or within such further time as the Commissioner allows''. No. 3-Page 70, clause 188, proposed sub-section 10 (5), definition of ``refund decision'', line 13, after ``a decision'', insert ``made on or after 1 July 1986''. No. 4-Page 86, sub-clause 217 (2), lines 17 to 21, leave out the sub-clause. No. 5-Page 86, sub-clause 217 (3), line 22, after ``1930'', insert ``as in force on 1 July 1986''. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(1.42) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. These amendments were moved on behalf of the Government in the Senate. Clause 138 proposes the repeal of section 39a of the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) and the insertion of a new section 39a which will define certain terms for the purposes of Part VII of the Act. The term `refund decision' is defined in new section 39a and is intended to refer to decisions made on or after 1 July 1986 in relation to applications for a refund of tax. The amendment of clause 138 will ensure that the term `refund decision' means only a decision made on or after 1 July 1986. Clause 139 of the Bill will repeal sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 1) Act and insert several new sections to deal with objections, reviews and appeals. Proposed sub-section 40 (3) will limit the kind of refund decisions against which a person may object in relation to an application lodged within 60 days of the transaction that gives rise to the refund entitlement. However, situations may arise where a person does not become aware of an entitlement to a refund within the 60 day time limit and the amendment of clause 139 will allow the Commissioner in appropriate circumstances to accept as valid an objection against a decision on an application for refund made outside the 60 day time limit. Clause 188 proposes to substitute a new section 10 in the Sales Tax Procedure Act. Sub-section 10 (5) contains definitions to assist in the interpretation of section 10. The amendment of clause 188 will amend the definition of `refund decision' in the same manner as will the proposed amendment of clause 138 referred to earlier. Clause 217 of the Bill is a transitional provision dealing with sales tax matters. The amendment of the definition of `refund decision' in clauses 138 and 188 means that proposed sub-clause 217 (2) will become unnecessary. The amendment of sub-clause 217 (3) will correct a minor technical error in the Bill by making it clear that the section referred to in the sub-clause is the section enforced on and after 1 July 1986. We all recognise that this is very complicated legislation. I repeat my tribute to, not only the Parliamentary Counsel, but also the officers of the Australian Taxation Office and all who have, indeed, worked so hard to follow through the Government's objective of achieving a better and fairer taxation system in this country. It is complicated. I wish that it could be easier but so obscure are some of the methods used by taxpayers out there to seek to avoid tax, that complicated legislation is needed to remedy the situation. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(1.45) —The Opposition will not oppose these amendments. I would merely like to express my disappointment in respect of the matters that I raised during the debate, concerning particularly the transfer of jurisdiction from the Taxation Boards of Review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the hearing of appeals by taxpayers against assessments. Only last night I received a letter from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), who is at the table, replying to points made in the debate and I have not had a chance to take it up in any detail with external advisers. I am not fully satisfied with the explanations about the rights of appeal, for example. If I may quote the Minister's letter, referring to my concern that rights of appeal would not be as full as they were under the Boards of Review system, he says: However, while the right of appeal from a decision of the AAT will not be the same as that now available, there is an additional offsetting factor in that the AAT, unlike the TBR- the Taxation Board of Review- includes members who are judges, thereby affording the opportunity for a hearing of the merits of a case by a person who is a judge. It is really extraordinary logic to argue as the Minister does that a person does not have a right of appeal denied because in the original hearing a judge was amongst those who heard the case. That is an extraordinary piece of logic which I fail to follow. I might say that the Opposition really is not satisfied, insofar as we have been able to examine these arguments put forward by the Minister, with his response. There has not been enough time for the Parliament to examine this particular measure properly. It is one that has a great deal of complexity. It represents a fundamental change in the way in which appeals are heard. The Minister, by way of explanation on this point, says that the legislation is based on a report by the Administrative Review Council which has been available for about three years. That is true, but we do know that legislation is a different matter. Translating the report of a body on a matter into legislation is a complicated process and the review of the legislation by the Parliament cannot be equated with the examination of the recommendations of a body of inquiry. It is a different matter entirely, so we still say that we have not had enough time to look at this and are supported in that by the various professional bodies, the Institute of Taxation, the Bar Council and so on. So we will not oppose the amendments, but would merely register our continuing protest at the way in which such a vast bulk of complicated legislation has been pushed through both Houses as if they were a sausage machine. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Connolly had moved by way of Amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provided for the land described in the Schedule to be granted as a lease in perpetuity to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Counil'. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(1.48) —My speech on the Bill was interrupted to make way for the adjournment last night. When the debate was interrupted I was mentioning three important reasons for the presentation of this Bill. The first is that the Government should have legislation for Aboriginal land rights in its own territory. Land rights for Aborigines are the principal requirements for correcting the injustices of the past and establishing a sound basis for freedom and development in the future. The second reason is that there is strong and justified pressure by members of the community for a land grant and, thirdly is that it is essential to clarify the ownership of the land so that uncertainty about titles to housing on the land and obligations for rental payments can be cleared up. With clarification of land titles, it will be possible for more housing to be built, and this is overdue. A particularly important section of the legislation provides for the granting of title to further land adjoining the proposed grant area, if justified to the satisfaction of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Territories. The Government is prepared to amend the legislation as is proposed by the Opposition, so as also to require parliamentary approval of any further grants of land. That means that if the community agrees that it wants to make another claim and can prepare such claim and justify it, the claim will be seriously considered. So this legislation is not necessarily a final statement on land for the Wreck Bay community. The importance of the legislation is that it does provide unambiguously for the transfer of a substantial parcel of land, and for a process by which any further claims may be considered. That is a very important step forward. Another vital part of the Bill relates to the establishment of a community council. A register of people eligible to vote for the council will be prepared and annual elections will be held for a nine member executive, three members of which will be office holders. That executive will have responsibility for the affairs of the community through the year. The council will provide a mechanism for ensuring consultation within the community, a structure which has not existed in recent years. The establishment of the council will encourage discussion and facilitate reaching agreement within the community. The most important aspect of this occasion is that it provides an opportunity to welcome this Bill warmly, to wholeheartedly support it, and to express the wish that it will provide the mechanism for drawing members of the Wreck Bay community closer, by providing a framework for reaching agreement on programs which will improve the well-being of the whole community. The Bill gives ground for that hope. I look forward to having contact with the community during the period when the community council is being established and when it is at work. I congratulate those members of the community and those government officers who have worked so hard to achieve this land grant and hope that their effort will be fully rewarded. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(1.52) —Obviously the prospect of this group of Aboriginal people in the Jervis Bay area receiving 400 or so hectares of land on which to continue their lives, because they have been living there for many years, is a prospect that I think everyone would support. It is merely the terms and conditions on which the grant is made that we are arguing about. This House does not get many chances to discuss Aboriginal land rights mainly because the Hawke Government does not particularly want to hear about them, let alone talk about them. Since the Hawke Government has done a political side step around its imminent Australian Labor Party National Conference and has deferred action to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act until after that event, if then, I must try to satisfy myself by talking on this Bill. The form of title for this tiny parcel of land rights is the same as that given and on offer across the huge expanse of the Northern Territory. Let me tell honourable members that, under the terms of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, 98 per cent of the Northern Territory, which comprises one-sixth of the surface area of Australia, is available for claim. In some ways the 403 hectares of Jervis Bay is a microcosm of what is happening in the Territory. This legislation is just as patronising, just as full of bureaucratic paternalism and regulation, as is the disaster that is known as land rights in the Northern Territory. The most obvious paternalism is that while this legislation gives land it does so with considerable reservation. The trustees, the Wreck Bay Community Council, may not sell or mortgage any part of that title. How can a government morally justify one form of land tenure for some and another for everyone else? The title given the Wreck Bay Community Council should be the same as that given other Australians, the vast majority of whom hold their land in fee simple. On the one hand the Government speaks in sanctimonious tones of `self-determination'. I think that is the current phraseology. Certainly `self-determination' was the buzz phrase in the time of the Whitlam Government. I remember that in Mr Fraser's time the term became `self-management'. `Self-reliance' has been used at different times. I suppose in a way they all mean the same thing. In a philosophical context I support them. Community decision-making has not been enhanced by the advent of land rights in the Northern Territory. Aborigines in the Territory now hold some 50 per cent of the land. Unfortunately, problems such as petrol sniffing and the abuse of alcohol-the latter being a problem that is not unique to the Aboriginal community-have not gone away simply because Aboriginals have suddenly become owners of 50 per cent of the Northern Territory. Madam Speaker, I believe that people in Aboriginal communities, are not necessarily going to be helped by being given the ownership of or title to land. What Aboriginal people really need is to be given the best possible education. I believe that that is what will help Aboriginal people take their rightful place, economically and socially, in Australian society. That opportunity is certainly now being given to them, at least in my electorate. This legislation is written in such terms as to indicate that it is to last forever. The arrogance of such legislation defies the imagination. Like it or not, it reflects a smug attitude of racial superiority which makes government and bureaucrats believe that it is their work that will preserve Aboriginal culture for all time in legislative concrete. This paternalism is apparent throughout the Bill. There are 19 pages of rules and regulations for the Wreck Bay Council. Many of the pages are devoted to how the Council will function, how it will administer, when and how it will meet, how many members it will have, how members may resign, how members may be elected, when the Deputy chairperson may act as the Chairperson and all the rest of it. So much for self-determination. They are not even to be allowed to write the rules for their own tiny Council, to run 400 hectares at Jervis Bay. The paternalistic theme continues. Council cannot enter contracts in excess of a lousy $1,000 without receiving the specific approval of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table. The Commonwealth will have to be a party to any mining agreement between the Council and a mining company. Major works or projects will have to be approved by the Minister. It gets worse. Even grievances within the Wreck Bay community, disputes between members, will be sorted out under the benign and patronising bureaucracy. This legislation creates an overall supervising authority, the Registrar, who we discover is to be an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Registrar is to be the ultimate authority. In short, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is to be the ultimate authority. The Department is to decide who shall and shall not be a member of the Wreck Bay community. They are not even allowed to decide that for themselves. The Registrar is to call the first meeting-so much for self-determination-and preside over it until the election of a Chairperson occurs. The Registrar can call meetings any time he or she believes that the offices of Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson are vacant, or those officers are incapable of carrying out their duties. The Registrar is to sort out disputes and mediate in grievances-the paternal hand of the bureaucracy, the story of Commonwealth-imposed Aboriginal land rights in Australia today. I say in Australia but I should say in the Northern Territory, because that is where the great weight of Commonwealth bureaucratic paternalism has fallen. This legislation has been framed in such a way that the Parliament is given no real say in how Jervis Bay land rights is to operate. Public access is neither guaranteed nor denied. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the honourable member for the Northern Territory will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Madam SPEAKER —On 11 March and again on 13 March this year I informed the House of an industrial dispute within the parliamentary catering service. This dispute has been settled and on Tuesday of this week the final formal steps were taken to incorporate into an award of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a simplified designation structure involving the concept of multi-skilling and new pay rates for catering staff in accordance with a judgment handed down on 30 April 1986 by the Commission. The date of effect of the pay rates is 1 May 1986. As well as the new classification structure and pay rates, negotiations with the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union on this matter have led to agreement to revise certain working conditions and long-standing working arrangements. The changes will enable the parliamentary catering service to operate more cost-effectively and will provide an improved working environment for staff. The multi-skilling concept and other new working arrangements are being introduced progressively. The Union has indicated to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission its intention to pursue a further salary claim in conjunction with the Australian Council of Trade Unions based on the wage fixing principle dealing with anomalies and inequities. Mr BLUNT —I refer the Minister for Social Security to the story in today's Sydney Morning Herald about a New Zealand family living in Australia and travelling from Perth to Darwin on holidays while drawing unemployment benefits. Will the Minister explain why the work test and the other provisions of section 107 were not applied? Is it his policy to pay unemployment benefits to holidaymakers? Does the Minister intend to recover this money? As the Minister's current policy has failed to stop abuse, what new initiatives does he now propose? Mr HOWE —There was a chorus of suggestions that I might say something about the identification card. On the question of the Smith family, obviously I am not in a position to discuss the circumstances of the situation. Mr Sinclair —You don't read the newspapers in the morning? Mr HOWE —If it were not for the news- papers and the headlines we would never get a question from the right honourable member or any of his colleagues on the Opposition benches. Honourable members opposite live off headlines, because basically they have very little of substance to say on any issue in this Parliament. The honourable member for Richmond, for example, since he has been in his shadow portfolio position may have asked only three or four questions in the best part of 18 months, none of which have gone to a substantive matter of social policy. If I might say so he is something of a cheerful guttersnipe. He is someone who can never get into the larger issues, because they are not what he is concerned about or what he is on about. Let me go back to the question. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Could I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw that remark about my colleague? I regard it as being unparliamentary-it was cheap and contemptuous. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw the comment. Mr HOWE —I withdraw. Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk to some students from my electorate who were visiting Parliament House. They referred to various things that they had read in the newspapers and I had to point out to them that not everything one reads in the newspapers is correct. While I am not able to go into the particular circumstances of this matter, as I said, let me say that the assumption in the honourable member's question-that whatever one reads in the newspapers is right-in this case may not be a reasonable one, if it can ever be a reasonable assumption. With respect to New Zealanders, let me say that I, and I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs, regret the slander that has occurred on the part of members of the Opposition of New Zealand people who have settled in Australia, many of them permanently. Day in and day out the honourable member for Richmond has been prepared to appear on any radio talk-back program or any television program where he can have a shot at people from New Zealand who are in this country. We pay social security benefits in Australia by virtue of people's inherent rights to those benefits as permanent residents in this country, but on occasions we pay pensions and benefits by virtue of a social security agreement. I indicated to the member for Richmond some time ago in this House that I was seeking to renegotiate the social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand. I told him that. Of course, the fundamental concern that we have with that agreement goes not to the matter that has been raised by the honourable member but to the lack of reciprocity with respect to portability. So, as Minister I intervened in the negotiations and said that I believed that we ought to rethink the renegotiation of that agreement in the light of the question of portability. Incidentally, at that time I said to the honourable member that it was my intention to look specifically at the provisions that related to the payment of unemployment benefit, particularly to people in the first 12 months. It ought to be understood by this Parliament that with respect to New Zealand we deal with very special circumstances. In the sense that we have a closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand, we have a situation which is much more open with respect to people entering this country than we have with any other country. We do not require visas. Mr Hawke —It operated under the previous Government. Mr HOWE —As the Prime Minister points out, the arrangements have been in place for some time and operated under the previous Government without, to my understanding, any question. I indicated to the Hon. Ann Hercus when I was in New Zealand that it was my concern that we should arrive at some special conditions which would involve changes in the agreement which would involve legislation going through the New Zealand Parliament. Those matters still have to go to Cabinet here in Australia before being finally resolved. But I am quite sure that Cabinet will agree to take some steps in this respect. Let me say that the basis of the honourable member's question was simply to pick up this morning's headline, pick up the name Smith and then assert, in the form of a question, some facts concerning that family. Mr Blunt —I raise a point of order under standing order 145 concerning relevance. I seek leave to table section 107 of the Act so that the Minister can provide a relevant answer. Leave not granted. Mr GEAR —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence and relates to this Government's commitment to opening opportunities for women in the armed forces. Can the Minister indicate Australian Defence Force policy on the employment of women as air crew? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question, which is slightly different in character from those that I have been receiving over the last week or so. I also thank the honourable member for the assiduous representations he has been making on behalf of one or two of his constituents who wish to take advantage of the opportunities that are now open to women in the defence forces. Our recent policies on the employment of women in the armed services do reflect a real commitment to the expansion of career and employment opportunities for women in the Australian Defence Force. Figures of 1 May 1986 indicate that there is a strong and continuing trend for an increasing number of women to take their place in the forces. The number is increasing at the rate of about one per cent per month. The total number of women in the defence forces has increased by 11.7 per cent since the introduction of these policies in August 1984. In fact, we now stand very high in that regard, and, in terms of female participation in the armed services, I think only Israel, the United States-although only narrowly-and Canada are ahead of us in that regard. So, there has been a very substantial advance in that area. With regard to admittance of women to air crews on Royal Australian Air Force planes, there has been a degree of difficulty in that regard around the question of the reserve crews for combat aircraft that it would be necessary to maintain were combat to break out. Of course, that places us in a situation with regard to them which means that we have to be fairly careful to make sure that the ratios stand. Notwithstanding this requirement, the Defence Force is proposing to open a number of aircrew positions to women in 1987. It is envisaged that this number will include pilots, navigators and loadmasters. The actual number of positions expected to be available is still under consideration by the Air Force, but such positions will come into place and will be made available on a merit basis. Mr PORTER —I refer the Minister for Health to his submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, which identified the cost over a ten-year period of using the Australia Card to attack social security fraud as $18.125m and the savings as $18.125m. Is the Minister aware that the Joint Select Committee report, agreed by all members of that Committee, states: The Government's submission reveals that the Department of Social Security would have no net gain from the introduction of a national identity card scheme. Will the Minister now table the new evidence he has to substantiate the claim he made yesterday that the Australia Card will save money in the area of social welfare fraud? Dr BLEWETT —It is very easy to answer that question. The Government took serious notice of the recommendations made by the majority of the members of that inquiry. If the honourable member reads his own recommendations he will see that he recommended that an identifying number would be of value in dealing with social security fraud. We took the recommendations of the majority committee on board, and that is why I am confidently able to make that statement. Mr KEOGH —Has the attention of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism been drawn to statements made by sections of the hospitality industry that their industry will be adversely affected by the fringe benefits tax? Is that correct? Mr JOHN BROWN —My attention has been drawn to statements made by certain sections of the hospitality industry, particularly by the Australian Tourist Industry Association, ATIA, and various others. Most of their advice has been, to say the least, misleading and probably, put in its worst perspective, fairly mischievous. I am pleased to be able to remove some of that confusion by putting the record straight. The Government does recognise the circumstances pertaining to in-house accommodation for employees. It has never intended that the fringe benefits tax for employees would be calculated at the full commercial tariff of the hotel or motel concerned. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised us that the cost of the accommodation for somebody living in in an hotel would be determined at a commercial rate for similar accommodation away from the hotel, less the value of the board, less in cities 25 per cent. So the statements of gloom and doom that have been cast abroad by ATIA are certainly very wrong, particularly in the area of remote hotels, motels, resorts, et cetera-for instance, off-shore island resorts. I can assure the House that in this case the rent would be calculated at a figure which recognises the special circumstances surrounding the particular remote hotel or motel, discounted by 40 per cent, minus the board that would be paid. The particular case that was given a great deal of prominence involved a suggestion that a motel on a remote section of the Nullabor Plain-the Nullabor Motel with 20 employees-would be up for $104,000 annually in fringe benefits tax. I can assure the people who perpetrated that little story that they were just 800 per cent wrong; they increased the amount eight times. It will be around $13,000, not $104,000. They made a slight mistake, but that is the sort of thing we get regularly from ATIA. I have seen a rather flagrant pamphlet put abroad by them in the last couple of weeks which lists all the disadvantages. Of course, as the Treasurer has pointed out here so often, they fail to recognise that there will be imputation of dividends, that section 7 tax will be removed, and that personal income tax will be reduced quite considerably. All the benefits, of course, are neglected. We only hear the gloom. I also make reference to the suggestion that, if, say, a kid working at McDonald's is given a hamburger the employer would be forced to pay fringe benefits tax on the value of that hamburger. That will not be the case. It does not apply to casual employees. In the case of people living full time in a hotel or motel, or who have their meals in a restaurant where they work permanently, the value of the meal will be determined at $2 for an adult and $1 for a child. That is in great contrast with the ridiculous figures that have been cast abroad. Of course, the shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson, has been quick to back up these assertions with some stories of his own. I notice that last night in the House he gave some grudging credit to the fact that the Government has done something to help tourism. He also said that it is our only growth industry and our biggest employer. For once he was right, but only half right. It is not the only growth industry, but it is one of the growth industries-perhaps the biggest-and certainly it is the biggest employer in Australia, with something like 400,000 people employed. There have been 50,000 new jobs created in that industry in the last two years. I think I should make a few observations about the most recent figures for visa issues, and I will use Japan as an example. There has been a 48 per cent increase in the issuance of visas from Japan in the last three months-an enormous increase. It proves that at least the shadow Minister was half right. In summing up, I am sure that most members of the House would agree that tourism is an industry that has prospered enormously under this Government. It seems to me to be a pity that some sections of the industry, for some peculiar reason-political or otherwise-are constantly knocking what is our biggest growth industry, an industry which is providing the most jobs. It is a pity that the Opposition seeks to support these sections of the industry in their misguided views. Finally, can I make an observation about some news reports today about the health of Paul Hogan-and I know that the Prime Minister is vitally interested in this information. I would like to assure the House that the Press reports about the health of Paul Hogan are rather exaggerated. He is in hospital. I am sure that every member of this House, recognising the enormous contribution that Paul Hogan, the Australian of the Year, has made to the tourism industry, will join me in wishing that his return to full health is very speedy. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his appalling record of broken promises on such issues as- Honourable members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —I am delighted to start my question again, and I will. I refer the Prime Minister to his appalling record of broken promises. Mr Carlton —He is looking for his broken promises folder. Mr HOWARD —Yes, and it is a loose-leaf one. It has to be brought up to date every month on such issues as the capital gains tax and his commitment to a simpler form of taxation, interest rates, petrol prices, inflation, overseas debt, the balance of payments, jobs under Priority One, and the 100,000 new jobs that were to come from devaluation of the dollar; and, what is more, on his clear intention to break his promise on tax cuts. Against that background, I therefore ask the Prime Minister: Why should any Australian trust or believe anything he says to them in his address to the nation next Wednesday? Mr HAWKE —May I say with all sincerity that I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. To get the Leader of the Opposition's question into some perspective, we might just have a look at his performance. I do have a loose-leaf folder, but it is about him and not about me. We will get some sort of idea of how he should be judged by his own performance. I would like to remind the House of what the Australian Financial Review had to say about the performance of this man in the delivery of his promises. I refer to the Australian Financial Review of 15 October 1982 in which that newspaper-and the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer at that time-generously said this: Barely two months after the presentation of the Government's Budget speech and estimates, it is now clear that the figures and the whole Budget strategy are a shambles. That is his performance. He referred to our performance in the area of tax. In one of his rare moments of honesty, he had this to say about his own performance in the area of tax. Speaking on 8 November 1983, he said: When the former Government left office taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product was higher than it was as a proportion of gross domestic product in 1975. That is a correct statement, it is there for all to see, and I cannot dispute it. That is what they did after all their period in office-a higher tax slug than when they came into office. Let us look at the Leader of the Opposition again. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I recognise that it is the last day of this session, but I think that we could have some decorum during Question Time. Mr HAWKE —Let us look at the Leader of the Opposition in the area of fringe benefits and we will see what his record is there. What did he have to say about fringe benefits in 1985? He invoked his friend, Mr Valder, the National President of his Party. We know what Mr Valder had said about fringe benefits. He said: `Of course they are right. Of course Mr Keating is right to be bringing them in. They have the courage to do it; it is the right thing to do. We want them to do it and if, perchance, the Australian people should not see the merits of this, we will reap the benefit! He was all in favour of it. What did this man here have to say about it? He said: What Mr Valder said on fringe benefits was not all that different from what a number of us have said. If you are able- said Mr Howard- to cut the top marginal rate of personal income tax, then it is fair in that context, and that context alone, to do something about fringe benefits. There he is. How does this hypocrite get up and say what he would have done? He is saying that, if his Party gets back into power, it will remove this legislation. He said that, if we bring down the top rate, it is proper to have a fringe benefits tax. Honest John! What did he say about the ID card? Let us look at what he said on 15 September 1985 about the ID card, when he was asked by Laurie Oakes and Peter Bowers in an interview on that date: `Where do you stand on the ID card?' It is a very bold question to ask him where he stands on anything. Talk about the shifting sands of Bennelong. This is what he had to say on 15 September 1985: I personally see some merit in having an ID card. As a matter of principle- This is the Leader of the Opposition talking about principles- I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration. But when he gets away from the area of principle and gets into the area of political expediency, he is a different gentleman because now he sees some political expediency in saying `No'. Now we will find out what he says about employment outcomes. He had something to say about the question of broken promises and employment creation. Let us look at what he said about that on 20 September 1983: Unemployment now appears set to rise even higher than the Government's Budget forecast because of the Government's full wage indexation policy. Listen to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in 1983: The election promise of 500,000 new jobs over three years is now joining the rest of Mr Hawke's empty promises on the scrapheap. The people of Australia know what has happened in three years. I am sorry; I did break that promise. I am sorry; I did not deliver 500,000 new jobs-it was 670,000 new jobs. One could go on with the shifting sands of this man opposite, but the people of Australia know well enough now the truth, and it is simple. In government he was the most disastrous Treasurer in the history of this country, who broke promise after promise, most particularly in the area of taxation. His incompetence as a Treasurer has only been matched by his abject failure as a Leader of the Opposition. Mr LEO McLEAY —Has the Foreign Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that today is the fourth anniversary of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and that Lebanon remains torn by civil war and Israeli forces remain in a self-proclaimed security zone in the south of the country? Has he been informed that the Government of Lebanon has proclaimed 6 June South Lebanon Day, to draw to the attention of the world the tragic plight of the people of Lebanon, and in particular those in the South of the country? Is the Foreign Minister aware of the proclamation of South Lebanon Day and does he remain saddened, as I am, by the tragedy which has for so long affected Lebanon and its people? Mr HAYDEN —I am both aware of the proclamation of South Lebanon Day and saddened by the situation affecting the Lebanese people. The Lebanese Ambassador has advised my Department of South Lebanon Day, and I understand a delegation from the Australian Lebanese community is visiting Canberra today for discussions with the Lebanese Embassy and with some of our colleagues on both sides of the House. The Government remains gravely concerned at the violence which continues to erupt in various areas of Lebanon, and the problems which confront the Government of Lebanon in bringing about the peaceful resumption of government authority over all of Lebanon. It is the belief of the Government that all external interference in Lebanon's internal affairs should cease and that all foreign forces in Lebanon should withdraw, except those there at the request of the Government of Lebanon. The Australian Government is not a party principal to efforts to promote a solution to the awful problems affecting Lebanon. It has, however, urged all parties involved to exercise maximum restraint and to enter into negotiations aimed at national reconciliation and a peaceful settlement to outstanding problems. In keeping with our concern and our membership of the Security Council, Australia has played an active role in the deliberations of the Security Council on Lebanon. Mr HODGES —My question is directed to the Treasurer. I remind him that he was overheard speaking to a leading journalist in the corridors of Parliament House last Friday when he said words to this effect: He has got to realise who is in f...ing charge of the economy. Will the Treasurer deny that the person to whom he was referring was the Prime Minister, or was it one of his Manchu Court advisers or minders? Mr KEATING —Generally if I speak to a journalist in the corridor I am not overheard-that is the first point. Also, I generally mention my colleagues favourably in Press releases-generally. Of course I deny the claim which the honourable gentleman made in his question. I understand this is a bit of mischievous behaviour on the part of the Opposition at the end of what has been a very poor session of parliament for it. This is no better illustrated than by the emptiness of the previous question from the Opposition-that, with all the matters of economic policy and the problems the nation at large faces, it should have put such a trivial and vacuous question to the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I take this opportunity to say that I can understand the Opposition feeling uncomfortable about its role and uncomfortable about the fact that when it was in government its Treasurer and Prime Minister never agreed about anything and had no rational basis for dealing with anything. One of the great strengths of this Government is that on all of the fundamentals of economic policy-that is, both past and present-I and the Prime Minister have been at one. Opposition members may chortle, but they look at me and the Prime Minister, if I may say, with appropriate humility-at the greatest partnership of economic achievement in half a century, facilitated by the earnest support of our colleagues in the Cabinet. Government members-Hey, what about the back bench? Mr KEATING —And, of course, especially my colleagues on the back bench. Let me make a serious point. I echo remarks I have made in recent times in the Parliament and elsewhere: Australia now faces a fundamental change in its economy, one which has been the root cause of our problems in external accounts for over two decades now, with a terminal decline in our import competing sector and a complete absence of any coherence in economic policy to deal with it. There has never been a more important time than now, when we face these difficulties, for the Government to know precisely what it wants to do. It does know precisely what it wants to do. In facing these problems the Prime Minister and I have precisely the same view of what the solutions ought to be and those solutions are shared by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I do not think at any time when we have been presented with difficulties as a government, in facing the problems we have had to face, we have been more united in our view of what the solutions may be. This may be a matter of discomfort for the Opposition, but even it should be interested in some sensible outcomes in this economy. Even though it may tell against the Opposition politically, it should wish the Government well in the deliberations it is now having with the business community and the trade unions. In speaking to our colleagues in the business community yesterday and in the trade unions today we will be putting a view which we are absolutely convinced is the most appropriate policy shifts for Australia at this time and we urge their active support in them. That is in marked contrast to the division, confrontation, cat-calling and general lack of any common purpose which was displayed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was a Minister and his Government in the years they had the stewardship of this nation's affairs. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Given the practice of cheque book journalism, has the Minister investigated the possibility that Peter Sawyer, the author of `Dole Bludging: A Taxpayers Guide', may have been paid by Trans Media Promotions Pty Ltd for an interview? Has the Minister investigated that the source of payment was needed to underwrite the publication of the book? If any payment was made, is the author in breach of the Social Security Act? Further, is it proper for employers to pay employees knowing they are receiving a social security benefit and that a fee for service may breach eligibility criteria for the receipt of benefit? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the standing order which states that a minister is not able to give a legal opinion in this House. I suggest that the question relates to a breach of particular legislation, in this instance the Social Security Act. It requires a legal opinion and consequently the question is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —The question relates to the portfolio within the Minister's responsibility. I believe that it is competent for him to answer it. He will not be giving a legal opinion; he is not a lawyer. Mr HOWE —Thank you, Madam Speaker. The question asked by the honourable member is a very serious one. The matter certainly goes to questions of ethics, if not questions of law. I would have thought that if there were such a payment there would be a real question of breach of the Social Security Act. Further, real problems would be involved in the proposition that employers pay money to people when they know they are on unemployment benefit and know the particular circumstances. These issues are worthy of investigation and I assure the honourable member that they will be pursued further. If breaches of the law are involved they will be referred to the proper authority. Mr McARTHUR —Is the Treasurer aware that some rural awards prevent employers from charging for board and accommodation provided to their employees and that as a result some farmers will be totally liable to pay the anti-investment fringe benefits tax? What estimates has the Treasurer made as to the increase in unemployment in rural Australia which will result from the imposition of this new punitive payroll tax? Mr KEATING —On half a dozen occasions I have given the order of magnitude of the total collections from the tax and from that can obviously be drawn the modesty of its impact upon rural Australia. Nevertheless, I make just a couple of points of a general nature about the fringe benefits tax which I think are particularly important. I think the point which ought to be understood first is that there is a notion that if this tax were to be levied on the employee, rather than the employer, it would in some way decrease the complexity of the calculations. I make the point that all the valuation rules and substantiation procedures in the legislation would still be required if we had chosen to tax the employee under section 26 (e). In other words, if we had chosen to tax under the existing rule with all those difficulties, the valuation rules and substantiation procedures would be precisely the same as they are now. In addition, however, there would be additional requirements on the employer to identify fringe benefits for each employee and to make pay as you earn deductions rather than simply to pay quarterly as with the fringe benefits tax. Mr Braithwaite —Why? Mr KEATING —The honourable member asks why. The answer is that tax is paid on the basis of the value to the employee under section 26 (e). An employer would have to make a precise calculation of the value to each and every employee-not to pay the tax in block on a quarterly basis, but to make the calculations for PAYE deduction purposes each week. The other point is that, if we tax the employee, the employer would still legally be required to calculate, withhold and pay the tax. There is some notion that if the tax is on the employee there is no obligation for calculation and withholding by the employer. That is wrong. This procedure would apply whenever the Commonwealth decided to tax fringe benefits, regardless of whether it was taxing the employer or the employee. The next question that has been thrown about by the Opposition is: Would the tax burden on the employer be less than it would be under the fringe benefits tax if we levied it on the employee? Under either approach the result depends on the extent to which the burden is shared between the employer and the employee. The honourable member for Curtin, who is trying to interject, should listen. All the experience of attempting to apply section 26 (e) indicates that it is ludicrous to assume that under that approach the employer would not bear a large share of the burden. When the former Treasurer tried to tax the fringe benefits of those in the Bowen Basin the costs went back to the employer. In short, the choice between taxing the employee and taxing the employer is not a choice between extremes. Other than in the very short term, the burden on the employer is unlikely to be very different under either approach. In other words, if we were to tax the employee, the employee would then require the employer to carry part of the cost-or all of it. That result would come about by the industrial disputation which would ensue. Mr Braithwaite —Oh, Bob! No wonder you want to take over. Mr KEATING —Of course it would. I will give an indication. First, there was a six-week stoppage in the Bowen Basin when the former Treasurer tried to do this and finally had to walk away from doing so with a legislative amendment. Those opposite know that these are the facts. Let us consider the living away from home allowance for workers in Bass Strait. Does anybody believe that in a shut-in of production in Bass Strait the Commonwealth would sit and watch that happen with all the attendant problems in the economy for oil supply, revenue and what have you? There are thousands of other situations in which the costs would end up being borne by the employer. So the calculation is more complex and costly to the employer on the basis of taxing the employee than it is under the fringe benefits tax. The ultimate costs would either partly or fully be borne by the employer anyway. Whenever the Commonwealth decided to tax fringe benefits, as it had to do with high marginal rates over a narrow income range, the complexity of calculation, withholding and PAYE deductions would always have been there. It would have been there in a bigger way if we had levied the tax on the basis of each individual employee. That is well understood by everyone outside this Parliament, if not by the Opposition. Secondly, I repeat that the simple notion that had the actual cost of the tax been carried by employees there would have been no industrial disputation and no cost borne by the employer is fairyland stuff that I thought even the Opposition would not believe. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I direct my question to the versatile Minister for Defence. I remind him that in the last spring session the Minister answered in this House a question on one of the guard dogs of the Royal Australian Air Force. Can the Minister advise the House of the present status of the RAAF guard dog Sheriff? Mr BEAZLEY —A number of honourable members have expressed an interest in this dog. I am pleased to be able to report that Sheriff is presently located at the RAAF Base Amberley police dog section under the personal care of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The dog is being used as a pool dog; that is, a dog that is able to work with a variety of handlers on flight line security with continued training in attack work. There is a possibility of Sheriff being reteamed with an individual handler at a future date. No deprogramming has been initiated as Sheriff is still used in the attack role and is handled by any RAAF security guard requiring the use of a pool dog. Sheriff was transported to his present location by RAAF C130 aircraft. This aircraft was on a training flight on 14 October 1985 to Richmond from Sale. Sheriff was transported the following day to RAAF Amberley on the regular northern service C130. I trust that this advice puts all honourable members' minds at rest about the well-being of Sheriff. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 4 June 1986 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Primary Industry administration of meat inspection services by the Export Inspection Service. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 4 June 1986 upon an efficiency audit of the Department of Primary Industry administration of meat inspection services by the Export Inspection Service. (2) That the report be printed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —On 15 April 1986, I informed the House that I would table the statements of private interests made to me by Ministers in 1985. For the information of honourable members I now table those documents. The statements have been retyped for the purposes of tabling, but the only alterations from the original documents relate to the deletion of private addresses which are not readily available to the public, and money amounts of assets and liabilities which have traditionally not been made public. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters) —Pursuant to section 37a of the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984, I present a copy of Determination No. 1 of 1986 made pursuant to the Australian Trade Commission Act, which provides for promotion appeals within the Commission to be made to promotion appeal committees established under sub-division B of division 2 of the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 140 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the corresponding provision of the statutes relating to recoupment tax, sales tax, bank accounts debits tax, payroll tax, estate duty, gift duty, Australian Capital Territory stamp duty and tax, wool tax, tobacco charge and stevedoring industry charge, I present taxation statistics for 1983-84 which are supplementary to the sixty-third report of the Commissioner of Taxation which I presented on 9 October 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to sub-section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report to the Prime Minister by the Australian Science and Technology Council on mechanisms for technology transfer into Australia. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Housing Assistance Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Housing Assistance Act for 1984. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, I present a report by the Inter-State Commission entitled `An Investigation of Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Assistance Rates'. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety entitled `Bicycle Helmet Safety'. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Building Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board for 1984-85. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of Aboriginal Hostels Limited for 1984-85. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on indigenous resource rights and mining companies in North America and Australia. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —For the information of honourable members, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a schedule of Government responses to parliamentary committee reports. Madam Speaker, the schedule was presented to the House by you on 21 May 1986. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS A. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEES Aboriginal Affairs Asbestos Mining Effects on the Baryugil Community-Tabled 9.10.84. Preparation of the Government's response to this report has involved detailed consultations with the New South Wales Government. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is considering the report in the light of those consultations. Environment and Conservation 1. Environmental Protection-Adequacy of Legislative and Administrative Arrangements-2nd Report-Tabled 27.10.81. Following extensive consultation, responses to aspects of the report dealing with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and environmental statistics are expected to be finalised shortly. 2. Hazardous Chemical Waste Storage, Transport and Disposal-Tabled 29.4.82 Hazardous Chemicals-2nd Report-Tabled 9.12.82 Following from the Government's action to establish the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and determination of its role in the management of hazardous chemicals, preparation of the Government's response to the two reports is now well advanced. 3. Protection of the Great Barrier Reef-Tabled 12.11.85. The report touched a number of portfolio interests, which have required consultation in preparation of a response. A response is nearing completion. 4. NSW World Heritage Properties: Commonwealth/State Administrative Arrangements-Tabled 26.11.85. The main thrust of this report is the identification of matters where Commonwealth assistance is required in the management of the NSW World Heritage properties. The Government's response is awaiting the outcome of consultation with the New South Wales Government on these matters, for consideration within the overall budget context. 5. Protection of the Greater Daintree-Tabled 24.8.84. Protection of the Greater Daintree area is being dealt with by the Government in the context of broader Government action on rainforest conservation. Proposals for rainforest conservation are currently being considered by the Government. 6. Protection of Bungle Bungle-Tabled 28.3.85. The Prime Minister has written to the Premier of Western Australia seeking the views of the Western Australian Government on the recommendations in the Report and there have been consultations at the official level on the future of Bungle Bungle. The Government's response must await advice of the views of the Western Australian Government. In the meantime, the Western Australian Minister for Conservation and Land Management has announced that the Bungle Bungle massif and surrounding area will be given national park status and that immediate steps will be taken to protect the area including the assignment of rangers. Expenditure 1. Control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-Tabled 13.11.85. Some of the recommendations in the report involve complex and substantial issues requiring consultation with a number of interested parties. The Government is not yet in a position to respond. 2. The Darling Harbour Fiasco-No Port in a Storm-Tabled 27.11.85. The Government is not yet in a position to respond to the report. Transport Safety 1. Education Training and Licensing of Drivers-Tabled 6.5.82. The Government's response to this report has been deferred to allow consultation with interested parties on a number of proposed initiatives. Bicycle Helmet Safety-Tabled 5.11.85. The Government's response will be tabled before the end of this sitting. B. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SELECT COMMITTEES Aircraft Noise Aircraft Operations and the Australian Community-Tabled 28.11.85. The Government's response has been deferred pending consideration by local government authorities of aspects of the report dealing with curfew arrangements. Aboriginal Education-Tabled 6.11.85. A number of recommendations of the report overlap with those of other reports, namely, the report of the Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training (Miller Report) and the Halton Task Force on Youth Allowance Administration. The latter report did not become available until March 1986. Careful consideration of all three reports is required to ensure a co-ordinated and comprehensive response to the identified education and training needs of Aboriginals. C. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEES Australian Capital Territory Parliamentary Zone Development Plan-Tabled 1.3.84. In its report of March 1984 on the draft Parliamentary Zone Development Plan, prepared by the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC), the Joint Standing Committee gave ``in-principle'' approval to the proposals contained in the draft Plan. In June 1984 the Government agreed that the Plan provided a suitable basis for submission to the relevant Committees of the Parliament for approval of proposals for the Mall, the lake foreshore and access roads. It was also decided that as appropriate opportunities arise, the Mall area should be considered as a suitable location for buildings of national or governmental significance having appropriate architectural merit. On 14 February 1986, the Minister for Territories tabled, for the information of honourable members, the NCDC's revised Parliamentary Zone Development Plan. Detailed proposals arising out of the Plan are currently under consideration by the Government. As the erection of buildings and the other works foreshadowed in the Plan require Parliament's approval, in accordance with the Parliament Act 1974, the Government does not consider any further response to the report to be necessary. National Crime Authority First Report-Tabled 29.11.85. The problem perceived by the Committee in its First Report has been discussed between the Committee, the National Crime Authority and the Minister. As a result of these discussions, there has been clarification of the apparent differences between the Authority and the Committee. The Government expects that these discussions will lead to the development of a sound relationship between the two bodies. New Parliament House Precincts of the New Parliament House and the Parliamentary Zone-Tabled 28.11.85. A response is currently under consideration. D. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEES Parliamentary Privilege-Tabled 3.10.84. The report raised a number of complex and substantial issues relating to parliamentary privilege. A draft response is currently being considered. Electoral Reform Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament- Tabled 17.2.86. The Government generally supports the Committee's proposals for, among other things, fixed formulae for determining Territorial representation in the Commonwealth Parliament. Legislation arising from this report will await any legislation resulting from the Committee's forthcoming reports. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a short personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HODGMAN —Last night in the Carleton-Walsh Report, Mr Richard Carleton, at the conclusion of the program, branded a statement I had made earlier that day as `irresponsible'. The dictionary defines `irresponsible' as `acting without responsibility'. I reject his snide comment. I made the statement utterly responsibly and in accordance with my duty as a member of this Parliament and a loyal citizen of Australia. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —The misrepresentation came from the mouth of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), who I may say is one of the Government Ministers not normally noted for misrepresentation. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, addressing a gathering in Canberra yesterday, made a completely false and erroneous statement. He is reported in today's Canberra Times as follows: `. . . (The Opposition Leader) Mr Howard has said that his policies will create five years of industrial confrontation before the benefits flow,' Senator Button said. I simply make the point very calmly and very quietly that I have never made any comment to that effect and I am particularly surprised that Senator Button should say that. If it had been the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) I would have understood, but I am particularly surprised that Senator Button should have said it. I have made no such admission, nor would I. The reality is that our industrial relations policy, to which the honourable senator was referring, is increasingly being seen by the Australian community as addressed to the deep seated problems this country faces. Mr PORTER(Barker) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PORTER —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr PORTER —In answer to my question regarding the failure of the identity card to result in any net saving in the area of social security fraud- Mr Brumby —You are a fraud. You are the biggest fraud in this place. Mr PORTER —The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) suggested- Mr Tuckey —Withdraw that! Mr Brumby —Well, you are. Mr Tuckey —Well, you bloody well withdraw that. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will resume their seats. Mr Robert Brown —You thug! Don't you dare interrupt like that. Mr Tuckey —What are you going to do? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Both honourable members will resume their seats. Mr Robert Brown —You are a thug. Mr Tuckey —Well, you are- Mr Robert Brown —You ought to be kicked out of this place, you thug. Mr Tuckey —You horrible little man. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor! Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! One moment, please. The Chair did not hear what the honourable member for Bendigo said. If it was offensive, I ask him to withdraw it. Mr Brumby —Madam Speaker, I indicated that the honourable member was-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair does not want to hear a repetition of what was said. The Chair would like a withdrawal if the remark was offensive. Mr Brumby —I do not believe it was offensive. Mr Tuckey —Oh, withdraw it! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is not in a position to judge this matter, not having heard the remark. Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, may I intervene? Oh, are you going to withdraw? Mr Brumby —I withdraw the statement. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I was also offended by the remarks of the honourable member for Charlton and I request that they be withdrawn. Mr Holding —You are continually offensive in this place. Mr Robert Brown —I was offended by your aggressive behaviour, too. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Tuckey —Well, you do it all the time-- Mr Robert Brown —You hit people with an iron bar. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Both honourable gentlemen will resume their seats. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will consider his position and consider the fact that the Chair is on her feet. Both honourable gentlemen will not bring their quarrel on to the floor of the House. The Chair will not tolerate such behaviour any further. I call the honourable member for Barker. Mr PORTER —I will start again. In answer to my question during Question Time today regarding the failure of the ID card to result in any net savings in the area of social security fraud, the Minister for Health suggested that the recommendations in the majority report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card-I am a member of that Committee-would result in an increase in the savings in the area- Madam SPEAKER —Is the honourable member for Barker showing the House where he personally has been misrepresented? Mr PORTER —Yes, I certainly shall. Madam SPEAKER —Please get to the part where you have been misrepresented. Mr PORTER —The Minister suggested that the recommendations of the majority report would result in an increase in revenue for the Government. No recommendation of the majority report will increase the prospect-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat. This is not a personal explanation. I call the honourable member for Richmond. Mr Porter —Madam Speaker, as a member of that-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has not been personally misrepresented. He will not argue with the Chair. He will resume his seat. Mr Porter —If the Minister is allowed to get away with the-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat. He is not making a personal explanation which, I might point out, he does with indulgence. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been personally misrepresented? Mr BLUNT —Yes, As a member of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, I was misrepresented by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) during Question Time today-- Madam SPEAKER —Were you personally misrepresented? Mr BLUNT —As a member of the Committee I was misrepresented-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. I point out to members of this House that a personal explanation means exactly what it says. An honourable member will show the House how he or she has been personally misrepresented. I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-In July 1983 I commissioned Mr Joseph Harkins, a former Deputy Chairman of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission and a former director of the Australian Legal Aid Office, to advise me on: The roles and responsibilities of Aboriginal legal aid services and other legal assistance programs, means of improving co-ordination and co-operation among those agencies; and any additional resources required by Aboriginal legal services. Mr Harkins has presented his report in three volumes, running to more than 1,300 pages. He has made over 230 recommendations. Because of the size of the report and the cost that would be involved in printing the required number of copies, I have decided not to table the report in the Parliament. I am, however, having sufficient copies printed to enable me to make copies of the report available, from my office, to any member or senator who would like a copy. I have also placed copies in the Parliamentary Library. In response to the report, I have accepted what I regard as its principal recommendation. That recommendation-recommendation No. 3 in the report-requires me, in association with Aboriginal legal services and communities, to examine the options for change in the structures of Aboriginal legal services and the delivery of legal services, directed to greater involvement of communities and more relevant arrangements for meeting the legal aid needs of Aboriginal people. Mr Harkins has suggested a number of options that such an examination should consider, including a greater use of the services of other legal aid agencies, especially in day to day matters and in areas in which they have special expertise. I believe that it would be premature for me to address the bulk of the remainder of the recommendations before the basic issues raised in the principal recommendations have been resolved. I propose, therefore, to undertake a round of consultations with Aboriginal legal services and communities in each State and the Northern Territory to discuss possible options for change in the structure and delivery of legal aid services. Discussions with my colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) and with State and Territory governments will also be necessary insofar as greater access to general community legal aid services is involved. The Government is committed to ensuring that Aboriginal people enjoy their rights under the law and to reducing their over-representation in the criminal justice system. Legal aid services have an important role in both of these areas and it is my hope that the arrangements which emerge from my consultations will result in a more effective and efficient service aimed at meeting these objectives. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Braithwaite,Mr Cadman,Mr Cobb,Mr Fife,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodges and Mr Ruddock. 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 persistent rumour suggest 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-servicemen 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 Blunt,Mr Cobb,Mr Drummond,Mr Halverson,Mr Reith and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet earth. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag be changed only with the approval of the nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur,Mr Porter and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners. 2. That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2 burden with the purchase of each pharmaceutical benefit scheme drug. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb,Mr Halverson,Mr Reith and Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners. 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25 per cent of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Beale,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: Ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and Reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable The Speaker and the honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. The present Australian national flag is not distinctively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had an opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australia as a sovereign, independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag falsely proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52% of Australians surveyed wanted a competition for a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your Petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: (a) Appoint a Committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum at the time of the next general elections, in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs which will include the present Australian national flag and the winner of the Ausflag-Bulletin-2MMM.FM competition of March 1985. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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 the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. 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 the legislation to tax private use of company cars will cause a serious reduction in employment in the automotive industry. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. In view of the fact that Australian Governments, since the Pearson Report of 1968, have committed themselves to meeting the 0.7% GNP target for overseas aid, which at present is 0.49%, and because it is an important expression of the humanitarian concerns of the Australian community that at this critical time of shortage, food aid to Africa be continued, and considering that development programmes in developing countries are difficult to carry out where basic education levels are low, and mindful of the fact that voluntary aid agencies have an aptitude for grass roots level development, an area which the Government has difficulty in reaching, concluding therefore that official aid could thus be complemented and supported by an increase in the level of funding to these agencies, Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government (1) move to a 0.7% GNP target level for overseas aid funding, and announce a plan to reach this by the year 1991, (2) continue aid to Africa at an increased level, (3) make more funds available for development education, (4) implement the recommendation to the Government that assistance to voluntary overseas aid agencies be doubled. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that (2) no Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian Government exert pressure on Moscow to- (a) Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; (b) Allow Australian Ukrainians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and (c) Allow free communication between Australian and Soviet Ukrainians. 2. The Australian government- (a) Launch a public appeal to help the Chernobyl victims; (b) Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; (c) Support the decolonisation of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic states are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray that a public inquiry be conducted for the migration of the Chirita family, (father) Marin Chirita and (fiance) Marc Codruta to be allowed into Australia and that the rights of Ion Chirita be recognised in Queensland. by Mr Coleman. 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 assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Sex Discrimination Act, passed by Parliament in 1984, will automatically make unenforceable from 1st August, 1986 the weight lifting limits applicable to women employees and contained in State laws, regulations and awards. 2. These weight lifting limits have applied throughout Australia for many years and have acted to prevent many injuries at the workplace, thereby avoiding much suffering and loss of working time. 3. The removal of this protective legislation will increase the rate of injury among women employees and lead to greater Workers' Compensation costs for employers. 4. The weight lifting limits do not in any way hamper the achievement of equality and equal opportunity in employment for women employees in the workforce. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to enable the weight lifting limits for women employees to continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 percent 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 the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Marsfield be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal and banking requirements, or even to collect registered, certified letters and parcels. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Offices are about 2kms away with no convenient public transport. Also for those of us who work during the week, this is the only Post Office open on Saturday mornings where we can collect our parcels, do our mailing and other services it provides. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Marsfield Post Office. 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 the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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., or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the residents of Sinnamon Retirement Village can expect ongoing care in our own Nursing Centre; 2. That when in need of Nursing Home accommodation the resident should not be transferred to another location; 3. That close relatives such as husband and wife, brother or sister should not be separated as a result of such a transfer; 4. That members of the community attending the Day Therapy Centre at Sinnamon Retirement Village can expect entry into the Nursing Home situated there; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reconsider the decision not to approve thirty additional Nursing Home beds at Sinnamon Retirement Village. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement Action Programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10 per cent of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr West. 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 and Mr Hodges. 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 Cadman and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the Report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney which recommends the establishment in 1987 of a Western Sydney State University along lines detailed in that report. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth Government acts promptly to rectify the serious deficiencies in Higher Education in the Western Sydney Region by taking all actions necessary to enable the New South Wales Government to establish the University. by Mr Free. 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 request that: The world's resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights Overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with power similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HAR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the film `Hail Mary' is blasphemous and gravely offends our religious beliefs and those of the vast majority of Australian Christians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Parliament will respect the will of the undersigned and have the blasphemous film `Hail Mary' banned in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens 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 petition of certain electors of the division of Lilley shows that there is an area of Commonwealth land surplus to the re-development of the Brisbane Airport site. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to entering into negotiations with the Brisbane City Council in order to provide parkland for the people of Nudgee and surrounding areas. We believe that the nearby residential area is deficient in parkland due to its development prior to the time when provision of parkland by the City Council became a condition of approval for the sub-division of land. Further development of adjoining areas following the opening of the new airport and the Gateway Bridge can only make the situation worse. The land to which we refer is situated at the end of Buchanan Road, Nudgee, Queensland, and we believe that part of it would be ideal for use as parkland. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The consequences for the living standards of Australian families of the division, brawling and open conflict within the Government over the direction of economic policy. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.08) —As this session of Parliament draws to its close, not only we in the Parliament but the broader public will be conscious of a number of things. They will be conscious that the Parliament is closing with this country's Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) running scared from the parliamentary forum. Despite the fact that we face one of the most serious economic crises that this country has seen in the lifetime of most living Australians and despite the belated acknowledgement of that fact by both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), this Parliament, the forum of the Australian people, has been denied not only an explanation from this Government of the dimensions of that crisis but also the opportunity of debating its remedies. The Prime Minister may, by dint of numbers, by dint of sarcasm, by dint of sneer and sheer noise, avoid short term odium for having snubbed this Parliament, but in the longer term he will pay a very dear and bitter price for treating the representatives of the Australian people with such great contempt. He need not imagine that he can run with his numbers from this forum and escape the odium of the Australian people, because it has become even more apparent during this session of Parliament than it was before that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, despite the vain attempts of the Treasurer to paper over the differences at Question Time today, have had a very serious falling out over the conduct of economic policy in Australia. Nothing will mark this session of Parliament more than the remarkable events of the past few weeks-the extraordinary spectacle of a Treasurer going into his bunker for 24 hours about some dreadful balance of payments figures and then racing on to the scene and saying that we are hurtling towards becoming a banana republic; a hurried, ad hoc calling of a mini-summit; an embarrassed freezing-out of the Prime Minister, stranded in the provinces of China; a memorable prime ministerial Press conference in a hotel room in China, when his embarrassment was there for the entire Australian public to see as he struggled to comprehend exactly what had happened; and then his return, after his deliberate briefing of all the senior journalists of this country against his own Treasurer. Everybody knows that the attack last Friday on the minders was not an attack on the minders; it was an attack on the minded, an attack upon the Prime Minister himself. It is the oldest game in the political book: One cannot openly attack one's boss, so one attacks the understudies; one attacks the minions who surround him. What the Treasurer did last Friday was to attack the minions who surround the Prime Minister. He may come here today and talk about bipartisanship and appeals to the national interest, but that does not cut any ice here. Everybody knows darned well that there are deep divisions between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer about the conduct of economic policy, and that the people who will pay most dearly for those divisions and for the lack of leadership and sense of direction they are producing are the Australian people. But even more importantly than those developments, this session of Parliament has seen the chickens come home to roost for this Government on the management of the Australian economy. No longer can the Prime Minister and the Treasurer maintain any credible pretence either that this economy is in good shape or that they have been good economic managers. By any reasonable score-card of economic management, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have been abysmal failures. Despite their hype, despite their rhetoric, despite the fact that they came to office at a time when the business cycle was starting to turn around, when the world economy was picking up and when the Australian rural economy was coming out of the grips of the worst drought that we have experienced this century, and despite the beneficial effects of a wages pause-which the Prime Minister would now like to forget he bitterly opposed and the introduction of which he did everything he could, in concert with his mates in the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to frustrate-yesterday he reached back to 1963 to criticise us. I have news for him. I do not have to go back to 1963 to criticise him. I can go back to his miserable performance, in cahoots with the ACTU, late in 1982. When this country needed a bit of co-operation from the ACTU, in an hour of national need, a bit of co-operation from the other side of politics and a bit of sense of national responsibility, what did the present Prime Minister do? He got together with Kelty and Dolan and conspired to stop any kind of co-operation between the ACTU and the government of the day. Yet he and his Treasurer have the nerve to morally lecture us about bipartisanship. I say this to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: If next Wednesday night the Prime Minister has some decent solutions for Australia's problems, he will get a constructive national interest response from the Opposition; and that is more than I can say for the response they gave to us when we were last in government. They cared not a jot about the national interest. All I can say is that the sight of the Treasurer buttoning up his coat and talking about the national interest and about a bipartisan approach literally makes everybody on this side of the House and, I believe, in the wider community completely sick. The economic score-card against this Government is very bad. I know that these things have been said before, but they are going to be said again and again. They will be said again and again particularly to those nine honourable members who have scurried out of the House, the Government members who hold the nine most marginal seats-the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall), the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) and the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). All of them had better be out of the House and back in their electorates. If they want some advice from me, it is that, instead of dropping pamphlets in letter-boxes during the winter recess, they should be going around trying to retrieve all those booklets that have been sent out by the Commissioner of Taxation, because that little booklet will do them more damage than they ever believed possible. My colleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) told me the other day that he had rung up someone in the Taxation Office and had said: `I have had some complaints from my small business friends that they do not know how this fringe benefits tax works'. The man at the other end of the phone said: `Don't worry, Mr Tuckey. We have sent a copy of this booklet to every small businessman in Australia'. The honourable member for O'Connor said: `Thank you very much'. I am not the least bit surprised that he said `Thank you very much', because when the real ramifications of this fringe benefits tax seep through to the Australian community, particularly the small business community, those nine honourable members, and many more, will have all of their work cut out countering the electoral backlash which will clearly come from that. The things that we will be talking about and reminding the Australian people about have been said before but need to be said again. At present Australia has an inflation rate of over 9 per cent, at a time when Japan's and West Ger- many's are heading towards zero. As a comparison with countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is the worst inflation rate that we have had for 25 years. We have the highest real interest rates since the Great Depression. We have now had two quarters of negative economic growth. We have the worst balance of payments in the entire OECD area. The revised figures have put us even behind Greece. I repeat that: In 1986, of the 24 member countries of the OECD, Australia under the so-called, self-styled, world's greatest Treasurer, will have the worst balance of payments deficit in the entire OECD area. Yet these characters have the nerve to parade themselves as decent economic managers. We have an unemployment level of over 600,00 which, incidentally, is higher than that in all but five of the 86 months that the Fraser Government was in office. In other words, for most of the time when we were last in government, unemployment was dramatically lower than it is at present. We have a youth unemployment level of 23 per cent. Priority One is a cruel, miserable joke in the eyes of most young people in Australia. Under the present Government, spending has risen at a rate of 5 per cent in real terms each year, and the average under the former Government was 2.1 per cent. Our overseas debt has more than doubled, from $35 billion to $75 billion, under the present Government-and if the present trend continues the Treasurer will have the dubious distinction of being the only Treasurer in Australia's history to preside over an overseas debt of $100 billion. That will earn him a very dubious distinction indeed. We have a trade weighted index for the Australian dollar which is now 59.1 against a Budget forecast of 68. In other words, the Budget was brought down on the basis of a currency which has now dramatically fallen from the level that obtained in August of last year. All of these things are a staggering indictment of the record of this Government, and particularly of this Treasurer and this Prime Minister. It now having finally become too difficult for them to contain any longer, the reality having been finally forced on them, and the Treasurer and the Prime Minister now craving some kind of understanding for the difficulties that their own policies have created in most cases, we have moved from one set of myths to another. When the Government first came to power it erected a great myth about an inherited Budget deficit. It said: `If only we had not been left this dreadful deficit'. It ran that lie month after month until it lost credibility, until the Australian people realised that the biggest deficit under the previous coalition Government was literally billions of dollars less than any of the deficits under the present Government, that that was only a great alibi and a great cop-out, and that Mr Keating's first two deficits were dramatically higher than any deficit under the former Government. It then moved on to another myth. The other myth is that the balance of payments problem also occurred under the previous Government. Once again that has been demonstrated to be a complete misconception. In fact, this Government has presided over a balance of payments deficit which as a proportion of gross domestic product is dramatically greater than any that occurred under the former Government. The Government's new myth, new escape mechanism and new escape route is to blame all of the problems on the rest of the world. That excuse will not wash either. Everybody knows that we have bad terms of trade and that they have got worse over the last year, but the Government knew last October that the terms of trade were getting worse. Mr Rocher —They should have. Mr HOWARD —They not only should have known; they did know they were getting worse last October. If that is the case, why on earth did the Government go on misleading the Australian public? Why on earth did it, as recently as a few weeks ago, pretend to the Australian public that everything in the garden was rosy? Why on earth did the Prime Minister say what he did on 13 February 1986? He said: As far as the Government is concerned, we assert that the economic fundamentals of policy making in this country are right and will continue to deliver to this country the economic and the employment growth which has put the performance of this country so far ahead of anywhere in the rest of the world. I would like to know what dream world or fantasy land the Prime Minister of Australia was talking about on 13 February. How could he have the nerve or the gall to tell anybody anything remotely resembling that statement at a time, in 1986, when he knew that this country was going to have the worst balance of payments crisis of any country in the industrialised world? Mr Hunt —How can anyone believe him? Mr HOWARD —May well my friend and colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia interject: `How can anybody believe this man any more?'. I go back to what I said at Question Time about the credibility of the Prime Minister, which is very much becoming an issue. He has broken promise after promise. He promised that there would be no capital gains tax; we are getting one. He promised that there would be no assets test; we have got one. He promised that there would be a simpler tax system; it is infinitely more complicated. He promised that there would be lower interest rates; they have gone to record levels. He promised that inflation would go to 5 per cent; it is now over 9 per cent and is making us dramatically uncompetitive. He promised a new deal for young people; he has disappointed them with his total cynicism. He has broken just about every major promise on which he fought the 1983 and the 1984 election campaigns. I conclude by simply saying to the House that, if on Thursday morning the Prime Minister finds that the Australian people believe neither his analysis of the economy nor his response, he has only himself to blame for that rejection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.24) —It ill becomes the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to talk about credibility. He has certainly stretched his credibility in this House today and now he walks out of the House, not having even the courtesy to listen to the response make by a Cabinet Minister-- Mr Howard —Where is the Prime Minister? Mr HURFORD —I am a Cabinet Minister who has responsibility in this economic area. Mr Howard —I am interested in the Prime Minister; I am not interested-- Mr HURFORD —I am not yielding to anybody. The Leader of the Opposition is walking out of this House. Mr Howard —I am not interested in the organ grinder; I am interested in the monkey. Mr HURFORD —The honourable member is not interested in listening to this debate. Mr Howard —If you can deliver the Prime Minister I will stay here, but I am not staying here to listen to you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will not debate the matter across the table. The Opposition will cease interjecting or I will warn him. Mr HURFORD —I was quite prepared to yield to the Leader of the Opposition so that the people of this country could witness his disgraceful behaviour and hear the sorts of terms he used about a member of the Cabinet who has responsibility in this economic area who had risen in this House to reply to the Leader of the Opposition in a debate on a matter of public importance. The Leader of the Opposition talked about credibility. What credibility has he got? Certainly he huffed and puffed in order to try to paper over the great divisions there are behind him, in order to try to show on this last day in this Parliament that he has some leadership potential. He has none, and that sort of behaviour we just witnessed, when I yielded to him and we heard him referring to a member of the Cabinet who is given the task of responding to him as a monkey and so on, is the sort of standard we have now from this Opposition. I mentioned credibility. Let us just look at some of the charges he made. He said that the Opposition had been denied the opportunity to debate the economy in this House. Let me just remind the House that, in this three weeks of session, on no fewer than five occasions the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been in here debating the economy on matters of public importance. They were not the only occasions when the economy was debated. I, too, have responded once before this week on the economy and I believe that on other occasions there have been other debates on the economy which have given honourable members an opportunity to debate this particularly important area. I repeat: The Leader of the Opposition has done nothing to improve his cause at all. Indeed, he has done nothing to bolster the divided forces behind him by making that charge. The second charge the Leader of the Opposition made was that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer have economic policy differences. They do not. They are together right now undertaking what should be their priority. They are consulting to put together a good package of policies to address the particular problems that our economy has at present. Of course, the adverse turn in the terms of trade has been a kick in the guts. We know that a new set of policies is needed to address that, but that new set of policies would not be worth one jot without the community support which is now being obtained by the necessary consultation that is taking place. There would not be one objective member of this House who would suggest that right now the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would not be better employed-instead of once more coming into this House, as the Treasurer has five times in the last three weeks-in those consultations putting together, in unity and with the support of Cabinet and the Labor Caucus, a package of policies that the nation will learn about next Wednesday night. The third charge of the Leader of the Opposition in all this huffing and puffing was that he sought to persuade the House that the economy was worse than it was three and a quarter years ago when the Hawke Labor Government came to office. He would have to do a lot more huffing and puffing than he did on this occasion in order to persuade anybody who has an objective view of these affairs that the economy is now worse. In that 3 1/4 years, 670,000 jobs have been created. What a contrast that is to the miserable performances of the divided coalition when it was last in government. Does anyone suggest that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not in greater unity now than Prime Minister Fraser and Treasurer Howard were when the coalition was in office? They had enormous difficulties. The country was at a standstill. The fact is that at that time inertia had taken over the country. The Treasurer thought he wanted to float the currency but the Prime Minister would not allow it. If honourable members want to look at divisions, that is a period in the history of this country when divisions were rife. Instead, in the 3 1/4 years of the Hawke Labor Government we have had greater stability in the Ministry than this country has had for many years. There has been hardly a change in the Ministry and hardly a change even in portfolios. This Government has given continuity and stability and its actions have led to the sorts of economic results that this country is now enjoying. The Leader of the Opposition has scuttled out of this House not prepared to face the music in this debate which he has given rise to. He even had the gall to raise tax reform and he attempted to make some political capital out of the fringe benefits tax. Let us put that to rest once and for all. I am proud that the fringe benefits tax legislation has gone through this Parliament. I am proud that is has the solid support of honourable members on the Government benches. I am proud, too, that the country is supporting it well, as the polls show us. We are bringing equity and justice to the taxation system-equity, justice and fairness that did not exist when we took over government of this country. When it comes to the payment of fringe benefits tax, of course when a benefit in kind is paid to an employee it should not avoid tax; the equivalent cash payment attracts tax. In making the change from paying in kind to paying in cash any employer would be bound to add the tax equivalent of that benefit to that employee. There is no way that any employee would put up with receiving payment in cash rather than in kind unless the tax equivalent was added, because an employee is interested in the net benefit. With the fringe benefits tax, we have ensured that even when the benefit is paid in kind the tax will be paid on it. The great majority of people in this country recognise the equity and fairness in that. The Leader of the Opposition, who will not face the music, did not speak to his matter of public importance. He referred in it to the consequences for the living standards of Australian families of the division, brawling and open conflict within the Government. What empty words they were. The fact is that he sought to substantiate this assertion of division and brawling only by bringing in some scuttle-butt from the media about the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. He sought to substantiate the claim that there was brawling and open conflict within the Government by that small episode, which has nothing to do with the unity that exists in relation to policy. So the premise of this matter of public importance, like most premises on such matters that are brought by the Opposition to this House, is clearly wrong. I state unequivocally that there is no division or conflict within this Government. Indeed, one has only to look as far as the Opposition to see where the real divisions lie. We know why there was this performance from the Leader of the Opposition today. He was trying to revive his flagging fortunes as Leader of the Opposition, as the polls show how poorly he is being supported in Australia. I now refer to this matter of the living standards of the Australian people. Last week's national accounts reveal that this Government's economic policies are on track in improving this country's economy. First, they confirm the exceptional growth in the economy in the second half of 1985, growth which has been sufficient to generate 350,000 jobs in the past 12 months, towards that 670,000 jobs I mentioned, that have been created in the last 3 1/4 years. Those national accounts confirm the moderation in demand in recent quarters. Certainly that moderation was absolutely vital if we were not to do too much of this ricocheting from boom to slump and back to boom again which is so much a feature of our system. Of course we needed to moderate the economy, and that was achieved, sadly, through having to increase interest rates, but they are now on the wane. An objective of our policy was that demands should be moderated, but without upsetting the positive developments in the economy, and we have achieved that. For example, there was a growth in employment of 150,000 in the last six months alone, despite that small negative which was recorded in gross domestic product growth. The third point I want to make in relation to the national accounts is that they confirm that what we have been saying is exactly right. The big problem at the moment is coming from overseas because of those commodity prices that have collapsed. There is no difference in the Government about the need to address this new problem, this adverse turn in the terms of trade. Of course we must address such problems, and that is what the consultation is all about now. The fourth point I make arising out of the national accounts is that the adverse movement in export prices has masked the positive impact of the depreciation of our currency. Thank God we have had a floating dollar during that time. Thank goodness we have done something at last about the overvalued currency, over which the coalition presided for so long and which was the cause of the decline in our manufacturing base in this country. We have done that, and in the March quarter imports were down 4.5 per cent and exports were up 6.7 per cent. In the year to March, imports were up nearly one per cent and exports were up 14.1 per cent. There one can see a turn in the J-curve; one can see it beginning to work. This is clear evidence that the depreciation is working. Without the depreciation our current account position would have been much worse. The current challenge is, first, to continue with our success in reaping positive impact from the decline in our currency. The second challenge to us all is to adjust our policy further to take account of the terms of trade effect. This is what we are doing in a positive and constructive way, something which the Opposition, when in government, found impossible to do. The Opposition's only solution is to launch into the sort of personal attacks we have had today and the disgraceful behaviour from the Leader of the Opposition in first of all not staying here for this debate and then in interrupting me when I was on my feet and hurling personal abuse at me. I fully appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition has cause to be under strain. If I were the Leader of the Opposition, with the polls showing the lack of support that the Leader of the Opposition has at present, I too would be under strain. The Leader of the Opposition ought to pull himself together and ensure that he does not revert to the sort of behaviour we have witnessed in the last 15 minutes. The Government will respond to the challenge before it, just as it has responded to the challenge of resuscitating the recessed Australian economy we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition. We already have policies in place in order to reap the maximum benefit of the decline in our currency, the depreciation of our currency. Thank goodness for the floating dollar and the prices and incomes accord, because they provide a solid foundation on which to fight back against these adverse terms of trade over which we have no control. The Government will continue its fiscal restraint and will continue the 2 per cent discount and the delay and moderation of the productivity claim. Now we are considering the response required to address that commodity price problem. We in the Government are canvassing a broad range of options. I repeat that is what the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are doing right now. The Prime Minister has announced that he will make an address to the nation next week-in fact, next Wednesday evening. The Government, in separate meetings with the business sector and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, is canvassing their views on the most appropriate policy responses. Further, we have heard that that proper consultative mechanism, the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes, will be meeting, but not until after the national wage case decision has been announced. All this is an entirely appropriate response to the issues before this nation, and I am proud to be a member of the Government that is responding to these great challenges. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That this House authorises- (1) The Speaker to make arrangements for the preliminary proceedings relating to the introduction of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, all or part of the second reading speech of the Treasurer, and all or part of the reply to that speech by the Leader of the Opposition to be filmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (2) the direct, live, telecast of all or part of that film and the accompanying sound of the proceedings by any television station provided that a station telecasts both speeches live and gives approximately equal time to both speeches, and (3) the use by any television station of any part of the filmed proceedings and accompanying sound in subsequent news, current affairs and documentary programs. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(3.39) —The Opposition is not opposed to this procedural motion, which provides for the televising of the Budget speech to be given on 19 August this year. However, I point out that there are large parts of Australia, especially rural Australia, which still do not have access to television. Mr Young —Parliament would not be their first priority. Mr TIM FISCHER —In fact, Parliament is their first priority. As rural Australia goes through the rural economic crisis at present they realise that many of the decisions which are making life so hard for them-fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, for example-are emanating from legislation being passed by this Parliament, and by rotten deals between the Government and the Australian Democrats, for which they will pay the price whenever the next Federal election occurs. Returning to the motion before the Chair, when the rural economic statement was brought down early this year I made approaches through the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), who is the Manager of Opposition Business, to ensure that the third network of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on that occasion carried both the ministerial statement by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the response by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia and honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). It is a matter of record that that initiative was implemented, resulting in those speeches being carried widely on the third network of the ABC. For the first time Parliament was broadcast to parts of Australia not usually covered by parliamentary television or radio broadcasts. It would be my wish, in seeing the adoption of this procedural motion relating to television coverage, that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) might make some inquiries to ensure that the third network will have an opportunity of covering the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), with all its impact, and, of course, the speech in reply, which is also embraced by the terms of this motion. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(3.41) —I have just a few words to say, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to this procedural motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —You do not need my indulgence; you have the call of the Chair. Mr EVERINGHAM —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am glad that I do not need your indulgence. Your indulgence has been written about widely in the Sydney Morning Herald, but obviously what is said is quite untrue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the early plane not going this afternoon? Mr EVERINGHAM —One cannot get to Darwin after 7 o'clock in the morning, so bad is the two-airline system that this Government perpetuates. In relation to coverage of the Budget, last year the presentation of the Budget was not carried by either radio or television into my electorate by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We do not particularly want it on television, frankly-I do not think anyone really needs to see the leonine visage of the Treasurer as he delivers the Budget-but we would appreciate getting it on radio, so I ask the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), particularly as the Budget usually delivers several savage kicks to the Northern Territory by this particular Government, that we do get to hear about it contemporaneously with its delivery. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.42) —in reply-I take on board the suggestions that have been made by both honourable members opposite. I can assure them both that, as we are associated with probably the most efficient and most successful government that Australia has had since World War II, we are very anxious that everybody get the opportunity of witnessing the presentation of the Budget. I notice from last year's ratings that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had about 15 times the audience that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) had when he replied. I think that it will be something similar this year. I can assure honourable members that we will try to transmit to every person in Australia possible the delivery of the 1986 Budget. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.43) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for consideration and advice to the House: Whether documents tendered to the Committee by (a) Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd and (b) Mr G. F. Burke during the Committee's inquiry into the effects of asbestos mining on the Baryulgil community should be presented to the House by the Committee for the purpose of the House granting leave to a petitioner or his or her legal representatives to issue and serve a subpoena for the production of those documents to a court. Certain documents were tendered to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs during its inquiry, documents which may be sought for legal proceedings. The purpose of the motion is to seek the advice of the Standing Committee as to whether it believes that the documents should be made available to a court. Should the Committee advise that the documents be made available, and should the House receive a subpoena from the Court, the standard resolutions would be moved in accordance with the usual practices of the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(3.45) —As I was saying when Question Time interrupted debate on this Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill, so-called self-determination is absolutely outlawed by this piece of legislation. The way that it has been framed means that Parliament, let alone the Aboriginal inhabitants of the settlement of Jervis Bay, will have absolutely no real say in how Jervis Bay land rights are to operate. Public access is neither guaranteed nor denied; it is merely left to the Minister to decide. I was saying that in the Northern Territory, where 50 per cent of the land has become Aboriginal land, it is necessary to obtain a written permit from Aboriginal land councils-I assume that in this case it will be the community council-for anyone to go on to Aboriginal land. People who have been fishing at a particular spot for 20 or 30 years suddenly find that, if they wish to go and try to catch a barramundi in their favourite waterhole or billabong, they have to apply months beforehand to an Aboriginal land council in order to do so. People who want to go to places such as Cobourg Peninsula National Park find that they can only get there by air or sea because an Aboriginal land council has refused them right of access over the road to Cobourg Peninsula, which passes through Aboriginal land. The town of Nhulunbuy, with a population of about 5,000 people, can have its access by land to the rest of Australia-which is a potholed track over which it takes one three days to cover about 500 miles-cut off at the arbitrary whim of the Northern Land Council. Therefore, I think that the matter of access to the area of public land covered by this Bill, which apparently includes a considerable amount of foreshore and a popular beach that I believe is called Cloud Bay, should be clarified. I believe that the people who are using these foreshores will find that they encounter much the same situation as we have found in the Northern Territory, where to gain a particular objective blackmailing tactics are used and people are denied access to places that they have been going to for years. This is a shell Bill; it sets up the shell. The Minister and the Department, through their continued overriding authority because of the Bill's open-ended legislative provisions, will decide what are to be the contents of this shell. The too-hard questions are to be decided outside this Parliament in the Minister's office and in the corridors of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Wreck Bay Community and successive Commonwealth governments have negotiated on this land title for 30 years. The result is, just as it is in the Northern Territory, a unique kind of land tenure, inalienable land tenure, permanent land tenure, patronising and paternalistic land tenure. If we really believe in self-determination for Aboriginal people, why will we not let them own their land on the same terms as all other Australians own land? Why do we lock up their land so that they cannot mortgage it to raise money to go into commercial ventures? Do we not want the Aboriginal people to have the opportunity, to have the ability, to earn the money to use this land gainfully, perhaps even to pay for it so that they can take their place socially and economically with other Australians? The concept of inalienable fee simple rights is, I believe, totally abhorrent to the idea of real self-determination and real decision making for Aboriginal people. I look forward to the day when all Australians, regardless of skin colour, cultural background-I mention the presence in the gallery today of Alderman Bob Liddle, an Aboriginal member of the Alice Springs Town Council-and regardless of past sins of omission or commission, believe that one form of land title, title in fee simple, is good enough for everyone. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(3.50) —I support the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986. As the shadow Minister the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) pointed out, this is a Bill of some significance; but, unfortunately, the Opposition through its amendment will vote against the Bill. The freehold title seems to be one area of concern to the Opposition; yet this in effect fails to take into consideration the fact that Aboriginals were the original occupiers of this land. Title is a form of compensation for the past dispossession of their land. The honourable member for Bradfield admitted that the Fraser Government did grant land rights under the Northern Territory land rights legislation, and of course we have just heard from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) how disappointed he is with that legislation. The honourable member for Bradfield then argued that, because of changed public opinion, there should be no more land grants to the Aboriginal communities. What the shadow Minister failed to say-and it is regrettable-is that it was his own colleagues on that side of the House who created the divisions in the community which have led to the strengthening of the arguments against justified land claims. In fairness to the honourable member for Bradfield, I exclude him from those criticisms because, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I know that he has a keen genuine interest in the plight of Aborigines. The purpose of the legislation is to grant just over 400 hectares of land situated at Jervis Bay. The land in question is a small part of the Jervis Bay nature reserve. However, when the nature reserve was formed in 1971, it took in land which had been previously gazetted as an Aboriginal reserve surrounding Wreck Bay. The Wreck Bay community is an established Aboriginal community comprising mainly descendants of the Jervis Bay and Shoalhaven tribes and other South Coast and Monaro groups. The original fishing settlement came under the New South Wales Aborigines Protection Board in 1928 and its boundaries were gazetted under an Australian Capital Territory ordinance way back in 1954. In 1965, the community agreed to become an open township and the ordinance under which the boundaries were gazetted was repealed. In 1971, the nature reserve was gazetted by the Commonwealth which, as I said earlier, took in part of the former Aboriginal reserve. In 1973, negotiations commenced with the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community for land tenure by way of a perpetual lease. It was not until 1983 when the present government came to power-(Quorum formed) Once again we have witnessed the sad tactics of a sad Opposition, an Opposition that has very little concern for the issues that confront this country. I am very disappointed with the honourable member who called for a quorum to be formed. I was saying before that action that it was not until 1983 that this Government, on election to office, was able to begin negotiations with the community, which led to an offer of a grant of inalienable freehold title to an area of just over 400 hectares. The community will continue to receive government services on a similar basis as applies to other residents of the Jervis Bay Territory. These include essential services such as water, sewerage and electricity, municipal services such as garbage and litter collections, and road maintenance. The title of the land granted is to be vested in an Aboriginal council established by the proposed legislation to control and administer the land under a trust arrangement for the Wreck Bay community. The council under this Bill will be required to exercise its powers as owners of the land for the benefit of the community, and I am sure that all members would prefer it to be that way. The membership of the council will consist of all adult Aboriginal permanent residents, that is, those over 18 years of age. Whilst no sale or mortgage of any part of the land will be permitted, the Council will have the authority to issue leases of land for terms of up to 99 years to members of the community for residential purposes and other leases to persons wishing to obtain an interest in the land for community purposes for up to 25 years. This will be subject to the approval of the Minister. As I stated earlier, there has been comprehensive consultation with the community. While some members of the community would have liked a larger area, the grant was based on traditional and historical usage. The honourable member for the Northern Territory, judging from some of his comments, does not appear to have read the legislation. He raised the bogy of non-access to the land and suggested that no longer would people be able to go into that area. He should be aware that access is allowed to public areas under clause 49 of the Bill. I think that point should be emphasised to Opposition members. Those who oppose the legitimate arguments of Aboriginals for title to land on the grounds that it will lead to restricted access to other members of the community will be disappointed, as I have just said, that public roads through the proposed land grant area are to be excluded from the proposed grant. This means that the general public will continue to have access to those facilities that were available prior to the land grant. The financial impact of this legislation will be minimal. The annual costs involved in the administration of the council will be met by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This Bill will have the effect of securing the land to be granted for present and future generations of Aboriginal people at Wreck Bay. It is a Bill that is long overdue. I commend it to the House. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(4.00) —This afternoon I rise to participate in the debate on the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill because the area about which we are speaking-the 403 hectares of freehold title that will be handed over to the Aboriginal community at Jervis Bay-whilst not being in the electorate of Gilmore, is surrounded by it. As honourable members would know, the electorate of Gilmore includes the Shoalhaven area, and Jervis Bay is within that area although it is in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a particularly attractive part of the Australian coastline. Perhaps I could be accused of being a little biased in saying that it is the most attractive part of the Australian coastline. It is certainly a most underrated area. So the handing over of 403 hectares of land is a significant event. There is a great deal of concern from people who live within the Shoalhaven area about whether people who are non-Aboriginals will have access to this part of the Jervis Bay district. The tourist business in the Shoalhaven district is worth about $120m, and the Wreck Bay area is a particularly attractive part of the tourist facilities that are available in the Shoalhaven. It has a very attractive beach, there are picnic areas and I believe that there are camping areas. If the tourist community is not given continued access to these facilities the people of the Shoalhaven will have reason to be concerned. I am sure that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will assure us later in this debate that access will be given to these facilities. I hope that he will give us a categorical assurance that access will be maintained for all the people to continue to enjoy this lovely part of Australia. I believe that there is a fatal flaw in this legislation, and that is that the Government is giving freehold title to the Aboriginal community at Jervis Bay. No one else is able to get freehold title to land within the Australian Capital Territory. However, members of the Aboriginal community living at Jervis Bay, who are in the Australian Capital Territory, will be given freehold title as a result of the legislation of this Government. If anyone wants to create discrimination in our community the way to it is to treat different groups of people differently. Over the years we have seen the Aboriginal community right across Australian being given things for which other members of the community are not eligible. Over the last 20 years there has been an increase in the amount of racial discrimination and racism in Australia and it has been born out of a feeling of envy from Australians because some of the things Aboriginal people are given are things which other members of the community are not able to get. This legislation gives freehold title to the Aboriginal people in Jervis Bay and that is something that other citizens of the Australian Capital Territory cannot acquire. By doing this we are treating two different groups of people in different fashions. As a result we will promote the feeling of discrimination and give further fuel to those people who have fascist tendencies towards Aboriginal people. I think that is the fatal flaw of this legislation before the House. There is another flaw about which I express concern, and that is the potential for areas within the freehold title to be leased to other people for either business or residential purposes. Page 3, paragraph (8) of the explanatory memorandum states: Empowering the Community Council to lease land for a number of purposes some of which require the consent of the Minister . . . Regarding clause 38 of the legislation, the explanatory memorandum states: Under this clause the Council may grant a lease of Aboriginal Land to (i) a registered member or members for domestic purposes, business purposes or for the benefit of the community, (ii) persons not registered members for domestic purposes or business purpose with the approval of the Minister . . . I am pleased to see the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the table today. When he sums up the debate this afternoon I ask him to give the House and the people of the Shoalhaven a categorical assurance that, as Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs come and go, leases will not be given out by the Aboriginal community at Jervis Bay for the purpose of residential or business development. As I mentioned earlier, this is a particularly attractive part of Australia's coastline; it is a part of Australia's coastline which, in environmental terms, has been very well managed over a long period; it is something of which all Australians can be proud. If this legislation creates the potential for development above and beyond what is already in this area I think the people of the Shoalhaven and the people of Australia have cause for concern. I ask the Minister to address that point in his summing-up so that a categorical assurance that this will not take place as Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs come and go is recorded in Hansard. Another matter which concerns me is that the area that is being handed over to the Aboriginal community is very close to existing naval operations. I understand that its boundaries will be very close to an airstrip which is used by the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and quite often the air wing of the Army. This freehold title will be written into law forever. If the Navy or any of our defence forces wish to upgrade the level of their activities in that area-the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has outlined in this Parliament that it will be necessary to introduce a large number of extra naval personnel as operations from the Sydney Harbour area are moved into the Jervis Bay area-additional areas of land may be required. It may be required that different operations be carried out in the Jervis Bay area. I wonder what sort of a conflict the Navy will have in the year 2000 or 2010 if the Aboriginal people are given freehold title to the area. I also express concern about that, because if we are to have a modern defence force it has to have easy access to the areas of land that it needs in order to carry out its activities. By reducing the available land we are reducing the options that the Navy has for expanding in the Shoalhaven district. If the Wreck Bay area that will be handed over to the Aboriginal community is maintained properly and is not developed for business or residential purposes it will still be a very useful adjunct to the tourist business in the Shoalhaven area. The Mayor of Shoalhaven City Council, Alderman Harry Sawkins, who is a great advertisement of why people should live in the Shoalhaven area, tells me that tourism is worth about $120m to the area. If these 403 hectares are denied to the tourist business in the Shoalhaven area it will detract from the potential development and growth of tourism there, which is such a vital component of the overall economy. This Bill will help to put fuel into the feelings of racial discrimination in our country. It treats one group of people differently from another group of people because the Aboriginal people are getting freehold title whereas other residents of the Australian Capital Territory cannot. For that reason I express concern about this legislation. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(4.10) —I will be brief in my comments in this debate before the House. I commence by saying that it is part of the Australian Labor Party platform to ensure that Aboriginal and Islander people in each State or Territory have access to land grants held under secure title-I emphasise `secure title'-in accordance with the Woodward principles, by seeking complementary State or Territory legislation and, where there is none, to introduce Commonwealth constitutional powers and legislation to achieve these objectives. After considerable consultation, this part of our platform is being put into practice. When I talk of consultation I speak of the many years that have now been spent in consultation between the Jervis Bay people and the successive governments, culminating in the introduction into this place of the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill. In pursuing our commitment to self-determination-that is surely part of the legislation and will be one of its benefits-we are bound to consult Aboriginal and Islander people and communities, have regard to their views, and implement only those programs approved and accepted by them. In particular we should ensure firstly that such consultations take account of the way in which such people and communities choose to reach decisions. In July 1984 an arrangement was made with Wreck Bay Aboriginal community and a memorandum of understanding was distributed amongst the people of Wreck Bay. In that memorandum of understanding many of the provisions that now appear in the Bill were set out to explain to those people just what the Government had in mind. It did not mention just land rights. In recent times there has been a narrowing down of the debate to Aboriginal land rights when we should be talking about Aboriginal rights. In the memorandum of understanding such important essential services to the people in the Wreck Bay area as water, sewerage and electricity were guaranteed. Municipal-type services provided for in the legislation were discussed in the memorandum of understanding. Other matters referred to which are important for our indigenous people include housing, road maintenance and public access. It was after such consultation that agreement was reached with those people. As a result we have this Bill. The opposition to this legislation by those opposite is really only half-hearted. I believe that those who have spoken against the legislation were not genuine in their objection to it, that there is a bipartisan approach here, and that those opposite really favour the legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the grant of inalienable freehold title to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community. As so many of he previous speakers have indicated, the area is some 403 hectares. The Wreck Bay Aboriginal community is an established community comprising mainly descendants of the Jervis Bay tribe and other tribes that once inhabited the general area. The land at one time was gazetted as an Aboriginal reserve and administered by arrangement with the New South Wales Aborigines Protection Board. The land has always-I emphasise that-been regarded as a distinct Aboriginal area separate from other land in the Jervis Bay Territory. Negotiations first took place in 1973 and proceeded for about 10 years without resolution. The introduction of this Bill is the culmination of consultations, not only by this Government but by preceeding governments, with the Jervis Bay people. As I indicated at the outset, this legislation is in accordance with our Party platform and with the platform of our Government to grant to Aboriginal people land with a secure title. That has been provided for. The protestations of those opposite about granting inalienable freehold land in a territory are quite hollow because when they introduced legislation for land rights for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory exactly the same process took place. They granted inalienable and freehold land in a Territory. This legislation is on all fours with the Northern Territory legislation introduced some ten to 12 years ago. As I said before, today Australians are debating the very narrow issue of Aboriginal land rights. It is time-in fact past time-that we should look not just at Aboriginal land rights but at Aboriginal rights. I refer to the areas of housing, education and health, on which this Government has a very enviable record. In housing, for example, 1,760 housing units were built in 1985-86. That figure is almost treble the figure for 1982-83, when just over 700 units were built. Funding rose from $61m in 1982-83 to $125m. That is more than double the allocation of funds for Aboriginal affairs in 1982-83. We have a very good record on employment and training. In 1985-86 there was an 80 per cent increase in program funding to $94m. In the health field, 53 Aboriginal medical services are now funded, compared with 27 in 1982-83. I turn to education. Over 880 teachers have been trained or are being trained. That is well in line with the Government's commitment to achieve a target of 1,000 Aboriginal teachers by 1990. Essential services have been provided to many communities throughout the nation-essential services which most other Australians, especially those in metropolitan areas, take for granted. Communications, water and sewerage have been provided in recent years and our continuing attack on lack of facilities for people living in the remoter parts of Australia will continue. Aboriginal broadcasting is another area on which we have placed a major emphasis. In conclusion, I appeal not just to those opposite but to Australians generally, when we talk these days about Aboriginals and debate Aboriginal issues not to be blinkered by debating solely Aboriginal land rights. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) spelt out the platform of the Liberal Party to recognise that Aboriginals should have the same opportunities as other Australians, that they should have the opportunity to determine their own lifestyles, to retain and develop their own traditions, language and culture if desired. By the implementation of this legislation that Party platform will be carried out. As I said earlier, I do not believe that those opposite were genuine when they spoke against the Bill. They were half-hearted. It is high time a bipartisan approach was taken to these very important issues. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.19) —I welcome the comments of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) in suggesting that bipartisanship on Aboriginal affairs would be desirable. I guess that in a real sense bipartisanship would certainly be possible if the Government would always agree with the Opposition. When we were in government, bipartisanship was often sought but was not always possible to achieve because people had different views about the way issues ought to be approached. The land rights issue was one on which quite strong views were expressed by the then Government and quite often they were at variance with the views expressed by the then Opposition. Interestingly, what we have seen occur over recent times is that the then Opposition, now the Government, is finding that the views that it was expressing in opposition are not as easy to sustain in government. We have seen very significant movement on the part of the Australian Labor Party and on the part of the Government on Aboriginal issues. I am pleased that there has been some movement because it recognises the reality of the situation that has occurred in recent years whereby Australians, whether they be Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, have been divided on this issue of Aboriginal land rights. The way in which Australians have been divided has had a significant impact upon community relations. That troubles me a great deal. Therefore, I very much agree with the honourable member for Leichhardt when he calls for a bipartisan approach. I certainly hope that there will be opportunities for people to get together and talk about issues affecting Aboriginals. But I hope that, when the honourable member calls for a bipartisan approach, he does not mean one in which the Opposition is simply asked to concur with the Government simply because the Government believes that its position is intrinsically right. I refer to the sort of consensus argument that we have heard on the economy whereby the Government advances a position and says: `We want a consensus. We want you all to agree with what we have decided'. That is not a bipartisan approach. A bipartisan approach comes about only where there is genuine consultation and where the views of the majority of the people-that is, the majority of those who comprise the Government, the Opposition and the wide body of Australians-are taken into account. The Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986 is a Bill to grant to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community what the Government calls inalienable freehold title to a portion of the Jervis Bay territory. The Bill also establishes a community council, to be known as the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, to hold the title to the land granted under the Bill and to have other powers and functions as set out. It provides for an initial grant of land to the Community Council and provides a basis for future grants of land adjoining the original grant to be made. It provides for buildings and amenities on the land granted to become the property of the Community Council unless the Commonwealth wants to continue using some of those buildings for its purposes. I presume that it will want to use the Post Office and other Commonwealth purpose-type buildings. The Bill establishes an office of Registrar of the Community Council who will prepare the initial register of members and who will attempt the resolution of disputes between the Community Council and its members-a very unenviable task, I must say, having regard to some of the quite significant differences of view that have been expressed amongst the Aboriginal people at Wreck Bay. It establishes a register of members of the Community council and requires that there be a general meeting of the Community Council. It provides for three office-holders and nine members of an executive committee which will be part of the Community Council. It empowers the Community Council to lease land for a number of purposes which require the consent of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It provides that mining on the land granted will take place only with the agreement of the Commonwealth, the Community Council and any intending miner. It protects significant sites and protects public access to areas to which the public already has access. The Bill makes a number of consequential amendments to the Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915. That is the purpose of the Bill. I must say that when I read the Bill and when I became aware that, as outlined in the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), it involved a grant of inalienable freehold title to the land, I was somewhat troubled. I have not been one of those people who have argued that Aboriginal land rights involve this concept of inalienable freehold title. In fact, I do not believe that the concept of land rights as we know it and understand it involves the concept of freehold tenure of land; that is largely inconsistent. Inalienable freehold and freehold title are inconsistent propositions. If something is freehold, it is free to be dealt with as desired. It is free to be sold or mortgaged. In relation to the land grants that have been made to Aboriginals, we have in fact put a restriction on them, and for good reason as outlined in the report of the Woodward Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, which was the documented basis upon which land rights were developed in Australia. So we have the Minister arguing in his outline and in his speech that we are giving Aboriginals the concept of inalienable freehold. I have read what we are in fact granting and it is not really freehold; it is something else-what I would call an Aboriginal form of title. What one needs to understand is that the concept of providing land rights for Aboriginals does not mean that one ought to grant freehold title. It does not mean that one ought to grant the same sort of title all over Australia. One of the concepts that most of us who have had anything to do with Aboriginals over a long period understand is that the needs and aspirations of Aborigines throughout Australia can be quite different. To speak of Aborigines as though they are one group is to make a fundamental error. To compare the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal people at Wreck Bay with the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory per se is, in my judgment, to commit a fundamental error. In the past I have travelled extensively in the Northern Territory. I have been to Wreck Bay and met with the people there. I have talked about the issues that impact upon them. It certainly seems to me that those issues are significant to each group but nevertheless are different for each group. The situation at Wreck Bay is one which those of us who have been involved in Aboriginal affairs over any period understand has been long, tortuous and difficult. Certainly, it is acknowledged by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), that the issue of establishing a form of secure title for the Aboriginal people who live at Wreck Bay has been a matter to which the Opposition has been committed and remains committed, but one which has taken a long time to put in place in a way which meets the collective view of the people at Wreck Bay. I have mentioned that what is proposed in this legislation is a unique form of Aboriginal title. It needs to be understood that the legislation imposes a form of title which is quite different from any other and in a unique way. It is unique in that it relates to a territory of the Commonwealth. It is a territory that was acquired by the Commonwealth, as I understand it, to provide a seaport for Canberra. At one point it was even envisaged that there would be a railway between Jervis Bay and Canberra. The acquisition of Jervis Bay by the Commonwealth was such as to relate very closely the Jervis Bay territory with the Australian Capital Territory. While Jervis Bay has had certain defence installations established there, it has nevertheless been seen as a place of significance to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It was as a seaport that Jervis Bay was first of significance to the people of Canberra, but since then I think it has become very much more a recreational area, as people from the Australian Capital Territory-and people from New South Wales; no one is prevented from going there-have used some of the waterways adjacent to the Jervis Bay Territory for fishing, boating and swimming. In fact, at Wreck Bay the roads used for access to the beaches are the same roads that are used by the Aboriginal community. The slipways and waterways used by the Aboriginals for fishing are the same as those used by the people who want to recreate in the area. So we have competing interest. In this Bill the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has endeavoured to take that into account in the provisions designed to protect public access. The significant difference between the Opposition and the Government concerns the nature of the title that should be granted to the Aboriginal community for the land that it has occupied and additional land that will be made available to it. I do not regard it as being a black-and-white argument in the colloquial sense; I see it as being largely an on-balance argument as to what is in the best interests of the Aboriginal people and other Australians when it comes to the way in which this title ought to be granted. It is not an argument about whether or not there ought to be a secure form of title for the Aboriginal people who live there; it is an argument about whether or not the form of title that is given will provide secure tenure to the Aboriginal people and will also be seen to be satisfactory to the wider group of Australian people who also have an interest in this Territory. We are talking about whether or not the Opposition's view that there should be a grant by way of lease in perpetuity is a more satisfactory approach that that of the Government, which envisages a special and unique form of title for eternity, unless terminated by legislation. The Opposition-and I was responsible, in a sense, as the former shadow Minister for the Capital Territory-wrote a policy for the last election which said that there ought to be a consistent form of title for Jervis Bay and the rest of the Australian Capital Territory. We said that there should be, for Canberra's self-esteem and to create a new ethos in the Australian Capital Territory, a form of perpetual leasehold title for all people who live in the Territory and not a limited term lease. We said in our policy relating to Aboriginals that there also ought to be a form of secure title for the Aborigines at the Jervis Bay Territory. We envisaged that that would be in the form of a perpetual lease. It is consistent with our policy and consistent with what we were requesting for the people in the Australian Capital Territory generally. The on-balance view of why we pursue that objective is that we see in the form of title that we are suggesting a greater unity with the people of the Australian Capital Territory, who also identify with the Jervis Bay area, such that we will not alienate the bulk of the Australian population from members of the Aboriginal community at Wreck Bay, who are seem to be getting something special and something unique, when their needs, can be satisfied in a way which is compatible with what we want to do for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I would argue very strongly that if we are concerned to contain that argument, which divides white from black in Australia, we ought to minimise to the greatest extent the points of conflict. I have no complaint with the Minister's objective in relation to what ought to be done at Wreck Bay, but I think that we ought to minimise the point of conflict. I think it could be done by providing a secure form of title, a leasehold title, which would meet the Aboriginal needs and also, I think, satisfy the needs of the people of Canberra. I was quite surprised today by the extent to which there was hostility in Canberra in relation to this question. The Minister raises his eyebrows. It came up about a year and a half ago when the matter was raised by the then Leader of the House of Assembly, Mr Leedman. The matter was quite contentious in the Canberra Press. It raised quite a degree of interest and it was the subject of a number of articles in the Press, the last I saw being in the Canberra Times of 6 July 1984. In that article Mr George Brown was endeavouring to reassure the people of Canberra that access would in no way be restricted as a result of the way in which the matter was negotiated and settled. I believe it would be a more appropriate response by the Government if it were able to pick up the approach of the Opposition. I think that it would minimise areas of conflict and it would enable the genuine needs and aspirations of the people of Jervis Bay at Wreck Bay to be satisfied. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(4.36) —I have been asked not to take the time of the House for a long period this evening, but I felt that I should speak on the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill because of its importance, the area involved being the only historical Aboriginal site in the Australian Capital Territory, or at least in the Jervis Bay Territory of the Australian Capital Territory. It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) in a debate on Aboriginal affairs because I know of his long-standing interest in this matter. I followed with interest what he said about a bipartisan approach. I must say that for a very long time in this Parliament we did have a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs, when Mr Wentworth, the former member for Warringah, was the Minister assisting the then Prime Minister in Aboriginal Affairs and I was the Secretary of the Australian Labor Party's Aboriginal affairs committee. We had, if I might say so, without seeming to be offensive to Mr Wentworth, a unity ticket on the matter of Aboriginal affairs, but those of us on this side of the House who were interested in Aboriginal matters were very happy to support the initiatives Mr Wentworth took, such as introducing secondary education grants and the like. While I acknowledge that in the Whitlam Government we received a similar response from Mr Wentworth and the people he gathered around him-I include the honourable member for Dundas as one of those members of the Liberal Party of Australia who were interested in Aboriginal affairs-unfortunately, to oppose doing anything for Aboriginal affairs can be very popular with some segments of the Australian community. I detect, particularly from the National Party's corner of this House, the idea that we should not have a bipartisan approach but that every possible political advantage should be extracted from what governments might do in the field of Aboriginal affairs-irrespective of whether they are things that this Government is doing now or whether they were things that the Fraser Government did in previous times. I very much regret that position. When the policy of Aboriginal land rights was first written by the Australian Labor Party, I must say that my sympathy was very much for those traditional Aborigines living on the land where their ancestors had lived for untold thousands of years. One thinks of Aborigines in Central Australia, the Kimberleys, Arnhem Land and parts of Cape York such as Kowanyama and Edward River. While some thousands of Aborigines live in this situation, of course many thousands of Aboriginals live in communities to which they were taken at some time in the past. Wreck Bay is a community of that type. There is a substantial number of communities of that type in Queensland. In Queensland in the 1890s the first legislation for the protection of Aborigines, and, incidentally, the suppression of opium, was introduced, and the process which took place well beyond the First World War of gathering Aborigines and taking them to communities-in most cases, in those early days, missions-where they could live and be protected from opium and alcohol, and indeed from those members of the white community and, in the case of opium, the Chinese community who preyed on them in those days, was set in train. There is no doubt that Aborigines who lived in these communities-Wreck Bay is a similar community-have a very close attachment to the place where they were born or where they grew up. It is not a traditional attachment; it is an historical attachment. So, the significance of what we are doing for Wreck Bay is that the Commonwealth Government, in its own Territory, is recognising the significance of the historical attachment to land in providing for this community at Wreck Bay. I find it interesting that Opposition members should be criticising the freehold title. They would be well aware of the good work done by a former Minister, Mr Ellicott, and others, in order to reach some agreement with the Wreck Bay community. The real point at issue was the question of title. The Labor Government's policy was for the most secure title that was available. One of the principal points of difference with the previous Government when it negotiated with the Wreck Bay community was the question of title. As a Labor government, we are giving inalienable freehold title to the Aboriginal people of Wreck Bay because it is the most secure title that they can receive. It is an earnest of the Labor Government's commitment to compensation for dispossession to Aboriginal people and an indication that the Commonwealth is prepared to practise what it preaches when our present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has gone from one end of Australia to the other talking to State and Territory governments to try to take all of those governments down this same track. It has been said in the Minister's speech, and it ought to be said again because the point has been raised about the access to these areas, that the roads are not part of the area that is being transferred and the people other than Aboriginal people who have had access to this place for recreation purposes over the years will still have land available to them. A declaration of public access can be made only when the title has been delivered to the Aboriginal community there. The honourable member for Dundas referred to the divisions in the community, and we would all understand that that is so. That is not unusual in Aboriginal communities when people have been collected, as it were, from various parts of the particular State or Territory and brought together. They do not necessarily have the same clan or language background, and there are historical differences. That is quite characteristic of Aboriginal communities throughout Australia. This Bill not only represents security to the Aboriginal community at Wreck Bay but also throws down a challenge to them. If there is one aspect of the legislation that still worries me somewhat, it is the size of the quorum that has been set down for a general meeting. But, now that the people there are being given their own area of territory, it is a challenge to them to make this legislation work and to show that they have the capacity to make the decisions that they should make as a community in electing the executive and in taking part in the management of that community. I do not wish to say much more about the legislation, except that the Minister circulated a national land rights model and that for various reasons we have had to retreat from that position because there are significant political and financial consequences of trying to enforce by national legislation a model throughout Australia. Mr Connolly —You should have thought about that in the first place. Mr CROSS —I have been mindful of that for more than a decade, because I saw us go down this track in the days of the Whitlam Government. But the fact that we have retreated is not an indication that the Labor Government has abandoned national land rights throughout Australia. It is an indication that under this Government significant progress has been made throughout the States. I congratulate the Minister on that, and on becoming the longest serving Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Commonwealth's history. In Queensland we have deeds of grant in trust being circulated. Apart from the Torres Strait islands, where all of the islands except Murray Island have received their deeds of grant in trust, four of the larger communities have received deeds of grant in trust, and negotiations are taking place, with the Aboriginal communities being assisted by the Commonwealth, to ensure that they receive title. We know what has happened in New South Wales. We know that the Victorian Government is making progress in transferring Aboriginal land to the very small number of Aboriginal people who remain in Victoria. We all acknowledge the pioneering role of the South Australian Government in transferring very significant areas of South Australia to their traditional Aboriginal owners. More recently, an agreement has been arrived at between the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Government of Western Australia to give 99-year leases to the Aboriginal communities-the reserves, the mission lands and excisions from pastoral properties in Western Australia-with very significant Commonwealth assistance. This Government having achieved all that, having co-operated with State and Territory governments to make land rights available throughout Australia and having gone down to beard the Government of Tasmania in its respective dens-I am not quite persuaded that Tasmanians believe that there are any Aborigines still in Australia-one has to say that this legislation has to be seen against that background. It is an earnest of the Commonwealth Labor Government's commitment to the Aboriginal people who live in the Australian Capital Territory. It ought to be seen in that regard, and I congratulate the Minister on this legislation. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(4.46) —I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986. Previous speakers have referred to the nature of the Bill, which is to grant freehold title to an Aboriginal community known as the Wreck Bay Community in the Jervis Bay Territory, which belongs to the Commonwealth. I commence by picking up earlier points in the debate. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), a Government member, talked of bipartisanship and appealed to the Opposition to adopt a bipartisan approach in relation to the grant of land rights for this Aboriginal community at Wreck Bay and generally. I point out to the honourable member that once in Australia, in recent times, we had bipartisanship in relation to Aboriginal policy, in both major political parties. There was bipartisanship. It was destroyed by this Government when its members were in opposition. They cynically exploited the Aboriginal people for their own purposes. They broke that bipartisan approach to Aboriginal problems and the needs of Aboriginal people in Australian society when they promised them national uniform land rights. Until that stage there was bipartisanship. The real needs of the Aboriginal people of Australia would have been much better served if the Australian Labor Party had never adopted its platform of national uniform land rights; because not only did the Labor Party destroy the bipartisanship but, in doing that, it destroyed real opportunities in Australian society for Aboriginal people and put back the real cause and the real needs of Aboriginal people by over a decade. In relation to bipartisanship, the Opposition was not consulted by this Government about this legislation. It is poppycock to call for bipartisanship when we are not even consulted in the lead-up stages in the preparation of the Bill. The bipartisanship that existed over a decade ago has been destroyed by the ALP, which has cynically exploited-- Mr Hand —That is absolute rubbish, and you know it. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member for Melbourne will get his opportunity in a minute or two. He can talk at his Party`s National Conference and get his national uniform land rights policy back in place, or he can have a meeting of his left wing faction and put the Minister in order in his terms and not mine. The honourable member for Melbourne gets upset. He is a party to the exploitation of Aboriginal people by the ALP in the worst way possible. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I find that remark very offensive. It is totally untrue and I demand that it be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The honourable member for Melbourne has asked for a withdrawal. Mr SHIPTON —In the interests of debate, I withdraw the comment as it applied to the honourable member for Melbourne, but I repeat that the Australian Labor Party has exploited the Aboriginal people because it made promises it could not deliver. In so doing, it unreasonably raised the expectations of Aboriginal people. I am sure the honourable member for Melbourne will agree that the Aboriginal people were promised national uniform land rights by the Party of which he is a member and by the Government of which he is a member. That was the policy that was promised. That is the policy the Labor Party went to the election with. Mr Hand —That is not true. Mr SHIPTON —Of course it is true. As I said, the Aboriginal people were exploited into believing this policy by this Labor Party and this Government. Divisions and tensions were created in Australian society because the Labor Party knew that it could not deliver and would not deliver that policy. It went after the Aboriginal vote in a cynical way. In so doing, it raised the expectations of Aboriginal people to unrealistic levels, it caused ill feelings, and it created divisions and tensions in society. It divided Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals over that issue. We have all seen that. Above all, this legislation and this debate represent the total failure of this policy by the Government. While it cynically raised those hopes by promising national uniform land rights, while that debate was continuing and, as the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) mentioned, while the Government retreated from that unrealistic and unworkable national land rights policy, the real needs and the real problems of the Aboriginal people were not being attended to. The Minister and the Government were diverted from looking after the real needs of Aboriginal people in Australia while they tried initially to implement the uniform land rights policy and then tried to negotiate their retreat from it. While that was happening, not only were expectations raised but also the real needs of Aboriginal people were forgotten, the divisions and the divisiveness I talked about took place and the Aboriginal people were forgotten in real terms. Their health, welfare and education needs were not attended to. I was a member of a committee that reported on the education needs of Aboriginal people on a previous occasion. The need for Aboriginal people to gain self-respect and, to participate meaningfully in the broader Australian community, the need for them to get job opportunities, if available, and to make sure that above all there was education and training for young Aboriginal people as well as older Aboriginal people who had no education or training, were lost sight of during those years. In the last 12 months the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has allocated money for health and he has said that more must be done for welfare. What a great shame it is that the Government did not set about that when it first came into office. If it had the real needs of the Aboriginal people in Australia and their relationship with non-Aboriginal people would be much further advanced. Mr Hand —What role did you play? Mr SHIPTON —What role have I played? I have a real feeling for the needs and the problems of Aboriginal people in Australia. I believe they should have equal opportunity. I believe they have special needs and that in many cases they are specially disadvantaged. It might surprise the honourable member to hear me say that. The way to attend to those real problems and real disadvantages that some Aboriginal people suffer is not to promise them something that cannot be delivered. The obsession with land rights that the Labor Party had in opposition and early in government has put back for over a decade the real advancement of Aboriginal people. This Bill grants a freehold title in Jervis Bay which is a different sort of title from that which other Australians can have in that Territory. Other Australians can have only leasehold titles because that is the form of ownership in the Australian Capital Territory and the Jervis Bay Territory. This represents a failure of policy. We heard in this debate about the retreat of the Government, its promises about uniform national land rights, preferred models-this preferred model and that preferred model-how the Minister was rolled by the Burke Government, how the party was split over it, and the retreat by the Minister. We are now at the stage where we do not really know what the Government's policy is. There is a total failure of policy. We have an ad hoc piece of legislation which grants a form of title to a small Aboriginal community. The Opposition has no quarrel about a secure title being handed to this Aboriginal community; it is the form of the title we argue with. This legislation introducing a form of land rights by way of grant of freehold title is dealt with on the last day of the sitting of the House of Representatives so that the Minister can go to the Federal Conference of the ALP in July and say: `Look, I am really implementing land rights. I have passed the Jervis Bay Bill. I had the support of the left wing-I had the support of the honourable member for Melbourne-when this legislation was passed in the House. If you give me time, I can achieve this under the counter. I do not need to have a preferred model on the top of the shelf'. That is what is happening. We are having a rush at the end of this session so that the Minister can get up at the national conference, before he is savaged by the honourable member for Melbourne and his other socialist left colleagues, and say: `I have given this community land rights and a freehold title and I have achieved this under the counter'. The Opposition supports the concept of security of title. We believe that the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community should have a secure title, but we say that the form of that title ought to be the same as form of title which other Australians have who own land in the Territory-a leasehold title. That is where we believe this legislation is in error and that is why the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), has moved an amendment to the effect that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the land described in the Schedule to the Bill to be a lease in perpetuity rather than a freehold title. I ask that the Government not attack us for that. Before I conclude I shall make some final brief comments. The matter of access to beaches for recreational and fishing purposes has been raised, and I hope the Minister will address that. Respect for the rights of the non-Aboriginal community is something I hope the Minister will address in his reply. I conclude by looking at the clause of the Bill which sets up the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council that will administer this title that is being granted to it on behalf of the community. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) handled this subject well. We hear of self- determination for Aboriginal people and we hear of policies of self-management so that Aboriginal people can manage their own affairs. I would add another important attitude or philosophical approach, and that is that governments and oppositions ought to put in place policies that enable Aboriginal people to have self-respect, not only for themselves but also for their fellow Australians and vice versa in the community. This legislation sets up a most patronising form of regulation. It sets up a Council. We will have the sticky fingers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in this community all the time, overlooking what this community does. Reference was made to the quorum, and I make no criticism of the attitude of the honourable member for Brisbane in any way. He has expressed some concern about the quorum provision of this legislation for the Aboriginal Council. To me that just highlights the fact that here we have a government which talks about self-determination and Aboriginal people managing their own affairs yet puts in place a most bureaucratic and regulatory form of council. In fact, it is very patronising legislation indeed, because it assumes by its very nature that the people at Wreck Bay are unable to manage their own affairs, and I believe that that is an insult to the Aboriginal people there. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.00) —I have listened with interest to some of the propositions that have been put forward by members of the Opposition. I will summarise the basic position. The Opposition is of the view that the intrinsic fault in the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill is that it provides a form of inalienable freehold title to the Aboriginal community at Wreck Bay. Putting it concisely, the argument is that it would be much better and in the interests of racial harmony if the people at Wreck Bay were given a form of perpetual lease and that that would somehow be uniform or closer to the rights of people living in Canberra. First, I make a point that goes to the essential nature of the land and the community at Wreck Bay. That land was never, at any stage, seen as being part of the area of land generally available within Canberra for settlement and development. From the very outset it was seen as land gazetted as an Aboriginal reserve and administered by arrangements with the New South Wales Aborigines Protection Board. It is important to remember that, because that goes intrinsically to the nature of the land. We are not talking about an area of land that, like the areas of land within Canberra, has been available for development; this has always been seen as being Aboriginal land. We are told by members of the Opposition, in their somewhat mean spirited approach to this measure, that all sorts of tensions will be created if in respect of this land, which has always been seen as Aboriginal land, we give the Aboriginal people an inalienable freehold title. In arriving at this position a number of points have been completely overlooked by members of the Opposition. It is all very well for the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) to finish his speech on a note about the rights of Aboriginal people, but the discussions with the Jervis Bay Aboriginal community have been going on for 10 years. On one matter they were absolutely solid: They did not want leasehold. They refused leasehold when it was offered by Ministers in another government. The reason for that is simple. The history of this reserve, like that of many other reserves set aside for Aboriginal people around Australia, is that a large area of land was involved initially but that it has been continually whittled away. In the face of that experience, when Aboriginal people say that they want an inalienable freehold title they are saying that they want a form of title which, if white fellows change their minds, cannot be taken away. Mr Connolly —They can be. Mr HOLDING —Only by an Act of Parliament. Mr Shipton —What about a perpetual lease? Mr HOLDING —This is distinct from a perpetual form of lease. Honourable members opposite maintain that it would be much better if these people had a perpetual lease. Mr Shipton —What are you going to achieve? Mr HOLDING —No private citizen in Canberra has a perpetual lease. I am being told that people living at Chapman, Woden and in other parts of Canberra will suddenly become concerned about this matter, that they will wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. Would this occur in respect of a piece of land that has always been seen by State and Commonwealth Governments-including previous Liberal governments-as being Aboriginal land? It has never been seen as anything else. In respect of this area of land, is there anything intrinsically wrong with the Aboriginal people asking the Government, after 10 years of negotiation, for a particular form of title? Can anything evidence more clearly than this the real attitude of some members of the Opposition? I am not referring to all members of the Opposition; I am referring to the Opposition as a party. As far as they are concerned it is not a question of saying that the request is perfectly reasonable and that the 10 years of negotiation can be put to rest. Some members of the Opposition have foisted on the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), an attitude of: `They will have what we believe they should have'. That is the very thing that the community has been saying for 10 years that it does not want. From contributions made by members participating in this debate I wonder whether they have ever seriously looked at the legislation or the areas of land that we are talking about or whether they have ever had serious discussions with members of the Aboriginal community. We are talking not about huge areas of pastoral or grazing land but about a specific area which Aboriginal people have traditionally occupied. It is essentially bushland with some areas close to the fringes of the shore on which houses have been built over the years, and there are a couple of access roads. In the middle of my second reading speech I made it perfectly clear to the House-the Aboriginal community at Wreck Bay understands this-that those roads will continue to be public access roads. At no stage did members of that community indicate that facilities in the area for the broad enjoyment of all people could no longer be used. When I was involved in the negotiations, I looked at this proposal not merely in terms of a Minister sitting down and communicating: I went down to Jervis Bay privately-as privately as a Minister can go anywhere-and spent two to three days looking at the whole area, not just Wreck Bay but the whole area in the context of the broad community. As an honourable member said, it is one of the prime resort areas on the New South Wales coast, and it is an area which is relatively undeveloped. To give back to the Aboriginal people title to the land that they have occupied and in terms that they have asked for seems to me to be legitimate and proper. Quite frankly, it is mean-spirited and shows a lack of generosity to say to the people in that community: `Although you want it this way, we are going to give you another form of title because some people in Canberra might be worried if you have something a bit different from what they have'. What nonsense. What right of any citizen of Canberra or New South Wales will be taken away? At no stage did any member of the Opposition say in this House that the rights of a citizen of Jervis Bay or Canberra to go down and put his boat in the water the way that he has done for the past 10 to 15 years were somehow under threat. Of course members opposite could not do so. However, members opposite are saying that some people-these anonymous people-think that the Aboriginal people might have something a bit different from what they have and that therefore the rights of Aboriginal people ought to be diminished. Does the average citizen in Canberra want an inalienable freehold title? Does the average citizen in Canberra want a title that means he cannot get a mortgage or that he cannot dispose of his property? Mr Connolly —That is what is wrong with this legislation. They cannot get titles either. Mr HOLDING —That is right, but the Aboriginal people have said to the Government that that is the form of title they want. After all, if a government has any sensitivity and it is in accord with government policy, in accord with the very principle that a Liberal government put into land rights legislation in the Northern Territory, inalienable freehold title is the very concept which is to be seen endorsed yet again in a private member's Bill that is currently before the Senate proposed by Senator Kilgariff. Do not tell me that he did not get the permission of his party room to put that up. There, in the middle of that legislation, is the concept of inalienable freehold title. So the problem with this Opposition is that it cannot get its facts right; it cannot get its principles right in what it does. When confronted with these sorts of issues, it squirms and turns and invents arguments. As Minister, I have not seen any significant argument taking place at any level within the Canberra community that indicates that the citizens of Canberra or the citizens of Jervis Bay feel a deep concern about the fact that they may be losing something. A number of other points were made in the course of the debate. I was asked to reassure the general public about the preservation of their rights. I did that in my second reading speech; it is there for all to see. I would have thought that the appropriate thing to do if there are any concerns in honourable members' electorates, as Opposition members say there might be, would be for them not to repeat those concerns in this House but to say to the public: `The Minister has already said that everybody's rights are preserved'. But do they do that? No. They come into this House with the kind of fictitious arguments to the effect that, if we give this title to the Aboriginal people, in the future the Royal Australian Navy might not have enough room to sail its boats, or the Royal Australian Air Force may not have enough area on which to land its aircraft, but anybody who goes down to this area knows that there are thousands upon thousands of acres there. Mr Connolly —Who said that? Mr HOLDING —The honourable member did not say that, but one of his colleagues came very close to saying it. If one looks at some of the other arguments put by Opposition members, they do not stand serious analysis. The reason is this: In Canberra, there are some very old titles, though very few. They are the exception, not the rule, but freehold titles are still around. Mr Connolly —Pre-1915. Mr HOLDING —That is correct. The only form of perpetual lease that operates in Canberra operates in respect of important public buildings such as churches and, I think, the Australian National University. Therefore, to talk about giving Aboriginal people a perpetual lease on the basis of that being the same as everybody else in Canberra is palpable nonsense. The Government in granting inalienable freehold title has done so in accordance with the wishes of Aboriginal people, and in accordance with the policy of the Australian Labor Party. We are not moving away from that policy. Mr Connolly —But you have. Mr HOLDING —No, we have not. Mr Connolly —The national land rights legislation. Mr HOLDING —What the honourable gentleman does not understand is that the mere fact he says that we are to proceed to try to introduce land rights on a State by State basis does not mean that we have abandoned essential principles which are related to the entity of land rights. Of course I know, as does everybody else, that the Burke Government in Western Australia is giving 99-year leases. But everybody knows that the reason for that is that the Burke Government cannot legislate because a conservative opposition controls a gerrymandered upper House and will not vote for it. Therefore, the only way that government can give Aboriginal people any form of secure tenure is to do so in a non-legislative mode by way of 99-year leases. Mr Connolly —The same as Queensland. Mr HOLDING —Yes, but with this difference-in doing that, making those announcements publicly and coming to joint arrangements to provide essential water supplies and electricity, it is the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, Mr Hassell, who is screaming and yelling that the most deprived group of Aboriginal people in Australia should not have any of those things. Is he rebuked by the shadow Minister, or by any of the Opposition members who have participated in this debate? Let there be no mistake; I am not saying to Aboriginal people at any stage that they should forgo any of their arguments or concerns about inalienable freehold title, but I will do all I can to secure any form of secure title for people who have got nothing. The argument will continue, but do not make the mistake of believing that this Government has abandoned any of the concepts about inalienable freehold title. That is the basis on which land has passed to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and that is the basis on which it will continue to pass. That is the basis on which it has passed in South Australia; that is the basis on which it is planned to pass in Victoria; and that is the basis on which it is passing in New South Wales. When we are legislating in this mode for Wreck Bay, we are acting essentially within the framework of this approach. It is a legitimate and proper approach but, most importantly, after 10 years of negotiations, most of them conducted under a previous government, when Aboriginal people were saying that they did not want any form of leasehold, we have managed to secure an agreement which I believe enhances and ensures the future, not merely for Aboriginal people, but gives them the security they want while preserving the rights of every other section of the community. The criticism that was levelled at this legislation by some members of the Opposition is paltry and mean-spirited. Having regard to the previous negotiations that have taken place with previous Liberal Ministers who did their best to get this matter resolved in the interests of Aboriginal people, I would have hoped that this would have been the one occasion when we would have seen some movement forward on this issue. But again within the Liberal Party room the new Right obviously has the numbers of the day, and we have seen some argument put in here by members who do not share that view but who are complying with the general attitude of their Party in putting it. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Connolly's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— 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. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S. Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren. T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J. Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R. Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M. Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G. Brown, N. A. Miller, P. C. Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Katter, R. C. Humphreys, B. C. Coleman, W. P. Dawkins, J. S. Conquest, B. J. Duffy, M. J. Cadman, A. G. Grace, E. L. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.26) —by leave-I circulate an additional explanatory memorandum and I move: (1) Clause 9, page 4, lines 34 to 38, omit all the words after paragraph 9 (b), insert ``the Minister may, by instrument in writing specifying the first-mentioned land, declare that the first-mentioned land is Aboriginal Land.''. (2) Clause 9, page 4, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clauses: ``(2) The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after making an instrument under sub-section (1)- (a) cause a copy of the instrument to be published in the Gazette; and (b) cause a copy of the instrument to be laid before each House of the Parliament. ``(3) Either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after a copy of an instrument has been laid before that House under sub-section (2), may, in pursuance of a motion upon notice, pass a resolution disallowing the instrument. ``(4) Where- (a) a notice referred to in sub-section (3) is given with respect to an instrument; and (b) at the expiration of the period during which a resolution disallowing the instrument could have been passed- (i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the relevant motion has not been called on; or (ii) the relevant motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, the instrument shall be deemed to have been disallowed. ``(5) If- (a) neither House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with sub-section (3) disallowing an instrument made under sub-section (1); and (b) the instrument has not been deemed to have been disallowed under sub-section (4), the instrument takes effect, and the land specified in the instrument becomes Aboriginal Land, on the day immediately following the last day upon which a resolution disallowing the instrument could have been passed. ``(6) If, before the expiration of 15 sitting days of a House of the Parliament after a copy of an instrument made under sub-section (1) has been laid before that House- (a) the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires, or the Parliament is prorogued; and (b) a resolution for the disallowance of the instrument has not been passed by the first-mentioned House, the copy of the instrument shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been laid before that first-mentioned House on the first sitting day of that first-mentioned House after the dissolution, expiry or prorogation, as the case may be. ``(7) Where an instrument made under sub-section (1) takes effect, the Minister shall cause a notice to that effect to be published in the Gazette. ``(8) Any failure to comply with the requirements of sub-section (7) does not affect the operation of sub-section (5).''. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.27) —The amendment to clause 9 of the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill which has been moved by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is supported by the Opposition because it is an amendment which we proposed to the Government in the first place. There was a fundamental weakness in the Bill in that the powers delegated to both the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister responsible for the Australian Capital Territory appeared to the Opposition to require nothing of the Parliament despite the fact that the Bill was passed by the Parliament. Therefore any changes to the substance to title should clearly be referred back to the Parliament. For that reason we recommended that the change to clause 9 be made so that, in addition to publishing in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette details of any proposed changes, there be a requirement that any Aboriginal land subject to this legislation which may be increased should be referred to the Parliament within 15 sitting days by an instrument being laid before the House. Since we are at the Committee stage of the Bill I take the opportunity to reiterate some of the observations which have been made by some of my colleagues and to rebut some of the observations made by the Minister and by Government members relating to the question of bipartisanship. I reiterate the point made by one of my colleagues that there was a significant degree of bipartisanship in relation to Aboriginal policy, including land rights policy, during the period of the Fraser Government and even before that period. It is a matter of great regret to us that because of the attitude taken by the Australian Labor Party-essentially due to its policy on a national land rights model which required the States to cede their traditional rights over land management to the Commonwealth, or at least to involve the Commonwealth in affairs of their citizens, which had not previously been the position-the Government faced a major backlash from Australian public opinion. No matter what way the Government wants to read the situation, the fact that it had to change its land rights policy to bring it into line with what is the Opposition's policy demonstrates that, whatever the good will may have been, the fact of the matter is that significant damage has been done to the relationship between white Australians and Aboriginal Australians. Perhaps as important is the fact that many Aboriginal Australians today simply do not trust the decisions or the policies emanating from this Parliament. They ask the question of me, as no doubt they have of the Minister: `Why do white men make promises to us which they do not intend to keep?'. The observation which they end up with is: `If you cannot keep a promise you should not make it in the first place'. I think the damage which has been done in recent years to our relationship with the Aborigines is something which will take considerable effort by all parties in this Parliament to undo. The Minister has rightly observed that the essential division in this legislation between the Government and the Opposition centres on the question of title. The Minister has made the point that because previous Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs negotiated with the Wreck Bay community for many years on the basis of an agreed title, the Aboriginals have taken the view that the title must be a freehold title and that they will accept nothing less. Having said that, however, I add that the legislation contains a range of inconsistencies in relation to what we accept as normal freehold title. For example, the freehold title is vested in the Council of the Aboriginal community. The Council then has the right to give a 99-year lease for the homes and the curtilage around the homes to the people who live in the community at Wreck Bay. Those people have absolutely no right under the legislation to transform that title in any way whatsoever. They cannot go to a bank or a building society and seek a loan. They have no right to do so because they do not control the title. The title at all times is controlled by the community. If we were dealing with a group of people who for time immemorial would be united in their approach to common objectives, perhaps in a theoretical sense such a model may stand. But the Minister is well aware that the Wreck Bay community is not a pristine example of a united Aboriginal community. There are divisions within it. The most important division, in very simple terminology, is between the haves and the have nots. It is perceived that those who control the Council are the haves, and those who do not control it fear that they may be the have nots. That is a simplistic way of putting it, but it demonstrates the problem that the Minister is fundamentally responsible for solving and is charged with the duty of explaining to the community-as I hope he did; he has not said at any stage of the debate that he has explained to them-all the alternative forms of title. As I said in my speech on the second reading, I understand why they would prefer a freehold title. We could ask any community of Australians `Do you prefer a freehold title or a leasehold title?', and inevitably they would say: `I will take the freehold'. People believe, incorrectly, that a freehold title somehow gives rights which are not available under a leasehold title. The Minister made the observation that because Labor Party policy requires freehold title to Aboriginal land across Australia that principle had to be applied in the Australian Capital Territory, even though he could not do it in Western Australia and it has not been done in Queensland. Let us examine that in detail. It is true that in New South Wales the predominant, but not the only, title is freehold. In the western division of New South Wales it is a leasehold title, but in the areas where a significant proportion of Aboriginal communities live-along the coastal strip and especially in the areas to which we are referring-it is a freehold title. The same principle applies in South Australia. In Western Australia, on the other hand, most land is leasehold and the major areas of domestic land are freehold. That is where the distinction must be made. The Australian Capital Territory title, whether we like it or not, happens to be leasehold. That position also relates to Jervis Bay, just as it applies to the rest of the Australian Capital Territory. The reason why we could not support this legislation is that we believe that the time has come when we have to be able to say to the entire Australian community that we believe that Aboriginal Australians must have equality of opportunity. Of course, that means access to ownership of land, but it also follows that ownership should be consistent with the prevailing position in that community. The prevailing position in the Australian Capital Territory happens to be leasehold title. Mr Holding —It is not part of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr CONNOLLY —That is precisely the reason we are objecting. It is not part of the Australian Capital Territory except in two senses. Firstly, it occurred as a result of negotiations with the New South Wales Government with the objective of giving the Australian Capital Territory its own port. Secondly, the entire area was brought under the direct administration of the Australian Capital Territory. For all intents and purposes it is part of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Holding —It is Aboriginal land. Mr CONNOLLY —Now the Minister makes the point that we are dealing with Aboriginal land. The same principle can be used for the entire continent, including Tasmania. That argument could be used. I simply put it to members of the Government, frankly, that argument is specious. It is not viable today. We are trying to set in place an administrative system which will ensure that all Aboriginal Australians will get a better deal in the future than we know they had in the past. There should be no division of opinion on that point. Let us make sure that in achieving the goal of equality of opportunity, which is certainly the objective of Opposition policy, Aborigines should not be set apart. I emphasised that in my speech on the second reading and I do so again. With all the good will in the world, if we have an administrative system which gives the Minister and the Government of the day the last word on many of the decisions on what the Minister claims this community ought to have because, as he puts it, it has freehold title, the way the Government has drafted the legislation is absurd. Throughout this Bill we see that nothing may be done of a commercial nature, no land may be transferred in a commercial sense, no prospect of land being transferred to non-members of the community will be considered without the approval of the Minister. Yet at the end of the day this Government has the audacity to talk about freehold title. It is an absurdity and a wrong use of the term. The realities are that if these people as individuals and as a community do not have the full benefits of what the rest of the community considers to be freehold title, all I can say is that the Government has mislead the Aboriginal community at Wreck Bay. It is doing its best to mislead the rest of the Australian people and it will not get away with it. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.37) —I had not intended to speak in this debate until I came in here to hear some of it. I heard the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), the former shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who has been removed from that position and put on the back bench because of his total incompetence in that area. He is best remembered for being escorted by the Australian Federal Police away from a group of Aborigines at the front of Parliament House for attempting to create a riot. He was damned lucky he was not charged. We all know that. The honourable member pretends to be an authority on Aboriginal issues and, worse still, pretends to be an authority on the Australian Labor Party's policy. Firstly, if we read his speech and get a copy of the policy we will see that obviously the honourable member has never read the policy and knows little about it. If he cares to contact one of the members of the Government, we will be only too happy to supply him with a copy of our policy. The honourable member's record is there to be seen. His own Party, bad as it is on the matter of Aborigines, removed him from the portfolio and dumped him on the back bench. That is enough of the honourable member for Higgins. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the current shadow Minister, is an interesting character. He seems to be a sort of Jekyll and Hyde character who has one position in one place and another position in another place. I am trying to follow his argument in this debate. He said on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program the World Today that Aboriginal land rights is not a nonsense. But the honourable member here puts all sorts of arguments and an amendment which simply is to refer the legislation, and to have it withdrawn and redrafted. Quite frankly, that is the oldest political trick in the book. Everybody at his first branch meeting in any political party learns that trick; that if one does not approve of a motion before the meeting one refers it to a committee or has it adjourned until another night when one is in a better position to defeat it. We all know why the honourable member wants to defer the legislation or refer it to somebody for redrafting. In essence the honourable member is opposed to the legislation. Why does he not say that he is opposed to it instead of all the nonsense that he goes on with? Every time an Aboriginal issue is brought before the House there is always some reason why we cannot proceed with it-some slight reason why it ought to be redrafted. That is the latest and probably best reason that the honourable member has come up with for opposing the legislation. Why does he not put the position of his Party-the position of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron), or the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair)? Why does he not represent his Party's position and be honest with the Australian community, instead of saying: `Let us redraft the Bill.'? That is nonsense. I have talked about our Party's policy. People are quite welcome to read it. We will see what happens at the National Conference. If the honourable member wants to come down there and be like everybody else in Australia, he is quite welcome to come down there and see how a real political party functions, with the Conference open for the whole world to see what is going on, instead of the Opposition's practice of having meetings behind the back doors of Elders with the people who manipulate Opposition policy in the Northern Territory. He will be able to see how a real political party functions. The honourable member for Higgins has just returned to the chamber. It will be interesting to see what he has to say in the Committee. If he wants to speak, he is quite welcome. We will always respond to him. I totally support this legislation. Naturally there are differences within the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community, as there will be in any community. But, if my memory serves me correctly, there have been democratic votes within the community on two occasions. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has been down there. Departmental officers have been there, explained the legislation to members of the community and discussed what the community thought ought to be put in place. Their views are expressed within the legislation. We heard comments about what is good for all Australians. Surprising though it may be to Opposition members, Aboriginal people are Australians. The honourable member for Higgins talked about a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs. That approach was smashed by Opposition members the day that we came to government. They have deliberately set out to destroy the bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs. Opposition members and the mining lobby in Western Australia, which backs the Opposition and which the Opposition is too gutless to stand up to, set out to divide the community on Aboriginal issues. Opposition members have not had and do not now have the guts to stand up to and tackle those people. They fell under their wheel and have been run over by them. The point is that the mining lobby runs the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia. The dries in that Party support the mining lobby and they run the Liberal Party in Western Australia. We had a bipartisan approach to land rights and to Aboriginal issues until the Opposition smashed it to bits. The Opposition should not try to hoodwink the people of Australia. Aboriginals would be hundreds of percentage points better off if the Opposition had not taken the path that it has taken. On every issue affecting Aboriginal people Opposition members have set out to frustrate this Government. Not once have they had a constructive suggestion or proposal. It has always been attack, attack, attack. While they are doing that, they are further dividing the community on this issue. That is what they must realise. Mr Shipton —Oh! Mr HAND —The honourable member for Higgins says: `Oh'. That is about the level of his contribution. That is all he is capable of. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Higgins will cease interjecting. Mr Shipton —He is provoking me. Mr HAND —Mr Chairman, I seek your protection from the honourable member for Higgins. The last time that he talked on this issue was outside the front of this House. He will remember what happened to him on that day. Mr Shipton —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. The honourable member for Melbourne must know that I spoke in this debate on the issue of Aboriginal affairs. I ask you to- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAND —If he had been here for the debate, he would have heard me refer to his comments earlier. Mr Shipton —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. I ask the honourable member to withdraw his comment that if I had been here, et cetera. I inform him- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Shipton —The point of order is that I was attending a meeting of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I ask for an apology- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Higgins will resume his seat. Mr HAND —Of course he was at the meeting of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. The shadow Minister and I are unable to be there. The honourable member for Higgins was probably there plotting to roll me or something like that. Mr Shipton —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. The Committee was considering a serious matter in the interests of Aboriginal people. To make an accusation like that in this House is totally ridiculous. I ask for a withdrawal. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Higgins will resume his seat. The honourable member for Melbourne will come back to debating the Bill before the Committee. Mr HAND —The Opposition's amendment calls for the Bill to be withdrawn. What we are really talking about- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is missing his place a bit. At present we are talking to the amendments moved by the Minister. Mr HAND —I am sorry; I have gone a bit wide. I apologise and will come to that later. Why I referred to that proposed amendment incorrectly was that it highlights the Opposition's attitude to land rights, but I want to refer in general terms to the proposal and the attitude of the Opposition to land rights. On 10 July Greiner, the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales, said in Sydney: We do not believe in NSW that there is a legitimate case for Aboriginal land rights. Hassell, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Western Australia and a representative in the State Parliament of the mining lobby over there, is reported this way in Sydney: Land rights is a racist policy and `a serious threat to the security and future welfare of Australia'. Hassell also said in Sydney: People in the suburbs of Melbourne have got to understand that it is their backyards which could be affected as much as anyone in Western Australia. What nonsense, what lies, what an attempt to deceive the Australian community. It is wrong for any political party to be party to that sort of comment. Opposition members do not deny that. They do not dissociate themselves from people such as Hassell. They are afraid to do so. Tuxworth supported Burke's proposal. Tuxworth supported it, for God's sake! Those people in Western Australia knocked it off. Sinclair said- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will refer to the member by his title. Mr HAND —The right honourable member for New England said-this was quoted in the Northern Territory-that he was ashamed to be part of the Fraser-Anthony team that brought in land rights legislation in 1976. Where is he? Why is he not in here saying that tonight? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.47) —I rise at the Committee stage to make a number of points on these amendments. Firstly, I want to pick up the point that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) made about the destruction of bipartisanship in this Parliament in policy towards Aboriginal people. There was bipartisanship between the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, on the one hand, and the Australian Labor Party, on the other hand, until it was deliberately destroyed by the Labor Party when it raised the expectations of Aboriginal people by promising them national uniform land rights. National uniform land rights is in the policy of the Australian Labor Party; it is part of the policy laid down by the conference of the Australian Labor Party. In raising those expectations, ALP members set back by a decade the real cause of the advancement of Aboriginal people in this nation. I want to put that on record again and again. It is totally hypocritical for the honourable member for Melbourne to come into this chamber and say that the Opposition has frustrated Aboriginal policy. There is a total failure in Aboriginal policy in this country today because of the failure of the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Members of the Australian Labor Party made promises to Aboriginal people and used them as pawns for their narrow political gain in order to get votes in the seats in which Aboriginal votes count. They promised Aboriginal people what they could not deliver. Their policy is hypocritical and most patronising. The Aboriginal people will reward the Labor Party by voting against it at the first possible opportunity. I also wish to reply to some comments apparently made about me by the honourable member for Melbourne while I was out of the chamber. The honourable member attacked me for being out of the chamber. Where was I? I was at a meeting of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I acknowledge that the honourable member could not be at that meeting because he was speaking in this chamber but he attacked me- Mr Hand —I did not attack you. Mr SHIPTON —I do not know what he said while I was not here, but he made comments about me. I will look at Hansard when it comes out and I will reserve my right to take up in this chamber what he said, if it is appropriate to do so. He made a point of saying that I had just come back into the chamber. I had been at the meeting of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of this Parliament because I have a real concern for the problems facing Aboriginal people. I have not resigned from the Committee, despite the fact that I am no longer shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, because I believe that members from both sides of the Parliament have responsibilities to the Aboriginal people. We need bipartisanship. I appeal to the Australian Labor Party to address the real needs and the real issues facing Aboriginal people. The needs of the Aboriginal people are great. I do not deny that they were set back. The health, the welfare and, equally importantly, the education of Aboriginal people in Australia today leave much to be desired. But the Australian Labor Party will not achieve the advancement of those causes by advocating national uniform land rights. In fact, the ALP has put back those causes, and put back the advancement of Aboriginal people. It will stand condemned by history for having done that. We all know that great problems face Aboriginal communities. I refer, for example, to petrol sniffing. I know that addiction to drugs is not confined to Aboriginal communities, but as far as we can tell, petrol sniffing in Aboriginal communities is on the increase. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member is ranging a bit wide on a Bill that is about granting land to Aboriginals in the Jervis Bay Territory. Mr SHIPTON —I thank you, Mr Chairman, for your direction but I was only following the honourable member for Melbourne, who moved very wide in this debate. I felt I ought to address the issues raised by the honourable member, who ranged widely in his speech at the Committee stage. The CHAIRMAN —Even taking account of what the honourable member for Melbourne did, I think I have allowed a fair amount of latitude to the honourable member for Higgins. He might now come back to the legislation and the amendments before the Committee. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was talking about the total failure of the Australian Labor Party's policy and how the Government had raised the expectations of Aboriginal people by promising what it could not deliver. The clauses in the legislation that grant freehold title to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal people, and the amendments we are considering, are a direct admission of failure, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, they are an attempt to make up with the Aboriginals under the counter so that the Minister can go to the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party in July and say: `Here, I have delivered part of the land rights that I promised previously, but I have really done it under the counter'. Therefore the socialist Left, of which the honourable member for Melbourne is a member, might be partly happy and there might not be a revolt. However, there will be many revolts at the National Conference, and this will be just one of them. I understand that the Opposition supports the amendments and in fact the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who has done a great job in this regard, put an amendment to the Government. I wish the Government had had the decency to consult the Opposition. We hear about consensus, about bipartisanship and about consultation from this Government, but it never practises it. It ignores the Parliament. At every opportunity the Government goes outside the Parliament. It is doing it in relation to the national economic statement being made next week. I come back to the legislation before the Committee. Why did the Government not try a bipartisan approach by consulting the Opposition? The Government stands condemned for its actions. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 June, on the following paper presented by Mr Beazley: Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities-Ministerial Statement, 3 June 1986. and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the papers. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.55) —The House last debated on Tuesday, the day it was tabled, the report of the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. It is interesting to note the comment that has ensued. I am pleased to say that comment on the Dibb report has been favourable. We took a favourable view of it before it was fully debated in the community; nevertheless, we are pleased with the quality of comment from the Australian community in general and from the defence community in particular in the debate that has ensued. The thing that I think marks the Dibb report is that it provides a specific direction and, as I was saying on Tuesday, I find if particularly satisfying that for the first time we now have a report that says what the direction of Australia's defence should be. That is a remarkable achievement and I congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the consultant, Mr Dibb, on being able to do that. It is not easy to get to the level of preparing a defence report that provides direction and purpose for Australia's defence. I want at the outset to make some very satisfying remarks. I am a member for Western Australia representing the electorate of Stirling. There are some specific recommendations in the Dibb report that in my view provide good news for Western Australia. The development of a major submarine base at Cockburn Sound is recommended. Clearly, it is strategically important to have a substantial submarine base at Cockburn Sound, and I know that the Western Australian community is pleased about that recommendation. The honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin), in whose electorate this facility would be based, is pleased about it and I know that she has done a lot of work in that respect. There is also the prospect of a limited naval facility in the north-west. That is important because anyone who understands anything about Australian geography and trade would recognise that the north-west of Western Australia is important in both economic and strategic terms. The Dibb report provides that recognition. The note in the report that there should be a regular Army base in the north also provides good news for the people of Western Australia, because clearly people in the north and west of Australia recognise that those areas have particular defence concerns and needs. I am pleased to say that the Dibb report goes a long way towards addressing those. I refer also to the over the horizon radar capacity provided by the Jindalee. That is important, from the point of view of surveillance, for the Western Australian community and for the general Australian community. I refer also to the note about the move towards the construction of light patrol frigates. I would be a strong supporter of that because clearly with the length of coastline we have we need patrol frigates which have greater durability and range than patrol boats but which are still able to provide some substantial patrol capacity. It is my view that for Western Australia, which has such a long coastline, the commitment to light patrol frigates will be very worth while. I now conclude on Western Australia because I want to move on to wider Australian strategic matters-by pointing to mining countermeasures. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you also come from Western Australia, you would recognise that we have a substantial number of ports. One thing that has stood out in the past in regard to our lack of capability is our lack of mining countermeasures. The Dibb report sensibly identifies the importance of those countermeasures and also points out that Western Australia has a number of ports through which the free movement of shipping has to be ensured-ports such as Port Hedland and clearly Fremantle, Cockburn Sound, Dampier and also Albany. They are very important to Western Australia. The Dibb report sensibly recognises that as a country we need to provide mining countermeasures and thus maintain port access. So I am pleased from a Western Australian point of view but also from an Australian point of view that we now have a defence report that says that we do have defence objectives. It identifies those defence objectives and gives us a specific role to perform. At the very outset of the Dibb report we are provided with this encouraging news: Australia is one of the most secure countries in the world . . . But it would not be prudent to assume that we will always be able to conduct our affairs without challenge. Both of those statements are very important in themselves. But they are also important because, in the context of this debate, there has been from some Opposition members a certain amount of scaremongering. It is important for us in the national Parliament to be able to assure the Australian community that we are aware of our role and our responsibility in terms of defending ourselves but we are also aware of the potentiality of threats. The Dibb report makes that very clear. It also points out that Australia `faces no identifiable direct military threat and there is every prospect that our favourable security circumstances will continue'. That is a statement not of complacency but of reality. It is very important that we make that clear. I move on quickly to talk about some significant specific things. I have mentioned the significance of maritime trade in terms of port security. It is also important to emphasise that, as Mr Dibb says, the potential for threat to our shipping needs to be better understood. No country has ever blockaded a continent surrounded by sea such as Australia. I believe that it is understood in the Australian community generally that maritime trade is very important. It would be very difficult to conduct a blockade; nevertheless, if we are realistic, we must recognise that mining is a possibility. I referred earlier to the importance of mining countermeasures. The big change, in terms of the Dibb report, from what preceded us under previous governments concerns the notion that there was a forward defence policy. It meant that we did not have a credible defence policy or a credible defence capability. The report says: Australia must have the military capacity to prevent any enemy from attacking us successfully in our sea and air approaches, gaining a foothold on our soil, or extracting political concessions from us through the use of military force. That is an important statement in terms of what our defence objectives ought to be. I quote the key objective: Australia's vital defence interests are compact and easily identified. The exercise of authority over our land territory, territorial sea and airspace is fundamental to our sovereignty and security. We must also be able to protect our resource zones and defend our maritime approaches. That is the key objective of our defence policy, as Mr Dibb sees it. In terms of an analysis of a number of issues, we then have a particular focus for our defence, which is a big departure. In the past we had defence policies that were tailored to short term electoral needs. When the Liberal and National parties were in government, if there was a particular electoral need they talked about a particular defence policy. There was no long term strategy. Were we in the hands of our allies? Did we have an Australian defence policy? Was the threat coming from the north? Were there unidentified threats? It was all left up to very unspecific claims. We have put it into a specific focus. The report also makes some mention of our alliance relationships. We Government members give high priority to that matter. As we go through this debate, I believe that that view will be clearly confirmed in statements about our defence capability and issues such as surveillance. As to intelligence and surveillance, the Dibb report mentions the importance of mapping. Clearly, as it says, the current state of mapping, charting and environmental knowledge of nearby maritime areas of importance is less than satisfactory. That is a severe criticism. We have not done our job in the past in terms of defence mapping. I have already mentioned Jindalee. It is very important that we continue to place emphasis upon that over-the-horizon capacity. With respect to strike and interdiction, the Dibb report makes it clear that, in terms of the arrangements of a mix of F111 capability, FA18, Orion long-range maritime patrol aircraft and Oberon submarines, we have considerable strike and interdiction capability. It is important to note that this report provides a focus for that capability. As to anti-submarine warfare, the Dibb report makes the claim-I believe that it is sensible and viable-that we are well placed in our anti-submarine warfare capability, but it also points out the importance of submarine capability and anti-submarine capability in the context of Australia as a maritime power. On the question of maritime air defence, the Dibb report talks about F111s and FA18s and makes a very sensible recommendation on the question of in-flight refuelling capability; that is, that that capability should be directed towards FA18s because F111s already have fairly substantial range, but the FA18 combined with in-flight refuelling capability would make that aircraft, in terms of regional interests, a very important resource for Australia. On ground force priorities, the important thing that the Dibb report says is that we must give our ground forces a focus, and that that focus must be clearly in terms of dealing with low level threats to this continent; but, at the same time, we should have an expansion base of skills so that, if there were to be developments in other countries, we would be able to expand our defence capability with respect to ground forces. The important departure that Dibb provides from the past is that we ought to be focusing our ground force capability, that we ought to be looking towards deployment in the north of Australia to provide on-ground operational experience so that in the event of low level threats to mainland Australia our ground force capability would be able to handle any such threats. But I add that the notion of an expansion base of skills is also very important. I think that many Labor members will attest that the Dibb report is a substantial document. The important thing is that for the first time in our history we have a properly defined defence policy; we have a direction for our defence capability. I am pleased that many honourable members will be able to commend the report to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. I am pleased to provide support to it. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(6.07) —The Dibb report, entitled `Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities', represents a calculated risk of massive proportions. Indeed, with its key recommendation of a strategy of denial, the report represents an unacceptable gamble with the future security of Australia, and particularly with the future security of this nation's extremities. I refer in particular to Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island-to mention just four extremities. I should like to highlight how critical those islands are in any assessment of the defence of our nation and how lacking the Dibb report is in the strategy of denial that it lays down in terms of ensuring the future security of Australia. In terms of Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island, in Vanuatu-just a little further to the north-east-the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is gaining access to the area because Vanuatu is prepared to become the first South Pacific island nation to give port access to the Soviet Union's tuna fleet. That is only the tip of an iceberg. Of course, the Soviet Union's tuna fleet has many and varied roles. Likewise, nearby, Kiribati is preparing to extend its fishing agreement with the Soviets to allow Soviet fishing boats unrestricted access to its maritime zone and to study proposals to give unrestricted port access to the USSR. It is also true that Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam is now the centre of the largest concentration of Soviet naval units outside continental USSR. Of course, on the north-west corridor approach to Australia we have the delicate situation of our relations with Indonesia and the proximity of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Indonesia and to other nations further to the north. In considering the Dibb report we must give very careful consideration to the defence and security of these vital extremities of Australia. In considering defence could I also say that in general one needs to look at defence strategy, defence equipment and defence manpower. Undoubtedly the Dibb report looks at the question of defence strategy; to some extent it looks at the question of defence equipment; but to no extent does it deal with the question of defence manpower. Dibb gave a reason for not dealing with the manpower situation relating to our servicemen and servicewoman, a situation which I regard as a very important equation in the future capability of our defence forces in Australia. Mr Dibb said that certain areas were not addressed in the report. At page vii of the report he said: Some people have indicated that they would expect the review to address such issues as the morale and motivation of service personnel, conditions of service and the problems of particular defence industries. I regard such factors as relevant to our defence effort, but they are beyond my terms of reference. I say further, however, that when one examines the terms of reference of the Dibb inquiry one finds that under 4 (3) Mr Dibb was charged with the responsibility of investigating any other matters which have an important bearing on the desirable future direction of Australia's defence capabilities. I submit to the House that the Dibb report has failed to address the manpower, service conditions, and all aspects relating to maintaining the manpower of the Army, Navy and Air Force. I see that as a major failure because it is a matter of factual record that resignations from the Army, Navy and Air Force today in certain categories are reaching record proportions. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) as recently as 26 May answered a question on notice from the shadow Minister for Defence and Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) on the matter of resignations. Again, I quote what Mr Beazley said in that answer: Current features are the increasing number of junior officers (Captain equivalent and below) who have resigned in recent months as well as Army's continued concern over the number of Majors resigning. I have to tell this House and this nation that the rate of resignations from the Army, Navy and Air Force is astounding. It is reaching record proportions, and the Army, Navy and Air Force are losing their most capable, most experienced and most trained personnel, and can ill afford to do so. As a consequence, we are rapidly facing a situation where we have not got the right spread of experience in our command structure of non-commissioned officers and officers in the Army, Navy and Air Force. Does Dibb address this situation of manpower, or perhaps one should say personpower? Of course he does not, and I do not accept his reasons for not addressing the question of manpower, even if it were only by way of some significant passing reference. In passing over the question of personnel, Dibb has also passed over the other interesting equation associated with the defence forces of this country. I refer to the civilian component of the Department of Defence, which admittedly includes workshops and things such as the Garden Island facilities, but which as at June 1985 amounted to some 23,650 permanent full time staff in the Department of Defence. The civilian component of the Department of Defence is no less than 23,650 and temporary full time staff 1,151. Exempt full time staff amounted to another 5,664. The grand total was 30,465 civilians engaged in the defence effort of this nation. This total already exceeds the number of personnel in any one of the three services. If that pace is kept up, before long it will start to equate with the combined strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force, which has fallen in recent years and which is not much over 70,000. We have at present a ratio of civilians to serving personnel of about 1:3 1/2. By any standard I regard that ratio as unacceptable. I have some figures for other similar nations which I think are relevant to consider, because we are not alone in this problem. Civilians as a percentage of the defence establishment in Australia at the moment amount to 36.1 per cent. For the United States of America the figure is 32.6 per cent, a little lower. For the United Kingdom, which is still perhaps in a contraction phase after its most recent involvements and its continuing involvement in Ireland, the figure is 38.8 per cent. In France the civilian component is a very lowly 23 per cent. Slightly more than three-quarters of its defence forces are active personnel in its Army, Navy and Air Force. In West Germany the figure is 26.8 per cent; in Sweden it is 25 per cent; in Japan, which is a late starter in terms of its defence effort, it is 10 per cent; and in Canada it is 30.7 per cent. Of all those countries Australia ranks highest, with the one exception of the United Kingdom, and perhaps there is a message in that. Some 36 per cent of our defence establishment today are civilians, and this is not addressed in the Dibb report. Interestingly enough, defence expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product for that same group of countries is Australia, 3.2 per cent; the United States, a very large 6.9 per cent; Britain, 5.4 per cent; France, 4.1 per cent; West Germany, 3.3 per cent; Sweden, 3.2 per cent; Japan, one per cent; and Canada, 2.1 per cent. Again Australia is in about the mid-range in terms of its defence expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product. If Dibb has done nothing else he has forced the Parliament, the Government, the Opposition and, hopefully, the nation to look very closely at this defence question. As we look to the future I submit again that it is essential that we look at the manpower, the staffing, the personnel, associated with our defence forces. In terms of my own work as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs I point out that in respect of recruitment and resignations I am concerned about repatriation cover for our peace time services and the extent to which that will be replaced by the new defence compensation scheme, which is scheduled to be introduced in some two or three years time, according to the Minister for Defence. As things stand, our Army, Navy and Air Force personnel will have repatriation cover until the new defence compensation scheme comes into operation, but it is very important that that compensation scheme be comprehensive enough to cover the worries of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Likewise, it is essential that Service pay be looked at very closely indeed because there has been a three- or four-year period in which there has been a lag in increasing Service pay. There has also been a situation where the housing conditions of so many in the Army, Navy and Air Force have been totally inadequate. In Albury-Wodonga, the Seymour complex and the Singleton complex, to name just three, there are gross inadequacies associated with housing. That is now the subject of some effort by the Minister for Defence, and that effort is most welcome, but, who is the last to learn of the rental increases which apply to our soldiers, sailors and airmen? It is often the commanders of the units involved and the personnel involved. They just see a media release that the Government has again increased armed forces accommodation rentals across the nation. These are all most relevant considerations if we are to continue to attract personnel to take up careers in our Army, Navy and Air Force and if, more importantly, we are to retain the very experienced and well trained people of all ranks, particularly the non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers, and to reverse these massive rates of resignation which have been referred to so extensively in the reply given by the Minister for Defence to a question on notice. I join my leader, the shadow Minister for Defence and shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, in rejecting the strategy that has been laid down by the Dibb report-a strategy of denial, a strategy of negative defence and a reverting back in slightly different phraseology to that concept of Fortress Australia which has not served our interests over the years and will not if we are to go down that path once again. I want to say that I and many others-many serving personnel to whom I have spoken since the arrival of the Dibb report-are very suspicious that the Dibb report will be used as a facade for dismantling our defence capabilities and for further contracting the strength of the Army, Navy and Air Force in this country. Worse still, the Dibb report will do nothing about looking seriously at the structure of the civilian component of the Department of Defence. The total number involved is some 30,465 all up, including the various categories of full-time staff, to which I have already referred in my contribution. Clearly, inefficiencies and inadequacies with the civilian component of the Australian Department of Defence have been shown up. Time does not allow me to provide details in relation to that matter. A strong Minister for Defence is needed. The situation requires a strong and determined government and a strong officer structure, including the Chief of the Defence Force and the new deputy to be appointed, to really take hold of the civilian component of our defence structure, to deal with that component to extract maximum efficiency and to ensure that our Army, Navy and Air Force are properly serviced for the protection and maintenance of the security of our great nation. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.22) —Defence is rarely believed by those who comment on current affairs to be an issue which touches the everyday lives of most Australians. It is no longer considered to be an issue which determines the rise, fall or survival of peacetime governments. For the last 20 years, the Budget, employment and wages have been treated as the great determining issues for most Australian voters. We in northern Australia disagree with this received wisdom. Because of our history and because of present-day realities, people in northern Australia are acutely aware that-as the platform of my Party insists-the capacity for self-defence is a prerequisite for our peaceful development, our safety and our independence. According to a special survey conducted some years ago for The Bulletin by the Morgan Gallup poll organisation, the majority of Australians believe that there are potential threats to Australia's security and, apparently, most Australians are prepared to spend more on defence. It would be true to say that members of Australia's armed forces share with the ordinary citizen such concerns as: Are Australia's defences adequate at a time of increasing international tensions? Are Australia's defence forces structured for the right type of war? Would they be capable of timely expansion? Why is it that the last White Paper on Australian defence was published nearly 10 years ago, back in 1976? Has the Department of Defence become a huge bureaucracy that would be unable to respond to the demanding requirements of administration in a war? The review of Australia's defence capabilities prepared by Paul Dibb attempts to address some of these issues. Above all, it provides a basis and rationale for the structure of Australia's defence forces over the next decade. The official strategic guidance to the Government is that Australia would receive at least 10 years warning of a substantial military threat. However, the correctness of that view must always be uncertain. History is littered with examples of intelligence failures. Indeed, governments are notoriously slow to accept intelligence warnings of impending danger. It also has to be recognised that modern methods of intelligence collection are good at observing, counting, measuring and locating the order of battle of potential hostile foreign countries. There is a distinct difference between the intelligence tasks of assessing a potential enemy's intentions to use force and estimating its military capabilities. The former can change relatively quickly, but the development of a military capability, particularly to invade a large land mass surrounded by water, such as Australia, is readily detectable. I know that Paul Dibb had these observations in mind when he prepared his `Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities'. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in his tabling statement identified three essential elements of Australia's defence planning and environment: First, that Australia should have the ability to defend itself from its own resources; secondly, sound defence planning should be based on realistic financial parameters: and thirdly, that low level military threats could emerge relatively quickly. The primary aim of the Hawke Government's defence policy is to provide for the independent defence of Australia. The concept of self-reliance for the Australian Defence Force is not new. The term first appeared in Australian defence literature after World War II. However, from the end of the Second World War until the late 1960s Australia's defence posture was forward defence. For most of the post-war period, Australia's foreign policy and defence policy generally followed that of our great ally, the United States of America. If the United States of America saw a threat in Asia it was interpreted as a threat to Australia as well and had to be met in Asia, before we became the last domino to fall to monolithic expansionist communism. In the late 1960s Australia's defence planners questioned the value of forward defence and began to look more closely at the Australian regional interests and our capacity to defend our nation. This re-examination of Australia's defence policy was prompted by the announcement of the British withdrawal east of Suez and the declaration of the Guam doctrine by the United States of America which made it clear that total reliance on allies and the concept of forward defence were no longer appropriate policies for Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.26 to 8 p.m. Mr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —by leave-I wish to make a short statement outlining the Government's decisions in relation to the recommendations of the majority and minority reports of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. The Joint Select Committee was established to enable the widest possible public discussion and debate on the introduction of a unique identifying numbering system to combat tax evasion and avoidance, social welfare fraud, and the associated problems of the existence of a substantial number of illegal immigrants within the Australian community. I take this opportunity to thank those who served on the Joint Select Committee, along with those organisations and individuals who provided submissions or who appeared before the Committee. In particular I thank the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Terry Aulich, for his efforts. The Committee received 129 submissions and numerous letters, held 17 days of public hearings and heard evidence from 168 witnesses representing 83 organisations and 18 individuals. Included in the submissions to the Joint Select Committee were submissions on an Australia Card from the Government and from the proposed administering authority, the Health Insurance Commission. The Government is confident, therefore, that a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Australia Card proposal has been undertaken. The majority report represents the views of five members of the Committee. The minority report represents the views of three dissenting members of the Committee. The Government is pleased to note that on such an important issue, and in a forum where all parties were represented, the dissension among Committee members related to only one aspect of the overall report. The Government welcomes both majority and minority reports as clear vindication of the Australia Card proposal. Both reports supported the Government's belief that the problem of tax evasion and social welfare fraud could and should be attacked by the introduction of a unique identification numbering system. Both reports indicate that there are massive savings to the public revenue to be made from the implementation of such a system. Thus, both reports underwrite the major premises on which the Australia Card strategy has been based. In short, the Government and the majority of the Committee agreed in principle but disagreed as to the best practical measures for attaining agreed ends. The Government has agreed to most of the 12 recommendations of the majority report of the Joint Select Committee, subject to some modifications, or where relevant has referred recommendations to the relevant Ministers for their consideration and report back to cabinet. The details of the Government's decisions in relation to those recommendations will be outlined in a document which I wish to table and incorporate at the end of this statement as a more comprehensive reply to the reports of the Joint Select Committee. I shall seek to incorporate that at the end of this statement. With reference to the twelfth recommendation of the majority Committee, which related to extension of the tax file number to become in effect a unique identification number, the Government has decided instead to adopt the recommendations of the minority report to introduce an Australia Card number on a strictly limited basis. This will involve the introduction of a unique identification number as is proposed effectively by both reports, and the issuing of high integrity cards with photographs verifying that number and identity. I do not intend now to detail all the decisions relating to the Australia Card as agreed to date by the Government. These will be provided in the document I wish to table at the conclusion of this statement. But I will briefly relate some of the Government decisions on the reports of the Joint Select Committee. The Government and the Joint Select Committee agreed that tax evasion is both widespread and rampant, and that welfare fraud also requires tackling. We agree that, to a significant degree, inequities in the tax and welfare system are contributed to by lack of proper identification processes. We agree that the problem can and should be attacked by introduction of a unique number system. The Government and the majority report agree that there are inadequacies in current State births, deaths, and marriages registration procedures. Therefore, we agree that State births, deaths, and marriages registries need to be computerised, and that the Commonwealth should provide both the mechanisms and the finance to achieve this. Both the majority of Committee and the Government agree that the question of the introduction of a unique numbering system raises civil liberties concerns. We agree that, to afford protection to the rights and privacy of individuals, an independent watchdog body, called the Data Protection Agency, should be established to control the collection and use of personal data. We agree that privacy legislation should be introduced, incorporating the information privacy principles. We agree that the right of an individual to have access to and correct personal data on a database be no less than that provided under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. We agree that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should upgrade the quality of its records, including its movements database, citizenship index and overstayers file, and transfer all records from the manual system to a computer database as a matter of urgency. Both the majority of the Committee and the Government agree that legislation be enacted to require that financial institutions report information to the Australian Taxation Office in an acceptable format. We agree that a withholding tax on interest payments be imposed on interest-bearing accounts which are not associated with a number. As you can see, Madam Speaker, there is quite considerable agreement between the Government and all members of the Joint Select Committee. The one main issue on which the Government and the majority report differ-and the issue which split the Joint Select Committee-is on what type of identification system should be introduced rather than if an identification system should be introduced. The Government has opted for the use of a new number, called the Australia Card number, because it will be the most effective system of helping to restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems while at the same time supporting the protection of individual civil liberties. The Committee majority failed to come up with a system which would offer comparable revenue gains to the Australia Card program and as a result has failed to present an option which would deal as effectively with current concerns about the level of abuse against Commonwealth revenues. Under the Australia Card proposal, it is estimated that when fully operational it will yield estimated net total savings of about $880m a year. By 1995-96-that is, in the first 10-year period-the Australia Card proposal will have saved about $4.7 billion which would otherwise have been lost in tax evasion and avoidance, and social welfare fraud. The alternative, the tax file number identification system proposed by the majority, would provide estimated net total annual savings of about $280m when fully operational. By 1995-96, the tax file number identification system would have saved only $1.6 billion. In other words, it would have missed out on savings of an additional $3 billion that would be obtained under the Australia card proposal. However, the reports of both the majority and minority of the Committee have drawn the Government's attention to the need to restrict access to the Australia Card register to an absolute minimum. The Government has therefore decided to implement the Australia Card program on a strictly limited basis. Whereas the original proposal was for 13 government departments and agencies to have access to the central register, under the new proposal only three agencies will be allowed access. These will be the Health Insurance Commission, which will operate the program and which will progressively replace the Medicare card with the Australia Card, the Australian Taxation Office for taxation purposes, and the Department of Social Security for benefit payment purposes. All that will be contained on the Australia Card will be the name of the individual, a photograph, a signature, an identification number, and the expiry date of the card. All that the central register will contain will be that information needed to identify the individual. There will be no requirement to carry the Australia Card, and all non-voluntary uses of the card and number, other than for those purposes specified by legislation will be prohibited. The argument for adoption of the tax file number ahead of a new, secure number called the Australia Card number can only be described as weak and unconvincing. I think that there is some evidence of that in the fact at least one of the members who signed the Committee report six weeks ago appears already to be distancing himself from that recommendation. When he tabled the reports of the Joint Select Committee in this place on 8 May 1986, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) used as his greatest justification for the adoption of the tax file numbering system the statement by officers of the Australian Taxation Office that: If we followed the Australia Card identification requirements before allocating tax file numbers and purified existing records on that basis, we would expect to achieve similar revenue gains to those under the Australia Card option, without a photograph, with a similar staff and equipment cost. In other words, if the tax file number could be extended to be an identification numbering system with the inbuilt security and integrity of the government's proposed Australia Card system, the Taxation Office would expect to achieve similar revenue gains. The honourable member for Barker then went on later in his speech to claim: In the area of tax evasion, the Taxation Office agrees that the majority proposal for the extended use of a high integrity tax file number would raise the same revenue as the Australia Card proposal put forward by the Government. I must point out that this is a total misrepresentation of the Taxation Office's position. The Taxation Office has never endorsed the majority proposal. All it has stated is that if, and I stress the word `if', the tax file number could have the security and integrity of the proposed Australia Card number-in other words, if we could have the Australia Card but name it the tax card-revenue gains would be similar. The simple truth is that an extended tax file number cannot be made as secure as a new high integrity, high security numbering system with cards. The current tax file numbering system is of low integrity. Indeed, on page 132 of its report the majority Committee states: The present tax file number has very low integrity-there is no proof of identification required before assignment of the number. The number is used merely as an identifier within the A.T.O. to enable taxpayers' returns to be matched with their computer records . . . The tax file option proposed that taxpayers with a continuous tax record of more than five years be accepted as genuine unless normal audit over time revealed otherwise. This alone would have left the system wide open. I find it extremely interesting that the honourable member for Barker argued in this House on 8 May that the majority report left open the question of whether a card should be issued with the tax file number. Because of course a tax file notice, as opposed to a card, has no real security features, it would be relatively easy to steal or otherwise deal with in a fraudulent way. While the Opposition has attempted to make the issuing of an Australia Card into an extremely emotive issue, the majority report devotes one paragraph to its deliberations as to whether a tax card, containing each individual's tax file number, should be issued. In the second last paragraph of the majority report, the Committee states: We accept that the ATO will need to provide formal notification to each individual of their registered tax file number. This can be done in a variety of ways, however, it may be most convenient for this notice to be provided annually when the ATO issues taxpayers with their notice of assessment. I would have to say that on the basis of this rather nebulous reference those who provided this part of the majority report could rightly be said to have avoided answering one of the major questions hanging over their proposal. I thank Senator Aulich, the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), and the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) for tackling this issue in detail in their minority report. If there is to be a numbering system for cross-checking income across all sources, as is proposed by both the majority and minority reports, the logical and sensible progression from that is to make that number as secure as possible through the issue of a secure and high integrity identification card. If the identification number as proposed by the majority report is not to be printed on a card, how is it suggested that it should be issued? Is it proposed that each individual should present a copy of his income tax return when required-a document which holds a far greater amount of information than either the Australia Card or the Australia Card register? Or is it suggested that a letter, a piece of paper bearing the individual's tax file identification number, be issued by the Taxation Office each year? Whether it is an Australia Card number or a tax file number, that number has to be recorded somewhere so that the individual can use it. The absence of a secure card would have created additional problems. It certainly would have reduced the ability of business and financial institutions to ensure that the tax file number presented was indeed the rightful number of the bearer. The majority Committee recommendation as to the issuing of tax file numbers for those who did not have a continuous tax record of more than five years would have created problems of co-ordination and control. One body, the Australian Taxation Office, would have been issuing the numbers but another, the Department of Social Security, conducting interviews to verify identity. The majority of the Committee argued on page 109 of its report: . . . that the experience overseas, particularly in the United States of America and Canada, supports its view that a national identification system should not be introduced here. It then goes to advocate an identification system to be introduced in almost the very same way which has developed in the United States of America and Canada; that is, a national identification system introduced through the back door. That is exactly what happened with the social security number in the United States of America and with the social identification number in Canada. Both were numbering systems of low integrity which, as they have become extended, have remained riddled with false identities because high integrity checks were not built in on a comprehensive basis from the start. The Government firmly believes that the Australia Card program will impact significantly on tax avoidance and evasion, and social welfare fraud. It will help ensure that every Australian pays his fair share of tax while taking from the system only those benefits to which he is entitled. It will help restore fairness and equity to the Australian taxation system, and to our social welfare system. The Government believes that when its proposal for a modified Australia Card program is examined it will receive the support of the overwhelming majority of Australians and all the responsible members of this Parliament. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Government's more detailed reply to the reports of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Porter —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Leave is granted. I point out to the Minister for Health that his incorporation does not fall within the guidelines. However, seeing that he is responding to a committee report and bearing in mind the circumstances, leave is granted and the Chair agrees to the incorporation. The document read as follows- BACKGROUND In June 1985 the Treasurer's draft white paper ``Reform of the Australian Tax System'' estimated that tax evasion involved revenue losses to the Government in 1984/85 prices of at least $3 billion annually. Further, the draft paper stated that ``an equitable tax system is critical, not only to the attainment of economic and social objectives, but also to the maintenance of a basic respect for the tax system from which a high degree of voluntary compliance derives.'' With the recognition of the continuing existence of enormous revenue losses through tax evasion and welfare fraud came the realisation that crucial to any reform in these areas was the need for proper identification processes, preferably by means of a numbering system, which would enable all sources of income to be linked. So the concept of an Australia Card was born. Since that time, detailed consideration has been given to all aspects of the Australia Card proposal, as it became known, including its function and usage, sanctions, benefits and costs, legislation, system integrity and related civil rights and privacy issues. As well, to facilitate public discussion, the Government agreed to the establishment of a joint select committee to investigate and report back to the Parliament on the proposal. During its deliberations the committee received 129 submissions and numerous letters; held 17 days of public hearings; and heard evidence from 168 witnesses representing 83 organisations and 18 individuals. Included in the submissions to the Joint Select Committee were submissions on an Australia Card from the Government and from the proposed administering authority, the Health Insurance Commission (HIC). The Government is confident, therefore, that a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Australia Card proposal has been undertaken, resulting in the majority and dissenting reports of the Joint Select Committee tabled in Parliament on 8 May 1986. The majority report represents the views of 5 members of the committee. The dissenting report represents the views of the 3 dissenting members of the committee. It is significant that on such an important issue, and with all parties represented on the committee, the dissension related to only one aspect of the overall report. The Government's response to the findings of both reports is outlined in this statement. The Government welcomes both the majority and minority reports of the Joint Select Committee as clear vindication of the Australia Card proposal. The Government and the Joint Select Committee agree that tax evasion is widespread and rampant, and that to a lesser extent there are problems of fraud in the welfare area; that, to a significant degree, this is contributed to by lack of proper identification processes; that the problem can and should be attacked by introduction of a unique numbering system; that there are inadequacies in current state birth, death and marriage registration procedures; that state births, deaths and marriages registries need to be computerised, and that the Commonwealth should provide both the mechanisms and the finance to achieve this; that for this reason the Commonwealth should continue negotiations with the States; that the question of the introduction of a unique numbering system raises civil liberties questions; and that, to afford protection to the rights and privacy of individuals, a data protection agency should be established. We agree that privacy legislation should be introduced, incorporating the information privacy principles. In short, we agree in principle but disagree to some extent about the practical measures for attaining agreed ends. In what follows, each of the recommendations made by the Committee and by the dissenting report will be considered in turn, and the Government's response and decisions will be made clear. Consideration of the Committee's Recommendations The Committee recommended that the department of immigration and ethnic affairs (DIEA) upgrade the quality of its records including its movements database, citizenship index and overstayers file and transfer all records from the manual system to a computer database as a matter of urgency (JSC report, recommendation 1). The Government endorses this recommendation. Such upgrading is essential to provide timely information concerning the status of non-Australian born persons in the country. Its value will be particularly relevant when verifying the identity of such persons registering for an Australia card. For this reason, the Government has also agreed that the HIC have access to the movements, overstayers and citizenship files of DIEA, and provide periodic reports to that Department relating to expired cards of non-citizens. The Committee recommended that the computerisation of all state and territory registries of births, deaths and marriages proceed. To this end, the Committee supported the continuation of the current negotiations between the Commonwealth and the states, and agreed that the Commonwealth provide appropriate assistance and advice to the states to ensure that the computerisation of births, deaths and marriages registers can proceed within the earliest possible timeframe (Rec 2(a) and (b)). The Government agrees that computerisation of state births, deaths and marriages registry information is essential. It believes that a centralised on-line system is the most efficient and only practicable option available. The most important function of such a centralised system is the linking of records of events, particularly of births and deaths, so that birth certificates for persons who have died cannot be obtained without good reason and, preferably, that such certificates flag the linked event. In addition, on-line access by persons checking eligibility means that if necessary, further questions may be asked to validate a claim. For example, an administering authority presented with a legitimate birth certificate of a person who had died would, by on-line access, be notified that further ``events'' relating to that person had occurred. Further checks would reveal that the person had died. The Government intends that computerisation of registers proceed ``within the earliest possible timeframe''. This is necessary, not only to remove as quickly as possible the source of false identities based upon false birth certificates (e.g. passports, drivers' licences, etc.), but also because computerisation of records must be in place before the issue of Australia cards can commence. It is not considered feasible that states could purchase, install and develop stand-alone systems with appropriate linkage capability within a timeframe which could reasonably meet the Commonwealth's needs. A centralised system, including operating costs for the first ten years, will cost approximately $49 million. A centralised system with satellites in the states would cost approximately $75 million; a completely stand-alone system would cost approximately $76 million. For these reasons, the Government has decided that it is desirable that the computerisation of all state and territory BDM registries proceed on the basis of a single, national, integrated system, and that the department of health (DOH), in conjunction with the department of finance and the HIC, continue the current negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth will provide appropriate assistance and advice to the States to ensure that the computerisation of BDM registers can proceed within the earliest possible timeframe. The original amount of $6 million offered to the states in respect of possible net loss of revenue on sale of certificates and proposed for distribution in proportion to population will be varied to $6.39 million and be made subject to a base-line payment such that no State receives less than $250,000 on agreement. The Committee recommended that the only Commonwealth departments permitted to have access to the computerised registry of births, deaths and marriages be the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), the Department of Social Security (DSS), the passport office of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the HIC, and that access to computerised births, deaths and marriages data be restricted to verifying documentation submitted for the purposes of obtaining nominated services from the Commonwealth (Rec. 2 (c)). The general view of the Committee that access to the BDM should be tightly restricted is agreed. However the recommendation that access to the centralised BDM be granted to the ATO, the DSS, the passport office of the DFA and the HIC has been modified in accordance with access granted to the Australia Card Register, that is, to restrict access to the minimum while ensuring maximum revenue gain with most effective use of the system and affording maximum privacy protection. In essence, access by ATO and DSS to the Australia Card Register will obviate their need for access to the BDM Register. It is considered appropriate, however, that access to the BDM be given to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and to the Australian Institute of Health (AIH) for the purpose of statistical extractions which have been the subject of agreement with the states for approved demographic and epidemiological studies. The ABS will also have access for the purpose of more efficiently carrying out the existing function of providing international classifications of diseases codes to death records. The AIH will be made subject to stringent legislative secrecy provisions in respect of data drawn from the BDM. The ABS is already subject to such provisions. The government has therefore decided that the only new commonwealth authorities permitted to have access to the computerised BDM registry will be the passport office of the DFA and the HIC, and that such access to computerised BDM data will be restricted to verifying documentation submitted for the purposes of issuing passports and establishing eligibility for an Australia card. In addition, the ABS will be given direct access to the BDM to make more efficient its present function of providing international classification of diseases codes to death records, and in respect of the access to data already made available by states in accordance with existing arrangements or new agreements in respect of demographic statistical analyses. The AIH will be given direct access to the BDM to facilitate extraction of data for authorised epidemiological studies in accordance with existing arrangements or new agreements with the states, and to create a death index to facilitate the long standing agreement on that matter between Health Ministers. The AIH will be made subject to stringent legislative secrecy provisions. There are long-standing arrangements between the ABS and the registrars of births, deaths and marriages in states and territories, and between the AIH and registrars which enable demographic and epidemiological studies and assessments. The committee recommended that extension of access to the BDM occur only after the widest possible public discussion and after the system has been in operation for some minimum period (Rec 2 (d)). Extension of access to the BDM is unlikely. In any case, such requests would be considered by the Government only after the widest public discussion, consultation with the agreement from the States, and after the system had been in operation for no less than two years. The committee recommended that the commonwealth establish an independent statutory body, known as the data protection agency, to control the collection and use of personal data, and that this body have powers, functions and objectives similar to those outlined in paragraphs 14.6.4-14.6.6 of the government's submission and as further outlined in paragraphs 2.23-2.24 of its report (Rec. 3 (a) and (b)). A significant issue which received unanimous support was the government's proposal to establish a data protection agency (DPA). It was agreed that establishment of a DPA was necessary to: (a) provide advice and formulate policy on various issues which would arise not only through the introduction of the Australia Card but also through the increasing effect of computer technology on the collection and use of personal data; (b) undertake a ``Watchdog'' monitoring role to ensure that personal data is collected, stored and used in a manner that provides stringent access safeguards; and (c) provide a co-ordinated, expeditious, informal and inexpensive external review mechanism. The statutory objectives of the DPA will be: (a) to ensure that information on the Australia Card register is treated as private and confidential except for the specific uses authorised by legislation; (b) to have decision-making jurisdiction in the areas of data matching, database contents, database uses, confidentiality and access; (c) to monitor changes in technology; (d) to provide protection against abuse in the area of data trespass involving computers; (e) to provide an independent, effective and accessible review mechanism beyond that provided internally by the Health Insurance Commission and other relevant agencies, and to ensure that the mechanism, is economical, informal and expeditious; (f) to allow a co-ordinated monitoring of the many uses of personal data; (g) to set and oversight stringent administrative and legislative controls in the area of privacy and secrecy provisions; and (h) to provide the foundation for more vigorous control over the collection and use of personal data by the many organisations both public and private which use databases. The Government has endorsed the committee's recommendation and has also agreed that the DPA be authorised to access the Australia Card register for the purpose of carrying out its functions. The committee recommended that the jurisdiction of the proposed data protection agency cover from the outset all Commonwealth Computerised Data Banks (Rec. 3 (c)). The Government notes the committee's amendment to its original plan of staged implementation for the DPA, that is, the committee's recommendation that jurisdiction of the DPA cover personal information on all commonwealth computerised data banks from the outset. The Government will review the likely administrative consequences of any such expansion of role before making a final decision. Such further consideration will include the possibility of DPA's role being expanded to encompass other Commonwealth Government databases and, eventually, private sector databases. This matter will be resolved once the complex administrative issues involved have been fully explored. Accordingly, provision will be made initially for the DPA to exercise a clear role in relation to all departments and agencies which will have access to the Australia Card register, that is, ATO, DSS and HIC. The DPA will determine within this area who is entitled to keep a personal database, what is entitled to be kept on that database, why the information is being kept, to whom the information can be given, and under what conditions it can be given. It will exercise strict control over the sorts of information which can be maintained in databases and the uses to which that information can be put. The committee recommended that a parliamentary committee be established to investigate and monitor the following: (i) the implementation and operation of the proposed Data Protection Agency; (ii) the extension of the Data Protection Agency's jurisdiction to cover all private sector databases falling within the Commonwealth jurisdiction three years after the establishment of the agency; and (iii) the extension of the Data Protection Agency's functions to cover all written personal data banks three years after the establishing of the agency (rec 3 (d) ). The Government accepts the view that there be established a parliamentary committee to monitor the implementation and operation of the proposed DPA. There is, however, a need to consider the terms of reference and role of such a committee in the light of further decisions relating to the jurisdiction of the DPA. This matter will thus be reviewed. The committee recommended that the right of an individual to have access to and correct personal data on a database be on the same basis as that provided under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and that it be extended contemporaneously with any extension of the access provisions of the legislation (rec 3 (e) ). Both the HIC and the DPA will be subject to the provisions of the FOI Act in respect of all functions relating to the Australia Card, except in relation to personal data on the register. In respect to every person's Australia Card register file, every individual will have the right, once a year, to receive upon request a record of the information which relates to him or her. This service will be at no cost to the individual. If, however, an individual wishes to obtain an additional printout of stored data it will be provided at a price calculated on a cost-recovery basis. These access provisions afford at least the same rights of access and amendment to the register as would otherwise be conferred if the FOI Act had full application. The committee recommended that the Commonwealth introduce privacy legislation based on the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission Report on privacy as soon as possible (rec 4). Cabinet earlier this year endorsed in the Australia Card context the establishment of a DPA which would include in its charter the requirement that the agency operate according to the privacy principles to be included in the Privacy Bill. The committee recommended that the Government adopt without further delay the banking control regulations contained in the Costigan Royal Commission Report where they are not already subsumed within the committee's own recommendations; that the Federal Government consult with the State and Territory Governments on controls on banks and other financial institutions under State jurisdiction with a view to the early introduction of uniform controls as recommended; and that legislation be introduced to require banks to notify the relevant Commonwealth and/or State law enforcement agencies about any fraudulent or suspected fraudulent activity within the banking system. Recommendations relating to these specific banking controls are a matter for consideration and further report by the Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State to the Government. It should be noted, however, that the majority of these controls would be subsumed by introduction of the Australia Card program. The committee recommended that the outstanding recommendations of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure on Control of Prohibited Immigration be implemented as soon as possible (rec 6). With respect to the outstanding recommendations of the Standing Committee report, particular attention was drawn to the recommendations dealing with: (a) the control of passenger cards at Sydney Airport; (b) use of the Commonwealth Employment Service by unauthorised persons; (c) access to the Medicare program; (d) identification of illegal residents for Social Security purposes; (e) improvement of social security forms to clarify meaning of Australian residence requirements; and (f) establishment of a separate category of tourist/short term visitor, to ensure such persons are prohibited from seeking change of status while in Australia. Introduction of the Australia Card will largely resolve the problems associated with at least three of these recommendations. The outstanding recommendations have been referred to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Committee recommended that legislation be passed allowing Commonwealth departments and authorities to inform the appropriate department or authority about suspected cases of fraud. The question of whether departments should be required to report such cases was recommended for consideration by the Government (Rec 7). While there are no firm estimates of the total extent of fraud against Commonwealth benefit payments systems, the Committee recommended that legislation be enacted to allow information about suspected cases of fraud to be passed to Commonwealth departments and authorities, and for them to consider further reporting of such cases to the appropriate agency. Where legislation may be required to overcome any existing secrecy provisions, the Attorney-General has been requested to consider the Committee's view. The Committee recommended that the reponsibility of processing applications and payments under Education Assistance Schemes be transferred from the Department of Education (DOE) to the DSS along with all staff involved in administering the Schemes; and that the DOE retain policy control over the Schemes and Budget allocations for education assistance continue to be held against the education vote (Rec 8 (a) and (b)). The Committee considered the problems which are associated with the payment of Government allowances by several different departments. The Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme, for example, is administered by the Department of Education, but there are only poorly developed facilities to ensure that a TEAS beneficiary is not also in receipt of unemployment benefits. While it is believed that there may be some administrative advantages in the consolidation of at least some benefit payment functions, these matters will receive further consideration by the Government. The Committee recommended that the DSS conduct a progressive review of proof of identity for all existing pension recipients and all current unemployment beneficiaries whose claims were determined before the introduction of the new procedures; that the DSS match all recipients of social security benefits with the proposed computerised register of births, deaths and marriages as soon as that reform is implemented; that the DSS immediately begin verifying birth and marriage certificates offered as proof of identity with the relevant State or Territory register; and that the DSS not accept birth and marriage certificates as ``sound'' documents for proof of identity purposes until registers of births, deaths and marriages are computerised and linked (Rec 9 (a), (b), (c) and (d)). The ability of the existing identification procedures to detect false identities was questioned, as current procedures depend on documentation of varying reliability. Matching beneficiaries with a register of births, deaths and marriages would confirm that an identity exists on the register, but would not confirm that the holder of the certificate is in fact the rightful holder of the certificate for identification purposes. Given the current system in at least three States of issuing birth and marriage certificates on demand, such certificates should never have been regarded as ``sound'' documents for identity purposes. Implementation of the Australia Card program will significantly reduce reliance on these documents as proof of identity. The recommendations of the Committee in this area leave two problems unresolved: (a) ensuring that the holder of a document is the person entitled to hold it; and (b) ensuring that the beneficiary is entitled to the level of benefit currently being paid, if indeed entitled to the benefit at all. On the other hand the Australia Card program provides an efficient strategy at the point of registration to engender a high degree of confidence that a person is in fact who he/she claims to be, and is a person legally entitled to be in Australia. Further, it provides an identifying card to be presented when claiming benefits personally and it facilitates, through the unique number system, a means of detecting other income which might render the person ineligible for all or part of the claimed payment. Any overpayments would then be recoverable at a later date. Recommendations of the Committee relating to tightening social security procedures by conducting a progressive review of proof of identity for welfare benefit and unemployment beneficiaries; matching recipients of social security benefits with the centralised register of births, deaths and marriages; and immediately commencing to verify birth and marriage certificates, do not provide long term solutions to the problems currently experienced by DSS in establishing proof of identity. Nor do they address the need to establish procedures aimed at preventing overpayments. As an interim measure, however, the recommendations have been noted by the Government and have been referred for the attention of the Minister for Social Security. The Committee recommended that legislation be enacted to require financial institutions to provide information reported to the ATO in an acceptable format (Rec 10). The standardisation of tax office reporting requirements is supported. Such a step will considerably streamline and simplify tax office analysis of data. The committee recommended that, irrespective of whether a tax file number or an Australia Card number is introduced, a withholding tax on interest payments be imposed on interest-bearing accounts which are associated with a number (rec 11). The Government agrees with the addition of a withholding tax on unidentified accounts as a stronger incentive for account holders to comply with the requirement for verification than solely prohibiting operation of the account. The majority of the committee recommended that the use of the tax file number be extended to cover all the financial transactions proposed in the government submission to the joint select committee, as well as for social security and veterans' affairs purposes (rec 12(a)). This is the crux of the committee's report: The question of the allocation of a number and how it can practically be linked to a person to validate identity. Two unique numbering system options were canvassed in the Joint Select Committee Report. The first option related to the use of the tax file number this number, currently issued by the ATO to some 9 million people, is a very low integrity number, but according to the proposal, could be upgraded to a level of integrity equal to that intended for the Australia Card Numbering System. The system would be operated by the ATO, using as its network the offices of the DSS and other agencies where necessary. It was claimed that the necessary numbers could be issued by April 1988, although no high integrity identifying cards would be issued. Use of the tax file number, it was suggested, would be restricted to the ATO, and used by DSS and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). The second option, proposed in the dissenting report of the committee and accepted by the Government, supported the strategy of an Australia Card with a name, signature, photograph and unique identifying number. Throughout the hearings of the Joint Select Committee the issues of privacy and data linkage and the need to restrict the number of uses were regarded, quite rightly, as being of major importance. Despite its reduced application, however, the tax file system would still have been used to provide a link between the centralised registry of births, deaths and marriages, ATO, DSS and DVA. By using a low integrity system to provide this link, the potential for impersonation is increased, thereby posing a greater threat to honest individuals' liberties and rights. The mooted tax file system dispensed with any form of personal identifier for the owner of a number. Instead, it was suggested some form of documentation which contained the individual's name and number would be issued on application or, for long-term tax file number operators, automatically. The lack of security surrounding issue of low quality evidence of identity in this way would open wide, even to amateurs, forgery and the use of lost or stolen documents. The lack of a secure card deprives users (including financial institutions and the DSS) of the ability to ensure that the number presented is the rightful number of the bearer. One immediate consequence of this would be the reluctance of the private sector to bear the costs of incorporating a number into their systems for overall lower revenue gains. It would also limit the effectiveness of efforts to upgrade the integrity of the tax file system, as recommended by the Committee. Sending through the mail details of an identity which has supposedly been validated to a level equivalent to Australia Card allows opportunities for theft or loss. It was proposed by the Committee that the current tax file number be regarded as valid for all numbers which have continuously existed for more than five years, subject to audit processes over time to attempt to uncover the establishment of long-standing false identities. This involves 6 million taxpayers, and of itself could have entrenched false identities in the system. Persons with tax file numbers which have existed for a lesser period would have been invited to register for a tax file number. This would have involved an invitation to some 3 million adults, as well as to a further 4 million who had never had a tax file number. Presumably a proportion of this category would have had no incentive to obtain a tax file number which would simply have required them to pay taxes they had been evading happily for years. These assumptions of integrity could allow the continuation of any false names and numbers in the system-a significant flaw. Indeed, on page 132 of their report the Committee says that ``The present tax file number has very low integrity-there is no proof of identification required before assignment of the number. The number is used merely as an identifier within the ATO to enable taxpayers' returns to be matched with their computer records . . .'' But then on page 148 of the report, the Committee says that ``. . . we believe that it is reasonable to accept that current tax files, with a continuous tax record exceeding five years, have sufficient integrity to not require personal interviews or new applications in order for them to receive formal confirmation of their tax file number . . .'' It is difficult to reconcile this inconsistency. The government therefore feels justified in its decision to reject this recommendation. The majority of the Committee recommended that all other departments (ie. other than the ATO, DVA and DSS) be barred from access to and use of the tax file number (rec 12(b)). With the rejection of recommendation 12(a), this recommendation cannot be given effect in this context. However, the Government is now firmly of the view that the range of uses it originally proposed to the committee should be restricted (because of the privacy and other reasons identified by the committee) to the taxation, social security and medicare uses. The Government has therefore decided that the philosophy underlying this recommendation be accepted and be given effect in the Australia Card legislation. The majority of the committee recommended that the Medicare system continue to operate as a separate entity, but that the method of issuing new Medicare numbers and cards, be they new or replacement, be altered in order to improve the integrity of the system and reduce the issuing of multiple cards (Rec. 12(c)). If the tax file numbering system prohibited use of that number for Medicare purposes, Medicare would be required to continue to operate its own national enrolment file independently at a cost of $7.5 million each year and issue its own identification cards. This would be a glaring example of unnecessary duplication of time, effort and money. This recommendation is therefore rejected. The majority of the committee recommended that the integrity of the tax file number be upgraded to that of the proposed Australia Card number based on the following premises: (i) That taxpayers with a continuous tax record exceeding five years not be required to make an application; (ii) That the file numbers of these taxpayers be verified by normal audit processes over a period of time; (iii) That all other taxpayers and persons who do not currently possess a tax file number verify identity to the same level of integrity as proposed under the Australia Card program; (iv) That the interview process for verifying identity be conducted by the DSS or nominated agents; and (v) That temporary arrangements be made where necessary to facilitate payment of tax before verification of identity (Rec. 12(d)). There are several major stumbling blocks to the recommended procedures. The DSS was proposed as the organisation to conduct interviews to establish identity, along with other nominated agents such as post offices. Once the identity was established by DSS, a tax file number was to be issued by the ATO. This not only raises the problem of three separate organisations participating in the issue of a tax file number process, but also introduces an element of incompatibility and risk of loss of confidentiality into the role of DSS as a benefit-paying department. Under the Australia Card program, agents will be used for the registration of only a small percentage of the population because of the proposed network of some 346 Medicare offices. Under the tax file system, which relies on the DSS network of offices to conduct interviews, only some 204 offices would have been available. The use of agents would have been significantly more substantial. The situation becomes more serious when it is considered that a prime document offered by the majority of people as proof of identity is the birth certificate. The committee's own report stated that the use and status of birth certificates was examined in some detail by the Stewart Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking and that it had concluded that ``. . . without evidence to connect a person with the person named in the birth certificate, the certificate establishes nothing about that person . . .'' (JSC report page 101). Further, the committee report advised that ``. . . the (Stewart Royal) Commission . . . noted that blank birth certificates often went missing or were stolen . . .'' and that ``. . . the commission concluded that the root of passport abuse in Australia was the birth certificate . . .'' (JSC report page 102). Finally, the committee itself recommended ``that the Department of Social Security not accept birth and marriage certificates as ``sound'' documents for proof of identity until registers of births, deaths and marriages are computerised and linked.'' (JSC report page 104). Thus, the majority recommendation for a tax file system left DSS offices with only three courses of action, given the very short timeframe available to them if tax file number allocation was to be completed by April 1988. One, they could accept without proper verification the birth certificates which would inevitably have been offered by the majority of people as proof of identity, either in the absence of, or in conjunction with, other documentation. Two, they could have declined to accept birth certificates and accepted a series of other documentation such as a driver's licence, credit cards, etc., all of which are of low integrity. Or three, they comply fully with the committee's recommendation, all DSS offices could have been computerised to enable on-line access to the central register of births, deaths and marriages, and some link to the DIEA. The majority of the committee has quite clearly given no consideration to the resource and other implications of the tax file number option. For this reason alone, the impracticability of the tax file system as proposed by the committee majority should have been enough to raise serious questions about its worth. Cost benefit analyses confirm the wisdom of the Government's decision to reject the tax file number in favour of the Australia Card with photograph. Taxation revenue gains under the Australia Card program will be $724 million per annum in the ongoing situation. Taxation revenue gains under the tax file option are estimated at $290 million because of the lack of any reasonable identity link. This is up to $434 million every year less than the taxation revenue gains expected under the Australia Card program. Under the Australia Card proposal, it is estimated that when fully operational it will cost $55.6 million a year to operate and provide total savings of $932 million, meaning net total benefits of $877 million every year. By 1995-96, the Australia Card proposal would have saved about $4.7 billion which would otherwise have been lost in tax evasion and avoidance and social welfare fraud. The alternative tax file number identification system proposed by the majority would cost $16.2 million to run with annual benefits of $292 million, meaning net total benefits of $276 million when fully operational. By 1995/96, the tax file number identification system would have saved only $1.6 billion. In other words it would have missed out on savings of an additional $3 billion that would be obtained under the Australia Card proposal. The cost/benefit analyses undertaken by the Government in relation to the tax file number proposal as compared to the Australia Card proposal places their relative effectiveness in stark contrast. Using identical assumptions (Namely, a 10 year time horizon, the maintenance of 1985/86 conditions of economic activity and population etc., and a 10% discount rate), the tax file number system has a benefit/cost ratio of 3.69:1, whereas the modified Australia Card program has a benefit/cost ratio of 5.37:1. This means that for every dollar spent by the Government in relation to the program, the tax file number option would return $3.69, while the Australia Card program as modified would return $5.37. This recommendation also is therefore rejected. The majority of the Committee recommended that a parliamentary Committee be established within three years of the introduction of the upgraded tax file number system with the express task of reviewing the implementation of its recommendations, and that the committee report to Parliament on these matters and recommend further action where necessary (REC 12 (e)). Although it was recommended by the Committee that a second Parliamentary Committee be established specifically to review operation of the numbering system, it is considered that only one Parliamentary Committee will be necessary. Therefore, this recommendation is accepted only in principle in the context of the modified Australia Card program. Any such review will be considered in conjunction with the definition of the terms of reference of the Parliamentary committee referred to earlier. The dissenting report recommended that the Australia Card program proceed but on a more restricted basis than that proposed in the Government submission (JSC Dissenting Report, Recommendation 1). The Government has endorsed this view. In so doing, the Government has also agreed that information pertaining to date of birth and sex not appear on adult cards containing a photograph; that no reference to citizenship status appear on the card; and that no optional or emergency information be included on any card or in the register. The dissenting report recommended that the use of an Australia Card and its register be restricted to four departments only: the HIC, the ATO, the DSS and, on a strictly limited basis, to the DIEA (REC DR2). In considering this matter, the Government shared the attitude of the dissenting report, but believed that use should be even further restricted. Use of the Australia Card in association with the register will be restricted to three agencies only: HIC (which will administer the program), ATO and DSS. However, in the performance of their statutory functions, the DPA and the Commonwealth Audit Office will be afforded such access as is required. In addition, reports will be extracted from the register by the HIC and provided to the ABS on a regular basis containing data on population size and movements by age, sex and Local Government area, and aggregated data coded to Local Government area. As well, reports will be extracted from the register by the HIC and provided to the DIEA in relation to expired cards of non-citizens. The dissenting report recommended that severe penalties apply in both the public and private sector for the unauthorised recording of the Australia Card number and for the transmission of that number to unauthorised persons, organisations and other institutions, public or private (REC DR3). The Government has so agreed. The dissenting report recommended that the Australia Card program include ATO uses (as set out in the Government submission to the Committee) and the associated sanctions (REC DR4). The Government agrees. The dissenting report recommended that DSS use the Australia Card and associated register to: Identify persons claiming social security benefits, including those benefits formerly administered by the Education Department which were recommended to be transferred to the DSS; Identify clients on an on-going basis after their eligibility has been established; Verify the existence of claimed dependants; Detect undisclosed income; and Deter other fraudulent practices (REC DR5). With the exception of education assistance payments (discussed earlier), the Government has so decided. The dissenting report recommended that the medicare card be replaced progressively by the Australia Card in all of its current uses and that those uses be authorised from the date upon which card issue commences (Rec DR6). The Government has endorsed the recommendation, and has also agreed that HIC have access to the Australia Card Register to discharge its responsibilities under the Health Insurance Act. The dissenting report recommended that the Australia Card Register have access to the movements, overstayers and citizenships file or DIEA but that DIEA not be an authorised user of the Australia Card Register (Rec DR7). The Government has agreed. The dissenting report recommended that Australia Card numbers be assigned to the relevant DIEA records (Rec DR8). Only if such a procedure proves necessary and practicable to enable the health insurance commission to maintain a high integrity register will Australia Card number be so assigned. It is unlikely that this will move to be the case. In any case such assignation will not in any way permit the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to be a user of the Australia Card or register. The Government has also agreed that DIEA officers be authorised to impound Australia Cards found in the possession of detected illegal immigrants. The dissenting report recommended, and the Government agrees, that any future extension of use of either the card or register require full parliamentary and public discussion of the merits of the proposal, and that each individual extension of use require amendment by the Parliament of the Commonwealth to enabling legislation in relation to the Australia Card program (Rec DR9). The dissenting report recommended that there be no requirement for any individual to carry his or her Australia Card or to carry the card of any dependant (Rec DR10). The Government agrees. The dissenting report recommended that the requirement to present the Australia Card or provide the number be mandatory only for the purposes specified in legislation and that all other non-voluntary uses be prohibited (Rec DR11). The Government has endorsed this view. The Government reiterates its earlier advice to the committee that, in order for the Australia Card system to succeed, its use must be mandatory for purposes specified in the legislation. There will be no requirement to present the card (or provide the number) for other purposes. The Australia Card legislation will prohibit demands for production of the card (or number) to establish identity for purposes not sanctioned by the legislation. This prohibition will apply to unauthorised demands both in the public sector, e.g. by law enforcement agencies, and in the private sector, e.g. by credit companies in relation to loan applications. The dissenting report recommended, and the Government has agreed, that all access to the register be logged as a security measure and that invalid requests for access which are refused be logged separately (Rec DR12(a)). The dissenting report recommended that the standard of security and statutory secrecy provisions which operate in respect of tax records at the ATO be applied to the three agencies which will have access to the register (Rec DR12(b)). The Government agrees. The dissenting report recommended that a register be established to give high integrity to the Australia Card, and that the register contain the basic personal, program management and other information set out in the HIC planning report (Rec DR13). This recommendation has been accepted. The dissenting report recommended, and the Government has agreed, that all access to the register by approved users be recorded from computer logs with the exception of accesses required by the HIC and the Australian Audit Office for administration and program management purposes and that those records be made available (subject to the access provisions of the legislation) to the record subject (Rec DR14). The dissenting report recommended that a photographic image be included on Australia Cards issued to persons in their own right (Rec DR15), and that digitised image be included on the register (Rec DR16). The Government has agreed. Conclusion In summary, the Australia Card with a photograph and signature will be used by the HIC (which will operate the system) for Medicare purposes, the ATO for tax linkage purposes and the DSS for use in identifying claimants for welfare payments. The Government has carefully considered the options for a unique numbering system as outlined by the Committee and is firmly of the opinion that the Australia Card proposal will generate maximum revenue, have a major impact in combating tax evasion, welfare fraud and illegal immigration, be a system of high integrity, and attract broad community support. As was stated at the beginning, in principle the Government and the Joint Select Committee are in complete agreement. It is interesting to note that of the total 28 recommendations emerging from the committee in both reports, 17 have been accepted in full by the Government, 3 accepted with minor modifications, 1 accepted in part and 7 referred to appropriate Ministers or agencies for further consideration. In fact, to implement in full the one recommendation on which the committee split would do little more than to introduce an Australia Card program through the back door, but a program with inferior integrity and security, and lower revenue gains. The Government thanks the Joint Select Committee for their efforts in elucidating the many difficult issues surrounding introduction of the Australia Card proposal. Enormous quantities of material required sifting, analysis and clarification in order to be drawn together into the clear and well-written document presented to Parliament some four weeks ago. However, the sheer weight of evidence in favour of the practical and administrative advantages of an Australia Card system over the upgraded tax file numbering system cannot be denied. Logically, realistically and sensibly the Australia Card option is the most appropriate option available to the Government. It always has been. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-The Opposition is concerned to crack down on existing tax evasion and social security fraud. However, it is not prepared to go blindly down the path of an Australia Card when there are better more cost effective alternatives. We will not be party to a needless buildup in the size of the bureaucracy when the Government has failed to use its existing powers to attack tax evasion and social security fraud. This statement of some 11 pages presented tonight-and another document of 27 pages given to me just before dinner-is not a response to the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card; it is not a considered, logical response; it is merely a political exercise undertaken in great haste in an effort to shore up the Government's case for an Australia Card. The document just incorporated in Hansard by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) ends by stating that the Australia Card is the best option and always has been. In other words, the Government is saying: `We have always been convinced that the idea served up to us by the bureaucrats-the same idea that was served up to the previous Government and rejected-is the answer and we were never going to give the Committee's deliberations serious consideration'. This response is a real cut and paste job. Figures have been pulled out of thin air without any substantiation whatsoever. Strawmen have been built up regarding the alternative proposal of the majority and then knocked down again. This response is no more than a cheap political gimmick. Let me go to the heart of the Government's Australia Card proposal because the Joint Select Committee has roundly condemned the Government's Australia Card proposal. The Joint Select Committee said that the Australia Card proposal failed `to properly address the major problems of tax evasion, welfare fraud and the identification of illegal immigrants'. What did the Government do? It ignored the Committee's response. The Government says that the Australia Card is the best idea and it always was. In other words, a few members of parliament have spent five months looking at the proposal. They have criticised it and come up with a conclusion that it fails to address properly the major problems of tax evasion, welfare fraud and the identification of illegal immigrants. Yet the Government ignores them. What a farce! What is the Government's proposal? It plans to set up a bureaucracy of some 2,150 new public servants and to issue everyone with an Australia Card, an identification card with a photograph. The costs which have been given to us for setting up the card have been grossly underestimated. There is the cost of all these new public servants-a minimum of 2,150. All existing Medicare branch offices are to be relocated or refurbished. There will be some 42 new Medicare offices opened to cope with the Australia Card. The Government originally advised the Committee that the cost of this proposed card was to be in excess of $1,000m over a 10-year period. Days later the Government reduced that figure to $733m. It does not really matter which estimate we take; they both are way below the real cost of the implementation of an Australia Card. What has been left out of the Government's costing? Firstly, the Government gives us a 10-year costing but it does not give us any costs for replacing the equipment it will be using. Of course, that will be extremely expensive computer equipment. The Government deletes any costing for depreciation or replacement of that equipment. No costs are included for State and local government compliance, nor are costs included for private sector compliance. What is to be the cost of private sector compliance? The Minister was asked at his Press conference yesterday and he said: `We do not really know. We have talked to the private sector but we do not really know what this will cost it'. The initial cost the Confederation of Australian Industry provided to the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card was $379m. The Government has apparently asked the Business Regulation Review Unit to monitor the cost of implementing the introduction of the identification system. Today's Australian Financial Review says that, when the director of the unit, Dr Moran, was asked what the cost would be, he said that he could not disclose the unit's estimate of cost to business of the Australia Card but the rule of thumb it had used for all new regulations was that the costs to the private sector were twice those incurred by the Government. What are we talking about? We are talking about a government cost in excess of $1,000m because it has excluded a number of the basic costs, and we are talking about a cost to the private sector equal to that. Suddenly, from the Government telling us that the cost will be $700m-odd to introduce this card, we find that the real cost to the community will be in excess of $2,000m. So we have to reassess the equation a little. The Government is not interested in the cost to the private sector. It is interested only in its own costs and in its likely revenue, and I will come to the revenue side in a moment. We have established that the cost will not be $700m but will be in excess of $2,000m. But there are other costs-costs for compliance requirements on other Federal government authorities. The Australian Archives, for example, has indicated at Senate Estimates Committee hearings that the Australia Card proposal would mean significant costs for it. Left out of the Government's costings are the replacement or depreciation of equipment, the cost to local and State governments, the cost to the private sector, and the cost to other statutory authorities. The Department of Finance in evidence to us made it clear that it should not be held responsible for the costings which have been undertaken by the Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission, and little wonder. We have only to look at the record of the Department of Health's costings to see how good they are. The cost of Medicare blows out month by month. The Department has never been reliable. It always underestimates the cost of its projects. It has substantially underestimated the cost of Medicare. Now it has been put in charge of costing the Australia Card, and the Department of Finance distances itself from those estimates-and no wonder. The cost the Government has given is probably one third of the real cost. Let us look at the alleged benefits of the card. The Government says that the card will allow it to crack down on tax evasion. One might think that the card will allow a crackdown on the cash economy because everyone perceives-I think correctly-that that is the real area of tax evasion. Will the card have an impact on the cash economy, on cash transactions? By their nature, those transations are in cash. They will not be picked up by the identification card, which is required for transactions where there is some documentation. The card will not pick up the cash economy, the black economy. Estimates by the Australian Taxation Office of the expected revenue from the introduction of the card are questionable. The Committee found in relation to the main area of tax evasion, that is, declaration of interest: . . . during its evidence the ATO was unable to state exactly on what basis its estimates were made. In essence the ATO stated: . . . its estimates were made on a qualitative assessment of how tax evaders operate. So there is nothing certain about the estimates of the Taxation Office. In the past the Auditor-General has had reason to challenge the Australian Taxation Office estimate of revenue loss. He did so in a report on efficiency audits presented to this Parliament in December 1984. The Auditor-General then indicated that various Taxation Office estimates contained `strong elements of conjecture and the need for heavy qualification'. So the estimate of cost for the introduction of the Australia Card-the ID card-is underestimated by about two-thirds. It will impact on tax evasion but it will not impact on the black economy. The supposed revenue gains are questioned by the Joint Select Committee which reviewed the revenue gains. The record of the Australian Taxation Office was questioned by the Auditor-General. Let us move on. There is another area on which the Government says that this new Australia Card will impact and that is social security fraud. Well, the Government sort of says that it will have an impact in this area. The Minister says this casually at Press conferences, but the submission presented to the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card by the Government did not say that the Australia Card would have an impact on social security fraud. It said that there would be no net gain as a result of the curtailment of social security fraud by the introduction of the Australia Card. I refer for a moment to the Joint Select Committee's report, and this is all the Committee, not just the majority-four Labor members, two Liberal members, a Democrat and a National Party representative. At page 31 the Committee said: The Government submission reveals that the Department of Social Security-- that is, the Government submission for the introduction of an ID card- would have no net gain from the introduction of a national identification system. When the Minister said at his Press conference yesterday that the introduction of this ID card would have an impact on social security fraud, what on earth did he mean? That is not what his submission to the Joint Select Committee said. I will read another couple of important paragraphs from the Joint Select Committee report. These underline the real problems of social security fraud and how to attack them. At page 33 the report of the Joint Select Committee states: Despite the evidence given by DSS, including the use of updated security measures dealing with proof of identity, the Committee is concerned that fraud can be committed against the Commonwealth in the area of social security with relative ease. In other words, we acknowledge that there is a problem. It also states: Although DSS now requires social security beneficiaries to present documents from a number of sources including at least one `sound' document for verification of identity, the Committee is aware that even these sound documents, for example, birth and marriage certificates, can and have been forged without great difficulty. So what is the answer? It states: To overcome the inherent weaknesses of these identity procedures, the Committee recommends the computerisation of State registries of births, deaths and marriages. As the Minister would acknowledge, that is a recommendation that he has picked up. I am very glad about that. What did the report state after that recommendation? It states: When the task is complete DSS would have ready access to the original birth entry on the register which should drastically reduce the likelihood of false identities being created by Australian born citizens. The Committee also notes that the Department's estimate of fraud due to false identities which is 0.6 per cent of the total amount of overpayments presently outstanding, is not a reliable estimate. It only relates to fraud that is known and does not include the amount of fraud that exists but which has not been discovered by the Department. The Committee also states: The Committee believes that DSS must continue to tighten its security procedures at the time of application for benefits and it must also ensure that its guidelines are being followed in each of its 210 regional offices. The Committee makes a number of recommendations in the next chapter concerning DSS proof of identity procedures. The Committee made the following recommendations: That the Department of Social Security conduct a progressive review of proof of identity for all existing pension recipients and all current unemployment beneficiaries whose claims were determined before the introduction of the new procedures. That refers to checking with the new computerised births, deaths and marriages register. The recommendations continue: That the Department of Social Security match all recipients of social security benefits with the proposed computerised register of births, deaths and marriages as soon as that reform is implemented. That the Department of Social Security immediately begin verifying birth and marriage certificates offered as proof of identity with the relevant State or Territory register. That the Department of Social Security not accept birth and marriage certificates as `sound' documents for proof of identity purposes until registers of births, deaths and marriages are computerised and linked. They were the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. Did honourable members hear any recommendation for an identity card? Did the Committee say that the identity card is the answer to all social security fraud? No. What we said was that the processes being undertaken by the Department of Social Security are not good enough, that they need upgrading and that they ought to be checked against the computerised register of births, deaths and marriages when it is set up. There was no recommendation for an identity card. That was the way that the Joint Select Committee believed that we could crack down on social security fraud. The Government does not need 2,150 new public servants. It does not need $2,000m worth of Government and private expenditure to do that. All it has to do is upgrade and put on computer the births, deaths and marriages register. That is quite different from the recommendation put by the Government. The other area from which there is supposed revenue from the Australia Card is illegal immigrants. The submission put by the Government to the Joint Select Committee was that over 10 years it expected to raise some $1,250m from the introduction of an identity card to identify illegal immigrants who are currently working in Australia. Firstly, the Committee found that those estimates of likely revenue from illegal immigrants working in Australia were less than reliable. The Committee found: . . . that the estimates for illegal immigrants were based on guesswork, the percentage of illegal immigrants who worked was based on guesswork, the percentage of visitors who worked illegally came from a departmental study based on guesswork. The discount factor could not be defended and the overall benefits from 1987/88 to 1991/92 was the result of `crystal ball gazing'. In the light of these statements, the Committee is unable to place any confidence in the proposed revenue gains under this use. There we have it. We have doubtful revenue estimates from the Australian Taxation Office, but in any event it will not hit the cash economy. There will be no benefit in the area of social security fraud from the introduction of this card. The estimates of revenue on the use of the card with respect to illegal immigrants are very doubtful. The story gets worse. The $1,250m is a substantial part of the Government's supposed $4,700m revenue from the card. But now the card will not be used for this purpose. One of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee is that the card should be used only for the Department of Social Security, the Taxation Office and the Health Insurance Commission-those three bodies. The Minister said tonight that he accepts that. So it will not be used for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The report of the Committee, in recommending on how to attack the problem of illegal immigrants working in Australia, stated: That the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs upgrade the quality of its records including its movements database, citizenship index and overstayers file and transfer all records from the manual system to the computer database as a matter of urgency. As I understand it the Minister has picked up that recommendation. How can the Minister say that this is a proportion of the $4,700m to be collected over 10 years when he is accepting the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee to upgrade the existing system in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? An identity card was not suggested. The identity card will not be used for that purpose. The Minister cannot add in over $1,000m worth of revenue from the use of the card for this purpose if the card is not to be used for this purpose. The Minister has said that it will not be used for that purpose. So how on earth can he substantiate his figure of $4,700m? The cost of introducing the card has been grossly underestimated. The revenue figures are pure fantasy stuff. For example, the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee in the areas of social security fraud and illegal immigrants have been picked up. There is no need for an identity card there; that has been picked up. Apart from the cost-benefit analysis, one of the other grave concerns was obviously civil liberties. In this response the Government has totally failed to address the significant civil liberties issues raised during the hearings, including the issue of data linkage and the misuse of data held on centralised computer banks. There will be one centralised computer bank with access to all health records, tax records and social welfare records. The Government will try to tell us that that information will not leak. It said the same thing about the information held by the Health Insurance Commission. It said: `No, personal information will not leak out of there. Doctors' incomes from Medicare will not leak out of there. It is quite secure. We have all these special security arrangements.' Yet last year on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald we had a list of doctors and their incomes. What faith can one have in the undertakings of this Government? So where does the coalition stand in relation to the issue? Quite clearly, we oppose the Australia Card. We believe that there are a number of avenues open to the Government which do not involve the proposed massive buildup in the bureaucracy, expenditure probably in excess of $2,000m and the attendant civil liberties problems that come with the card. The Government has a responsibility to pick up and act upon the recommendations, to tighten up the administration of the social security system, to crack down on social security fraud and to increase the efficiency of the Australian Taxation Office so that it may attack tax evasion. I have explained to the House how the Joint Select Committee recommended a crackdown on social security fraud by increasing administrative efficiency and the use of a computerised bureau of births, deaths and marriages. I now move to tax evasion, obviously an area of great concern to the community and to the Opposition. Instead of spending time, money and resources on implementing this identification card proposal, the Government should be considering implementing the recommendations made by the Select Committee and by others, including the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I refer to the recommendations which the Government has failed to act on to date. Firstly, the income tax law at the moment requires interest paying agencies to provide the Taxation Office with information about dividend and interest payments. The Australian Taxation Office told us in evidence that only 18 to 20 per cent of the total interest paid in Australia was reported to it. In addition the Taxation Office told us that of that 18 to 20 per cent it was able to match only about half of it. So at the moment it is matching about only 10 per cent of the interest paid in Australia with income tax returns. The Joint Select Committee was concerned about this. ATO said to us that this is a major area of tax evasion, and yet it was not enforcing the existing law. Why set up a whole new identification card system when the Government will not even enforce the existing law? The Joint Select Committee said: . . . the ATO has powers and information available to it which are not fully utilised and that there are other measures which can also make substantial inroads into tax evasion. In addition, the Australian Taxation Office admitted that it had a problem with the state of the technology it utilised and that it expected the Government to act on the matter. That is rather interesting because when we look at the history and the efficiency of the administration of the Australian Taxation Office we see that it has been criticised before. The Auditor-General said in a report that the Australian Taxation Office had failed to take full advantage of technological advances that should permit computerised processing, particularly interest data being obtained from financial institutions and other bodies. In other words, the Auditor-General, as long ago as December 1984, said that the Taxation Office was getting information but because it was not utilising computer facilities it was not matching it. I have said already that the Taxation Office is getting declared about only 20 per cent of the interest paid in Australia, but under the law it should get a much greater proportion. Of that, it is matching only half. The Auditor-General asked why it did not match more, by using the computers. The Auditor-General made that point in December 1984. Yet still the Australian Taxation Office is complaining of a lack of compliance with the legislation and its inability to match information provided by the private sector. Evidence to the parliamentary Standing Committee on Expenditure indicated that not only was the Taxation Office using very little of the information provided to it, but also it was not spending money allocated for the upgrading of its computer technology. In other words, the Government has been appropriating money to the Taxation Office, but the office has not been spending it. The money has been allocated to it for the upgrading of its computer section, but it is not being spent. In the last four years, $76.7m has been allocated to the Australian Taxation Office for expenditure on automatic data processing equipment; yet to date it has spent less than half. It has spent $31.5m. How on earth can the Government accept this situation? The Taxation Office says to the Government: `Please introduce an identification card because we cannot catch all these tax evaders who are not declaring their interest to us, and when they do declare it to us we cannot match it with their income tax returns'. Yet when the Government gives the Taxation Office money to introduce computer systems so it can do just that, it does not spend it. Rather than having the community expend another $2,000m on an identification card the Government should concentrate on making the Australian Taxation Office a little more efficient and allowing it to do its job. The Department of Finance has also said that there were management problems in the Australian Taxation Office, especially in the area of computerisation. What is the Government doing about it? It is doing absolutely nothing. Instead, it comes in with an identification card. Mr Frank Costigan said of the Government's proposals: . . . there are much cheaper and effective ways of coping with the problems which arises from tax evasion and tax avoidance. Would not one think that he might know? He spent a long time investigating tax evasion and avoidance; he wrote a royal commission report on it; yet the Government acts in defiance of Costigan. Let me go to the Costigan Royal Commission report because Mr Costigan recommended a number of changes to banking controls which the Government has failed to act upon. Why has it not acted? Why has it allowed this rip-off of the Australian community to continue because the Taxation Office is not doing its job? Why has it not acted on the Costigan Royal Commission reports? Costigan recommended controls in order to crack down on the difficulties associated with bank accounts established in false names. He came across the problem and recommended that something be done about it. The Government has sat on its hands. Suddenly the Government says: `No, we will have an identification card'. Instead of accepting a few minor legislative changes recommended by Costigan, the Government will enforce upon the Australian community the expenditure of some $2,000m and the employment of an extra 2,000 public servants to do what Costigan says can be done with some minor legislative changes. What does Costigan suggest? He says that a person applying to open a bank account should be required by law to provide a personally signed statement giving the full name currently being used by the person, the name under which the person was born, the date and place of birth, the tax file number, the date of lodgment of his return and so on. Why has the Government not acted on those recommendations? Why is it so intent on spending $2,000m, instead of just changing the law and making the Taxation Office do the job it is supposed to do? No, the Government does not want to do that. It wants to go into the grand scheme of an identification card, because it wants to control every Australian. It wants to control our lives. Mr Brumby —Yes, especially you, James. Mr PORTER —Yes, the honourable member would love to control me; but I tell him that he will not, and in no time he will not be here to be complaining. A number of, recommendations in the Costigan report would, if implemented, greatly increase the Taxation Office's opportunities to cross-match information provided to it with the existing tax records-that is, providing that the Australian Taxation Office demands it from the financial institutions as required under the existing law. All of this could be done by changes to the legislation without the introduction of an identification card. In addition, the Joint Select Committee recommended that legislation be introduced to require banks to notify the relevant Commonwealth or State enforcement agencies about any fraudulent or suspected fraudulent activity within the banking system. Dr Blewett —Tell us about the tax file number proposal. Mr PORTER —The Minister should just wait a moment. There is no doubt that the Australian Taxation Office administration needs tightening up. It needs to get its act together and the Government needs to act in relation to royal commission recommendations made to it years ago-and the Government has done nothing. But it is not only the Taxation Office that is not too efficient. The Health Insurance Commission, which is supposedly to run this whole show, has not been operating too effectively, either. It admitted in evidence to us that some 20,000 duplicate Medicare cards had been issued and that it believed that many of these extra cards or duplicates would be used to create false names for fraudulent purposes. So, here it is, issuing cards; it has issued 20,000 cards which it says are likely to be used to create false names for fraudulent purposes. The Health Insurance Commission said-and this is just one example: We are aware of at least one case in which false identities were being created. We knew they were being created and we knew who was creating them, but that in itself is not a crime. There is no legislative backing for the Medicare enrolment process and, at the most, it is a misdemeanour-just a nuisance to the Commonwealth. That is an extraordinary admission. The cards were used to falsely claim the TEAS allowance. The Health Insurance Commission has failed, apparently, to propose to the Government any legislative changes, and the Government has failed to act to remedy the situation. So, here we have it: The Health Insurance Commission gives out cards; it knows that they will be used fraudulently; they are used fraudulently, to obtain TEAS allowances fraudulently-and no one has recommended any action to change matters and fix up the problem. What an extraordinary situation! That problem is not going to be fixed; no, instead we shall have a grand identification card. The Health Insurance Commission also claims that it has no authority to advise the Australian Federal Police of matters where it suspects fraudulent activity. The Joint Select Committee recommended that legislation be passed allowing Commonwealth departments and authorities to inform the appropriate department or authority about suspected cases of fraud. It is quite clear that the cost of the Australia Card, as per the Government's statement, is grossly underestimated. Instead of being about $730m-odd, it is likely to be nearer $2,000m-odd in cost to the Australian public through taxation, through the private sector and through local and State governments. On the benefits side, the Government has picked up the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee to attack social security fraud through better means of identification-not through the identification card, but through better means of identification-and the use of the central computerised Registry of Births, Death and Marriages. In relation to tax evasion, the Government has failed to act in a number of areas in which it could have acted to garner a great deal of the revenue which is subject to tax evasion at present. Mr West —Time! You have had a fair go. Mr PORTER —I might have stopped, but the Minister for Health wanted me to talk about his response to the tax file number proposal. Let us look at his response to that, because it is very interesting. He says that the tax file number will not raise anywhere near as much as the Australia Card would raise. At a Press conference yesterday he was asked: `How do you justify that, Mr Minister? Have you had the costings and the benefits checked by the Department of Finance?'. His answer was: `Finance, to my knowledge, have not done a detailed calculation on that side of it'. Mr Robert Brown —I checked them. Mr PORTER —Oh, the honourable member did it. That is terrific! One of the real socialists in this country has done a costing that we are supposed to accept as a relevant costing of a majority report rejected by the Government. Why did the Minister not go to the Department of Finance? If he is so concerned about the alternative proposal and wants to denigrate it, one would think that he would come up with some realistic figures. But no, he pulls figures out of the air. He does not get them costed by the Department of Finance. No doubt, the figures that he has have been produced by the Health Insurance Commission or his Department of Health. Of course, they do not want the alternative proposal to get up, because it would be run not by them but by the Taxation Office. So, the figures are a farce and it is totally administratively irresponsible of the Minister not to have costed the alternative proposal and not to have got the relevant authority, which is the Department of Finance, to cost it. Why did the Minister not do that? It was because he was terrified of the result. I just report what the Taxation Office said: If we followed the Australia Card identification requirements before allocating tax file numbers and purified existing records on that basis, we would expect to achieve similar revenue gains to those under the Australia Card option, without a photograph, with a similar staff and equipment costs. I go no further than that. The statement is simple. It is no good the Minister putting up straw men such as that lesser integrity tax file numbers would generate lesser revenue. That is not the question; nor was it the proposal. That proposal was put as a better suggestion than the identification card. What the Opposition says is that what the Government should be doing first, before it goes down any of these tracks, is to enforce the existing law, to act on the recommendations of its Auditor-General and the Costigan Commission and to tighten up administrative arrangements in the Departments of Social Security and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-which are totally failing the Australian public-and then it will generate revenue of the order of that which it will generate with the Australia Card, without employing in excess of 2,150 new public servants and without the cost to the Australian public of $2,000m on the Australia Card. Mr Hodgman —It is staggering. Mr PORTER —That is it. The honourable member for Denison is quite right in expressing surprise. The cost of this card to the Australian people will be $2,000m. It is outrageous-and all because the Government has failed to act under existing legislation that is in force now and has failed to act on recommendations made to it to tighten up the administration of the Department of Social Security, the Taxation Office and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I repeat: The Opposition firmly believes that the Government should address the shortcomings in the administration of the Australian Taxation Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Those shortcomings should be dealt with as a matter of urgency. In that way, if the Government acts on the recommendations of the reports of Costigan and others that have been put to it, it will crack down on social security fraud and tax evasion without the enormously expensive and bureaucratic identification card system that it proposes. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo) —I have the pleasure of presenting the eleventh report of the Publications Committee, which has been sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. I understand that copies of the report have been circulated to honourable members in the chamber. Report-by leave-adopted. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.00) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: (1) Redevelopment of the School of Military Engineering, Casula, New South Wales; and (2) Warehouse development, Stage 1, 21st Supply Battalion, Moorebank, New South Wales The first of these proposed works is the construction of new facilities for the Army's School of Military Engineering at Casula. It includes refurbishment and demolition of the existing sub-standard installations, some of which date back to World War II. The school provides tactical and classroom training in all facets of military engineering, including bridging and roads and aerodromes construction. The works proposed under this submission include the provision of new training facilities, administration accommodation, messing, vehicle maintenance and stores; the provision of associated roads and engineering services; the refurbishment of facilities; the demolition of sub-standard installations; and the upgrading of the Moorebank area mains water system. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $29.7m at January 1986 prices. It is intended that construction commence 12 months after parliamentary approval and will be completed approximately four years later. The second proposed work is the construction of a modern computer-assisted warehouse facility for the Army's 21st Supply Battalion. The Battalion provides supply service support to Army units in New South Wales and to other depots in Australia, including the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy. The existing facilities are old sub-standard ware-houses that are considered unsuitable for modern storage techniques. To minimise disruption to the warehousing activities, it is proposed to develop the facilities in two stages, with the second stage commencing after the completion of stage one. The second stage will be subject to a later referral to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The work proposed under this submission comprises a warehouse containing central processing, administrative functions, technical support, treatment and packaging facilities, small parts storage area, associated services and site works, and demolition of asbestos cement-clad storehouses. The estimated cost of the proposal is $17.9m at January 1986 prices. It is intended that construction commence later this year and it is anticipated that stage one will have a construction period of approximately two years. I table plans of both proposed works and I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.03) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for his courtesy in advising me that he proposed to move this motion tonight and for making available to me the details of the proposed redevelopment of the School of Military Engineering at Casula and the warehouse development at Moorebank. The Opposition does not object to the motion. On a number of occasions on which motions to refer projects to the Public Works Committee have been placed before this House, I have requested the Minister to ensure the highest level of private sector involvement in the project. Unfortunately, the Minister has either misunderstood or misrepresented me. It needs to be said that the Opposition clearly understands that when projects of this nature are finally approved by the Parliament, the construction activities are very largely carried out by the private sector. Of course the Opposition understands this. However, it is in the areas of design, architecture, engineering, co-ordination, programming, manpower and legal services-those functions occurring prior to the actual construction work being carried out-that the Opposition is requesting greater involvement by the private sector. Mr West —They already get more than 50 per cent. Mr BEALE —The Minister interjects that the private sector already has 50 per cent. I have been asking the Minister to increase this number from 50 per cent to a higher level. The Department has thousands of people working in these areas essentially, as the Minister pointed out, doing the same jobs as can be done by the private sector. What we seek, and have never received, from the Minister is an assurance that he use his best endeavours to ensure that work of this nature is not handled by his Department but by the private sector. We do not believe it is in the interests of the taxpayers of Australia that a government department should be carrying out functions that can be carried out equally well, and probably better, by the private sector. Will the Minister now give the Opposition, this House, and the taxpayers of Australia an assurance that he will do this in the future? If he does not do so, he can expect that this matter will come up again and again until the Minister is prepared to give the Opposition an undertaking that he will act in the best interests of the people of Australia. Despite his interjection earlier, the Minister now sits mute at the table and will not give the Opposition the assurance it seeks. We also seek an assurance from the Minister that he will not treat the recommendation from the Public Works Committee on this matter with the contempt and in the same cavalier and offhand way he treated yesterday's recommendation on the proposed modification to Sydney's international airport. Yesterday in this House we were treated to the extraordinary spectacle of the Minister for Housing and Construction, apparently without having discussed the matter with the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) or the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Recreation (Mr John Brown)- Mr West —I raise a point of order. One tries to be as lenient as possible during these debates on referrals to the Public Works Committee as to the extent of the subject matter that can be raised. I do draw attention to the fact that we are not discussing a debate that occurred yesterday, we are discussing the referral of the redevelopment of the School of Military Engineering, Casula, and the warehouse development, stage 1, for the 21st Supply Battalion, Moorebank, New South Wales to a Public Works Committee. That has absolutely nothing to do with improvement to the international terminal at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I ask that you rule that the honourable member for Deakin return to the subject matter of my speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —I take note of the point of order and I ask the honourable member for Deakin to relate his comments to the matter before the Chair. Mr BEALE —I was asking the Minister not to treat the recommendation from the Public Works Committee in respect of the matters we are about to refer to it in the same way as he treated the recommendation from the Public Works Committee on modifications to the international terminal at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I ask: What is the point of having the Public Works Committee if the Government will not accept its recommendations? What is the point of having a detailed examination of proposed works if the Government is going to ignore it? What is the point of wasting the time of expert witnesses if the Government disregards their advice? This whole question of the modifications to Sydney's international airport has, of course, been a great embarrassment to the five Government members on the Public Works Committee who have been overruled by the Minister for Housing and Construction. It is important in respect of the projects covered by this motion that the Minister give an assurance to the House that he actually will discuss the proposed works with his colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), so that we can be assured that we do not have a repeat of yesterday's fiasco. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(9.10) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the third report for 1986 of the Committee relating to the construction of the State Mail Centre, 501 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —I thank the house. The Committee's observations and recommendations are contained in the following information. The two buildings currently occupied by the State Mail Centre are more than 60 years old, have numerous operational deficiencies and do not meet the requirements of new mail handling techniques. The Committee accepts that 501 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, is the only site available for the purposes of Australia Post within the criteria determining its activities. The Committee expresses concern that Australia Post was obliged to accept this site after the Victorian Government withdrew the preferred site. The Committee is satisfied that the design of the new building adequately fulfils the requirements of new mail handling techniques and provides sufficient space to cater for forecast needs to the year 2005. The estimated capital cost of the proposal when referred to the Committee was $9.95m at February 1986 prices and was increased to $10.8m at April 1986 prices to allow for building price index increases and variations in design for security and other features. Accordingly, the Committee recommends construction of the work and the reference. If I may have the further indulgence of the House for a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to forestall perhaps some adverse reaction to a comment contained in paragraph 46 of the report, which reads: Some elements of the transaction left the Committee a little less than fully satisfied. Nevertheless, the Committee, on balance, accepts that the course of action proposed is the only option to Australia Post to meet an urgent requirement. I emphasise that the words `some elements of the transaction left the Committee a little less than fully satisfied' do not for one moment contain any suggestion of impropriety but simply reflect the fact that the rather abstruse character of commercial transactions defied the Committee to satisfy itself fully as to who got the best part of the deal. I thank the House. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 96, clause 19, proposed new paragraphs 160zzr (1) (d) and (e), lines 10 to 27, leave out the proposed new paragraphs. No. 2-Page 97, clause 19, proposed new sub-sections 160zzr (3) and (4), lines 7 to 17, leave out the proposed new sub-sections. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(9.12) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. In doing so, I indicate that this relates to the return from the Senate of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill, and the amendments that the Government is accepting relate to the extension of the 20 per cent exemption of goodwill on the disposal of a business with business assets worth under $1m. In the original proposal, forwarded through the House by the Government to the Senate, the 20 per cent exemption of goodwill was to apply to the disposal of that part of the goodwill of a new business. These amendments extend that 20 per cent exemption to the goodwill of an existing business in the position where the goodwill may have been purchased. That 20 per cent exemption for the purchased goodwill is extended to the owner of that business, the taxpayer of that business, provided that the business assets total less than $1m. In accepting the amendments, I record my thanks to those non-government senators who supported the Government's amendments to the income tax legislation as it affects capital gains. I also record the fact that this has been a very historic week in the history of the Parliament in terms of its passage of tax reform legislation. This week we have seen the passage of the fringe benefits tax legislation in the Senate, the Bill that will pass into law a foreign tax credit system for this country and, of course, the historic capital gains tax legislation. I might add that the capital gains tax is something which Australia is almost alone among comparable countries for having been without for so long. The Government has introduced this Bill on the basis of a totally prospective application of capital gains taxation to the procurement of assets acquired after 19 September 1985. That is, all existing assets remain exempt. The Bill will effect a very long transition from what has previously been the untaxed capital gains of assets in this community to a situation in which we will see taxing for capital gains purposes at full marginal rates of tax but on the real gains on assets acquired after 19 September 1985. What makes this Bill different is that we are not taxing nominal gains as many capital gains tax Acts around the world do; we are taxing the real gain only-that is, after washing the inflation from the calculation-and then taxing it at the full marginal rates of tax. So, for a country which has a scarce supply of capital we are not putting scarce capital into the wrong places. We will not have the tax system driving investors to make poor capital investment decisions in this economy. People who take their home as income have been paying their fair share of income tax for a long time while others who have been taking their income as capital have, in many respects, been operating outside the strength of section 26 (a) in terms of raising an income from capital gains. That will now be met in what will be a very important change to make the Australian tax system eminently fairer than it has ever been in the past. Also, we have seen this week the passage of the fringe benefits taxation legislation which, again, is historic legislation to make the Australian taxation system much fairer. All Australians now will pay their fair share of tax. Not only those who receive an income will now pay their share but also anyone who receives benefits outside their income will now have a tax levied on the benefit of that income. Finally, with a foreign tax credit system we will remove the position where, again, tax driven decisions were being made in deciding whether investments should be made at home or abroad, involving, of course, the use of tax havens in parts of the world where the rate of tax is very much lower than the prevailing rate of company tax in this country. Now we will provide to those companies which bring their dividends back a credit for the tax they might have paid elsewhere, and that credit will stand against the company tax rate in this country. In getting a flatter playing field and removing those distortions from the tax system in this respect, it is likely that decisions that will now be made to invest abroad will be made not on the basis of some tax advantage but on a real intention on the part of a business to invest abroad. So, these are very historic changes. They are three of the important measures of the packages of measures which the Government has brought into the Parliament. I am pleased to say that they have passed both Houses of Parliament this week. I take this opportunity to commend in respect of this Bill, as I have done with the others, the bureaucratic work which has been undertaken by the staff of the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office, who have laboured over this measure for the better part of 18 months, as a concept, as a design and, finally, as legislation. I commend Mr Greg Smith on my staff who, throughout the period, has been negotiating the various design changes and design details between myself, the Treasury and the Taxation Office, and those members of both organisations who have given their time so unselfishly now for 18 months. I wish again to record the appreciation of the Government for that effort so well made. Again, I indicate that the Government accepts the amendments. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(9.20) —What a pleasure it is to have the Treasurer (Mr Keating) come into the chamber in the dying days of this session to give thanks to everybody who has been involved in preparing an additional 625 pages of taxation legislation. Where has this man been when we wanted the explanatory memoranda on the Bills themselves? Where has he been at the end of each debate? We have had four days of debate on tax Bills and he has not even bothered to come into the chamber and reply to the debate, an elementary courtesy for a Treasurer, after we have debated tax Bills and a total of 625 pages of legislation for four days. He has not had the courtesy to come into the chamber and to reply to the remarks of honourable members. On one occasion the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), gave some sort of reply to what honourable members said, but it was a totally pitiful and inadequate reply. At the end of a full day of debate on the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment (Capital Gains Tax) Bill, one of the most important measures, the Treasurer said, that has ever been before the Parliament, no Minister came into the House to give any idea of what the Government's response was to the points of view put by honourable members from both sides of the House. Mr Hand —Talk about the legislation. Mr CARLTON —From both sides of the House, I say to the honourable member for Melbourne. The Treasurer has brought in, since his so-called tax reform statement of 19 September last year, an additional 625 pages of taxation legislation. Reform under this Government has added to the existing 1,100 pages of taxation legislation-an excessive amount-an additional 625 pages. Reform under the Australian Labor Party is to put an additional 625 pages of legislation and regulation on the business community, on ordinary taxpayers; and it has been produced for the House in the most arrogant and contemptuous fashion that has ever been seen in the history of the Parliament. We had the refusal by this man opposite, the Treasurer, to give any briefings to the Opposition on most of the Bills. Requests by the Opposition to be briefed by officers of the Treasury and of the Australian Taxation Office were refused by the Treasurer. There had not been under the previous Government refusals of briefings to the Labor Party on taxation or economic matters; yet the Treasurer refused briefings on the Bills up to the very last batch of Bills, when he arranged at very short notice briefings which the Opposition found very difficult to contend with. Mr O'Keefe —What is your objection to the legislation? Mr CARLTON —Does the honourable member for Burke think it reasonable for 275 pages to be dumped on the table of this Parliament on a Thursday night? Does the honourable member for Burke think it reasonable for the Treasurer, in respect of legislation which he says is some of the most important tax legislation to come before the Parliament, to come into the House on a Thursday night with no explanatory memoranda for five out of the six Bills, for those Bills to be debated the following Wednesday and Thursday in the Parliament, with no opportunity for them to be discussed outside in the community, and for them to be pushed through the Parliament, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, within the course of one or two weeks? Do those opposite think this is reasonable? We have had put through a capital gains tax which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a solemn commitment to the electors, would not be introduced. We have a fringe benefits tax which is the most extraordinary imposition of an additional payroll tax, an additional business tax, at a time when the Treasurer is claiming that there is an urgent need for business investment. He had to send out to the business community a memorandum, a booklet of 56 pages describing how the 11 different types of tax are going to be levied and describing the different forms for each of the 11 types, and their six sub-categories, of the most complicated payroll tax that has ever been levied in any country's history. We have had an extremely short time to look at that-and so has he. Members of the business community are now reading those booklets, they are now seeing what that tax involves, and they are making inquiries of Government members and Opposition members. They are seeing exactly what that tax involves. I turn to the foreign tax credits system of which the Treasurer is so proud. How does he know what people in business houses feel when they are forced, if they invest in a country like Singapore, which has a lower rate of company tax, to pay the full Australian rate and yet compete with companies in the country in which they wish to invest? Are we encouraging entrepreneurship; are we encouraging investment in Australia, with these sorts of tax Bills? What about the capital gains tax? We accept the amendments before us tonight-they are a slight amelioration of the conditions of the capital gains tax-but where were the Australian Democrats in all this? What did the Democrats do in all this? The Australian Democrats share with the Australian Labor Party the responsibility for the fringe benefit tax. They share the full responsibility for the capital gains tax. They made a great meal of what they were going to do with the Government over the capital gains tax. They said that they were going to extract major concessions from the Government on the capital gains tax, but what are they? They are trivial and minor and will have absolutely no impact in terms of reducing the effect on business of this iniquitous tax. We are dealing in Committee with a particular set of amendments from the Senate to the capital gains tax Bill. The Treasurer has taken the liberty under Standing Orders of widening the debate, having not had the courtesy to come into the chamber at all during the four full days of major tax debates, an elementary courtesy demanded of a Minister in charge of Bills. Heaven forbid, if the Minister believes that they are critical reform Bills and that they are of great importance to the Australian community, the very least the Minister can do is to come into the House at the end of a day-long debate, after four whole days, and respond to the concerns of honourable members. On three of those days he sent in an assistant Minister, ill-briefed. In fact, on one of the days the assistant Minister was unable to answer the queries that I had and other members had raised and the letter in response to those queries of two weeks ago was received in my office last night. His assistant Minister was in the embarrassing position at the end of the debate of tabling the explanatory memoranda for the Bills which had been introduced a week before. Honourable members had not been advised of the details of the proposals by way of explanatory memoranda and his assistant Minister had the extreme embarrassment of coming in here and handing to me and tabling the explanatory memoranda of those Bills during my closing remarks at the Committee stage. In fact, on one of the Bills that this House has been asked to discuss, the explanatory memorandum was brought into the House in only the last 30 seconds of debate. This is a scandal, and the Treasurer is responsible. His idea of reform is an extra 625 pages of taxation legislation of incredible complication. That is his legacy-1100 pages when he started, an additional 625 pages, 57 per cent, at the end of it. This will be his epitaph. The booklet he sent out on fringe benefits tax will kill this Government. He will be responsible for it. The entertainment tax, the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the foreign tax credit-for all those, he is responsible, and he will answer for them. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(9.30) —I did not intend to say anything in connection with this matter, but I have just heard what I think has been one of the most ungenerous and ungracious contributions that could be made to any debate in this Parliament or in any parliament in connection with any issue at all. Mr Kerin —It was shameful. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, confirms what I say-it was shameful. That eulogises the contribution that was made. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), a man for whose perception on earlier occasions I had some regard, should have been a little more generous, gracious and objective in his observations about the Treasurer (Mr Keating). A little over three years ago, the Hawke Government came to office in a situation where the Australian economy had been practically devastated. The architect of that devastation has just entered the chamber, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). The Hawke Government, with the honourable member for Blaxland, Paul Keating, as Treasurer, inherited an economy which had been devastated and in which unemployment was running at 750,000. It was an economy in which in the previous 12 months unemployment had increased by 250,000, or 700 every day; where inflation was 11.5 per cent; where the unemployment rate was 10.4 per cent; where Australia's standing internationally had never been lower. The responsibility for charting the economic course of this nation fell almost exclusively on the present Treasurer. In a little over three years, the economic direction of this nation has been turned around almost completely. Not only has there been a remarkable recovery in the economy, but the opportunity has also been taken to tear away a lot of the unnecessary restrictions that existed on the free operation of people within this system. The remarkable thing was that it was brought about, not by a coalition which purports to support private enterprise, but by a social democratic party which was prepared to accept the responsibility and the challenges for stripping away all those inhibitions which existed on the free and efficient operation of the sort of system Australian people want to enjoy. To a very large extent, the architect of those changes was the Treasurer. Bearing in mind all the hours and effort the Treasurer has put into those responsibilities, I am surprised that the honourable member for Mackellar has made such ungracious and ungenerous comments. In Australia at present, 670,000 people are occupying jobs that have been created as a result of the economic policies which the Treasurer has put into place. But the honourable member for Mackellar comes into this chamber and asks whether the Treasurer should have been here. The honourable member for Mackellar said that there had been 270 pages of legislation in this last week alone, and that it was necessary for the Treasurer to put together 625 additional pages in the Income Tax Assessment Act. That happened because of the mess inherited by the Treasurer, because of the hell of a mess the previous Government made of it. In order to get the taxation system operating efficiently, to rip out all the ramps and rorts that the previous Government institutionalised into the system, it took 625 pages of adjustment to that Act. I tell Opposition members this: The Australian people know who has been responsible for making sure that the taxation system not only operates efficiently but operates with justice, fairness and equity to people right across the board. The Treasurer has made sure that all those benefactors, all the supporters and members of the Liberal Party who have benefited from all those holes in the taxation system which previously they were able to drive trucks through, will no longer benefit. The Treasurer has been responsible for orchestrating a complete restructuring of the taxation system, and that is what Opposition members do not like about it. They know that all the people they support and have supported in the past were ripping off the system and the ordinary Australians. Whatever electorates Opposition members happen to represent, the vast majority of their constituents are not the people who are ripping off the system; they are not the rorters, not the lurk merchants. The vast majority of people in those electorates are ordinary wage and salary earners, ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers. It is about time Opposition members started to realise that. The people in their electorates whom Opposition members have been ignoring and repudiating increasingly are starting to understand the difference between a government which not only lacks competence but also lacks conscience-the difference between the sort of government Opposition members provided and that provided by a Labor Government. There has been a revitalisation of the economy. The comments made by the honourable member for Mackellar were cheap and tawdry. It ill becomes him and the other members of the Opposition who know the effort, energy, dedication, commitment and competence which the Treasurer has put into restructuring the economy. He has done that not only for the benefit of the wage and salary earners of whom I have been speaking, but for the benefit of all those people who have a stake in this nation. I refer to all those people in the business community who have turned their backs on the Opposition and who applaud this Government and its great achievements. This Government will continue to make those achievements because the Australian people in their overwhelming numbers will ensure that now and into the future this Government will have the opportunity to continue to deliver the goods. I congratulate the Treasurer on his outstanding contribution to the greater efficiency of this nation. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(9.40) —I thought I had made my last speech for the session this afternoon on the matter of public importance, but I reckoned without my good friend the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). One thing we can say about the honourable member for Charlton is that it is very easy to listen to him because he says the same thing on every occasion he speaks. He has one speech and he says the same thing time and again. Seriously, it is a mark of the sheer panic that has gripped this Government about the state of the Australian economy that on an amendment that goes to a tiny part of the capital gains tax legislation we should have the spectacle that for the first time in four full days of debate on the Government's tax package we are blessed with an intervention by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). So much does he care about this benighted tax package of his that for the first time he has deigned to enter the debate. The reality is that this tax package, the last bits of which we are seeing rammed through the Parliament tonight-be it always remembered by the Australian people-is the tax package that the Treasurer never wanted. This is the tax package that was rammed down the Treasurer's throat when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made that International Motor Inn deal with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This is the tax package which I warned then would represent a situation in which, at the end of the day, all we would end up with would be the nasties of option A. One of the worst nasties of option A is the Government's iniquitous capital gains tax. Over the months of the recess and over the months before the next election, let me remind the Government of the promise made in March 1983-we all remember it so well: `There will be no capital gains tax'. On he went. The Prime Minister not only said that there would be no capital gains tax, he also said: `Let me say it to you in words that even you in the Liberal and National parties will understand'. Let me say to the Prime Minister that we understood very clearly what he said in March 1983, and so did the Australian people. Over the months ahead I can tell all Government members-particularly the nine who are on our hit list for the next election, the nine who will be bundled out at the next election-that they will have that rammed down their throats. I notice that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) left the chamber earlier. Perhaps he is sending out autographed copies of this little bobby dazzler-the fringe benefits booklet. I reckon that the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) will also be sending out autographed copies. If I were the honourable member for Dunkley, I would spend my time during the winter recess going around to all his marginal areas and pulling out of letter boxes all the Commissioner of Taxation letters and replacing them with some of his own publicity. When people understand the ramifications of what the Government has done with the Australian taxation system it will not be very popular, and that list of nine will be added to. In a very calm way, let me just take up one of the great myths of this whole taxation debate in Australia. I welcome the intervention of the honourable member for Charlton and he knows that. This Government is full of myths, and many of them have been exploding in its face. One of the great myths that this Treasurer and his colleagues in the Government have perpetuated over the last three years is the myth that it was the Government which smashed the tax avoidance industry in Australia. So ridiculous is this proposition that not only is it false, but everybody knows that it was not the honourable member for Blaxland who rewrote the general anti-avoidance section of the tax Act; it was I who rewrote that section when I was Treasurer. It was not the honourable member for Blaxland who closed down the current anti-tax avoidance schemes; it was the former Treasurer. It was not the honourable member for Blaxland who passed the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act; it was the former Treasurer who passed that Act. The Government should write a history of the campaign against the tax avoidance industry in Australia over the last 10 years. I recommend to the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who has just come in to the chamber, that he also spend his recess pulling out this booklet from everybody's letter boxes. Last weekend I was in Singleton and I had a very pleasant sell-out dinner at the Wyndham Estate, right in the heart of the honourable member's electorate. I can tell the honourable member that he is very bad news in Hunter; he is in terrible trouble in Hunter. The honourable member is well and truly on the skids. He is such bad news in Hunter that he will get the shock of his life. All I can say is that the Government has given to the coalition six of the greatest issues that any coalition could have to fight on in provincial seats in Australia. The Government has given us the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax, a union-run industrial relations system, a crazy superannuation deal between the Treasurer and the ACTU, and the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. The Government will perish with that Bill of Rights because all around Australia, including the provincial areas, that Bill will be rammed right down its throat. I return to the Senate's amendments to the taxation legislation. Let me put to rest once again the great myth that it was the present Treasurer who destroyed the tax avoidance industry in Australia. The truth is that the former Government totally annihilated the tax avoidance industry. Within four months of coming to power the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who as Minister for Finance then had ministerial responsibility for the Australian Taxation Office, before it was wrenched out of his hands by the present Treasurer, addressed a meeting of chartered accountants in Sydney. He likes to disown this statement but, like all his statements, including his taxation statements, it has come back to haunt him. He knows a bit about tax avoidance. He is one of the best informed people in the Parliament on tax avoidance. Do honourable members know what he had to say about it? On this occasion he was dead right. Within four months of the Government coming to power he said: `Tax avoidance in Australia is dead'. Mr Robert Brown —We killed it. Mr HOWARD —Listen to Rambo from Charlton. For heavens sake, he killed it in four months! One of the great frauds that the mob opposite has perpetrated since it has come into power is the proposition that in some way it has had something to do with killing the tax avoidance industry. The other great fraud that the Government has perpetrated is that the package we are finally seeing rammed through this place tonight is some great reform of the Australian taxation system. This package is not only discriminatory and punitive, it also adds immense complexity and difficulty to an already complex piece of taxation legislation. The fringe benefits tax puts into the taxation legislation provisions of unbelievable complexity and difficulty. It also places in the way of legitimate business activity in Australia imposts of unbelievable severity and of a discriminatory character. I can only say to the Government that in political terms the fringe benefits tax must go down as one of the most monumentally stupid political blunders that any government has introduced. I look forward with relish to the opportunity of telling the Australian people, particularly those in the nine marginal seats, all about the details of the fringe benefits tax. The Government will get it day after day during the recess, and I will be there to talk to the people in Dunkley and the others. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, John Lee, M. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Jacobi, R. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. 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. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Humphreys, B. C. Coleman, W. P. Dawkins, J. S. Conquest, B. J. Duffy, M. J. Cadman, A. G. Grace, E. L. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Keating) put: That the report be adopted. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, John Lee, M. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cross, M. D. Milton, P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D. Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear. G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West. S. J. Jacobi, R. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. FAldred, 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. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K. Downer, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C. Drummond, P. H. Ruddock. P. M. Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D. Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Hall, Steele Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Coleman, W. P. Dawkins, J. S. Conquest, B. J. Duffy, M. J. Cobb, M. R. Grace, E. L. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Discharge of Orders of the Day Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 1, sub-clause 2 (2), line 12, leave out ``of the Principal Act''. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(10.06) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. Our attention has been drawn by the draftsman to a drafting error. This amendment corrects that drafting error. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That the following orders of the day, Government Business, be discharged: 10 Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1985: Second reading-Resumption of debate. 11 Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985: Consideration of Senate's message No. 106. 12 Dairy Produce Market Support Bill 1985: Consideration of Senate's message No. 107. 13 Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985: Consideration of further action in relation to the Bill. 14 Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Amendment Bill 1985: Consideration of Senate's message No. 64. 36 Philosophy, Aims and Policy Guidelines for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 37 Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 40 Australian Capital Territory Corporate Affairs Commission-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 41 Australian Institute of Criminology-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 42 Passports Act 1938-Report By Human Rights Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 43 Commonwealth Legal Aid Council-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 46 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Policy Council-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 47 Australian Dairy Corporation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 48 Australian Wool Corporation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 50 Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 51 Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 52 Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and Commissioner for Superannuation-Reports-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 54 Department of Health-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 58 Bushfires-Reports-Government Response-Ministerial Statement and Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 59 Australian Security Intelligence Organisation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 60 Freedom of Expression and Section 116 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-Report by Human Rights Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 61 Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 62 Trans Australia Airlines-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 64 Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 65 Australian Code of Conduct for Australian Companies with Interests in the Republic of South Africa-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 66 Affirmative Action Legislation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 67 Freedom of Information Act-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 68 Nuclear Science and Technology in Australia-Report by Australian Science and Technology Council-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 69 Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy-Agreements Between Australia and the United States of America-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 70 Australian Broadcasting Corporation-Second Regional Radio Network-Paper and Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 73 Road Safety-Standing Committee-Report on Road Safety Generally-Government Response-Ministerial Statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 74 Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service-Evaluation-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 75 National Soil Conservation Program-Progress Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 76 Elections 1984-Election Funding and Financial Disclosure-Interim Report by Australian Electoral Commission-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 77 Expenditure-Standing Committee-Report on Telecom's Zonal Charging Policies-Response-Ministerial Statement and Paper-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 78 Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 79 Aussat Pty Ltd-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 80 Remote Commercial Television Services-Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-2nd report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 81 Defence Service Homes Corporation-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 83 Illegal Immigrants-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 84 Commonwealth Schools Commission-Interim Consultative Committee-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 85 National Conservation Strategy for Australia-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 86 Aviation Industry-Outlook-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 87 Australian Federal Police-Objectives and Priorities-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 88 Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam-Report of Royal Commission-Papers-Motion to take note of papers: Resumption of debate. 89 Human Rights Commission-Report for 1983-84-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 90 History of British Atomic Tests in Australia-Paper-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 92 Remote Commercial Television Service-Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. 93 Commonwealth Grants Commission-Tax Sharing Relativities 1985-Report-Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.08) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 19 August 1986, unless otherwise called together by Madam Speaker or, in the event of Madam Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. Mr N.A. Brown —Would you repeat that? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Menzies is interjecting. He is probably excited because he leaves tomorrow by Qantas for Geneva. Mr N.A. Brown —On Saturday. Mr YOUNG —Sorry, on Saturday. That is a cause for excitement. In moving this adjournment motion, may I say that we have had what must have been one of the most successful and one of the busiest programs of legislation to go through this House in an autumn session for a long time. There have been 43 days of sitting, which, by any government's standards, has been a long time. I know that people outside the Parliament find it difficult to understand that 43 days represents a major work load, but in the parliamentary sense it does. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was telling us a few minutes ago, there has been a lot of controversial legislation. He will be out on the hustings in the days, weeks and months ahead, tearing us to pieces because of the legislation that we have introduced. But, if it is of so much advantage to the Opposition, I do not know why Opposition members complain about it. It seems to me that, if it is of advantage to the Opposition, it should support us because then it will get the political advantage. One minute Opposition members are complaining about fraud and the next day they are complaining about the identity card. They cannot have it both ways. The Leader of the Opposition has had a great deal of difficulty in coming to grips with his own views, with what he supports and what he does not support. The Government has legislated on matters that are controversial, but there is no doubt that some of these measures had to be taken. To allow fringe benefits to grow in the years ahead in the way in which they had developed in the last few years would have meant that in five or 10 years time no government would have had the courage to change those quickly developing problems in our taxation system. So we have done those things. I must say that the Minister at the table with me, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is undoubtedly the best Minister we have had in this area for decades, has had one of the more difficult tasks in this Parliament. We will reap the benefit of his wisdom and his work and influence as well as his legislation in the years ahead. No one on the Opposition benches comes within a bull's roar of our Minister in terms of representing rural interests. The Leader of the Opposition has changed his tune quite a bit since he was the Deputy Leader. He had lots of views to express when he was the Deputy. He has changed his mind a lot now that he has become Leader. But the Liberals are funny people. Yesterday I was reading in the newspaper that Alan Jones, the candidate for Wentworth, would be the next Liberal Prime Minister, but today he has withdrawn as a candidate. So they are in and out of the Lodge very quickly. Last year it was John Elliott who was going to be Prime Minister. However, the Liberals made him their treasurer. When he found that the Liberal Party had no money, he did not want to be Prime Minister, either. We do not know who will be put forward in the next session as the next Liberal Prime Minister. Mr Robert Brown —Wilson Tuckey. Mr YOUNG —Wilson says he wants to be Prime Minister. Talk about Bullen Bros circus! If Wilson is ever Prime Minister, we will be in for a good time. Mr Sinclair —Especially if you are Leader of the Opposition. Mr YOUNG —If the right honourable member could promise me that, I would stay on. The number of people the Liberals keep presenting as future Prime Ministers of Australia tells us only one thing-that the person who is already Leader of the Opposition does not have what it takes. He is having a vote of no confidence put to him every day by those people who keep leaking to the Press the story that they will be the next Liberal Prime Minister. I want to say something else on behalf of all of us about all the high fliers in the Liberal Party-the John Elliotts and the Alan Joneses. We were told that Alan Jones would be Prime Minister. Can any one imagine any greater distinction being bestowed on any Australian than to be talked about as being Prime Minister? The newspapers were saying that Alan Jones could be Prime Minister. I do not know whether or not he could be Prime Minister. I do not know him very well; I have met him occasionally and he is a great football coach, but apart from that I do not know him. Someone came up to him this morning and offered him a contract to go on talk-back radio. He said: `I don't want to be in Parliament; I want to be on talk-back radio'. It tells us something about the Parliament and its future and the careers we are offering when someone will take talk-back radio in preference to being Prime Minister of Australia. The other thing it tells us about this place, this little chamber-it is not very big; it is about half the size of a football field-is that people like Alan Jones will be brought back to size when they come here. That is what they fear. They fear that their big names and their big reputations and their bank accounts will not matter when they come in here because they will be equals and they will have strips torn off them. Nobody will be overly impressed with their reputations, so they are a bit hesitant. They like the publicity about coming here and they like the publicity about being Prime Minister. They like all the headlines about what they have to offer, but when their coming in here is really put on the table, and they have to compete, even with people in their own parties-the Liberal Party, or the National Party or the Australian Labor Party-a lot of them go to water. They really do not have what it takes when it comes to the final analysis. So I just say to the Alan Joneses of the world that I suppose we will be reading about them for a long time to come. He will be giving people advice on talk-back radio and be paid a fortune, but the real work of the Parliament will go on without him. We will just keep reading about people like him. This is all to do with the fact that the Leader of the Opposition really does not have what it takes. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-Madam Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Madam Speaker- Mr Downer —We don't want to hear about Alan Jones. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Mayo really should not provoke me. I am trying to help his career, because he is a South Australian and I have some respect for him, and Clyde and Mary would not like me if I attacked him. So I ask the honourable member to please let me finish. Madam Speaker, it has been an extremely busy session. We have had a minimum of fuss with the passage of our legislation. I say to the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) that I know there are always proposals about the way in which business should be put through the House, and perhaps methods are being developed whereby business could be handled in a more formal way. Perhaps that will come to the Parliament, but I must say that, in spite of the odd confrontation between the parties, we have acted fairly sensibly in regard to the amount of time made available on major legislation so that people have had the opportunity to speak. We now have a chamber of 148 members. It is not always easy to ensure that everybody who wants to speak on all the major issues has the opportunity to do so. I hope we have given a good example of what may or may not be possible in the Australian system. Mr Hawker —Are you going to extend Question Time? Mr YOUNG —We could extend Question Time if the blokes opposite could ever ask any decent questions. They should go back and read in Hansard the questions from today and yesterday. If the members of the Opposition's tactics committee met and decided to ask those questions that were asked today, they should be locked up. I am serious about that. Opposition members had better go and have a look at the Hansard of Question Time. It is no good extending Question Time, keeping the busiest people in Australia sitting on the front bench, if they are going to ask what colour shoes Ministers are wearing. What I am saying to the Manager of Opposition Business is that it may be that between now and going to the new House we will have to develop more formal procedures about the amount of time given to the passage of legislation. It is sensible for all members to think about that. We now have the report of the Procedure Committee before us, a little of which I am attracted to, although I must say that a lot of it would be controversial if we were to adopt it. Nevertheless, many of these things have to be looked at in terms of the proper operation of the Parliament. We look forward to coming back and debating matters that arise between now and the next session. I am sure the next session will be lively. The media will start telling us we are in an election period, in the run up from the end of 1986 and through 1987. There will be all sorts of theories that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) are taking over the Liberal Party, someone else is taking over the National Party and someone else is taking over the Labor Party. Those of us who have to live in here sometimes know a little better what is occurring in politics than do the media. All I can say is that it seems to me, at the end of this session, that members on both sides have worked extremely hard. It has been a very controversial session in terms of legislation. The Government believes that it has acted correctly and in accordance with the mandate given to it. We have been prepared to argue both in this House and outside for what we have done. We look forward to future debate and we look forward to our return on 19 August. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.19) —The people of Australia, those few who at this hour of night are listening to the House, would have thought from the speech of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) that the Government was leaving this place in good array. I should immediately disillusion them. The reason the House is getting up is not that the Parliament has finished dealing with matters of major moment but that those matters of major moment are not to be introduced within it. We all know that next week, according to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who has now taken over the running of the Australian economy from the once-thought-to-be world's best Treasurer-albeit mainly by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself-he will make a statement covering the means that the people of Australia are supposedly to look towards for some resuscitation of an economy that is already in grave ill-health. We all know that the value of the dollar has already fallen significantly, and the Prime Minister and those within this covey of a government that is about to run for cover should understand that the money markets of the world next week will give judgment on how effective they are as a government. The money markets this week have already written them down. Sadly, this Parliament will not be in session to hear the Prime Minister, and it will not be able to give proper consideration, as it should, to what we are told is to be one of the most significant statements made by the Prime Minister since he was elected to that office. We are rising on a motion to adjourn until Budget day. Normally in such a motion there is a resolution that the House could be subject to recall by you, Madam Speaker; but I notice that that is not included in this motion. I presume that there is some device by which, should it be necessary for the Parliament to be resumed, that could be done. The Leader of the House then said that this had been a most effective session. There have been few sessions of the Parliament of Australia during which such significant legislation has been presented in such haste, with such ill-preparedness and at such a belated stage of the proceedings. The whole tax package, the last elements of which passed through this House only a little while ago, was a package envisaged by the Treasurer on 19 September 1985. This is the beginning of June. It has taken all that time for the Government actually to get the legislation drafted. Just in case the Leader of the House has forgotten, let me remind him that the financial year happens to end on 30 June. The measures contained in these tax Bills, which have still not been assimilated within the ranks of the professionals around Australia and certainly have not been comprehended by the thousands of taxpayers who are expected to comply with their obligations, have only just been passed. The Government has a great deal of explanation to make for not having expedited their consideration. The third thing I would say is that it is important that in the conduct of this place there be an understanding that the product of the way in which the Government is introducing legislation is to reduce the power of the House of Representatives and to enhance the power of the Senate. It is all very well the Leader of the House saying that he adopts some of the principles of the Procedure Committee's report. It is all very well for him to say that it is great to have had some opportunity within the time available to debate significant and sensitive legislation. The reality is that the only proper consideration has been given in the Senate. Why, that Bill that has just been in the House, the capital gains tax legislation, which should not be here at all, has been amended-but not in this place, because we did not even consider it in Committee; it was guillotined here. There was no opportunity to consider its provisions. The Leader of the House-that past master of the axe, if not the master of the combs in the shearing shed-has decided that we are not to have an opportunity to consider the detail of the legislation. Given the way in which this Government is introducing legislation, it would be a very good idea if we went back to the legislation committees and thus had an opportunity to consider, clause by clause and line by line, such atrocious Bills as these, which are brought in, to the disadvantage of every Australian, every businessman and every family, and which get no consideration at all in the House of Representatives. And all this from a party that believes that there should not be a Senate! The people of Australia need to know that, if there were no Senate, there would be absolutely no consideration of legislation. What the Leader of the House seeks to do is to make sure that none of the detail is considered and that the legislation is all rushed into place. He has just had one of his own Bills come back to this chamber. The Government could not even cross the t's and dot the i's. The only reason it was amended was that half the spelling was wrong and it was all round the wrong way. It was all too much for the Leader of the House. I think he thought that he was back in a woolshed when he put the legislation together. Let us not have any of this nonsense about there being plenty of time to consider the legislation. The reality is that there was not time. The legislation was introduced long after it should have been introduced. If the Leader of the House does one thing over this winter recess, I hope to goodness that he tries to get the legislation that is for consideration in the Budget session to the Parliamentary Counsel some time early in the period of the next couple of months, so that we do not have to wait until November or December before we know what the devil the legislation is all about. The final comment I make is that there has been, unfortunately, a very considerable interruption to what is a most major debate that really has affected the people of Australia over the last little while, in that the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, which was tabled earlier this week, has had only a very aborted debate. As one who feels very strongly about Australia's relationship with Indonesia, I am most concerned that there has not been an adequate opportunity to put into perspective a report which I fear threatens that relationship. It is important that there be proper consideration of this report. I would hope that it might be seen fit during the opening stages of the Budget session, when inevitably there is some time available, for the debate to be resumed and for those honourable members, on both sides of the House, who did not have an opportunity to address it, to canvass it and to present their views to the Parliament and to the people of Australia. It is an important document; it is not one which should be just dismissed because the Government, in its haste to get this place up before the Prime Minister makes that economic policy statement, has not been able to get around to it. It is not acceptable to the Opposition that we should rise tonight. We believe it to be totally inappropriate in the climate of what is to happen next week, in the climate of crisis that exists in the Government, in the climate of crisis that exists in the economy, and in a climate in which the Australian Council of Trade Unions is in the Cabinet Room telling its minions within the Government what to do. It is important that the people who are elected to legislate and to govern come in here and answer to their charge. I feel very sad that the Leader of the House tells us that we shall not be meeting next week, we shall not be considering the economic policy papers, and that the only economic statement that we shall have will be in the Budget. Well, the Budget had better be a jolly sight better than the last one or the one before that, or the members on the Opposition benches will not be very happy about the way in which the people of Australia will be affected. The Opposition does not accept that it is appropriate that, at its rising, the House should adjourn for so long. We believe that it would be far better if we came back next week, and I commend that thought to the Leader of the House. Madam SPEAKER —Before I put the motion, perhaps I may set at rest the mind of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). There is provision within the the motion for the Chair to recall the House if necessary. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blanchard, C. A. Lamb, A. H. Blewett, N. Langmore, J. V. Bowen, Lionel Lee, M. Brown, John Lindsay, E. J. Brown, Robert McHugh, J. Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Jacobi, R. West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Kelly, R. J. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, D. J. H. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Coleman, W. P. Dawkins, J. S. Conquest, B. J. Duffy, M. J. Cobb, M. R. Grace, E. R. Cameron, Ian Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I move: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. I just say to the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) that I am also anxious to see the Dibb report of the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities returned for debate and I will ensure that that is done in the Budget sittings. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.35) —Madam Speaker- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.36 p.m., until Tuesday, 19 August 1986, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 5 June 1986: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Parliamentary committee reports-Response to schedule presented by Madam Speaker on 21 May 1986, including Government responses to- Australian Capital Territory-Joint Committee-Report on Parliamentary Zone draft development plan, dated 28 February 1984. Electoral Reform-Joint Select Committee-Report No. 1-Determining the entitlement of federal Territories and new States to representation in the Commonwealth Parliament, dated November 1985. National Crime Authority-Joint Committee-1st Report, dated November 1985. Public Service Act-Determinations-1986-Nos. 30, 31, 40. Mr Hunt asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 29 April 1986: (1) Has any decision been made regarding the source from which carpeting for the new Parliament House will be obtained? (2) If so, will the carpet be produced from Australian wool, if not, what are the reasons for using wool from overseas. (3) If no decision has been made, is it recognised that the use of wool in carpeting for the new complex would be not only a substantial economic benefit for the Australian industry but would focus attention on the quality of the Australian product, especially when representatives of foreign governments are visiting the complex. Madam Speaker-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Tenders for the purchase of the carpets for the new Parliament House have been let by the Parliament House Construction Authority (PHCA). Details of these contracts are as follows: Corporate Carpet Installation Service of Fitzroy, South Australia, has been awarded contracts valued at approximately $3m for the manufacture and installation of carpet in the major public and ceremonial areas of the building, the Senate Wing and the Ministerial Wing. United Carpet Mills of Preston, Victoria, has won a contract valued at approximately $1 million for the manufacture and installation of carpet in the House of Representatives Wing. Sexton Low Trading Company of Hamilton Central, Queensland, has been awarded the contract valued at approximately $0.2 million for the manufacture and installation of selected carpets for areas including the Senate and House of Representatives Chambers. (2) The specification for the carpet was based on one drawn up for the Parliament by the Australian Wool Corporation in 1980. The tender which was open to the Australian industry did not specify Australian carpet wools. With few exceptions the carpets will be of an 80% wool/20% nylon blend. Under the conditions of tender, companies are required to indicate the source of the materials. As the Closer Economic Relations-Trade Agreement with New Zealand treats New Zealand products as though they were Australian, no guarantee of Australian wool content could normally be given. (3) The Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House has recognised the Australian wool carpet industry by nominating the main committee room, the Cabinet Room and its associated offices to be carpeted in wools of Australian origin. This decision was reached after negotiations between the successful tenderer and the PHCA established that no additional costs would be incurred in nominating these areas. Arrangements have accordingly been made by the Authority for all wool carpets of 100% Australian origin to be provided in the main committee room and the Cabinet Suite. Mr Andrew asked Madam Speaker, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: How many questions on notice have been directed to (a) the Treasurer and (b) the Minister for Foreign Affairs in (i) 1984, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1986 to date and for each such question, what was the: (a) question number, (b) date on which the question appeared in the Notice Paper, (c) date and page number on which the answer appeared in the Daily Hansard and (d) number of completed months between the dates in paragraphs (b) and (c) above. Madam Speaker-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Table 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO THE TREASURER AND THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS Treasurer Minister for Foreign Affairs 1984... 51 83 1985... 132 315 1986*... 51 231 * as at 2 June 1986 Table 2 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO THE TREASURER 1984 Question No. Date of question Date of response Weekly Hansard page No. of response Days taken to reply 1016... 28 Feb. 1984 7 May 1984 1989 69 1018... 28 Feb. 1984 1065... 2 Mar. 1984 7 May 1984 1989 66 1092... 5 Mar. 1984 2 May 1984 1716 58 1098... 5 Mar. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 92 169 1126... 5 Mar. 1984 30 May 1984 2548 86 1160... 6 Mar. 1984 5 June 1984 2940 91 1199... 27 Mar. 1984 5 June 1984 2941 70 1226... 30 Mar. 1984 4 Sept. 1984 527 158 1236... 2 Apr. 1984 7 June 1984 3197 66 1238... 2 Apr. 1984 30 May 1984 2557 58 1246... 4 Apr. 1984 29 May 1984 2418 55 1255... 5 Apr. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 101 138 1283... 5 Apr. 1984 4 Sept. 1984 528 152 1311... 5 Apr. 1984 6 June 1984 3035 62 1338... 5 Apr. 1984 5 June 1984 2941 61 1339... 5 Apr. 1984 7 June 1984 3185 63 1374... 1 May 1984 10 Oct. 1984 2085 162 1385... 2 May 1984 29 May 1984 2419 27 1395... 3 May 1984 7 June 1984 3199 35 1434... 10 May 1984 9 Oct. 1984 1977 152 1443... 29 May 1984 5 Sept. 1984 690 99 1469... 31 May 1984 9 Oct. 1984 1978 132 1471... 31 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 550 97 1504... 31 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 173 83 1602... 21 Aug. 1984 9 Oct. 1984 1978 49 1629... 21 Aug. 1984 10 Oct. 1984 961 50 1654... 22 Aug. 1984 5 Sept. 1984 660 14 1656... 22 Aug. 1984 1678... 24 Aug. 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1576 40 1679... 24 Aug. 1984 9 Oct. 1984 1980 46 1684... 4 Sept. 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1576 29 1707... 5 Sept. 1984 1710... 5 Sept. 1984 13 Sept. 1984 1319 8 1721... 6 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2219 35 1722... 6 Sept. 1984 1724... 6 Sept. 1984 1736... 6 Sept. 1984 1760... 6 Sept. 1984 1769... 10 Sept. 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1576 23 1771... 10 Sept. 1984 1772... 11 Sept. 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1578 22 1773... 11 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2251 30 1774... 12 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2212 29 1791... 12 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2225 29 1792... 12 Sept. 1984 1813... 13 Sept. 1984 8 Oct. 1984 1886 25 1840... 13 Sept. 1984 1841... 13 Sept. 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1577 20 1865... 3 Oct. 1984 1904... 11 Oct. 1984 Source: Register of questions on notice. Table 3 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1984 Question No. Date of question Date of response Weekly Hansard Page No. of response Days taken to reply 1015... 28 Feb. 1984 3 May 1984 1839 65 1029... 29 Feb. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 89 174 1030... 29 Feb. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 90 174 1031... 29 Feb. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 91 174 1032... 29 Feb. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 91 174 1033... 29 Feb. 1984 27 Mar. 1984 890 28 1034... 29 Feb. 1984 4 Sept. 1984 580 189 1035... 29 Feb. 1984 30 May 1984 2555 92 1036... 29 Feb. 1984 31 May 1984 2702 93 1037... 29 Feb. 1984 4 Sept. 1984 575 189 1040... 29 Feb. 1984 10 May 1984 2289 72 1068... 2 Mar. 1984 2 Apr. 1984 1237 31 1101... 5 Mar. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 92 169 1129... 5 Mar. 1984 29 May 1984 2416 85 1154... 5 Mar. 1984 28 Mar. 1984 989 23 1158... 6 Mar. 1984 2 May 1984 1701 57 1180... 27 Mar. 1984 4 Sept. 1984 524 161 1195... 27 Mar. 1984 2 May 1984 1702 36 1219... 30 Mar. 1984 10 May 1984 2289 41 1227... 2 Apr. 1984 2 May 1984 1703 30 1228... 2 Apr. 1984 10 May 1984 2290 38 1229... 2 Apr. 1984 2 May 1984 1703 30 1230... 2 Apr. 1984 2 May 1984 1703 30 1237... 2 Apr. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 100 141 1247... 4 Apr. 1984 10 May 1984 2290 36 1248... 5 Apr. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 101 138 1249... 5 Apr. 1984 10 May 1984 2290 35 1258... 5 Apr. 1984 21 Aug. 1984 101 138 1286... 5 Apr. 1984 4 Sept. 1984 528 152 1314... 5 Apr. 1984 30 May 1984 2557 55 1357... 1 May 1984 10 May 1984 2291 10 1376... 1 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 535 127 1379... 2 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 581 126 1390... 2 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 111 111 1392... 3 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 112 110 1393... 3 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 581 124 1394... 3 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 112 110 1396... 3 May 1984 31 May 1984 2703 28 1398... 4 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 582 123 1399... 4 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 112 109 1400... 4 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 537 123 1401... 4 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 112 109 1435... 10 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 588 117 1436... 10 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 116 103 1437... 10 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 116 103 1440... 29 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 117 84 1450... 29 May 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1571 127 1458... 30 May 1984 21 Aug. 1984 120 83 1472... 31 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 584 96 1473... 31 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 550 96 1474... 31 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 584 96 1475... 31 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 550 96 1490... 31 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 556 96 1507... 31 May 1984 4 Sept. 1984 559 96 1541... 5 June 1984 4 Sept. 1984 562 91 1542... 5 June 1984 4 Sept. 1984 563 91 1557... 6 June 1984 4 Sept. 1984 576 90 1577... 7 June 1984 4 Sept. 1984 585 89 1598... 21 Aug. 1984 10 Oct. 1984 2091 50 1613... 21 Aug. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2232 51 1632... 21 Aug. 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1575 43 1660... 23 Aug. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2216 49 1680... 24 Aug. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2216 48 1682... 24 Aug. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2217 48 1700... 5 Sept. 1984 1727... 6 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2243 35 1728... 6 Sept. 1984 10 Oct. 1984 2094 34 1739... 6 Sept. 1984 3 Oct. 1984 1576 27 1759... 6 Sept. 1984 10 Oct. 1984 2092 34 1762... 7 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2251 34 1787... 12 Sept. 1984 1788... 12 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2252 29 1789... 12 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2252 29 1794... 13 Sept. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2253 28 1816... 13 Sept. 1984 10 Oct. 1984 2097 27 1836... 13 Sept. 1984 18472... Oct. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2256 9 1855... 3 Oct. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2257 8 1858... 3 Oct. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2257 8 1883... 4 Oct. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2260 7 1885... 4 Oct. 1984 1886... 4 Oct. 1984 11 Oct. 1984 2227 7 1912... 11 Oct. 1984 Source: Register of questions on notice. Table 4 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO THE TREASURER 1985 Question No. Date of question Date of response Hansard page No. of response Days taken to reply 8... 22 Feb. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1529 209 9... 22 Feb. 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1546 209 10... 22 Feb. 1985 11... 22 Feb. 1985 14 Nov. 1985 3175 270 13... 22 Feb. 1985 21 May 1985 3134 90 73... 22 Feb. 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1242 383 119... 27 Feb. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1530 204 143... 19 Mar. 1985 5 Feb. 1986 P184 329 156... 19 Mar. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2105 387 162... 19 Mar. 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1546 184 193... 20 Mar. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 1 328 194... 20 Mar. 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1547 183 203... 20 Mar. 1985 21 May 1985 3135 64 259... 21 Mar. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1531 182 299... 21 Mar. 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4099 253 325... 21 Mar. 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4101 253 329... 21 Mar. 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1547 182 349... 22 Mar. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2107 384 356... 11 Apr. 1985 1340 26 358... 22 Mar. 1985 21 May 1985 3137 62 364... 22 Mar. 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4103 252 402... 22 Mar. 1985 429... 26 Mar. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1531 177 461... 26 Mar. 1985 11 Apr. 1985 1343 22 464... 26 Mar. 1985 465... 26 Mar. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2108 380 466... 26 Mar. 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1548 177 521... 28 Mar. 1985 14 Oct. 1985 2434 203 525... 28 Mar. 1985 23 Apr. 1986 P2801 398 537... 28 Mar. 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4108 245 571... 16 Apr. 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1549 156 577... 16 Apr. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1539 156 605... 16 Apr. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1539 156 632... 16 Apr. 1985 652... 17 Apr. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2108 358 659... 17 Apr. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1540 155 687... 17 Apr. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1540 155 712... 17 Apr. 1985 21 May 1985 3151 36 737... 17 Apr. 1985 9 July 1985 465 128 778... 18 Apr. 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1550 154 882... 7 May 1985 28 Oct. 1985 2568 189 883... 7 May 1985 5 Feb. 1986 P195 280 896... 7 May 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1540 135 938... 7 May 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2108 338 946... 7 May 1985 13 Mar. 1986 P1451 311 988... 8 May 1985 1017... 9 May 1985 1 Oct. 1985 2104 159 1082... 14 May 1985 19 Mar. 1986 P1772 310 1099... 14 May 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1541 128 1127... 15 May 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1243 301 1142... 15 May 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1542 127 1151... 16 May 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4109 197 1204... 21 May 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2109 324 1209... 22 May 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1553 120 1229... 23 May 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1554 119 1238... 23 May 1985 11 Feb. 1986 P395 265 1289... 23 May 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1542 119 1356... 31 May 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1559 111 1396... 20 Aug. 1985 20 May 1986 P3589 273 1437... 20 Aug. 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1243 204 1465... 20 Aug. 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1244 204 1493... 20 Aug. 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1247 204 1551... 22 Aug. 1985 6 May 1986 P3316 258 1564... 23 Aug. 1985 1565... 23 Aug. 1985 1573... 23 Aug. 1985 5 Dec. 1985 4210 98 1601... 10 Sept. 1985 1614... 10 Sept. 1985 7 May 1986 P3328 239 1632... 11 Sept. 1985 6 May 1986 P3318 238 1661... 11 Sept. 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4117 79 1667... 11 Sept. 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4117 79 1675... 12 Sept. 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1252 181 1687... 12 Sept. 1985 23 Apr. 1986 P2802 230 1688... 12 Sept. 1985 18 Mar. 1986 P1551 187 1798... 13 Sept. 1985 5 Dec. 1985 4218 77 1839... 16 Sept. 1985 6 May 1986 1860... 17 Sept. 1985 1861... 17 Sept. 1985 1862... 17 Sept. 1985 1879... 18 Sept. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2110 204 1922... 19 Sept. 1985 1936... 19 Sept. 1985 17 Feb. 1986 P799 152 1961... 19 Sept. 1985 12 Mar. 1986 P1380 175 1991... 8 Oct. 1985 5 Feb. 1986 P207 126 2005... 8 Oct. 1985 12 Nov. 1985 3174 42 2031... 8 Oct. 1985 2032... 8 Oct. 1985 28 Oct. 1985 2603 35 2051... 9 Oct. 1985 2079... 9 Oct. 1985 19 Nov. 1985 3367 42 2110... 9 Oct. 1985 14 Mar. 1986 P1456 156 2125... 10 Oct. 1985 14 Nov. 1985 3185 40 2135... 10 Oct. 1985 2150... 11 Oct. 1985 4 Feb. 1986 P207 123 2184... 14 Oct. 1985 2214... 16 Oct. 1985 2227... 16 Oct. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2111 176 2283... 17 Oct. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2111 175 2303... 12 Nov. 1985 21 Feb. 1986 P1124 119 2331... 12 Nov. 1985 21 Feb. 1986 P1124 119 2354... 12 Nov. 1985 28 Nov. 1985 4119 17 2379... 12 Nov. 1985 2412... 14 Nov. 1985 2444... 18 Nov. 1985 21 Feb. 1986 P1127 113 2474... 18 Nov. 1985 5 Dec 1985 4253 11 2505... 18 Nov. 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1255 114 2533... 19 Nov. 1985 30 Apr. 1986 P2829 162 2556... 19 Nov. 1985 18 Feb. 1986 P809 91 2566... 19 Nov. 1985 6 May 1986 P3318 169 2570... 19 Nov. 1985 14 Mar. 1986 P1456 115 2571... 19 Nov. 1985 6 Feb. 1986 P214 84 2572... 19 Nov. 1985 14 Mar. 1986 P1457 115 2573... 19 Nov. 1985 14 Mar. 1986 P1457 115 2575... 20 Nov. 1985 10 Apr. 1986 P2111 141 2584... 20 Nov. 1985 2589... 20 Nov. 1985 2603... 20 Nov. 1985 16 Apr. 1986 P2605 148 2631... 20 Nov. 1985 20 Jan 1986 93 83 2657... 21 Nov. 1985 16 Apr. 1986 P2605 147 2661... 21 Nov. 1985 16 Apr. 1986 P2606 147 2674... 21 Nov. 1985 2690... 25 Nov. 1985 11 Mar. 1986 P1257 107 2724... 26 Nov. 1985 15 Jan 1986 101 77 2761... 27 Nov. 1985 2786... 28 Nov. 1985 23 Apr. 1986 P2808 153 2795... 29 Nov. 1985 12 Mar. 1986 P1383 104 2822... 29 Nov. 1985 2882... 29 Nov. 1985 12 Mar. 1986 P1386 104 2883... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Feb. 1986 P222 74 2884... 29 Nov. 1985 10 Feb. 1986 P417 75 2885... 29 Nov. 1985 12 Mar. 1986 P1387 104 2886... 29 Nov. 1985 23 Apr. 1986 P2809 152 3055... 29 Nov. 1985 4 Feb. 1986 P181 74 Source: House of Representatives Network (HORNET) data base. Table 5 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO THE TREASURER 1986 Question No. Date of question Date of response Hansard page No. of response Days taken to reply 3118... 11 Feb. 1986 9 Apr. 1986 3138... 12 Feb. 1986 3160... 12 Feb. 1986 3165... 12 Feb. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P 2810 77 3198... 14 Feb. 1986 3221... 18 Feb. 1986 12 Mar. 1986 P 1390 23 3265... 19 Feb. 1986 3279... 20 Feb. 1986 3285... 20 Feb. 1986 3289... 20 Feb. 1986 3340... 13 Mar. 1986 3378... 13 Mar. 1986 3380... 13 Mar. 1986 3406... 14 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P 2814 47 3624... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P 2818 41 3655... 20 Mar. 1986 3676... 8 Apr. 1986 3707... 9 Apr. 1986 3708... 9 Apr. 1986 3709... 9 Apr. 1986 3710... 9 Apr. 1986 3721... 14 Apr. 1986 3785... 14 Apr. 1986 3794... 16 Apr. 1986 3806... 17 Apr. 1986 3825... 30 Apr. 1986 3835... 1 May 1986 3837... 1 May 1986 3869... 1 May 1986 3877... 2 May 1986 3888... 2 May 1986 3900... 2 May 1986 3901... 2 May 1986 3902... 2 May 1986 3933... 7 May 1986 3956... 7 May 1986 3969... 8 May 1986 3987... 8 May 1986 3988... 20 May 1986 3993... 20 May 1986 4026... 20 May 1986 4048... 22 May 1986 4062... 23 May 1986 4118... 27 May 1986 4119... 27 May 1986 4124... 27 May 1986 4127... 27 May 1986 4128... 27 May 1986 4140... 29 May 1986 4163... 29 May 1986 Source: House of Representatives Network (HORNET) data base. Table 6 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1985 Question No. Date of question Date of response Hansard page No. of response Days taken to reply 2... 22 Feb. 1985 20 May 1985 3118 90 48... 22 Feb. 1985 3 June 1985 3268 98 75... 22 Feb. 1985 17 Apr. 1985 1463 55 80... 25 Feb. 1985 6 May 1985 2110 74 81... 25 Feb. 1985 31 May 1985 3252 95 103... 26 Feb. 1985 22 Apr. 1985 1632 55 114... 26 Feb. 1985 4 June 1985 3277 94 165... 19 Mar. 1985 28 June 1985 368 157 166... 19 Mar. 1985 6 May 1985 2112 52 167... 19 Mar. 1985 9 May 1985 2252 55 195... 20 Mar. 1985 5 June 1985 3279 72 196... 20 Mar. 1985 5 June 1985 3279 72 206... 20 Mar. 1985 27 May 1985 3199 72 262... 21 Mar. 1985 22 Apr. 1985 1633 32 290... 21 Mar. 1985 6 May 1985 2121 50 291... 21 Mar. 1985 11 Apr. 1985 1339 27 302... 21 Mar. 1985 11 Apr. 1985 1339 27 330... 21 Mar. 1985 3 May 1985 2126 50 367... 22 Mar. 1985 28 May 1985 3208 70 410... 22 Mar. 1985 3 June 1985 3317 70 450... 26 Mar. 1985 16 Apr. 1985 1341 22 527... 28 Mar. 1985 9 May 1985 2254 46 528... 28 Mar. 1985 3 June 1985 3320 64 529... 28 Mar. 1985 6 June 1985 3321 64 538... 28 Mar. 1985 9 May 1985 2254 46 539... 28 Mar. 1985 3 May 1985 2245 46 545... 28 Mar. 1985 28 May 1985 3218 64 559... 28 Mar. 1985 27 May 1985 3229 64 580... 16 Apr. 1985 3 June 1985 3324 45 608... 16 Apr. 1985 28 May 1985 3230 45 662... 17 Apr. 1985 27 May 1985 3232 44 690... 17 Apr. 1985 27 May 1985 3235 44 724... 17 Apr. 1985 31 May 1985 3258 44 740... 17 Apr. 1985 9 July 1985 465 128 786... 18 Apr. 1985 20 May 1985 3133 35 806... 19 Apr. 1985 28 June 1985 470 126 827... 22 Apr. 1985 31 May 1985 2563 204 884... 7 May 1985 21 Aug. 1985 592 108 899... 7 May 1985 4 June 1985 3338 24 983... 8 May 1985 31 May 1985 3266 23 1040... 10 May 1985 1 Oct. 1985 2106 158 1084... 14 May 1985 4 June 1985 3354 17 1109... 15 May 1985 5 June 1985 3356 16 1128... 15 May 1985 28 May 1985 1134... 15 May 1985 20 June 1985 510 100 1154... 16 May 1985 20 June 1985 512 99 1210... 22 May 1985 5 June 1985 3362 9 1211... 22 May 1985 5 June 1985 3363 9 1223... 23 May 1985 23 Sept. 1985 1553 119 1225... 23 May 1985 5 June 1985 3365 8 1226... 23 May 1985 20 June 1985 522 92 1241... 23 May 1985 17 Oct. 1985 2571 173 1292... 23 May 1985 5 Mar 1986 P1115 292 1346... 31 May 1985 28 June 1985 558 84 1380... 20 Aug. 1985 16 Sept. 1985 1521 30 1399... 20 Aug. 1985 20 May 1986 P3589 273 1420... 20 Aug. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4256 101 1424... 20 Aug. 1985 27 Feb. 1985 P1115 203 1440... 20 Aug. 1985 27 Feb. 1986 P1115 203 1468... 20 Aug. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 18 175 1496... 20 Aug. 1985 20 Feb. 1986 P1029 184 1532... 20 Aug. 1985 7 Nov. 1985 2608 84 1539... 22 Aug. 1985 7 Nov. 1985 2608 82 1547... 22 Aug. 1985 7 Nov. 1985 2608 82 1576... 23 Aug. 1985 21 Feb. 1986 P1120 200 1603... 10 Sept. 1985 28 Oct. 1985 2589 63 1619... 10 Sept. 1985 1633... 11 Sept. 1985 17 Oct. 1985 2456 36 1640... 11 Sept. 1985 23 Oct. 1985 2591 62 1653... 11 Sept. 1985 7 Nov. 1985 2613 62 1691... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4045 77 1692... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4045 77 1693... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4045 77 1694... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4045 77 1695... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4046 77 1696... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4046 77 1697... 13 Sept. 1985 17 Sept. 1985 1698... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4046 77 1699... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4046 77 1700... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4047 77 1701... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4047 77 1702... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4047 77 1703... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4048 77 1704... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4048 77 1705... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4050 77 1706... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4052 77 1707... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4052 77 1708... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4052 77 1709... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4052 77 1710... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4053 77 1711... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4053 77 1712... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4053 77 1713... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4053 77 1714... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4054 77 1715... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4054 77 1716... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4054 77 1717... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4055 77 1718... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4055 77 1719... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4055 77 1720... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4056 77 1721... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4056 77 1722... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4056 77 1723... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4056 77 1724... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4057 77 1725... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4057 77 1726... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 P1959 208 1727... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4057 77 1728... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4057 77 1729... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4058 77 1730... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4058 77 1731... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4059 77 1732... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4059 77 1733... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4059 77 1734... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4060 77 1735... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4060 77 1736... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4061 77 1737... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4061 77 1738... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4061 77 1739... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4062 77 1740... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 P1259 180 1741... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4062 77 1742... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4062 77 1743... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4063 77 1744... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4063 77 1745... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4063 77 1746... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1747... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1748... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1749... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1750... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1751... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1752... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1753... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1754... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1755... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1756... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1757... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1758... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1759... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4064 77 1760... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4065 77 1761... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4065 77 1762... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4065 77 1763... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4065 77 1764... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4065 77 1765... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4066 77 1766... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4066 77 1767... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4066 77 1768... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4066 77 1769... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4066 77 1770... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4067 77 1771... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4067 77 1772... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4067 77 1773... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4067 77 1774... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4068 77 1775... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4068 77 1776... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4068 77 1777... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4069 77 1778... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4069 77 1779... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4069 77 1780... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4070 77 1781... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4070 77 1782... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4070 77 1783... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4071 77 1784... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4071 77 1785... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4071 77 1786... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4071 77 1787... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4072 77 1788... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4072 77 1789... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4072 77 1790... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4073 77 1791... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4073 77 1792... 13 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4073 77 1801... 13 Sept. 1985 5 Dec. 1985 4218 77 1837... 16 Sept. 1985 23 Oct. 1985 2596 57 1846... 17 Sept. 1985 17 Oct. 1985 2458 30 1847... 17 Sept. 1985 19 Nov. 1985 3366 64 1848... 17 Sept. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4260 73 1849... 17 Sept. 1985 17 Oct. 1985 2459 30 1850... 17 Sept. 1985 17 Oct. 1985 2459 30 1851... 17 Sept. 1985 17 Oct. 1985 2460 30 1864... 17 Sept. 1985 17 Oct. 1985 2461 30 1868... 17 Sept. 1985 4 Nov. 1985 2613 56 1869... 17 Sept. 1985 23 Oct. 1985 2600 56 1873... 17 Sept. 1985 27 Nov. 1985 4099 73 1878... 18 Sept. 1985 23 Oct. 1985 2600 55 1880... 18 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4091 72 1923... 19 Sept. 1985 5 Mar. 1986 P1123 173 1924... 19 Sept. 1985 1939... 19 Sept. 1985 17 Feb. 1986 P799 152 1958... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4073 71 1959... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4074 71 1960... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4074 71 1962... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4074 71 1963... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4075 71 1964... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4075 71 1965... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4075 71 1966... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4075 71 1967... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 P1259 174 1968... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4076 71 1969... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4076 71 1970... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4077 71 1971... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4077 71 1972... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4077 71 1973... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4077 71 1974... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4077 71 1975... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4078 71 1976... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4078 71 1977... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4078 71 1978... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4079 71 1979... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4079 71 1980... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4079 71 1981... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4079 71 1982... 19 Sept. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4080 71 1988... 8 Oct. 1985 28 Oct. 1985 2603 35 1993... 8 Oct. 1985 19 Nov. 1985 3366 43 2008... 8 Oct. 1985 12 Nov. 1985 3174 42 2037... 9 Oct. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4193 51 2054... 9 Oct. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4261 51 2082... 9 Oct. 1985 19 Nov. 1985 3367 42 2111... 9 Oct. 1985 30 Oct. 1985 2603 34 2139... 11 Oct. 1985 28 Oct. 1985 2604 32 2153... 11 Oct. 1985 4 Feb. 1985 P207 123 2215... 16 Oct. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 54 118 2230... 17 Oct. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4193 43 2231... 17 Oct. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4262 43 2232... 17 Oct. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4194 43 2259... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4080 43 2260... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4080 43 2261... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4081 43 2262... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4081 43 2263... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4081 43 2264... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4081 43 2265 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4082 43 2266 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4082 43 2267 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4082 43 2268 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4082 43 2269 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4082 43 2270 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4083 43 2271 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4083 43 2272 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4083 43 2273 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4083 43 2274 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4084 43 2275 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4084 43 2276 ... 17 Oct. 1985 27 Nov. 1985 4096 43 2277 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4084 43 2278 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4084 43 2279 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4085 43 2280 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4085 43 2281 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4085 43 2282 ... 17 Oct. 1985 26 Nov. 1985 4085 43 2290 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4265 17 2306 ... 12 Nov. 1985 19 Mar. 1986 P1773 128 2334 ... 12 Nov. 1985 27 Feb. 1986 P1125 119 2355 ... 12 Nov. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4194 17 2356 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4266 17 2357 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4266 17 2358 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4266 17 2359 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4266 17 2377 ... 12 Nov. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4195 17 2380 ... 12 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 77 91 2381 ... 12 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 79 91 2382 ... 12 Nov. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4195 17 2383 ... 12 Nov. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4195 17 2384 ... 12 Nov. 1985 27 Nov. 1985 4096 17 2385 ... 12 Nov. 1985 27 Nov. 1985 4097 17 2386 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4267 17 2387 ... 12 Nov. 1985 19 Feb. 1986 P 901 99 2388 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4267 17 2389 ... 12 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4268 17 2390 ... 12 Nov. 1985 4 Dec. 1985 4247 17 2404 ... 13 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4268 16 2405 ... 13 Nov. 1985 17 Feb. 1986 P 801 97 2420 ... 14 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 81 89 2428 ... 15 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 82 88 2433 ... 15 Nov. 1985 4 Dec. 1985 4250 14 2434 ... 15 Nov. 1985 4 Dec. 1985 4252 14 2445 ... 18 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4269 11 2477 ... 18 Nov. 1985 5 Dec. 1985 4253 11 2508 ... 18 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 86 85 2536 ... 19 Nov. 1985 2558 ... 19 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4269 10 2606 ... 20 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 92 83 2634 ... 20 Nov. 1985 20 Jan. 1986 93 83 2662 ... 21 Nov. 1985 5 Feb. 1986 P 217 82 2670 ... 21 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4271 8 2671 ... 21 Nov. 1985 3 Dec. 1985 4199 8 2672 ... 21 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4271 8 2673 ... 21 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4271 8 2693 ... 25 Nov. 1985 20 Feb. 1986 P1032 87 2727 ... 26 Nov. 1985 15 Jan. 1986 101 77 2765 ... 27 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4271 2 2798 ... 29 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 106 74 2825 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4272 2890 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4272 2891 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4272 2892 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4273 2893 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4273 2894 ... 29 Nov. 1985 5 Mar. 1986 P1137 102 2895 ... 29 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 108 74 2896 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4274 2897 ... 29 Nov. 1985 12 Mar. 1986 P1387 104 2898 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4274 2899 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4275 2900 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4275 2901 ... 29 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 109 74 2902 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4275 2903 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4275 2904 ... 29 Nov. 1985 10 Feb. 1986 P 418 75 2905 ... 29 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 109 74 2906 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4275 2907 ... 29 Nov. 1985 10 Dec. 1985 109 74 2908 ... 29 Nov. 1985 6 Dec. 1985 4276 3048 ... 29 Nov. 1985 23 Jan. 1986 P 180 74 3049 ... 29 Nov. 1985 23 Jan. 1986 P 181 74 3058 ... 29 Nov. 1985 4 Feb. 1986 P 181 74 Source: House of Representatives Network (HORNET) data base. Table 7 QUESTIONS ON NOTICE TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1986 Question No. Date of question Date of response Hansard page No. of response Days taken to reply 3133... 11 Feb. 1986 3139... 12 Feb. 1986 11 Apr. 1986 P2175 58 3145... 12 Feb. 1986 14 Mar. 1986 P1458 30 3146... 12 Feb. 1986 14 Mar. 1986 P1458 30 3147... 12 Feb. 1986 14 Mar. 1986 P1458 30 3148... 12 Feb. 1986 5 Mar. 1986 P1148 27 3149... 12 Feb. 1986 14 Mar. 1986 P1459 30 3185... 14 Feb. 1986 3189... 14 Feb. 1986 27 Mar. 1986 P1851 53 3205... 17 Feb. 1986 19 Mar. 1986 P1777 31 3224... 18 Feb. 1986 12 Mar. 1986 P1390 23 3239... 18 Feb. 1986 12 Mar. 1986 P1390 23 3260... 19 Feb. 1986 3267... 19 Feb. 1986 3268... 19 Feb. 1986 3314... 11Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4325 79 3322... 12 Mar. 1986 11 Apr. 1986 P2177 30 3334... 12 Mar. 1986 7 May 1986 P3331 56 3343... 13 Mar. 1986 3400... 14 Mar. 1986 3448... 20 Mar 1986 3449... 20 Mar. 1986 3450... 20 Mar. 1986 3451... 20 Mar. 1986 3452... 20 Mar. 1986 3453... 20 Mar. 1986 3454... 20 Mar. 1986 3455... 20 Mar. 1986 3456... 20 Mar. 1986 3457... 20 Mar. 1986 3458... 20 Mar. 1986 3460... 20 Mar. 1986 3461... 20 Mar. 1986 3462... 20 Mar. 1986 3463... 20 Mar. 1986 3464... 20 Mar. 1986 3465... 20 Mar. 1986 3466... 20 Mar. 1986 3467... 20 Mar. 1986 3468... 20 Mar. 1986 3469... 20 Mar. 1986 3470... 20 Mar. 1986 3471... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4325 70 3472... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4325 70 3473... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4326 70 3474... 20 Mar 1986 29 May 1986 P4326 70 3475... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4326 70 3476... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4326 70 3477... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4326 70 3478... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4326 70 3479... 20 Mar. 1986 3480... 20 Mar. 1986 3481... 20 Mar. 1986 3482... 20 Mar. 1986 3483... 20 Mar. 1986 14 Apr. 1986 P2825 41 3484... 20 Mar. 1986 3485... 20 Mar. 1986 3486... 20 Mar. 1986 3487... 20 Mar. 1986 3488... 20 Mar. 1986 3489... 20 Mar. 1986 3490... 20 Mar. 1986 3491... 20 Mar. 1986 3492... 20 Mar. 1986 3493... 20 Mar. 1986 3494... 20 Mar. 1986 3495... 20 Mar. 1986 3496... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2825 41 3497... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2815 41 3498... 20 Mar. 1986 3499... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4327 79 3500... 20 Mar. 1986 3501... 20 Mar. 1986 3502... 20 Mar. 1986 3503... 20 Mar. 1986 3504... 20 Mar. 1986 3505... 20 Mar. 1986 3506... 20 Mar. 1986 3507... 20 Mar. 1986 3508... 20 Mar. 1986 3509... 20 Mar. 1986 3510... 20 Mar. 1986 14 May 1986 P3586 61 3511... 20 Mar. 1986 14 May 1986 P3586 61 3512... 20 Mar. 1986 14 May 1986 P3586 61 3513... 20 Mar. 1986 3514... 20 Mar. 1986 3515... 20 Mar. 1986 3516... 20 Mar. 1986 3517... 20 Mar. 1986 3518... 20 Mar. 1986 3519... 20 Mar. 1986 3520... 20 Mar. 1986 3521... 20 Mar. 1986 3522... 20 Mar. 1986 3523... 20 Mar. 1986 3524... 20 Mar. 1986 14 Apr. 1986 P2352 26 3525... 20 Mar. 1986 3526... 20 Mar. 1986 3527... 20 Mar. 1986 3528... 20 Mar. 1986 3529... 20 Mar. 1986 3530... 20 Mar. 1986 3531... 20 Mar. 1986 3531... 20 Mar. 1986 3532... 20 Mar. 1986 3533... 20 Mar. 1986 3534... 20 Mar. 1986 3536... 20 Mar. 1986 3537... 20 Mar. 1986 3538... 20 Mar. 1986 3539... 20 Mar. 1986 3540... 20 Mar. 1986 3541... 20 Mar. 1986 3542... 20 Mar. 1986 3543... 20 Mar. 1986 3544... 20 Mar. 1986 3545... 20 Mar. 1986 3546... 20 Mar. 1986 3547... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2816 41 3548... 20 Mar. 1986 6 May 1986 P3324 48 3549... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2816 41 3550... 20 Mar. 1986 3551... 20 Mar. 1986 3552... 20 Mar. 1986 6 May 1986 P3325 48 3553... 20 Mar. 1986 3554... 20 Mar. 1986 3555... 20 Mar. 1986 7 May 1986 P3331 48 3556... 20 Mar. 1986 7 May 1986 P3331 48 3557... 20 Mar. 1986 6 May 1986 P3325 48 3558... 20 Mar. 1986 6 May 1986 P3325 48 3559... 20 Mar. 1986 3560... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2816 41 3561... 20 Mar. 1986 29 Apr. 1986 P2827 41 3562... 20 Mar. 1986 3563... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2817 41 3564... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2817 41 3565... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4325 70 3566... 20 Mar. 1986 3567... 20 Mar. 1986 23 apr. 1986 P2817 41 3568... 20 Mar. 1986 3569... 20 Mar. 1986 6 May 1986 P3325 48 3570... 20 Mar. 1986 14 May 1986 P3586 61 3571... 20 Mar. 1986 3572... 20 Mar. 1986 3573... 20 Mar. 1986 14 May 1986 P3586 61 3574... 20 Mar. 1986 14 May 1986 P3587 61 3575... 20 Mar. 1986 6 May 1986 P3326 48 3576... 20 Mar. 1986 14 Apr. 1986 P2353 26 3577... 20 Mar. 1986 14 Apr. 1986 P2352 26 3578... 20 Mar. 1986 29 Apr. 1986 P2827 41 3579... 20 Mar. 1986 14 Apr. 1986 P2353 26 3580... 20 Mar. 1986 11 Apr. 1986 P2178 22 3581... 20 Mar. 1986 14 Apr. 1986 P2353 26 3582... 20 Mar. 1986 11 Apr. 1986 P2178 22 3583... 20 Mar. 1986 15 Apr. 1986 P2357 26 3584... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2817 41 3585... 20 Mar. 1986 3586... 20 Mar. 1986 3587... 20 Mar. 1986 3588... 20 Mar. 1986 3589... 20 Mar. 1986 3590... 20 Mar. 1986 3591... 20 Mar. 1986 3592... 20 Mar. 1986 3593... 20 Mar. 1986 3594... 20 Mar. 1986 3595... 20 Mar. 1986 3596... 20 Mar. 1986 3597... 20 Mar. 1986 3598... 20 Mar. 1986 3599... 20 Mar. 1986 3600... 20 Mar. 1986 3601... 20 Mar. 1986 3602... 20 Mar. 1986 3603... 20 Mar. 1986 3604... 20 Mar. 1986 3605... 20 Mar. 1986 3606... 20 Mar. 1986 3607... 20 Mar. 1986 3608... 20 Mar. 1986 7 May 1986 P3332 48 3609... 20 Mar. 1986 7 May 1986 P3332 48 3610... 20 Mar. 1986 7 May 1986 P3332 48 3611... 20 Mar. 1986 7 May 1986 P3332 48 3612... 20 Mar. 1986 3613... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4327 70 3614... 20 Mar. 29 May 1986 P4327 70 3615... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4327 70 3616... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4328 70 3617... 20 Mar. 1986 29 May 1986 P4328 70 3618... 20 Mar. 1986 15 Apr. 1986 P2357 26 3656... 20 Mar. 1986 23 Apr. 1986 P2817 41 3677... 8 Apr. 1986 3695... 9 Apr. 1986 29 Apr. 1986 P2828 21 3696... 9 Apr. 1986 3697... 9 Apr. 1986 3698... 9 Apr. 1986 3704... 9 Apr. 1986 3711... 9 Apr. 1986 3731... 10 Apr. 1986 3738... 10 Apr. 1986 3739... 10 Apr. 1986 29 May 1986 P4329 49 3740... 10 Apr. 1986 3746... 11 Apr. 1986 3759... 14 Apr. 1986 3786... 15 Apr. 1986 7 May 1986 P3333 22 3792... 16 Apr. 1986 29 May 1986 P4331 43 3831... 1 May 1986 2 May 1986 3838... 1 May 1986 3839... 1 May 1986 3856... 1 May 1986 3872... 2 May 1986 3904... 5 May 1986 3905... 5 May 1986 3907... 5 May 1986 3908... 5 May 1986 3909... 5 May 1986 3910... 5 May 1986 3911... 5 May 1986 3913... 6 May 1986 3923... 6 May 1986 3924... 6 May 1986 3936... 7 May 1986 3994... 20 May 1986 4028... 21 May 1986 4033... 21 May 1986 4078... 27 May 1986 4087... 27 May 1986 4088... 27 May 1986 4089... 27 May 1986 4092... 27 May 1986 4121... 27 May 1986 Source: House of Representatives Network (HORNET) data base. In Tables 4 to 7 the number in column 4 represents the weekly Hansard page number of a response except where the number is preceded by the symbol ``P''. This symbol represents a ``proof'' or daily Hansard page number. For exactness the period taken to respond has been expressed in days and not completed months. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3857) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Is it a fact that ships operating on the Australia to Cocos Islands route are now subject to Australian crewing conditions; if so, what will be the effect of the new wage and working conditions on ships involved in the carrying of copra and will any changes have a detrimental effect on this industry. (2) If Australian crewing conditions now apply, was this change a result of industrial action. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Cocos (Keeling) Islands have since 1956 been exempted from the Coasting Trade provisions of the Navigation Act 1912. Operators in the trade are therefore not subject to the wage rate and other requirements of Part VI of the Act. Ocean Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd of Fremantle is the only ship operator presently offering a regular service between Australia, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Singapore. Services are offered from time to time by other operators. The Minister for Territories is responsible for determining the contractual requirements which apply to Federal Government cargoes to Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I understand these arrangements give priority to ships crewed by Australian residents paid in accordance with rates based on the relevant award provided the tender is reasonably competitive. I am advised that the Cocos Island Co-operative Society negotiates its own freight arrangements for the carriage of copra exports. (2) The conditions for the carriage of Government cargoes indicated in (1) above were developed in consultation with all interested parties including the maritime unions. Except for these requirements crewing conditions for vessels operating in the Cocos (Keeling) Island trade are a matter for negotiation by the ship operators and are not compelled by Government to accord with Australian conditions. (Question No. 3944) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under the Minister's control on the use of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: $ Hire charges... 2,793,302 Repairs, maintenance and running expenses... 966,033 Total... 3,759,335 (Question No. 3981) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) Which mainland State capital cities do not have a standard gauge rail link to their port. (2) What progress is being made to construct such rail links to those ports. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Brisbane and Melbourne. (2) In December 1983, the Bureau of Transport Economics completed a report on the economic and financial benefits and costs of providing standard gauge railway lines to the ports of Brisbane, Melbourne and Geelong. With regard to Brisbane, I understand the Queensland Government is currently considering the recommendations of that report. With regard to Melbourne, a broad gauge link to the Webb Dock has recently been completed with provision for conversion to dual gauge. (Question No. 4115) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Has the Government accepted the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that 33 lighthouses should not be demanned. (2) Has the Government decided to deman stations at Byron Bay, New South Wales, Norah Head, New South Wales, Point Perpendicular, New South Wales, and Neptune Island, South Australia; if so, when will these stations be demanned. (3) What other light stations recommended by the Committee as proper stations to remain manned are being prepared for demanning. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) None. (Question No. 368) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels or councils come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member. (2) What (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. The details concerning appointees are correct as at 1 September 1985: (1) Members Date of Appoint- ment Term STATUTORY AUTHORITIES Commonwealth Schools Commission Full-Time Members Mr R. G. Boomer (Chairman)... 20.5.85 7 years Ms L. G. Connors... 24.4.83 5 years Dr R. J. Andrews MBE... 2.8.82 5 years Mr J. V. Faulkner*... 11.2.85 1 year Part-Time Members Mrs J. S. Brown... 26.5.83 3 years Mr J. R. Steinle... 8.7.85 3 years Mr V. J. Davy... 26.5.83 3 years Sr D. Desmarchelier... 20.4.84 3 years Mr P. Hughes... 26.5.83 3 years Prof. R. Sackville... 15.1.84 3 years Mr M. A. Howell... 30.5.85 3 years * Mr Faulkner was appointed as part-time member on 26.5.83 for three years. He resigned from the acting full-time appointment with effect from 31.12.85. Curriculum Development Council Part-Time Members Ms L. G. Connors (Chairman)... 30.5.85 3 years Mr J. V. Faulkner (CSC Member)... 1.7.84 2 years Mr R. G. Boomer (CSC Member)... 30.5.85 3 years Mr J. R. Steinle (CSC Member)... 8.7.85 3 years Mr W. Hannan... 1.7.84 3 years Ms K. E. Schofield... 1.7.84 3 years Ms L. Trimper... 1.7.84 3 years Prof. C. E. Praeger... 1.7.84 2 years Mr E. G. West... 1.7.85 2 years Dr R. L. Vickery (AEC Nominee)... 1.7.84 3 years Dr F. G. Sharpe (AEC Nominee)... 1.7.84 2 years Mr G. F. Berkeley (AEC Nominee)... 1.7.84 3 years Ms H. R. Williams* (Secretary, Dept of Education)... 6.2.85 1 year * Acting Appointment. COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION Full-Time Members Mr H. R. Hudson (Chairman)... 1.7.84 7 years Prof. D. N. F. Dunbar... 23.6.83 3 years Dr G. A. Ramsey... 1.7.84 7 years Mr D A. Morrison... 21.2.83 5 years Part-Time Members Mr R. Goldsworthy*... 1.9.85 Ms A. D. Hull... 13.7.83 3 years Ms P. J. O'Shane... 13.7.83 3 years Mr B. C. Wilson AM*... 1.9.85 Dr A. J. Ryan... 1.9.84 3 years Universities Council Part-Time Members Prof. D. N. F. Dunbar (Chairman)... 23.6.83 3 years Prof. H. G. Gelber*... 1.9.85 Prof. Dame L. J. Kramer DBE*... 1.9.85 Prof. M. I. Logan... 1.9.83 3 years Mr J. McG. McIntyre*... 1.9.85 Ms H. J. McPhee... 1.9.83 3 years Prof. I. F. Morrison... 14.9.84 3 years Mr O. J. Nilsen*... 1.9.85 Prof. D. Yerbury... 1.9.83 3 years Advanced Education Council Part-Time Members Dr G. A. Ramsey (Chairman)... 1.7.84 7 years Ms M. J. Bickley... 1.9.83 3 years Dr G. G. Burniston CMG OBE*... 1.9.85 Ms R. L. Galbally... 1.9.83 3 years Mr D. R. Mills... 14.9.84 3 years Mr P. C. M. Kendal*... 1.9.85 Emeritus Prof. G. H. Newstead*... 1.9.85 Ms J. Sobski... 14.9.84 3 years Technical and Further Education Council Part-Time Members Mr D. M. Morrison (Chairman)... 21.2.83 5 years Ms D. Bradley... 22.9.83 3 years Mr H. Hauenschild... 22.9.83 3 years Ms L. C. C. Hodsdon*... 1.9.85 Mr E. J. Law... 14.9.84 3 years Mr W. J. Menz*... 1.9.85 Mr I. R. Russell... 22.9.83 3 years Mr T. J. Leo... 14.9.84 3 years * Acting appointments which expire when the Commission restructure, as provided for by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Act 1986, is complete or on the expiration of 12 months, whichever occurs first. STUDENT ASSISTANCE REVIEW TRIBUNALS Australian Capital Territory Ms P. M. Burton (Chairperson)... 1.11.83 3 years Mr T. J. Crick... 1.1.83 3 years Mr D. R. Patterson... 1.1.83 3 years Miss M. B. Travers... 28.9.84 3 years Ms P. C. Weeks... 2.10.84 3 years Mr L. Rando... 25.2.85 3 years New South Wales Mr. L. J. McAuley (Chairperson of Armidale, Newcastle, and Sydney Tribunals) 12.4.85 3 years Armidale Mr J. Falle... 16.2.84 3 years Prof. P. G. James... 1.1.83 3 years Mr G. R. Quaife... 28.9.84 3 years Ms P. J. Connor... 8.7.85 3 years Newcastle Dr R. E. Barnard... 5.2.85 3 years Ms C. A. Hong... 5.2.85 3 years Mr T. J. Ryan... 5.2.85 3 years Mrs H. M. Vaile... 1.1.83 3 years Sydney Mr R. L. Anderson... 1.1.83 3 years Mrs M. L. Claflin... 1.1.83 3 years Mrs R. Y. Colebrook... 1.1.83 3 years Mr R. W. B. Gartrell... 16.2.85 3 years Prof J. P. Kennedy... 1.1.83 3 years Mr E. H. Oliver... 1.1.83 3 years Ms M. A. O'Loughlin... 1.1.83 3 years Dr J. R. Angel... 28.9.84 3 years Mrs E. M. Goodman... 28.9.84 3 years Dr A. R. Moon... 28.9.84 3 years Ms A. G. Rivers... 28.9.84 3 years Prof A. B. Lawrence... 1.3.85 3 years Victoria Mr D. P. Brennan (Chairperson)... 1.9.85 1 year Dr A. F. Armstrong... 12.3.84 3 years Dr R. T. C. Brownlee... 12.3.84 3 years Mr I. F. Daykin... 8.7.85 3 years Mr C. Goodwin... 8.7.85 3 years Ms S. J. Jones... 12.3.84 3 years Sister J. Kelly... 12.3.84 3 years Dr T. Kennedy... 12.3.84 3 years Dr D. Kenny... 12.3.84 3 years Mr L. A. Kilmartin... 12.3.84 3 years Mr D. W. McMullen... 12.3.84 3 years Dr E. Phillips... 8.7.85 3 years Mr V. E. Callaghan... 2.8.84 1 year Ms J. F. Critchett... 4.10.84 3 years Mrs L. C. Graham... 4.10.84 3 years Dr J. B. Youatt... 4.10.84 3 years Dr J. A. Dunphy... 8.7.85 3 years Mr A. F. Reid... 8.7.85 3 years Queensland Dr A. S. Fogg (Chairperson of Brisbane, Townsville Tribunals) 1.5.85 3 years Brisbane Dr C. M. Burke... 1.1.83 3 years Dr J. P. Farrell... 1.1.83 3 years Prof. T. J. Heath... 1.1.83 3 years Mr J. A. Ramsey... 1.1.83 3 years Mr K. G. Window... 16.2.85 3 years Prof. E. M. Byrne... 4.10.84 3 years Mrs H. G. McBride... 4.10.85 3 years Townsville Mr F. Curran... 1.1.83 3 years Mr P. J. Burns... 4.10.84 3 years Mr K. J. McCarthy... 4.10.84 3 years Dr. J. L. Nicol... 4.10.84 3 years South Australia Ms I. Y. Harris (Chairperson)... 1.11.83 3 years Mr M. R. Bramwell... 2.8.84 1 year Dr J. L. McInnes... 1.1.83 3 years Dr J. F. Wheldrake... 1.1.83 3 years Miss H. Carey... 20.2.85 3 years Ms J. Haigh... 1.3.85 3 years Ms A. G. Mackinnon... 21.9.84 3 years Western Australia Mr H. A. Wallwork QC (Chairperson)... 1.6.85 3 years Dr N. G. Ashton... 1.1.83 3 years Mr R. A. Cotton... 1.1.83 3 years Mrs R. W. Reynolds... 16.2.85 3 years Ms J. M. Barker... 13.8.84 3 years Dr A. J. MacKenzie... 1.3.85 3 years Tasmania Mr K. F. Mackie (Chairperson)... 1.9.85 1 year Ms M. I. Evans (Emergency Chairperson and Member)... 4.10.84 3 years Mr A. P. Taskunas... 1.1.83 3 years Mr J. A. Francis... 4.10.84 3 years Ms M. G. O'Callaghan... 4.10.84 3 years Mrs V Walsh... 4.10.84 3 years ACT Apprenticeship Board Mr R. A. Smart (Chairman)... 21.7.70 Indefinite Mr T. G. Magee (Deputy to Mr Smart)... 26.5.83 Indefinite Mr R. M. Browning... 1.3.85 Indefinite Mr A. Walklate (Deputy to Mr Browning)... 11.7.67 Indefinite Ms M. Morris... 12.12.83 3 years Mr I. D. Culver (Deputy to Ms Morris)... 12.12.83 3 years Mr G. Wright... 1.12.84 3 years Mr D. B. Jones (Deputy to Mr Wright)... 1.12.84 3 years Mr B. Marcus... 1.5.84 3 years Mr T. L. White (Deputy to Mr Marcus)... 1.5.84 3 years ADVISORY PANELS/COUNCILS ACT Further Education Accreditation Committee Dr J. Dunstone (Chairperson)... 1.2.85 Indefinite Dr M. March (ACT Schools Authority)... 1.8.77 Indefinite Ms M. Robinson (Canberra College of Advanced Education)... 1.8.77 Indefinite Mr R. England (NSW Department of TAFE)... 1.8.77 Indefinite Ms M. Morris (ACT Employers Federation)... 1.8.77 Indefinite Mr C. McDonald (ACT Trades and Labour Council)... 1.8.77 Indefinite Mr J. Kinder (ACT Further Education)... 1.1.78 Indefinite Dr E. Dines (Public Service Board)... 1.3.80 Indefinite Canberra TAFE College Council Mr K. Avent (Chairperson)... 21.5.85 2 1/2 years Mr R. J. Lane... 1.1.83 3 years Mr D. R. Gorman... 2.6.83 2 1/2 years Ms D. A. Wentworth... 2.6.83 2 1/2 years Mr C. E. Hancock... 1.1.84 3 years Ms D. Proctor... 1.1.84 3 years Ms C. Blakers... 1.1.84 2 years Ms F. Steen... 21.5.85 2 1/2 years Mr G. Harvey (Department of Education)... 1.1.84 Indefinite Mr A. J. Fleming (Principal)... 31.12.76 Indefinite Staff member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Staff member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Student (elected)... Vacant 1 year Bruce TAFE College Council Mr R. G. Williams, am (Chairperson)... 1.1.83 3 years Vacant... Ms H. Prendergast... 1.1.84 3 years Ms R. Byrne... 1.1.84 3 years Mr L. Banks... 27.3.85 3 years Mr B. Marcus... 27.3.85 3 years Ms K. Cole... 27.3.85 3 years Mr B. Macoustra (Department of Education)... 1.1.83 Indefinite Mr P. J. Ibbotson (Principal)... 1.1.77 Indefinite Staff member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Staff member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Student (elected)... Vacant 1 year Woden TAFE College Council Mr A. Sharpe (Chairperson)... 2.6.83 2 1/2 years Rear Admiral M. Reed, ao... 2.6.83 2 1/2 years Mr J. Morrow... 2.6.83 2 1/2 years Ms K. J. Peters... 2.6.83 2 1/2 years Mr G. A. Anderson... 1.1.84 3 years Mr L. J. Goodman... 1.1.84 3 years Ms J. Westaway... 1.5.85 2 1/2 years Ms A. Kivic... 1.5.85 2 1/2 years Ministerial appointment... Vacant 2 1/2 years Mr E. M. McConchie (Department of Education)... 1.1.80 Indefinite Mr R. Jolliffe (Principal)... 1.1.80 Indefinite Staff member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Staff member (elected)... Vacant 1 year Student (elected)... Vacant 1 year Canberra School of Music Council Mr K. W. Pearson (Chairperson)... 1.1.84 3 years Prof. R. D. Covell... 1.1.83 3 years Mr C. Plowman... 1.1.83 3 years Mr D. W. Whitbread, oam... 1.1.83 3 years Ms M. Valentine... 1.1.84 3 years Ms C. O'Brien... 30.5.84 2 1/2 years Mr M. Dudman... 1.5.85 2 1/2 years Ministerial appointment... Vacant 2 1/2 years Mr R. Richards (Department of Education)... 1.1.83 Indefinite Mr J. Painter (Director)... 1.4.85 Indefinite Staff member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Staff member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Student (elected)... Vacant 1 year Prof. R. Elliott (President, Friends of School)... 1.5.85 Indefinite Canberra School of Art Council Dr G. Caldwell (Chairperson)... 1.1.84 3 years Mr H. Farey... 1.1.83 3 years Mr J. B. C. Kirby... 1.1.83 3 years Ms C. Santamaria... 1.1.84 3 years Ms K. O'Clery... 1.5.85 2 1/2 years Mr S. Dawkins... 1.5.85 2 1/2 years Mr J. McPhee... 1.5.85 2 1/2 years Mr E. Rolfe (Department of Education)... 27.3.81 Indefinite Director... Vacant Indefinite Staff Member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Staff Member (elected)... Vacant 2 years Student (elected)... Vacant 1 year The Australian National Commission for UNESCO Professor Ken McKinnon University of Wollongong (Chairperson)... 12.3.84 2 years Professor Nancy F. Millis, MBE University of Melbourne (Vice Chairperson)... 12.3.84 2 years Professor Jonathan Anderson Flinders University of South Australia... 12.3.84 2 years Dr Joe T. Baker, OBE James Cook University of North Queensland... 12.3.84 2 years Senator the Hon. Peter Baume Commonwealth Government... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Bruce Bennett University of Western Australia... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Max Bourke Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Peter Buckskin SA Aboriginal Education Consultative Committee... 12.3.84 2 years Mr John Cameron (Executive Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Patricia J. Caswell Victorian Trades Hall Council Carlton South Vic.... 12.3.84 2 years Mr John Coleman Department of Communications... 12.3.84 2 years Professor James Crawford University of Adelaide... 12.3.84 2 years Dr Patricia Edgar Australian Children's Television Foundation (Executive Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Sandra Forbes Australian Book Publishers Association... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Jane Ford... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Susan Harvey CILES... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Colin Hollis, MP Member for Throsby... 12.3.84 2 years Professor Diana Howlett Australian National University... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Keith Jackson Australian Broadcasting Corporation... 12.3.84 2 years Dr Phillip W. Jones University of Sydney... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Doug Keeley Department of Science... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Diana Killen ACI Computer Services... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Joe Lo Bianco Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, Victoria (Executive Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Dr Don McMichael, CBE Museum of Australia (Executive Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Miss Jean Miller Department of Education... 12.3.84 2 years Mr H. Charles Mott Department of Foreign Affairs... 12.3.84 2 years Ms May L. O'Brien WA Department of Education... 12.3.84 2 years Dr Peter Reeves Western Australian Institute of Technology... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Margaret Rich Ballarat Fine Art Gallery... 12.3.84 2 years Professor Leonie Sandercock (Executive Member) Macquarie University... 12.3.84 2 years Dr Norman R. Sheridan University of Queensland... 12.3.84 2 years Mr John Steinle Department of Education SA (Executive Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Jane Thynne... 12.3.84 2 years Mrs Margaret Trask, AM Kuring-gai College of Advanced Education (Executive Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Sally White... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Kim Williams Australian Film Commission... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Robyn Williams Australian Broadcasting Corporation... 12.3.84 2 years Mr Eric Willmot, AM Department of Aboriginal Affairs... 12.3.84 2 years Mr L. Gratton Wilson, AO CSIRO (Exective Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Dr Ken Wiltshire, University of Queensland (Executive Member)... 12.3.84 2 years Ms Margaret Young, University of Tasmania... 12.3.84 2 years The Australian OECD Advisory Committee on Education Dr Helen Andreoni, Armidale College of Advanced Education... 27.3.84 2 years The membership and role of this Committee are subject to review. At September 1985 only one appointment was current. Commonwealth Institutions Accreditation Committee for Advanced Education Prof. J. C. Burns, Royal Military College... 11.5.83 3 years Dr L. A. Brodribb, AM, M Brodribb Pty Ltd... 3.11.82 3 years Dr W. S. Ramson, Australian National University... 2.5.84 3 years Dr. J. Maling, South Australian College of Advanced Education... 19.3.85 3 years Mr R. Davie, Swinburne Institute of Technology... 19.3.85 3 years The National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multicultural Education Prof. D. L. Jayasuriya, University of Western Australia, (Chairman) 27.3.84 3 years Ms A. Echstein, Victorian Department of Education... 27.3.84 3 years Mr J. Giles, South Australian Department of Education ... 27.3.84 3 years Ms E. Hopkins, Bruce College of Technical and Further Education, A.C.T.... 27.3.84 3 years Mr J. Lo Bianco, Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, Victoria... 27.3.84 3 years Ms V. Nihas, New South Wales Ministry of Education... 27.3.84 3 years Mr H. Overberg, Victoria College, Rusden Campus... 27.3.84 3 years Ms H. Rudnic, New South Wales Board of Adult Education... 27.3.84 3 years Ms M. Schinella, Mt Carmel Primary School... 27.3.84 3 years Ms R. Tang, Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia... 27.3.84 2 years Ms M. Valadian, Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute, Sydney... 27.3.84 3 years Mr R. Warry, Director, Planning and Services, Queensland Department of Education... 27.3.84 3 years Ms Ruza Ruzic, Casuarina High School, Darwin... 10.4.84 3 years National Aboriginal Education Committee Mr P. Hughes (Chairman)... 26.4.83 3 years Mr E. West (Deputy Chairman)... 2.10.84 3 years Part-time Members Ms S. Albert... 26.4.83 3 years Ms W. Clinch... 26.4.83 3 years Ms O. Green... 26.4.83 3 years Ms H. Gulash... 26.4.83 3 years Mr E. Law... 26.4.83 3 years Ms W. Ludwig... 26.4.83 3 years Ms E. Munn... 26.4.83 3 years Ms D. Tyrrell... 26.4.83 3 years Mr J. Billy... 26.2.85 3 years Ms E. Bourke... 26.2.85 3 years Mr P. Buckskin... 26.2.85 3 years Ms J. Crawshaw... 26.2.85 3 years Ms L. Crocker... 26.2.85 3 years Mr R. Garlett... 26.2.85 3 years Ms L. Holt... 26.2.85 3 years Mr J. Heath... 26.2.85 3 years Mr R. Morgan... 26.2.85 3 years Mr D. Rosas... 26.2.85 3 years Central Selection Committee on Postgraduate Research Awards Mr B. C. Milligan, Department of Education (Chairperson)... 17.7.85 1 year Prof. N. Millis, University of Melbourne... 17.7.85 1 year Prof. M. E. Nairn, Murdoch University... 17.7.85 1 year Prof. R. D. Topsom, La Trobe University... 12.8.85 1 year Mr F. S. Hambly, Secretary Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee... 17.7.85 1 year Central Selection Committee on Postgraduate Course Awards Mr I. W. Ward, Department of Education (Chairperson)... 17.7.85 1 year Prof. W. E. Glover, University of New South Wales... 17.7.85 1 year Prof. M. S. Henderson, University of Adelaide... 17.7.85 1 year Prof. W. D. Joske, University of Tasmania... 17.7.85 1 year Associate Prof. L. L. Viney, University of Wollongong... 17.7.85 1 year Mr F. S. Hambly, Secretary Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee... 17.7.85 1 year Central Selection Committee on Awards in Advanced Education Mr P. J. Bowler, Department of Education (Chairperson)... 11.9.84 1 year Dr K. H. Fargher, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology... 11.9.84 1 year Dr J. M. Maling, South Australian College of Advanced Education... 11.9.84 1 year Dr F. G. Swain, Hawkesbury Agricultural College... 11.9.84 1 year Mr J. Scutt, Secretary Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education... 11.9.84 1 year Advisory Committee on Approval of Courses at Non-Government Business Colleges Mr I. W. Ward, Department of Education (Chairperson)... Ex officio 1 year Ms D. Craig, Miller College of TAFE, N.S.W.... 1.11.84 1 year Dr J. Grant, Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission... Ex officio 1 year Mr T. G. Jones, Public Service Board... 1.11.84 1 year Mr D. K. Sholl, Holmes Commercial Colleges... 1.11.84 1 year N.S.W. Non-Government Schools Participation and Equity Program Committee Mr John Howland, (Chairperson) Catholic Education Commission, N.S.W.... 1.1.85 1 year Metropolitan Catholic Schools Mr Brian Meeve, Ms Marion Barron... 1.1.85 1 year Non-Metropolitan Catholic Schools Ms Denise Hogarth, Mr Paul Menday... 1.1.85 1 year Non-Catholic Schools Mr Terry Chapman, Dr Ruth Shatford*... 1.1.85 1 year Teachers Representatives Ms Michele Huggonet, Ms Jennie Hannah... 1.1.85 1 year Parents Representative Ms Kerry Bray... 1.1.85 1 year Students/Youth Representative Mr Robert Oerlemans, Ms Lee Friend... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Schools Commission Mr Raymond Whitfield... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Department of Education Mrs Mary Guerbois... 1.1.85 1 year TAFE Mr Paul Baker... 1.1.85 1 year * Dr Shatford also has the special responsibility for Equal Opportunities issues. Victorian Non-Government Schools Participation and Equity Program Committee Mr Daniel Sexton (Chairperson)... 1.1.85 1 year Independent Schools Ms Fiona Ogilvy-O'Donnell... 1.1.85 1 year Principal-Catholic Sister Brigid Arthur Principal-Independent Schools Mrs Sylvia Walton... 1.1.85 1 year Teacher-Catholic Ms Dolores Matthews Teacher-Independent Schools Ms Marilyn Forde... 1.1.85 1 year Parents-Catholic To be nominated Parents-Independent Schools Ms Diane Fleming... 1.1.85 1 year Equal Opportunities Mrs Kristen Allen... 1.1.85 1 year TAFE Mr Maxwell Hyde... 1.1.85 1 year Student Ms Narelle Staub Ms Jennefer Burgess... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Schools Commission Mr William Cook... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Department of Education Mr William Wright... 1.1.85 1 year Queensland Non-Government Schools Participation and Equity Program Committee Mr Garry Everett (Chairperson)... 1.1.85 1 year Catholic Education Commission Mr Bob Cullen... 1.1.85 1 year Non Catholic Education Mr Bradley Smith... 1.1.85 1 year Parents Mrs Patricia Waldby... 1.1.85 1 year Teachers Mrs Valerie Gillard Mrs Patricia Hodgson... 1.1.85 1 year Principals Br Anthony White Mrs Judith Hancock... 1.1.85 1 year Students/Youth Mr David Blake... 1.1.85 1 year Teachers College Dr Peter Meere Equal Opportunity Sister Miriam McShane... 1.1.85 1 year TAFE Mr Peter Tait... 1.1.85 1 year Aboriginal Education Mrs Eva Kennedy... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Schools Commission Ms Margaret Crawford... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Department of Education Mr Joseph Kelly... 1.1.85 1 year WA Non-Government Schools Participation and Equity Program Committee Mr Tony Curtin (Chairperson), Catholic Education Commission, WA... 1.1.85 1 year Catholic Education Commission Mrs Ann Dick... 1.1.85 1 year Non Catholic Education Mr Tony De V Hill... 1.1.85 1 year Parents Mr Peter Lewis Mrs Patricia Lawrence... 1.1.85 1 year Teachers Mrs Helen Van Noort (1)... 1.1.85 1 year Principals Br Kevin Paul... 1.1.85 1 year Students/Youth (2) Ms Christina Kadmos... 1.1.85 1 year TAFE Mr Neal Rudeforth... 1.1.85 1 year Aborigines Mr Tony Lee... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Schools Commission Mr Michael Bromilow... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Department of Education Mr Athol Prior... 22.7.85 Until 31.12.85 (1) Mrs Van Noort also has the special responsibility for Equal Opportunities issues. (2) One more to be nominated. SA Non-Government Schools Participation and Equity Program Committee Sister Judith Redden St Aloysius College... 1.1.85 1 year Catholic Education Commission Mr Daryl Hicks... 1.1.85 1 year Non-Catholic schools Mr Robert Leane Mr Ian Whitson... 1.1.85 1 year Parents Ms Lynette Dansie... 1.1.85 1 year Teacher and Equal Opportunities Ms Marie Baker... 1.1.85 1 year Teacher Mr Peter Daw... 1.1.85 1 year Students/Youth Ms Dorothy Belperio Ms Tania Elliot Mr Vincent McMullan... 1.1.85 1 year Disadvantaged Schools Ms Helen McPhee... 1.1.85 1 year Special Schools Ms Marie Little... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Schools Commission Ms Ann Dwyer... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Department of Education Mr Robert Crafter... 1.1.85 1 year Tasmanian Non-Government Schools Participation and Equity Program Committee Catholic Schools Mr A. McCormack (Chairman) Mc C. Shirley... 1.1.85 1 year Non-Catholic Schools Mr D. McNeill... 1.1.85 1 year Parents Ms C. Hayes Mr W. Ball... 1.1.85 1 year Teachers Ms B. Martin Ms S. Painter... 1.1.85 1 year Youth Ms D. Maney Mr R. Sampson... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Schools Commission Mr G. Veal... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Department of Education Mr G. Aubert... 1.1.85 1 year Equal Opportunities Ms Painter also has the special responsibility for this area.... 1.1.85 1 year Australian Capital Territory Non-Government Schools Participation and Equity Program Committee Mr R. M. Cody (Chairperson)... 1.1.85 1 year Catholic Education Office Mr G. M. Clune... 1.1.85 1 year Equal Opportunities and Independent Schools Ms K. Nockels... 1.1.85 1 year Parents Mr L. N. Owens... 1.1.85 1 year Teachers Ms E. Hegarty Ms R. C. Daniels... 1.1.85 1 year Students Ms R. S. Onorato... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Schools Commission Ms N. Mooney... 1.1.85 1 year Commonwealth Department of Education Ms V. D. McKillop... 1.1.85 1 year ACT TAFE Ms V. Woods... 1.1.85 1 year COMMITTEES OF THE COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSION STATE PLANNING AND FINANCE COMMITTEES New South Wales Planning and Finance Committee Assoc. Professor S. L. Smith (Chairman) University of New South Wales... 1.7.84 3 years Catholic Education Commission Nominees Sr M. Ronayne... 1.1.83 3 years Br O. Weldon... 1.1.84 3 years Br J. A. Taylor... 1.1.85 3 years Mr B. Edwards... 1.1.84 3 years Other Non-Government Schools Mr F. Morris-Yates... 1.1.85 3 years Mr T. Chapman... 1.1.83 3 years Mr J. Sanders... 1.1.84 3 years Commonwealth Department of Education Mr G. Green MBE... 1.1.85 3 years State Education Department Nominee Mr J. D. Burge... 1.1.85 3 years Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominees Mr Ian Hossack... 1.1.85 3 years Mr G. Conomy... 10.8.84 3 years Victoria Planning and Finance Committee Prof W. A. G. Scott (Chairman)... 10.8.84 3 years Catholic Education Commission Nominess Mr J. Helm... 1.1.84 3 years Sr M. M. Kennedy... 1.1.84 3 years Mr P. Suhr... 1.1.83 3 years Mr J. T. Synan... 1.1.85 3 years Other Non-Government Schools Mr A. R. C. Hewison... 1.1.84 3 years Miss M. S. McRae... 19.9.84 3 years Mr M. S. Kane... 1.1.85 3 years Commonwealth Department of Education Nominee Mrs M. F. Maber OBE... 1.1.85 3 years State Education Department Nominee R. G. Ritchie... 1.1.85 3 years Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominees Sir Louis Matheson KBE CMG MBE... 1.1.85 3 years Miss A. Simmons... 1.1.85 3 years Queensland Planning and Finance Committee Mr G. F. Ashby (Chairman)... 1.1.85 3 years Catholic Education Commission Nominess Mr F. T. Long... 1.1.85 3 years Br B. M. Buckley... 1.1.85 3 years Mr L. Dunne... 1.1.83 3 years Mr A. Druery... 1.1.83 3 years Non-Government Schools Mrs Y. J. Bain... 1.1.83 3 years Mr H. J. Rodger... 1.1.85 3 years Mr D. C. Roderick... 1.1.85 3 years Commonwealth Department of Education Nominee Mr P Corby... 1.1.84 3 years Qld Department of Education Nominee Mr T. D. Schramm... 1.1.85 3 years Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominess Mrs M. Swindell... 1.1.85 3 years Mr L. Edwards... 11.2.84 3 years South Australian Planning and Finance Committee Mr W. G. Richards (Chairman)... 1.1.85 3 years Catholic Education Commission Nominees Miss H. McPhee... 1.1.84 3 years Mr K. Hinkly... 1.1.83 3 years Mrs F. Whitford... 5.5.83 3 years Mr J. McDonald... 1.1.84 3 years Other Non-Government Schools Mr R. R. Leane... 1.1.84 3 years Mrs J. M. Roberts... 1.1.83 3 years Rev. T. T. Reuther... 1.1.84 3 years Commonwealth Department of Education Nominee Mr K. Giddings... 1.1.85 3 years SA Department of Education Nominee Mr J. McManus... 1.1.85 3 years Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominees Mrs M. P. Marsland... 1.1.83 3 years Mr D. J. Manual... 1.1.85 3 years Western Australian Planning and Finance Committee Dr J. H. Lake (Chairman)... 1.9.84 3 years Catholic Education Commission Nominees Br Max McAppion... 1.8.84 3 years Mr T. Curtis... 1.6.85 3 years Miss W. Pullin... 1.1.83 3 years Mr M. King... 1.3.85 3 years Other Non-Government Schools Mr M. Hughes... 1.1.85 3 years Mr A. Brooker... 1.1.83 3 years Mr J. M. Moody... 1.1.84 3 years Commonwealth Department of Education Nominee Mr K. H. Beatty... 1.1.85 3 years WA Department of Education Nominee Dr H. Pearson... 1.4.85 3 years Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominees Professor T. A. Priest... 1.1.85 3 years Mrs J. Barrie... 1.1.84 3 years Tasmanian Planning and Finance Committee Prof. P. W. Hughes (Chairman) University of Tasmania... 1.1.84 3 years Catholic Education Commission Nominees Mr M. J. Thomas... 1.1.85 3 years Mrs T. H. Sullivan... 1.1.85 3 years Sr J. Dance... 1.1.85 3 years Other Non-Government Schools Mr C. R. Cleary... 1.8.84 3 years Mrs S. Denny... 1.1.84 3 years Comonwealth Department of Education Nominee Mr G. J. Aubert... 1.1.84 3 years Tasmanian Department of Education Nominee Mr N. Behrens... 1.1.84 3 years Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominees Miss A. Newman... 1.1.84 3 years Mrs P. J. Barwick... 1.1.85 1 year Australian Capital Territory Planning and Finance Committee Catholic Education Office Nominees Mr C. W. Conron (Chairman)... 1.7.84 3 years Mrs J. Bresser... 1.1.85 3 years Mr B. A. Ottaway... 1.1.85 3 years Father R. E. Irwin... 1.1.84 3 years Other Non-Government Schools Mr H. Roberts... 1.1.85 3 years Mr J. B. Block... 1.1.84 3 years Commonwealth Department of Education Nominee Mr J. Morey... 1.1.84 3 years ACT Schools Authority Nominee Vacant Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominee Dr J. A. Hone... 1.7.84 3 years Northern Territory Planning and Finance Committee Mr J. D. Gallacher MBE (Chairman)... 1.7.84 3 years Non-Catholic Schools Mr G. D. Fietz... 1.1.85 1 year Catholic Schools Nominee Ms L. Powierza... 1.1.84 3 years The Most Rev J. P. O'Loughlin, CMG... 1.1.84 3 years Mr G. Halvorson... 1.1.85 2 years Commonwealth Department of Education Nominee Mr R. Wilson... 1.1.85 3 years NT Department of Education Mr J. D. Edwards... 1.7.85 3 years Commonwealth Schools Commission Nominees Mrs M. M. Gaff... 1.1.85 1 year Ms Peg Havnen... 1.7.84 1 year Aboriginal Education Advisory Committee Part-Time Members Mr Errol West (Chairman)... 1.7.85 Indefinite Ms Davina Tyrell... 8.10.84 Indefinite Ms Joann Schmider... 8.10.84 Indefinite Ms Dianne Fitzgerald... 8.10.84 Indefinite Ms Sepi Woosup... 8.10.84 Indefinite Mrs D. Uibo... 8.10.84 Indefinite Mr John Budby... 8.10.84 Indefinite Mr Alan Fidock (Executive Officer)... 8.10.84 Indefinite Education and the Arts Advisory Committee Part-Time Members Mr Peter Gebhardt... 26.2.85 Indefinite Mr Bill Hannan... 26.2.85 Indefinite Mr Lionel Lawrence... 26.2.85 Indefinite Ms Deanna Hoermann... 26.2.85 Indefinite Ms Andrea Hull... 26.2.85 Indefinite Ms Dahle Suggett... 1.9.85 Indefinite Ms Libby Smith... 26.2.85 Indefinite Information Technology in the Curriculum Reference Group Mr Brian Bahnisch (Qld Dept of Education)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mrs Toni Downes (Catholic Education Office, NSW)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mr John Hamilton (O'Connell Education Centre, ACT)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mr Graeme Inchley (State Computer Education Centre, Vic)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Dr Terry Lane (Education Dept, NT)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Dr Ian Pirie (NSW Dept of Education)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mr John Read (Elizabeth Computer Centre, Tas)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mr Peter Sandery (Education Department of SA)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mr Jim Sully (Department of Education of WA)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mr John Winship (WA Institute of Technology)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Mr Colin Woodley (Association of Independent Schools, NSW)... 2.4.85 Indefinite Bicentennial Australian Studies Schools Project Reference Group Part-Time Members Mr J Fitzgerald (Dept of Educn, Qld)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr W Brewer (Dept of Educn, Tas)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Sr Mary Reardon (National Catholic Education Commission)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Dr Gregory Haines (Australian Parents Council)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Ms Christine Pope (Australian Teachers Federation)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr Jeffrey Field (Australian Council of State School Organisations Inc)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr Errol West (National Aboriginal Education Committee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Ms Faye Zwicky (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr Graig McGregor (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Prof Manning Clarke (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Ms Julie Ryan (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr Joe Lo Bianco (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr Jon Hawkes (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr Don Dunstan (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr James Mollison (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Ms Robyn Gordon (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Dr Michael Gore (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Mr John Iremonger (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Ms Deborah McCulloch (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Prof Bernard Smith (Ministerial Nominee)... 16.7.85 to 31.12.86 Commonwealth Schools Commission Pep Committee Part-Time Members Mr Vin Faulkner (CSC Commissioner)... 17.7.84 Indefinite Ms Joan Brown (CSC Commissioner)... 16.4.84 Indefinite Mr Van Davy (CSC Commissioner)... 21.3.85 Indefinite Mr John Steinle... 16.4.84 Indefinite Mr Mike Clohesy... 16.4.84 Indefinite Mr Gil Freeman (Brunswick East High School)... 16.4.84 Indefinite Mr Peter Schneirer (Aboriginal Education)... 16.4.84 Indefinite COMMITTEES OF THE COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION External Studies Standing Committee Professor R. St Clair Johnson (Chairperson)... 25.3.85 3 years Ms D. E. Craig... 25.3.85 3 years Dr M. B. Smith... 25.3.85 3 years Mr J. G. Foks... 25.3.85 3 years Professor F. R. Jevons... 25.3.85 3 years Mr D. J. Ashenden... 25.3.85 3 years Mr E. Willmot... 25.3.85 3 years Ms A. Deveson... 25.3.85 3 years Mr V. White... 25.3.85 3 years Review of TAFE Funding Committee Mr H. R. Hudson (Chairman)... 27.8.85 N/A Ms D. Bradley... 27.8.85 N/A Mr I. R. Russell... 27.8.85 N/A Dr A. Pattison... 27.8.85 N/A Mr M. Selway... 27.8.85 N/A Mr M. Jenkins... 27.8.85 N/A Mr D. A. Fooks (Executive Member)... 27.8.85 N/A N/A-Not specified; the Committee was asked to report by the end of March 1986. ACT Schools Authority Full-time Member Dr Gregory Hancock (Chief Education Officer)... 1.6.81 5 years Part-Time Members Dr Don Anderson (Chairman)... 19.7.85 2 years Ms Joan Kellett (acting member)... 19.7.85 Interim Ms Cheryl O'Connor... 19.7.85 to 31.12.85 Ms Joan Taggart... 19.7.85 2 years Mr Gregory Cornwell... 19.7.85 2 years Dr Cherry Collins... 19.7.85 2 years Dr Rosalind Dubs... 19.7.85 2 years Mr Fulton Muir... 19.7.85 2 years Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Appointed by the Governor-General Dr M. Carver... 1.3.84 3 years Mrs H. C. Crisp, am (Deputy Chairman)... 19.1.83 3 years Mr R. J. Fryer... 19.1.83 3 years Mr J. D. Enfield... 20.10.83 4 years Mr C. Price, mbe... 22.2.85 2 years Ms L. G. Wenig... 22.2.85 4 years Miss H. R. Williams... 20.10.83 4 years One Vacancy Appointed by the council Ms D. Coward... 27.9.84 2 years Dr D. McMichael... 1.1.85 3 years Mr B. Wright... 1.1.85 3 years Professor J. Zubrzycki, ao, cbe... 26.10.83 2 years Elected by the Teaching Staff Mrs M. M. Robinson... 27.9.84 2 years Mr R. B. Mitchell... 27.9.83 2 years Miss E. H. Solly... 27.9.84 2 years Elected by the Students Mr G. G. Holland... 15.10.84 1 year Mr I. Smith... 15.10.84 1 year Ex Officio Members Professor Karmel, ac, cbe Australian National University... 6.7.82 5 1/2 years Dr R. T. Parfitt Canberra College of Advanced Education... 15.10.84 7 years Professor I. G. Ross Australian National University... 11.9.82 5 years The Council of the Australian National University Dr N. K. Boardman... 13.10.82 3 years Dr L. A. Brodribb, A.M.... 13.10.82 3 years Ms G. M. Carnegie... 29.9.83 3 years Ms J. R. Ford... 16.2.84 3 years Commissioner Ms P. M. Griffin... 30.9.84 3 years Mr P. E. F. Kirby... 16.2.84 3 years Dr R. T. Parfitt... 30.9.84 3 years Mr W. A. Park, C.B.E.... 16.2.84 3 years Mr R. J. Rechner... 30.9.84 3 years Ms E. J. Ryan... 16.2.84 3 years Dr R. H. White... 16.2.84 3 years Ex Officio Members The Hon. Sir R. Blackburn, O.B.E., C. St J.... 16.4.84 2 years Emeritus Professor Sir R. Robertson, A.C., C.M.G.... 1.1.84 3 years Emeritus Professor P. Karmel, A.C., C.B.E.... 6.7.82 5 1/2 years Prof. I. G. Ross... 11.9.82 5 years Prof. D. A. Aitken... 11.3.85 1 1/2 years Prof. D. J. Whalan... 26.10.83 3 years Miss L. A. Ward... 1.12.84 1 year Elected by the Non-Professorial Academic Staff in the Institute Dr D. A. Hume... 30.9.84 3 years Dr A. Rodgers... 30.9.83 3 years Elected by the Non-Professorial Academic Staff in the Faculties Dr B. K. Selinger... 30.9.84 3 years Dr C. C. MacKnight... 30.9.84 3 years Elected by Non-Academic Staff Mrs M. Bremner... 27.5.84 2 years Mrs M. Evans... 27.5.84 2 years Elected by the Research Students Mr B. F. Yates... 30.9.84 1 year Elected by the Undergraduate Students Miss Jane Connors... 30.9.84 1 year Vacant Elected by Convocation Prof. Dame Kramer, D.B.E.... 30.9.84 3 years Mr K. L. Fry... 30.9.84 3 years Mr R. C. Refshauge... 30.9.84 3 years Mr D. H. Solomon... 30.9.84 3 years Co-opted Members Mr H. King... Lady Brennan... Elected by the Senate Senator G. Georges... 18.7.83 3 years Senator P. E. Rae... 18.7.83 3 years Elected by the House of Representatives Dr R. E. Klugman... 18.8.85 3 years Mr P. M. Ruddock... 18.8.85 3 years Chosen from the Deans of the Faculties Dr B. M. Rawson... 30.9.84 3 years Prof. R. D. Terrell... 1.4.84 3 years Elected by the Non-Professorial Academic Staff in the Institute Dr D. A. Hume... 30.9.84 3 years Dr A. Rodgers... 30.9.83 3 years Elected by the Non-Professorial Academic Staff in the Faculties Dr B. K. Selinger... 30.9.84 3 years Dr C. C. MacKnight... 30.9.84 3 years Elected by Non-Academic Staff Mrs M. Bremner... 27.5.84 2 years Mrs M. Evans... 27.5.84 2 years Elected by the Research Students Mr B. F. Yates... 30.9.84 1 year Elected by the Undergraduate Students Miss Jane Connors... 30.9.84 1 year Vacant Elected by Convocation Prof. Dame Kramer, D.B.E.... 30.9.84 3 years Mr K. L. Fry... 30.9.84 3 years Mr R. C. Refshauge... 30.9.84 3 years Mr D. H. Solomon... 30.9.84 3 years Co-opted Members Mr H. King... 9.3.84 2 years Lady Patricia Brennan... 13.7.84 2 years Elected by the Senate Senator G. Georges... 18.7.83 3 years Senator P. E. Rae... 18.7.83 3 years Elected by the House of Representatives Dr R. E. Klugman... 18.8.85 3 years Mr P. M. Ruddock... 18.8.85 3 years Chosen from the Deans of the Faculties Dr B. M. Rawson... 30.9.84 3 years Prof. R. D. Terrell... 1.4.84 3 years Elected by the Professors in the Institute Prof. S. A. Horridge... 12.4.85 1 1/2 years Elected by the Professors in the Faculties Prof. C. Bryant... 3.1.84 3 years Council of the Australian Maritime College Captain D. M. Waters, (Principal) Ex Officio... 1.1.82 7 years Mr I. Backler... 21.12.83 4 years Mr J. Bicknell... 11.1.83 4 years Capt. W. Bolitho... 11.1.83 3 years Ms M. J. Calder... 11.1.84 4 years Mr F. A. L. Connell, (Chairman)... 11.1.83 3 years Mr A. R. Dailey... 13.3.85 4 years Capt. P. Eccles... 11.1.83 3 years Mr J. K. Edwards, (Deputy Chair)... 21.12.83 3 years Mr P Geraghty... 11.1.83 4 years Dr S. W. Jeffrey... 13.3.85 4 years Mr J. B. Prescott... 11.1.83 4 years Captn F. G. Ross... 13.3.85 4 years Mr D. J. Crockett... 12.2.84 2 years Mr P. Curwell... 21.7.85 2 years Prof. P. T. Fink... 21.7.85 2 years Mr D. A. Gillies... 21.2.85 2 years Captn J. W. Spiers... 22.3.84 3 years Captn W. Spencer... 19.7.84 2 years Captn S. B. Lewarn... 14.5.82 4 years Mr D. B. B. Butler... 10.5.85 2 years Mr G. D. Meams, (Student)... 13.4.85 1 year Advisory Group on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children Part-Time Members Dr D. Mossenson, (Chairman)... 1.1.85 1 year Dr R. Andrews, (CSC Commissioner)... 1.1.85 1 year Ms M. Bond, (Queensland Association of Gifted and Talented Children)... 1.1.85 1 year Mr K. Creed, (Victorian Education Department)... 1.1.85 1 year Dr E. Braggett, (Newcastle University)... 1.1.85 1 year Dr G. Leader, (Monash University)... 1.1.85 1 year Ms R. Colanero, (SA Education Department)... 1.1.85 1 year Ms S. Dixon, (Catholic Education Office, Victoria)... 1.1.85 1 year Mr G. Ticknell, (Australian Teachers Federation)... 1.1.85 1 year Mr B. Turner, (Tasmanian Education Department)... 1.1.85 1 year Ms C. Eales, (NSW Education Department)... 1.1.85 1 year Mr S. Albert, (National Aboriginal Education Committee)... 1.1.85 1 year (2) REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL DETERMINATIONS-RATES AS AT 1.9.85 Authority/Office Salary (S) or Fee (F) Allowance Travelling Allowance Capital City per day Other per day $ $ $ $ Commonwealth Schools Commission Chairman... 76,527 p.a. (S) 3,967 p.a. 140 105 F/T Member... 54,995 p.a. (S) 1,415 p.a. 140 105 P/T Member... 9,052 p.a. (F) 140 105 Curriculum Development Council P/T Member... 6,781 p.a. (F) 140 105 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Chairman... 81,193 p.a. (S) 3,967 p.a. 140 105 F/T Member... 69,653 p.a. (S) 3,116 p.a. 140 105 P/T Member... 9,052 p.a. (F) 140 105 Universities Council P/T Member... 6,781 p.a. (F) 140 105 Advanced Education Council P/T Member... 6,781 p.a. (F) 140 105 Technical and Further Education Council P/T Member... 6,781 p.a. (F) 140 105 National Aboriginal Education Council Chairman... 50,507 p.a. (S) 851 p.a. 107 75 Deputy Chairman... 39,918 p.a. (S) 82 63 P/T Member... 13,100 p.a. (S) 107 75 ACT Schools Authority Chairman (P/T)... 13,564 p.a. (F) 110 85 Member (P/T)... 6,781 p.a. (F) 110 85 Chief Education Officer... 63,972 p.a. (S) 1,984 p.a. 140 105 All other bodies not specified in the Remuneration Tribunal Review are treated as follows: * Full-time holder's remuneration continues unchanged * Part-time ''...''...''...''... Daily Fees (not otherwise specified) Office Category 1* Category 2** Chairman... 92 163 Member... 76 131 Travelling Allowances $110 p.d., capital city; $85 p.d., other than capital city. * Category 1 rate normally applies to State/Territorial committees/bodies. ** Category 2 rate normally applies to National committee/bodies. Sub-section 7 (11) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973 specifically precludes the payment of remuneration to part-time office holders who are employed full-time by the Commonwealth. (Question No. 1188) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) Has the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) Board spent its 1984-85 allocation of $125 million. (2) Have any extra funds been allocated to the scheme for processing a backlog of claims by 30 June 1985; if so, is the $48m saving for 1985-86 only a transfer of expenditure from one year to another, that is, 1985-86 to 1984-85. (3) Have extra staff been allocated to the EMDG Board since the middle of March 1985 to assist with processing the claims. (4) Are any or all staff on the EMDG Board operating on unlimited overtime and travel provisions. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) As indicated in my Media Release of 4 July 1985, funds of $54m were provided by way of Advance to the Minister for Finance in June 1985 to reduce the backlog of outstanding claims. These funds were additional to the 1984-85 Budget allocation of $125m, and resulted from the Government's consideration of a recommendation by the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel (the Ferris Panel) on the EMDG claims backlog. As indicated by the Treasurer in his May 1985 Economic Statement, the savings of $48m under the EMDG scheme for FY 1985-86 relate to savings in the forward estimates of expenditure. These savings result from the implementation of amendments to the scheme from 20 May 1985, and a deferral of payment of some commitments into future years when the reduced cost of the amended scheme will make less of a call on the Budget. (3) A special task force was formed between 11 March and 30 June 1985 to assist the Export Development Grants Board process additional claims. A total of 19 officers were involved in the task force but all were provided from existing staff resources. No additional staff were recruited for this purpose. (4) In the 1984-85 Budget and in additional estimates a total of $16,000 and $159,000 were appropriated to the EDGB for overtime and travel respectively. Further funds obtained as a consequence of the additional processing were $9,009 and $43,000 respectively. The EDGB was required to operate within these funding provisions. (Question No. 1242) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following information is correct as at 18 August 1985 and includes consultants employed by the Office of Youth Affairs and the A.C.T. Schools Authority which are no longer part of the Education portfolio. CONSULTANCY PROJECTS COMMISSIONED SINCE MARCH 1983 Name and Affiliation Length of engage- ment Purpose of engagement/ working plan Fee paid Addi- tional payment $ $ Department of Education Dr J. Damm University of Queensland 10 days Staff Development 2,000 Nil Mr T. Dalmau Dalmau and Associates 33 days Staff Development 14,600 Nil Dr R. Harris Flinders University 6 days Staff Development 1,650 Nil Mr P. Handford Centre for Applied Behavioural Science-Qld 7 days Staff Development 2,350 Nil Mr P. Boas Precision Communication 18 days Staff Development 8,300 Nil Dr R. McIver McIver and Associates 9 days Staff Development 3,300 Nil Mr J. Harrison Comstat Consulting Services (Australia) Pty Ltd 11 days Staff Development 4,500 Nil Mr M. Benoy Techsearch Inc. SAIT 8 days Staff Development 1,170 Nil Mr B. Wood Techsearch Inc. SAIT 8 days Staff Development 1,170 Nil Mr J. Engel John Engel 6 days Staff Development 2,200 Nil Mr P. Simpson Systems Dynamics 4 days Staff Development 2,700 NilMs K Raymond Kaye Raymond and Associates 1 day Staff Development 250 PA Management Consultants 4 mths Advise on Program Budgeting 33,500 Nil Mr H. J. Gorham Urwick International Pty Ltd 8 mths Advise on implementing ADP Strategic Plan 105,000 Nil Mr W. Hamilton Hamilton Management Services 2 mths (part-time) To prepare an index of resolutions for the Australian Council on Awards in Advanced Education 800 Nil Ms S. Alexander - up to 45 days from 2 May 1984 Assist in production of film for the Participation and Equity Program 200 p/day Nil Ms J. Barnett - 7 mths Develop video treatment on approaches to the teaching of English as a Second Language 6,536 Nil Ms S. Lewis - up to 115 hours from March 1984 Design a Youth Affairs Information System 20 p/hr Nil Mr H. Hudson H & A Hudson 50 days Jan-June 1984 Provide advice on resource standards and agreement with State Government and non-Government bodies 8,200 Nil Ms H. Libershall - 5 days Assist Department re options on educational applications of the domestic satellite 200 p/day Nil Mr B. Greer - approx 3 mths To prepare a Review of Worker Co-operative Development Agencies in Australia 1,000 Nil Messrs Metcals and Vanclay Griffith University 2 mths Analyse and interpret data re alternative lifestyles 5,875 Nil Mr M. Ireland Michael Ireland and Associates 3 mths Undertake feasibility study on youth training/accommodation co-operatives 20,000 Nil Mr M. Ireland Cooperative Federation of Australia 7 mths Report on options for co-operative training 24,700 Nil Ms L. Davies - 6 mths Inquiry into ACT Theatre Education needs 12,000 513.82 Ms M. Kalantzis (Mrs M. Issaris) University of Wollongong Centre Multicultural Studies 4 mths Review Australian-Greek Presidential Award Scheme 3, 170 Nil Messrs C. Smythe and R. Smith-Roberts Koranya Data Base Intelligence Pty Ltd 2 mths Advise on Program Budgeting 18,600 Nil Mr M. Kau - 4 mths Assist Office of Youth Affairs with State/Territorial consultancy on mechanisms to address youth worker training issues, needs and strategies 11,485 Nil Dr Barbara Falk Research Associate University of Melbourne 3 mths Prepare a discussion paper on various aspects of multicultural education 6,645 Nil Dr Andrew Sturman Senior Research Officer Australian Council for Educational Research 6 weeks Review of research into the post-school experiences of students from different ethnic backgrounds 6,713 Nil Professor D. Beswick Centre for Higher Education University of Melbourne 12 mths Develop policies relating to income support for young people in particular gathering information on the financial arrangements between TAFE students and their parents 40,000 Nil Mr A. Kelly - 4 mths Consultation with various parts of the youth sector 8,000 Nil Dr J. Bowes - 35 days Draft and revise a national position paper for Australian contribution to the OECD (CERI) Project on the Transition of Handicapped Youth 1,700 Nil Dr A. Jacubowicz University of Wollongong 3 mths Prepare a discussion paper on various aspects of multicultural education 2,443 Nil Dr Helen Andreoni Professor M. Clyne Professor Susan Kaldor Mr Kevin Piper Armidale CAE Monash University University of WA ACER 8 days To provide expert comment on the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts Report on A National Language Policy 1,200 Nil Mr K. Stringer Slade Consultancy Group Pty Ltd 3 days To conduct Module One of the Manager Development course which dealt with self awareness and interpersonal communications 2,100 Nil Dr R. Hood South Australian Institute of Technology 1/2 day To run a group skills workship covering roles in groups, desired normative conditions in groups; characteristics of effective feedback. Workshop for Aboriginal Education Section, South Australian State Office 120 Nil Mr W. Andrew AIM Management Consultants 5 days To conduct a supervisors course designed to improve effectiveness within the Northern Territory Office 3,250 Nil Mr V. Noga Personnel and Corporate Training Pty Ltd 3 days To conduct Module Two of the Manager Development Course 1,500 Nil Mr V. Noga Personnel and Corporate Training Pty Ltd 5 days To conduct an organisation climate survey concerning organisation goals inter group communication, styles of supervision and mangement for the Tasmanian State Office 2,000 Nil Mr N. Sklavos Kangaroo Point TAFE 8 hrs and preparation time Conduct Public Contact course, self assertion training course for Aboriginal staff, and a skills training session for Qld State Office 1,030 Nil Mr Robin Owen Robin Owen & Associates 12 days To provide the Office of Youth Affairs with public relations expertise in the lead-up to International Youth Year 2,040 Nil Name and Affiliation Project title Initial cost Com- menced Planned completion Additional Payment $ $ E. Booth W. Cope University of Wollongong Professional development of teachers in contact with adolescents of non-English speaking background 21,636 May 85 June 86 Nil D. Fitzgerald University of New England Teachers and the use of computers in the class room 23,164 April 85 Aug. 85 Nil G. Herman N. Baumgart J. Braithwaite Macquarie University Commonwealth financial assistance for secondary students 55,620 Feb. 85 Aug. 86 Nil F. Maas Institute of Family Studies Assessment of the needs of unsupported students 20,000 Mar. 85 Aug. 85 Nil Dr. J. Bowes - Credentialism-An Exploratory Study of Issues and Attitudes 4,000 Jan. 84 June 84 Nil Prof. W. J. Campbell University of Queensland Future Options for the Secondary Allowances Scheme-Exploratory Study 9,473 May 84 Aug. 84 Nil Dr A. Grant La Trobe University Adult Literacy Needs and Provisions Assessment 15,000 Jan. 84 Jan. 85 Nil Dr. J. P. Keeves ACER Nature and Extent of Sex Bias in ASAT 10,000 Oct. 83 June 84 Nil Dr S. King - Survey of Student Finances 2,000 May 84 June 84 Nil Mr G. Woodburne Sydney CAE Review of Non-Government Business Colleges 15,000 April 83 Mar. 84 Nil Mr G. Hermann - Commonwealth Financial Assistance for Secondary Students 55,620 Feb. 85 Aug. 86 Nil W. Hall G. Hayton C. Sandery TAFE National Centre for Research and Development Information Technology Training within Traineeships-Options for TAFE based courses 19,300 Apr. 85 Aug. 85 Nil Dr G. Ashby Brisbane CAE Review of Assistance for Disabled students 21,100 Feb. 85 Aug. 85 Nil Dr T. Hoare Dr T. West Monash University Tertiary Students-Reasons for Discontinuing their Studies 4,910 Jan. 85 June 86 Nil Mr F. Maas Ms S. Girling-Butcher Institute of Family Studies Assessment of the Needs of Unsupported Students 20,000 Mar. 85 Aug. 85 Nil Dr T. Williams ACER ACER Longitudinal School Leaver Study ``Youth in Transition'' 145,000 Two years Nil G. Coventry Victorian Institute of Secondary Education Role of Part-time Work in Transition from Youth to Adulthood 10,000 Apr. 83 May 85 Nil J. Ainley M. Batten ACER Patterns of Retention in Australian Government Schools 25,000 Oct. 83 June 84 Nil M. Poole D. Davis C. Gray Macquarie University Literature Review of Studies of Youth Views and Attitudes 7,500 Oct. 83 Apr. 84 Nil B. Abbey South Australian CAE Institutional Implications of Increasing Participation in Schooling 4,978 Dec. 83 May 85 Nil D. Ashenden South Australian CAE The Commonwealth in a National Approach to Education 600 Dec. 83 May 85 Nil Identifying Restraints to the Charge from Transition Education to PEP 5,488 Dec. 83 May 85 Nil G. Bourke A. Borthwick South Australian CAE Implications of the Transition Education Program for Evaluation & Accountability in Special Purpose Programs 4,900 Dec 83 May 85 Nil Dr D. Anderson Ms C. Blakers ANU National Clearinghouse on Youth Studies 163,000 Jan 84 Continuing 4,920 Dr B. Fraser Western Australian Institute of Technology Impact of Transition as a School Level Agent of Change 25,000 Dec 83 Dec 85 Nil Mr G. D. Hermann Mr B. Brand TAFE National Centre for Research & Development TAFE Curriculum Development Project 50,000 Dec 83 Dec 85 Nil Mr E. Hegarty University of NSW Women in Science and Technology 20,000 Dec 83 Dec 84 Nil Ms L. Davies - To prepare a report on Inquiry into ACT Theatre Education needs 12,000 Jan 85 Aug 85 Nil Prof. G. Harman Educational Administration University of New England To draft paper to form the Australian contribution to the OCED; Education Committee Activity on ``The Role and Functions of Universities'' Nil June 84 Dec 85 Nil Mr G. Cresford - Co-ordination of Science and Technology 1,000 June 84 June 84 Nil W. G. Hamilton Hamilton Management Services Prepare an Index of Resolutions of the Australian Council on Awards in Advanced Education 838 April 84 May 84 Nil D. Bradley South Australian CAE To contribute to public & professional debate focused particularly on school level curriculum issues 24,000 June 85 Sept 85 Nil I. F. Gonella Tech Talk Pty Ltd Kalorama Vic Contribution towards the cost of producing the video series ``Tech Talk 1985'' 20,000 May 85 Sug 85 Nil Consultant Project Title Initial Cost Commenced Planned Completion Additional Payment $ $ ACT SCHOOLS AUTHORITY Housely Communications P/L Advice on current computer network design and recommendations for future expansion 9,800 March 85 August 85 Nil The Consultancy Pty Ltd Advise on how the ACT Schools Authority might present itself publicly 4,583 Nov. 83 Jan. 84 Nil COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AUSTRALIAN STUDIES IN TERTIARY EDUCATION Ms Derryn Hammond To undertake a survey of Australian studies in teacher education 11,068 Feb. 85 Feb. 86 Nil Mr Andrew Shipway To undertake a survey of Australian content in adult education programs in Tasmania 4,350 March 85 June 85 Nil Mr Robert Darby To undertake a survey of Australian content and context in Engineering courses in Australian tertiary institutions 10,075 March 85 Sept. 85 Nil Dr David Widdup To undertake a survey of Australian content and context in law and legal studies courses in Australian tertiary institutions 7,370 July 85 Dec. 85 Nil COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSION Engaged on an Australia wide basis Touche Ross Services Pty (i) Review data provided and liaise with school authorities on matters requiring amendment or clarification 47,513 (est. 65,000) Aug. 84 June 85 Nil (ii) Process raw data to produce a profile of the school's operating style Nil to date (est. 45,000) July 85 Current (iii) Assess the viability of schools based on the data provided Engaged in New South Wales Building Consultants Mr S. Topple Mrs K. Anderson Mr J. Yabsley To assist schools in designing buildings which will meet their educational objectives, to provide appraisal and progress reports and to ensure that projects proceed in accordance with conditions of offers 570 525 1,800 April 84 April 84 June 84 Continuing basis as required Nil English as a Second Language Consultant Mrs V. Martin To assist the State Planning and Finance Committee in relation to funding for non-government non-Catholic schools 525 Nov. 83 June 84 Nil Engaged in Victoria Building Consultant Mr D. Davy To assist schools in designing buildings which will meet their educational objectives, to provide appraisal and progress reports, and to ensure that projects proceed in accordance with conditions of offers None as yet March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil English as a Second Language Consultant Mrs L. M. O'Dea To assist the State Planning and Finance Committee in relation to funding for non-government non-Catholic schools 1,245 Nov 83 Continuing basis as required Nil Engaged in Queensland Building Consultant Mr J. Channer To assist schools in designing buildings which will meet their educational objectives, to provide appraisal and progress reports, and to ensure that projects proceed in accordance with conditions of offers None as yet March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil Engaged in Western Australia English as a Second Language Consultant Mr G. Bishop To assist the State Planning and Finance Committee in relation to funding for non-government non-Catholic schools 349 March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil Engaged in South Australia Building Consultant Mr W. Dobkins Mr N. Zweck Mr G. M. Smith To assist schools in designing buildings which will meet their educational objectives, to provide appraisal and progress reports, and to ensure that projects proceed in accordance with conditions of offers 240 825 None as yet April 84 April 84 April 85 Continuing basis as required Nil English as a Second Language Consultant Ms R. Collins To assist the State Planning and Finance Committee in relation to funding for non-government and non-Catholic Schools None as yet March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil Special Education Consultant Dr K. Were To assist the State Planning and Finance Committee in relation to Special Education Grants None as yet March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil Engaged in Tasmania Building Consultants Mr G. Murphy To assist schools in designing buildings which will meet their educational objectives None as yet March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil Mrs G. Stagoll Mr M. Vincent To provide project progress reports and to ensure that projects proceed in accordance with conditions of offers 75 None as yet March 85 March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil Nil Mr L. O'Shea Mr M. Smith Mr J. Rogerson Mr B. Mann Dr W. N. Oates To provide project progress reports and to ensure that projects proceed in accordance with conditions of offers None as yet March 85 Continuing basis as required Nil M. Gibb S. Read Lucia Investments Pty Ltd To conduct research into awareness and perceptions of the Participation and Equity Program 16,000 Dec 84 Still current (Question No. 1257) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information provided below relates to consultancies entered into in the period 11 March 1983 to 30 June 1985. DEPARTMENT OF ARTS, HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT (a) (b) & (c) (d) (e) (f) $ $ Central Office M. Menadue Illustrations for Flora of Australia-Liebarium drawings 1,050 April 1983- May 1983 . . Dr R. Johnson Prepare text of Flora of Australia 3,000 April 1983- May 1983 . . I. Zagorskis Prepare data for bioclimatological project-Australian Biotaxonomic Information System 4,883 April 1983- July 1983 . . R. Hoskins Preliminary analysis of methodology and costs for report ``The Community and the National Collection: Self-help through Greater Involvement'' 2,000 May 1983 . . Dr L. Cannon Report on diagrammatic relationships for family of Turbellaria for Fauna of Australia 1,200 May 1983- June 1983 . . Marine Science Laboratories Assess and test method of use of marine organisms for levels of potential pollutants in marine waters 85,000 May 1983- May 1984 . . Dr D. Connell Report on effects of contaminants on Australian wildlife and natural environment 500 June 1983 . . R. Herrington Prepare statistics on land use change 2,000 June 1983- July 1983 . . P. Cullen Prepare contributions to State of Environment Report 2,072 June 1983- August 1983 . . Prof R. Chadwick Advise on applicability of Australian Resources & Environment Assessment (AREA) model for analysis of global environmental issues 6,700 June 1983- August 1983 . . Dr R. Florence Prepare contribution to State of Environment Report 980 June 1983- September 1983 . . Dr D. Lawrence Restoration work to five paintings 2,500 June 1983- October 1983 . . G. Appleton Desk research for report ``The Community and the National Collection: Self-help Through Greater Involvement'' 4,200 August 1983- October 1983 . . R. Hoskins Survey attitudes and analyse findings for report ``The Community and the National Collection: Self-help Through Greater Involvement'' 16,950 August 1983- January 1984 . . Dr W. Chew Prepare treatment for Volume 3 Flora of Australia 27,000 August 1983- June 1984 . . G. Chippendale Prepare text for Flora of Australia-manuscript on Eucalyptus 1,404 August 1983- December 1984 . . Prof R. Chadwick Follow-up report on use of AREA model 3,500 September 1983- March 1984 . . Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd Australia-wide omnibus survey as part of research for report ``The Community and the National Collection: Self-help Through Greater Involvement'' 13,000 October 1983 . . H. Higgs Prepare contributions to State of Environment Report 6,100 October 1983- March 1984 . . Dr D. Lawrence Restoration work to oil paintings 3,000 October 1983- May 1984 . . G. McLaughlin Design forms for use in Tax Incentives for Films Scheme 941 November 1983- January 1984 . . Australian Chemical Industry Council Provide assistance to nominators during first phase of compilation of Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 10,000 November 1983- June 1984 . . Infoscan Report re possibility of data base of Australian environment and conservation material 8,000 November 1983- July 1984 . . Control Data Australia Develop computer-based software essential to compilation of Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 5,000 January 1984- February 1984 . . D. Bedford Prepare illustrations for Flora of Australia 3,000 January 1984- March 1984 . . Prof K. Grell Report on non-parasitic Protozoa 2,000 January 1984- April 1984 . . Water Studies Centre Chisholm Institute of Technology Provide statistical analysis and consolidate information on heavy metal contamination of the marine environment; prepare three reports 9,600 January 1984- April 1984 . . Prof R. Carolin Illustrations for Flora of Australia 500 January 1984- May 1984 . . Dr M. Tindale Illustrations for Flora of Australia 2,000 January 1984- June 1984 . . P. Bradhurst Illustrations for Flora of Australia 100 February 1984 . . R. Brechwoldt Prepare contributions to State of Environment Report 700 February 1984- March 1984 . . A. Fokkema Review and revise Nuclear Codes guidelines-civil engineering aspects 3,000 February 1984- April 1984 . . J. Coaldrake, Cameron, McNamara Consultants Review and revise proposed Nuclear Code guidelines-revegetation and erosion control 3,000 February 1984- April 1984 . . Control Data Australia Develop computer-based software essential to compilation of Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 4,500 March 1984 . . Parity Computer Develop modifications of ADP graphics 2,520 March 1984- April 1984 . . Crooks, Mitchell, Peacock and Steward Pty Ltd Prepare guidelines on storage of uranium concentrates 5,500 March 1984- May 1984 . . G. Keighery Illustrations for Flora of Australia 3,500 March 1984- June 1984 . . B. Savvas Report on practical computer aspects of developing the Environmental Survey of Australia project 2,800 March 1984- June 1984 . . Dr J. Green Report on Pilbara flora species 9,630 March 1984- August 1984 . . Prof R. Chadwick Draft handbook suitable for reference in AREA model project 15,000 March 1984- March 1985 . . Dr A. Orchard Report on Tasmanian flora species 200 April 1984 . . Dr R. Johnson Prepare data for Flora of Australia-Queensland native and naturalised vascular plant species 1,000 April 1984- May 1984 . . Rear Adm A Robertson Report on Norwegian Maritime Museum 825 April 1984- June 1984 . . D. McGillivray Illustrations of Grevillea 1,000 April 1984- June 1984 . . Marine Science Laboratories Prepare proposed design for national bioaccumulator monitoring network to examine pollutants in marine organisms in marine waters 32,000 April 1984- April 1985 . . Compris Information System Prepare ADP specification for claims, registration and assessment system for Public Lending Right (PLR) Scheme 2,000 May 1984- June 1984 . . Control Data Australia Develop computer-based software essential to compilation of Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 25,000 May 1984- June 1984 . . Western Australian Institute of Technology Review of marine quality inter-calibration 40,000 May 1984- June 1985 . . Control Data Australia Develop computer-based software essential to compilation of Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 12,200 May 1984- June 1984 . . Dr B. Bower Report on natural resource management 980 May 1984- June 1984 . . Dr D. Taylor Interim maintenance of Science and Environment Library System of Australia (SELSA) 1,125 May 1984- August 1984 . . L. Pedley Illustration plates for Flora of Australia 2,500 May 1984- August 1984 . . J. Morse Report for Flora of Australia-Gibson Desert flora 1,500 May 1984- October 1984 . . Dr D. Laurence Restoration work to four paintings 1,650 May 1984- December 1984 . . B. Gosnell Graphic design for State of Environment Report 1,500 June 1984- July 1984 . . J. Ware Report on the effect of fiscal measures on the achievement of environmental objectives 1,968 June 1984- August 1984 . . Prof J. Sinden Report on methodology to develop national damage costs to the environment by current natural resources management practices 6,500 June 1984- August 1984 . . Prof R. Chadwick Up-date data base for AREA model 7,500 June 1984- August 1984 . . Dames and Moore Pty Ltd Develop protocol for pilot monitoring trace metals in the marine environment 22,000 June 1984- December 1984 . . Dr L. Prott and P. O'Keefe Legal advice on Australian accession to UNESCO Convention on Means of Prohibiting and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 16,000 June 1984- January 1985 . . J. Smith Assess means of promoting the National Conservation Strategy for Australia (NCSA) and a general conservation ethic 1,096 July 1984 . . Control Data Australia Edit and manage facilities for the ADP system of the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 14,000 July 1984- August 1984 . . Australian Chemical Industry Council Provide expert assistance for cases of incorrect identification of substances nominated for the core inventory of Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 10,000 July 1984- September 1984 . . C. R. Eckermann and Associates Analyse, review and promote recommendations for the development of the ADP system for the National Air Quality Data Centre 20,750 July 1984- September 1984 . . Dr T. Schwaner Prepare Elapid snake data 2,245 July 1984- October 1984 . . Compris Information Systems Implement claims, registration and assessment system for PLR 11,500 July 1984- December 1984 . . Compris Information Systems Implement claims, registration and assessment system for PLR 11,500 July 1984- January 1985 . . Control Data Australia Develop computer-based software essential to compilation of Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances 9,800 July 1984- June 1985 . . Rear Adm A Robertson Report on overseas maritime museums 2,000 August 1984- September 1984 . . R. Brechwoldt Prepare text for booklet on conservation and management of remnant endangered vegetation 4,600 August 1984- November 1984 . . R. Brechwoldt Prepare text for booklet on conservation and management 7,101 August 1984- June 1985 2,501 Dr D. James Report on energy development and environment quality management 5,000 September 1984- December 1984 . . Compris Information System Implement survey and payment system for PLR 14,790 October 1984- January 1985 . . AWA Computer Services Implement catalogue production system for PLR 8,820 October 1984- January 1985 . . Dr H. Ford Prepare text for pamphlet on farm birds as biological controls of pests 800 October 1984- January 1985 . . Dr T. MacFarlane Illustrations for Flora of Australia 400 October 1984- February 1985 . . ANOP Market Research Conduct survey on public attitudes to the introduction of unleaded petrol 44,000 October 1984- October 1985 . . K. Raymond Conduct Industrial Democracy Seminar 976 November 1984 . . D. Redden Illustrations for Flora of Australia 400 November 1984 . . Rear Adm A. Robertson Advise on concept and development of future National Maritime Museum 8,000 November 1984- January 1985 . . S. Monteith Report for Fauna of Australia 880 November 1984- February 1985 . . R. Grieve Study on government procurement policy and recycling of paper 10,000 November 1984- April 1985 . . Meat Market Craft Centre Pty Ltd Marketing survey of Australian art and craft at international airports in Australia 18,000 November 1984- June 1984 . . Dr W. Chew Illustrations for Flora of Australia 400 December 1984- January 1985 . . R. Brechwoldt Edit draft State of Environment Report 13,500 December 1984- January 1985 . . K. Wilson Illustrations for Flora of Australia 100 December 1984- February 1985 . . Prof. R. Carolin Illustrations for Flora of Australia 1,000 December 1984- March 1985 . . A. Tonks Provide compendium of cultural statistics relating to the Commonwealth's role in cultural affairs 15,000 December 1984- March 1985 . . McLennon Magasanik & Associates Report for Australian Environment Council on effects of government policies and action on recycling in Australia 12,000 December 1984- May 1985 . . J. Wilson Prepare part of text for Teachers' Guide for National Conservation Strategy of Australia 2,500 January 1985- March 1985 . . Control Data Australia Install computer program on CSIRONET 8,190 January 1985- March 1985 . . K. Keneally Prepare data for Australian Biotaxonomic Information System-distribution of Australian mangrove species held by WA Herbarium 600 January 1985- March 1985 . . Dr A. Orchard Report on Western Tasmanian plants 10,000 January 1985- April 1985 . . H. Higgs Analyse and review paper on proposed National Energy Environment Strategy 4,000 February 1985- March 1985 . . G. Waghorn Cost evaluation Southern Cross Replica Trust 1,000 February 1985- March 1985 . . M. Thompson Carry out preliminary work on the feasibility of establishing an Australian Federal Libraries Committee and prepare draft report 2,608 February 1985- April 1985 . . Dr C. Pearson Report on conservation of the National Collections 4,760 February 1985- May 1985 . . Dr D. Lawrence Restoration work to four paintings 4,150 February 1985- June 1985 . . C. R. Eckermann & Associates Upgrade South Australian air quality data facilities 10,500 March 1985 . . D. Bedford Prepare data for Australian Biotaxonomic Information System-distribution of Australian mangrove species held by NSW Herbarium 900 March 1985 . . Dr M. Denny Prepare draft text for ``A Treeful of Homes'' pamphlet 800 March 1985- June 1985 . . Compris Information System Finalise computer conversion for PLR 14,256 March 1985- June 1985 . . Maunsell & Partners Prepare draft guidelines for radiological dose minimisation 8,000 March 1985- August 1985 . . Australian Archives PA Computers and Telecommunications Carry out the evaluation of tenders received for the provision of an ADP system for Australian Archives 56,711 September 1983- April 1984 . . PA Consultancy Services Audit progress of the installation of Archives' major computer system 22,000 October 1984- June 1985 . . E. Walker ADP Sub-system logical specification and design including definition of data flows and processes for interface specification 3,000 February 1985- May 1985 . . I. Denton Implementation of the operations systems environment including communications and computer operations 11,500 February 1985- August 1985 . . The Tradesmen's Software Undertake complex program activities, provide training and assist in testing of the Archives' computer equipment 14,400 March 1985- June 1985 . . Computer Science of Australia Review auditability requirements of Archives' computer system 1,560 May 1985 . . Computer People ACT Provide training support for the National Records Return Survey 10,880 May 1985- June 1985 . . National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) Dr J. O'Brien Continuing establishment of Percy Grainger Sound Archive Stage IV 7,350 July 1984- September 1984 . . Berry's Creative Pty Ltd Design of corporate logo and applications for Official Opening of NFSA 4,300 September 1984- October 1984 . . Emmaline Productions Design, procure and exhibit costume wardrobe as Archive's first public exhibition `Dressed to thrill' 27,662 November 1984 . . D. Fanshawe Survey, record and compile South Pacific indigenous music 26,000 November 1984- June 1985 . . Sponsor Brokers of Australia Prepare a strategic and policy program for sponsorship for the Archive 2,500 March 1985 . . Berry's Creative Pty Ltd Develop a comprehensive corporate identity program and visual standards manual on behalf of the Archive 8,000 March 1985- June 1985 . . T. Hewitt Design and co-ordinate planning for the `On Air' radio exhibition 6,245 April 1985- August 1985 . . yAspect Computing Pty Ltd Carry out programming tasks in order to modify the software system on the National Library of Australia mainframe computer 9,449 April 1985. . September 1985 . . J. Kent Carry out research of source material from a variety of archives and collections and select material appropriate for commentary and captions for use in the `On Air' exhibition 5,100 May 1985- June 1985 . . Computer Power Undertake a project to investigate the feasibility of introducing computer application for bar coding facilities to the National Film and Sound Archive 2,000 May 1985- August 1985 . . STATUTORY AUTHORITIES Australia Council J. Nelson Research for Individual Artists Inquiry 54 March 1983 . . R. Marks Research for Individual Artists Inquiry 1,860 March 1983 360 G. Appleton Research for Individual Artists Inquiry 2,250 March 1983 . . M. Grogan Research for Individual Artists Inquiry 675 March 1983 . . Horan, Wall & Walker Feasibility study for establishment of computer based arts press clipping service (Artsdoc) 1,610 March 1983- November 1983 . . N. Saunders Research for Individual Artists Inquiry 600 April 1983- May 1983 . . P. Hicks Research on Art & Working Life 2,444 April 1983- August 1983 . . S. Cassidy Research & Report on Art & Working Life 10,458 April 1983- August 1983 2,500 L. Sadubin Provide advice on proposal for book on woodturning 65 May 1983 . . Horan, Wall & Walker Compile artists name authority file 2,847 May 1983- January 1984 . . Unisearch Ltd Feasibility study of computer based National Crafts Information Service 19,475 May 1983- Feburary 1984 . . B. Hatton Prepare State crafts resources reports for publication 1,998 May 1983- February 1984 . . A. Bowne Prepare summary paper for Individual Artists Inquiry 150 June 1983 . . Document Research Services Analysis of survey of ticket voucher system 500 June 1983 . . G. Appleton Edit & write copy for 82/83 Annual Report 1,700 June 1983- September 1983 . . Institute of Applied Economic & Social Research, University of Melbourne Surveys of attitudes to the arts 8,000 June 1983- continuing . . C. Westwood Draft guidelines on use on non-sexist language 1,400 July 1983 . . K & L Horler Report on performer's protection 4,348 July 1983- September 1983 398 Tukathyme Pty Ltd Review name authority list for Artsdoc 9,315 July 1983- January 1984 . . J. Carrick Publishing Service Produce architectural & design newsletter 11,200 July 1983- June 1984 . . J. Kent Update of Aboriginal Arts Board Literature Program Review 1,800 August 1983 . . S Martin & P Bick Report on Moral Rights for Artists 3,875 August 1983- September 1983 . . J. McDonald Feasibility study for performing arts magazine 5,000 August 1983- December 1983 . . Horan, Wall & Walker Prepare 1984 edition of Ozarts 7,750 August 1983- June 1984 . . ABG Pty Ltd-M. Goodwin Performing Arts Touring Survey-collect data on community needs at public meeting in 21 centres 11,812 September 1983- November 1984 . . W. Collie Performing Arts Touring Survey-research assistance 1,352 September 1983- November 1983 . . Dr J. Beed Performing Arts Touring Survey-review of questionnaires 2,400 October 1983- November 1983 . . L. Marshall Performing Arts Touring Survey-research assistance 4,146 November 1983 . . W. Collie Prepare material for successor to Australia Theatre 1,500 November 1983- December 1983 . . J. Clayton Prepare Ethnic Arts directories 6,400 November 1983- March 1984 . . K. Dator Performing Arts Touring Survey-research assistance 169 December 1983 . . L. O'Halloran Performing Arts Touring Survey-research assistance 2,132 December 1983- February 1984 . . S. Harries Artsdoc-prepare press clippings prior to indexing 785 January 1984 . . Sydney University Sample Survey Centre Performing Arts Touring Survey-data preparation and analysis and computing of data obtained from survey questionnaires 2,150 January 1984- February 1984 . . M. Goodwin Performing Arts Touring Survey-financial analysis 1,350 January 1984- March 1984 . . Horan, Wall & Walker Implement Artsdoc data base-system development 5,000 January 1984- June 1984 . . M. Turner Artsdoc-index press clippings for data base 5,800 January 1984- June 1984 . . C. Winning Artsdoc-index press clippings for data base 5,800 January 1984- June 1984 . . K. Harman Produce catalogue of books written with Literature Board assistance 210 February 1984 . . Sage Research Consultants Performing Arts Touring Survey-additional analysis of questionnaire data 150 February 1984 . . J. Hammer Performing Arts Touring Survey-research assistance 408 February 1984 . . R. Morris Document records management system 1,681 February 1984- March 1984 . . J. Carrick Publishing Service Feasibility study of inclusion of promotional crafts material in national newspapers/magazines 2,750 February 1984- November 1984 . . R. Radford Adviser re Paris Bienniale 1985 282 March 1984 . . L. Fell Performing Arts Touring Survey-research & report on implications of new technology for touring 800 March 1984 . . J. Kent Prepare manual on Youth Music Administrators & Music Co-ordinators Conference 800 March 1984 . . L. Houbein Multicultural Literature Program-workshop proposals 100 March 1984 . . Prof. D. Throsby & Dr G. Withers Study of community benefits from the arts-paper 2,000 March 1984- August 1984 . . J. Cameron Report on cultural funding in Australia 6,450 March 1984- December 1984 . . Moral Rights Publications Prepare publication on Moral Rights of Artists 1,000 April 1984- May 1984 . . R. Khoo Research input data for Artsdoc 4,940 April 1984- August 1984 . . M. Rona Artsdoc-indexing of press clippings & establishment of guidelines 2,268 April 1984- August 1984 . . Price Waterhouse Report on taxation issues affecting artists and arts organisations 13,000 May 1985 . . K. Brown National research project into artist run spaces 7,500 May 1984- August 1984 . . Triad Information Management Data entry for Artsdoc 5,000 June 1984 . . R. Khoo Train Automatic Data-base Processing (ADP) Supervisor 640 June 1984 . . V. Moffitt Design and produce 1983/84 Annual Report 10,238 June 1984- September 1984 5,238 A. Karakostas-Seda Multicultural Literature Program-organise conference 9,400 June 1984- October 1984 2,500 J. Delaruelle Assist Multicultural Cultural Writers' Weekend Advisory Committee 7,725 June 1984- October 1984 2,500 J. Malcolm Moral Rights report-edit & prepare discussion paper 2,800 July 1984 . . J. Kent Summary of responses of paper on allocation of music funds 350 July 1984 . . M. Maxwell Report on Future Development of Orchestras in Australia 18,000 July 1984- September 1984 . . S. Hidden Research assistance for study on Future Development of Orchestras 6,069 July 1984- December 1984 . . J. Carrick Publishing Service Produce architectural & design newsletter 12,675 July 1984- June 1985 . . M. Griggs & Associates Co-ordinate US tour of Australian architecture 25,929 July 1984 continuing . . L. Andresen Conduct Public Speaking Skills Workshop 500 August 1984 . . F. Oeser Duties with Design Arts Board following its establishment 11,672 August 1984- September 1984 . . King & Associates Pty Ltd Financial services for study on Future Development of Orchestras in Australia 13,000 August 1984- November 1984 . . G. Knowles Statistical study of Australian crafts industry 18,184 August 1984- March 1985 1,000 P. Tennison Enterprises Media Awareness & Tuition Program 100 September 1984 . . E. Kulakauskaus Performing Arts Touring Survey-financial analysis 919 September 1984 . . P. Griffiths Presentations Pty Ltd Conduct Media training workshops 1,540 September 1984 . . T. Kelly Arts Employment Inquiry-Community Employment Program study 2,238 September 1984- October 1984 . . A. Denes Analyse responses to paper on allocation of music funds 1,000 September 1984- October 1984 64 Inter Arts Consultancy Co-ordinate visit of Paul Derrez 3,557 September 1984- November 1984 . . Product Development International Pty Ltd Develop marketing model for an Australian arts organisation 26,600 September 1984- December 1984 . . T. Miller Produce information videos for Aboriginal Arts Board 2,936 September 1984 1,468 Dr B. Bartlett Occupational Health project 24,000 September 1984- March 1985 80 R. Hecks Review of Community Arts Officer Program 15,504 September 1984- March 1985 1,499 MacIntyre, Brown Associates Conduct Introduction to Time Management seminar 270 October 1984 . . Stuart Brooke Management Consultants Conduct Interpersonal Communications workshop 1,580 October 1984 . . M. Kirkwood Design ``Cross Current'' exhibition 1,800 October 1984- November 1984 . . Dr G. Withers Performing Arts Touring Survey-provide expert opinion on first draft report and additional analysis 500 November 1984 . . Besako Pty Ltd History of festivals-research assistance 240 November 1984- December 1984 . . F. Lumsdaine Performing Arts Touring Survey-research assistance 377 November 1984- December 1984 . . H. McTaggart Train keyboard staff 560 November 1984- December 1984 . . S. Laurent Assist mounting of ``Cross Current'' exhibition 219 December 1984 . . Progeni Systems Ltd Conduct Computer awareness courses 1,800 December 1984- February 1985 . . Stuart Bourke Management Consultants Training in transactional analysis for Directors 485 January 1985 . . Greg Campbell & Associates Pty Ltd Conduct Staff development workshop 1,000 January 1985 . . G. Dowsett Arts Employment Inquiry-research 3,422 January 1985- February 1985 . . V. Binns Invisible Heritage program-Advise on development of guidelines and criteria 200 January 1985- February 1985 . . G. Hawkins Arts Employment Inquiry-research 6,259 January 1985- March 1985 . . M. Griggs & Associates Develop proposal for touring ``Australian built'' architecture exhibition 2,500 January 1985- June 1985 . . Elizabeth Wells Management Data for medium range Music Board plan and analysis of 1985 music grant decisions 5,305 January 1985- July 1985 . . M. Sbizzirri Research for Submission to House of Representatives Inquiry into Commonwealth assistance to the arts 230 February 1985 . . J. Murdoch Compile directory of arts audio visual material for use in schools, colleges, universities 6,000 March 1985- September 1985 . . Price Waterhouse Implications of indirect taxation for the arts-report 6,000 March 1985- continuing . . S. Firkin Translate German documents 1,644 April 1985- May 1985 . . Compass Consulting Services Study for National Exhibition Touring Agency 20,000 April 1985- May 1985 . . Australian Film and Television School R. Francis Advise on promotion of school within industry 11,000 June 1984 continuing . . Peat Marwick Mitchell Specification of a replacement accounts computer 1,437 December 1984 . . Australian Film Commission R. Hartman Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development and interview applicants; write reports 2,970 March 1983- April 1983 . . A. Blonski Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development and interview applicants; write reports 2,085 March 1983- April 1983 . . S. Turkiewicz Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; write reports 350 March 1983- May 1983 . . B. Wright Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 425 March 1983- June 1984 . . G. Appleton Women's Film Fund (WFF) member. Read and assess any applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,050 April 1983 . . S. Levy WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 700 April 1983 . . M. Ansara WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,170 April 1983 . . N. Miller WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 615 April 1983 . . C. Fitchett Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; write reports 660 April 1983 . . Quantum Script Services Pty Ltd Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; write reports 295 April 1983 . . Lestron Pty Ltd Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; write reports 2,010 April 1983- May 1983 . . Trout Films Pty Ltd Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; write reports 1,560 April 1983- May 1983 . . A. Blonski Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; write reports 350 April 1983- May 1983 . . G. Gardiner Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 1,175 April 1983- June 1984 . . J. West Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 475 April 1983- June 1984 . . F. Bandler Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 350 April 1983- June 1984 . . R. Hartman Production Assessor. View film at double head and write report. 30 May 1983 . . E. Witcombe Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 1,350 May 1983- June 1984 . . J. Smyth Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 1,425 May 1983- June 1984 . . J. Phipps Production Assessor. View film at double head and write report 20 June 1983 . . Smiley Films Provide advice on Commission's duties as investors' representative; provide production advice; liaise with industry 56,703 June 1983- October 1984 . . A. Blonski Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports 650 July 1983- August 1983 . . B. Robinson Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; write reports 650 July 1983- August 1983 . . Great Scott Productions Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports 1,040 August 1983 . . M. Stiles Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; write reports 1,040 August 1983 . . E. Jacka Specialist Script Assessor. Read and assess avant garde script; write report 100 August 1983 . . B. McRae Advise Project Assessors and Officers on budgets 850 August 1983- December 1983 . . J. MacIntosh Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 400 August 1983- June 1984 . . M. Jenkins Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 575 August 1983- June 1984 . . L. Stern WFF Assessor. Read, assess and write report on WFF production application 45 September 1983 . . M. Ansara WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,035 September 1983- October 1983 . . S. Levy WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF. Interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,260 September 1983- October 1983 . . P. Lovell WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 960 September 1983- October 1983 . . A. Blonski Script Assessor. Read and assess scripts and write reports 500 September 1983- October 1983 . . R. Crossley Consultant on adaptation of book `Annie's Coming Out' for film 3,000 September 1983- October 1983 . . Merlin Consultants Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 1,650 September 1983- June 1984 . . Red Heart Pictures Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; view projects at double head; write reports 5,090 October 1983- November 1983 . . Lestron Pty Ltd Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; view projects at double head; write reports 5,090 October 1983- November 1983 . . McRae Saunders Productions Production Budget Consultant. Check and assess budget of production applications and write reports 530 October 1983- . . M. McMurchy Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports 1,235 October 1983- November 1983 . . Kinescope Pty Ltd Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports 1,235 October 1983- November 1983 . . B. Robinson Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports 1,105 October 1983- November 1983 . . Glass House Production Pty Ltd Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 900 October 1983- November 1983 . . D. Godden Consultant on craft heritage 800 October 1983- November 1983 . . Fitzroy Flix Film Productions Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports. 1,105 October 1983- November 1983 . . B. Parish Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 2,275 October 1983- December 1983 . . S. Levy WFF Panel Member. Attend meetings and viewings as member of Women's Film Unit Steering Committee 300 October 1983- March 1984 . . A. Thorne Consultant on anthropological programs 21,777 October 1983- June 1984 . . K. Denton Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 700 October 1983- June 1984 . . B. Barnard Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 150 October 1983- June 1984 . . C. Peake Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development. 300 October 1983- June 1984 . . M. Wright Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 1,450 October 1983- June 1984 . . B. Lunney Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 525 October 1983- June 1984 . . C. Green Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 475 October 1983- June 1984 . . Tunnilear Pty Ltd Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 150 October 1983- June 1984 . . Lestron Pty Ltd Production Assessor. Additional consultation with filmmakers while conducting Creative Development Branch (CDB) Production Assessment interstate 200 November 1983 . . R. Porter Script Assessor. Feedback assessment of CDB funded script 50 November 1983 . . C. Fitchett Script Assessor. Provide reader's reports on scripts submitted to CDB Script Office 400 November 1983 . . R. Bishop Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; view projects at double head; write reports 5,090 November 1983 . . H. Safron Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 75 November 1983 . . M. McClusky Script Consultant. Act as Consultant Script Officer. Screen applications; organise and participate in assessment 1,625 November 1983- December 1983 . . Sampson Productions Pty Ltd Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 175 November 1983- June 1983 . . R. Platt Consultant employed on non-exclusive contract prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 675 November 1983- June 1984 . . Weis Films Pty Ltd Consultants employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, and make recommendations for script development 75 December 1983 . . A. Blonski Script Assessor. Provide reader's reports on scripts submitted to CDB Script Office 500 December 1983 . . M. Lethlean WFF Consultant. Prepare submission for Victorian Women's Film Unit 960 December 1983- February 1984 . . Damien Parer Productions Investigate possibility of Australian Marketing Seminars 6,370 December 1983- March 1984 . . CB Films Supervise and direct the operation of the Special Production Fund 29,813 December 1983- July 1984 . . Scriptwits Script Assessor. Provide reader's reports on scripts submitted to CDB Script Office 300 January 1984 . . McRae Saunders Productions Production Budget Consultant. Re-design CDB Production Application Form and Budget Form 300 January 1984- February 1984 . . J. Cruthers Production Budget Consultant. Re-design CDB Production Application Form and Budget Form 300 January 1984- February 1984 . . M. McClusky Script Assessor. Read and assess scripts and write reports 500 January 1984- March 1984 . . A. Blonski Script Assessor. Provide reader's reports on scripts submitted to CDB Script Office 300 January 1984- April 1984 . . J. Balodis Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports 1,365 February 1984 . . E. Jacka Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development; interview applicants; write reports 1,365 February 1984 . . C. Fitchett Script Assessor. Provide reader's reports on scripts submitted to CDP Script Office 600 February 1984 . . Garner Gore Pty Ltd Script Assessor. Read and assess applications for script development and interview applicant; subsequently view funded projects at double head; write reports 1,072 February 1984 . . A. Blonski WFF Panel Member. Read and assess Melbourne applications to WFF interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 255 February 1984 . . J. Cruthers Production Budget Consultant. Check and assess budget for Creative Development Branch production application; write report 45 February 1984 . . M. McClusky Script Consultant. Act as Consultant Script Officer. Screen applications; organise and participate in assessment 1,990 February 1984- March 1984 . . F. Maloney Cultural Activities Review Research 6,750 February 1984- April 1984 . . P. Maxwell Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 1,925 February 1984- June 1984 . . E. D. and E. A. Roberts Consultants employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 195 February 1984- June 1984 . . B. Grummels Exhibition and distribution report 10,720 February 1984- August 1984 5,600 Filims Production Specialist (Animation) Assessor. Read and assess animation applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 325 March 1984 . . Seven Dimensions Pty Ltd Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; subsequently view projects at double head; write reports 2,230 March 1984 . . S. Dermody Production Specialist Assessor. Read and assess avant garde production application and interview applicant; write report 325 March 1984 . . V. O'Donnell Production Specialist Assessor. Read and assess one avant garde production application and interview applicants; write report 65 March 1984 . . M. Jenkins Assess applications for the Producer Support Scheme 900 March 1984 . . S. Levy WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 660 March 1984- April 1984 . . A. Blonski WFF Guest Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 720 March 1984- April 1984 . . N. Miller WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,125 March 1984- April 1984 . . J. Kendall WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 2,145 March 1984- April 1984 . . Rosemary Cresswell Publications Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; subsequently view funded projects at double head; write reports 2,620 March 1984- April 1984 . . P. Davies Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; write reports 2,230 March 1984- April 1984 . . L. Stern Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; write reports 1,072 March 1984- April 1984 . . McRae Saunders Productions Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding and interview applicants; write reports 2,620 March 1984- April 1984 . . U. Ryghe Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 100 10 March 1984 . . M. McClusky Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 300 March 1984- June 1984 . . R. Caswell Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 450 March 1984- June 1984 . . J. Duigan Consider, assess, make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 375 March 1984- June 1984 . . S. Matthews Report on Radiation Subscription Television 13,920 March 1984- August 1984 4,000 J. Cameron Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 100 April 1984 . . G. Lownes Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 75 April 1984 . . L. Jones Consider, assess, make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding. 400 April 1984 . . Vintage Productions Consultant on video sound post-production 300 April 1984 . . D. Tupicoff Production Specialist (Animation) Assessor. Read and assess animation production applications and interview applicants; write reports 130 28 April 1984 . . McRae Saunders Productions Production Budget Consultant. Check and assess budgets of CDB Production applications and write reports 100 April 1984 . . Harold Landar Script Services Pty Ltd Consultants employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 1,150 April 1984- June 1984 . . 25th Glitter Pty Ltd Consultants employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 1,050 April 1984- June 1984 . . J. Waites Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 375 April 1984- June 1984 . . L. Jones Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 475 April 1984- June 1984 . . Glensea Pty Ltd Consultants employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 175 April 1984- June 1984 . . B. Weis Devise a program for developing comedy writers and performers 1,950 April 1984- July 1985 . . J. Clarke Devise a program for developing comedy writers and performers 1,950 April 1984- July 1985 . . B. Hodgson Cultural activities review 240 April 1984- July 1985 . . U. Wirdt Report on radiated Subscription Television 11,520 April 1984- August 1984 4,000 T. Haydon Documentary Fellowship. Supervising consultant of the Scheme 14,518 April 1984- Continuing . . K. Gilbert Consultant on Aboriginal affairs 600 May 1984 . . Media Resources Consultant on media techniques 1,725 May 1984- June 1984 . . F. Mora Consultant employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 75 May 1984- June 1984 . . J. Robertson Survey of special effects facilities 750 May 1984- December 1985 . . BT Australia Financial analysis of satellite services 17,430 May 1984- December 1985 12,430 D. Court Advise policy unit on policy issues 2,725 May 1984- April 1984 . . Mansel Holdings Advise policy unit on policy issues 29,947 May 1984- April 1985 . . J. Bedford Prepare Bulletin ``Words into Pictures'' 16,800 May 1984- Continuing . . R. Hartman Specialist Script Assessor. Read, assess and write report on funded script 15 June 1984 . . R. Sdraulig Production Assessor-Swinburne applications. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 750 June 1984 . . A. Blonski Documentary Fellowship. Panel Member. Interview/assess candidates for fellowship 1,425 June 1984- July 1984 . . S. Sewell Documentary Fellowship. Panel Member. Interview/assess candidates for fellowship 1,425 June 1984- July 1984 . . B. Connolly Documentary Fellowship. Panel Member. Interview/assess candidates for fellowship 1,425 June 1984- July 1984 . . K. Cameron Documentary Fellowship. Panel Member. Interview/assess candidates for fellowship 1,425 June 1984- July 1984 . . Rosemary Cresswell Productions Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 3,950 June 1984- August 1984 . . J. Pringle Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 9,000 June 1984- September 1984 . . R. George Selection panel meetings; counsel writers; read and assess 700 June 1984- June 1985 . . Me Paz Holding Pty Ltd Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 450 July 1984 . . Trout Films Pty Ltd Specialist Script Assessor. Read, assess and write reports on two funded scripts 45 July 1984 . . Australian Film and Television School Budget Workshop Consultant. Conduct and participate in Budget Workshop and advise applicants on preparation of budgets 240 July 1984 . . A. Knight Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 3,360 July 1984- August 1984 . . V. Duigan Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 2,100 July 1984- August 1984 . . P. Lovell Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 12,180 July 1984- October 1984 . . M. Hassan Prepare report for Film Commission on Film Australia 9,000 July 1984- October 1984 . . T. Wohlers Monitoring of new technology; computer database 920 July 1984- February 1985 . . T. Haydon Supervise, advise upon and direct all aspects of National Program 48,330 July 1984- July 1985 For maximum of 104 days became 179 G. Isaac Assist the Script Office in the development of Australian writers 33,000 July 1984- July 1985 . . Elder Lake Pty Ltd Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 2,860 August 1984- September 1984 . . J. Ricketson Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 3,075 August 1984- September 1984 . . E. Jacka Production Specialist avant garde Assessor. Read and assess avant garde applications; interview applicants; write reports 260 23 August 1984 . . L. Whitmore Production Specialist (Animation) Assessor. Read and assess animation applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 260 August 1984- September 1984 . . J. McKimmie Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 3,075 August 1984- September 1984 . . Market Street Films Ltd Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 2,860 August 1984- September 1984 . . B. Gliddon Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 7,560 August 1984- October 1984 . . S. Murray Publications 1,000 August 1984- November 1984 . . L. Gailey WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,923 September 1984- October 1984 . . M. Ansara WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,500 September 1984- October 1984 . . A. Blonski WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,245 September 1984- October 1984 . . D. Drew WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meetings 1,515 September 1984- October 1984 . . Junet Pty Ltd Consultant on Defence Programs 32,740 September 1984- October 1984 8,790 K. Cameron Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 7,200 September 1984- November 1984 . . J. Stephens Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 4,200 September 1984- November 1984 . . P. Tripp Music video report 1,500 September 1984- January 1984 . . Filims Production Specialist (Animation) Assessor. Read and assess animation applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 455 October 1984- November 1984 . . L. Jones Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 4,800 October 1984- November 1984 . . Prof. J. Mackie Consultant on Aboriginal culture 900 October 1984- November 1984 60 J. Ricketson Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 5,040 October 1984- December 1984 . . J. Balodis Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 7,800 October 1984- December 1984 . . Australia Software Research Computer database 5,000 October 1984- March 1985 . . Brian Walsh and Associates N.S.W. video production facilities report 4,100 October 1984- March 1985 . . J. Skrzynski Assess international marketing potential for Australian films 8,407 October 1984- April 1985 . . Australian Copyright Council Video rental and audio-visual copyright service 3,500 October 1984- April 1985 . . I. Pietsch Consultant on `New Edge' editing equipment prior to installation 200 November 1984 . . D. Marr Documentary Fellowship. Panel member interview/assess candidates for fellowship 2,050 November 1984- December 1984 . . F. Freilberg Documentary Fellowship. Panel member interview/assess candidates for fellowship 2,050 November 1984- December 1984 . . U. Ryghe Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 9,600 November 1984-February 1985 . . K. Berryman Research outcome of experimental Film and Television Fund Projects 500 November 1984-February 1985 . . Al et Al Promotional advertising proposals 2,500 November 1984-February 1985 . . G. Atherden Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 9,600 November 1984-March 1985 . . T. Zubrycki Documentary Fellowship. Panel member interview/assess candidates for fellowship 2,050 November 1984 continuing . . R. Hughes Documentary Fellowship Panel member interview/assess candidates for fellowship 2,050 November 1984 continuing . . J. Toma Documentary Fellowship Panel member interview/assess candidates for fellowship 2,000 December 1984-March 1985 . . Voyager Films Pty Ltd Consider, assess and make recommendations on projects referred to the Special Production Fund for investment/funding 150 January 1985 . . N. Armfield Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations. 6,600 January 1985-April 1985 . . J. Pringle Consider and assess applications for Script Development 7,800 January 1985-April 1985 . . A. Knight Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 4,200 January 1985-April 1985 . . Spectrum Research NSW Cinema audience attitudinal research 26,650 January 1985-June 1985 . . L. Rabinowicz Subsidised exhibition and distribution report 28,763 January 1985-November 1985 9,663 G. Warner No Frills Fund (NFF) Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 600 February 1985 . . D. Beattie NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 120 February 1985 . . A. Bourke NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 480 February 1985 . . Heuristic Video NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 600 February 1985 . . K. Millard NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 120 February 1985 . . M. Wilkens NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 120 February 1985 . . N. Purdon NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 120 February 1985 . . J. Smithies NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 500 February 1985 . . S. Crofts NFF Assessor. Read and assess NFF applications; participate in assessors meetings 120 February 1985 . . D. Catchlove Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 4,200 February 1985-April 1985 . . B. Connolly Consider and assess Documentary Development Program Material 5,460 February 1985-May 1985 . . G. Coote Consider and assess Documentary Development Program Material 5,460 February 1985-May 1985 . . Corporate Education Pty Ltd Research into educational needs 8,250 February 1985-June 1985 4,654 M. Jenkins Assess applications for the Producer Support Scheme 900 March 1985 . . H. Crawford Assess applications for the Producer Support Scheme 900 March 1985 . . M. Carroll Assess applications for the Producer Support Scheme 900 March 1985 . . M. Lee Production Specialist (Avant Garde) Assessor. Read, assess and write report on avant garde production applications; interview applicants 260 March 1985 . . U. Ryghe Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 2,500 March 1985 . . Heuristic Video Production Specialist Assessor. Read, assess and write report on Creative Development Branch avant garde production application 65 March 1985 . . T. Zubrycki Production Specialist Assessor. Read, assess and write report on Creative Development Branch production application 90 March 1985 . . L. Whitmore Production Specialist (Animation) Assessor. Read, assess and write report on Creative Development Branch animation production applications; interview applicants 455 March 1985-April 1985 . . D. MacDougall Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 3,855 March 1985-April 1895 . . C. Dobbin Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 2,685 March 1985-April 1985 . . Dennis Tupicoff Animations Production Specialist Assessor. Read, assess and write reports on animation production applications; interview 3 applicants 285 March 1985- April 1985 . . S. Lawson Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 3,855 March 1985- April 1985 . . B. McKenzie Production Assessor. Read and assess applications for production funding; interview applicants; write reports 2,685 March 1985- April 1985 . . A. Whitehead WFF Assessor Guest Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meeting 1,995 March 1985- April 1985 . . M. Ansara WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to Women's Film Fund; interview applicants; write reports; attend meeting 1,230 March 1985- April 1985 . . J. Sabine WFF Assessor Guest Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meeting 540 March 1985- April 1985 . . A. Blonski WFF Panel Member. Read and assess applications to WFF; interview applicants; write reports; attend meeting 675 March 1985- April 1985 . . G. Farmer Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 2,100 March 1985- April 1985 . . D. Rapaic Assess educational media needs 4,957 April 1985 2,457 J. Weiley Export marketing developments grants 3,149 April 1985- June 1985 . . Panoptikon Pty Ltd Consultant on motor cycle and motor cycle clothing 7,104 April 1985- June 1985 . . A. De Groen Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 9,000 April 1985- July 1985 . . J. Overton Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 3,240 April 1985- June 1985 . . M. Lander Advise on small business management to Sydney Filmmakers Co-op; submit report 285 May 1985 . . C. Dobbin Production Assessor. Swinburne projects; read and assess Swinburne students' applications for production funding; write reports 330 May 1985 . . P. McGarvin Consultants employed on non-exclusive contracts prior to formation of Script Office to consider, assess, make recommendations for script development 100 May 1985 . . B. Lewin Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 2,100 May 1985- June 1985 . . H. Zilko Assess marketing strategy for national program films and report 1,409 May 1985- June 1985 . . The Vision Factory Consult with government clients on communication techniques 7,061 May 1985- August 1985 4,554 Macquarie Bank Tax Incentives for Films 10ba analysis 4,600 June 1985 . . K. Mueller Consider and assess applications for Script Development-make recommendations 8,640 June 1985- October 1985 . . Australian Heritage Commission K. Gott Queensland Lighthouse Survey 2,500 June 1983- July 1983 . . A. Mortlock Inscription of certificates for Register of National Estate 491 June 1983- January 1983 . . Water Studies Centre Chisholm Institute of Technology Assessment and Report on National Estate siginificance of East Gippsland Rivers 5,500 June 1983- June 1984 . . E. Trueman Inspection and Report of Tharwa Bridge 50 August 1983- November 1983 . . P. Dermondy Assessment of objections to entries in Register of National Estate for Darwin and Alice Springs 568 September 1983- October 1983 . . J. Mora Report on legislation to protect the National Estate 3,000 September 1983- June 1984 . . Prof. R. Slatyer Preservation of commemorative plaques of Australian World Heritage sites 829 October 1983 . . Prof. K. Inglis Survey of War Memorials 31,000 October 1983- July 1984 . . Prof. K. Inglis Survey of War Memorials 2,000 August 1984- September 1984 . . J. Cannon Development of project for Heritage Week 960 December 1983- January 1984 . . Dr P. White Report on cultural significance of first Government House site 600 December 1983- January 1984 . . Prof G. Seddon Report on Murrumbidgee River Corridor 3,000 January 1984- February 1984 . . Dr A. Keto Study on conservation value of tropical rainforest 15,000 January 1984- June 1984 . . Drs R. Jones, J. Allen Field reconnaissance of pre-historic sites in South West Tasmania 9,600 January 1984- June 1984 . . J. Brine Assessment of objection to entry in Register of National Estate 150 April 1984- August 1984 . . S. McMurray Nomination and evaluation of places for the Register of the National Estate 15,000 January 1984- July 1985 . . D. Zeigler Nomination and evaluation of places for the Register of the National Estate 15,000 January 1984- August 1985 . . B. Prince Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Research-nominations for Register of National Estate 9,000 February 1984- October 1984 . . Aboriginal Sacred Sites Authority, Darwin Northern Territory Aboriginal Heritage Research 9,000 February 1984- November 1984 . . I. McNiven Queensland Aboriginal Heritage Research-nominations for Register of National Estate 9,000 February 1984- January 1985 . . J. McComb Nomination and evaluation of places for the Register of the National Estate 10,000 February 1984- July 1985 . . Dr D. Allworth Nomination and evaluation of places for the Register of the National Estate 15,000 February 1984- August 1985 . . A. Jeffrey Nomination and evaluation of places for the Register of the National Estate 15,000 February 1984- August 1985 . . L. Rivett, C. Ogleby Production of a handbook of Heritage Photogrammetry 2,500 March 1984- August 1984 . . D. Bullbeck Aboriginal site documentation at Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies 7,000 April 1984- September 1984 . . J. Hanrahan Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Research-prepare nominations for Register of National Estate 9,000 April 1984- February 1985 . . National Parks and Wildlife Service of NSW NSW Aboriginal Heritage Research-nominations for Register of National Estate 9,000 April 1984- June 1985 . . Department of Environment and Planning, Heritage and Conservation Branch South Australia Aboriginal Heritage Research-nominations for Register of National Estate 9,000 April 1984- June 1985 . . Northern Kimberley Environmental Resources Survey natural resources of Kimberley Region of W.A. 12,000 April 1984- September 1985 . . Geological Society of Australia Review of geological sites identification in Australia 5,000 April 1984- October 1985 . . G. Chaloupka Aboriginal Rock Art Site Recording N.T. 5,000 May 1984- September 1984 . . P. Cuppaidge Research assistance to Chairman of Australian Heritage Commission 1,200 May 1984- November 1984 . . L. McMillan Nomination and evaluation of places for the National Estate 10,000 May 1984- May 1985 . . P. Helman Survey of natural resources N.T. area 5,000 May 1984- June 1985 . . J. Dymock Survey of Aboriginal cultural resources N.T. area 19,000 May 1984- June 1985 . . S. Sullivan, Dr M. Pearson Textbook on Principles of Cultural Resource Management 27,300 May 1984- continuing . . H. McFie Assessment of objection in Register of National Estate 283 June 1984- August 1984 . . J. Briggs Delineation of important habitats of endangered plant species 5,000 June 1984- September 1984 . . D. Lewis Documentation of National Estate Sites in Northern Territory 7,000 June 1984- September 1984 . . Prof C. O'Connor Significant bridges project for Register of National Estate 2,211 June 1984- December 1984 . . Prof F. Gale Study on impact of tourists upon Aboriginal Art Sites at Ayers Rock 23,456 July 1984- May 1985 . . Prof S. Bowdler Documentation of Aboriginal sites on Buccaneer Archipelago, W.A. 2,500 July 1984- June 1985 . . Tasmanian College of Advanced Education Assessment of objections to the entry of the Cascade Brewery and the Beaconsfield Gold Mine Buildings, in the Register of the National Estate 100 July 1984- July 1985 . . Compris Information Systems Pty Ltd Re-develop and implement National Estate Register system 5,000 August 1984 . . R. Allom Report on `Guidelines for Project Blizzard' Mawsons Hut, Antarctica 3,814 August 1984 . . NT Development Co. Produce a management plan of the Khalin Triangle, know as Myilly Point 6,633 August 1984- April 1985 . . CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources Continue testing and development of the methodology for Australian Environmental Geographic Information System (AEGIS) for two pilot areas 30,000 August 1984- July 1985 . . R. Varman Study remains from the First, Second, and Third Settlements at Norfolk Island 13,672 August 1984- August 1985 . . P. Corkey Report on National Estate significance historic buildings and conservation areas 300 September 1984- October 1985 . . Compris Information Systems Pty Ltd National Estate Register System Implementation 13,000 October 1984 . . Footscray Institute of Technology-Dr B. Logan Study of financial incentives for heritage conservation 1,500 December 1984- April 1985 . . Access Archaeology Study of the cultural significance and resources of Namadgi National Park 600 January 1985 . . Forestry Technical Services Pty Ltd Environmental impact assessment of a Tasmanian woodchip industry 7,000 March 1985- April 1985 . . Dr D. Dale Documentation of Shark Bay 10,000 May 1985- July 1985 . . N. Horsfall Report North Queensland Rainforests sites 3,750 May 1985- July 1985 . . R. Robins Study of Queensland Aboriginal Fish Traps in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Wellesley Islands 4,500 May 1985- August 1985 . . Dr P. Lauer Study of Queensland Aboriginal sites 9,000 May 1985- August 1985 . . D. Hill Discussion paper on Wilderness Identification Legislation and Protection in Australia 5,000 May 1985- December 1985 . . Dr P. Tyler An examination of the significance and management requirements of a number of Tasmanian Lakes 6,500 May 1985- continuing . . Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service Western Australian Museum Study of incidental catch of small cetaceans in the gillnet fisheries in Australian waters 51,000 July 1983- June 1985 15,500 Australian National University (ANUTECH) Study of geomorphology of the South Alligator River region 32,000 October 1983- June 1985 5,000 Australian National University Preservation of Aboriginal rock art, Kakadu National Park 31,500 October 1983- June 1985 . . James Cook University of North Queensland Survey of dugong in the Torres Strait 25,000 November 1983- June 1984 . . CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources Feasibility study of the impact of fire on flora and fauna of Kakadu National Park 37,620 November 1983- September 1985 5,540 Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service Study of Japanese snipe in Victorian and Tasmanian waters 32,000 December 1983- February 1985 . . South Australian College of Advanced Education Feasibility study for a Ranger Training Manual 29,000 December 1983- October 1985 . . Australian National University Study of bats on Christmas Island 30,000 January 1984- June 1985 . . University of Sydney Study on dynamics of Kangaroo populations 68,000 January 1984- December 1985 38,000 University of New England Study of sea snakes stage 1 27,445 February 1984- March 1985 . . University of New South Wales Study of the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby 5,546 March 1984- August 1984 . . The Alan Fletcher Research Station, Queensland Survey of exotic weed species, Norfolk Island National Park 5,000 April 1984- June 1984 . . CSIRO Division of Entomology Study of invertebrates of Philip Island 20,000 April 1984- June 1985 . . B. Mitchell Study of Christmas Island vegetation 27,728 May 1984- June 1985 1,695 Dr H. Dawbin History of the exploitation of Southern Right Whales in Australian waters 6,500 May 1984- June 1985 . . Western Australian Museum Western Australia Southern Right Whale Survey 7,900 May 1984- June 1985 . . Western Australian Museum Report on Southern East Coast Right Whales 10,300 June 1984- June 1985 . . Western Australian Fisheries and Wildlife Department Western Australia dugong survey 4,000 June 1984- January 1985 . . University of New South Wales Study of the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby 3,000 October 1984- June 1985 . . Drs A. M. and A. Ayling Coral Sea survey 9,127 October 1984- June 1985 . . RSPCA Report on cruelty in Kangaroo culling 44,000 October 1984- June 1985 . . Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Study of waders in Australia Stage 3 41,800 October 1984- September 1985 . . Dr P. Werner Study of forest tree dynamics-Kakadu National Park 24,900 October 1984- January 1986 . . Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Rapid appraisal of Christmas Island conservation values 5,145 November 1984- March 1985 . . University of Melbourne Norfolk Island seaweeds survey 450 November 1984- March 1985 . . Australian National University Study of Norfolk lichens and mosses 3,776 November 1984- May 1985 . . Australian National University Development of a forest community predictive model 7,862 November 1984- October 1985 . . Western Australian Museum Study of incidental catch of small cetaceans in the gillnet fisheries in Australian waters 62,000 November 1984- December 1985 23,000 University of Tasmania Investigation of Bettongia gaimardi in Tasmania 34,847 November 1984- December 1985 . . South Australian Museum South Australia Southern Right Whale Survey 12,000 November 1984- February 1986 . . Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service Survey of Huon Pine, Tasmania 24,000 November 1984- March 1986 2,000 University of New South Wales Study of kangaroo/sheep interactions in the arid zone 21,000 November 1984- continuing . . CSIRO Development of a National Biogeographic Information System 29,000 December 1984- August 1985 . . International Council for Bird Preservation Interwader study 12,000 December 1984- October 1985 . . CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources Development of expert fire management system for Kakadu National Park 15,080 January 1985- August 1985 . . Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service Study of Japanese snipe in Victorian and Tasmanian Waters 40,000 January 1985- October 1985 . . D. Tunbridge Report on Gammon Ranges: Aboriginal names for mammals 7,160 January 1985- October 1985 1,000 CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research Study of economic losses caused by Kangaroos 55,000 January 1985- November 1985 . . Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service Survey of Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby 3,800 January 1985- February 1986 . . P. Kailola Revision of marine fish list 11,000 February 1985- June 1985 . . Monash University Study of environmental factors affecting koala fertility 9,300 February 1985- June 1985 . . L. Fraser Report on requirements of disabled people in National Parks 10,000 February 1985- July 1985 . . Gagudju Association Northern Territory Report on Aboriginal rock art painting in Kakadu National Park by Najombolmi 8,400 February 1985- September 1985 2,400 Gagudju Association Northern Territory Species in Kakadu National Park 15,500 February 1985- October 1985 . . CSIRO Division of Plant Industry Review of endangered Flora List 24,000 February 1985- December 1985 . . University of New England Evaluation of the accuracy of pellet counts in estimating macropod populations 14,000 February 1985- December 1985 . . University of Queensland Establishment of a disease free Koala colony 9,000 March 1985- June 1985 . . University of New England Study of sea snakes, Stage 2 37,784 March 1985- February 1986 . . Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Survey of Western Whipbird/Western Bristlebird 5,600 May 1985- June 1985 . . Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Survey of Coxen's Fig Parrot 4,000 May 1985- June 1985 . . Fidelity Research Pty Ltd Study on migrant awareness of conservation values in Australia 15,000 May 1985- June 1985 . . Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority G. Shaw Report on the design of project management system for Education/Information Section 340 March 1983- May 1983 . . M. Bryce Development of Great Barrier Reef sign system 9,800 March 1983- September 1983 . . G. Bull Analyse visually dominant organisms data from Manta Tow coral surveys 13,200 March 1983- November 1983 . . Dr A. Ayling Coral trout survey Whitsunday and Townsville areas 11,832 April 1983- May 1983 . . Dr C. Wallace Study of year to year variation in recruitment of juvenille hard corals on reef front 1,876 April 1983- December 1983 . . T. Hundloe Compile fisheries economic of the Great Barrier Reef 4,897 April 1983- December 1983 . . Dr P. Sale Annual survey of recruitment of selected reef species on Capricornia Reefs 8,887 April 1983- June 1984 . . Prof. B. Dalton H. Reynolds History of Crown of Thorns incidence in the Great Barrier Reef Regional Phase II 12,000 April 1983- February 1985 . . K. Bullock Re-draft of article for Parks journal 200 May 1983 . . B. Kinsey Produce research display 900 May 1983- September 1983 . . L. Bryant Implement database design plan 10,086 May 1983- September 1983 . . M. Bryce Assess and make recommendations on existing GBRMPA design and usage standards (publications) 1,954 May 1983- January 1984 . . M. McAvan Graphic design assistant for several projects 450 June 1983 . . P. Harrison Effects of fuel oil, emulsifier and lower salinity on the Indo-Pacific reef coral 2,784 June 1983- August 1984 . . Dr J. Baker Assoc Prof M. Pichon G. Oliver Evaluate biological and economic aspects of coral collecting in the Great Barrier Reef Region 83,117 June 1983- August 1985 887 S. and M. Middleton Index publications for REEF Database 1,200 July 1983- October 1983 . . A. Batt Index publications for REEF Database 1,200 July 1983- June 1984 . . A. Walker Index publications for REEF Database 1,102 July 1983- June 1984 . . I. Simons REEF Database Indexing 1,200 July 1983- June 1984 . . B. Whitten Index publications for REEF Database 1,000 August 1983- October 1983 . . C. Walker Index publications for REEF Database 1,000 August 1983- October 1983 . . Prof P. Wilson Study boundary layers associated with tidal flows past isolated reefs 6,080 August 1983- November 1983 . . B. Bingley Index publications for REEF Database 822 August 1983- November 1983 . . C. Hickey REEF Database Indexing 468 August 1983- December 1983 . . Dr V. Harriot Study of methods for the re-establishment of hard corals in denuded reef systems 10,091 August 1983- December 1983 . . D. McCabe Stage I Travelling Exhibition-The Great Barrier Reef and the Marine Park concept 3,926 August 1983- February 1985 160 Assoc Prof P. Sale Provide demographic data and recommendations for management guidelines for the collection of aquarium fish in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 41,302 August 1983- June 1986 . . Computer Specification Consulting Services Representations/contact/extension analysis; set up database sub program 15,400 September 1983- May 1984 1,200 Dr C. Wallace Study of the reproductive ecology of eight staghorn coral species 2,741 September 1983- June 1984 . . Assoc Prof M. Pichon Study of coral reef metabolism and calcification 1,800 September 1983- September 1984 . . S. Munro REEF Database Indexing 792 October 1983- December 1983 . . G. Bull Study of planktonic dispersal of laval corals 19,232 October 1983- July 1984 . . Dr P. Hutchings Dr P. Davies W. Kiene Study biologic Reef destruction-products, rates and causes 45,159 October 1983- December 1985 . . M. McAvan Graphic design assistant for several projects 1,125 November 1983- December 1983 . . B. Whitten Index publications for REEF Database 1,998 November 1983- January 1984 . . A. Batt Index publications for REEF Database 1,200 November 1983- June 1984 . . Dr M. Gourlay Collect information on physical and geomorphological processes forming and maintaining cays 5,000 November 1983- December 1984 . . Computer Specification Consulting Services Correct computer database 180 December 1983 . . J. Catalona Edit the Australian Littoral Society Resource Inventory Data (for the REEFLEX Database) 2,950 December 1983- March 1984 . . Dr H. Marsh Field study to monitor dugongs killed by Hope Valley Aboriginal community 2,169 December 1983- June 1984 . . Gould League of Victoria Prepare GBR Junior Survival Book 2,000 December 1983- September 1984 . . A. Smith Dr J. Baker Dr H. Marsh Dr G. Taylor Report on traditional uses of marine resources of Aboriginal communities on the east coast of Cape York Peninsula Stage 1 42,600 December 1983- June 1985 . . Dr D. Abel Development of the collaborative reef geographic information system (CORGIS) based on extension of the relational database model 50,000 (21,000 paid by CSIRO) December 1983- June 1986 . . T. Graham Geomorphological information on the Continental shelf coral reefs and coastline from Fitzroy to Gould Islands 900 1983 . . D. Bellwood Study the post settlement of parrot fish 559 1983 . . G. Eckert Study on sex patterns and competitive interaction in three species of Thalassoma 900 1983 . . E. Gyuris Study on genetic variability among geographically isolated nesting populations of the Loggerhead Turtle 593 1983 . . G. Jones Study on the productivity and bioaccumulation of trace elements by blue-green algae of the Great Barrier Reef 900 1983 . . G. Smith Investigate the relationship between breeding and feeding of seabirds around reef environments 900 1983 . . B. Willis Investigate environmental and biological factors causing morphological variation in reef corals 353 1983 . . N. Whittem Study of the decision-making behaviour of day visitors to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 720 1983 . . A. Bothwell Monitor and catalogue parts of a coral community 1,800 1983-84 . . A. Duncan Study on microbial ecology of the staghorn coral 1,540 1983-84 . . P. Dupee Study on abundance, schooling behaviour, and population dynamics of silversides and sprats 1,660 1983-84 . . D. Parry Study on the algae bearing ascidians of the Great Barrier Reef 1,690 1983-84 . . Dr A. M. Ayling Coral trout survey in the Swain Reefs 5,545 January 1984 . . P. Banks Far Northern Section representation data entry 500 January 1984 . . Dr A. M. Ayling Stereo-photographic coral monitoring of Lizard Island area sites 3,345 January 1984- May 1984 . . Dr A. M. Ayling Coral trout survey in the Swain Reefs and stereophotgraphic monitoring 8,890 January 1984- May 1984 . . Dr D. Jupp Analysis of spectrographic data of Reef and shallow water features: remotely sensed data 7,500 January 1984- June 1984 . . C. Hickey REEF Database Indexing 792 January 1984- June 1984 . . Dr D. Pitts Application of recreational opportunity spectrum concepts to Marine Park planning 2,590 January 1984- June 1985 . . I. Simmons REEF Database Indexing 1,500 January 1984- June 1984 . . Dr J. Andrews Dr L. Bode Study flow modelling in the Central Great Barrier Reef Region 126,000 January 1984- December 1986 . . B. Bingley Index publications for REEF Datase 672 February 1984- June 1984 . . Dr J. Leis Dr C. Frith Analyse current measurement in Lizard Island Area in conjuction with larval fish study 2,750 February 1984- December 1984 . . M. Mason Capricornia poster reprint: produce design alternatives 500 March 1984- April 1985 . . R. Corrigan Provide policy advice on the issue of permits for tourist operators in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 3,900 March 1984- May 1984 . . Dr A. M. Ayling Coral trout survey of the Far Northern Section 47,000 March 1984- June 1984 . . B. Whitten Index publications for REEF Database 492 April 1984- June 1984 . . I. Simmons REEF Database Indexing 1,500 April 1984- June 1984 . . E. Hegeral Resource inventory, Far Southern Area, Great Barrier Reef 7,500 April 1984- August 1984 . . Dr G. Geoden Pilot study on by-catch of trawlers in juvenile fish nursery areas 10,000 April 1984- August 1984 . . Australian Littoral Society Inc. Conduct resources inventory Far Southern Area 7,500 April 1984- May 1985 . . Assoc Prof C. Phipps Study lagoon sediments and reef margins-Lady Musgrave Island 3,000 May 1984- June 1985 . . M. Bryce Marine Parks joint identity concept and design and GBRMPA logo redesign 1,900 May 1984- June 1985 . . P. Johnstone REEF Database Indexing 600 May 1984- June 1984 . . B. Whitten Index publications for REEF Database 600 May 1984- June 1984 . . Dr M. Liddle Dr A. Kay Study of the impact of reef-walking at Hardy Reef 5,000 May 1984- July 1984 . . Dr R. Henderson Study of the role of acanthaster in the Reef degradational process 3,040 May 1984- August 1984 . . Prof. R. Carter Pilot study on modern sediment disposal at the Burdekin River mouth 3,330 May 1984- November 1984 . . M. Florence Record `REEF WATCH' radio broadcast 950 May 1984- January 1985 . . Dr P. Flood Monitor changes in shoreline configuration over time 5,000 May 1984- February 1985 . . Dr. V. Hariott Review beche-de-mer (Holothurian) Surveys 1,675 June 1984 . . R. Easdown Produce script for audio-visual program 270 June 1984 . . T. Hundloe Survey of charter-boats Great Barrier Reef Region Stage 1 14,980 June 1984- October 1984 . . Dr D Pitts User survey Capricornia Section Stage 1 10,920 June 1984- February 1985 . . Mr R. Giddins Analyse fish tagging data 2,750 June 1984- May 1985 . . B. Barker-Hudson Edit manuscript for `Junior Survival' Book 160 July 1984 . . R. Easdown Draft article for magazine 400 July 1984- August 1984 . . S. and M. Middleton REEF Database Indexing 1,200 August 1984- December 1985 . . C. Walker REEF Database Indexing 622 August 1984- December 1984 . . B. Whitten REEF Database Indexing 2,976 August 1984- December 1984 . . P. Johnstone REEF Database Indexing 1,500 August 1984- December 1984 . . S. Munro REEF Database Indexing 852 August 1984- December 1984 . . I. Simmons REEF Database Indexing 2,748 August 1984- December 1984 . . B. Bingley REEF Database Indexing 1,044 August 1984- December 1984 . . A. Batt REEF Database Indexing 1,200 August 1984- December 1984 . . Dr A. Ayling Assess impacts associated with construction of navigation aids 3,623 September 1984- November 1984 . . A. Walker REEF Database Indexing 280 September 1984- December 1984 . . G. Bull Write sections of, and edit, `Reef Activities Manual' 400 September 1984- December 1984 . . G. Ryan Paint original for dugong poster 550 October 1984 . . R. Easdown Rewrite text for Crown of Thorns Starfish media kit 580 November 1984- December 1984 . . Dr A. Ayling Coral trout, coral and Crown of Thorns Starfish survey in Central Section 48,800 November 1984- March 1985 . . R. Easdown Draft script for National Museum of Victoria display 250 December 1984 . . T. Hundloe Survey of charter boats Great Barrier Reef Region Stage II 22,000 December 1984- August 1985 . . R. Barnes Examine the structure of a windward fringing reef-Orpheus Island 700 1984 . . S. Reed Produce a map of the geomorphology of Sanctuary reef 800 1984 . . Capricornia Institute of Advance Education Analyse soils from coral islands in the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 900 1984 . . A. Heyward Study on hereditary structure and genetic exchange in coral populations 1,800 1984 . . R. Johnstone Study in detrital fluxes of carbon and nitrogen on a coral reef 800 1984 . . J. Lanyon Study of functional morphology and nutrition of the dugong in relation to its seagrass diet 750 1984 . . B. Long Prepare bibliographic database of coral reef molluscs 950 1984 . . P. Muir Study on production of planulae in Pocillopora, Stylophora or Seriatopora 600 1984 . . K. Peckham Metabolic studies of the Crown of Thorns Starfish 800 1984 . . K. Means Application of recreational opportunity spectrum to a Marine Park 800 1984 . . I. Simons REEF Database Indexing 3,000 January 1985- June 1985 . . S. Munro REEF Database Indexing 1,500 January 1985- June 1985 . . S. and M. Middleton REEF Database Indexing 348 January 1985- June 1985 . . P. Johnstone REEF Database Indexing 1,200 January 1985- June 1985 . . C. Walker REEF Database Indexing 996 January 1985- June 1985 . . Dr A. Ayling Initial site survey of Cape Tribulation Coast fringing reef 2,200 January 1985- December 1985 . . M. Mason Produce Capricornia Zoning Map redesign poster 4,550 January 1985- Ongoing . . N. George Accural accounting advice and information 2,184 February 1985- April 1985 . . Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd Prepare guidelines and methodologies for Environmental assessment of offshore development 41,000 February 1985- August 1985 . . D. McCabe Travelling Exhibition-Great Barrier Reef and the Marine Park Concept Promotion Booklets 1,962 March 1985- April 1985 . . Eric White Associates Crown of Thorns media conference design and preparation 4,746 March 1985- April 1985 . . G. Bull Prepare Manta Tow Handbook 3,000 March 1985- May 1985 . . G. Moscardo Report on museum and interpretative exhibit design 500 March 1985- June 1985 . . David Flatman Associates Feasibility report on television series on coral reefs and management plus suggested treatment for series 25,000 March 1985- Ongoing . . M. Florence Record `Discovering the Great Barrier' audio tapes for radio 400 April 1985- May 1985 . . Dr D. Pitts User survey Capricornia Section Stage II 30,200 April 1985- December 1985 . . APT Computer Consultant System design specification for financial management database 9,240 May 1985- August 1985 . . National Library of Australia Pya Pty Ltd Report for Advisory Committee on National Collections 500 May 1983 . . H. J. Zwillenberg Associates International Conference on the Benefit of Information-Research Report 270 May 1983 . . Occupational Hygiene Consultants Environmental air sampling-Roof insulation 769 June 1983 . . Coopers and Lybrand Financial Statements Consultancy 5,000 June 1983- August 1983 . . Nicholas Clark & Associates Stage 2-Study of Film Archives in Australia 7,500 July 1983 . . Australian Galleries Pty Ltd Value paintings by Martin Boyd 200 July 1983 . . Information Systems Consultants Inc. Provide reporting service on North American meetings, liaison services 6,100 July 1983- December 1983 . . Caval Ltd Contribute to local Co-ordination and Help Desk functions of the Australian Bibliographical Network 8,400 July 1983- June 1984 . . S. Lu Zaw Translate Burmese material in `Luce Collection' 104 August 1983 . . Nicholas Clark & Associates Stage 2-Study of Film Archives in Australia 7,500 September 1983 . . S Kith Casual translator/interpreter 421 October 1983- November 1983 . . M Macellwain Conduct Occupational Health Workshop 30 November 1983 . . Infoscan Review of the Australian Bibliographic Network Training Programs 3,500 November 1983- February 1984 . . F Prescott Prepare Instruction Manual for cataloguing rare maps 2,000 January 1984 . . Information Systems Consultants Inc. Provide standard reporting service on North American meetings, liaison services, watching briefs 9,564 January 1984- June 1984 . . Information Systems Consultants Inc. Provide reporting service on North American meetings, liaison services, watching briefs 5,624 January 1984- March 1985 . . R Toop Examine `Banks Collection' 450 February 1984 . . D Button Mount and frame works on paper for exhibition 1,200 April 1984 . . Monash University Training-Salary for Miss S Russell 639 April 1984- May 1984 . . R Wight Mount and frame `Lionel Lindsay' exhibition 825 May 1984 . . R Lawton Value Dutch Bible 62 May 1984 . . Weekend Gallery Books Value Dutch Bible 50 May 1984 . . T Bussell Value 8 prints by Lionel Lindsay 80 May 1984 . . D Keightley Index Items for Australian Medical Index 20 May 1984 . . Infoscan Complete review of the Australian Bibliographical Network Training Programs 2,440 May 1984 . . D Prescott Prepare Instruction Manual for cataloguing rare maps 4,000 May 1984 . . Infoscan Index and Abstract 200 items for Australian Medical Index 720 June 1984 . . Infoscan Index and Abstract 200 items for Australian Medical Index 720 June 1984 . . D Keightley Index items for Australian Medical Index 720 June 1984- June 1985 . . Infoscan Index and Abstract 200 items for Australian Medical Index 740 June 1984- (continuing) . . Information Systems Consultants Inc. Provide reporting service on North American meetings, liaison services, watching briefs 4,126 July 1984- September 1984 . . Caval Ltd Contribute to Local Co-ordination and help desk functions of the Australian Bibliographical Network 7,700 July 1984- June 1985 . . D Keightley Index items for Australian Medical Index 1,440 July 1984- June 1985 . . J Sorby Prepare Floor Plan-Pictorial Collection and Services 1,890 August 1984- September 1984 . . Burroughs Ltd On site accounting system consultancy 700 September 1984 . . Mark Eisner and Associates Noise Control-Lacovac Packer Machine 600 September 1984 . . Information Systems Consultants Inc. Provide standard reporting service on North American meetings, liaison services, watching briefs 8,964 October 1984- December 1984 . . J Sorby Prepare Floor plan-Co-ordination and Management Division 1,942 November 1984 . . Caval Ltd Australian Bibliographical Network-Machine Readable Catalogue intake reviewing 1,500 March 1985- June 1985 . . Macromation Australian Bibliographical Network-Authorities 1984/85 2,293 May 1984- May 1985 . . G Clark Working Party on Emergency Procedures for the National Library of Australia 1,608 April 1985- June 1985 . . National Museum of Australia R Edwards Value Davidson Collection of Aboriginal Artifacts No Charge April 1983 . . G O'Donnell Carry out a pilot registration of 400 ethnographic objects 3,635 August 1983- September 1983 . . J Davidson Value and advise on bidding for Holt Collection of Aboriginal objects 640 October 1983 . . J Harwood Value Percival Proctor Aircraft proposed to be purchased by Museum 350 March 1984 . . Dr N Cossons Advise on aspects of the preliminary design concepts for proposed museum 750 March 1984 . . D Braitling Inspect and report on oblique model upright piano including valuation 30 March 1984- April 1984 . . Peter Raymond and Associates Value-P.S. Enterprise Mannum, S.A. 849 June 1984 . . W Sanguinetti Value projection equipment 101 June 1984- May 1985 . . B. Juddery Submit draft format for annual report; draft paragraphs for inclusion in annual report; co-ordinate all inputs for annual report and settle final draft. 2,702 June 1984- August 1984 . . Dr B. Stoddart Advise on establishment of proposed sports museum 500 August 1984- November 1984 . . Prof. B. Gandevia Examine and advise on medical texts included in a collection passing to the Museum from the Institute of Anatomy. Advise on inclusion of an Australian medical history segment in the Museum. 310 October 1984 . . G. Cedrenius B. Skoog Consult with officers on design and operational aspects of proposed museum. 968 October 1984 . . Aboriginal and Pacific Art Gallery Value-Pettinato collection of Aboriginal Artifacts 255 October 1984 . . P. Lavin Value upright piano ``Blasey'' 20 October 1984 . . Dr R. Bowden Value-Pettinato collection of Aboriginal Artifacts 200 November 1984 . . R. Wade Discussions concerning: * acceptance of Interim Council of Museum report; * proposals for construction of Yarramundi visitor centre and installation of small exhibitions at centre; * plans concerning development of Museum generally 222 November 1984 . . M. Woodhouse Value collection of postcards 140 January 1985 . . P. Kornan Value collection of postcards 451 January 1985- February 1985 . . Lunn, Dyer and Associates Pty Ltd Develop corporate identity program for Museum-Stage 1 21,209 February 1985- continuing . . H. Nguyen Interview master of Vietnamese refugee boat ``Hong Hai'' as part of research into the history of the vessel and passengers 1,480 March 1985 . . Pak Poy & Kneebone Pty Ltd Develop an ADP strategy for the Museum 15,792 March 1985- June 1985 . . R. Harrison Prepare a draft development plan for the Museum 11,904 March 1985- September 1985 . . Dr S. Richardson Research biography of Edgar Percival, Australian born designer of aircraft and development of Percival Aircraft Ltd. 2,302 March 1985- November 1985 . . R. Gray Value printing office and equipment at Echuca, Vic. proposed to be purchased by the Museum 268 April 1985 . . Sherbrook Antiques Value-Dalton's Printery, Echuca 268 April 1985 . . A. Byrne Advise and assist in listing of Southern Cross Memorial Collection 290 April 1985 . . K. Webber P. Summerfield Participate in meeting of Museums historians to consider centres of specialisation in museums concerned with cultural and technological history 932 May 1985 . . J. Wolverson Assist with survey of ``P.S. Enterprise'' by Department of Transport 404 June 1985 . . W. Johnson Value Travellers' Rest Museum, Cooma collection 1,124 June 1985 . . Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region Australian Atomic Energy Commission Study on radium-226 kinetics in freshwater turtles 33,700 April 1983-September 1985 . . University of Tasmania Study on limnology of billabongs 1,000 June 1983-October 1983 . . Australian Mineral Development Laboratories Analysis of water and residues 10,448 June 1983-June 1984 . . Chisholm Institute of Technology Study of fate of trace metals-Stage 5 201,075 July 1983-August 1985 . . University of Sydney Hair analysis 850 October 1983 . . Australian Atomic Energy Commission Study on accumulation of radionuclides in acid swamp soils 2,855 October 1983-November 1984 . . M. Julli Study on Magela Creek microcrustacea 4,000 November 1983-June 1985 . . University of Sydney Mill product examination 13,400 December 1983-June 1985 . . CSIRO Study of lead isotopes Ranger Tailings Dam 18,000 June 1984-March 1985 . . University of Sydney Study on uranium in blood and single hairs 50,617 August 1984-June 1985 . . University of New England Study of mussel migration 900 January 1985-April 1985 . . N.T. Conservation Commission Study on sediment transport Ranger Mine Area 28,500 January 1985 continuing . . CSIRO Study of holocene stratigraphy Magela floodplain 113,600 January 1985 continuing . . Australian National University Study of Aboriginal diet 58,500 February 1985 continuing . . University of Wollongong Report on holocene evolution of Magela Creek 47,000 March 1985 continuing . . Australian Atomic Energy Commission Radioactive tracer investigation 29,840 March 1985 continuing . . Australian Atomic Energy Commission Study of radon and radon daughters 22,000 March 1985 continuing . . Analytical Laboratories (ANALABS) Analysis of plant samples 29,000 April 1985 continuing . . (Question No. 1438) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of those campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid? (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question as at 20 August 1985 is as follows: (1) to (4) (a) The information sought is set out in the attached table. Advertising campaigns and research studies carried out by the Information and Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism (formerly a part of my Department) have not been included in this response. (4) (b) The available records do not enable a split of costs to be made. The amounts in the table comprise total payments including both fees for creative development and media placement costs. TABLE 1 ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS AND RESEARCH STUDIES Advertising campaigns Other Govt. agency Advertising agency Paid Total $ $ By-elections -Wannon AGAS/ICB Fortune Australia Country Press Association of Victoria Doyle Dane Bernbach Neville Jeffress Country Press Co-operative 2,039.24 1,777.70 4,194.71 4.00 1,102.37 9,118.02 -Bruce AGAS/ICB Fortune Australia Country Press Co-operative Doyle Dane Bernbach 10,505.37 5,180.47 15,968.12 31,653.96 -Moreton AGAS/ICB Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach 5,581.08 14,810.00 20,391.08 -Hughes AGAS/ICB Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach 14,064.25 18,086.75 32,151.00 -Richmond AGAS/ICB Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach Neville Jeffress 1,652.75 1,482.07 2,264.62 5,399.44 By-Elections -Corangamite AGAS/ICB Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach Country Press 2,578.32 13,338.40 1,682.85 17,599.57 116,313.07 Enrolment AGAS/ICB Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach Neville Jeffress Country Press S.A. Country Newspapers 1,643,764.00 1,353,772.09 84,685.00 73,780.23 23,702.67 3,179,703.99 1984 Elections and Referendums AGAS/ICB Doyle Dane Bernbach Monahan Dayman Adams USP Needham Gordon and Gotch 1,287.79 1,033,078.25 1,045,279.74 298.24 2,049,944.02 1984 Pre-election enrolment campaign AGAS/ICB Doyle Dane Bernbach Monahan Dayman Adams USP Needham Gordon and Gotch Canberra Liaison 674.70 641,458.31 451,445.69 155.52 4,463.15 1,098,197.37 Funding and Disclosure: Alert to Printers, Publishers and Broadcasters AGAS/ICB Gordon and Gotch 16,272.00 16,272.00 Habitation Review AGAS/ICB Saachi and Saachi, Compton Gough Waterhouse 33,998.60 33,998.60 (i) Industrial Elections AGAS/ICB Neville Jeffress/Gordon and Gotch 128,921.35 (ii) Party Registration AGAS/ICB Neville Jeffress Doyle Dane Bernbach Gordon and Gotch 51,478.41 9,495.59 17,939.26 78,913.26 Redistribution AGAS/ICB Doyle Dane Bernbach Neville Jeffress Country Press S.A. Country Press Monahan Dayman Adams Gordon and Gotch USP Needham Copy Quick Media Graphics 5,328.82 45,317.38 1,558.74 163.37 32,470.51 1,239.84 100,407.77 27.98 94.00 186,608.41 Research Studies Other Govt. agency Market Research Firm Paid $ Study into attitudes to enrolment No Inview 87,960.00 Evaluation of Aboriginal Electoral Education Program No Western Australian Institute of Technology 27,000.00 Evaluation of Schools' Kit-``Electing Australia's Federal Parliament'' No Canberra College of Advanced Education 12,300.00 Report on enrolment/population ratios at the time of the 1971, 1976 and 1981 censuses No Australian National University 1,000.00 Survey on the Senate ballot-paper No Roy Morgan Research 3,950.00 Study on Election-Survey of public knowledge of Parliament and the electoral process in relation to the 1984 elections No Roy Morgan Research 12,978.00 (i) Payment relates to program development. The campaign did not proceed because of financial cutbacks. (ii) A further breakdown of figures by agencies is not available. (Question No. 1484) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF ARTS HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT Central Office: (1) Ecofile, Images, Australian Environment Council (AEC) Newsletter, Environment Papers, Biologue, Flora and Fauna Series, Flora of Australia, Zoological Catalogue of Australia (2) - Ecofile- (a) 1983 (b) Environment Education Section (c) Contributions are sought from all environment and heritage areas of the portfolio. It is estimated that total staff resources required to produce each issue are 3 person-weeks (d) Quarterly (e) Finepress Offset Printing Co. Ltd under AGPS contract; print run 3800 (f) 3800; circulated to public libraries; environment centres; selected environment, professional and industry organisations; tertiary institutions; Commonwealth, State and Territory environment, conservation and education agencies; other Commonwealth departments; members of appropriate Commonwealth/State/Territory advisory Committees; Commonwealth, State and Territory Parliamentarians; Parliamentary Libraries; the Press; numerous businesses and individuals; Ministry for Arts, Heritage and Environment; and others on request (g) Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (h) To provide regular readable information on topical matters which relate directly to the Ministry's interests and activities. It aims to inform all sectors of the community (i) Printing costs: $900 per issue Staff Costs: see (c) above Administrative costs (direct): approximately $1500 per issue Images- (a) 1984 (b) Arts, Film and Heritage Division and the Information Section (c) Approximately 4 persons weeks. Contributions and background material are sought from the Division, edited and written by the Section (d) Quarterly (e) Canberra Printing and Publishing Co., print run 4000 (f) 4000; circulated to arts, film and heritage interest groups and individuals (g) Secretary, Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment (h) To inform the community of Departmental activities in the fields of arts, films and heritage (i) Printing $1100 per issue Staff: see (c) above Administrative (direct): approximately $1500 per issue Australian Environmental Council (AEC) Newsletter- (a) 1981 (b) Australian Environment Council Secretariat (c) 3 staff; 6% (d) 2 to 4 times per year (e) CPN Publications, Fyshwick, under Government Quick Print Contract; print run 1200 (f) 1200; circulated to State/Commonwealth environment areas, voluntary conservation groups, industry organisations, libraries, etc (g) Australian Environment Council Standing Committee (h) To inform interested people and organisations of the work of the AEC, and to inform in general on items of environmental interest (i) Costs: Publication costs are met by Australian Environment Council Trust Fund to which Commonwealth and State Governments contribute Printing: $720 per issue Staff: see (c) above Environment Papers- (a) 1985 (b) Research and Information Branch (c) Incidental time expense of staff members involved in undertaking approved research projects (d) Periodically (e) AGPS under terms of standard bookwork contract; print run 200 for official use. AGPS makes a commercial decision on the number of sale copies (f) 200; circulated to environmental policy-makers and specialists in Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments as well as to CSIRO researchers, tertiary education institutions and voluntary conservation organisations (g) Secretary, Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment (h) To make the results of the Department's research studies and other environmental work accessible to the community (i) Printing costs: approximately $1500 per issue Staff: see (c) above Administrative costs (direct): approximately $1500 per issue Newsletter- (a) 1984 (b) National Film and Sound Archive (c) 2 Staff; 1-10%; 1-2.5% (d) Quarterly (e) Canberra Publishing and Printing Co., print run 3500 (f) 3500; circulated to members of the film, television, radio and recorded sound industries; sponsors and donors; sister institutions and organisations; commissions, organisations and bodies within industry; lobby groups and special interest groups; heads of government departments and authorities; Senators and Members of Parliament with an interest in the archive; the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and persons within the Department; Museum Directors; public relations officers of related government departments; representatives of the ACT Tourist Bureau and the Australian Tourist Commission; Advisory Committee Members; Press; Ambassadors and High Commissioners; international bodies; and individuals with a special interest in the Archive. (g) Director, National Film and Sound Archive (h) To create awareness of the National Film and Sound Archive and provide a means of public accountability by a review of activities and developments; to generate publicity about the Archive through the press distribution; to provide a review of developments and daily ope-rations for the Archive's Advisory Committee and staff; to provide for presentation to special visitors and donors or supporters; to market programs and services for the Archive (i) $5100 per issue Biologue- (a) 1984 (b) Bureau of Flora and Fauna (c) 4 staff; 8% (d) Two issues per year (e) Calico Quick Print P/L, Braddon, A.C.T., print run 1000 (f) 1000; circulated to relevant biological libraries and all those registered with the Australian Biological Resources Study Participatory Program (g) Director, Bureau of Flora and Fauna (h) The objectives are to keep Australian and interested overseas biologists informed of the current and proposed activities and developments in the Australian Biological Resources Study (i) Printing: $400 Staff: $2,500 Administrative (direct): $660 Flora and Fauna Series- (a) 1984 (b) Bureau of Flora and Fauna (c) Contributions prepared by scientists participa-ting in the Australian Biological Resources Study. Six Bureau staff contribute 5 person months/year to the production (d) Three parts per year (e) Under AGPS contract by Watson Ferguson and Co., Brisbane, present run 200-1500 depending upon subject material (f) 100 copies distributed to State libraries, University libraries and museums. Remaining co-pies for sale by AGPS (g) Director, Bureau of Flora and Fauna, in conjunction with AGPS (h) To make available the results of research supported by the Australian Biological Resources Study to the scientific community and the general public (i) Printing: $5000 Staff: as in (c) above Administrative (direct): $5000 Flora of Australia- (a) 1981 (b) Bureau of Flora and Fauna (c) Contributions prepared by scientists participating in the Australian Biological Resources Study. Nine staff contribute 45 person months/year to the production (d) Two volumes per year (e) Under AGPS contract by Griffin Press, Adelaide; print run 3,500 to 8,000 depending upon subject material (f) 100 copies distributed to State libraries, University libraries and herbaria. Remaining copies for sale by AGPS (g) Director, Bureau of Flora and Fauna in conjunction with AGPS (h) To describe all the native and naturalized plant species in Australia, to give distribution and habitat information for each species and to provide identification keys (i) printing: $48,000 staff: see (c) above Administrative (direct): $48,000 Zoological Catalogue of Australia- (a) 1982 (b) Bureau of Flora and Fauna (c) Contributions prepared by scientists participating in the Australian Biological Resources Study. Eleven Bureau staff contribute 48 person months/year to the production (d) Three volumes per year (e) Under AGPS contract by Brown Pryor Anderson, Melbourne print run 1,500-5,000 depending upon the subject material (f) 100 copies distributed to State libraries, University libraries and museums. Remaining copies for sale by AGPS (g) Director, Bureau of Flora and Fauna in conjunction with AGPS (h) To provide taxonomic, distributional and ecological information on each species in the Australian fauna (i) Printing: $16000 Staff: see (c) above Administrative (direct): $16000 STATUTORY AUTHORITIES: Australia Council (1) Artforce; Caper; Design Point; Visual Arts Board Newsletter (2)- Artforce- (a) 1975 (b) Australia Council Secretariat (c) 1 Staff; 100% (d) Bi-monthly (e) Various printers, currently Rotary Press; print run 8,000 (f) 8,000; circulated to general community, artists, arts administrators (g) General Manager, Australia Council (h) To provide a forum for discussion and debate of issues affecting the practice of the arts in Australia (i) $75,300 (1985-86 estimate) Caper- (a) 1979 (b) Community Arts Board (c) 1 Staff; 1% (d) 2 to 3 times per year (e) various printers used, often Union Media; print run 3,000 (f) 3,000, circulated to general community, community arts organisations, and artists (g) Community Arts Board (h) To widely disseminate descriptive and evaluative material on community arts projects that have achieved their objective. To provide resource material on community arts and insights into processes through which successful results can be achieved. (i) $8,600 (1985-86 estimate) Design Point- (a) 1982 (b) Design Arts Board (c) 3 Staff; 4% (d) 4 times per year (e) Beaver Press; print run 3,000 (f) 2,550; circulated to designers, design educators and general community (g) Design Arts Board (h) To disseminate information about all fields of design and the work of the Design Arts Board (i) $13,000 (1985-86 estimate) Visual Arts Board Newsletter- (a) 1985 (b) Visual Arts Board (c) 5 Staff; 2% (d) Bi-annually (e) Wentworth Press; print run 4,000 (f) 4,000; circulated to artists, art museum personnel and galleries, art educators and students, and the general community (g) Director, Visual Arts Board (h) To inform the visual arts community of the Visual Arts Board's policies, programs and recent grant decisions (i) $5,800 (1985-86 estimates) Australian Film Commission (1) Information Update; Film Australia Catalogue; Coming Attractions Catalogue; Words into Pictures; Marketing Catalogue (2)- Information Update- (a) 1981 (b) Australian Film Commission (c) 5 staff; 1 editor-6%; 4 support staff-1% (d) Monthly (e) W. R. Bright and Sons; print run approx. 4,000 (f) approximately 1,000 as insert through `Encore' magazine; 3,000 circulated by Australian Film Commission in Australia, overseas and to all AIS and Department of Foreign Affairs posts (g) Chief Executive, Australian Film Commission (h) To keep film and television communities informed on major issues which affect the industry and the Australian Film Commission's activities in relation to these issues; to advise on policy and funding changes; to advise on issues of interest to filmmakers such as appropriate festivals, marketing news (i) $44,000 per annum (includes postage) Film Australia Catalogue- (a) Prior to 1976 issued via Department of the Media, post 1976 via Film Australia, a division of the Australian Film Commission (b) Australian Film Commission (c) 3 Staff; 1-45%; 1-10%; 1-5% (d) Annually (e) Agency Printing Pty Ltd; print run 7,500 loose-leaf folders, 2,500 bound copies (f) Circulated to all registered buyers of Film Australia programs; all overseas missions; all government film libraries, Australian Film Commission London, Los Angeles, Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra offices; and by mail for inquiries. Also distributed at international markets as previously listed (g) Marketing Manager, Australian Film Commission (h) To advertise the programs produced by Film Australia to enhance their sales potential and inform hirers of the product available. The catalogue includes films made for Federal Government departments and instrumentalities and films made under the National Program on issues of interest to Australians (i) $80,000 Coming Attractions Catalogue- (a) 1985 (b) Australian Film Commission (c) 2 Staff; 1-12%; 1-2.5% (d) Three times per year to coincide with major markets (e) Snap Printing (typed, not typeset); print run 900 (f) 900; circulated to international buyers, at major festivals and through Australian Film Commission offices (g) Director of Marketing, Australian Film Commission (h) To advise international buyers of projects financed and looking for distribution sales. Criteria are selective, and production companies' approval is sought for all entries (i) Cost: $4,500 Words into Pictures- (a) 1984 (b) Australian Film Commission (c) 2 Staff, 1% (d) Bi-monthly (e) Artwork, typesetting and printing via Berry's Creative/Silver Bullet; print run 2,500 (f) 2,500; circulated as mailout with `Information Update', to publishers, via Australian Film Commission offices. (g) Director, Project Development Branch (h) To provide information for filmmakers regarding literary works which are available for film and television production (i) $28,877 Marketing Catalogue- (a) 1977 as `Fifty Films' one-off initiative. Revived in 1983 as a Marketing Catalogue. (b) Australian Film Commission (c) 3 Staff; 2-9%; 1-3% (d) Annually (e) Artwork, typesetting, printing contracted out: 1984 to Silver Bullet/Berry's Creative; 1985 to Art-Vue Printing; print run 2,500 (f) 2500; available from all Australian Film Commission offices (Los Angeles, London, Sydney, Melbourne), on display at all major marketplaces and festivals such as MIP-TV, Cannes, Montreal, MIFED (Nilan), Monte Carlo, London Market, American Film Market, Berlin Film Festival, etc. (g) Director of Marketing, Australian Film Commission (h) To advise international buyers of the new film and television projects available for sale for cinema release, video, cable and television. All inclusions are with the approval of the production company, and do not, therefore, necessarily cover all production (i) $11,084 Australian Film and Television School (1) Australian Film and Television School Handbook; Program Training Handbook-Full-time Program; Program Training Handbook-Graduate Program; Recruitment Brochure for Graduate Program; Recruitment Brochure for Open Program; Media Information Australia (2)- Australian Film and Television School Handbook- (a) 1978 (b) Australian Film and Television School (c) 7 staff; 1% (d) Annually (e) Australian Film and Television School Document Reproduction Centre; print run 2500 (f) 2500; circulated to film, TV and media, education/government sectors, potential students, overseas schools, etc (g) Director, Australian Film and Television School (h) To inform and publicise the School's activities in an easily readable form to interested areas of the public arena (i) 1 full-time and 1 part-time staff and 1 part-time phototypesetter are employed in the School's full-time Document Reproduction Centre Program Training Handbook-Full-time Program- (a) 1975 (b) Australian Film and Television School (c) 1 Staff; 2.5% (d) Annually (e) Australian Film and Television School Document Reproduction Centre; print run 8000 (f) 8000; circulated to potential students and selected educational institutions (g) Director, Australian Film and Television School (h) To inform prospective students of courses available (i) 1 full-time and 1 part-time staff and 1 part-time phototypesetter are employed in the School's full-time Document Reproduction Centre Program Training Handbook-Graduate Program- (a) 1978 (b) Australian Film and Television School (c) 2 staff; 20% (d) Annually (e) Australian Film and Television School Document Reproduction Centre; print run 1000 (f) 1000; circulated to potential students (g) Director, Australian Film and Television School (h) To inform prospective students of courses available (i) 1 full-time and 1 part-time staff and 1 part-time phototypesetter are employed in the School's full-time Document Reproduction Centre Recruitment Brochure for Graduate Program- (a) 1985 (b) Australian Film and Television School (c) 1 staff; 1.5% (d) Periodically as required (e) Australian Film and Television School Document Reproduction Centre; print run 1000 (f) 1000; circulated to potential students (g) Director, Australian Film and Television School (h) To inform prospective students of courses available (i) 1 full-time and 1 part-time staff and 1 part-time phototypesetter are employed in the School's full-time Document Reproduction Centre Recruitment Brochure for Open Program- (a) 1977 (b) Australian Film and Television School (c) 1 staff; 1% (d) Periodically as required (e) Australian Film and Television School Document Reproduction Centre; print run 1000-2000 (f) 1000-2000; circulated to potential students (g) Director, Australian Film and Television School (h) To inform prospective students of courses available (i) 1 full-time and 1 part-time staff and 1 part-time phototypesetter are employed in the School's full-time Document Reproduction Centre Media Information Australia- (a) 1976 (b) Australian Film and Television School (c) 2 staff; 1-100%, 1-60% (d) Quarterly (e) by contract; print run 2000 (f) 2000; circulated to secondary and tertiary education institutions, media, industry, individuals and libraries (g) Australian Film and Television School (h) To cover a wide range of topics of interest to the media-part of the School's research and information obligation (i) Private; typeset and pasted up at School by Document Reproduction Centre Australian Heritage Commission (1) Heritage Newsletter (2)- (a) 1976 (b) Australian Heritage Commission (c) 1 staff; 15% (d) Quarterly (e) Various Australian printers; print run 3031 each issue (f) 3031; circulated to Commonwealth and State Government agencies, local government conservation groups and Members of Parliament (g) Director, Australian Heritage Commission (h) To provide a link with organisations involved in the Commission's work (i) Printing: $4800 Staff: $4410 Administration: $1000 Australian National Gallery (1) Australian National Gallery Association News (2)- (a) 1982 (b) Australian National Gallery (c) 6 staff; 10% average (d) Quarterly (e) Various printers; print run 6000 (f) 6000; circulated to Australian National Gallery Association Members (g) Director, Australian National Gallery (h) To provide information on works of art held at the Australian National Gallery and as an educational program for Members (i) Printing: $1500 Staff: $15 600 Administrative: $15 000 Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1) Australian Ranger Bulletin, CONCOM News (2)- Australian Ranger Bulletin- (a) 1980 (b) Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (Nature Conservation Information and Education Section) on behalf of State and Territory national parks and wildlife authorities (c) 1 staff; 20% (d) Twice yearly-Spring and Autumn (e) privately; print run of 2000 (f) 1500 approximately; circulated to those involved in national parks and wildlife managements, libraries of tertiary institutions conducting natural area management courses; 500 retained for counter distribution (g) Senior Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service officers and nominated officers from each State and Territory nature conservation agency (h) To provide a forum for training, communication and ideas-sharing on a national level by and for parks and wildlife rangers (i) Approximately $4800 per issue CONCOM News- (a) 1982 (b) Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (Nature Conservation Information and Education Section) on behalf of Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (c) 1 staff; 5% (d) Annually, following annual meeting of Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (e) Privately; print run of 1000 (f) 800-900; circulated to government conservation and environment protection agencies, public libraries, tertiary institution libraries, media; organisations, non-government conservation groups and interested individuals; approximately 100 retained for counter distribution (g) Senior Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service officers in co-operation with Council of Nature Conservation Ministers Secretariat (h) To provide information on the role and function of Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, its specialist committees and working groups and on meetings of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (i) $836 per issue Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1) Reeflections, Ebb and Flow, Bulletin, Technical Memorandum Series, Workshop Series (2)-Reeflections (a) 1977 (b) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (c) 2 staff; 30% (d) Quarterly (approximately) (e) Tender; 10,000 copies (f) 10,000; circulated to libraries, schools, general public (g) Chairman, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (h) To cover a number of topics related to the Great Barrier Reef and the Marine Park and to provide a forum for discussion (i) $5,000 per issue approximately Ebb and Flow (a) December 1982 (b) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (c) 3 Staff; 1-20%; 2-17% (d) Quarterly (approximately) (e) Tender; 6,000 per issue (f) 6,000 per issue; circulated to schools and teachers (g) Executive Officer, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (h) To specifically inform teachers and students to enhance their understanding of the Great Barrier Reef and its use as a teaching resource and to provide information on the Marine Park (i) $2,000 per issue approximately Bulletin (a) 1980 (b) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (c) Incidental time expenditure (d) Irregularly (twice per year, approximately) (e) Local holder of Government `Quickprint' contract at time of production; print run 6,000 per time (f) 6,000 per issue; circulated to relevant Reef users, libraries, etc (g) Chairman, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (h) To inform relevant audiences of changes in closed Reef area, etc (i) $600 per issue approximately Technical Memorandum Series (a) 1978 (b) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (c) Incidental time expenditure (d) Irregularly (once per 2 years, approximately) (e) Competitive quotes sought for each issue (f) Dependent on demand, relevant specialist audiences (g) Chairman, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (h) To provide papers relevant to Great Barrier Reef matters (such as research) in a form that can be distributed outside the Authority (i) Production costs are small but variable Workshop Series (a) 1978 (b) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (c) Incidental time expenditure (d) Irregularly (e) Competitive quotes sought for each issue (f) Dependent on demand; to relevant specialist audiences (g) Chairman, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (h) To produce proceedings sponsored by the Authority in a form that can be widely distributed (i) Variable depending on the size of the proceedings National Library of Australia (1) ABC News; ABN Authorities; ABN Catalogue; ABN News; AMRS (Australian MARC Record Service) Title Index on Microfiche; APAIS: Australian Public Affairs Information Service; Australian Books; Australian Government Publications; Australian Library and Information Research; Australian Maps; Australian National Bibliography; Film and Video Acquisitions; Indonesian Acquisitions List; Link-up; MARC NUCOM; National Film Lending Collection Catalogue; National Union Catalogue of Library Materials for the Handicapped; National Union Catalogue of Serials; Overseas Map Acquisitions; Pacific Affairs Current Awareness Bulletin (2)-ABC News (a) 1981 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 2 staff, 5% (d) Irregularly (2-3 each year) (e) Pink Panther, Canberra; print run 1,050 (f) 1,012; circulated to Australian and some overseas libraries (g) Director, Bibliographical Services Branch (h) To disseminate current news and technical information in the areas of acquisitions, bibliography and cataloguing (i) Printing: $1,260 Staff: $2,200 Administrative: $1,870 ABN Authorities (a) 1982 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 4 staff; 5% (d) Quarterly (e) Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run 375 (f) 356; circulated to Australian libraries and some overseas libraries (g) Chief Librarian, User Support Section, ABN Office (h) To share standard forms of catalogue headings (names and subjects) used by Australian libraries (i) Printing: $9,400 Staff: $5,470 Administrative: $4,650 ABN Catalogue (a) 1982 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 2 staff; 10% (d) Bi-annually (e) Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run 390 (f) 379; circulated to Australian libraries (g) Principal Librarian, Bibliography (h) To provide the National Union Catalogue of Monographs and non-book material held by Australian libraries (i) Printing: $13,360 Staff: $4,199 Administrative: $3,569 ABN News (a) 1982 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 6 staff; 14% (d) Bi-monthly (e) Pink Panther, Canberra; print run 800 (f) 730; circulated to Australian Bibliographic Network participants and other libraries, some overseas (g) Executive Officer, ABN Office (h) To disseminate information re the ABN and publicise new developments in ABN (i) Printing: $720 Staff: $7,147 Administrative: $6,075 AMRS (Australian MARC Record Service) Title Index on Microfiche (a) 1979 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 1 staff. Negligible-publication is by-product of an automated service (d) Monthly, annually (e) Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run 160 (f) 138; circulated to users of the Australian MARC Record Service and the Catalogue Card Service (g) Principal Librarian, Cataloguing (h) To provide an index to cataloguing data available from the National Library (i) Printing: $5,680 Staff: $233 Administrative: $198 APAIS: Australian Public Affairs Information Service (a) 1945 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 8 staff; 60% (d) Monthly, annually (e) Brown Prior Anderson, Melbourne; print run-monthly 1,350, annual 1,600 (f) monthly 1,281, annual 1,542; circulated to Australian and overseas libraries (g) Principal Librarian, Bibliography (h) To index Australian periodicals in the social science and humanities (i) Printing: $60,320 Staff: $104,625 Administrative: $88,931 Australian Books (a) 1949 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 2 staff; 10% (d) Annually (e) Paterson Press, Melbourne; print run 1,300 (f) 1,275; circulated to libraries, Australian posts and Australian Studies Centres overseas (g) Chief Librarian, Australian Reference (h) To provide an annual select list of recommended authoritative books (new titles and standard works in print) in various subjects relating to Australia (i) Printing: $4,117 Staff: $7,170 Administrative: $6,094 Australian Government Publications (a) 1961 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 6 staff; 100% (d) Quarterly, annually (e) Brown Prior Anderson, Melbourne; print run-1,100 quarterly, 1,300 annually (f) Quarterly 1,034, annually 1,265; circulated to libraries, Australian and overseas (g) Principal Librarian, Cataloguing (h) To provide a comprehensive listing of publications of government agencies of the Commonwealth, States and Territories (i) Printing: $25,786 Staff: $95,625 Administrative: $81,281 Australian Library and Information Research (a) 1981 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 1 staff; 5% (d) Bi-annually (e) Pink Panther, Canberra; print run 600 (f) 553; circulated to libraries and interested individuals in Australia and overseas (g) Chief Reference Librarian, Social Sciences and Humanities (h) To disseminate information on Australian projects and research work in librarianship and documentation (i) Printing: $1,560 Staff: $1,633 Administrative: $1,388 Australian Maps (a) 1974 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 1 staff; 45% (d) Annually (e) Brown Prior Anderson, Melbourne; print run 400 (f) 342; circulated to Government departments, university and college libraries and individuals in Australia and overseas (g) Map Curator (h) To provide a comprehensive list of maps representing areas within Australia and its territories and other maps of Australian association (i) Printing: $4,820 Staff: $9,709 Administrative: $8,253 Australian National Bibliography (a) 1961 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 25 staff; 5% (d) Monthly, 4 monthly, annually (e) Brown Prior Anderson, Melbourne; Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run-monthly 1,600, 4 monthly 1,150, annual 1400 (f) Monthy 1,492, 4 monthly 1,136, annual 1,222; circulated mainly to libraries in Australia and overseas (g) Principal Librarian, Cataloguing (h) To provide comprehensive listing of books, serials and pamphlets and music published in Australia (i) Printing: $84,997 Staff: $4,442 Administrative: $3,776 Film and Video Acquisitions (a) 1983 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 2 staff; 7% (d) Quarterly (e) Queanbeyan Publishing Co; print run 1,450 (f) 1,228; circulated in Australia to registered film borrowers of the Collection (g) Principal Librarian, Cataloguing (h) To provide an annotated and indexed list of films and videocassettes newly added to the National Film Lending Collection (i) Printing: $7,404 Staff: $4,875 Administrative: $4,144 Indonesian Acquisitions List (a) 1977 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 6 staff; 20% (d) 6 issues per year (e) Pink Panther, Canberra; print run 200 (f) 170; circulated in Australia and SE Asia to partners in cooperative acquisitions project and other libraries (g) Principal Librarian, Selection Acquisitions and Serials (h) To list the Library's significant collection of current Indonesian publications acquired by the Library's acquisitions office in Jakarta (i) Printing: $1,620 Staff: $22,966 Administrative: $19,521 Link-Up (a) 1980 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 1 staff; 10% (d) Bi-monthly (e) Pink Panther, Canberra; print run 1,000 (f) 950; circulated in Australia to libraries and agencies serving disabled people (g) Chief Librarian, Library Services for Disabled People Section (h) To disseminate and exchange information on library services for disabled people (i) Printing: $1,200 Staff: $3,052 Administrative: $2,594 MARC NUCOM (a) 1983 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 2 staff; 20% (d) Bi-annually (e) Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run 400 (f) 377; circulated in Australia to libraries (g) Principal Librarian, Bibliography (h) To provide, as part of the National Union Catalogue of Monographs, information about the holdings of Australian libraries for interlibrary loan purposes (i) Printing: $10,500 Staff: $7,766 Administrative: $6,601 National Film Lending Collection Catalogue (a) 1980 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 2 staff; 7% (d) Biennially approximately (e) Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run 800 (f) 750; circulated in Australia mainly to registered film borrowers of the Collection (g) Principal Librarian, Cataloguing (h) To list the complete holdings of films and videocassettes of the National Film Lending Collection (i) Printing: $2,812 Staff: $4,236 Administrative: $3,601 National Union Catalogue of Library Materials for the Handicapped (a) 1981 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 5 Staff (2 full time; 3 part time); 95% (d) Quarterly (e) Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run 250 (f) 237; circulated in Australia and overseas to libraries and agencies serving disabled people (g) Senior Librarian, Library Services for Disabled People Section (h) To list library materials for print-handicapped people held by libraries and agencies serving disabled people in Australia to facilitate inter-library lending (i) Printing: $2,140 Staff: $79,400 Administrative: $67,490 National Union Catalogue of Serials (a) 1984 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 14 Staff; 60% (d) Bi-annually (e) Micromation, Melbourne (microfiche); print run 1,100 (f) 1,061; circulated in Australia and overseas to libraries (g) Principal Librarian, Bibliography (h) To provide a National Union Catalogue of Serials held by Australian libraries (i) Printing: $13,410 Staff: $176,742 Administrative: $150,558 Overseas Map Acquisitions (a) 1975 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 1 Staff; 33% (d) Annually (e) Paragon Printers, Canberra; print run 300 (f) 150; circulated in Australia to government departments, university and college libraries and individuals (g) Map Curator (h) To list overseas Maps received in the National Library (i) Printing: $1,100 Staff: $5,796 Administrative: $4,927 Pacific Affairs Current Awareness Bulletin (a) 1981 (b) National Library of Australia (c) 2 Staff; 12.5% (d) Quarterly (e) Pink Panther,. Canberra; print run 650 (f) 550; circulated in Australia and overseas to libraries, academics, businesses, schools, embassies, Members of Parliament, both Federal and State (g) Principal Librarian, Area Studies (h) To provide an alerting bulletin listing publications relevant to Pacific rim countries (i) Printing: $800 Staff: $4,190 Administrative: $3,562 Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region (1) Annual Research Summary (2) (a) 1984 (b) Office of the Supervising Scientist (c) 3 staff; 5% (d) Annually (e) Contractors through AGPS; print run 800 (f) 800; circulated mainly to scientific and environmental libraries (g) Supervising Scientist (h) To disseminate results of Office of the Supervising Scientist research to facilitate exchange of information of relevance to the Office of the Supervising Scientist research program for the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region (i) Printing: $2,500 Administrative: $5,220 (Staffing plus overheads) Technical Memoranda (a) 1982 (b) Office of the Supervising Scientist (c) 3 staff; 45% (d) Periodically (e) Contractors through AGPS; print run 300 (f) 300; circulated mainly to scientific and environmental libraries (g) Supervising Scientist (h) To disseminate results of Office of the Supervising Scientist research and facilitate exchange of information of relevance to the Office of the Supervising Scientist research program for the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region (i) Printing: $6,000 Administrative: $46,980 (staffing plus overheads) Research Reports (a) 1981 (b) Office of the Supervising Scientist (c) 3 Staff; 50% (d) Periodically (e) Contractors through AGPS; print run 300-500 (f) 300-500; circulated mainly to scientific and environmental libraries (g) Supervising Scientist (h) To disseminate results of the Office of the Supervising Scientist research and facilitate exchange of information of relevance to the Office of the Supervising Scientist research program for the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region (i) Printing: $6,000 Administrative: $52,000 (staffing plus overheads) (Question No. 2304) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on public relations in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) What was the nature or subject of the public relations expenditure. (3) Was outside assistance obtained for public relations, if so, (a) who provided the assistance, (b) what payments were made and (c) why was the assistance sought. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australian Electoral Commission (1) (a) $52,848.64, (b) $197.00. (2) The money was expended to provide public relations support to the Australian Electoral Office for the 1983/84 enrolment campaign. (3) Yes. (a) Lee Paterson and Associates, (b) See 1 (a) and (b), (c) To ensure extensive and effective media coverage for the 1983-84 enrolment campaign. Australian Federal Police (1) (a) $38,050 (b) $66,093. (2) Salaries of the Director, Office of Information and Journalist (AFP). (The journalist was engaged for only the last five pay periods in 1983-84). (3) No. Department of the Special Minister of State (1) (a) $7,458 (b) $7,965. (2) One quarter of the salary of a Journalist A1 is assessed as being directed to public relations activity in the Department. (3) No. (Question No. 2332) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, 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 Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The information sought is set out in the attached table. (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 manner of their rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities, and of matters deemed of national importance. The necessity for an information campaign, such as those listed in the table, is determined according to these criteria. (4) The basis for remuneration for each campaign was payment for services provided under the accepted formula set out by the Australian Government Advertising Service. (5) (a) and (b) Yes, with all campaigns. Table 1 ADVERTISING Subject or Program Initiated by Conducted by Paid $ 1983/84 1984/85 Total $ By-Elections- Wannon Australian Electoral Commission (i) Doyle Dane Bernbach 481.71 481.71 Bruce AEC Doyle Dane Bernbach 977.23 977.23 Moreton AEC Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach 5,581.08 14,810.00 20,391.08 Hughes AEC Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach 14,064.25 18,086.75 32,151.00 Richmond AEC Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Berbach Neville Jeffress 1,652.75 1,482.07 2,185.42 79.20 5,399.44 Corangamite AEC Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach Country Press 2,578.32 13,338.40 1,682.85 17,599.57 77,000.03 Enrolment AEC Fortune Australia Doyle Dane Bernbach Neville Jeffress Country Press SA Country Newspapers 1,585,423.93 1,182,123.87 83,970.91 73,780.23 23,702.67 170,124.51 714.09 3,119,840.21 1984 Elections and Referendums AEC Doyle Dane Bernbach Monahan Dayman Adams USP Needham Gordon and Gotch 1,287.79 1,003,078.25 1,045,279.74 298.24 2,049,944.02 1984 Pre-election enrolment campaign AEC Doyle Dane Bernbach Monahan Dayman Adams USP Needham Gordon and Gotch Canberra Liaison 674.70 641,458.31 451,445.69 155.52 4,463.15 1,098,197.37 Funding and Disclosure: Alert to Printers, Publishers and Broadcasters AEC Gordon and Gotch 16,272.00 16,272.00 Habitation Review AEC Saachi and Saachi Compton Gough Waterhouse 33,998.60 33,998.60 (ii) Industrial Elections Returning Officers Neville Jeffress/ Gordon and Gotch 48,807.00 60,280.00 109,087.00 (iii) Party Registration AEC Neville Jeffress Doyle Dane Bernbach Gordon and Gotch 6,653.10 8,385.23 44,825.31 1,110.36 17,939.26 78,913.26 Redistribution Redistribution Committees and Augmented Electoral Commissions Doyle Dane Bernbach Neville Jeffress Country Press SA Country Press Monahan Dayman Adams Gordon and Gotch USP Needham Copy Quick Media Graphics 3,244.51 35,050.31 1,153.12 163.37 2,084.31 10,267.07 405.62 32,470.51 1,239.84 100,407.77 27.98 94.00 186,608.41 (i) Australian Electoral Office prior to 1.2.1984. (ii) Payment relates to program development. The campaign did not proceed because of financial cutbacks. (iii) A further breakdown of the figures by agencies is not available. (Question No. 2351) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) What was the expenditure by the Minister's Department and authorities under the Minister's control on advertising (other than classified newspaper advertising) by individual subject or program in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85. (2) Who (a) initiated and (b) conducted each campaign. (3) Why was each campaign necessary. (4) What was the basis of remuneration for each campaign. (5) Was the assistance of the (a) Information Co-ordination Branch or (b) Australian Government Advertising Service obtained. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The relevant agencies are the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Limited, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, the Central Land Council, the Northern Land Council, and the Tiwi Land Council. The response in respect of each agency is as follows: Department of Aboriginal Affairs (1) (a) $21,340.33. (b) Nil. (2) (a) The advertising was initiated by myself as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. (b) The campaign was conducted by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and was co-ordinated by the Australian Government Advertising Service. (3) The campaign was necessary to counter advertisements placed by the Australian Mining Industry Council on 31 May 1984, to provide an Aboriginal public perspective in respect of the Aboriginal and Islander (Heritage Protection) legislation. (4) The cost of the campaign, co-ordinated by the Australian Government Advertising Service but developed by a commercial advertising agency, was $21,340.33. This covered the agency's remuneration and the cost of advertising in major newspapers. (5) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. Aboriginal Development Commission (1) Nil. (2) to (5) Not applicable. Aboriginal Hostels Limited (1) Nil. (2) to (5) Not applicable. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (1) (a) and (b) Expenditure incurred on advertising in 1983-84 and 1984-85 was: Publications 1983-84...$2,844 1984-85...$2,787 Film Unit 1983-84...$8,094 Film Unit 1984-85...$10,508 (2) (a) and (b) The advertising was initiated and conducted by the Publications Director and Film Directors in their respective areas. (3) The advertising was necessary to promote the sale of publications and films produced by the Institute. (4) Not applicable. (5) No, as it was not required. Central Land Council (1) Nil. (2) to (5) Not applicable. Northern Land Council (1) (a) Nil. (b) $2,772. (2) (a) and (b) Bureau of the Northern Land Council. (3) To respond in the media on land rights issues. (4) The amount of $2,772 was paid to the Northern Territory News in November 1984 for three full-page advertisements setting out details of the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the role of the Northern Land Council in respect of the Act. (5) (a) and (b) No. Tiwi Land Council (1) Nil. (2) to (5) Not applicable. Offices of Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Commissioners (1) Nil. (2) to (5) Not applicable. (Question No. 2818) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985:. What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:. Based on expenditure in the financial year 1984-85, the respective percentages are-. (a) 50.4 per cent (b) 48.6 per cent (c) .8 per cent (d) .2 per cent (e) Nil. (Question No. 2863) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal been expanded from March 1983; if so, in what areas. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The enactments which conferred new jurisdiction on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal between 1 March 1983 and 28 February 1986 are: Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations-Refusal to issue noise certificate; revocation of noise certificate Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952-Cancellation of certificate of registration of Australian aircraft due to non-payment of statutory lien, after re-consideration by Secretary Air Pollution Ordinance 1984 (A.C.T.)-Specification of period in which approved preventive measures are to be carried out; direction by Authority to carry out prevention measures Archives Act 1983-Refusal to grant access, or partial access, to a record Australian Citizenship Act 1948-Refusal of application for Australian citizenship; refusal to register declaration renouncing Australian citizenship; refusal to register declaration resuming Australian citizenship; order depriving person or children of Australian citizenship; refusal to extend time in which person may apply to resume citizenship; amendment of certificate of Australian citizenship Australian Citizenship Regulations-Refusal by Minister to register person as Australian protected person; approval by Minister of cancellation of entry in register Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983-Declaration closing a road for a specified period Biological Control Act 1984-Decisions not to hold an inquiry; decision not to publish a notice of proposed agent organism; decision to make an emergency declaration; revocation of a declaration; declaration of target organisms, agent organisms and existing released organisms where declaration is inconsistent with previous findings Bookmakers Ordinance 1985-Decisions on application for, or suspension or cancellation of, a licence Bounty (Computers) Act 1984-Decisions on good and merchantable quality, additional value, approval of payment of bounty or additional bounty, recovery of overpayments, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Electric Motors) Act 1984-Decisions on good and merchantable quality, additional value, approval of payment of bounty, recovery of overpayments, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (High Alloy Steel Products) Act 1983-Decisions on approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Act 1985-Decisions on good and merchantable quality, approval of payment or adjustment of bounty, recovery of over-payments, registration or transfer of premises, and amount of security Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Act 1983-Decisions on factory cost, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Ships) Act 1980-Decisions on approval of payment of bounty, recovery of overpayments, registration of premises, registration of person and amount of security Bounty (Steel Mill Products) Act 1983-Decisions on sales value of plate or strip, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Act 1983-Decisions on factory cost, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Act 1984-Decisions on factory cost, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Business Franchise (Tobacco and Petroleum Products) Ordinance 1984 (A.C.T.)-Determination that person is not member of group of wholesale tobacco merchants; determination that person is not member of group of petroleum wholesalers; re-assessment of licence fees Chiropractors Registration Ordinance 1983 (A.C.T.)-Refusal to terminate the suspension of a person or to set aside an order suspending registration on health grounds; refusal to permit an extension of the period during which an executor, administrator or trustee may carry on the business of a deceased chiropractor; refusal to authorize the registration, or order the re-registration, of a person; cancellation of the registration of a person; suspension of the registration of a person otherwise than where that person is suspended temporarily by the board, pending inquiry into that person, reprimanding a person; refusal to grant temporary registration to a person or refusing to renew a temporary registration Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-Registration, change of registration and de-registration of a political party; refusal to be treated as an itinerant elector; a decision made by the Electoral Officer reviewing certain decisions made by a Divisional Returing Officer under ss. 95 (1), 98, 102, 104 (1), 104 (2), 113, 116, 117 and 185 and in relation to such other information as the Divisional Officer thinks relevant to the review of the claim or objection, as the case may be Co-operative Societies Ordinance 1939 (A.C.T.)-Refusal by Registrar to consent to proposed purchase or repayment of shares; refusal by Registrar to consent to proposed investment in a corporation Credit Ordinance 1985 (A.C.T.)-Various decisions of the Credit Tribunal as follows-grant, refusal to grant, cancellation, suspension or removal of a suspension of a credit provider's licence or a finance broker's licence; imposition, revocation, variation, non-revocation or non-variation of a condition or restriction on such licences; grant, refusal to grant or imposition of a condition on the grant of an authority to carry on the business of a deceased licensee; the taking of or refusal to take disciplinary action against a licensee or related person Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations-Refusal by the Minister to approve an organisation or event; revocation of approval Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975-Exemptions from duty; declarations as to new mines and major new extensions to existing mines; decisions as to ash content of coking coal Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Act 1985-Decision by the Minister that he is satisfied or not satisfied of various matters Dairy Produce Market Support Act 1985-Refusal by Minister to remit a penalty for non-payment of a market support levy; refusal by Australian Dairy Corporation to grant, or granting of limited, market support levy; refusal by Minister or ADC to extend period in which to seek re-consideration Dangerous Goods Ordinance 1984 (A.C.T.)-Various decisions of the Chief Inspector or member of the police force relating to the issue, renewal, cancellation or suspension of licences or permits for the keeping, carrying, importation, manufacture or sale of dangerous goods and explosives Defence Forces Regulations-Part XIII-Decisions to forfeit pay and allowances of deceased members Electoral and Referendum Regulations-Decision of Divisional Returning Officer cancelling registration of an elector as general postal voter after review by Australian Electoral Officer Electricity Ordinance 1971 (A.C.T.)-Various decisions of the Electricity Authority relating to the sale, hire, installation and connection of articles of electrical equipment Export Inspection (Charge Collection) Act 1985-Refusal by Minister to remit whole or part of penalty for non-payment of a charge; refusal to extend time in which to seek re-consideration First Home Owners Act 1983-All decisions of the Secretary except under s. 20 Fisheries Act 1952-Various decisions reconsidered by Joint Authority under s. 128 (4) as follows: refusal to grant or revocation of fishing (scientific) permit; imposition, variation or revocation of conditions on such a permit; refusal to grant, endorse or transfer a licence; revocation of an endorsement; imposition, variation or revocation of conditions on a licence; refusal to remit a licence fee; cancellation or suspension of a licence; refusal to endorse, suspension or cancellation of an endorsement by Joint Authority; refusal to allow an extension of time for re-consideration by Joint Authority Various decisions of the Minister or Secretary as follows: refusal to grant or revocation of fishing (scientific) permit; imposition, variation or revocation of conditions on such a permit; refusal to grant, endorse (non-foreign boat) or transfer a licence; revocation of an endorsement; imposition, variation or revocation of conditions on a licence; cancellation or suspension of a licence; refusal by Minister or Secretary to allow an extension of time for re-consideration Grain Legumes Levy Collection Act 1985-Decision to remit or refuse to remit levy Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations-Refusal to grant suspension or revocation of a permission to discharge or deposit waste Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946-Direction by Minister that child be Minister's ward; refusal to exempt child from provisions of Act; refusal to extend period in which to seek re-consideration Insurance Amendment Act 1983-Directions given to a body corporate with respect to the carrying on of its insurance business Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984-Any decision of a Commissioner under the Act except under s. 47 Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947-Decisions regarding war pensions for members of the Interim Forces Interstate Road Transport Act 1985-Decisions relating to registration of motor vehicles; grant of a federal operator's licence; declarations that a person is an associate of a disqualified person; after review by the Minister Legal Aid Ordinance 1971 (A.C.T.)-Removal of statutory officer by Commission for misbehaviour, physical or mental incapacity, inefficiency or incompetence Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984-Decisions regarding identification, or revocation of an instrument identifying a person or organisation as a bulk customer, identification of a person or organisation as an essential, or high priority user, maintenance or accumulation of reserve supplies of liquid fuel, approval of, or direction to amend procedures by the corporation to allocate bulk supplies; extension of period in which to seek review of decisions Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1979-Refusal to remit whole or part of penalty for non-payment of a charge; refusal to extend period in which to seek re-consideration Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act 1976-Decisions regarding repayment of deposit on grounds of financial difficulty Management and Investment Companies Act 1983-Decisions to revoke or to refuse to renew a management and investment company licence Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1984-Refusal to remit whole or part of penalty for non-payment of charge; refusal to extend period in which to seek re-consideration Meat Inspection (General) Orders-Reconsideration by Secretary of notice suspending operations at premises, requiring remedial measures or requiring cessation of use of premises or vehicle until specified measures taken Meat Inspection (New South Wales) Orders-Refusal to grant, or the grant subject to condition of, an approval of a laboratory, covering or dye solution Meat Inspection (Australian Capital Territory) Orders-Refusal to grant, or the grant subject to condition of, an approval of a laboratory, covering or dye solution Mental Health Ordinance 1983 (A.C.T.)-Refusal to grant a licence under Pt. VIII of the Ordinance relating to the control of private health facilities; cancellation of a licence under Pt. VIII; refusal to restore a licence under Pt. VIII; variation or revocation or refusal under s. 63 (1) to vary or revoke, a condition specified in a licence under Pt. VIII; making or refusing under s. 63 (1) to make a licence under Pt. VIII subject to a condition National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985-Decisions by the Commissioner relating to the dissemination or publication of information Navigation Act 1912-Refusal to issue, or cancellation of, various certificates; directions re foreign ships Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974-Decisions by the Minister concerning approval of a nursing home, the number of beds or services provided in a nursing home approved or varied under s. 11A (4) Passport Regulations-Decisions to issue certificates of identity, not to extend validity of a passport, to endorse a passport and to require an applicant to furnish further evidence Passports Act 1938-Directions by the Minister concerning issue or replacement of passports in special circumstances; decisions by the Minister to issue or refuse to issue a passport, cancel a passport, cancel the renewal or endorsement of a passport, or refusal to allow further period for application to Minister. Review by the Minister of decisions and directions by approved representative, approved senior officer and authorised officer Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967-Ministerial decisions made in the performance of Designated Authority functions with respect to areas adjacent to Commonwealth territories; ministerial decisions relating to release of information; refusal by Minister to extend period in which to seek re-consideration Prescribed Goods (General Orders)-Decisions under any order reconsidered by Secretary Quarantine (Animals) Regulations-Refusal to approve, or revoking approval of, person as recognized exporter; refusal to grant exempt exporter status; refusal to waive payment of part of fee Radiation Ordinance 1983 (A.C.T.)-Decisions concerning a declaration that certain material or apparatus is not a radiation hazard; licencing in relation to radioactive material; approval for registration or modification of any irradiating apparatus; declarations of exempt material; permission to dispose of or approval of premises for storage of radioactive material Radiocommunications Act 1983-Refusal to grant a permit, licence or certificate; cancellation and revocation of certificates and licences; permission to supply a sub-standard device; compliance statements and compliance certificates; conditions to which transmitter licence is subject; permitted use of a transmitter; refusal to grant an extension of time Registration of Deaths Abroad Act 1984-Decision to register or refuse to register a death, refusal of application for searches and copies of entries in index and Register; decisions regarding correction of errors in Register or certificate; decision to cancel registration of death; refusal of application for cancellation of registration of death Repatriation Act 1920-Decisions on claim for disability pension, refusal to increase rate of disability pension after review by Board. Decisions on claim for service pension, cancellation of service pension, reduction or refusal to increase rate of service pension after review by Commission Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930-Refusal to register a manufacturer or wholesale merchant; decision requiring security, requirement of fresh or additional security; decision prohibiting registered person from quoting a certificate; refusal to issue certificate; revocation of registration Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940-Decisions of the Commission after review by the Board. Decisions of a Pensions Committee after review by the Board Sex Discrimination Act 1984-Refusal to grant an exemption or further exemption from the operation of a provision in Divisions 1 or 2 of Part II of the Act (in relation to discrimination in work and in other areas including education, provision of goods and services, accommodation, land, clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs) by the Human Rights Commission Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Patents) Regulations-Decision relating to the grant of a licence to make, use, exercise and vend an invention the subject of an application under s. 191 (3) of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 1) Act 1982 Student Assistance Act 1973-Decisions reviewed by a Student Assistance Review Tribunal Subsidy (Grain Harvesters and Equipment) Act 1985-Decisions of the Comptroller on the definition of `importer', payment of subsidy, claims for overpayments, and registration of premises Taxation Administration Act 1953-Refusal to revoke, or variation of, departure prohibition order; refusal to issue departure authorisation certificate Water Pollution Ordinance 1984 (A.C.T.)-Decisions relating to licences; refusal to grant an approval; authorisation of discharge or waste into waters; variation or revocation of authority or suspension The enactments which expanded existing jurisdictions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal between 1 March 1983 and 28 February 1986 and the present matters under those enactments, including matters within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal before March 1983, are: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977-Refusal to grant application for licence; cancellation or suspension of a licence; refusal to grant application for export licence; orders and directions to be complied with by a holder of an export licence; grant of an extension of period for seeking a renewal of an export licence; suspension of an export licence pending notice to show cause; cancellation, non renewal, further suspension or reprimand of the holder of an export licence following initial suspension; refusal to enter particulars of a person upon a register; removal of particulars Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act 1966-Decisions on factory costs, good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Act 1977-Decisions on good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Berry Fruits) Act 1982-Decisions on approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Books) Act 1969-Decisions on size of book, manufacturing cost component, publisher paper cost, compliance with Act and Regulations, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act 1978-Decisions on components, good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act 1979-Decisions on approval of payment of bounty, recovery of overpayments, good and merchantable quality, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Metal-working Machine Tools) Act 1978-Decisions on factory cost, good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Paper) Act 1979-Decisions on good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Penicillin) Act 1980-Decisions on good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Printed Fabrics) Act 1981-Decisions on good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Bounty (Textile Yarns) Act 1981-Decisions on approval of factory, additional value, good and merchantable quality, approval of payment of bounty, registration of premises and amount of security Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-Decisions by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal concerning suspension or revocation of a licence; variation, revocation or imposition of a condition of a licence (except where so directed by the Minister); refusal to renew a licence; renewals of less than 3 years; extension of time for lodgement of applications or replies to submissions; restrictions of participation in broadcasts or television; transfer of licence, or benefits of or power granted by licence; approval of transactions of shares of a licence-holding company. Directions by the Minister concerning lighting on masts; acquisition of records of historical importance Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981-Ombudsman may recommend that Commissioner of Police refer specified question to AAT for advisory opinion Customs Act 1901-Decisions by a Collector concerning improperly kept or delivered goods and replacement costs; refusal to allow export of goods; intended destination of goods; payment of rebate. Decisions by the Minister concerning clearance certificate, quota orders, rate of exchange, refund of duty, specification of dates. All decisions by the Comptroller or Collector concerning warehouses ie. licencing, access, revaluation of goods, arrears of charges, public exhibition of goods. All decisions by the Minister, Comptroller or Collector concerning rights, liabilities and licensing of agents. Customs Regulations-Refund, rebate or remission of duty by Collector and various decisions in relation to drawback of duty by Minister or Collector. Dairy Industry Stabilization Act 1977-Remission of penalty for non payment of levy; determination of quota or review of a variation of a quota. Excise Regulations-Refund or remission of duty by Collector and decisions in relation to drawback of duty by Minister or Collector. Approval of payment of drawback by Comptroller. Freedom of Information Act 1982-Refusal to grant access or deferring the provision of access to a document; refusal to allow a further period for making an application for internal review; questions re conclusive certificates; refusal to amend personal record; liability to pay a charge in respect of a request for access to a document; decision that a document is not exempt as a matter of Commonwealth/State relations or business affairs. Health Insurance Act 1973-Refusal by Director-General of Social Security to declare a person disadvantaged, or revocation of such a declaration; Decisions relating to the period during which a practitioner is disqualified. Decisions affirmed or varied by the Minister under s.38 (4) as follows: grant or variation of a certificate approving in principle of a private hospital or, alterations or additions to the premises of a private hospital; approval of premises with or without conditions as a private hospital; revocation of approval of premises as a private hospital; variation of categorization of particular private hospitals; variation of conditions to which an approval is subject; determination regarding the category of private hospital to which premises belong. Life Insurance Act 1945-Decisions by the Commissioner to approve a person as an actuary, to register a company to carry on a life insurance business, to give directions to transfer assets from one fund to another and to require explanations of statements made in reports. Liquified Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act 1980-Decisions of the Minister to register persons as distributors of liquified petroleum gas or eligible reticulation gas. Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance 1930 (A.C.T.)-Refusal to register or re-register; cancelling the registration of a person; reprimand; suspension of registration otherwise than under s.31 (2); refusal to grant or renew special registration; refusal to grant or renew temporary registration; refusal to approve a qualified person as a medical officer; suspension of registration of medical practitioner on health grounds; order restricting performance of medical services on health grounds; refusal to extend period during which executor, administrator or trustee may carry on the business of deceased medical practitioner. Migration Act 1958-Order for deportation of a non-citizen convicted of certain crimes; direction that a person is not to act as migration agent. National Health Act 1953-Decisions of the Minister regarding registration of certain organisations as Hospital or Medical Benefits organisations. Decisions of the Secretary to approve a pharmaceutical chemist for the purpose of supplying pharmaceutical benefits. Decisions of the Minister to reprimand a medical practitioner, dental practitioner or approved pharmaceutical chemist. National Health Regulations-Decisions on payment of accommodation allowances for patients and approved escorts who live in isolated areas and are referred to consulting physicians at distant locations. Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1966-Decisions on eligibility for subsidy, registration of premises and amount of security. Pharmacy Ordinance 1931 (A.C.T.)-Refusal to authorise registration or re-registration; refusal to grant or renew temporary registration; cancellation of registration (but not under s.26 (4)); suspension of registration (but not under s.33 (2)); reprimanding a person; refusal to extend period for carrying on of business of deceased pharmacist. Phosphate Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1963-Decisions on eligibility for subsidy, registration of premises and amount of security. Shipping Registration Act 1981-Determination of method to measure length of ship; decisions regarding grant of provisional certificates, the period of effect where certificate lost, their extension if ship altered abroad; refusal to grant temporary pass; disallowance of proposed name; refusal to determine that foreign provisions relating to registration sufficiently correspond; refusal to accept document as in compliance; refusal to treat application under previous law as application under this law; closure of registration; entry or amendment of entry in register. Social Security Act 1947-All determinations, directions, decisions and approvals re entitlement to benefits, payment and cancellation of benefits, overpayment of benefits, of an officer which have been reviewed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (or if the Director-General has certified that a principle of general application is involved) and affirmed, varied or annulled by the Director-General on or after 9 September 1980. Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance 1965 (A.C.T.)-Refusal to authorise registration or to order re-registration; removal of name from Register; reprimand; suspension of registration of a person otherwise than under s.22 (2); suspension of registration of veterinary surgeon on health grounds; order restricting performance of veterinary services on health grounds; refusal to extend period during which executor, administrator or trustee may carry on the business of deceased veterinary surgeon. The jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is constantly changing, and the Tribunal from time to time publishes a summary of enactments under which decisions made are subject to review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal registries would be able to give advice to the honourable member on the availability of such summaries. (Question No. 2872) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Which OECD countries have laws (a) to permit and (b) making it unlawful, for Government employees to take industrial action. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Under the laws of Austria, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and France, the majority of Government employees are able to engage in industrial action. In most of these countries some restrictions are, however, placed both on the capacity of various `essential services' personnel to engage in such action and on the modes by which such action can be carried out. Personnel so restricted include police officers, the armed forces, security agencies personnel, the judiciary and some high-ranking officials of government agencies. The action may be subject to procedural prerequisites such as secret ballots or periods of notice. Government employees are prohibited from engaging in industrial action in Japan, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States. Where OECD countries have federal systems, the information here provided refers to laws relating to federal employees only. (Question No. 2873) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Which OECD countries have laws (a) regulating donations by trade unions to political parties and (b) similar to the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 governing pre-strike secret ballots. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Canada, Ireland, the United States of America, Japan and the United Kingdom have legislation regulating donations to political parties by trade unions. Turkish law prohibits donations by trade unions to political parties. (b) Japan, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Norway, Greece and the United Kingdom have laws governing pre-strike secret ballots. The provisions of such laws do not appear to entirely conform with the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 which provide for secret ballots to be conducted in relation to industrial action where the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission believes them to be justified or where a specified number of members of a federally registered union at a particular workplace request that such a ballot be held. Secret ballots prior to strikes are in fact compulsory by law in Japan, Greece, Spain and Norway. In the United Kingdom the Trade Union Act 1984 makes it a condition of trade unions' legal immunity for organising industrial action that a secret ballot be held in which all those due to take part in the action are entitled to vote and in which a majority of the voters endorse the industrial action. Canada, the United States of America, New Zealand, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and France do not have legislation governing pre-strike ballots but in some of the countries such ballots are required by union rules. Where OECD countries have federal systems, the information here provided refers to laws relating to the federal sphere. (Question No. 2911) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether any State or Territory education system fails to ensure that all children are encouraged to understand the history and culture of Aboriginal and Islander Australians as an integral part of the teaching of Australian history. (2) If this situation exists, what action can be taken to have children taught such history. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) All State and Territory Ministers for Education have endorsed the Commonwealth Aboriginal Studies Working Group Report to the Australian Education Council, which was presented to that body during 1982. It recommended the integration of learning about Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders into existing school curricula for all grades, including the development of specific studies. In addition most States and Territories have developed and implemented their own policies in this area. Aboriginal Studies in varying forms and extent is being taught in all education systems. (2) The Commonwealth is supporting the State initiatives in various ways. The Curriculum Development Centre of the Commonwealth Schools Commission has always rated Aboriginal Education and Aboriginal Studies as a top priority. A large proportion of the Centre's publications for 1985/86 is Aboriginal Studies materials. One of the policies adopted by the Centre several years ago and still in force is the development and implementation of Aboriginal Studies materials by Aboriginal people and communities. All such programs being developed by the Centre at this time have Aboriginal project officers and management committees. The Curriculum Development Council last year appointed an Aboriginal Education Advisory Committee, composed of National Aboriginal Education Committee and State appointed Aboriginal members, to advise on the development and implementation of Aboriginal education policy. The most recent and exciting project to be approved by the Centre's Council is a $2 million three year program to develop an Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander pedagogy. These initiatives are supported by the continuing advice provided by the National Aboriginal education element of the Projects of National Significance Program. The question of the place of Aboriginal history in, or as the basis of, Australian history is being examined by the joint Australian studies project of the Curriculum Development Centre and Australian Bicentennial Authority. Much consultation and negotiation has already taken place throughout Australia and all education systems on this project, including a major national conference in Melbourne during November 1985. The outcomes of this project will assist in reforming the teaching of Australian history. Aboriginal Studies units or courses are now available in most teacher training institutions throughout Australia. (Question No. 2981) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has been taken or is proposed to be taken to recognise the distinctive nature of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, making it separate from the Public Service and free from extraneous controls by the Public Service Board in relation to such matters as staffing levels. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In the context of its review of public investment in research and development in Australia, ASTEC has recommended that the statutory relationship between CSIRO and the Public Service Board be ended. The Government is still considering the report `Future Directions for CSIRO' and is not likely to make a final decision on this recommendation until consultations have been held between the Minister, the new governing body of CSIRO, the Public Service Board and other interested parties. (Question No. 3012) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Has a national re-afforestation program, other than the National Tree Program been established to promote re-vegatation and re-afforestation of land where appropriate. (2) What amount has been allocated to re-afforestation by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) the States in each year since 1971 for (i) softwood plantations and (ii) hardwoods. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Not directly. Since the phasing out of the Tasmania (Native Forestry Agreement) Acts and the Softwood Forestry Agreement Acts under which final loans were made in 1981-82 and 1982-83 respectively there has been no specific program other than the National Tree Program directed at broadacre reafforestation. It should, however, be noted that the National Soil Conservation Program which this year has a budget of $4.6m contains tree growing as a component of many of its projects. (2) The following tables record the amount of monies allocated to re-afforestation by the Commonwealth and the States in each year since 1971 for softwood and hardwood plantations. Each State was provided with a copy of the honourable members question and have provided the following information based upon their assessment of the requirements of the question. Figures for State expenditures were provided by State/Territory Forestry Authorities. The Commonwealth figures show monies provided under the Softwood Forestry Agreement Acts and the Tasmania (Native Forestry) Agreement Acts. A. SOFTWOODS ($M) NSW Vic. (a) Qld (b) WA SA Tas. C'wealth 1971-72... 1.776 2.134 7.761 1.093 .256 .593 0.4 1972-73... 1.811 2.132 7.413 .510 .294 .681 9.5 1973-74... 1.993 2.553 8.942 .576 .376 .877 4.9 1974-75... 3.137 3.034 10.816 .621 .483 1.350 7.1 1975-76... 3.069 3.479 13.324 .961 .558 1.894 7.9 1976-77... 3.022 4.328 14.342 1.345 .567 2.733 7.9 1977-78... 3.482 4.679 17.130 1.853 .477 3.338 0.3 1978-79... 3.788 4.990 17.948 1.926 .645 3.785 7.5 1979-80... 4.413 4.693 21.181 2.472 .881 3.344 5.7 1980-81... 5.253 5.010 23.051 2.898 .876 4.535 4.8 1981-82... 5.930 4.360 23.949 3.347 1.011 5.391 4.2 1982-83... 6.443 6.958 31.232 3.417 1.862 9.981 0.8 1983-84... 7.617 6.599 30.730 4.247 2.131 11.737 . . 1984-85... 8.449 6.360 32.985 5.284 2.809 13.464 . . B. HARDWOODS ($M) NSW (c) Vic. (a) Qld WA (d) SA (e) Tas. C'wealth 1971-72... .999 . . .164 n.a. . . 3.413 . . 1972-73... .959 . . 1.111 n.a. . . 4.033 . . 1973-74... .643 . . 1.341 n.a. . . 4.749 . . 1974-75... .737 . . 1.622 n.a. . . 6.209 . . 1975-76... .798 . . 1.999 .804 . . 8.635 . . 1976-77... .803 . . 2.151 1.143 . . 11.014 . . 1977-78... .838 . . 2.569 1.227 . . 12.825 . . 1978-79... .844 . . 2.692 1.350 . . 12.795 .136 1979-80... .769 . . 3.177 1.215 . . 14.235 .236 1980-81... .841 . . 3.458 1.438 . . 15.064 .236 1981-82... .947 . . 3.592 1.354 . . 15.625 .236 1982-83... .842 . . 4.685 1.698 . . 21.839 . . 1983-84... 17.700 . . 4.609 1.731 . . 25.093 . . 1984-85... .624 . . 4.948 2.233 . . 26.941 . . Notes: (a) Figures include funds for establishment, maintenance, replanting management and land purchase. Not possible to differentiate between softwood and hardwood components; (b) Total includes all capital expenditure in respect of re-afforestation, including repairs to roads, buildings, fences and expenditure on tending, pruning, fertilizing, fire and pest control; (c) Additional expenditure of $M 10.5 to acquire Conzinc Riotinto of Australia land was incurred in 1984-85; (d) No figures available for 1971-75; (e) Figures for hardwood plantations not available-however would be minimal. (Question No. 3030) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Based on the current rate of expansion of Aboriginal housing, will the Commonwealth's housing program for Aboriginals in cooperation with State, Territory and local government, and Aboriginal organisations, ensure that all Aboriginals are adequately housed by 1989. (2) How many new houses for Aboriginals were constructed each year since 1971. (3) What is the estimated number of Aboriginal households which are inadequately housed as at November 1985. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No, it will still take many more years to accommodate Aboriginals currently not housed if present financial allocations to Aboriginal housing are maintained at existing levels. (2) The number of houses constructed or acquired for Aboriginals since 1972/73 is as follows: Figures are not readily available for 1971/72: 1972-73...494 1973-74...883 1974-75...696 1975-76...1,144 1976-77...728 1977-78...530 1978-79...626 1979-80...1,026 1980-81...746 1981-82...981 1982-83...947 1983-84...1,585 1984-85...1,439 Total...11,825 It should be noted that Northern Territory housing figures were included in the statistics for the first time in 1976-77. (3) The estimated number of dwellings required to house Aboriginals adequately is approximately 17,200 as at November 1985. (Question No. 3031) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has he or his Department established a timetable for the provision of shelter and essential services such as water, electricity, sewerage and rubbish disposal to all Aboriginal and Islander communities that require such services. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On the question of shelter, I draw the honourable member's attention to my response to parliamentary question 3030. It is not possible to set a timetable for the provision of essential services to Aboriginal and Islander communities but this Government gives high priority to the provision of such facilities. The area of essential services is one where State Governments have a primary responsibility. The Federal Government is continuing to encourage the States and the Northern Territory to accept responsibility for providing essential services to their Aboriginal citizens, but I am proud to say that this Government is also increasing its financial assistance to accelerate the provision of such services, and in particular potable water supplies which are crucial to the achievement of good health. The Government will continue to give priority to the provision of essential services through its annual funding programs for Aboriginal advancement. (Question No. 3082) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is his Department investigating a new strategy for dealing with the needs of older, unemployed people; if so, (a) what investigations are being undertaken, (b) why has the study been initiated, (c) what options are being considered, (d) who is conducting the study and (e) what is the cost. (2) Will he supply details of any recommendations arising from the study. (3) What action will be taken to implement the recommendations. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) In response to the study by the Bureau of Labour Market Research on the labour market situation of older people referred to in my answer to Question No. 3081 (Hansard, 11 February 1986, page 223) and in response to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs (Kirby Report), the Government has restructured the available wage subsidy, training and community based programs to achieve more equitable assistance across age groups. The new range of program assistance comprises: The new and integrated JOBSTART wage subsidy program, which now provides for earlier eligibility for adult job seekers, compared with the previous assistance available, and for higher rates of subsidy for adults over 45 years; The Adult Training Program, which provides flexible training in areas of identified employment opportunity. Resources allocated to this program have increased by over 30 per cent in 1985-86 compared with previous expenditure on adult training; The Community Training Program, which, unlike previous community based programs, is available to older, unemployed workers. (Question No. 3110) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Is security at Australian airports considered by the Government to be adequate; if not, what is being done to strengthen it. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Security arrangements at Australian airports are appropriate to meet Australia's needs at the present time. The arrangements in place meet the requirements of Australian Air Navigation Regulations, Air Navigation Orders and Annex 17 of the Chicago Convention of the International Civil Aviation Organistion (Safeguarding International Civil Aviation Against Acts of Unlawful Interference). Security procedures presently in place allow for upgraded measures if required. (Question No. 3151) Mr Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: What criteria are used to determine the suitability of material produced by non-government organisations for distribution in schools as peace education teaching kits. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: It is the responsibility of State education authorities to determine guidelines for materials entering their school systems. This is done in relation to their own policies and programs. It would be inappropriate for the Commonwealth to intrude into an area which traditionally has been the preserve of the States. Nevertheless, the Government has very clear views on peace education or what is more properly described as education for peace. It should not be treated as a separate discipline but should be studied within existing disciplines. It should not contain any ideological bias or have any partisan political intent. The presentation of issues should be balanced and thorough. Propositions which are discussed should be tested, refined and assessed. Students should apply to education for peace the discrimination and judgment they acquire through all their studies. Examining peace in this way will give established subjects continuing relevance to the world in which children live. (Question No. 3152) Mr Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: Does the Minister endorse the teaching of peace studies in Australian schools as a separate assessable subject. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: It is not the Government's intention to support the introduction of a separate subject called Peace Studies. The Government has very clear views on peace education or what is more properly described as education for peace. It should not be treated as a separate discipline but should be studied within existing disciplines. It should not contain any ideological bias or have any partisan political intent. The presentation of issues should be balanced and thorough. Propositions which are discussed should be tested, refined and assessed. Students should apply to education for peace the discrimination and judgment they acquire through all their studies. Examining peace in this way will give established subjects continuing relevance to the world in which children live. (Question No. 3162) Mr Sharp asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: What was the cost of the advertising campaign featuring the Prime Minister and promoting the Priority 1 campaign? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Priority One promotion campaign has provided information on the range of programs and entitlements for young people announced in the 1985/86 budget and also involved consultation with young people on these programs and entitlements. $690,859 has been spent by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on Priority One advertising. Only part of the advertising material has involved the Prime Minister. Funds were also expended by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism as set out in the reply to Question No. 2777. (Question No. 3194) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: (1) What methods and criteria do (a) his Department and (b) the Australian Trade Commission use to assess the performance of trade commissioners. (2) How frequently are assessments carried out. (3) Will he make available all assessments of the work performed by Mr David Combe. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Prior to the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission, the Department of Trade maintained a system of formal assessment of the performance of subordinate Trade Commissioners on posting overseas. This involved completion of a standard assessment form designed to give an overall picture of the assessee's performance. (b) The Australian Trade Commission was established on 6 January 1986. As yet no staff appraisal/assessment system has been put in place in the Commission. The Corporate Services Group of the Commission is currently evaluating which of the available systems of this type best suits its requirements. (2) The formal assessments described in (1) (a) above were usually carried out annually. (3) As a matter of principle, I would not make available to a third party any assessment report on any person employed by the Commission unless there is a particularly strong reason e.g. where there may be a dispute about the treatment of an officer or where these matters have been raised in public for some political purpose. (Question No. 3255) Mr Slipper asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a publication by the Human Rights Commission entitled `The Human Rights Commission-A Summary of the Activities and Achievements of the Human Rights Commission' published in booklet form in February 1986. (2) Was the publication an authorised use of funds allocated by the Government to the Commission. (3) Is the publication of the booklet an attempt by the Human Rights Commission to influence the people of Australia. (4) How many copies of the booklet were printed. (5) What was the cost to the Australian taxpayer of the publication. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Commission is authorised to expend funds in the performance of its statutory functions, which include the function `to promote understanding and acceptance, and the public discussion, of human rights in Australia and the external Territories'. (3) The paper was produced as it appeared in the Commission from discussion in the media, and also from debates in the Parliament, that there was some confusion and misunderstanding of the role, powers and activities of the Commission. (4) 500 copies were produced primarily for the information of Members and Senators. (5) $261. (Question No. 3261) Mr Moore asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) What was the cost of placing the full-page advertisement in the Australian regarding the national phone-in conducted in conjunction with the Government's Priority One campaign? (2) What was the cost of employing the necessary personnel to man the telephones? (3) What were the departmental administration costs of processing the results of the phone-in? Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $7,501.20. (2) Chandler, Hambleton and Mier, the company contracted for the National Youth Phone-in, sub-contracted Camco Systems to undertake the operations component of the phone-in at a total cost of $421,702. The Camco budget included the employment of all necessary personnel. (3) Camco Systems' contract included processing of the result of the phone-in; Chandler, Hambleton and Mier also contracted Mr W. Heseltine and Mr T. Laing to undertake some processing work at a total cost of $12,000. There is no breakup of minor departmental administration costs. (Question No. 3267) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Does the booklet Uranium, The Joint Facilities, Disarmament and Peace which he authorised on 4 July 1984 state (a) that the SLBM on U.S. vessels are too inaccurate to be used for a first strike, (b) even if they were more accurate, the risk of Soviet SLBM retaliation would remain and (c) North West Cape is only a relay station, not a command and control centre. (2) Is a nuclear weapons delivery system with hard target kill capability a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for the acquisition of a first strike capability. (3) Is he able to say whether the FY85 Annual Report to Congress of U.S. Defense Secretary Weinberger assigns to Trident D-5 a hard target kill capability, the first such sea-based capability. (4) Is he able to say whether the U.S. intention is to acquire some 734 D-5 missiles, each with between 10 and 15 MIRV, making a minimum of 7,340 first-strike capable warheads on U.S. SSBN when the program is complete; if not, what is the extent of the program. (5) Do any publicly available or declassifiable sources known to the Government assign a hard target kill capability to any Soviet SLBM system, if so, (a) what sources and (b) which system. (6) What is the difference in effect between an operational order passed to a U.S. SSBN direct from the national command authorities in Washington and the same order relayed via North West Cape. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a), (b) and (c)-Yes. 2. The acquisition of a nuclear weapons delivery system with a hard target kill capability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the acquisition of a first strike capacity. For an indication of the conditions that would be necessary to carry out a first strike the Honourabler Member is referred to page 2,077 of the Senate Hansard of 13 November, 1985, which addresses this question in more detail. The fact remains that even with full deployment of the Trident D-5 ballistic missile system the United States will not have acquired a first strike capability. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that United States Administration spokesmen at the highest level, including President Reagan and Defense Secretary Weinberger, have emphasised repeatedly that a first strike is not United States policy. 3. Yes. 4. The ultimate extent of the Trident acquisition program remains subject to Congressional consideration. The Government understands that Congress has approved construction of 13 Ohio class Trident submarines and that the United States Navy has requested funds for a fourteenth in the FY87 Budget recently submitted to Congress; and that the United States Navy is assuming, for planning purposes, a force of 20 Trident boats by the end of the 1990s which could carry a total of 480 Trident D-5 missiles. It is normal practice, however, for replacement and testing purposes over the expected operational life of the missile to procure a number of missiles greater than those intended for deployment. The Government is aware that a number of estimates for total D-5 procurement have been cited, including the figure of 734 mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Government is not aware that the United States Government has indicated publicly the number of warheads that the Trident D-5 will carry when it is deployed. It has seen reports suggesting the missile may be capable of carrying up to 15 warheads: the majority of reports suggest that the number actually carried will be of the order of 8-10. It has also been reported that two types of re-entry vehicle are planned for deployment on the D-5: a re-entry vehicle capable of attacking soft targets only will be deployed on some missiles, and a more accurate hard target kill capable version will be deployed on the remainder. In view of the uncertainties referred to above over the total number of Trident D-5 missiles to be procured, the Government is not in a position to confirm the figure of 7340 hard target kill capable SLBM warheads on U.S. SSBNs cited in the question. It has reason to believe, however, that the ultimate number is likely to be considerably less. Moreover, as indicated above, these cannot accurately be termed `first-strike capable' weapons. 5. The Government is not aware of any reports that assign a significant hard target kill capability to any Soviet SLBM. The Government recognises, however, that the Soviet Union has for a number of years now deployed over 5,000 warheads with good to very good hard target kill potential on SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs and that a high percentage of this force is continuously on alert. 6. North West Cape is a communications relay station used for communicating with surface vessels and submarines of the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy. Messages originating from the United States National Command Authorities to United States SSBNs would have to be relayed by one station or another in the United States Navy's VLF communications system, or by stations in alternative United States communications systems (e.g. low frequency and satellite systems). With the qualification that messages relayed through North West Cape can only be reliably received by submarines operating in certain geographical areas, there should be no difference in effect between an order relayed directly and an order relayed via North West Cape. (Question No. 3268) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Which nations are members of the Commonwealth of Nations and when did each attain membership. (2) Which nations have ceased to be members of the Commonwealth and when. (3) To which Commonwealth of Nations agencies and Commonwealth associations does the Government make financial contributions and to which does it not contribute. (4) For the latest full year for which data is available, what was the cost of: (a) the total operations including the individual costs of each of the various Commonwealth agencies and associations; and (b) the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. (5) How do individual nations make their annual financial contribution to the Commonwealth of Nations and do those contributions take the form of: (a) a single payment to the Commonwealth Secretariat for all Commonwealth activities; or (b) one payment to the Commonwealth Secretariat plus other payments to Commonwealth agencies and associations notwithstanding whether the actual payments are as single payments or staggered payments throughout any one year. (6) What was the total financial contribution in the year referred to in part 4 of each of the member states to the Commonwealth and its individual agencies and associations and what percentage of total contributions do those amounts represent. (7) What was the breakdown of expenditure in the year referred to in part 4 between administrative expenditure and program expenditure for the Commonwealth Secretariat and each of its agencies and associations. (8) What was the cost of: (a) air transport; (b) other transport; (c) hotel accommodation; and (d) other accommodation incurred personally by the Secretary-General for that year. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) MEMBERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS Country Date of member- ship Antigua and Barbuda... 1981 Australia... 1931 Bahamas... 1973 Bangladesh... 1972 Barbados... 1966 Belize... 1981 Botswana... 1966 Britain... Brunei, Darussalam... 1984 Canada... 1931 Cyprus... 1961 Dominica... 1978 Fiji... 1970 The Gambia... 1974 Ghana... 1957 Grenada... 1974 Guyana... 1966 India... 1947 Jamaica... 1962 Kenya... 1963 Kiribati... 1979 Lesotho... 1966 Malawi... 1964 Malaysia... 1957 Maldives... 1982 Malta... 1964 Mauritius... 1968 Nauru... 1968 New Zealand... 1931 Nigeria... 1960 Papua New Guinea... 1975 St Christopher-Nevis... 1983 St Lucia... 1979 St Vincent and Grenadines... 1984 Seychelles... 1976 Sierre Leone... 1961 Singapore... 1965 Solomon Islands... 1978 Sri Lanka... 1948 Swaziland... 1968 Tanzania... 1961 Tonga... 1970 Trinidad and Tobago... 1962 Tuvalu... 1978 Uganda... 1962 Vanuatu... 1980 Western Samoa... 1970 Zambia... 1964 Zimbabwe... 1980 (2) Nations which have ceased Commonwealth membership are South Africa on 31 May 1961 and Pakistan on 30 January 1972. (3) There are some 250 Commonwealth organisations. These range from official agencies funded directly by governments (such as the Commonwealth Secretariat), through non-governmental bodies which receive indirect government grants (such as the Commonwealth Trade Union Council) to a vast number of associations and institutions which may or may not receive some form of indirect financial assistance from governments. Australia is a financial contributor to the main official and non-governmental Commonwealth organisations (see below). While the Government does not contribute specifically to the remainder a number of them do benefit indirectly from Australian financial assistance through the Commonwealth Foundation to which the Government makes an annual contribution. The Government makes financial contributions, directly or indirectly, to the following Commonwealth bodies: (i) Commonwealth Secretariat (ii) Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC) (iii) Commonwealth Youth Program (CYP) (iv) Commonwealth Foundation (v) Commonwealth Institute (vi) Commonwealth Science Council (CSC) (vii) Commonwealth Air Transport Council (CATC) (viii) Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) (ix) Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) (x) Commonwealth Trade Union Council (CTUC) For information about the remaining Commonwealth organisations the honourable member could consult the Commonwealth Secretariat's directory, Commonwealth Organisations, Third Edition, 1985. (4) Cost of operations of abovementioned Commonwealth bodies: (a)- Body FY Cost # CFTC... 1984-85 22,770,000 Commonwealth Youth Program... 1985-86 1,383,000 Commonwealth Foundation... 1984-85 1,453,712 Commonwealth Institute... 1983-84 2,519,551 CSC... 1984-85 336,000 CATC... 1985-86 150,000 CAB... 1984-85 7,517,000 CWGC... 1985-86 13,621,983 CTUC... 1985-86 409,805 (b) Commonwealth Secretariat... 1984-85 6,268,150 (5) Individual member nations make their annual financial contributions in one or two instalments. These contributions take the form of a separate payment to each of the abovementioned bodies, including the Commonwealth Secretariat. 6 (i)- ASSESSED CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT, 1984-85 Country Per cent Amount # Antigua and Barbuda ... .75 40,648 Australia ... 8.54 462,835 Bahamas ... .75 40,648 Bangladesh ... 1.50 81,296 Barbados ... .75 40,648 Belize ... .75 40,648 Botswana ... .75 40,648 Brunei, Darussalam ... .75 40,648 Canada ... 16.76 908,206 Cyprus ... .75 40,648 Dominica ... .75 40,648 Fiji ... .75 40,648 The Gambia ... .75 40,648 Ghana ... 1.50 81,296 Grenada ... .75 40,648 Guyana ... .75 40,648 India ... 1.95 105,820 Jamaica ... 1.50 81,296 Kenya ... 1.50 81,296 Kiribati ... .75 40,648 Lesotho ... .75 40,648 Malawi ... .75 40,648 Malaysia ... 1.50 81,296 Malta ... .75 40,648 Mauritius ... .75 40,648 New Zealand ... 1.50 81,296 Nigeria ... 1.50 81,296 Papua New Guinea ... 1.50 81,296 St. Christopher-Nevis ... .75 40,648 St. Lucia ... .75 40,648 Seychelles ... .75 40,648 Sierra Leone ... 1.50 81,296 Singapore ... 1.50 81,296 Solomon Islands ... .75 40,648 Sri Lanka ... 1.50 81,296 Swaziland ... .75 40,648 Tanzania ... 1.50 81,296 Tonga ... .75 40,648 Trinidad and Tobago ... 1.50 81,296 Uganda ... 1.50 81,296 United Kingdom ... 30.00 1,625,913 Vanuatu ... .75 40,648 Western Samoa ... .75 40,648 Zambia ... 1.50 81,296 Zimbabwe ... 1.50 81,296 100.00 5,419,710 Receipts other than contributions* ... 950,874 Note: The Commonwealth Secretariat is responsible for organising intergovernmental consultations, servicing Commonwealth meetings, conferences and committees; conducting programmes of cooperation; and for acting as a clearing house for information in many fields. The Secretariat includes the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation (CFTC), the Commonwealth Youth Programme (CYP) and the executive of the Commonwealth Science Council (CSC). Governments make separate voluntary contributions to the CFTC and the CYP. They subscribe on an assessed basis to the CSC. * These include sales of publications, interest, etc. 6 (ii)- PLEDGES TO THE COMMONWEALTH FUND FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION (CFTC), 1984-85 Country Per cent Amount # Antigua and Barbuda ... 0.06 12,650 Australia ... 18.86 4,058,698 Bahamas ... 0.12 25,300 Bangladesh ... 0.42 *90,201 Barbados ... 0.12 25,300 Belize ... 0.02 4,610 Botswana ... 0.32 69,000 Brunei ... 0.12 25,300 Canada ... 38.50 8,284,628 Cyprus ... 0.11 22,800 Dominica ... 0.01 2,035 Fiji ... 0.18 37,950 The Gambia ... - - Ghana ... 0.11 *23,000 Grenada ... 0.04 8,640 Guyana ... 0.23 *50,000 India ... 1.07 **230,878 Jamaica ... 0.56 **120,010 Kenya ... 0.18 38,989 Kiribati ... 0.003 575 Lesotho ... 0.06 12,650 Malawi ... 0.06 12,500 Malaysia ... 0.23 50,000 Malta ... 0.09 20,200 Maldives ... 0.01 2,000 Mauritius ... 0.10 22,150 New Zealand ... 2.10 451,500 Nigeria ... 2.89 622,000 Papua New Guinea ... 0.40 87,110 St. Christopher-Nevis ... 0.007 1,500 St. Lucia ... 0.03 6,900 St. Vincent ... 0.004 895 Seychelles ... 0.03 6,325 Sierra Leone ... - - Singapore ... 0.05 10,000 Solomon Islands ... - - Sri Lanka ... 0.10 **21,000 Swaziland ... 0.16 34,800 Tanzania ... 0.38 *82,050 Tonga ... 0.05 11,400 Trinidad and Tobago ... 0.35 75,000 Tuvalu ... 0.005 1,065 Uganda ... 0.18 **38,720 United Kingdom ... 30.71 6,607,000 Vanuatu ... 0.07 15,500 Western Samoa ... 0.06 **12,650 Zambia ... 0.24 51,900 Zimbabwe ... 0.29 63,378 Nauru ... 0.003 638 Bermuda ... 0.05 11,500 British Virgin Islands ... 0.03 6,351 Cayman Islands ... 0.007 1,600 Cook Islands ... 0.004 800 Hong Kong ... 0.21 45,000 Montserrat ... 0.003 650 100.00 21,517,296 * Non-convertible. ** Partly non-convertible. Note: The CFTC is financed by voluntary subscriptions. The Fund receives additional contributions from some member countries in respect of specific projects and these are reflected in the Fund's accounts. 6 (iii)- PLEDGES TO THE COMMONWEALTH YOUTH PROGRAMME, 1985-86 Country Per cent Amount # Money Pledge Income Antigua and Barbuda... . . . . Australia... 40.69 150,272 Bahamas... 1.94 7,174 Bangladesh... 1.08 3,975 Barbados... 1.31 4,846 Belize... . . . . Botswana... 0.48 1,769 Brunei, Darussalam... 0.54 2,000 Canada...(see Percentage Income) Cook Islands... 0.07 259 Cyprus... 0.23 866 Dominica... . . . . Fiji... 2.20 8,114 The Gambia... 1.35 5,000 Ghana... 0.14 507 Grenada... 0.70 2,577 Guyana... 1.83 6,756 Hong Kong... 0.54 2,000 India... 12.45 45,977 Jamaica... 0.56 2,054 Kenya... 2.79 10,300 Kiribati... 0.09 316 Lesotho... 0.80 2,937 Malawi... 0.83 3,078 Malaysia... 4.06 15,000 Maldives... 0.10 381 Malta... 0.32 1,188 Mauritius... 0.32 1,200 Nauru... . . . . New Zealand... 6.89 25,459 Nigeria... 6.63 24,472 Papua New Guinea... . . . . St. Christopher-Nevis... 0.04 131 St. Lucia... 0.50 1,830 St. Vincent... 0.14 518 Seychelles... . . . . Sierra Leone... . . . . Singapore... 0.60 2,200 Solomon Island... 0.33 1,210 Sri Lanka... 1.51 5,582 Swaziland... 1.11 4,092 Tanzania... . . . . Tonga... 0.06 239 Trinidad and Tobago... 3.30 12,186 Tuvalu... 0.03 96 Uganda... 0.24 1,874 United Kingdom...(see Percentage Pledge Income) Western Samoa... 0.18 676 Zambia... 1.36 5,031 Zimbabwe... 1.40 5,189 100.00 369,334 Percentage Pledge Income United Kingdom... 30% of exp. 330,265 Canada... 30% of exp. 340,765 TOTAL PLEDGE INCOME 1,040,363 Other income (plus available surplus)... 95,519 Note: The CYP is financed by voluntary subscriptions. 6 (iv)- CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION, 1984-85 Country Per cent Amount # Antigua and Barbuda... .503 7,341 Australia... 10.450 152,570 Bahamas... .503 7,341 Bangladesh... 1.006 14,682 Barbados... .503 7,341 Botswana... .503 1,341 Canada... 25.000 365,000 Cyprus... .503 7,341 Dominica... .503 7,341 Fiji... .503 7,341 The Gambia... .503 7,341 Ghana... 1.006 14,682 Grenada... .503 7,341 Guyana... .503 7,341 India... 5.000 73,000 Jamaica... 1.006 14.682 Kenya... 1.006 14,682 Kiribati... .503 7,341 Lesotho... .503 7,341 Malawi... .503 7,341 Malaysia... 1.006 14,682 Malta... .503 7,341 Mauritius... .503 7,341 .New Zealand... 2.590 37,810 Nigeria... 1.820 26,570 Papua New Guinea... 1.006 14,682 Seychelles... .503 7,341 Sierra Leone... 1.006 14,682 Singapore... 1.006 14,682 Solomon Islands... .503 7,341 Sri Lanka... 1.006 14,682 St. Lucia... .503 7,341 St. Vincent and the Grenadines... .503 7,341 Swaziland... .503 7,341 Tanzania... 1.006 14,682 Tonga... .503 7,341 Trinidad and Tobago... 1.006 14,682 Uganda... 1.006 14.682 United Kingdom... 30.000 438,000 Western Samoa... .503 7,341 Zambia... 1.006 14,682 Zimbabwe... 1.006 14,682 100.00 1,460,000 Note: The Foundation's income is derived from contributions made by member governments on an agreed basis. 6(v)- CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE Figures are not available for the individual contributions to the Institute by Commonwealth member countries. The Institute receives 90% of its funding from the British Government with the balance being provided by other Commonwealth governments, Australia's contribution amounting to 0.1%. Grants in aid for the year ended 31 March 1984 were #2,375,389. In addition, contributions for the maintenance of individual countries exhibits and other specific projects totalled #146,674. Australia's contribution for 1984-85 was #10,730: #7,880 of which was for maintenance of Australia's permanent exhibit at the Institute in London, and #2,850 for the Institute's Lecture Scheme. 6 (vi)- CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMMONWEALTH SCIENCE COUNCIL, 1984-85 Country Per cent Amount # United Kingdom... 26.7 Dependent Territories... 2.3 29.0 87,780 Australia... 17.8 53,880 Canada... 17.8 53,880 India... 8.9 26,940 New Zealand... 8.9 26,940 Bahamas... 1.1 3,330 Bangladesh... 1.1 3,330 Barbados... 1.1 3,330 Botswana... 1.1 3,330 Cyprus... 1.1 3,330 Ghana... 1.1 3,330 Grenada... 1.1 3,330 Guyana... 1.1 3,330 Jamaica... 1.1 3,330 Kenya... 1.1 3,330 Lesotho... 1.1 3,330 Malawi... 1.1 3,330 Malaysia... 1.1 3,330 Malta... 1.1 3,330 Mauritius... 1.1 3,330 Nigeria... 1.1 3,330 Papua New Guinea... 1.1 3,330 Seychelles... 1.1 3,330 Sierra Leone... 1.1 3,330 Sri Lanka... 1.1 3,330 Swaziland... 1.1 3,330 Tanzania... 1.1 3,330 Trinidad and Tobago... 1.1 3,330 Uganda... 1.1 3,330 Zambia... 1.1 3,330 Zimbabwe... 1.1 3,330 111.00 336,000 Note: the total approved amount of #336,000 is allocated according to the scale of contributions agreed to by CSC in 1972, as amended to reflect the increase in membership. For example, the scales now add up to 111%. Individual country contributions have proportionately been reduced. 6 (vii)- CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMONWEALTH AIR TRANSPORT COUNCIL, 1985-86 Country Per cent Amount # Australia... 8.54 12,544.86 Bahamas... 0.75 1,107.69 Bangladesh... 1.50 2,215.38 Barbados... 0.75 1,107.69 Belize... 0.75 1,216.22 Botswana... 0.75 1,107.69 Brunei... 0.75 1,216.22 Canada... 16.76 24,620.01 Cyprus... 0.75 1,107.69 Fiji... 0.75 1,107.69 The Gambia... 0.75 1,107.69 Ghana... 1.50 2,215.38 Grenada... 0.75 1,107.69 Guyana... 0.75 1,107.69 India... 1.95 2,864.07 Jamaica... 1.50 2,215.38 Kenya... 1.50 2,215.38 Lesotho... 0.75 1,107.69 Malawi... 0.75 1,107.69 Malaysia... 1.50 2,215.38 Malta... 0.75 1,107.69 Mauritius... 0.75 1,107.69 New Zealand... 1.50 2,215.38 Nigeria... 1.50 2,215.38 Papua New Guinea... 1.50 2,215.38 St. Lucia... 0.75 1,107.69 Seychelles... 0.75 1,107.69 Sierra Leone... 1.50 2,215.38 Singapore... 1.50 2,215.38 Sri Lanka... 1.50 2,215.38 Swaziland... 0.75 1,107.69 Tanzania... 1.50 2,215.38 Trinidad and Tobago... 1.50 2,215.38 Uganda... 1.50 2,215.38 United Kingdom... 30.00 44,307.45 Zambia... 1.50 2,215.38 92.50 136,614.85 Shortfall Antigua and Barbuda... 0.75 Dominica... 0.75 Kiribati... 0.75 Solomon Islands... 0.75 St. Kitts-Nevis... 0.75 Tonga... 0.75 Vanuatu... 0.75 Western Samoa... 0.75 Zimbabwe... 1.50 7.50 100.00 Note: By decision of the Council the total approved amount of #150,000 is shared between the members in the same proportions as their contributions to the Commonwealth Secretariat itself; shortfalls arising from the mon-membership of Commonwealth States are shared pro rata among the members. The assessment for 1985-86 also takes into account a surplus of #13,494 from FY 1983-84. 6 6 (viii)- ASSESSED CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMONWEALTH AGRICULTURAL BUREAUX, 1984-85 Country Per cent Amount # United Kingdom... 30.00 560,850 AFRC*... 6.00 112,170 Canada... 20.00 373,900 Australia... 14.70 274,817 New Zealand... 6.10 114,040 India... 5.75 107,496 Nigeria... 1.75 32,716 Malaysia... 1.00 18,695 Sri Lanka... 0.50 9,348 Ghana... 0.75 14,021 Bangladesh... 0.50 9,348 Cyprus... 0.50 9,348 Zambia... 0.50 9,348 Tanzania... 0.40 7,478 Kenya... 0.40 7,478 Sierra Leone... 0.35 6,543 Jamaica... 0.35 6,543 Uganda... 0.34 6,356 Trinidad and Tobago... 0.30 5,609 Malawi... 0.30 5,609 The Gambia... 0.30 5,609 Guyana... 0.30 5,609 Botswana... 0.30 5,609 Mauritius... 0.30 5,609 Fiji... 0.30 5,609 Bahamas... 0.30 5,609 Solomon Islands... 0.30 5,609 Papua New Guinea... 0.30 5,609 Zimbabwe... 0.50 9,348 Brunei... 0.30 5,609 Dependent Territories... 0.49 9,161 Sub Total... 95.18 1,760,703 Unattributed Percentages... 5.82 11,640 TOTAL... 100.00 1,772,343 * UK Agriculture and Food Research Council. Note: The primary activities of the CAB are research and the publication of scientific journals on agriculture. The governing body is an executive council comprising representatives of the Commonwealth member countries which contribute to its funds. The CAB rely on both government contributions and income from sales of their publications to fund their activities. (ix)- Contributions to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, 1985-86 Country Per cent Amount # United Kingdom... 77.81 10,599,265 Canada... 9.88 1,345,852 Australia... 5.91 805,060 New Zealand... 2.10 286,061 South Africa... 2.07 281,975 India... 2.27 303,770 100.00 13,621,983 Note: Member governments share the cost of the Commission's work in proportion to the numbers of their graves. 6 (x)- CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMONWEALTH TRADE UNION COUNCIL (CTUC), 1985-86 The national trade union organisations of some 40 Commonwealth countries form the membership of the CTUC. The Council's income derives from government contributions made through national trade union bodies, as well as contributions from a number of non-government organisations. Government contributions for the financial year 1985/86 were as follows: Country Per cent Amount # Australia... 24.52 94,269 United Kingdom... 10.40 39,960 Canada... 36.48 140,261 New Zealand... 1.92 7,368 EEC... 26.69 102,647 Total... 100.00 384,505 7- EXPENDITURE (#) Organisation FY Administrative Program (1) Commonwealth Secretariat... 1984-85 5,761,170 506,980 (2) Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation... 1984-85 2,720,000 19,850,000 (3) Commonwealth Youth Programme... 1985-86 343,000 1,040,000 (4) Commonwealth Foundation... 1984-85 312,957 140,755 (5) Commonwealth Institute... 1983-84 2,302,666 216,885 (6) Commonwealth Science Council... 1984-85 336,000 . . (7) Commonwealth Air Transport Council... 1985-86 150,000 . . (8) Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux... 1984-85 454,000 7,063,000 (9) Commonwealth War Graves Commission... 1985-86 698,810 12,923,173 (10) Commonwealth Trade Union Council... 1985-86 74,330 335,475 8-The audited accounts for the Commonwealth Secretariat do not indicate the cost of air transport, other transport, hotel accommodation and other accommodation incurred personally by the Secretary-General in any given year. (Question No. 3297) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) What projects of the (a) Transnational Cooperative (b) Transnational Cooperative Research Project, (c) Labour Resource Centre, (d) Friends of the Earth, (e) Australian Conservation Foundation, (f) Total Environment Centre or any other environment centre and (g) Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations have received funding under the Community Employment Program. (2) What was the funding in each case. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Projects sponsored by each of the named groups which have had Community Employment Program funding approved, are listed below. Funding provided under the CEP is recorded on the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations database as funds approved, rather than funds received. The amounts listed below therefore refer to approved funds. Two of the organisations named in the honourable member's question could not be identified on the database. `No record' is noted for these organisations. If the honourable member wishes to provide more information, a further search will be undertaken. (a) Employment Rights for Youth-$27,997 (b) No record (c) No record (d) Recycling and Employment Research Project-$24,399 (e) Provision of Office Assistant-$8,081 (f) Environmental Data Base and Training Project (Total Environment Centre)-$41,104 Provision of Administrative Assistant/Trainees-$47,160 Provision of Library Project Officer (Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre)-$18,980 Environment Information Centre Project (The Wilderness Society)-$12,908 Community Environment Education Officer-$7,980 Environment Resource Library Cataloguing (Tasmanian Environmental Centre)-$13,910 Clerk for Environment Centre (North West Environment Centre)-$18,130 Environment Centre Library/Information and Extension Office-$39,171 Environmental Centre Development and Community Involvement Project (Conservation Council of Victoria)-$64,009 Environmental Centre Development Project (North Coast Environmental Centre Management Committee)-$10,000 (g) Provision of Secretary/Library Officer-$8,986 Product Monitors Project-$18,571 Reorganisation of AFCO Files-$16,349 (Question No. 3298) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report entitled `Community Employment Program-The Second Year: 1984-85'; if so, what are the projects referred to on page 7 under the $262.9m allocation for the Community Employment Program for cultural and recreational projects. (2) What was the funding for each cultural project. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes; it was produced by my Department. The projects referred to by the honourable member were valued at an estimated $262.9m. These projects provided community benefit in the areas of arts/culture, sport, recreation, tourism and the National Estate. Such projects involve a wide range of activities, for example, construction and preservation projects, clerical/administrative tasks, information and research activities, and artistic/cultural activities. In referring to the type of community benefit derived from projects, a measure known as the `project effect' has been used. This indicator simply describes the major benefit of a project outside that of creating employment for previously unemployed persons. The indicator is not to be confused with that of `project activity' which describes the primary type of work undertaken by a project. As an example of how these indicators differ, construction of a playground is a construction activity which has the effect of increasing recreational facilities. (2) Data on the CEP Management Information System for cultural projects are collected under the category of arts/culture. The following is a list of organisations which have received grants; the titles of the projects; and the amounts approved. Northern Territory Department of Education; Youth Arts Network Project; $44,200 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; International Youth Year Development Project; $130,000 Kardu Numida Inc.; House Design and Bark Painting; $39,898 Milikapiti Community Government Council; Milikapiti Screen Printing; $49,784 Tiwi Pima Arts Inc.; Ceiling Painting of Tiwi Keeping Place in Traditional Art; $41,954 Australian Capital Territory Arts Centre Australian National University; Arts Centre Development Project; $55,379 Blue Folk Community Arts Association; Community Arts Outreach Programme; $18,005 Canberra Community Arts Front Inc.; CCAF Training Program; $38,452 Canberra Repertory Society; In Theatre Training Project; $16,423 Canberra Youth Theatre Company Inc.; CYTC Administration Assistant and Assistant Production Manager; $16,510 Department of Education; Youth Arts Network Project; $68,700 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; International Youth Year Development Project; $218,550 Department of Territories; Youth Bureau Project; $7,850 Jigsaw Theatre Company Inc.; Jigsaw Assistant Stage Manager; $13,658 Stagecoach Theatre School Inc.; Trainee Community Arts Worker/Administrator; $13,817 Theatre ACT-Fortune Theatre Inc.; Theatre ACT Production Assistants Training Project; $22,624 New South Wales Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation; Landscaping and Improvements in Development Areas; $167,270 Australian Centre for Photography Ltd; Outreach Project-Gallery Training; $12,102 Barraba Community Employment Programme Committee; Enhancement of Barraba Community Facilities; $31,533 Bathurst Youth Service; Self Raising Theatre Company; $60,893 Central Coast Community Arts Group; Community Arts Workshop Co-ordinator; $15,415 Central Coast Music Centre; Administrative Support-Co-ordination; $13,909 Department of Education; Youth Arts Network Project; $49,700 Department of Lands; New England Regional Art Museum Assistance Project; $10,567 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; International Youth Year Development Project; $205,900 Forest Commuity Arts Centre; The Forest Tapestry Workshop; $75,397 Friends of the Campbelltown Art Gallery; Campbelltown Womens Mural Project; $42,296 Griffith Art Gallery Committee/Griffith Pioneer PA; Art Gallery and Museum Improvement Project; $8,145 Bush Festival Committee; Festival Co-ordinator-Glenn Innes; $6,337 Newcastle Repertory Club; Building Improvements-Newcastle Repertory Theatre; $17,455 Open Studio; Trainee Media Worker; $15,905 Orange City Council; New City and Regional Library/Art Gallery-2; $100,000 St Marys Community Arts and Craft Centre; Employment of Co-ordinator; $16,587 St Saviours Neighbourhood Centre; Theatre Production Training Project; $45,430 Westacott Cottage; Community Murals; $51,832 Wollongong Arts Council; Clerical Assistant Project; $16,531 Young Mens Christian Association Bankstown; Recreational Gymnastics Instructors Course; $96,022 Queensland Abbey Museum; Design and Construction of Display Gallery of Abbey Museum; $58,036 Brisbane City Council; Sorting Classifying Reproducing Pre Greater Brisbane Plans; $55,280 Cairns City Council; Local History Indexing Cairns; $32,036 Department of Arts-Queensland Art Gallery; Microfiche Resource Project; $18,775 Department of Arts-Queensland Art Gallery; Organisation of Slide Collection 1984/85; $14,785 Department of Arts-Queensland Art Gallery; Photgraphic Record of the State Collection 1984/85; $14,188 Department of Arts-Queensland Museum; Conservation of Museum Library Holdings; $16,144 Department of Arts-State Library; Arts Clippings Indexing Project; $14,403 Department of Arts-State Library; Basic Conservation Project-1984/85; $34,813 Department of Arts-State Library; Church Records Indexing; $14,009 Department of Arts-State Library; Establishment of New Rural Libraries; $27,978 Department of Arts-State Library; Family History Resource Guide; $12,916 Department of Arts-State Library; Map Collection Pre-computerisation Project-1984-85; $14,422 Department of Arts-State Library; Public Libraries Research Programme 1984-85; $16,285 Department of Arts-State Library; Public Library Publicity Programme-1984-85; $30,754 Department of Arts-State Library; Serial Data Input Project; $4,353 Department of Arts-State Library; Serial Data Worksheet Project; $17,893 Department of Arts-State Library; Stock Maintenance Programme 1984-85; $30,407 Department of Education-Queensland Agricultural College; Updating Library Serials Holdings; $1,748 Department of Education; Youth Arts Network Project; $43,200 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; International Youth Year Development Project; $245,950 Innisfail and District Historical Society; Research Officer/Organiser, Catalogue, File Historical Material; $10,068 Maroochy Bicentennial Management Committee; Bicentennial Local History Project; $112,179 Maryborough Players Inc; Aubinville Playhouse Renovations; $21,250 Redcliffe City Council; No 14 Library Local Studies and Bi-centennial Publications; $48,000 Rockhampton Community Service Club; Heritage Museum Centre; $34,694 Rosenthal Shire Council; Research, Compile and Edit Shire Centenary Book; $21,401 Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes-Lodge Phoe; Towers Historical Cemetery Project; $20,432 South Australia Department for the Arts; End of Decade Exhibition; $16,548 Department for the Arts; Establish Young Mobile Theatre Groups; $183,108 Association of Cultures and Arts of South Australia Inc; Establish and Organise multicultural Arts Centre; $29,235 Carclew Youth Performing Arts Centre; Administrative Unit Come Out '85; $87,499 Carclew Youth Performing Arts Centre; Trainees in the Performing Arts; $100,124 Chinese Association of South Australian Inc; Dragon Boat Regatta Festival; $92,888 Contemporary Art Society of Australia (South Australia) Inc; Documentation and Promotion of Local Community Arts Activities; $10,851 Department of Education; Youth Arts Network Project; $41,760 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; Interntional Youth Year Development Project; $182,050 Experimental Art Foundation; Arts Data Centre Establishment; $121,840 Ministry of Technology; New Technology for Artists Promotion Network; $31,951 Tasmania Crafts Council of Tasmania; Clerk-Year of Youth; $12,440 Department of Education; Youth Arts Network Project; $42,700 Department of Lands; Preservation of Historical Records; $10,748 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; International Youth Year Development Project (TAS); $119,150 Devonport Gallery and Arts Centre; Exhibition Mounting and Preparation; $14,800 Tasmania Theatre Trust; Development of Backspace into the Performing Arts Club; $52,000 Womens Collective Press; Women's Printing and Publishing Workshop; $44,320 Victoria Australian Contemporary Theatre Company Ltd; Womens Theatre Development; $26,677 Castlemaine Art Gallery and Historical Museum; ``Buda'' Garden Restoration; $46,187 City of Coburg; Oral History; $50,274 City of Essendon; Community Activities/Festivals Project; $49,474 City of Frankston; Community Arts; $27,961 City of Wangaratta; Cultural Services Development; $33,231 Department of Education; Youth Arts Network Project; $41,700 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; International Youth Year Development Project; $173,150 Ensemble Dance Theatre; 1985 Performing Season; $65,588 Italian Arts Festival Society; Community Arts and Youth Development; $205,791 Murray Valley Aboriginal Housing Co-operative; Aboriginal Culture Research Programme; $52,877 National Trust of Australia; ``Catalogue the Trust Collection (Part One)''; $70,887 Shire of Korumburra; Art Craft Gallery Administrator; $6,156 Shire of Lowan; Restoration Nhill Theatre; $33,262 Shire of Strathfieldsaye; Painting and Minor Works; $32,638 St Martins Youth Arts Centre; Employment of Two Arts Trainees; $15,054 Western Australia Art Gallery of Western Australia; Conservator for Aboriginal Artifacts; $10,792 Art Gallery of Western Australia; Library Classification and Cataloguing; $19,340 Barrambarr Creative Centre; Aboriginal Arts and Crafts; $28,025 Cockburn City Council; Erection of Shelters; $103,715 Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; International Youth Year Development Project; $165,250 Library Board of Western Australia; Historic Film Ex TVW7; $3,647 The Broome Preservation Society Inc; Old Pearlers Quarters Restoration; $78,881 Western Australian Museum; Preservation of Shipwreck Artifacts; $12,480 Western Australian Museum; Restoration of Historic Vehicles; $26,997 (Question No. 3330) Dr Watson asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 March 1986. (1) What was the cost of each of 2 advertising billboards relating to the Priority One youth traineeship scheme at Sherwood and Chelmer, Qld? (2) For how long has each of the signs been rented? (3) Are any additional signs of a similar nature (a) erected or (b) planned in the Electoral Division of Forde? (4) What is the (a) number, (b) cost and (c) period of rental of similar signs in each other electoral division in Queensland? Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The cost of renting the billboard at Sherwood was $210 and at Chelmer, $570 (2) Each sign was rented for 90 days (3) and (4) The eighty-eight billboard sites rented in Queensland under the Priority One program are listed below. There are at present no plans to erect any additional signs of a similar nature. All signs were rented for 90 days and most were rented at a monthly rate of $70. Prices at which the billboards were rented are shown in the listing. Billboard sites were not selected on the basis of Electoral Division. $70 per month Shafston Avenue Cnr Rawlings, Kangaroo Point, 4169 Kedron Park Left Hand Inside Board, Wooloowin, 4030 Caswell St Cnr Stanley, East Brisbane, 4169 98 Manson Rd Cnr Paul, Hendra, 4011 Cnr Stafford & Richmond, Kedron, 4031 171 Eildon Rd, Left Hand Inside Board, Windsor, 4030 Bennetts Rd & Agnew St, Norman Park, 4179 Bennetts Rd & Agnew St, Norman Park, 4179 155 Richmond Road, Morningside, 4170 196 Wynnum Road, Norman Park, 4170 Bathurst & Windsor Sts, Red Hill, 4059 3 Bramston Tce, Herston, 4006 86 Dickson St, Wooloowin, 4030 Rowring & Orallo Sts, Lots. 4179 29 Hayward St, Paddington, 4064 Croyerend & Dickens Sts, Norman Park, 4170 64 Cedar St, Greenslopes, 4120 145 Winstanley St, Carina, 4152 Arthur & James Sts, New Farm, 4005 Daisy & Wilston Rd, Wilston, 4051 145 James St, New Farm, 4005 93 Kedron Park Rd, Wooloowin, 4030 Merthyr Rd, New Farm, 4005 708 Main St, Kangaroo Point, 4169 Stafford Rd, Kedron, 4031 142 Apollo Rd & Byron, Bulimba, 4171 391 Tingal Rd Right Hand, Outside Board, Wynnum, 4178 Scanlan Rd, Mitchelton, 4053 Scanlan Rd, Mitchelton, 4053 Grays Rd, Outside Board, Enoggera, 4051 Kingsley Tce & Nelson Pde, Manly, 4179 28 Kedron Park Rd, Wooloowin, 4030 377 Cavendish Rd Right Hand Outside Board, Coorparoo, 4151 1 Cairns Rd (North), Ebbw Vale, 4304 Barnshaw Rd, Opp. High School, Banyo, 4014 Cook & Lincoln Sts, Oxley, 4075 Anzac Ave (Pacific Rd), Redcliffe, 4020 Annerley Rd Bridge, Woolloongabba, 4102 Mayne Rd, Bowen Hills, 4006 Honour Ave & Marlborough St, Sherwood, 4075 Fairfield Rd Double Sided, Yerrongpilly, 4105 Samford Rd, Gaythorne, 4053 Fairfield Rd, Yeerongpilly, 4105 Fairfield Rd, Yeerongpilly, 4105 Waminda St, Morningside, 4170 Cnr Honour Ave & Long, Graceville, 4075 Beenleight St & Andrews, Kuraby, 4112 Brunswick St Rlwy St, Fortitude Valley, 4006 Valley Plaza Level, Fortitude Valley, 4006 Beenleigh Rd, Coopers Plains, 4108 Norman Park Railway Station, Norman Park, 4170 167 Annerley Rd, Dutton Park, 4102 1723 Sandgate Rd, Virginia, 4014 40 Hoogley St, West End, 4101 17 Hamilton Place, Bowen Hills, 4006 42 Ridge St, Greenslopes, 4120 376 Stanley St, East Brisbane, 4169 85 Esplanade, Manly, 4179 92 Elizabeth Avenue, Clontarf Beach, 4019 154-156 Melbourne St, South Brisbane, 4101 3201 Old Cleveland Rd, Capalaba, 4157 123 Melbourne St, South Brisbane, 4101 Cnr Craig & Herbert, Brighton, 4017 179 Old Cleveland Rd, Coorparoo, 4151 282 Days Rd, The Grange, 4051 356 St. Vincents Rd, Nudgee, 4014 103 Melbourne St, South Brisbane, 4101 96 Gaynesford St, Mt. Gravatt, 4122 15 Jeays St, Scarborough, 4020 284 Hawthorne Rd, Hawthorne, 4171 49 Gerler Rd, Hendra, 4011 Sunny Park Shopping Centre Undercover Car, Sunnybank, 4109 Sunny Park Shopping Centre Undercover Car, Sunnybank, 4109 $190 per month Central Railway, Brisbane, 4000 Honour Ave, Chelmer, 4068 Beaudesert Rd, Woodford, 4514 Central Railway, Brisbane, 4000 $215 per month Shafston Avenue Cnr Rawlings, Kangaroo Point, 4169 Warrego Highway, Karalee, 4305 Chermside and Feeney, East Ipswich, 4305 $240 per month 717 Anne Street, Brisbane, 4000 Interterminal Rd Eagle Farm, 4007 515 Stanley St, South Brisbane, 4000 Roma Street, Brisbane, 4000 $265 per month 40 Ipswich and Strathaird Street, Darra, 4076 1/3 Old Clevelend Road, Capalaba, 4157 166 Jacaranda Avenue, Kingston, 4114 (Question No. 3318) Mr Duncan asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: Is there to be a conference, seminar or meeting involving police officers to be held in Adelaide in 1986; if so, (a) who is organising the meeting, (b) have invitations been issued to South African police, (c) what is the purpose of the meeting and (d) which other (i) countries and (ii) police forces have been invited to participate. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The International Executive Council Conference of the International Police Association (IPA) will be held in Adelaide on 6-10 October 1986. The IPA is identified in (c) below. (a) The Australian section of the IPA is organising this meeting. (b) I understand that formal invitations are not issued by the IPA but IPA members are entitled to attend their conferences. I am advised that no members of the South African police have at this stage registered to attend the Adelaide conference. (c) The IPA is an international, fraternal body, not representative of any Government or police force, whose stated aim is to foster friendship between police officers of all nations. (d) (i) and (ii) See (b) above. Members of the IPA include officers from the following countries/colonies: Federal Republic of Germany, Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, France, Italy, Netherlands, Israel, USA, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Greece, Australia, Spain, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong, Norway, Luxemburg, New Zealand, Cyprus, Zimbabwe, Malta, Surinam, Netherlands Antilles, Gibraltar, Iceland, Barbados, Brazil, Nigeria, Argentina, Seychelles, Mexico, San Marino, Kenya, Bermudas, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Zambia, Guyana, Ghana, Turkey, Japan, Peru. (Question No. 3333) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 March 1986: What were the (a) approved projects, (b) jobs, (c) costs and (d) labour intensities for each activity in the Community Employment Program in 1984-85 in the (i) State/Territory and (ii) Commonwealth element. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is provided in the following tables: COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CEP) 1984-85 (i) STATE/TERRITORY ELEMENT Activity (a) Approved projects (b) Jobs created (c) CEP funds (d) CEP labour(*) intensity No. No. % $,000 % % Major construction... 217 1 798 7.2 16 174 6.5 71.3 Major maintenance... 347 2 105 8.4 18 351 7.4 77.7 Kerbing/road/draining... 755 4 948 19.7 51 492 20.7 70.3 Water supply/storage... 44 245 1.0 2 715 1.1 70.3 Local parks/gardens... 384 2 521 10.1 23 983 9.6 73.7 National trust/estate... 53 397 1.6 4 349 1.7 79.2 Historical/museums... 45 134 0.5 1 250 0.5 86.7 Sporting & recreation... 338 2 756 11.0 28 485 11.4 71.7 Tourism & local information... 51 174 0.7 1 917 0.8 78.1 Forestry/agricultural... 100 633 2.5 5 753 2.3 82.2 Conservation... 41 355 1.4 3 784 1.5 74.3 Land management... 79 470 1.9 4 038 1.6 82.0 Training activities... 189 664 2.6 6 941 2.8 81.5 Clerical... 1 392 4 670 18.6 42 839 17.2 91.7 Technical... 12 22 0.1 187 0.1 106.0 Community service... 784 2 591 10.3 30 219 12.1 81.8 Community information... 82 192 0.8 2 422 1.0 80.0 Other community... 28 97 0.4 1 110 0.4 76.9 Cultural... 44 172 0.7 1 777 0.7 83.0 Emergency activities... 10 50 0.2 453 0.2 78.0 Work co-operatives... 19 88 0.4 1 044 0.4 71.9 TOTAL... 5 014 25 082 100.0 249 283 100.0 77.8 (*) CEP Labour Intensity is the proportion of wage, other Award labour costs and training allowance costs for target group jobs relative to the CEP grant. (ii) COMMONWEALTH ELEMENT Activity (a) Approved projects (b) Jobs created (c) CEP funds (**) (d) CEP labour(**) intensity No. No. % $,000 % % Major construction... 23 192 6.6 2 563 7.7 61.3 Major maintenance... 63 414 14.3 4 292 12.9 64.7 Kerbing/road/draining... 8 61 2.1 543 1.6 74.2 Water supply/storage... 2 13 0.4 78 0.2 66.3 Local parks/gardens... 20 195 6.7 1 798 5.4 66.0 National trust/estate... 8 22 0.8 256 0.8 86.7 Sporting & recreation... 44 980 33.7 10 783 32.5 64.6 Forestry/agricultural... 9 202 7.0 2 124 6.4 77.7 Conservation... 5 98 3.4 1 579 4.8 65.6 Land management... 22 180 6.2 2 559 7.7 59.1 Training activities... 9 64 2.2 612 1.8 68.8 Clerical... 30 164 5.6 1 522 4.6 80.0 Community service... 52 248 8.5 3 712 11.2 69.5 Community information... 6 13 0.4 137 0.4 81.3 Cultural... 7 40 1.4 400 1.2 74.8 Work co-operatives... 3 19 0.7 205 0.6 73.3 TOTAL... 311 2 905 100.0 33 163 100.0 66.8 (**) Sponsor contributions under the Commonwealth Element are only required for Natural Areas Enhancement Scheme (NAES) projects. The labour intensity figures are based on CEP funds only. Source: Community Employment Program Management Information System as at 24 February 1986. The slight variation between this data and that contained in the publication CEP-The Second Year 1984-85 is a result of projects approved and included in CEP-The Second Year but subsequently withdrawn before commencement and therefore not included in the above tables. (Question No. 3367) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) How many Community Employment Program grants have been made to organisations in the Electoral Division of Moreton in each year of the program's operation. (2) What is the name of each organisation that received a grant. (3) What sum was allocated to each scheme. (4) How many people were employed in each scheme and for what period of time. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Year No. of grants 1983-84... 12 1984-85... 9 1985-86 (to 27 March 1986)... 3 (2) to (4) The project sponsors, Community Employment Program (CEP) grant, project duration, placements and average participant duration are listed in the table below: Project Sponsor CEP grant Project duration weeks Persons placed No. Average job duration weeks $ Community Groups, Local and State Government- Queensland Hyperactivity Association... 13,419 48 1 48 Independent Living Centre of Queensland... 12,485 52 3 52 Southside Community Care (Inc.)... 15,497 52 1 52 Australian Swimming Coaches Association... 49,434 52 2 52 Brisbane City Council... 907,640 52 82 46 Department of Welfare-Queensland Recreation Council... 2,961 15 1 15 Department of Transport-Metropolitan Transit Authority... 107,484 33 11 31 Department of Education-Brisbane College of Advanced Education... 23,368 22 3 22 Department of Primary Industries... 51,421 52 3 52 Department of Primary Industries... 23,916 52 2 52 Brisbane Golf Club... 61,894 26 12 26 Toohey Mountain Scout Group... 30,873 16 9 12 Whites Hill State School Parents and Citizens Association... 11,545 13 3 13 Southern Districts Rugby Union Football Club... 107,809 16 21 14 Spina Bifida Association... 12,038 14 2 14 Spina Bifida Association... 15,970 48 2 48 Queensland Parents of the Disabled... 21,517 52 2 52 Department of Health-South Brisbane Hospitals Board... 34,447 26 5 26 Department of Health-South Brisbane Hospitals Board... 45,336 26 8 26 Rotary Club-Salisbury... 30,908 30 2 20 Department of Education-Mount Gravatt College of TAFE... 41,373 13 7 13 Department of Primary Industries*... 19,232 19 . . . . Commonwealth Government- Department of Veterans' Affairs... 28,486 13 1 13 Department of Veterans' Affairs... 359,603 52 20 52 * Project recently approved-no replacements yet made. (Question No. 3373) Mr Downer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Has approval been granted for $20,000 to be given to the Barlow family of Adelaide to assist with the costs of Mr Kevin Barlow's defence in Malaysia; if so, will the Government agree to provide financial support to representatives of the 94,000 recipients of British pensions living in Australia to enable them to mount an action in British courts to ensure that British pension benefits paid to recipients in Australia are indexed to the cost of living on the same basis as benefits to UK, US and European Economic Community residents. (2) If the Government will not provide support why are these cases less worthy than Mr Kevin Barlow's defence. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Limited financial assistance (ultimately $10,378.18) was granted to the parents of Kevin Barlow for the travelling and accommodation costs associated with an appeal against the automatic death sentence imposed upon Mr Barlow's conviction. No assistance was given in relation to the legal fees and costs incurred which were borne by the legal practitioners concerned. The decision to grant this limited assistance was taken only after very careful consideration of the matter. The principal factors taken into account were that legal advice available suggested that there were valid grounds for challenging that sentence in relation to its application to non-Malaysians. As the Australian Government and many Australians have an abhorrence for this type of sentence it was considered that assistance should be granted to ensure that the arguments in support of that position were available to the Appeal Court. Those factors constituted, in my opinion, compassionate grounds for the Commonwealth meeting some of the costs. Another relevant factor was that Mr Barlow's parents had agreed to pay these costs and they had only a pension income and virtually no assets to finance such travel costs. Financial assistance in relation to costs incurred in legal proceedings overseas is provided pursuant to guidelines approved by me and only in extraordinary circumstances. Each application is considered on its merits and a decision on one application cannot be considered to be a precedent in relation to any other application. The rate of payment of British pensions to recipients living in Australia is governed by Article 24 of the Agreement on Social Security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia which was signed at Canberra on behalf of those Governments on 29 January 1958 as amended by a supplemental Agreement dated 16 August 1962. That Agreement does not provide for indexed payments for pensioners in Australia and legal proceedings to try and achieve indexation would not be successful. In those circumstances it would be inappropriate to consider funding any such proceedings. As my colleague the Minister for Social Security has told the House previously, the Government sees the present position as very discriminatory and unfair and intends taking steps to seek renegotiation of the Agreement, including Article 24, as a matter of priority. (Question No. 3374) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a letter in the Stock and Land, of 19 December 1985, which claims that 7,000 lamb carcasses per week are being imported from New Zealand through Geelong at a cost of $13 per head and classified as mutton. (2) What action is being taken to verify this and other assertions concerning lamb imports from New Zealand classified as mutton. (3) What procedures are used to ensure that mutton from New Zealand is not lamb. (4) What definition is used to distinguish between lamb and mutton. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I am aware of the particular article and other similar press reports that New Zealand lamb is being imported into Australia. (2) My Department requested the Australian Customs Service to undertake a special check to test the validity of these reports. The Service responded that they could find no evidence to support the claims. (3) In addition to the special investigation undertaken at the instigation of my Department all imports are subject to random checks, by the Australian Customs Service and Government officials. (4) In the first instance the Customs Service relies on the branding applied to carcasses in New Zealand abattoirs. No sheepmeat is permitted entry to Australia from New Zealand unless it is strip branded, red for lamb, blue for mutton. In any case where a Customs official is doubtful as to whether imported sheepmeat is correctly branded a registered veterinarian is called in to conduct appropriate tests on the goods to determine their identity. The honourable member may be interested to know that the Australian Customs Service have not recorded the entry of any New Zealand sheepmeat through the port of Geelong in the past twenty years. Reports of the kind to which the honourable member has referred are of considerable concern to me as it appears they often originate from rumours spread by persons who perceive some monetary gain from talking the market down. I believe that producers should be aware of these tactics and should seek firm evidence of imports before accepting such claims. (Question No. 3393) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that, as a consequence of industrial action, his Department will alter tender documents to restrict shipping contracts for Cocos Island to Australian-owned and crewed ships. (2) Has his Department historic evidence as to the cost increase likely to result from this action; if so, by what amount will the annual cost of sea freight to Cocos Island increase. (3) Who will pay the increased cost. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Following representations over time from shipping interests and the maritime unions concerning greater participation by Australian shipping in the service, Ministers with responsibilities related to shipping to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have under consideration an amended contract aimed at enhancing Australian participation. (2) No. (3) The service is operated on a cost recovery basis by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services on behalf of my Department. Freight costs are recovered from users in proportion to the volume of goods freighted in the various cargo categories. The major users are the Cocos Island Co-operative Society, the Departments of Housing and Construction and Primary Industry and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Administration. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $112. (Question No. 3399) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Further to the answer to my question No. 1859 concerning public reporting of the operations of Corporate Affairs Commissions, what steps have the States taken to meet this requirement since he raised the question at the Ministerial Council meeting or otherwise. (2) What powers does the Government have to (a) acquire and (b) publish the data and which powers will it use. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have asked the Chairman of the Ministerial Council to include your proposal that the preparation and tabling of annual reports of State Corporate Affairs Commissions be made obligatory on the agenda for the next meeting of the Ministerial Council. (2) The information contained in the annual reports of the State Corporate Affairs Commissions is principally concerned with the management of those Commissions and the administration of the State laws for which they are responsible. Consequently, the Government does not intend to acquire or publish independently the information contained in them. However, the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) obtains statistical information from the State Corporate Affairs Commissions in respect of Co-operative Scheme legislation administered by the States under delegation from the NCSC and that information is used by the NCSC for the purpose of preparing its own annual report. (Question No. 3400) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to recent press articles intimating a groundswell of public opinion in the United States of America and Western Europe in favour of sanctions against Ethiopia unless an independent commission is allowed to check on resettlement camps where, it is claimed, 1,000 people a day are dying from starvation. (2) Is he able to say whether (a) legislation to this end is being proposed in the US Congress, (b) the European Parliament has proposed that Ethiopia suspend resettlement for a minimum of three months to allow a commission of inquiry, and (c) claims have been made by humanitarian organisations that because of politically motivated resettlement up to 600,000 Ethiopians are expected to die within the year from conditions in the camps including exposure, starvation and disease. (3) Will Australia review resettlement programs particularly in Ethiopia, in view of the fact that an enormous proportion of the refugees are nomads. (4) Is he able to say whether (a) scarcity of rain is the only reason for the formation of deserts, (b) scarcity of rain is due to the rhythmic patterns of global circulation or air masses fuelled by energy from the sun, (c) problems in arid lands such as Ethiopia and Mozambique is caused by enduring drought, (d) recurring drought caused the devastation of the Sahel a decade ago and will continue, and (e) rain in the geological past left behind vast areas of arable land, some of it now hidden by sand, and giant underground acquifers which may be located using modern technology. (5) Should Australia place priority on using available abilities and technologies to lessen the impact of devastating droughts rather than resettlement of refugees. (6) Is he able to say whether (a) the NASA Space Program, in November 1981, revealed with its radar instruments, terrain beneath the southern ridges of the western desert of North Africa with an ancient river course as wide as the Nile Valley, (b) as a consequence wells were dug and fresh water was extracted from depths of between 6 and 75 metres, and (c) in October 1984 a large format camera developed for NASA obtained high resolution photographs of Ethiopia, Somalia and The Sudan showing (i) migration of people from Ethiopia into Somalia and the refugee camps, (ii) the best routes to reach such camps, and (iii) areas with ground water resources. (7) Will he (a) allocate foreign aid funds, and (b) seek the support of other governments, scientific organisations and institutions for the development and application of such technology. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of concern in the United States and Western Europe about alleged human rights abuses in Ethiopia, including those associated with the implementation of the resettlement program. The Australian Embassy in Addis Ababa has reported that the claim that `1,000 people a day are dying from starvation' in resettlement camps cannot be supported. (2) (a) The Australian Government is aware of moves within the US Congress for legislation limiting US assistance to Ethiopia; (b) The Government is aware that in December 1985 the European Parliament adopted three resolutions on Ethiopia which suggested that Ethiopia suspend resettlement to allow for a commission of enquiry to be established. One resolution sought a six month suspension, another a three month suspension and the third did not specify a particular period. (c) I am aware of claims that 600,000 Ethiopians will die as a result of the resettlement program, but have been advised by the Australian Embassy in Addis Ababa that such claims cannot be substantiated. The total number of resettlers to date is 600,000. A death rate of 10 per cent would be the highest plausible figure and the majority of deaths are the result of previously existing malnutrition and related diseases and not the result of the resettlement program itself. Conditions, moreover, vary considerably from site to site. (3) The Government constantly monitors developments relating to Ethiopia's resettlement program. As a result of our concern about the way the resettlement program was being implemented, Australia, together with other Western donors and the UN Office for Emergency Operations in Ethiopia, has made concerted approaches to the Ethiopian Government. I also conveyed the Government's concerns to foreign Minister Goshu Wolde when I met him in New York late last year. Western donor approaches appear to have had some positive effect in prompting the Ethiopian Government's current suspension and review of the resettlement program. We shall be watching the outcome of the review closely in the hope that if, as we must expect, the program is to proceed, it will be carried out in a humane and carefully managed way. The program is not expected to recommence before late 1986. While greatly concerned at human rights abuses, and are very much opposed to any non-voluntary element of it, in general it has been noted nonetheless that those being moved come mainly from the debilitated north and are being transferred to more fertile areas in the west and south-west, which are beyond doubt more capable of supporting them in the long-term. There are also cases where people have been removed because of over-crowding; in these cases the area of origin is still fertile but faces the prospect of over-utilisation and degradation. These are valid long-term methods of dealing with the problems of over-crowding and agriculturally exhausted land. Resettlement may not be the only possible rehabilitation method, and the implementation of the scheme has involved many objectionable aspects. The resettlers are not nomads but rather agriculturalists principally from Wollo, Tigray and Shoa. There have been, however, large movements from Hararghe province into Somalia of nomads, who have claimed refugee status. (4) (a) Yes; deserts are climatic zones which vary geographically. (b) Variability in rainfall seems to be attached to cyclic phenomena, which are not completely understood. For example the significance of global circulation patterns in the oceans, (e.g. E1 Nino) has only just become recognised. (c) The problems in the arid lands of the world in general and Africa in particular are due primarily to social factors, such as continuing population growth amongst agriculturalists and cultivation of unsuitable lands. The famine in Ethiopia in particular has been caused by a combination of factors including over-population of marginal lands, deforestation, erosion, over-cropping and over-grazing, all of which have contributed to `desertification'. Recurrent droughts, the latest being in 1982-84, have exacerbated these conditions. (d) Drought is a prolonged variation in rainfall and is an intrinsic feature of the arid lands. Most culture occupying the arid lands have adjusted to drought. Cultures and societies disturbed in modern times by very high rates of population growth and changes from subsistence to cash economies have been forced to take greater risks in coping with drought, with resulting suffering. The greatest cost in the long term is the continuing degradation of the land: the carrying capacities of the arid lands in Africa and Asia appear to be on a permanent decline. (e) Large aquifers of fresh water are dotted across the Sahelian zone of Africa, including throughout much of highland Ethiopia. It is believed that some may be accessible, but these resources are largely untapped. (5) The problem of recurrent famine is unlikely to be overcome in Ethiopia without reform of present agricultural policies. It is not the unavailability of technology that is the problem but the will and knowledge to implement changes, including some measure of population redistribution. (6) (a) Yes; it did. (b) The Government has no information on any such wells. (c) Yes; such photographs were obtained. (i) It is unlikely to have done so; patterns not people would have been discernable. It would be necessary to interpret the information obtained in the photograph. (ii) They may have done so, but Ethiopia is already well mapped so the information would not have been new. (iii) It is unlikely these areas would have been directly visible: there would be a need for interpretation. The large format camera would be the least suitable camera for the purpose. (7) In a statement to Parliament on 28 November 1985 I indicated that Australian aid to Africa would focus increasingly on encouraging long-term food security. As a result Australia is currently reviewing the form and nature of bilateral assistance to sub-Saharan Africa in order to streamline and focus the modest amount of aid available. The proposed focus on food security will address directly the critical need for agricultural growth and food management in sub-Saharan Africa and involve Australian expertise in areas such as dryland farming. (Question No. 3421) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether (a) over 100,000 workers throughout the world have died because they inhaled asbestos particles, (b) the risks involved in the removal of asbestos from buildings in Australia are great and (c) prison sentences have been imposed on asbestos removal contractors convicted of violating air pollution laws in the USA. (2) Is he also able to say what provisions exist in each State and Territory regarding the training and licensing of asbestos removal contractors. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) I am advised that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is unable to confirm estimates of the total number of workers throughout the world who have died of asbestos-related diseases. (b) The National Health and Medical Research Council issued a Code for the Safe Removal of Asbestos-based Thermal/Acoustic Insulating Materials in June 1981. This code indicates procedures to be followed in order to reduce the risk to workers by the use of engineering controls, respiratory protection and medical surveillance. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is currently examining the risks associated with exposure to asbestos particles with a view to establishing standards acceptable to employees, employers and Governments. (c) The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission has no precise details on this question. It is understood there have been a number of licence withdrawals in overseas countries and a number of threats of prosecution by the relevant authorities within various States of Australia. (2) Most States and Territories in Australia have regulations pertaining to asbestos removal. Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia have specific licensing clauses in their regulations. Training requirements for workers are provided in the Queensland and Western Australian regulations. Tasmania has a requirement that contractors must attend a seminar conducted by State departmental inspectors. There is provision for the licensing of asbestos removal contractors in the Australian Capital Territory. No specific regulations pertaining to asbestos removal practices exist as yet in the Northern Territory. (Question No. 3425) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Did the Government support the concept of comparable/comparative worth in a submission to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in December 1985; if so, who recommended support of the concept. (2) What studies and research work were undertaken by the Government into the concept of comparative/comparable worth prior to a decision being taken on its support. (3) Were any cost evaluations undertaken to assess the impact on the economy and the capacity of employers to pay. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government supported the concept of comparable worth as reflected in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's 1972 equal pay decision, and in the procedures for implementation as set out therein. It did not support any new procedures or concepts relating to the implementation of equal pay which would have the effect of going beyond the scope of the 1972 decision. The Commonwealth Government submitted to the Commission that it should approach the term `comparable worth' in a manner consistent with Australian wage fixation principles and practice regarding equal pay. The approach taken in the submission was consistent with the Government's Policy Platform. (2) The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations carried out research into the implementation of equal pay both in Australia and overseas, including the development of the concept of comparable worth in a range of countries. (3) The Commonwealth Government submitted that any claims for the implementation of the 1972 equal pay decision should be capable of being processed as anomalies. Such instances would consequently be rare and isolated and the overall labour impact of claims would accordingly be expected to be small. (Question No. 3430) Mr Lloyd asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) Is it a fact that certain motor vehicle industry products such as motor cycle helmets may be approved by the Standards Association of Australia but not by the Trade Practices Commission; if so, what action will be taken to overcome the differences between the two bodies. (2) On what basis does the Trade Practices Commission make decisions on the products. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) It is true that differences may occur between the Standards Association of Australia and the Trade Practices Commission as to whether particular goods used in connection with motor vehicles comply with mandatory safety standards imposed under the Trade Practices Act. Certain goods are subject to consumer product safety standards under the Trade Practices Act, including motor cyclists' helmets and child restraints. Any corporation supplying these goods in Australia is required by law to comply with the prescribed standard. There are substantial penalties for breaches of this requirement. The consumer product safety standard for motor cyclists' helmets requires that they comply with Australian Standard 1698, which was developed by the Standards Association of Australia (SAA). In addition, motor cyclists' helmets have until recently been required to carry the certification mark of the SAA. This requirement has meant that such goods must be tested by the SAA and certified to comply with AS1698. In practice, manufacturers of motor cyclists' helmets are licensed by the SAA and samples of production batches of helmets are taken by the SAA for testing. If the SAA is satisfied that the helmets comply with the standard, it will issue its certification labels for attachment to that batch of helmets. The body responsible for monitoring compliance with consumer product safety standards is the Trade Practices Commission. Part of its task in this regard is to examine goods in the market place which are subject to mandatory safety standards under the Trade Practices Act, and to arrange testing of samples for compliance with the standards where necessary. Where such goods are subject to SAA certification as to compliance, the Commission would normally discuss the matter with the SAA and take account of its views as to whether the goods comply. In 1984 the Commission identified a helmet which appeared not to comply with the safety standard. The Commission arranged testing by a competent laboratory and, on the basis of the laboratory's advice, concluded that the helmet did not comply. Subsequently the Commission unsuccessfully sought an injunction against the supplier of the helmet. The case highlighted the fact that it is possible for different competent experts to reach different conclusions on the same evidence. On the one hand, the SAA had tested the helmet and concluded that it complied in full and issued its certification labels accordingly. On the other hand, the advice provided by other experts led the Commission to believe that the helmet did not comply in certain respects. The case resulted in suggestions that the Act should be amended to provide that certification by the SAA be taken as conclusive proof of compliance with a standard. I have decided against such a move because of the restraints it would place on the Commission in the performance of its duties. The Commission has a responsibility to the public to ensure that goods which do not comply with mandatory safety standards under the Trade Practices Act are removed from the market place. It is entitled to obtain technical advice from expert sources as to whether goods comply with standards and to act on that advice where it believes such action would be in the public interest. (Question No. 3448) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: When will the Government formally notify the United States Government of the decision to reject the invitation, dating from 1 March 1986, to take part in strategic defence initiative research. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The United States invitation in fact dates from 27 March 1985. My colleague, the Minister for Defence, clarified aspects of this issue in response to a Question Without Notice from Mr Charles on 8 April 1986. To paraphrase Mr Beazley's remarks: First, there is no deadline or pressure of any kind from the United States for a response. Secondly, the Government does not endorse the Strategic Defense Initiative and as a result will not enter into negotiations to establish an umbrella agreement to facilitate the participation of Australian entities in the Strategic Defence Initiative research program. Thirdly, the United States Government is aware of the Government's position in these respects. Fourthly, Ministers are still to consider some related issues. I can only add that when doing so they may also consider whether a formal response to the United States invitation remains appropriate. (Question No. 3449) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether a ban on strategic defence research is verifiable; if so, how would this be accomplished. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is of the view that a ban or restrictions on research of any kind, including into strategic defence, would be very difficult to verify. This applies particularly to basic research. The Government understands that this is one important reason why the ABM Treaty does not attempt to restrict research. (Question No. 3450) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to statements by the United States Secretary of State on 28 March 1985 that the Soviets have their own version of an SDI program, and have had it for years, long before the United States and that behind the propaganda about the alleged `militarisation of space' you will find the expenditures, the military and research personnel, the laboratories, testing grounds, and weapons of an ambitious Soviet strategic defence program. (2) Is he able to confirm this assessment of the situation, if so, does the Government support a proposal to conduct similar research through the strategic defence initiative. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of the 28 March 1985 statement by the United States Secretary of State and a number of other authoritative statements to the same effect made by the United States Government. The Government has made it clear that it accepts that the Soviet Union is engaged in a research program comparable to the SDI. (2) The Government's position is that it does not endorse the SDI or the comparable research program being undertaken in the Soviet Union. (Question No. 3451) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the United States Special Ambassador for Disarmament, Paul Nitze, on 28 June 1985, that the Soviet Union hopes to foster a situation in which the US will unilaterally restrain their research effort and leave them with a virtual monopoly in advanced strategic defence research which could be most dangerous for the West. (2) What would be the consequences for Western Security if this was to occur. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The consequences of the Soviet Union having a virtual monopoly in advanced strategic defence research would be distinctly adverse for Western security since it would, in time, give that country the option of deployment which could lead to a major strategic asymmetry. For this reason, I do not expect the United States to agree to such an arrangement. (Question No. 3452) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether a ban on strategic defence research at the present time would leave the Soviet Union with the only operational ABM and ASAT systems. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The question is academic since, to my knowledge, no one has proposed a ban on strategic defence research. If, however, such a ban were to be agreed, I consider that the United States could, if it so chose and without further research, deploy an ABM system at least as effective as the operational system know as `Safeguard' mothballed in 1975 and deploy an ASAT system at least as effective as the Soviet system. It is true that the Soviet Union currently has the only operational ABM and ASAT systems. Possession of these systems does not confer major strategic advantages on the Soviet Union. (Question No. 3453) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the four points which emerged from the Camp David meeting in December 1984, between President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher, where it was agreed that any deployment of strategic defence initiative related systems would be (a) a matter for negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union; (b) that the West's aim in the exercise must be to achieve a balance with the Soviet Union not superiority; (c) that the West should ensure that deterrence is enhanced not undermined, and (d) that disarmament negotiations should emphasise the need to reduce levels of offensive weapons. (2) Does the Government endorse these objectives: if not why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes, but with the added comment that, in our view, the ABM Treaty requires that the development and testing (not just deployment) of SDI-related systems, be the subject of negotiations under the Treaty. The only exception would be the development, testing and deployment of the 100 fixed, ground-based ABM interceptor missiles permitted under the Treaty. (Question No. 3454) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a speech made by the United States Secretary of State on 28 March 1985, in which he stated that one of the three prerequisites for the progress in the Geneva arms negotiations was unity both at home and with our allies and that this must continue if these talks are to succeed as the Soviets will be watching closely for signs of differences and disarray in the West and if they see such signs they will only be encouraged to step up their political warfare while prolonging negotiations and waiting for unilateral concessions; however if they see a united West and the day of serious negotiation will have been hastened and the prospects of success furthered. (2) Does he agree with the Secretary's remarks; if so, will refusal to endorse the United States strategic modernisation plan and the Strategic Defence Initiative undermine the chances of worthwhile progress at the Geneva arms negotiations. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Government is fully conscious of the fact that the Soviet Union seeks to make use of the open political processes of the Western democracies to promote opposition to the policies of the United States and its allies on security issues and that it sometimes does so instead of negotiating in the appropriate arms control forums. The Government does not conclude that this state of affairs requries Australia or any other ally of the United States to suspend independent assessment or to suppress differences of view with the United States. It notes that other allies of the United States do not refrain from expressing such differences-for instance on the SALT II compliance issue and on the Strategic Defence Initiative. The Government sees the voluntary nature of Australia's alliance with the United States and the ability of that alliance to accommodate differences of view as a source of strength, not weakness. (Question No. 3455) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 April 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to comments of the Minister for Defence in the United States on 1 September 1985 concerning SDI research, that Australia did not wish to be involved in that area. (2) Is he able to say whether the consequences of rejecting research in this area will be to (a) cut Australia off from vital high technology frontiers of both civilian and military technology, (b) deny Australia a part of the 26 billion dollar SDI research program, one third of which is anticipated to be spent overseas, and (c) cause a brain drain amongst qualified scientists to overseas organisations. Mr Hayden —It has been agreed that I will reply on my colleague's behalf and the answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I do not accept that this question is an accurate or comprehensive evaluation of the consequences of the attitude expressed by the Minister for Defence. A statement on these matters must await conclusion of the detailed consideration currently being given by the Government to this issue. (Question No. 3456) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April, 1986: Has the Soviet Union given any similar undertakings to that of the United States President that the United States of America could be willing to share the results of strategic defence initiative research. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Not to my knowledge. (Question No. 3457) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1986: Is he able to say whether the Soviet proposal for a ban of SDI research would allow the Soviets to avoid such a ban by claiming, as they do currently, that none of their research efforts fall within the definition of research designed to create space strike weapons while maintaining that the whole of the US SDI program does. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Soviet Union has proposed a ban on what it terms `space strike arms'. The Soviet definition of this term includes space based defences against ballistic missiles which have been widely publicised as being among the technologies under investigation by the United States under SDI, but excludes ground based systems, including those currently deployed by the Soviet Union and those which may emerge from research being carried out by both superpowers. It is difficult to see the logic of this definition. In addition, the Soviet Union draws a distinction between United States and Soviet research in this area based on intent; in so doing, it takes advantage of the fact that only the United States is open about the scope and purpose of its research. Australian officials have raised these concerns with Soviet officials. (Question No. 3458) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 1986: (1) Is an offensive nuclear strategy inherently preferable to a defensive strategy or does this simply reflect the state of technology. (2) If it can be shown that technological advances in defensive technologies are such as to have changed the strategic equilibrium, is he able to state whether this might provide a more stable and secure deterrent. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member's question does not allow a simple answer. First, the aim of achieving effective defences against numerous and diverse kinds of nuclear weapons systems and all the means that exist or can be devised to help ensure these weapons get through to their targets is not ``simply'' a question of ``the state of technology''. There is much scepticism among scientists as to whether it will ever be feasible. Secondly and in my judgement, more important, is the question of whether it is possible, the world being as it is, to be confident that the transition to a defence-based deterrence can be made in a safe and stable way. There is a grave risk that the result of pursuing strategic defences will be quite the opposite of what is hoped for and expected by those who advocate them. Since nuclear weapons exist, the Government accepts that nuclear deterrence based on a balance of offensive capabilities is the only available means of keeping the risk of nuclear war to a minimum. The Government is convinced that the safest way to escape from the awful dilemma of deterrence based on offensive systems is to reduce offensive nuclear arsenals in a balanced, verifiable and stabilising manner. That does not preclude the possibility that, at some point towards the end of this process, both sides may agree that strategic defences could play a useful role in strengthening stability. That, however, is a very different proposition from establishing strategic defences as a solution to current problems. (Question No. 3460) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is the Soviet Union's political commitment to abide by the SALT Two Treaty viewed by the Australian Government as including an obligation not to increase the number of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDVs) in its arsenal. (2) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union had 2,504 SNDVs when it signed SALT Two; if so, has his attention been drawn to reports that the Soviet Union has deployed SNDVs above the 2,504 cap in violation of its political commitment under SALT Two. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Article III of the SALT II Treaty required each Party to limit the number of its strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDVs) to 2400 upon the Treaty's entry into force: Thereafter, if required, the aggregate was to be reduced to 2250. Since the Treaty has not entered into force, the United States has stated that the Soviet Union is not under any obligation to reduce the number of SNDVs it had when it signed the Treaty in June 1979. At that time the United States and the Soviet Union agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the Soviet Union's aggregate number of SNDVs was 2504. The Treaty provisions give no guide as to action to be taken in relation to the number of SNDVs should the Treaty not enter into force. The United States view is that the Soviet commitment to abide by SALT II includes the existence of a ceiling on Soviet SNDVs at the level of the 2504 existing at the time SALT II was signed in June 1979. The Government is not aware of any Statement by the Soviet Union either agreeing or disagreeing with this view. The Australian Government would, however, see a significant increase in Soviet SNDVs above the level of 2504 as inconsistent with the intent of the Treaty. It notes in this regard that, on signing the Treaty, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding that the aggregate number of United States SNDVs was 2283. It further notes that, according to the publication United States Military Posture FY1987 by the Organisation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the United States possessed 1921 SALT-accountable SNDVs on 1 January 1986, or some 360 less than it had on signing SALT II. (2) Yes on both counts. In relation to the second part of the question, the Government has noted that the reports cited state that in 1985 the number of Soviet SNDVs varied from around near 2504 to approximately 2540 and that the best the United States estimate of the number of Soviet SNDVs on 30 November 1985 was 2520: an increase of 16, or 0.06% on the 2504 ceiling. (Question No. 3461) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did he state in his reply to my question No. 2282 (Hansard, 30 November 1985, page 4094) on whether he had made representations to the Soviet Union on their underground nuclear test practices that the Government (a) urges strict compliance with existing treaties, (b) is aware of some difficulty by both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in totally containing all their underground nuclear tests and (c) would be deeply concerned if the environment were contaminated as a result of such practices. (2) Has he now made representations to the Soviet Union on this specific matter; if not, why not. (3) Is he able to say whether the United States has conducted underground nuclear explosions in violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963; if so, on what occasions. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows; (1) Yes. (2) The Government's strong views on the importance of strict compliance with existing arms control agreements have been and will continue to be conveyed to the Soviet Union through all appropriate channels. These include bilateral consultations on disarmament issues, the second round of which will be held in Moscow in July 1986. (3) Yes. The relevant part of my answer to Question No. 2282 (Hansard, 30 November 1985, page 4094) was based on official United States documents. I am not able, on the basis of these United States documents, to cite the specific occasions on which the United States has been in technical violation of the Limited Test Ban Treaty. (Question No. 3462) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Do the provisions of the SALT Two Treaty permit each side to flight test and deploy just one new type of light ICBM. (2) If so, has his attention been drawn to reports that the Soviet SS-25 ICBM is a prohibited second new type of ICBM in that it exceeds by more than 5% the throw weight of the Soviet SS-13 ICBM and cannot therefore be considered a permitted modernisation of the SS-13 as the Soviets claim. (3) What representations have been made to the Soviet Union on this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes. Please see my Answer to question on notice No. 2264 which appeared on p. 4089 of Hansard on 30 November 1985. In addition, I would also draw the honourable member's attention to remarks made by Marshal Akhromeyev, First Deputy Defence Minister and Chief of the Soviet General Staff at a press conference in Moscow on 23 May 1986, in which he took issue with United States claims concerning the throw-weights of the SS-25 ICBM. (3) The issue has been raised with the Soviet Union. It would not be appropriate to give details of confidential exchanges between Governments. (Question No. 3463) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Does the ABM Treaty and its Protocol limit the parties to one ABM deployment. (2) Does the treaty also prohibit (a) giving components, other than the ABM system components, the capability to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory and (b) the parties from testing them in an ABM mode. (3) Is he able to say whether the parties agreed that the concurrent testing of SAM and ABM system components is prohibited. (4) If so, has his attention been drawn to reports (a) that the Soviet Union has conducted tests that have involved air defence radars in ABM-related activities and (b) of incidents of concurrent operation of ABM and SAM components. (5) Do tests indicate the USSR has probably violated the prohibition on testing SAM components in an ABM mode. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (b) Yes. This prohibition is contained in Article VI (a) of the Treaty. (3) The Government understands that the United States and the Soviet Union concluded agreements to this effect in the Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) in 1978 and 1985. As proceedings of the SCC are confidential to the Parties and not publicly divulged, the Government is not in a position to comment further. (4) (a) and (b) Yes. (5) The Government is aware that Soviet activities in this area have been a source of concern to the United States for many years and have prompted a number of requests for clarification. It notes that the United States has said that the evidence is ambiguous, and that only a probable violation is alleged. The Government is not in a position to comment further. (Question No. 3464) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union in a statement of 16 June 1979, at the signing of SALT Two, said that it was not intended by the Soviet Union that the TU-22M or Backfire Bomber, be given the capability of operating at intercontinental distance. (2) Is he also able to say whether in the same statement the Soviet Union indicated that it would not increase the radius of action of this aeroplane in such a way as to enable it to strike targets on the territory of the USA. (3) Is he able to confirm whether the Soviet Union has deployed Backfire Bombers to Arctic bases; if so, does this constitute actions inconsistent with the 16 June 1979 statement. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The statement went on to add that `Nor does it intend to give it such a capability in any other manner, including by in-flight refuelling'. (3) The United States has alleged that the Soviet Union has temporarily deployed Backfire Bombers to Arctic bases on a number of occasions since SALT II was signed and that such actions are inconsistent with the June 1979 Statement. It has stated that its view of the Soviet commitment not to give the Backfire an intercontinental capability against the United States includes the USSR foregoing the movement of Backfire bombers to Arctic staging bases within range of the United States when such staging could be construed as training for the operational use of such bases. The Government is not aware of any Soviet Government statement agreeing or disagreeing with this view. In such circumstances it considers that the question of Backfire Bomber deployments to Arctic bases is a matter for resolution between the United States and the Soviet Union. It is not apparent to the Government, on the basis of the information placed on the public record, that the Soviet actions raised in this regard are inconsistent with the June 1979 Statement. (Question No. 3465) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union agreed in SALT Two not to produce, test or deploy ICBMs of the SS-16 type and, in particular, not to produce the SS-16 third stage or the re-entry vehicle of that missile; if so, has his attention been drawn to reports that activities at Plesetsk, USSR, indicate the probable removal of SS-16 equipment and the introduction of equipment associated with a different ICBM. (2) Is this a violation of the USSR's legal obligations and political commitment under SALT Two. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Under the Common Understanding pursuant to Article IV.8 of the SALT II Treaty, the Soviet Union undertook not to produce, test or deploy the SS16 during the life of the Treaty. (2) See my answer to question on notice No. 2265 which appeared on page 4090 of Hansard on 30 November 1985. (Question No. 3466) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March, 1986: Is he able to say whether the ABM Treaty limits to 100 the number of deployed ABM interceptor launchers and deployed interceptor missiles and that it prohibits the development, testing or deployment of automatic or semi-automatic or other similar systems for rapid reload of the permitted launchers; if so, has his attention been drawn to reports that the USSR's actions with respect to the rapid reload of the ABM launchers leave it open to interpretation, that they are in breach of legal obligations under the ABM Treaty not to develop systems for rapid reload. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The ABM Treaty concluded in 1972 in fact permitted each side to have two ABM deployment areas with no more than 100 interceptor missiles and 100 launchers in each area. The Protocol to the ABM Treaty concluded in 1974 limited each side to one deployment area only. Under Article V of the ABM Treaty each party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy automatic or semi-automatic or other similar systems for the rapid reload of ABM launchers. The Government is aware of the United States Government's view that Soviet actions with respect to the rapid reload of ABM launchers constitutes an ambiguous situation concerning the Soviet Union's legal obligations under the ABM Treaty not to develop systems for rapid reload. It notes, however that the United States has not charged the Soviet Union with a formal violation of the ABM Treaty in this respect. (Question No. 3467) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March, 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the ABM Treaty prohibits the deployment of an ABM system for defence of the national territory of the parties and prohibits a base for such a defence. (2) Has his attention been drawn to reports that the aggregate of the Soviet Union's ABM and ABM-related actions such as radar construction, concurrent testing, SAM upgrade, ABM rapid reload and ABM mobility, suggests that the USSR may be preparing an ABM defence of its national territory. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. This prohibition is contained in Article I.2 of the ABM Treaty. (2) Yes. The Government notes, however, that the United States has not charged that these activities constitute a violation of the ABM Treaty by the Soviet Union. (Question No. 3468) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March, 1986: Is he able to confirm that under SALT Two, the USSR gave assurances that Soviet Backfire production rates would not exceed 30 per year; if so, has his attention been drawn to reports that Soviet Backfire production had been constant at slightly more than 30 per year until 1984. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government understands that, at their Vienna Summit meeting in June 1979, President Brezhnev confirmed to President Carter that the Backfire production rate would not exceed thirty per year. The Government is aware of United States reports that, although the data is ambiguous, there is evidence that the Backfire production rate was constant at slightly more than 30 per year until 1984, and that it has decreased since that time to slightly below 30 per year. (Question No. 3469) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March, 1986: Is he able to confirm that the ABM Treaty prohibits the development, testing or deployment of mobile land-based ABM systems or components: If so, is it a fact that the Soviet Union may be developing a mobile land-based ABM system, or components for such a system, in violation of its legal obligation under the ABM Treaty. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. This prohibition is contained in Article V of the ABM Treaty. (2) The Government is aware that the United States has concluded that evidence of Soviet activities with respect of ABM component mobility is ambiguous but that such activity represents a potential violation of the ABM Treaty. It notes however that the United States has not charged the Soviet Union with a formal violation of the Treaty in this respect. (Question No. 3470) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to confirm that the Soviet Union has been involved in the production, transfer and use of trichothecene mycotoxins for hostile purposes in Laos, Kampuchea, and Afghanistan in violation of its legal obligation under international law as codified in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972. (2) If so, what representations have been made to the Soviet Union on this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Government has taken careful note of United States allegations that the Soviet Union has been involved in the production, transfer and use of trichothecene mycotoxins for hostile purposes in Laos, Kampuchea and Afghanistan in violation of its legal obligations under international law as codified in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972. As to Indo-China, for some time now Australian experts have been examining evidence from a number of sources of possible use of chemical weapons in Indo-China in recent years. They accept that some forms of chemical agents have been used there by Laotian and Vietnamese forces but are not prepared to commit themselves on the nature of the chemical agent or agents used. No representations have therefore been made to the Soviet Union on this matter although the Soviet Union has been made aware, on a number of occasions, of the importance Australia attaches to full adherence by all parties to the terms of arms control treaties. As to Afghanistan, please see my answer to Question on Notice No. 1981 of 13 September 1985 which appeared in Hansard on 30 November 1985. As a matter of general principle the Government considers that there is a need for a continued effort on the part of the international community to ensure that all reports of chemical warfare are promptly investigated. Australia strongly supports the 1982 United Nations General Assembly resolution to this effect (UNGA Resolution 37/98D of 13 December 1982-Provisional Procedures to Uphold the Authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocol). Pursuant to this resolution the Defence Department's Materials Research Laboratories (MRL) has been included on a list of laboratories and experts compiled by the United Nations Secretary-General to assist him in the investigation of such reports. In addition, Australia has on two occasions provided an expert-Dr Peter Dunn of MRL-to participate in the Secretary-General's investigations into the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. (Question No. 3479) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) What nations now have a chemical weapons capability. (2) What nations are likely to acquire such a capability within the next decade. (3) Do more countries now have a chemical weapons capability than at any time in the past. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) To the Government's knowledge, only the United States has publicly acknowledged that it possesses a CW capability. Events of the past few years have shown quite clearly that Iraq has this capability. It is also widely believed that France and the USSR have a CW capability-in the latter case a considerable one-although the Government is not aware of any statement by the Government of either country formally admitting this. Further, there have been reports from a number of sources that around ten and possibly as many as fifteen other countries may possess chemical weapons. The Government fears that at least some of these reports are well founded and views the apparent growth in the number of countries with an offensive CW capability with great concern. (ii) As Iraq has shown, any country with a well developed chemical industry could in theory acquire an offensive chemical weapons capability. The Government hopes however that no other country will acquire chemical weapons and that the international community will instead conclude a comprehensive convention which would ban the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and bring about the destruction of existing stockpiles and their production facilities. Negotiation of such a convention is now under way in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, and Australia is participating actively in these negotiations. (iii) The Government understands that a significant number of countries possessed a chemical weapons capability in the past, particularly during the First and Second World Wars and the inter-war period. As the number of countries with such a capability today is not known for certain, the Government is not in a position to say whether the number of countries now possessing a chemical weapons capability is greater than at any time in the past. (Question No. 3480) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether the Soviets have the world's only deployed anti-satellite weapons system that could attack satellites in near earth orbit. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Soviet Union has recently acknowledged that it has an anti-satellite weapon. The Government accepts the judgement of the United States Government that the Soviet anti-satellite weapon system is operational and capable of attacking satellites in near earth orbit and that it is the only country which currently has such a weapons system. (Question No. 3481) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether the USSR is continuing research on ground based and space based high energy lasers for use in anti-satellite roles. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Soviet Union does not normally make such information available. The Government has taken note of United States assessments-for example, in publications Soviet Strategic Defence Programs (p. 13) and Soviet Military Power 1986 (p.47)-which indicate that the Soviet Union has experimental ground based lasers that have a limited capability to attack United States satellites and that prototype space-based anti-satellite laser weapons could emerge by the end of the decade. It has no reason to dispute such assessments. (Question No. 3482) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March, 1986: Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union has now deployed some 85 backfire bombers in the Far East. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Soviet Union does not normally make such information available about its forces and unclassified Western publications differ on this point. The 1985/86 edition of the IISS publication `The Military Balance' states on page 29, for example, that the Soviet Union has two regiments of TU-22 (Backfire) Bombers in the Soviet Far East. The Government understands that in normal circumstances this constitutes around 60 aircraft. On the other hand, `Nuclear Battlefields' by William M. Arkin and Richard W. Fieldhouse, published in 1985, puts the figure (on page 122) at about 80, while information set out in the 1985 edition of the United States Defense Department's publication `Soviet Military Power' on pages 26 and 84, suggests that the figure is around 85, as the question assumes. (Question No. 3484) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 March 1986: What are likely to be the strategic implications of BAM, the second leg of the Trans Siberian Railway opened for traffic late in 1984, for Japan. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Japanese Defence Agency in its publication `Defense in Japan 1985' noted that the completion of the BAM railway had increased the Soviet Union's transport capability for military goods to the Far Eastern region. The Government would have no reason to differ with this assessment. (Question No. 3486) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March, 1986: Is he able to say to what extent the U.S-Soviet balance of conventional forces favours the Soviet Union; if so, in what area is the conventional imbalance most dangerous. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There is no simple answer to this question. Any assessment of the balance of U.S.-Soviet conventional forces will require judgment on a variety of elements, such as military readiness, sustainability, modernisation and force structure. Another significant consideration, given that the United States' strategy depends on forward-deployed forces supported by allies where possible, and given the importance of the Warsaw Pact forces to the Soviet Union's conventional posture, is the strength of the two Superpowers' respective military alliances. A comparative numerical balance of Warsaw Pact and NATO Forces can be found on pages 40-48 of The United States Military Posture FY1986, published by the Organisation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In very broad terms, Military Posture concludes that the United States-Soviet balance of conventional forces favours the Soviet Union in so far as Soviet forces are numerically superior, but favours the United States in so far as certain combat capabilities or qualitative assessments of force strengths are made. Respective areas of United States or Soviet conventional force superiority are outlined on pages 33-34 of Weinberger's Report to the Congress on the FY1986 Budget. The Organisation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at page 43 of the document cited above, described Soviet forces deployed in Eastern Europe, together with other Warsaw Pact Forces, as constituting the principal conventional military threat to the Western allies. (Question No. 3487) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether Soviet ground forces which in 1981 numbered 181 divisions, have now grown to 199 motorised rifle, tank, and airborne divisions. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: According to figures given in the International Institute for Strategic Studies' publication, The Military Balance 1985/1986 at page 22, Soviet ground forces currently number 199 divisions consisting of 141 motorised rifle, 51 tank and 7 airborne divisions. Comparable figures for 1981 were estimated by the same Institute in its 1980-81 publication, at page 10, to be 173 divisions, consisting of 119 motor rifle divisions, 46 tank divisions and 8 airborne divisions. (Question No. 3488) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Cruise missile and attack submarines outnumber United States vessels 270 to 99. (2) Is he also able to confirm that Moscow is modernising and expanding its general purpose submarine force by adding four new classes of nuclear powered attack submarines and fitting them with advanced anti-ship and Cruise missiles. (3) If so, have the Soviets increased their ability to block Western ships at strategic choke points to attack land targets with long-range Cruise missiles. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to evidence given last year before the United States House Sub-Committee on Seapower and Strategic and Critical Materials by Vice Admiral Thunman, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Submarine Warfare), United States Department of Navy, the Soviet Union in 1985 had 260 Cruise missile and attack submarines, while the United States had 99. Respective numbers of attack submarines for the years 1970-85 were cited in the testimony given by Admiral Thunman to be as follows: USSR US 1970... 327 105 1975... 279 75 1980... 263 78 1985... 260 99 The Government has no reason to question this information. (2) It is the Government's understanding that the submarine forces of both Superpowers are undergoing major programs of modification and upgrade, and that four new classes of nuclear-powered attack submarines are being added to the Soviet submarine forces. The new classes are designated by NATO as the Akula, Sierra, Mike and reconfigured Yankee classes. According to unclassified United States Government sources, three of the four new classes of Soviet SSNs are being fitted out with torpedoes and anti-submarine warfare missiles, and one (the Yankee Class) is being fitted out with torpedoes. (See page 84, Soviet Military Power 1986, published by the United States Department of Defense.) (3) Recent United States assessments of Soviet seapower suggest that United States naval capabilities continue to exceed Soviet capabilities. The Organisation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in its publication Military Posture F/Y 1986, at pages 55-56, states that `The Soviet navy continued to evolve into a balanced force capable of performing sea control missions in waters contiguous to the Soviet Union and open-ocean sea denial operations. By the early 1990s, the Soviets may extend sea denial operations and pose a threat to key SLOCs (sea lanes of communication).' The assessment adds that United States' naval capabilities will continue to outpace Soviet capabilities and that the United States Navy will maintain its open-ocean superiority. Although the Joint Chiefs' report does not directly address the question of the Soviet Union's ability to block Western ships at strategic choke points, it would not appear that the Joint Chiefs have concluded that Soviet abilities in this area have increased. As to the latter part of the third question, the Government understands from Admiral Thunman's testimony, cited above, and from various editions of the United States Defense Department's publication, Soviet Military Power, that the United States believes the Soviet Union is moving to a submarine based land-attack capability using Cruise missiles. (Question No. 3489) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether the USSR has continued to upgrade its heavily layered strategic defences with expansion of ballistic missile detection and tracking systems and the development of new early warning and air surveillance radars. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Soviet Union does not normally make such information available. The Government has taken note of United States assessments-for example in the publication Soviet Military Power 1986 (pp 44-45 and pp 55-56)-which indicate that the Soviet Union is expanding its network of ballistic missile detection and tracking radars and improving its surveillance and early warning capabilities against bombers and cruise missiles. It has no reason to dispute such assessments. (Question No. 3500) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did he reply to my question No. 1980 (Hansard, 30 November 1985, page 4087) on Soviet military tactics in Afghanistan that they included high altitude saturation bombing, a scorched earth policy and the use of anti-personnel mines disguised as toys, watches and other objects that Afghan children or refugees would pick up. (2) Did he also reply that time constraints did not permit a discussion of Afghanistan on his last visit to the Soviet Union. (3) Will he now raise the issue of the death and maiming of Afghan children and refugees with the Soviet Union. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The Australian Government's position on the presence of Soviet forces in Afghanistan has already been made clear to the USSR and the international community. In its statement to the United Nations in November 1985, the Australian delegation stated inter alia that `The Soviet Union has engaged in deplorable military tactics inside Afghanistan in its attempts to subjugate the Afghan people. It has indiscriminately attacked and bombed the civilian population and used methods which have provoked wide-spread condemnation within the international community . . . Australia believes that the solution to this tragic and continuing problem must be based on the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.' This of course remains the position of the Government and there is no doubt that the Soviet Union is well aware of this position. (Question No. 3501) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan now number 118,000 to 120,000 and that they prop up the regime of Babrak Karmal. (2) If so, what was the extent of Soviet troop deployments in Afghanistan in (a) 1980, (b) 1981, (c) 1982, (d) 1983 and (e) 1984. (3) What representations has he made to the Soviet Union regarding this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The number of Soviet forces in Afghanistan is estimated at 118,000. This number probably represents the minimum necessary to protect the regime of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. (2) (a) estimated between 80,000 and 85,000 (b) estimated between 80,000 and 85,000 (c) estimated 95,000 (d) estimated 105,000 (e) estimated between 115,000 and 118,000. (3) The Australian Government's position on the presence of Soviet forces in Afghanistan has already been made clear to the USSR and the international community. In its statement to the United Nations in November 1985, the Australian delegation stated inter alia that ``The Soviet Union has engaged in deplorable military tactics inside Afghanistan in its attempts to subjugate the Afghan people. It has indiscriminately attacked and bombed the civilian population and used methods which have provoked wide-spread condemnation within the international community . . . Australia believes that the solution to this tragic and continuing problem must be based on the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan.'' This of course remains the position of the Government and there is no doubt that the Soviet Union is well aware of this position. (Question No. 3502) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether there are prisoner of war camps or facilities for detention of resistance fighters in Afghanistan. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: We do not know of any prisioner of war camps in the territory controlled by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) forces although it is to be expected that they exist. We are aware that captured Mujahideen and resistance sympathisers are detained in the many jails of Kabul, Jalalabad and Mazar-I-Sharif. (Question No. 3503) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say to what extent torture and physical intimidation remain standard techniques of the security forces in Afghanistan. (2) Has he made representations to the Soviet Union regarding this matter; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to reports such as those prepared by Professor Ermacora, Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights, 42nd Session and to the United Nations General Assembly, 40th Session and those prepared by Helsinki Watch, torture and physical intimidation remain standard techniques of the security forces in Afghanistan. (2) While relations between the Soviet Union and the Government of Afghanistan are close, including in the security field, actions such as those mentioned above would be employed by the Afghan authorities. Australia, of course, does not recognise the present Government of Afghanistan. In these circumstances the Government's concern over conditions in Afghanistan is best expressed through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. (Question No. 3504) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether torture by security forces in Afghanistan includes (a) electric shocks, (b) beatings, (c) deprivation of sleep, (d) extraction of fingernails and (e) burning of genitalia. (2) What representations has he made to the Soviet Government regarding this matter; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to information available to my Department: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) No information available. (e) Yes. (2) While relations between the Soviet Union and the Government of Afghanistan are close, including in the security field, actions such as those mentioned above would be employed by the Afghan authorities. Australia, of course, does not recognise the present Government of Afghanistan. In these circumstances the Government's concern over conditions in Afghanistan is best expressed through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. (Question No. 3505) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether Afghan political detainees, when charged, are arraigned on allegations of treason, espionage or terrorism and are tried and sentenced in secret. (2) Has he made representations to the Soviet Government regarding this matter; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information available to my Department indicates that Mujahideen resistance forces and resistance sympathizers are charged under the broad heading of `counter revolutionary activities' which includes treason, espionage and terrorism. Most are detained, tried and sentenced in secret, though occasionally the Afghan regime mounts show trials of prominent Mujahideen commanders. (2) While relations between the Soviet Union and the Government of Afghanistan are close, including in the security field, actions such as those mentioned above would be employed by the Afghan authorities. Australia, of course, does not recognise the present Government of Afghanistan. In these circumstances the Government's concern over conditions in Afghanistan is best expressed through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. (Question No. 3506) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether battlefield executions of captured resistance fighters in Afghanistan are commonplace actions of Soviet troops. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Battlefield executions of captured Mujahideen by Soviet troops are said to be commonplace. I am advised that Mujahideen would only be taken alive if their political importance warranted it. Direct evidence is not, however, available. (Question No. 3507) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say to what extent the military forces as well as the secret police (KHAD) in Afghanistan have violated the rights of Afghans. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On operations outside territory controlled by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, Afghan army forces routinely destroy property, loot, torture and kill civilians. The DRA army and KHAD appear to engage in systematic violations of the human rights of Afghan citizens. Details of some instances of human rights violations in Afghanistan are documented in Professor Ermacora's reports to the United Nations General Assembly's fortieth session and to the forty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights. (Question No. 3508) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether more than 25,000 Afghans work full-time for the secret police (KHAD) under the close supervision of the Soviet secret police (KGB) advisors. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Reports available to my Department suggest that a plausible estimate is that the KHAD employs between 15,000 and 20,000 full-time agents with up to 10,000 paid informants. KHAD is modelled on, and closely supervised by, the KGB. (Question No. 3509) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Afghan regime uses house to house searches and press gangs in the bazaars and markets to obtain military conscripts. (2) Has he made representations to the Soviet Government regarding this matter; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information available to my Department suggests that Afghan army press gangs provide a major source of military recruits. (2) While relations between the Soviet Union and the Government of Afghanistan are close, including in the security field, actions such as those mentioned above would be employed by the Afghan authorities. Australia, of course, does not recognise the present Government of Afghanistan. In these circumstances the Government's concern over conditions in Afghanistan is best expressed through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. (Question No. 3513) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say to what extent the regime in Afghanistan tolerates the expression of ideas that have not been approved by the ruling party and the Soviet Union. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is an established fact that the Afghan Government has limited autonomy. All substantive government policy and activity is directed by Soviet advisers. Accordingly, the present Afghan regime is not likely to tolerate expression of any ideas uncongenial to the Soviet Union. (Question No. 3514) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say to what extent membership of the Marxist-Leninist Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan, the sole legal political party, is necessary for participation in public affairs and advancement in most professional fields in Afghanistan. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It can be assumed that, as the Afghan regime has sought to model the structure and role of the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) on that of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, PDPA membership would be a significant factor in appointment and promotion in the Afghan civil and military service. In recent months, the Afghan Government has sought to improve its image abroad and to broaden its base of popular support. It is likely that Babrak Karmal's recent replacement as PDPA General Secretary by the former head of KHAD, Najibullah, in part reflects this attempt. (Question No. 3515) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether there is freedom of peaceful assembly or association in areas controlled by the Afghan regime. (2) Has he made representations to the Soviet Government, regarding this matter; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information available to my Department suggests there is no freedom of peaceful assembly or association in territory controlled by the regime in Afghanistan. Anti-regime protest demonstrations which were quite common in 1980-82 no longer occur in Kabul due to their repression by the regime. (2) While relations between the Soviet Union and the Government of Afghanistan are close, including in the security field, actions such as those mentioned above would be employed by the Afghan authorities. Australia, of course, does not recognise the present Government of Afghanistan. In these circumstances the Government's concern over conditions in Afghanistan is best expressed through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. (Question No. 3516) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether it is a right of labour to organise to further their economic and political goals in Afghanistan. (2) What representations has he made to the Soviet Union regarding this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Afghan regime has made great efforts to cultivate and promote trade unions on the Soviet model. It is difficult to ascertain the degree to which such unions could further the economic and political aims of members. (2) While relations between the Soviet Union and the Government of Afghanistan are close, including in the security field, actions such as those mentioned above would be employed by the Afghan authorities. Australia, of course, does not recognise the present Government of Afghanistan. In these circumstances the Government's concern over conditions in Afghanistan is best expressed through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. (Question No. 3517) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether the student body at Kabul University in Afghanistan, the main centre for higher learning, has dropped from 15,000, before the Soviet invasion, to under 4,000. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is not possible to obtain exact figures for student enrolment at the Kabul University. According to an assessment available to my Department the student body in 1985 was probably below 4,000. It is relevant that up to 20,000 Afghans are being trained in the Soviet Union and many of these students are studying in the institutions of higher education. (Question No. 3518) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether university admission in Afghanistan has been limited to women, party members and men who have completed their military service. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For Afghan males military service takes precedence over everything else. This would account for the fact that ninety per cent of students at the Kabul University are women and more than ten percent of these students are party members, a much higher proportion than that for the population as a whole. (Question No. 3519) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has he had access to information on Labour conditions and practices, including the use of forced Labour, in Afghanistan; (2) Has he (a) sought to take the issue of Labour conditions and practices before the International Labor Organisation and (b) made any representations to the Soviet Union concerning this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: (1) Afghanistan has ratified 15 ILO Conventions upon which it is required to report regularly to the ILO. Principal among those which deal with general conditions of work are Conventions No. 100, Equal Remuneration, 1951; No. 105, Abolition of Forced Labour 1957; No. 95, Protection of Wages, 1949; No. 106, Weekly Rest (Commerce and Offices) 1957; and No. 111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958. Details of reports submitted by member countries are not released to member governments but are considered by members of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations which in turn reports to the International Labour Conference. In its report to the 72nd session of the ILC (1986) the committee noted that Afghanistan had submitted its report on the Application of Convention No. 105, in accordance with Article 22 of the ILO Constitution. However, it was also noted that Afghanistan had yet to respond to the comments of the Committee published in its report to the 70th session of the ILC (1984) concerning the imposition of penal sanctions involving compulsory Labour in Afghanistan. (ILC70 (1984) Report III, Part 4a, pp. 204-5). (2) (a) The Australian Government has not sought to take the issues of Labour conditions and practices in Afghanistan to the ILO and sees no current need to do so. (b) While relations between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan are close, responsibility for Labour conditions and practice in Afghanistan lies with the Afghan authorities. Australia does not recognise the present government of Afghanistan. In these circumstances concerns about Labour conditions and practices in Afghanistan would be best expressed at multilateral forums. (Question No. 3521) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has his attention been drawn to a report of the French-based private relief organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, which concluded that 100,000 persons had already died as a result of the Ethiopian Government's resettlement program; if so, what representations has he made to the Ethiopian Government. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government, through a close monitoring of the situation, is well aware of criticisms, including those of Medecins Sans Frontieres, about the operation of the Ethiopian resettlement program which has to date resettled nearly 600,000 people. We understand that Medecins Sans Frontieres is not united in its views on the program. Australia, together with other major aid donors and the UN Office for Emergency Operations in Ethiopia, has made coordinated and concerted approaches to the Ethiopian Government seeking reform of the program. Ethiopia has, in response, suspended aspects of the program. A review of the program is being undertaken and the Government of Ethiopia is expected to announce shortly guidelines for more deliberate and careful conduct of the scheme, which may include UN monitoring. We are following developments closely. While condemning the suffering and hardship caused previously, we agree with other donors that there is a need for some redistribution of Ethopia's population from debilitated areas to more fertile ones and a properly conducted and humanely managed resettlement program may be a necessary element in Ethiopia's recovery from drought and land degradation. (Question No. 3522) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has his attention been drawn to a report of the Massachusetts-based organisation, Cultural Survival, which concluded that 50,000 to 100,000 persons had died as a result of the Ethiopian Government's resettlement program; if so, what respesentations had he made to the Ethiopian Government regarding the matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department has copies of a document prepared by Cultural Survival Inc., which makes a number of allegations about the famine in Ethiopia and the resettlement program conducted by the Ethiopian Government. The Government is well aware of criticisms about the operation of the Ethiopian resettlement program which has to date resettled nearly 600,000 people. Australia, together with other major aid donors and the UN Office for Emergency Operations in Ethiopia, has made concerted approaches to the Ethiopian Government seeking reform of the program. Ethiopia has, in response, suspended aspects of the program. A review of the program is being undertaken and the Government of Ethiopia is expected to announce guidelines for more deliberate and careful conduct of the scheme, which may include UN monitoring. We are following developments closely. At the recently concluded 42nd meeting of the Commission for Human Rights, Australia raised our concerns about allegations made about the resettlement program. While condemning the suffering and hardship caused previously, Australia agrees with other donors that there is a need for a measure of redistribution of Ethiopia's populations from the debilitated north to more fertile areas and that a properly conducted and humanely managed resettlement program may be a necessary element in Ethiopia's recovery from drought and land degradation. (Question No. 3523) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: In view of the widespread allegations that the Ethiopian Government's resettlement program has caused hunger, deprivation and death, will he ensure that no Australian aid will be used to facilitate the Ethiopian Government's resettlement program. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia has demonstrated concern over the reports of illtreatment and misconduct associated with the Ethiopian Government's resettlement program in our having made, together with other major aid donors and the Office for Emergency Operations in Ethiopia, coordinated and concerted approaches to the Ethiopian Government seeking reform of the program. Ethiopia has, in response, suspended aspects of the program. A review of the program is being undertaken and the Government of Ethiopia is expected to announce guidelines for more deliberate and careful conduct of the scheme, which include UN monitoring. We are following developments closely. While condemning the suffering and hardship caused previously, we agree with other donors that there is a need for a measure of redistribution of Ethiopia's population, from the debilitated to more fertile areas and that a properly conducted and humanely managed resettlement program may be a necessary element in Ethiopia's recovery from drought and land degradation. In the agreement covering the latest gift of food aid to Ethiopia, a very small percentage may be directed to resettlement camps if the criterion that relief aid should go to the people in greatest need, wherever they are located, is also met. The Government will be closely observing the distribution of that assistance and developments in the resettlement program. (Question No. 3528) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports that international relief goods have been diverted from Kampuchea to Vietnam; if so, what representations has he made to the Vietnamese Government regarding this matter. (2) If representations have not been made, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Australian humanitarian assistance to Cambodia and the Thai-Cambodia border region is channelled through United Nations agencies and both international and Australian non-government organisations and consists of food and non-food aid. Neither the Government nor any of the agencies which deliver Australian humanitarian assistance in Cambodia is aware of any diversion of relief aid to Vietnam. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has advised that it is certain that no UNHCR assistance provided to projects in Cambodia had been diverted to Vietnam, and has pointed out that assistance is kept to `everyday needs' to lessen the temptation for such diversion. Moreover, UNHCR officials make regular visits to project sites and have never had cause to suspect diversion of UNHCR's relief assistance. The UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Humanitarian Assistance to the Kampuchean People is not aware of any recent reports of international relief goods having been diverted from Cambodia to Vietnam. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) similarly has advised that it had no evidence of diversion of relief goods or assistance to Vietnam. ICRC's assistance (provision of medical equipment), which it con- siders `low-key', is controlled directly by ICRC representatives on a monthly basis. The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), in the report on its activities in Cambodia for 1979 to 1985, notes that in 1985, field monitoring showed that there were some problems in drug distribution, but did not raise the issue of diversion of relief assistance to Vietnam. I also understand that non-government organisations providing assistance in Cambodia have no evidence that there is a Vietnamese Government policy seeking the redirection of assistance, and diversion of relief supplies is not a current concern. Their view is while there may be some small-scale pilfering, this is not peculiar to any particular emergency humanitarian situation, and indeed many agencies budget for some such losses. (Question No. 3539) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has the Australian Government responded to the 1986 appeal from United Nations Officials for contributions to the Kampuchean Humanitarian Assistance Program. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Neither I, nor my Department is aware of a program with the formal title Kampuchean Humanitarian Assistance Program. You may be referring to the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative for Humanitarian Assistance to the Kampuchean People. Our 1986 contribution to the UN Border Relief Operation (UNBRO) which is co-ordinated by the Special Representative was a cash grant of $775,000 for the purchase of food. Other humanitarian assistance provided through other UN organisations for Cambodian people on the Thai-Cambodian border and inside Cambodia in 1985-86 is as follows: A$,000 UNHCR Returnee project (Kompong Chnang)... 0.100 Food for Returnees in Cambodia (UNHCR)... 0.715 UNICEF... 1.450 Assistance for 1986-87 will be considered in the context of next year's budget. (Question No. 3545) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether between 1979 and 1983, Vietnam received 90 per cent of its food imports, 90 per cent of its cotton, 80 per cent of its metals, and 70 per cent of its fertilizer from the Soviet Union. (2) If so, is he able to estimate the annual subsidy the Soviet Union provides Vietnam in monetary terms. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of a report which cites the figures quoted in the honourable member's question, but for the year 1981 alone. Reliable statistical data on Vietnam's economy and foreign economic relations are not available, but the figures quoted are generally consistent with those obtained from various sources. (2) With the same proviso regarding the absence of reliable and comprehensive statistics, the annual assistance provided by the Soviet Union to Vietnam for both military and non-military purposes has been estimated to be worth in monetary terms approximately $US2,000 million. The assistance takes various forms including loans and grants, and the extent to which it constitutes a subsidy is not clear. (Question No. 3546) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say how many civilians were killed by the NPA in the Philippines during 1985. (2) Did he discuss the NPA and the Australian defence co-operation program with the relevant officials during his visit to the Philippines. (3) Were any undertakings about the defence co-operation program with the Philippines given; if so, what were they. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Recently published statistics from the Armed Forces of the Philippines give a figure of 1,218 civilian casualties arising from the New People's Army (NPA) insurgency in 1985. (2) During my visit to Manila, I discussed the NPA insurgency in general terms with members of the Philippine Government including Defence Minister Enrile. I did not discuss the Defence Co-operation Program with Defence Minister Enrile. I did indicate to President Aquino that the Australian Government had resumed the program which had been administratively suspended in February and that, in the changed circumstances in the Philippines, the Government would want to continue the training component of the program. (3) See (2) above. The Defence Co-operation Program is the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. (Question No. 3550) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether Libya continues to send assistance to the Muslim Moro separatists on Mindanao, in the Philippines, despite a 1976 agreement with Manila to cease such aid. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Libya is known to be sympathetic to the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF). The Philippine Government protested to Libya in the early 1970s on the grounds that Libya had allegedly supplied weapons and training to MNLF members. The Australian Government is unable to confirm whether or not Libya has provided assistance to the MNLF in Mindanao since the Tripoli agreement of 1976. (Question No. 3551) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether Colonel Qadhafi has provided paramilitary training to the small Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In the past, Thai press reports have indicated that Muslim separatists in the south of Thailand have received military training in Libya. The Australian Government is unable to confirm the accuracy of these reports. (Question No. 3553) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is he able to say whether Libya maintains relations with Pakistan although it has been involved with the al-Zulfiqar terrorist group. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Libya and Pakistan maintain diplomatic relations. The relationship has been strained by Pakistan's suspicion of Libya's active support for the al-Zulfiqar, which is regarded by the Government of Pakistan as a terrorist group. (Question No. 3554) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether reports from Egyptian and other Arab sources indicate that Libya may have granted control of the port of Al Bardiyah, just west of the Egyptian border, to the Soviet navy. (2) Is he also able to say whether (a) details of the agreement may have been finalized during Colonel Muammar Qadhafi's recent trip to the USSR and (b) the agreement covers the development of the port as a military base and drydock facility. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I have no information to suggest that Libya has granted control of the port of Al Bardiyah (located at 31* 46'n, 25* 06'e and also called Bardiyah or Bardia) to the Soviet Navy or that any agreement to that effect has been, or is being, negotiated. (Question No. 3562) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Sandinista Ministry of the Interior has formed special clandestine units which carry out assassinations, infiltrate the opposition and sometimes pose as opposition armed units to create confusion and discredit the opposition groups. (2) Did he raise this with the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister who visited Australia in 1985; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A former official of the Nicaraguan Ministry of the Interior who defected to the United States in August 1985, Mr Jose Alvaro Baldizon, has made allegations along the lines mentioned in the question. My Department has obtained information on matters relating to the allegations but it is not sufficient to enable me to assess conclusively the validity of some of the more serious claims. The allegations are the subject of controversy in the United States. The independent human rights organisations, Americas Watch, concluded in its report of March 1986 that Mr Baldizon had ``made an important contribution in calling attention to a program of `special measures' by the Nicaraguan Government''. The report stated, however, that it was not clear what the ``special measures'' entailed. Sandinista spokespersons have stated that infiltration of some elements of the opposition has taken place. Nicaragua's Minister of the Interior, Tomas Borge, told Americas Watch that ``special measures'' was a phrase used to describe covert operations, including infiltration and surveillance. He denied that such measures might include murder. However the Nicaraguan Defence Minister, Humberto Ortega, stated in october 1985 that ``... special actions, operations of infiltration, are carried out with the Ministry of the Interior; we have smuggled explosives into the bases, leaders have been killed by means of special actions''. On the evidence available to me, it would seem that these actions may have been directed towards combattants in armed opposition to the Nicaraguan Government and part, therefore, of the regrettable state of hostilities that continues in Central America. Mr Baldizon also alleged that agents of the Nicaraguan Ministry of the Interior posed as anti-government insurgents (contras) and committed gross abuses of human rights which have been blamed on the contras. On the information presently available to me I regard this allegation of Mr Bandizon's as unlikely. While it is possible that agents of the Nicaraguan Ministry of the Interior may have infiltrated opposition party political groups within Nicaragua, I have seen no evidence to suggest that such infiltration might have resulted in the death of any person. Americas Watch concluded that Mr Baldizon was not credible in his claim that 2,000 had been murdered by the Nicaraguan Government. Mr Baldizon has appa-rently been unable to supply any names or details of deaths or disappearances additional to those already known from other sources. On the information available to me I concur with the Americas Watch assessment. Notwithstanding the preceding comments, there remain a number of incidents involving deaths and disappearances which have not been explained satisfactorily by the Nicaraguan Government. These relate particularly to events on the Atlantic coast in 1981 and 1982. An apparently authentic document brought out of Ni-caragua by Mr Baldizon indicates the application of ``special measures'' in several cases in that area. The Australian Government is deeply concerned at the implication in these references of high-level complicity in such actions and the apparent failure of the Nicaraguan Government to take appropriate disciplinary measures. (2) No. The allegations of special measures and special units had not come to my attention at the time of the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister's visit. In any case I remain to be convinced that Mr Baldizon's allegations add substantially to what we already know about human rights abuse in Nicaragua. I have raised Australian concerns over Nicaragua's human rights performance with the Nicaraguan Foreign Minister, not only in 1985 but also during my visit to Nicaragua in 1984. (Question No. 3568) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Has his attention been drawn to reports that some vessels of the Soviet fishing fleets in Kiribati, may have military personnel aboard; if so, does information available to the Australian Government support these reports. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: We have no information to support the suggestion that military personnel as such are aboard Soviet fishing fleets in waters near Kiribati. (Question No. 3570) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: 1. Did the Government decide to increase aid to the Philippines from $16m to $25m. 2. Is the extra $9m to come from additional funds allocated to the overall aid budget or will it come from existing aid budget allocations. 3. If the latter, from what areas of the aid budget will it come from. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. I announced to the House on 14 March that Australia's aid to the Philippines would increase to an estimated $25m per annum in 1986/87. 2 and 3. The final form of next year's aid budget is yet to be determined. (Question No. 3571) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is it a fact that, as most of the private overseas students come from Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong, these countries have now become major aid recipients since part of the cost of educating them is now classified as aid. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Students from Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore represent approximately 73 per cent of the total overseas student population undertaking formal studies. As the educational costs incurred by the Government on behalf of foreign students have, since the 1984-85 financial year, been classified as official development assistance, the reported level of bilateral assistance to the above countries has increased significantly. As a consequence, aid reported as going to Malaysia rose from $7.465m in 1983-84 to $60.699m in 1984-85. Bilateral assistance to Hong Kong rose from $105,000 to $11.726m and Singapore from $2.273m to $8.6m in the same period. (Question No. 3572) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Is it a fact that, with the provision of overseas student costs in the aid budget, Hong Kong now receives almost as much aid as Ethiopia and more than Bangladesh. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: This is incorrect. In 1984-85 bilateral aid to Ethiopia totalled $29.726m, Bangladesh received $19.143m and Hong Kong $11.726m. In 1985-86 it is anticipated that Ethiopia will receive approximately $17m, Bangladesh $15.5m and Hong Kong $11.8m in bilateral assistance. Almost all of Hong Kong's assistance comprised student costs. In addition, Australia's contributions to multilateral bodies such as the World Food Program and other United Nations agencies and to international financial institutions will provide significant further assistance to Ethiopia and Bangladesh. (Question No. 3585) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March: (1) Did he grant $510 to the Creative Leisure Movement, Northern Beaches Region, NSW for the publication of an anthology of short stories and poems on peace themes; if so, on what basis was the grant awarded. (2) Did he insist on an assurance from the Creative Leisure Movement, Northern Beaches Region that their anthology would not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (3) Has the Creative Leisure Movement, Northern Beaches Region previously published anthologies on subjects such as peace; if so, (a) when, and (b) what publications. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On the recommendation of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmenent I authorised a grant of $510 to the Creative Leisure Movement, Northern Beaches, NSW Region. In putting forward this recommendation the Committee commented as follows: `$510 because the evidence of their past publishing with very modest funding is impressive (e.g. Voices, Volumes I-III)'. (2) No. Had I considered the project was in direct conflict with established Government policy I would not have approved it. The Guidelines for applications for assistance to individuals community bodies and non-Government organisations stipulate in the Project criteria that: `proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered'. Additionally, the letter from the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the Grantee reminds the grantee that one of the criteria for IYP grants was that projects which are in direct conflict with established policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues would not be considered. (3) The Creative Leisure Movement's application notes that each year a competition is run to find the best short stories and poems written to a particular theme. An anthology `Voices' is then published of the winning and selected entries. Two anthologies accompanied the Movement's applicatioin entitled Voices Vol. 2 (1973) and Voices Vol. 3 (1985). (Question No. 3586) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did he grant $400 to Dr Bernard Swan of the University of New England to publish and distribute a series of monographs on peace related topics; if so, on what basis was the grant awarded. (2) Has Dr Swan published any other monographs on peace or related topics. (3) Did he insist on an assurance from Dr Swan that his monographs would not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On the recommendation of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament I authorized a grant of $400 to Dr Bernard Swan. In putting forward this recommendation the Committee commented as follows: `$400 because the applicant has an excellent reputation for scholarly contributions (eg. War, Nuclear Deterrence and the Church, and Christianity in a Turbulent World)'. (2) Yes-see above, plus an article `Direction in Peace Science': copies of these accompanied Dr Swan's application. (3) The answer to the honourable member's question is the same as that given to (2) of question No. 3585. (Question No. 3587) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did he grant $5,000 to the Australian Study Group on the Armed Forces and Society to assist in the cost of a conference on perspectives on war and peace in Australian society; if so, on what basis was the grant awarded. (2) Has the Group conducted any previous conferences on the peace and disarmament area. (3) Did he insist on an assurance from the Group that speakers at their conference would not speak against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. However, on the recommendation of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament, I authorised a grant of $500.00 to the Australian Study Group on Armed Forces and Society. In putting forward this recommendation the Committee commented as follows: ``$500.00 because this answers a community need for structured contact and information exchange between those concerned with viewpoints on war and peace, and security and disarmament. This will be the 10th Annual Meeting of this Australian Study Group, and the Proceedings will be published widely as has been the practice since 1977''. (2) According to the Study Group's application they have conducted no specific previous conference on peace and disarmament. (3) The answer to the honourable member's question is the same as that given to (2) of question No. 3585. (Question No. 3588) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did he grant $15,000 to the Library Association of Australia to set up International Year of Peace resource centres in public libraries throughout Australia; if so, did he insist on an assurance from the Library Association that the material to be used in the resource centres would not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (2) What material will be used in the resource centres in the libraries of Australia. (3) Which organisations have contributed to the material to be used in the resource centres. (4) Did the organisations assure him that their material would not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have approved an initial grant of $15,000 and an additional grant of $25,000 to the Library Association of Australia for the establishment of IYP resource centres in public libraries around Australia. Had I considered the project was in direct conflict with established Government policy I would not have approved it. The guidelines for applications for assistance to individual community bodies and non-Government organisations stipulate in the Project criteria that: `proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered'. Additionally, the letter from the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the grantee reminds the grantee that one of the criteria for IYP grants was that projects which are in direct conflict with established policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues would not be considered. (2) Each library will be responsible for the selection of material for use in the resource centre. Libraries participating in the project will be provided with a basic list of suggested materials on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. I have not personally approved this list. The libraries will not, however, be limited to this material, some of which they may already hold. A supplementary illustrative list of other relevant material from which they may wish to draw is also being provided to the libraries. (3) As indicated above, no organisation has been invited by the Government to contribute material to the resource centres: the selection of material will be up to the individual public libraries in consultation with the Library Association. A wide range of organisations and individuals were asked to suggest items for inclusion on the lists of resource centre material mentioned in paragraph 2 above. These include, amongst others, the IYP Director, Mrs Stella Cornelius, who had undertaken extensive consultations; the Peace Research Centre at the Australian National University; the World Council of Churches; the Australian Council for Overseas Aid; the Royal United Services Institute; the Peace Through Security Campaign; the Australian Defence Force Academy; the Catholic Commission on Peace and Justice; and officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. (4) It is Government policy to encourage an informed debate on peace and disarmament issues and to support the United Nations Objectives for the International Year of Peace, including the objective of `focussing attention and encouraging reflection on the basic requirements of peace in the contemporary world'. The Government's aim through this project is to assist libraries to provide to the public both factual information and a balanced range of views on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (Question No. 3589) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Further to his answer to a question without notice (Hansard, 13 February 1986, page 468) in which he stated that an amount of $200,000 had been provided to the Australia Council in 1985-86 to fund involvement in the International Year of Peace (IYP) by visual and performing artists, (a) who are the artists, (b) who will be involved in IYP performances and (c) have they previously been involved in any peace related activities. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Twenty-two recipients of Australia Council International Year of Peace (IYP) grants were listed in a media release of 23 April by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Since that time one further Australia Council IYP grant of $10,000 was made to Mr Ric McCracken of the Footscray Community Arts Centre for the creation of a Peace Curtain. This brought the total sum provided by the Government to the Australia Council for IYP grants this financial year to $210,000. (b) and (c) The applications for these grants were submitted directly to the Australia Council and decisions on the grants were made by an Australia Council Committee led by its Chairman, Professor Donald Horne. My Department therefore does not hold copies of the application forms concerned and the information requested in parts (b) and (c) of the honourable member's question is not available to me. (Question No. 3590) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did he grant $1,000 to Dr Ralph Summy and Dr Malcolm Saunders of the University of Queensland for the publication of a monograph on the history of the Australian Peace Movement; if so, on what basis was the grant awarded. (2) Did he insist on an assurance from Drs Summy and Saunders that, in writing their monograph on the history of the Australian peace movement, it would not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On the recommendation of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament I authorized a grant of $1,000 to Mr Ralph Summy and Dr Malcolm Saunders. In putting forward this recommendation the Committee commented as follows: ``$1,000 because their work to date in professional journals (eg. One Hundred Years of an Australian Peace Movement) is of high quality''. (2) The answer to the honourable member's question is the same as that given to (2) of question No. 3585. (Question No. 3591) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did he grant $2,000 to the Australian Geography Teachers Association to assist in bringing the British peace studies expert, Doctor David Hicks to Australia for a speaking tour; if so, on what basis was the grant awarded. (2) Has the Association previously brought out visiting speakers to Australia. (3) Did he obtain an assurance from the Association that the speeches of Dr David Hicks will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On the recommendation of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament I authorized a grant of $2,000 to the Australian Geography Teachers Association. In putting forward this recommendation the Committee commented as follows: `The Geography Teachers Association of Queensland propose to bring Dr David Hicks to Queensland and other Australian centres. It was agreed to recommend an economy return air fare of $2,000. It was decided that in this case (and in other such cases) a visitor's host organisation should undertake all in-country expenses of the tour, endeavouring to secure contributions from community organisations and conference participants. It was also agreed unanimously that all IYP funded visitors should be made available to attend other venues where available and feasible; they should not usually visit only one city or State/territory in Australia'. (2) The Association's application was related to Dr Hick's visit as keynote speaker to their 10th National Conference. Their application shows that in 1982 the Association sponsored and organised a visit to Australia by Eleanor and John Rawling, two UK environmental educators. (3) No. Had I considered the project was in direct conflict with established Government policy I would not have approved it. The Guidelines for applications for assistance to individual community bodies and non-government organisations stipulate in the project criteria that: `proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered'. (Question No. 3592) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March: (1) Did the organisers of the Melbourne Moomba Festival seek $300,000 from International Year of Peace funds for a series of activities, including a free community peace concert, which will cost $87,344 to stage; if so, has their request been granted. (2) Will he insist on an assurance from the organisers of the Melbourne Moomba Festival that their activities and concert would not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The organisers of the Moomba Festival submitted applications for Commonwealth funding of seven IYP projects totalling $303,039.10. These included a request for a grant of $87,344 to support a free Community Peace Concert. None of these applications was successful. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 3593) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March: (1) Has the People's Environmental Action Cooperative Enterprise, NSW, applied for a grant of $65,680 from International Year of Peace funds for a road show of buses, trucks and vans to travel Australia offering entertainment, displays and workshops; if so has their request been granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the Cooperative that their road show will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (3) What individuals are involved in the Cooperative. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The People's Environmental Action Cooperative Enterprise, NSW, did apply for an IYP grant of $69,340 for a project as described by the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament. This committee assessed it as falling within the guidelines for consideration by the Australia Council for funding under its grant for IYP projects. With my approval, the project was then referred to the Australia Council which did not, however, select it for funding. (2) Not applicable. (3) The application form for funding gives the names of the following individuals as members of the project's management committee: Mr Dudley Leggett, JP (General Coordinator) Mr Neale Bernard (Financial Management & Sales Mr Richard Burns (Promotions & Marketing Consultant) Ms Fay Roth (Personnel and Task Coordination) Mr Brendan Hanley (Stage Show Production) Mr Ian Peter (Consultant, Programmes Organisation) Mr Andrew Mignot (Personnel and Administration) Mr David Hardwick (Transport) Ms Pauline Davis (Children's Education Coordinator) Ms Rosanne Peter (Catering) (Question Nos. 3594,3595,3596,3599,3601,3602,3603,3605,3607) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did Melbourne's Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Interim Committee for Justice and Peace apply for $10,000 for Internation Year of Peace funds to conduct a symposium (and associated activities) on the sprirituality of peace-making; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from Melbourne's Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Interim Committee for Justice and Peace that their symposium will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did St Joseph's Technical School apply for $6,000 from International Year of Peace funds for a comprehensive program of peace education and awareness for the school and outside community; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from St Joseph's Technical School that their peace education program will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did the Diocesan Youth Ministry Coordination Committee, Ballarat, apply for $8,080 from International Year of Peace funds to pay for a 4-day conference for 200 people, three two-day regional seminars and support for conference participants as catalysts for peace; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the Diocesan Youth Ministry Coordinating Committee of Ballarat that their business will not be directed against established government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did Community Aid Abroad seek $11,674 from International Year of Peace funds for a series of posters focussing on the link between peace and the satisfaction of basic human needs; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from Community Aid Abroad that their posters will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did the St Kilda branch of People for Nuclear Disarmament request $148 from International Year of Peace funding for a library display; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the St Kilda branch of the People for Nuclear Disarmament that their library display will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did the Movement Against Uranium seek $850 from International Year of Peace funds to buy a display board from what it called a community display; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the Movement Against Uranium that their community display will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did Friends of the Earth apply for a grant of $51,105 from International Year of Peace funds to prepare peace education and disarmament literature for schools, and for distribution and promotion; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the Friends of the Earth that their literature will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did the Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament apply for a grant of $7,450 from International Year of Peace funds for its youth art exhibition; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament that their youth art exhibiton will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. (1) Did the Peace Education Task Force request a grant of $7,200 from International Year of Peace funds for a peace education conference; if so, was the request granted. (2) Has he sought an assurance from the Peace Education Task Force that their conference will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's questions on all of the above projects is as follows: No applications for Commonwealth funding for any of these projects was submitted. However, the honourable member may be aware that a number of State Governments, including Victoria, have also set aside funds to support community activities for the International Year of Peace. I suggest that he direct his questions on the above projects to the appropriate authorities in Victoria. (Question No. 3597) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March: (1) Did the Anglican Working Group on Peace and Disarmament seek $7,000 from International Year of Peace funds to fund a parish study kit on international conflict; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the Anglican Working Group on Peace and Disarmament that their parish study kit will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On the recommendation of the Victorian State IYP Committee I have approved a grant of $7,000 for this project. The project comprises a range of peace activities in Anglican parishes including the promotion of a study kit on international conflict. (2) No. Had I considered the project was in direct conflict with established Government policy I would not have approved it. The guidelines for applications for assistance to individual community bodies and non-Government organisations stipulate in the Project criteria that: `proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered'. Additionally, the letter from the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the Grantee reminds the grantee that one of the criteria for IYP grants was that projects which are in direct conflict with established policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues would not be considered. (Question No. 3598) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice on 20 March 1986: (1) Did Community Aid Abroad seek $11,150 from International Year of Peace funds to employ a researcher for six months to investigate exports of arms from Australia, particularly to Third World countries; if so was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from Community Aid Abroad that their research will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, on the recommendation of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament I approved a partial grant of $3,000 to this project. (2) Had I considered the project was in direct conflict with established Government policy I would not have approved it. The Guidelines for applications for assistance to individual community bodies and non-Government organisations stipulate in the Project criteria that: `proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered'. Additionally, the letter from the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the Grantee reminds the grantee that one of the criteria for IYP grants was that projects which are in direct conflict with established policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues would not be considered. (Question No. 3600) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did the Australian Nuclear Free Zones' Secretariat apply for a grant of $9,518 from International Year of Peace funds to develop and distribute a directory of resources held by existing peace groups; if so, was the request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from the Australian Nuclear Free Zone Secretariat that their directory will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. My Department has received no application from the Australian Nuclear Free Zones Secretariat for a grant of $9,518 for an IYP project as described in the honourable member's Question. (2) Not applicable. (Question No. 3604) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March: (1) Did Mrs Margaret Frazer, wife of Jim Frazer, for many years, Communist Secretary of the Australian Railways' Union in Victoria, apply for $36,218 from International Year of Peace Funds, to produce a 30 minute video on the origins and evolution of the Victorian peace movement; if so, was her request granted. (2) Will he obtain an assurance from Mrs Frazer that her video will not be directed against established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answers to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. the IYP grant which I approved for this project on the recommendation of the Victorian State IYP Committee was $10,000. (2) No. Had I considered the project was in direct conflict with established Government policy I would not have approved it. The Guidelines for applications for assistance to individual community bodies and non-Government organisations stipulate in the Project criteria that: ``proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered''. Additionally, the letter from the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the Grantee reminds the grantee that one of the criteria for IYP grants was that projects which are in direct conflict with established policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues would not be considered. (Question No. 3606) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March: (1) Did the Peace Education Publication Group ask for a further $10,000 from International Year of Peace funds to produce a low cost booklet aimed at junior secondary level, on the nature of conflict; if so, was the request granted. (2) Has he sought an assurance from the Peace Education Publication Group that their booklet will not be directed against establised government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The grant I approved for this project on the recommendation of the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament was $2,000. The applicant made no second request for Commonwealth funding of this project. (2) Had I considered the project was in direct conflict with established Government policy I would not have approved it. The Guidelines for applications for assistance to the individual community bodies and non-Government organisations stipulate in the Project critera that: ``proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered''. Additionally, the letter from the Foreign Affairs Secretary to the Grantee reminds the grantee that one of the criteria for IYP grants was that projects which are in direct conflict with established policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues would not be considered. (Question No. 3612) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Did the Australian Embassy in Israel cancel its 1986 Australia Day celebrations because of budgetary restrictions? (2) Were any other Australian embassies forced to cancel Australia Day celebrations for budgetary reasons; if so, which? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv was one of 27 Australian mission overseas which did not host a function to celebrate Australia Day in 1986. Because of tight budgetary constraints, no functions were held at missions in the following cities: Algiers, Amman, Athens, Bombay, Bonn, Brasilia, Brussels, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Damascus, Geneva, Harare, Islamabad, Lagos, Lisbon, Lusaka, Madrid, Nauru, New York (UN), New York (CG), Ottawa, Paris, Pretoria, Suva, Tel Aviv, Vienna. (Question No. 3654) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: In view of the complexities involved in taxation cases, will he take steps to amend the Federal Court of Australia Act, the Judiciary Act, the Crimes Act, the Crime Taxation Offences Act to enable all criminal prosecutions relating to taxation to be dealt with by the Federal Court. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows- As indicated in my answer to question on notice No. 2201 (Hansard, 29 April 1986, page 2821), the current practice of investing State courts with federal criminal jurisdiction is one of long standing. The general policy, subject to some exceptions, is not to confer criminal jurisdiction on the Federal Court. I see no reason to change that policy. Amendment of the Acts referred to in the question is not, therefore, considered necessary or appropriate. (Question No. 3672) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Are mortgages raised over properties owned (a) individually, (b) jointly or (c) as tenants in common which are loans to a (i) family company, (ii) former partnership or (iii) son considered to be a charge or encumbrance against the property within the meaning of paragraph 6aa (1) (b) of the Social Security Act which refers to pension entitlement under the general assets test. (2) Does collateral security include security given by one person within a family unit to cover a loan to another family member. (3) Will he propose amendments to the Social Security Act to ensure that (a) his Department's interpretation of the Act is not open to question and (b) as the value of mortgages which sons and daughters are liable to repay exceeds their equity in family properties it would then be repayable by the parents and their interest in the property subsequently reduced. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (b) and (c) The basic principle of the assets test is that pension entitlement is determined by the value of a person's property other than the family home. Where a charge or encumbrance exists on a particular property, the value of that property is reduced by the amount of that charge or encumbrance, except where the charge is collateral security. The cases referred to in this part of the question involve situations where the pensioner is not the primary debtor but merely guarantor for the debt of a third party. Such a debt is treated as a collateral security and not allowed as a deduction against the value of pensioner's property. However, where the loan was made to a partnership or a family company in which the pensioner holds an interest, the value of the debt is taken into account in determining the net assets of the partnership or company and consequently the value of the pensioner's equity in the partnership or company. (2) Collateral security is taken to include not only a security which is secondary to the primary security but also a security given by one person to cover a loan to someone else. In the latter case, the value of the pensioner's property is not reduced merely because certain property is secured as guarantee for another person's debt. The pensioner's liability is contingent upon the default of the primary debtor and in that event the pensioner has a legal claim for reimbursement against the primary debtor. (3) (a) It is proposed to amend the Social Security Act so that it clearly excludes the deduction of a security which is secondary to the primary security and also a security given by one person to cover a loan to someone else. (b) This suggestion appears to be based on an assumption that the pensioner's children will fail to meet their mortgage repayments-this aspect is discussed in answer to part (2). It is not proposed to amend this aspect of the legislation. (Question No. 3683) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether some trade unionists dismissed by the South East Queensland Electricity Board (SEQEB) for illegal strike action have formed a working co-operative; if so, has the co-operative obtained contract work with SEQEB. (2) Is he able to indicate why the workers objected to contract work before they took strike action but now engage in it. (3) Is he also able to say whether the contractors achieve greater productivity than they did when they were receiving wages thus reducing costs to Queensland consumers. (4) Could the methods used by SEQEB and the Queensland Government be applied in Commonwealth industrial relations matters. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I understand that some form of workers' co-operative involving sacked SEQEB employees has been formed and it has obtained certain work with SEQEB. (2) No. That is a matter for the individual workers involved. (3) No. (4) No. As indicated already on a number of occasions the Federal Government does not agree with the confrontationist approach adopted by the Queensland Government and SEQEB in industrial relations matters. The failure of such policies is starkly illustrated by Queensland's abysmal industrial performance. During 1983, the number of days lost per thousand employees due to disputes in Queensland was 30% below the national average. During 1985, however, after the Queensland Government passed repressive and confrontationist industrial legislation, Queensland had the worst industrial record of any State and the number of days lost per thousand employees was almost 80% above the national average. (Question No. 3684) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: Did the Australian Wheat Board borrow money overseas to pay farmers for wheat used in domestic consumption in (a) 1984-85 and (b) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question, if so, has the depreciation of the Australian dollar resulted in farmers being disadvantaged in the the repayment of the loans. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) advises that in borrowing money from either Australian or overseas markets to pay farmers for wheat delivered, no distinction is drawn or maintained throughout the life of the pool for wheat to be consumed in Australia or exported overseas. However, the AWB does not borrow overseas more than its US dollar revenue returns, so that domestic borrowings are at least as large as domestic sales receipts. In effect then, payments to growers for wheat sold domestically are covered by domestic borrowings. (Question No. 3685) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Is the Australian Wheat Board able to borrow funds overseas without reference to the Loan Council; if so, does this apply only to short term loans. (2) Do these borrowings attract a higher interest charge than longer term borrowings. (3) Will he allow the Board to borrow from overseas lenders without any reference to the Loan Council in order to maximise returns to Australian wheat growers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes; the following overseas borrowing arrangements agreed by Loan Council in May 1985 reflect the fact that statutory marketing authorities (SMAs) including the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) borrow to meet essentially short term funding purposes. (a) SMAs to be permitted to borrow overseas for:- up to the level of their expected foreign currency denominated sales to meet advance payments to growers, provided that does not exceed their current season's net borrowing requirement; up to fifty per cent of their borrowing requirement to finance buffer stocks held in Australia; and any of their borrowing requirements to finance buffer stocks held or being shipped abroad; (b) SMAs to be permitted to borrow in the following markets: bank and institutional loans; US commercial paper; US banker's acceptances; Sterling acceptances; Euro Notes; and other similar forms of borrowings which may be approved by the Chairman of the Loan Council. (c) The terms and conditions of such borrowings to be determined by the relevant member of Loan Council and the Chairman is to be kept fully informed of the terms of all such borrowings. (2) The AWB advises that its overseas borrowings are made at the best achievable interest rate in each market. The interest rate varies depending on many factors, including the type of market, the amount, and the time of the borrowing. The use of short-term borrowings instead of longer-term borrowings does not necessarily incur higher interest costs. Currently, longer-term interest rates offshore are higher than the rates prevailing in those markets from which the AWB is authorised to borrow. However, the short-term borrowings have to be ``rolled-over'' at an interest rate which is unknown at this stage. (3) Further development of the arrangements is a matter for consideration by the Governments and the Loan Council in the light of the borrowing requirements indicated by the SMAs including the AWB. (Question No. 3686) Mr N.A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report of a Federal Court action involving Thomas Nationwide Transport, Mayne Nickless and Brambles known as the Tradestock Case in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 March 1985; if so, was the Trade Practices Commission directed to pay costs of other parties in the case. (2) What were the terms of the orders made with respect to costs. (3) Have the orders been complied with. (4) What sums have been (a) paid and (b) determined as being payable for costs by the Trade Practices Commission. (5) Will finance be obtained by supplementary estimates to enable payment of the costs to be made. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I refer the honourable member to my answer of 31 May 1985 to his earlier question (No. 181-Hansard p. 3278). (3) and (4) The Trade Practices Commission has paid three defendants a total of $513,141 in settlement of their claims. The Commission is negotiating with four other defendants on the extent of its obligation under the costs order. I am informed that two defendants have not yet submitted claims. (5) Yes. (Question No. 3689) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether there are any apprenticeship training courses for tailors in Australia; if so, which educational institutions provide the formal or theoretical training. (2) If courses are not available, will he negotiate with the States to provide apprenticeships for tailors. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information provided by State training authorities indicates that Tailoring is an apprenticeable occupation in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. However, at 30 June 1985, there were only two apprentice tailors in training, one in Western Australia and the other in Tasmania. Information provided by State Technical and Further Education authorities indicates that there are currently no technical education courses in tailoring for apprentices. There is an Apparel Cutting apprenticeship in Victoria and the apprentices undertake a course at the Melbourne College of Textiles, the content of which closely approximates the range of skills associated with traditional tailoring. I am advised that there has been a decline in demand for traditional tailoring which reflects changes over recent years in the structure of the clothing industry. These changes, and in particular the proliferation of mass production techniques, have led to the increasing specialisation of labour within the industry. This has resulted in a decline in demand for traditional tailoring in favour of more specialised training in particular aspects of production such as cutting and machining, or the incorporation of tailoring skills into related courses such as fashion design. Such courses are offered in many TAFE colleges and Colleges of Advanced Education throughout Australia. (2) State Governments have responsibility for the administration of apprentice training and I am not aware of any problems in respect of tailors. However, the Federal Government provides substantial financial support for apprentice training and is willing to assist in addressing identified training needs in respect of tailors should they arise. (Question No. 3692) Mr Rocher asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) How will the Public Service Board ensure that the Australian Public Service continues to attract high calibre applicants following the ``in principle'' decision to remove the general educational prerequisite for entry to the clerical/administrative stream of the Service. (2) Is the objective to provide easier access to what the Board describes as educationally disadvantaged groups; if so, have quotas, targets or formal or informal guidelines been set for numbers of educationally disadvantaged persons to be recruited. (3) How will applicants compete on individual merit for positions in the clerical administrative stream, following the elimination of the general education prerequisite. (4) What are the new guidelines for selection in the clerical/administrative stream. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Public Service Board is continuing to direct recruitment activities for clerical/administrative staff to people who have successfully completed year 12 of schooling, or have equivalent qualifications or experience relevant to clerical/administrative work. Applicants are selected according to their scores on the Clerical Selection Test, which have been found to be highly correlated with educational achievement. (2) The Board decided to remove the general educational prerequisite because it had become increasingly difficult to assess qualifications and because the prerequisite had excluded some candidates with demonstrated capacity for clerical/administrative work but without formal qualifications. One consequence of this decision is that it will be easier for people from educationally disadvantaged groups to compete on merit. No targets, quotas or guidelines have been set for numbers of educationally disadvantaged persons. (3) Applicants for appointment to the entry level of the clerical/administrative stream are selected according to their performance on the Clerical Selection Test. Applicants for appointment or promotion to individual positions are assessed against the selection criteria appropriate to each position. (4) The guidelines for selection (published in Commonwealth Gazette No. P1, of 14 April 1986) have not changed except that possession of formal educational qualifications is no longer mandatory. A copy of the relevant pages from the Gazette has been provided to the honourable member. (Question No. 3693) Mr Rocher asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: Are solicitors employed by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Sydney or elsewhere equipped with computer terminals linked directly to main computers at the Australian Taxation Office in Canberra or elsewhere; if so, to what extent are the solicitors able to obtain information (a) about taxpayers in contravention of the provisions of section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and (b) which is otherwise secret. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that solicitors and other officers within the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) are not equipped with computer terminals or other systems at the Australian Taxation Office in Canberra or elsewhere. Officers within the Taxation Office may access some DPP data bases related to bottom-of-the-harbour asset stripping. These data bases were created from ATO records and specifically relate to the terms of reference of former Special Prosecutor R.V. Gyles Q.C. Officers of the DPP obtain information from the Taxation Office in the course of the performance of their duties in prosecuting or advising on revenue related offences and in connexion with the performance of the civil remedies function. All DPP personnel with access to material to which the secrecy provisions of the taxation legislation apply are subject to the sanctions provided for contravention of those provisions. (Question No. 3696) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether there are over 500,000 Guatemalans living in Mexico on the Guatemalan border and that this represents about 10% of the Guatemalan population. (2) If so, what humanitarian aid is being provided to these people by the Australian Government. (3) What initiatives can the Australian Government take (a) unilaterally and (b) bilaterally, to ease the plight of these people. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to figures from UNHCR and the Mexican Commission of Assistance to Refugees (COMAR), there are an estimated 40,000 Guatemalans registered as refugees in Mexico. In addition to these registered arrivals, it is estimated that there may be as many as 100-150,000 Guatemalans in Mexico's southern states, including undocumented migrants, seasonal workers and persons displaced by unrest and violence in Guatemala. In all, this represents roughly 2% of Guatemala's population, which is 8.2 million according to the latest estimates we have. (2) and (3) While relative need is a primary consideration in the allocation of Australia's humanitarian assistance, other important criteria are our capacity to assist, our regional responsibilities and our strategic and economic interests. On the basis of these criteria, the main focus of the Australian Government's bilateral assistance is on the countries in our region. While Australia does not therefore provide humanitarian aid directly to Guatemalan refugees in Mexico, as a member of the international community we accept a share in aid responsibilities at the global as well as regional levels. We contribute unearmarked funds to the core budgets of organisations such as UNHCR and UNICEF which are assisting these people. As part of the Central American Refugee and Special Humanitarian programs, Australia already considers individual cases of Guatemalans presented to us by UNHCR as candidates for resettlement in Australia. According to information provided by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 50 Guatemalans were accepted for resettlement in the period July 1983 to September 1985. (Question No. 3697) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon Notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) What examples are there that (a) Australia, (b) the USA, (c) the USSR and (d) other nations are (i) observing Article 1 of the UN Charter by recourse to mediation or arbitration under UN auspices before resorting to the threat or use of force and (ii) acting in breach of Article 1. (2) Will the Government encourage other nations to join in undertakings not to (a) be the first to use armed force against other regimes or peoples and (b) assist or condone the first use of weapons of mass destruction; if not, why not. (3) What alternatives to the use of armed force has the Government proposed to strengthen the UN and International Court of Justice. (4) Will he prepare a public discussion paper on (a) Australia's response to the August 1984 proposal of Sweden's Thorrson Committee on conversion from military to development spending with a 33% gain in employment per $1 invested and (b) the advantages of a separate Ministry of Peace to offset conventional military and economic rivalry as the mainspring of diplomacy. (5) What proposals has the Government (a) initiated and (b) supported to (i) bring offenders against universal human rights before international tribunals as proposed for the European Parliament and (ii) introduce at UNESCO codes of conduct for news media, publishers and educationalists in judgmental statements about foreign regimes based on news reports and hearsay without adequate right of reply. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Article 1 of the United Nations Charter lists the purposes of the Organisation. The article does not address as such the specific obligations of member states, although the purposes of the organisation should guide the conduct of all members. Other articles of the Charter create specific duties such as Article 2 (4) which requires member states to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and Article 33 which requires parties to a dispute to seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice. All members of the United Nations are under an obligation to act in accordance with the Charter. The Charter contains mechanisms, particularly through the Security Council, to determine whether a state has acted in breach of certain key provisions of the Charter. Australia seeks to abide by the Charter in its foreign relations and considers that all member states should do likewise. Australia regrets it when member states do not abide by the Charter, but does not maintain a record of cases in which individual states do or do not observe particular articles of the Charter. (2) (a) As noted above article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter calls on member states to refrain from the threat or use of force. All UN members have subscribed to this commitment, but regrettably not all members have always observed it. There is no need for Australia to encourage other nations to make additional undertakings; what is needed above all is a renewed, more determined commitment by all states to act in their foreign relations in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. However, the Government would be prepared to give serious consideration to any proposals by other countries for declarations reaffirming existing non-use of force commitments. Such declarations could create a better climate for negotiations on the central issue of nuclear weapons. (b) Any undertaking could only be declaratory in nature since it could not be verified. The question of a declaration on no first use of weapons of mass destruction is an initiative which has been promoted by the USSR for many years and is directed against NATO's doctrine of flexible response. In the early 1950's NATO took a decision to deter Warsaw Pact superiority in conventional forces with nuclear weapons. It was inherent in this approach that NATO leave open the possibility of resort to use of nuclear weapons in response to an overwhelming conventional attack by Warsaw Pact forces, so as to deter such an attack. The USSR has given a unilateral undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. NATO's response was to restate its longstanding position that it would not be the first to use weapons of any kind, nuclear or conventional, and that all its weapons were meant for defensive purposes only. All this is a very old argument between the Soviet Union and NATO and it would serve no useful purpose for Australia to become involved in it. What is more important than declaratory statements are concrete steps towards disarmamant. To this end the Government has taken every opportunity to encourage the negotiations on limitations and reductions on nuclear weapon States, taken a leading role in pushing for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, promoted the negotiation of treaty on a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific, sought to maintain and to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, worked to achieve an agreement to outlaw chemical weapons and taken an active role in the deliberation of other disarmament and arms contol issues in the multilateral disarmament forums. (3) The Australian Government has consistently advocated that the United Nations system, including the International Court of Justice, should be maintained as a force for peace and stability. The Government has not proposed any multilateral alternatives to the UN system and believes that what is required is for all states to observe their existing obligations. The Government has also encouraged resort to the International Court as a forum for the peaceful settlement of international legal disputes. It has done so by example, through acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, and also by actively seeking to make the International Court the forum for settling legal disputes between parties to multilateral treaties when such disputes cannot be resolved by negotiation or other peaceful means. (4) (a) It is not appropriate for Australia to respond to the Thorrson Committee report because it deals exclusively with the Swedish national situation and makes no recommendations with respect to other countries. On 14 July 1983 the Swedish Government authorised its Minister for Foreign Affairs to appoint a special expert to study certain national aspects of the relations between disarmament and development. Mrs Inga Thorsson was appointed as Special Expert on 15 September 1983. Her report entitled `In Pursuit of Disarmament: Conversion from military to civil production in Sweden' was presented to the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs on 20 August 1984. The conversion proposals contained in the report have not been implemented by the Swedish Government. (b) Australia's contribution to the search for peace and security would not be made more effective by the creation of machinery separate from that which already exists for the co-ordinated management of our international relations. The important thing is not the name of a Department or Ministry, but what it does in practice. In the case of the Department of Foreign Affairs a large portion of its activities is related to the avoidance of war and peaceful resolution of conflicts. Furthermore, I have taken steps to strengthen the Department's capacity to handle disarmament and arms control issues. The Department, at the direction of the Government, has been very active in this field. (5) (i) (a) and (b) There is no international tribunal as such with worldwide jurisdiction to bring to justice human rights offenders. I am not aware of the specific proposals for the European Parliament referred to by the honourable member, which presumably envisage arrangements additional to those already in place through the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights. The Government is committed to the international promotion and protection of human rights. Australia was re-elected in 1984 to the UN Commission on Human Rights for a three year term 1985-87. This followed six years of membership from 1978-83. As an active member of the Commission, Australia has supported consistently all efforts to scrutinise the cases of countries which consistently and grossly abuse human rights standards. Australia has also worked to improve and strengthen international mechanisms, including treaty committees, set up to monitor the human rights performance of states. Australia was an active member of the working group which negotiated the UN Convention against Torture. It worked for strong and effective implementation provisions for the convention. Australia has supported initiatives aimed at combating the practices of torture, summary and arbitrary executions and disappearances. Actions such as those listed above help to increase respect for human rights in many countries, and the Government will continue to pursue this objective actively. (ii) (a) and (b) In 1952 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the International Right of Correction, which entered into force on 24 August 1962. A convention can only operate in those States which ratify it or accede to it, and in the case of this convention only Cuba (1954), Egypt (1955), Yugoslavia (1956), Guatemala (1957), El Salvador (1958), Sierra Leone (1962), France (1962), Jamaica (1967), Ethiopia (1969), Cyprus (1972) and Uruguay (1980) have done so. The Menzies Government decided not to accede to it (Hansard 17 May 1961, page 2062). The 17th session (1972) of the UNESCO General Conference requested the Director-General to prepare and to submit to the 18th session a draft declaration concerning the fundamental principles governing the use of the mass information media with a view to strengthening peace and international understanding and combating war propaganda, racialism and apartheid. A declaration was finally adopted in 1978 by the General Conference which also endorsed efforts to establish a new, more just and more balanced world information and communication order (NWICO). In 1977 pursuant to General Conference instructions, the Director-General of UNESCO established the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, under the presidency of Mr Sean MacBride. The MacBride Commission's report was published in 1980 under the title Many Voices One World. In April 1980 the Director-General convened an Intergovernmental Conference for Co-operation on Activities, Needs and Programs for Communication Development. It recommended an International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC) and Statutes of an Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC. In October 1980 the 21st session of the General Conference established the IPDC and adopted the Statutes. The 22nd (1983) and 23rd (1985) sessions of the UNESCO General Conference supported the NWICO, `seen as an evolving and continuous process'. Australian delegations have supported the declarations, recommendations and resolutions I have cited. The 1983 delegation, acknowledging that `UNESCO's discussions and decisions on information and communication issues are the most widely misunderstood and, indeed, misrepresented of all its proceedings and programs', incorported the resolutions of the session in its report tabled on 6 June 1984. (Question No. 3701) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Did the Navy decide that Mr Keith Harper's position as Director of Mechanical Design was not sensitive; if so, (a) has the position since proved to be sensitive and (b) does this substantiate my expressed disquiet about the probity of the navy in respect of the submarine program. (2) Since being released by the Navy, does Mr Harper have any recourse to compensation for job loss at the behest of his Department. (3) How will he convince future tenderers that information given in confidence will not be made available to a competitor. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Mr Keith Harper's position as Submarine Project Design Manager in the Directorate of Naval Ship Design was not classified as a sensitive position at the time of his separation from the Department of Defence. Since that time, that position (amongst other positions) has been classified as a sensitive position, in the light of the more detailed design information progressively becoming available during the Project Definition Studies phase of the New Construction Submarine project. Probity of the Navy was not at issue in the reclassification of the position. (2) The Commonwealth has no financial liability in relation to Mr Harper's job loss. (3) Commonwealth public servants have a legal duty, under Public Service regulation 34 (a), to not use for any purpose, other than for the discharge of their official duties, information gained by or conveyed to them through their connection with the Public Service. (Question No. 3710) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: Will he bring up to date the information provided in the answers to question 313 (Hansard, 8 December 1983, page 3613) and parts (1), (9) and (10) of question No. 2022 (Hansard, 13 October 1981, page 1929) in relation to nominee shareholdings. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Stock Exchange data provide information on shareholdings by bank and other nominee companies. These data are as follows: Company Proportion of shares held by nominees (i) As at per cent BHP... 5.8.85 (ii)...23.3 Peko-Wallsend... 28.8.85 (iii)...40.3 Western Mining Corporation... 18.9.85 (iv)...41.7 North Broken Hill... 30.8.85 (v)...35.0 Pancontinental Mining... 27.9.85 (vi)...57.5 CSR... 20.5.85 (vii)...23.7 MIM Holdings... 19.8.85 (viii)...15.2 (i) These data represent the proportions of total issued capital of the companies that are held by the nominees included amongst the twenty largest shareholders in each company. (Data on other nominee shareholders are not available.) As such, these figures may underestimate the actual proportions of shares held by nominees. The extent of the underestimate may not, however, be significant as the twenty largest shareholders in these companies account for large proportions (in most cases, around half) of the companies' equity. (ii) Based on issued capital as at 3.12.85. (iii) Based on issued capital as at 30.10.85. (iv) Based on issued capital as at 1.11.85. (v) Based on issued capital as at 18.10.85. (vi) Based on issued capital as at 22.11.85. (vii) Based on fully paid issued capital as at 3.7.85. (viii) Based on issued capital as at 1.10.85. (9) Stock Exchange data indicate that the proportions of shares in each of the banks listed below that are held by each bank's nominee companies and custodians are as follows: Company Proportion of shares held by bank's nominee companies (i) As at per cent ANZ Bank... 8.11.85 (ii)...5.0 Westpac Banking Corporation... 29.11.85 (iii)...4.7 National Australia Bank Ltd... 28.11.85 (iv)...11.7 (i) Based on the top twenty shareholders in each bank (ii) Based on fully paid issued capital as at 24.12.85. (iii) Based on fully paid issued capital as at 9.1.86. (iv) Based on issued ordinary stock units as at 6.1.86. (10) The rank, in terms of the number of shares held, that each nominee has in its parent bank is as follows: Company Nominee company (i) As at Ranking ANZ Bank... ANZ Nominees Ltd... 8.11.85 2 Westpac Banking Corporation... Bank of NSW Nominees Pty Ltd, The Wales Custodian Services Pty Ltd... 29.11.85 3 National Australia Bank Ltd... National Nominees Ltd... 28.11.85 1 (i) In the top 20 shareholders in each bank, (Question No. 3720) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Canberra Times of 8 March 1986 regarding the trial of Mr A. D. Thompson for the murder of 2 teenage sisters in 1981 and the appeal against his conviction for the murders. (2) Is he able to say whether (a) Mr Thompson is already serving 6 concurrent life sentences for murder and (b) one of the grounds of the appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the sisters' murder occurred in the A.C.T. (3) Is he able to say whether any previous criminal trials have raised similar problems of proof in relation to the precise location of the commission of offences within the jurisdiction of the courts of any of the States or Territories. (4) What action will he take to prevent the absence of proof regarding the precise location of the commission of a criminal offence affecting the success of a prosecution in relation to persons tried in the States or Territories. (5) Is this a matter which could usefully be consi-dered by the Constitutional Commission. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) Mr Thompson is serving 4 concurrent life sentences for murder imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 25 October 1984. He was convicted by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on 2 further counts of murder, for which he has been sentenced to 2 further concurrent life sentences, commencing on 21 February 1986. Mr Thompson has appealed against the last two convictions. (b) Yes. (3) and (4) The problem of uncertainty of jurisdiction has arisen in various forms in different jurisdictions in Australia and has now been referred to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in relation to murder and offences relating to the infliction of bodily injury. A draft model Bill addressing the problem has been prepared and is now being considered by the Special Committee of Solicitors-General, who will report in due course to the Attorneys-General. It is anticipated that when a satisfactory draft model bill has been prepared it will be adopted by all States and Territories. (5) In view of the action being taken to resolve the problem this is not a matter that should be referred specifically to the Constitutional Commission. However, the Commission has broad terms of reference and may consider the matter if it sees fit. (Question No. 3724) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) What is the role of (a) the Supervising Scientist and (b) the Co-ordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers region. (2) Is the Supervising scientist required to provide impartial scientific advice. (3) Have there been any instances when he has not accepted this advice; if so, when and why. (4) What is the membership of the Co-ordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers region and what is the rationale for the appointments. (5) When and where are Co-ordinating Committee meetings held. (6) How many persons usually attend the Co-ordinating Committee meetings. (7) What costs are incurred by the Commonwealth for members or participants of the Committee. (8) What is the staffing level of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. (9) What are the average annual costs for (a) staff and (b) administration of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. (10) What was the cost to the Commonwealth of servicing and administering the Office of the Supervising Scientist since 1978. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The functions of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region are defined in s. 5 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act. The Supervising Scientist has a supervisory, co-ordina-ting and research role in the protection of the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory from the effects of uranium mining operations in the Region. ``Environment'' is defined in the Act to include ``all aspects of the surroundings of man, whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groupings''; (b) The functions of the Co-ordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers Region are defined in s. 17 of the Act. Its role is to facilitate the co-ordination of the work of the various parties involved in protecting the environment of the Region from the effects of uranium mining in the Region. In particular, the Committee provides a forum and a mechanism for the organisations and authorities with an interest in uranium mining in the Region to communicate, consult, consider and review matters related to the protection of the environment. The mechanism of the Co-ordinating Committee enables the Supervising Scientist to obtain comprehensive and co-ordinated advice and recommendations from interested parties. (2) Section 5 (e) of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act requires that the Supervising Scientist advise the responsible Minister on a range of matters relevant to the environmental effects of uranium mining operations in the Region, including the standards, procedures, measures and regulatory arrangements established to protect the environment. By implication the advice so provided must be impartial. (3) No. (4) Current membership is as follows: Mr R. M. Fry-Supervising Scientist Professor J. D. Ovington-Director of National Parks and Wildlife *Mr D. McLaughlin-Northern Land Council Mr D. F. Gascoine-Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Mr W. J. Gray-Department of Aboriginal Affairs Dr K. H. Lokan-Department of Health Mr W. G. McGregor-Department of Resources and Energy Mr R. W. McHenry-Northern Territory Government Mr C. W. Duchatel-Pancontinental Mining Limited Mr F. J. Gee-Queensland Mines Limited Mr J. Leggate-Ranger Uranium Mines Limited Mr J. P. Lawrence-Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia Ms L. Allen-Darwin *Deputy Member The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act requires that the Committee consist of the Supervising Scientist, the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, one member appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Administrator of the Northern Territory, one member appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the appropriate Aboriginal Land Council, and such other members as are from time to time appointed by the Minister. Two members, Mr Lawrence and Ms Allen, have been appointed at my discretion in view of their capacity to contribute to the achievement by the Committee of its basic environment protection objectives. (5) Since its establishment in 1978 the Committee has met on 40 occasions, at the following locations: Darwin (28 times), Sydney (6), Jabiru East (5), Canberra (1). The Committee currently meets quarterly. (6) On average, about 30 persons attend Co-ordinating Committee meetings, including members, deputy members and technical advisers. (7) Costs borne by the Commonwealth are associated with preparation, attendance and participation in Co-ordinating Committee meetings by Commonwealth members (refer to 4 above), the Committee Chairman and Secretary, and Commonwealth deputy members and technical advisers as appropriate. The Commonwealth meets the travel expenses of Ms Allen, who has been appointed to the Committee in her personal capacity and not as representative of any organisation. (8) Staff numbers of the Office were 76 at 31 March 1986, comprising: Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute (52); executive, supervisory, assessment and co-ordination (11); and Central Office administration (13). The approved Average Operative Staffing Level for 1985-86 is 77. (9) (a) The annual cost for salaries and payments in the nature of salary for 1984-85 was $2.213 million; (b) Administrative expenses for 1984-85 were $1.656 million. (10) The total cost to the Commonwealth of servicing and administering the Office of the Supervising Scientist from 1978 to 30 June 1985 was: $m Salaries and administrative expenses...14.952 Laboratory facilities...1.514 Housing plus land development...4.162 Research equipment...2.092 In addition $2.168 million has been spent on payment to consultants and other Government bodies for research carried out under research contracts. (Question No. 3725) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: Has the Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute detected any detriment to Kakadu National Park as a result of uranium mining operations; if so, what is the nature of the detriment and when did it occur. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Alligator Rivers Region Research Institute has not observed any detriment in the Kakadu National Park attributable to pollution effects of uranium mining operations at the Ranger or Nabarlek sites. (Under the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 the term ``uranium mining operations'' does not include the construction or use of towns or camps or structures or facilities connected therewith). (Question No. 3738) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: 1. Has his attention been drawn to (a) the report in Jane's Defence Weekly, dated 25 January 1986, that the women's peace groups demonstrating outside the Greenham Common Air Base in Britain had included members of Soviet special forces units under the control of the GRU and (b) statements reported in News Weekly of 12 February 1986 to have been made by Mr David Wurth of the Sydney-based Nuclear Disarmament Co-ordinating Committee (NDCC) that some people in the NDCC say we should have terrorist acts like the PLO and others do not. 2. What measures are being taken to ensure that no individuals or groups that advocate terrorism in the pursuit of their nuclear disarmament objectives will be participants in or receive financial assistance from the Government sponsored International Year of Peace program. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Yes. 2. The Guidelines for applications for assistance to individual community bodies and non-Government organisations stipulate in the Project critieria that: `proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered'. The Australian Government has repeatedly stated that terrorism and violence are unacceptable means by which to pursue political objectives and has committed itself to support international efforts to combat terrorism. The letter from the Foreign Affairs Secretary to successful applicants also reminds each grantee that one of the criteria for IYP grants was that projects which are in direct conflict with established policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues would not be considered. The Application Form for possible financial assistance from the Government's IYP program consists of six pages requiring details of the organisation, applicant and the project committee together with up to 250 worsa of project description. The profile section of the project application requires details of the project's aims, scope and relevance. It invites applicants to attach copies of letters of support, which are important where questions of credibility and background experience might arise. Apart from these written measures, all applications for Australian Government funding are initially perused by the IYP Director (Ms Stella Cornelius, OBE) and then by either a State/Territory IYP Consultative Committee or the National Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament. All nine committees are broadly-based and make their recommendations to me, through the IYP Secretariat located within the Peace and Disarmament Branch of my Department. I believe these measures are sufficient to ensure that individuals or groups advocating terrorism would not be participants in, or receive financial assistance from, the Australian Government's IYP program. (Question No. 3755) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question: Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the answer to parliamentary question No. 2050 provided on 17 April 1986 (see Hansard, pages 2602-2603), which provided details of amounts paid and projects undertaken over the period 11 March 1983 to 31 October 1985. Since 31 October 1985, payments have been made as indicated to the following companies for television, radio and cinema advertising and associated expenses: $ Monhan Dayman Adams Ltd...208,457.44 Chandler Hambleton Meir...290.00 (Question No. 3759) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84 (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of the answering this question. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. 1983-84: Nil. 2. In 1984-85 The Department of Foreign Affairs (including authorities under its control) paid two amounts totalling $465,387.17 to Monahan Dayman Adams Pty Ltd for publicising new passport procedures. 3. During 1985-86 to date five amounts totalling $435,161.10 has been paid to the same company for research, development and creative production for media publicity for the International Year of Peace. (Question No. 3770) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: (1) What were the amounts paid to and (2) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of these companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or Authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to the answer to question on notice No. 2065 asked by Mr Blunt on 9 October 1985. (1) Question No. 2065 related to the period ending 30 September 1985. An additional amount of $105,777 has been paid to Monahan Dayman Adams between 1 October 1985 and 31 March 1986 for services as the master charging and placing agency for the government's central advertising system. (2) The Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) has paid an amount of $208,113 to Monahan Dayman Adams for ATC promotions in New Zealand. (Question No. 3775) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: (a) What were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment (a) and (b) The following amounts were paid to Australian National Opinion Polls: (i) (ii) (iii) 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ Public attitude survey on introduction of unleaded petrol... . . 44,000 . . Follow-up survey on public attitudes to unleaded petrol... . . . . 24,000 Monahan Dayman Adams Pty Ltd has been engaged as the agency for unleaded petrol radio advertising. There has been no expenditure to date. Australian National Gallery (a) and (b) The following amounts were paid to Monahan Dayman Adams Pty Ltd: (i) (ii) (iii) 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ `Weekly Diary' advertising in local press; monthly advertising re specific Exhibitions in national press... 46,536 201,231 214,95? Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (a) and (b) The following amounts were paid to Monahan Dayman Adams Pty Ltd: (i) (ii) (iii) 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $ $ $ Television advertising re zoning of Central Section of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park... Nil 3,630 7,260 (Question No. 3781) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to moves by the Queensland Government to facilitate the establishment of a food processing plant that will use low level radiation to treat fruit, fish and wheat products. (2) Is he able to say whether there are similiar moves in other States, if so, which States. (3) Is this type of plant called a food irradiation plant. (4) Does this type of plant use radioactive cobalt 60 and caesium 137. (5) Is he able to say whether the Queensland Department of Primary Industry is in partnership with a New Jersey, USA, company, Radiation Technology Incorporated, in plans to build a food irradiation plant in Queensland; if so, where is the plant to be located and when is it expected to come into operation. (6) Is it a fact that this irradiation treatment could not be carried out in Queensland until it had been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) and the State Health Department. (7) Did the NHMRC as a member of Australia's Food Standards Committee circulate to certain parties a draft model food standards regulation for the irradiation of food. (8) Was he advised or consulted about the draft model; if so when. (9) Was he advised that the Queensland Government was in partnership or about to enter into partnership with Radiation Technology Incorporated and that that partnership was for the purpose of establishing a food irradiation plant. (10) Has his attention been drawn to (a) considerable opposition by consumers and consumer groups in the USA to the irradiation of food and (b) recent studies by the Food and Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture which have highlighted some long-term health questions over food irradiation when it is used on meat, fish and wheat and extensive research is still being conducted. (11) Is he able to say whether Radiation Technology Incorporated has been taken to court by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for violations over the operation of its New Jersey plant; if so what is the progress or outcome of the court proceedings. (12) Is it a fact that large amounts of radioactive cobalt 60 will be necessary for the operation of the proposed irradiation plan in Queensland. (13) Who will be the authorising authority for import licences for (a) the plant and equipment and (b) the radioactive cobalt 60 to operate the plant. (14) Is caesium 137 produced following an atomic explosion; if so, from what sources could caesium 137 be obtained for use in food irradiation and is the federal Government responsible for the issue of import licences for the importation of caesium 137. (15) Does the draft model regulation for the irradiation of food prepared by the NHMRC state that gamma rays from the radionuclides cobalt 60 and caesium 137 may be used for the irradiation of food. (16) Is it a fact that it would not be possible to operate a food irradiating plant in Queensland or any other State if the federal Government did not issue import licences for the importation of radioactive cobalt 60 and caesium 137; if not, how would a food irradiation plant secure radioactive cobalt 60 or caesium 137. (17) Does the draft model regulation for the irradiation of food prepared by NHMRC state that (a) cereals, (b) fruits, (c) poultry, (d) spices and (e) vegetables may be processed by irradiation. (18) Does the draft model regulation also state that if food processors wish to process other foods by irradiation, application must be made to the Food Science and Technology Sub-Committee of the NHMRC. (19) Does this statement mean that the determining authority to permit further foodstuffs to be irradiated is the Food Science and Technology Sub-Committee of the NHMRC; if not, who is the determining authority. (20) Does the draft model regulations state that food processed by ionising radiation shall have a label saying ``treated with ionising radiation''; if so, how will consumers know if an individual piece of fruit has been so treated. (21) What provisions will apply to the disposal of radioactive waste and spent radioactive cobalt 60 and caesium 137. (22) Were consumers or consumer organisations consulted prior to or during the drafting of the model food irradiation regulations; if not, why not. (23) Was the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission invited to make an input; if not, why not. (24) How long has the matter been under consideration and to what degree have the State Governments been consulted and involved. (25) Has the Government agreed or indicated its agreement to the importation of radioactive (a) cobalt 60 and (b) caesium 137. (26) Will he take steps to (a) stop the importation of radioactive cobalt 60 and caesium 137 for the purposes of food irradiation and (b) maintain a ban on import until there has been an opportunity for consumers to have the fullest possible exposure to the merits and concerns about food irradiation, if not, why not. (27) Is he able to say whether an Australian company, Ansell International, is in the process of building the first commercially available gamma irradiation processing plant in NSW in the Sydney suburb of Wetherill Park. (28) Is he also able to say (a) whether this plant uses a model JS 8900 carrier type gamma steriliser designed and fabricated by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd and (b) when it is expected to come on stream. (29) Will the plant use radioactive cobalt 60, if so, who authorised the supply of the radioactive cobalt 60 and under what regulations was the cobalt 60 supplied and transported. (30) Is he able to say whether Ansell International owns a gamma irradiation plant now operating in Dandenong, Vic. if so, who authorised the supply of the radioactive cobalt 60 and under what regulations was the radioactive cobalt 60 supplied and transported. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Yes. It has been widely reported in the press that the Queensland Government is considering the establishment of a plant for the treatment of foods with radiation. A recent press statement by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries the Hon. N. J. Turner, MLA, confirms that they are ``looking for a process which might prove beneficial to Queensland's primary produce and the consumer by eliminating insects and bacteria without leaving potentially harmful residues''. 2. Yes. Victoria and New South Wales have existing irradiation plants which are capable of processing food products. Interest has also been expressed in Western Australia. 3. This type of plant is called a food irradiation plant if its sole purpose is to irradiate food. It would be called simply an irradiation plant when its purpose is to irradiate many different types of product. The economics of a plant dedicated to food irradiation will depend upon the scale of operation. 4. Such plants may use either cobalt 60 or caesium 137. Cobalt 60 is used much more frequently than caesium 137. No caesium 137 is used in any commercial facility in Australia and I am advised that its use is not currently anticipated. 5. The recent press statement by the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries emphatically denies any plans to build an irradiation plant in partnership with any American company. 6. No. Queensland has the sovereign right to develop and introduce its own regulations. In the interests of uniformity, Queensland has co-operated with the food regulation development mechanism of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 7. Yes. The NHMRC's Food Standards Committee has been developing the model food standards regulation for the irradiation of food since December 1983 and drafts of the model regulation have been in circulation for comment since April 1985. 8. No. The usual procedure is for the model food standards regulations to be developed by the Food Standards Committee of the NHMRC in accordance with the Council's ``Procedures for the Elaboration of Model Food Standards Regulations''. These procedures involve seeking comments from the State and Territory Departments of Health, the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, the Dietitians Association of Australia, the Council of Australian Food Technology Associations, the Department of Primary Industry and any other specially interested organisations. Such comment is sought and assessed at each stage of the development of a model food standards regulation. 9. No. See reply to 5. 10 (a) Yes. I am aware that there has been consumer opposition to food irradiation in the USA. The NHMRC has recognised that there is a need for a public information program in Australia concerning food irradiation and has established a Working Party to develop this program. (b) No. I am not aware of any recent studies in the USA highlighting long-term health problems with the irradiation of wheat, meat and fish. The NHMRC has recently been in contact with the US Food and Drug Administration in relation to potential problems and none were identified. The model food standards regulation does not currently permit the irradiation of fish or meat. The USA, in April 1986, gave final approval for the irradiation of all foods to a dose of 1 kilogray and spices to a dose of 30 kilogray. 11. A `National Times' article of 18-24 January 1985 referred to this case. I have no knowledge of the progress or outcome of the court proceedings. 12. The exact quantity of cobalt 60 required would depend on the design of such a plant and the intended use. For example the Wetherill Park New South Wales plant was commissioned with a source of 300,000 curies and has provision for expansion to 2 million curies. 13. The plant and equipment will not require an import licence but its operation will require licences to be obtained under the appropriate State Radioactive Substances Act. Under Item 23 of the Third Schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations the importation of cobalt 60 will require approval by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) which comes within the portfolio of the Minister for Resources and Energy. Copies of import approvals issued by the AAEC are routinely forwarded to the Australian Radiation Laboratory, the relevant State Department of Health, and the Australian Safeguards Office. 14. Caesium 137 is produced in the nuclear fission process as are many other radioactive elements. Caesium 137 for use in food irradiation would be obtained from the reprocessing of fuel rods from nuclear reactors. These fuel rods will have undergone controlled nuclear fission during the operating periods of the nuclear reactors. The same import arrangements apply to caesium 137 as for cobalt 60 (see reply to 13). 15. Yes. 16. No. If import licences for the importation of cobalt 60 and caesium 137 were not issued by the Federal Government, it would not be possible to operate a commercial food irradiation plant in Australia using these materials. However, Queensland or any other State could elect to use an x-ray source or electron beam generator if necessary. 17. Yes. 18. Yes. 19. The draft model regulation states that the NHMRC, on the advice of its Food Science and Technology Subcommittee, is the determining authority. This is still subject to acceptance of any such recommendation by the States which have the final say in such issues. The Food Science and Technology Subcommittee is merely a technical advisory subcommittee to the Food Standards Committee which in turn reports to the Public Health Committee of the NHMRC. 20. The draft model food standards regulation to which the honourable member refers, requires that the label attached to a package containing food that has been irradiated shall include the words `TREATED WITH IONIZING RADIATION'. Therefore consumers would not know if an individual piece of fruit sold separately had been so treated. The Food Standards Committee will consider a requirement that non packaged foods be similarly identified at its next meeting. 21. There is no radioactive waste generated in the normal operation of such plants. Arrangements for dealing with spent cobalt 60 and caesium 137 sources must be to the satisfaction of the appropriate State or Territory authority under their Radioactive Substances Act. Since 1971, spent cobalt 60 has by arrangement been returned to Canada for disposal. Caesium 137 would probably be returned to the supplier at the end of its useful life by a similar agreement. 22. Yes, at all stages. 23. No, the Radiation Health Committee of the NHMRC was consulted on the safety aspects associated with this draft model food standards regulations. They inspected existing irradiation facilities and decided they were virtually foolproof in terms of worker safety. The Committee will continue to prepare a revised `Code of Practice for the Operation of Irradiation Facilities used for the Treatment of Foods' more specific to Australian conditions. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission will be consulted on this. 24. The draft model food standards regulation has been under consideration since October 1983 and State/Territory Departments of Health have been consulted throughout its development. Each State/Territory Department of Health is represented on the Food Standards Committee and the Public Health Committee. 25. Approval has been given for the importation of cobalt 60 which is being used in the existing irradiation plants in Dandenong, Victoria and Wetherill Park, New South Wales. No agreements have been made regarding the cobalt 60 required for any possible plants in Queensland. Small quantities of caesium 137 are imported from time to time for educational, scientific, medical and industrial purposes. 26 (a) The Government has no information available to it which would warrant a ban on the controlled importation of cobalt 60 and caesium 137 for approved purposes in accordance with the procedures described in the answer to 13; (b) The public information program on food irradiation being prepared by NHMRC will provide the opportunity for even broader consideration of the associated issues within the Australian community. 27. An irradiation plant has been built for Steritech, (formerly a division of Ansell International) in the Sydney suburb of Wetherill Park. It is being used at present mainly for sterilisation of medical supplies. It is not used for irradiation of food but it has this capability. It should be noted that a similar Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. plant has been operating in the Sydney suburb of Botany for the sterilisation of medical supplies since 1972. 28. The Wetherill Park plant is a JS8900 carrier type gamma steriliser designed and fabricated by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. It has been in operation since early 1986. 29. The plant uses cobalt 60. Its importation was authorised by Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The supply and transport was made under the Regulations of the NSW and Victorian Radioactive Substances Acts. 30. I am informed that the gamma irradiation plant which has been operating at Dandenong in Victoria since 1971 is now owned by Steritech. Importation of the cobalt 60 was authorised by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The supply and transport of the cobalt 60 was made under the Regulations of the Victorian Radioactive Substances Act. (Question No. 3783) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What is the estimated cost of providing a Pensioner Health Care Card and associated services and facilities to all persons in Australia aged 70 years and over in (a) 1985-86 and (b) each of the next 10 years. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Based on 1984-85 average fringe benefit costs and assuming a constant ratio of eligible pensioners to population aged 70 or more over the whole period, the cost to the Commonwealth of extending fringe benefits (Pensioner Health Benefit cards) to all persons 70 years and over is estimated to be: (a) $61m in 1985-86. (b) $63m in 1986-87; $64m in 1987-88; $66m in 1988-89; $67m in 1989-90; $70m in 1990-91; $72m in 1991-92; $74m in 1992-93; $76m in 1993-94; $78m in 1994-95; $80m in 1995-96; These figures do not include additional costs to the States which could be substantial. (Question No. 3803) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (1) What was the basis used in setting the weight restrictions for ultralight aircraft. (2) What evidence is there that specifying the legal weight of an ultralight aircraft is a satisfactory method of proving structural integrity as suggested in Air Navigation Order 95.10. (3) Do the regulations make flights illegal in ultralight aircraft which exceed the weight limits but which have a record of safe operations; if so, will he implement the proposal of the Australian Ultralight Federation to allow those `overweight' ultralight aircraft with a proven record of safe operations to continue to operate in the same way that the former Department of Civil Aviation allowed gliders with a record of safe operations to operate under a dispensation from the regulations; if not, why not. (4) Is it a fact that enthusiasts wishing to construct stronger, safer and, as a consequence, heavier ultralights are disadvantaged by the regulations, as the weight limitations are so severe as to make any further development in this direction difficult; if so, are the regulations contrary to the stated Departmental policy of promoting safety and fostering aviation in all of its forms. (5) Are the weight restrictions on ultralight aircraft inconsistent with those on gyroplanes as outlined in Air Navigation Orders 95.10, 95.12 and 95.25; if so, why. (6) Will he introduce a single weight limitation of 250 kilograms (empty weight) for all ultralights as is the case for gyroplanes under Air Navigation Order 95.12; if not, why not. (7) Is the complete self-regulation of ultralight aviation by the Australian Ultralight Federation, based upon the model of self-regulation of gliding by the Gliding Federation of Australia, a goal of him and his Department; if not, why not. (8) If self-regulation for ultralight aviation is his goal, why has his Department employed a number of sport aviation inspectors to oversee the operations of the Australian Ultralight Federation. (9) How many persons have been employed in these or similar positions, at what cost and where are they to be stationed. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Weight restrictions are imposed on ultralight aircraft primarily to limit the performance of such aircraft to that reasonable for sport and recreational flying by unlicensed pilots. The basis of the weight limitations used for each category of ultralight is further addressed in my answer to part (4) of your question. (2) Weight restrictions do not prove structural integrity. The major weight factors in ultralight aircraft are the engine and fuel capacity which are directly related to the speed and range of the aircraft. The weight and other limitations in ANO 95.10 are specified so that aircraft in this category, which are exempt from airworthiness standards, only have the performance to enable enthusiasts to undertake local low level recreational and sport flying. With these restrictions such aircraft pose minimum risk to other airspace users and the general public. (3) Flights in aircraft which do not comply with the relevant Air Navigation Orders are illegal. It is not possible to implement the proposal of the Australian Ultralight Federation at this time as my Department has no reliable information on the numbers, design and construction or the history of operation of such aircraft. It will not be possible to make any decisions on the future of aircraft in this category until we have reliable data which, ideally, should be provided by the Federation as part of its role in the national administration of ultralight recreational activities. (4) No. Safe and structurally sound aircraft can be constructed within each of the following categories: Basic Ultralight (ANO 95.10)-provides requirements for enthusiasts who wish to have a minimum performance aircraft for local recreational flying. Advanced Ultralights (ANO 95.25)-requirements for those who wish to participate more extensively in sport aviation activities, or to undergo flying training, and thus need better performance. Existing Amateur Built and General Aviation Standards (ANO 101.28)-requirements for those who wish to use aircraft for private flying activities normally associated with the lower end of the general aviation range of aircraft such as the Cessna 150. (5) No. The design and construction of gyroplanes differ considerably from those used for ultralight aircraft. All rotorcraft, including the most basic gyroplane, require a heavy rotor and relatively large engine to achieve flight. They therefore must have a more robust structure to cater for that weight and the significant forces generated by the operation of the aircraft. 95.10 and 95.25 ultralights operate in a similar manner to conventional aircraft and basic performance can be achieved with a lighter engine and structure. The weight restrictions for ultralight aircraft under ANO 95.10 and 95.25, and for gyroplanes under ANO 95.12, are therefore set to provide adequate performance for safe local flying in each type of machine. (6) No. Weight restrictions for ultralight aircraft have been formulated with regard to the type of activity that can be safely undertaken within each category as described earlier in part 4 of my answer. (7) Self-administration of ultralight activities to prescribed standards by a national organisation, continues to be the Government's objective. All sport aviation organisations, including the Gliding Federation of Australia, operate under minimum standards prescribed by my Department. Most are empowered to develop operational practices and procedures based on those standards. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety is currently inquiring into sport aviation activities with particular reference to ultralight operations. The outcome of the inquiry will provide valuable guidance to the Government on the future course of administration of ultralight activities. (8) Two Sport Aviation Inspector positions exist in the Central Office of my Department. Their basic role has been to consult with all national sport aviation organisations with a view to developing operational requirements and flight crew standards which are appropriate to the needs of the various sport aviation sectors and, at the same time, ensure that the broader aims of the Air Navigation Act and Regulations for the overall safety of air navigation are met. Recently, two Regional Offices of the Department have added Sport Aviation Inspectors to their establishments to monitor the implementation of standards within those Regions. Prior to the employment of these Inspectors, their duties were undertaken by more highly paid Examiners of Airmen. (9) Four-two in Central Office and one each in Queensland and New South Wales. There are also plans to recruit an additional inspector for the Victoria/Tasmania Region. The full year salary cost for the four officers will be $123,467. (Question No. 3813) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (a) Has the draft model regulation to facilitate the irradiation of food been adopted. (2) If so, does the new model regulation provide less stringent requirements on the labelling of food processed by ionising radiation than that originally proposed. (3) Is it a fact that the labelling provisions now provide 2 alternatives namely, ``irradiated (here insert the name of the food)'' or words having the same or similar effect to clearly indicate to the consumer that the food has been irradiated. (4) Have aflatoxins been produced more abundantly than normal in irradiated foods in a number of studies. (5) Are aflatoxins approximately 1,000 times more potent carcinogens than the pesticide EDB. (6) Has the Public Health Committee endorsed a recommendation of the Food Standards Committee for a public education program concerning food irradiation using radioactive cobalt 60. (7) Has a working party been recommended; if so, what are its (a) terms of reference and (b) composition. (8) How many consumer representatives are on the working group. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The model regulation has been adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2) No. (3) The labelling requirements of the model regulation have been further revised and approved by the NHMRC at its 101st Session in June 1986- They are now as follows: `There shall be written in the label on or attached to a package containing food that has been processed by ionizing radiation, in standard type of 3 mm, the words: ``TREATED WITH IONIZING RADIATION'' ``IRRADIATED (here insert the name of food)''. (4) A few studies have claimed increased aflatoxin production in irradiated grain. The Food and Drug Administration of the USA has recently reviewed this matter and concluded that there is no evidence available to show that food irradiated and stored under normal handling practices would show increased aflatoxin production. Furthermore the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods of the United Kingdom in 1986 and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/International Atomic Energy Authority/World Health Organisation Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods in 1980 in their reviews of data relevant to the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated foods had concluded that the irradiation of food up to an overall average dose of 10 kilogray presents no toxicological hazard and introduces no special nutritional or microbiological problems. (5) EDB and aflatoxins are both potent carcinogens but it is not possible to quantitate the difference in their potency as is suggested in the question. (6) Yes. (7) Yes. (a) The terms of reference of the working party are as follows: (i) to devise a national consumer information program with regard to food irradiation; and (ii) to report to the Food Standards Committee (b) The membership of the working party is as follows: Mr B. Holt (Chairman), Executive Director, Grocery Manufacturers of Australia. Nominee of the Food Industry Council of Australia on the Food Standards Committee. Chairman of other NHMRC working parties on public education programs. Mr A. C. Charlton, NHMRC Public Information Officer. Also on other NHMRC public education working parties. Dr G. De Cean, Director, Food Administration Section, Commonwealth Department of Health. Chairman of the Food Science and Technology Subcommittee and member of the Food Standards Committee. Involved with the development of the regulation since 1981. Mr A. H. Downer, nominee of the Council of Australian Food Technology Associations. Member of the Food Standards Committee and other NHMRC working parties on public education. Mr D. Keam, Acting Director, Australian Radiation Laboratory. Mrs E. Montague, nominee of Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) and member of other NHMRC public education working parties. Ms P. Murray, expert in advertising and a member of AFCO Executive. Miss J. Taylor, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Bureau, Queensland. Highly experienced in consumer related public education programs and knowledgeable on food irradiation. Mr G. West, General Manager, Steritech. 11 years practical experience in the irradiation sterilisation industry. Ms P. Wills, Head, Irradiation Research and Technology Section, Isotope Division A.A.E.C. Ms Wills is a leading irradiation scientist with extensive experience in food irradiation research. (8) Three. (Question No. 3834) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Is he able to say when the investigations by the New South Wales Government into the transfer of the management of the Bishopsgate Insurance Aust. Ltd's investment portfolio referred to in my question No. 3159 will be completed. (2) Will he raise the matter at the next meeting of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities as a matter of urgency; if not, why not. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) No. I have nothing to add to my answer to question No. 3159. This is an important matter but it is the responsibility of the New South Wales Government and the investigation is being conducted by it. (Question No. 3836) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: What is the current, most common retail price of supergrade petrol in $A per litre in (a) Sydney, (b) Chicago, (c) London, (d) Paris, (e) Rome, (f) Bonn, (g) Toronto, (h) Leningrad, (i) Belgrade, (j) Athens, (k) Tokyo and (l) Buenos Aires. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. The most recently available retail price of supergrade petrol in Australian currency per litre in various capital cities is as follows: (a) Sydney, 50 cents per litre (b) Chicago, 40 cents per litre (c) London, 76 cents per litre (d) Paris, 95 cents per litre (e) Rome, 118 cents per litre (f) Bonn, 65 cents per litre (g) Toronto, 48 cents per litre (h) Leningrad, 86 cents per litre (i) Belgrade, 66 cents per litre (j) Athens, 78 cents per litre (k) Tokyo, 121 cents per litre (l) Buenos Aires, 69 cents per litre Prices are for the period early May to the third week in May. The exchange rate used was that at 19 May 1986. (Question No. 3839) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to concerns expressed by such diverse organisations as Aboriginal Legal Services and Amnesty International that moves to cut the budget of the UN would lead to cuts in the program and work of that organisation in the protection of human rights, including the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, the Human Rights Commission and subsidiary bodies. (2) Will Australian representatives at the UN take all possible action to ensure that the work of the UN in the field of human rights is not restricted by any budget cuts. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The proposals of the UN Secretary-General to which the honourable member has referred were considered by member states at a resumed session of the General Assembly, (28 April - 9 May) to discuss the financial crisis facing the UN. They were put forward as part of a package of cuts and savings for the 1986/87 budget, proposed as a short-term response to a substantial shortfall in the UN's regular budget. Cuts were essential to avoid insolvency this year. I refer the honourable member to the answer to a question without notice given by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, in the Senate on 2 May 1986. In view of the financial crisis and against the background of Australian support for the UN, Australia has called for cuts in programs and significant savings in staff and administrative costs and program activities, identified as inappropriate, no longer relevant or wasteful. The cuts proposed in the Secretary-General's package, however, did not reflect an assessment of relevance or priority. For this reason the Australian delegation to the resumed session was strongly critical of the approach adopted by the Secretary-General, although we acknowledged that savings were essential. Our concern to protect the human rights program was put to senior members of the Secretariat at an early stage when the likely content of the Secretary-General's package of proposals became known. We argued that the across-the-board cuts in the package had affected both high and low priority areas equally. As a high priority activity, human rights should not have been affected. The Australian delegation to the resumed session was instructed to oppose the cuts in human rights activities. The delegation expressed concern about the cuts in the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee, which examined the detail of the Secretary-General's package. Regrettably, we were the only delegation to do so. In a later letter to the President of the General Assembly, the Australian Permanent Representative recalled the Australian opposition to the cuts. There was virtually no support for the Australian stand and it was not possible to secure the retention of the human rights activities affected. Despite strong pressure to have other elements in the package deleted, the package was eventually adopted with only one amendment. A proposal to cut the next General Assembly by three weeks was left on purely procedural grounds to be decided by the next Assembly. This outcome is a positive development, although unfortunately it has been achieved at the expense of some human rights activities. Cuts have been agreed which will bolster the finances of the UN and enable it to continue to function for the time being. The process of financial reform of the UN will continue at the next General Assembly. Further cuts may be necessary. Australia will again argue that such cuts should be made only in areas assessed to have a low priority, so that further cuts can be avoided in vital areas such as the human rights work of the Organisation. Meantime Australia will continue to strive, as a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights, to preserve to the greatest extent possible the UN's work on human rights, to which the Government attaches highest importance. (Question No. 3846) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to public concern expressed about the proposed construction of toxic, noxious and hazardous industries on the Kurnell Peninsula, NSW. (2) Will he investigate whether any action can be taken by the Commonwealth to ensure that the interests of local residents, the national heritage and the environment are protected in relation to this proposal. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Captain Cook Historic Landing Place, Kurnell Peninsula, is listed on the Register of the National Estate. The remainder of the Peninsula has been placed on an interim list awaiting consideration for the Register proper, thus indicating the heritage significance of the area. This recognition can of course only affect any Commonwealth Government actions. The preservation of this historic area and the control of emissions from industrial plants to the environment is primarily a matter for State and local government authorities. I understand that the NSW Department of Environment and Planning is undertaking an overall land use safety and environmental risk study for the whole of the Peninsula as the framework for future decision making relevant to each proposed development. The proposal by Bayer Australia Ltd. to relocate its existing operations to a site at Kurnell is being environmentally assessed in accordance with requirements under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. I am informed that a public inquiry will shortly be conducted into the Bayer proposal. The inquiry will fully consider and report to the NSW Minister for Planning and Environment on all issues of public concern. (Question No. 3848) Ms Jakobsen asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Which authority is proposed to be responsible for monitoring the irradiation of food in Australia, and by what means. (2) What is the respective expertise in relation to food irradiation of members of the National Health and Medical Research Council working party concerned with public education on this subject. (3) Does he have any specific information which negates claims that chicken cannot be successfully or safely irradiated; if so, what information. (4) Does this information totally discount claims that mice fed on irradiated chicken showed an increase in testicular tumors, lesions including cancer, kidney disease, and reduced lifespans. (5) Does this information also totally discount claims that there was a radiation-dose-related increase in deaths among the offspring of flies fed on irradiated chicken meat. (6) If no contrary information is in evidence, why has he and the NHMRC permitted poultry to be included in the list of foods which may be processed by irradiation under the terms of the Model Food Standards Regulation. (7) Has his attention been drawn to the possibility of micro-organisms developing resistance to radiation over time. (8) Does he have information which claims that although salmonella bacteria may killed by irradiation, the bacteria which causes botulism may not be killed in the same process. (9) What independent studies were undertaken or commissioned by the NHMRC to evaluate the effects of irradiation on foodstuffs. (10) If no independent studies were undertaken or commissioned by the NHMRC in this regard, upon what research has the Council depended in concluding that food irradiation ought to be permitted in Australia. (11) Is he able to say (a) what the incidence of food irradiation in other countries is, (b) what types of food are currently irradiated, or proposed to be irradiated, in each country, and (c) at what dosage irradiation occurs. (12) Is he able to provide the results of research carried out in Australia, or elsewhere, on the formation of radiolytic products in irradiated foods. (13) Has he or the NHMRC given any attention to the need for the toxicological evaluation of foods irradiated at levels in excess of 100 kilorads; if not, why is the maximum acceptable dosage recommended by Council 10 kilograys. (14) Which States are considering employing food irradiation technology (a) in the forseeable future on products for domestic consumption, (b) on products for export. (15) Which States are proposing construction or modification of plant for food irradiation purposes at the present time. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Under the Australian constitution, food law and its administration including the irradiation of food and implementation of Radioactive Substances Acts are the province of State and Territory Governments by well established means developed in each State. (2) The working party is primarily to develop a public information program and has members with expertise in that area and members with expertise in food irradiation. The membership is as follows: Mr B. Holt (Chairman), Executive Director, Grocery Manufacturers of Australia. Nominee of the Food Industry Council of Australia on the Food Standards Committee. Chairman of other NHMRC working parties on public education programs. Mr A. C. Charlton, NHMRC Public Information Officer. Also on other NHMRC public education working parties. Dr G. De Cean, Director, Food Administration Section, Commonwealth Department of Health. Chairman of the Food Science and Technology Subcommittee and member of the Food Standards Committee. Involved with the development of the regulation since 1981. Mr A. H. Downer, nominee of the Council of Australian Food Technology Associations. Member of other NHMRC working parties on public education and member of the Food Standards Committee. Mr D. Keam, Acting Director, Australian Radiation Laboratory. Mrs E. Montague, nominee of Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations (AFCO) and member of other NHMRC public education working parties. Ms P. Murray, expert in advertising and a member of AFCO Executive. Miss J. Taylor, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Consumer Affairs Bureau, Queensland. Highly experienced in consumer related public education programs and knowledgeable on food irradiation. Mr G. West, General Manager, Steritech. 11 years practical experience in the irradiation sterilisation industry. Ms P. Wills, Head, Irradiation Research and Technology Section, Isotope Division A.A.E.C. Ms Wills is a leading irradiation scientist with extensive experience in food irradiation research. (3 to 4) Yes. The studies on which these claims are based were reviewed in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by a peer review group of the National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counsellors. The conclusions are summarised in the USA Federal Register of 18 April 1986 where they are discussed and dismissed. (5) Yes. (6) As above. (7) Yes. This speculation has not been considered significant by the Joint Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods of the FAO/IAEA/WHO, the Codex Alimentarius Commission or the US FDA. The Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods of the United Kingdom has also concluded that the irradiation of food poses no risk to public health. This Committee which was chaired by Sir Arnold Burgen, Master of Darwin College, University of Cambridge, reviewed the relevant scientific data bearing on the safety and wholesomeness of irradiated food and its ``Report on the Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods'' was published by HMSO in April 1986. (8) Yes. However the problem of survival of C. botulinum spores occurs with any non-sterilising food process and irradiation to reduce Salmonella contamination does not produce a unique hazard in this respect. Protection against C. botulinum poisoning in conventionally processed foods does not rely primarily on the presence of other organisms producing food spoilage but rather on sound food handling practices. A similar conclusion that irradiation of foods does not present any unique microbiological hazards was reached by both the International Committee on Food Microbiology and Hygiene of the International Union of Microbiological Societies and by the UK Standing Panel on Hazards from Microbiological Contamination of Food. (9) None. However Australia through the Commonwealth Department of Health did participate in the OECD/NEA/IAEA/FAO International Project on Food Irradiation (Karlsruhe). (10) The NHMRC has considered the reports of the Joint Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods of the FAO/IAEA/WHO and the OECD/NEA/IAEA/FAO International Project on Food Irradiation, information submitted in support of applications for approval to irradiate foods, the deliberations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the USA FDA and the USA Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service. The NHMRC has also obtained information from South African and West German authorities. (11) Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Peoples Republic of China, Chile, Denmark, France, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, Uruguay, USA and USSR have given approvals to irradiate food. No register is held which lists for each country specific commodities approved, types and quantities of foods actually being irradiated or dosages used. (12) I am informed that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has since 1960 been involved in food irradiation studies in collaboration with several other organisations both national and international. Details of recent studies overseas on the formation of radiolytic products in irradiated foods can be found in ``Recent Advances in Food Irradiation'' edited by P. S. Elias and A. J. Cohen published by Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam. (13) The issue has been considered by the food committees of the NHRMC which accept the view of the Joint Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods of the FAO/IAEA/WHO and the Codex Alimentarius Commission that irradiation to an average absorbed dose of 10 kilograys presents no toxicological hazard and that toxicological testing of foods so treated is no longer required. Similar conclusions have been reached in the United Kingdom by the Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. (14-15) This is an issue for individual State and Territory health authorities. (Question Nos 3876-3880) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Treasurer, the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to claims by owner-drivers in Queensland that they face unfair competition from some farmers who have entered the road transport industry as a side line and who, because of special excise exemptions on diesel fuel given to the rural sector for on farm use, have an unfair advantage in terms of costs and charges. (2) What requirement is there on farmers to declare the off farms use of diesel fuel. (3) What check is made on the declarations made by farmers regarding fuel use. (4) What penalties exist to deter the improper use of excise exempt fuel, especially where an unfair advantage is gained by rural producers against others who are full time in the transport industry. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question on behalf of the abovementioned Ministers: (1) Subsequent to the honourable member's question being asked, my attention has been drawn to the allegations contained in his question. (2) Farmers as well as other eligible claimants are only entitled to claim rebate for off-road use of diesel fuel. On making an initial rebate application, claimants are required to estimate their eligible percentage of diesel fuel for use otherwise than for the purpose of propelling a road vehicle on a public road. Details of all diesel road vehicles must also be declared. Any changes to these particulars are required to be notified on subsequent claim forms. (3) The Australian Customs Service has a national investigation system using risk assessment techniques as well as information derived from intelligence sources. Should Mr Wright have any specific information relative to the allegations I would be happy to receive details and arrange for the matter to be investigated. (4) A person who obtains any rebate which is not payable, or makes in any declaration or document produced to any officer any statement which is untrue in any particular, or produces or delivers to any officer any declaration or document containing any such statement, is guilty of an offence punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding 5 times the amount of rebate that was obtained by the commission of the offence and not less than 2 times that amount or by a fine not exceeding $5000. (Question No. 3884) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: What federal assistance is given (a) directly, (b) through the States and (c) through community/non-profit organisations, to persons who require access to medical aids (for example, wheelchairs, renal dialysis machines, artificial limbs, hearing aids, spectacles and AME 2 home treatment units.) Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Federal assistance through my Department is given directly for (1) hearing aids and (2) stoma appliances. (1) Audiological assessment, and the supply, fitting and after-care of hearing aids are provided free of charge under the Hearing Services Program of the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) to eligible clients. These clients, to whom varying degrees of services are available, fall into the following categories: Persons under 21 years of age Repatriation (Veterans' Affairs) cases Pensioners holding the Pensioner Health Benefits Card and their dependants Sickness beneficiaries holding the Health Benefits Card and their dependants Members of the armed forces Department of Social Security (Rehabilitation) cases Commonwealth Government compensation cases Estimated expenditure for 1985/86 on the Hearing Services Program is $26m. (2) Stoma Appliances-Through the Stoma Appliance Scheme, ostomy appliances are provided free of charge to colostomy and ileostomy patients. The Scheme was introduced in 1975 under Section 9A of the National Health Act and appliances are provided through Ostomy Associations established in each State and Territory in Australia. Estimated expenditure for 1985/86 on the Stoma Appliance Scheme is $5m. (b) Funds are provided to the States and Territories within the general tax sharing arrangements for health purposes; a reimbursement grant in respect of Medicare is also provided. Such funds flow into the States' public hospital systems from which medical aids would be available to patients of the hospitals in accordance with each State's priorities. (c) My Department does not provide assistance for medical aids through community/non-profit organisations. (Question No. 3904) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: What steps have been taken by the Government towards ratification by Australia of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and when does he expect Australia will ratify the Convention. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Australia signed the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 10 December 1985. This was consistent with the Government's abhorrence of torture and its active support for all measures to outlaw torture and assist its victims. Ratification of the Convention by Australia is under consideration. The necessary consultations-at the federal level, and between the federal and the state and territory governments-on the implications of ratification for existing legislation and on how the Convention might best be brought into effect in Australia are in train. The consultative process is complex, particularly as the Convention is potentially broad in its scope, extending as well, and without further definition, to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is my hope that these consultations will be completed in good time and that Australia will be able to proceed to ratification at an early date. (Question No. 3905) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: What steps has the Government taken to ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and when does he expect this ratification will occur. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Ratification by Australia of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is under consideration in the appropriate federal/states consultative forum, the Meeting of Ministers on Human Rights. There have been differing reactions from the State and Territory Governments to the proposal that Australia accede to the Optional Protocol and consequently consultations are continuing. I favour ratification of the Optional Protocol, which already has the support of a substantial number of Western and other countries, and hope that the Government might be able to proceed expeditiously. Any further question on the domestic processes for ratification should be addressed to the Attorney-General. (Question No. 3907) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether UN Radio announced, on 24 January 1986, that weekly broadcasts in 11 Languages are to be suspended; if so, (a) what types of broadcasts are involved, (b) which languages and (c) which countries are affected by this decision. (2) Can he also say whether the cause of this decision was an increase in costs charged by the ``Voice of America'' for use of its transmitters; if so, what was the previous charge and what is the amount now being requested. (3) Has the Government inquired from UN Radio whether these broadcasts are likely to resume; if so, what was the reply. (4) What other action has the Government taken on this matter. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) All broadcasts from New York transmitted exclusively over shortwave have been suspended. (b) Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, Kiswahili, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish. (c) The United Nations Secretariat was unable to say which specific countries would be affected by cessation of shortwave programming, as this was something beyond its immediate knowledge. The Secretariat suggested that the languages involved would give an indication of coverage affected. (2) The suspension of shortwave broadcasting was due to an increase in costs charged by the ``Voice of America'' for the use of its transmitters. The 1985 charges to the UN Secretariat were $US30 per transmitter hour. The amount requested from January 1986 was $US179 per transmitter hour. The United States Information Agency advised that the higher charges represented the full recovery cost of making its facilities available. (3) The United Nations Secretariat has told the Australian Mission to the United Nations that in the circumstances the suspension is indefinite. (4) None. (Question No. 3908) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: (1) How many South African students are currently studying in Australia under the Government's training program for South African refugees operated through the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. (2) What courses are they studying and at what levels. (3) Where did each student complete his or her secondary education. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: One South African student is currently studying in Australia under the Government's training program for South African refugees. He is undertaking an undergraduate degree in Business and Transport Economics at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, having completed his secondary education at Beckett College, Durban, South Africa. (Question No. 3909) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: (1) How many Namibian students are currently studying in Australia under the Government's training program for Namibian refugees operated through the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. (2) What courses are they studying and at what levels. (3) Where did each student complete his or her secondary education. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Five Namibian students are currently studying in Australia under the Government's training program for Namibian refugees. None qualified for their present course on the basis of secondary education alone, most not having completed secondary study due to their fleeing Namibia. In all cases, entry to current courses was based primarily on studies subsequently undertaken elsewhere in Africa or in Europe. The courses being undertaken by the five, and the previous secondary and other studies on which admission to those courses was based, are as follows: Current course 1. Associate Diploma in Agriculture Roseworthy Agricultural College South Australia 2. Bachelor of Arts Murdoch University Western Australia 3. Bachelor of Business Western Australian Institute of Technology 4. Bachelor of Business Brisbane College of Advanced Education Queensland 5. Bachelor of Applied Science and Geology Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education Queensland Secondary and other studies Secondary study, Namibia Biological Technician Diploma, West Germany Development Studies and Mangement Diploma, Zambia Development Studies Diploma, U.K. Certificate of Business Studies, West Germany Diploma in Business and Finance, U.K. Secondary study, Namibia Certificate of Accounting, Botswana Practical Bookkeeping and Accounts, U.K. Secondary study, Namibia Further secondary study, Botswana Laboratory Technician Diploma, West Germany (Question No. 3911) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: 1. What grants have been made by the Federal Government to individuals and organisations for International Year of Peace projects in Tasmania. 2. What criteria are used by the Tasmanian Inter- national Year Peace Consultative Committee in recommending applicants for grants. 3. Have any additional staff been placed with his Department in Tasmania as a result of the Government's decision to fund projects for the International Year of Peace; if so, (a) how many, (b) what are their duties, and (c) what is the cost of this increase in staff. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. I have aproved the following grants for non-government International Year of Peace projects on the recommendation of the Tasmanian State IYP Committee: People for Nuclear Disarmament for purchase of video equipment for use by peace groups ($1,078); The Drama Four Studio for production of the play ``Frankenstein in Manhattan'' ($1,000); Better Hearing Australia-Tasmania P.E.A.C.E. for the purchase of a portable induction loop to enhance communication ($1,000); The Australian Institute of International Affairs for airfare costs of visit to Tasmania by Dr K. Suter to speak to a broad group of organisations ($500); The Status of Women Committee of the Tasmanian Teachers Federation for production of a Children's Peace Book (primary level) ($500); Launceston Peace Education Committee for an Adult Peace Education Course ($500); Baha'is of Hobart Inc. for a seminar entitled ``Meeting the Challenge of Peace'' ($458.50); Hobart Quaker Peace and Social Justice Committee for a seminar with visiting speakers Mr Peter Jones and Ms Penny Duckworth ($390); Ulverstone IYP Committee for administrative costs to facilitate an IYP week in Ulverstone ($322); Derwent Valley Peace Group for purchase of a slide projector and material for speakers ($300); Students for Peace, University of Tasmania-to enable organisation of Students for Peace Link-up ($300); Huon Valley Peace Group for film hire and travel costs of IYP speakers ($300); Cygnet Peace and Nuclear Disarmanent Group for hire of equipment, displays, stalls for U.N. marquee at the Cygnet Fishing Carnival ($260); Baha'i Group Cygnet for production of Peace Ribbon as part of a nationwide ribbon project ($250); Dodges Ferry Peace Group for production of Peace Kites ($200); National Council of Women of Tasmania to facilitate meeting of women to pursue IYP objectives ($160) Fusion Australia Ltd (Tasmania) for ``Seeking Shalom in the City'' (publications and equipment) ($1,200); The Hobart Peace Centre for a Peace Backgrounders Library ($320); Tasmanian Baha'i Peace Art Project Committee for a Peace Art Project ($470); The Sociology Department, University of Tasmania for ``The Promotion of Peace in the Australian Community'' (research and publication) ($678). 2. The criteria used by the Tasmanian IYP Committee, and by the other IYP committees at State and national levels, in selecting projects for recommendatons for Federal funding are those published in the Guidelines for assistance to individuals, community bodies and non-government organisations seeking IYP grants. They are as follows: Proposed projects must be feasible and well defined. Proposals for projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, dis- armament and arms control issues will not be considered. Preference will be given to proposals which: (a) Address the objectives of IYP as described by the United Nations; (b) Seek solutions to the problems of peace, rather than merely drawing attention to the problems; (c) Are likely to have long-term effects; (d) Involve a wide cross-section of the community; (e) Are substantially Australian; (f) Show evidence of genuine efforts to raise funds from other sources, including self-funding. Proposals should not, in principle, duplicate exising projects marking IYP. National, state and local levels of non-government organisations should co-ordinate proposals to avoid duplication. Projects which will continue beyond 31 December 1986 must indicate that they have assured sources of funding for the post-IYP phase. 3. My Department is funding the part-time services of one Development Officer. Her duties are to assist in a clerical role with workload generated from the voluntary Tasmanian IYP Consultative Committee and to respond to public enquiries. She assists the State Office for a total of sixteen hours a week at a cost of $160.00 per week. (Question No. 3913) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) How long have negotiations been in progress for a South Pacific Regional Environmental Protection Convention. (2) Which governments are involved in the negotiations. (3) How many meetings of experts have been held to discuss the proposed Convention. (4) When is it expected that the final meeting of plenipotentiaries will be held which will finalise the Convention. (5) Which geographic area will the Convention encompass. (6) What are the major types of environmental threat which the Convention and any protocols will cover. (7) Will the Convention (a) mention and (b) prohibit nuclear testing. (8) Will the Government support the view that the Convention should prohibit nuclear testing. (9) Is it proposed that the Convention should prohibit the dumping of radioactive materials. (10) Will the convention apply to the waters and seabed within Australia's 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. (11) What are the major outstanding issues holding up final agreement on a text. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The first Meeting of Experts took place in January 1983. (2) The following governments participated in the negotiations at the Fourth Meeting of Experts (18-28 November 1985): American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, Vanuatu and Western Samoa. (3) Four. (4) In November 1986. (5) In the current state of negotiations it appears that the Convention will encompass the 200 nautical mile offshore areas measured from baselines of various countries and territories in the South West Pacific and include any high seas enclaves enclosed by them. The proposed Convention and Protocol on Dumping will also apply, in regard to disposal of wastes, to any continental shelf of a Party where such shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles. (6) The discharge of oil or other hazardous substances from ships; pollution and environmental damage to the Convention Area from land-based sources and sea-bed activities; the dumping of wastes and, particularly, radioactive wastes. (7) This is still under consideration. (8) The Government strongly supports moves to prohibit the testing of nuclear explosive devices in the Pacific. The question is whether there should be a prohibition on testing in a technical Convention that deals specifically with the protection of the international environment. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty already prohibits Parties from testing any nuclear explosive device within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. Protocol 3 of that Treaty, when it is finalised and opened for signature, will invite the nuclear-weapons States to observe the same prohibition within the Zone. (9) Yes. (10) The Government would like to include the waters and seabed adjacent to the east coast of Australia, and the continental shelf where it extends beyond 200 nautical miles, in the area to be covered by the Convention and Protocols. This matter is under discussion with the east coast States. (11) The major outstanding issue is how to deal with the nuclear testing issue. Australia is involved in discussions on the various options that are available to solve this matter. (Question No. 3917) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: (1) What amount has been spent by his Department on telegrams to notify federal members of Parliament, and others, of successful Community Employment Program applications in each of the financial years since the inception of the program. (2) Do applications usually take weeks for applicants to prepare and for his Department to determine; if so, why is it necessary for telegrams to be used as a means of communication in notification. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is not possible to separate the costs of telegrams advising Community Employment Program approvals from the Department's postal expenditure in general. (2) The process of assessment, consultation, recommendation and approval of applications is necessarily time-consuming, involving as it does both Commonwealth and State Government officers and assessment against a number of guidelines and objectives. The time taken to determine applications varies according to the particular aspects of each project proposal. Nevertheless, I am concerned to see that there is no undue delay in the approval process so that the unemployed can receive the benefits of participation in the Program as soon as possible. For this reason, and in response to requests from Federal Government and Opposition Members of Parliament that they be advised of projects approved within their electorates as soon as such approvals are made, telegrams have been used to notify them of such approvals. (Question No. 3924) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: Is he able to say whether (a) less than 2% of the members of the principal Nicaraguan Contra organisation, known as the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguenese (FDN), were formerly Nicaraguan National Guardsmen under the Samoza regime and (b) approproximately 20% of the members of the FDN are former Sandinistas. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) There are various estimates of the proportion of former Somoza National Guard personnel in the main Contra group, the Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguenese (FDN). Information available to the Australian Government does not enable it to comment definitively on their accuracy. Arturo Cruz, a member of the Directorate of the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO), the Contra umbrella group, has claimed that only 1 percent of FDN personnel are former members of the National Guard. However, the proportion of former National Guardsmen in the FDN is not in itself an indication of their influence within that organisation. Their position in the FDN hierarchy is a more important factor. A report prepared by the United States House of Representatives Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, and published in April 1985, stated that: ``While the `foot soldiers' of the FDN army are largely peasants, the army is organised and commanded by former National Guardsmen . . . . the report finds that 46 of the 48 positions in the FDN's command structure are held by former Guardsmen . . . While the FDN's civilian directorate has been cleansed to minimise the role of former Guardsmen and Somoza associates, the military leadership has not been. As a result, the key military strategic positions, including the strategic commander, are held by ex-National Guardsmen, as are all of the general staff, four out of five of the central commanders, six out of seven of the regional commanders and probably all 30 task force commanders.'' I understand that the United States Department of State has queried these figures. In his statement on aid to the Contras given before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 27 February 1986, Secretary of State George Shultz said that of 153 of the top leadership of the FDN, 27 percent were former National Guardsmen. The conservative, Washington-based organisation, the Heritage Foundation, has given figures for Contra membership and composition which are similar to those set out in the question. However, its figures appear to be based on the total number of Contra forces and not the FDN alone. They are: less than 2 per cent of Contras are former National Guardsmen; roughly 23 per cent of the Contra military leadership are former National Guardsmen. Based on the information available, the Australian Government's assessment is that while the proportion of former National Guardsmen in the FDN as a whole is small, these personnel are concentrated in the FDN's military leadership and profoundly influence the FDN. (b) The proportion of personnel in the FDN classified as ``former Sandinistas'' is given by Arturo Cruz as 19 per cent. The report of the House of Representatives Caucus Group referred to in paragraph (a) above does not address the issue of ``former Sandinistas'' in the FDN. Secretary of State Shultz put the proportion of ``former Sandinista fighters'' in the leadership of the FDN at 20 per cent. The Heritage Foundation claims that about 48 per cent of the Contras' military leadership are ``former Sandinistas''. The Australian Government is not in a position independently to evaluate the relevant merits of these or other estimates. None of the sources referred to in the preceding paragraphs make clear how the classification ``former Sandinista'' is determined. Strictly speaking, a former Sandinista is a former member of the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN), the ruling party in Nicaragua. It is very likely that some former members of the FSLN are now FDN members. However, in some of the figures quoted earlier, the term is also used to include personnel who were at one time members of the Nicaraguan Government's armed forces and who later joined the FDN. These could include deserters. Given that the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua instituted a compulsory draft in 1983 to provide manpower for the nation's armed forces, the fact that FDN members formerly served in the Nicaraguan armed forces does not necessarily mean that they were members of the FSLN or even that they supported the FSLN. It is therefore questionable whether such personnel can be classified as ``former Sandinistas''. (Question No. 3927) Dr Klugman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: What payments (a) have been made to Mr I. Callinan, Q.C., and (b) are still due, for his role as the Crown prosecutor in the trial of Mr Justice Murphy. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) A total of $132,270 has to the date of the question been paid to Mr Callinan, Q.C., in respect of fees as counsel in the first trial and related proceedings. These proceedings included the committal hearing, a Federal Court application for review of the committal order, proceedings in the High Court and a hearing before the New South Wales Court of Appeal. In addition $18,784.10 has been paid to Mr Callinan, Q.C., for the costs of travel and accommodation in relation to these matters. (b) No account has been submitted by Mr Callinan, Q.C., in relation to the retrial of Murphy J. (Question No. 3936) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under the Minister's control on the use of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditure in Australia on Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85 by the Department of Foreign Affairs amounted to $303,936 and by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (including the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research) $89,432. Expenditure overseas is costed against appropriations of the Overseas Property Office, Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. (Question No. 3956) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What was the cost of producing the pamphlet entitled `Explaining the New Australia Card'. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Treasury arranged for the printing of 664,000 copies of the pamphlet entitled `Explaining the New Australia Card' at a cost of $17,314. (Question No. 3957) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) Which international airlines serve Brisbane Airport. (2) On which days do each of these airlines operate through Brisbane and what is the origin and ultimate destination of each flight. (3) What were the average number of (a) inbound and (b) outbound passengers handled at Brisbane International Airport on each day of the week during 1985. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following international airlines serve Brisbane Airport: Quantas, Japan Air Lines, Corse Air International, Air New Zealand, Air Niugini, Air Pacific, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Philippine Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways International. (2)- Inbound Services Airline Day(s) of Operation Origin Destination Qantas... Saturday Vila (i) Sydney Qantas... Thurs., Fri., Sun. Port Moresby Sydney Qantas... Tuesday Tokyo Sydney Friday Tokyo (via Cairns) (ii) Brisbane Qantas... Saturday San Francisco Sydney Qantas... Monday Vancouver Sydney Qantas... Wed., Fri., Sat., Sun. Singapore Brisbane Qantas... Tuesday Hong Kong Sydney Qantas... Sunday Manila Sydney Qantas... Mon., Wed., Fri., Sun. Auckland Brisbane Qantas... Tues., Sun. Christchurch Brisbane Japan Airlines... Friday Tokyo (via Cairns) (ii) Brisbane Corse Air International... Saturday Noumea (iii) Brisbane Air New Zealand... Thurs., Sat. Mon., Sat., Sunday Auckland Christchurch Wellington Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Air Niugini... Tues., Sat. Port Moresby Sydney Air Pacific... Mon., Thurs. Monday Friday Sunday Suva Honiara (iv) Nadi Suva (via Vila) (v) Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane British Airways... Thursday Monday London London Brisbane Auckland Cathay Pacific... Wednesday Hong Kong Sydney Philippine Airlines... Saturday Manila Sydney Singapore Airlines... Mon., Fri. Wednesday Singapore (via Sydney) Singapore Brisbane Melbourne Thai International... Saturday Bangkok Sydney Qantas... Saturday Sydney Vila (i) Qantas... Thurs., Fri., Sun. Sydney Port Moresby Qantas... Wednesday Sunday Brisbane (via Cairns) Sydney Tokyo (ii) Tokyo Qantas... Thursday Saturday Sydney Sydney Honolulu San Francisco Qantas... Mon., Thurs., Fri., Sat. Brisbane Singapore Qantas... Monday Sydney Hong Kong Qantas... Saturday Sydney Manila Qantas... Tues., Fri., Sat., Sun. Sydney Auckland Qantas... Tues., Sun. Brisbane Christchurch Qantas... Friday Brisbane Wellington Japan Airlines... Wednesday Brisbane (via Cairns) Tokyo (ii) Corse Air International... Sunday Brisbane Noumea (iii) Air New Zealand... Thurs., Sat. Mon., Sun. Sat. Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Auckland Christchurch Wellington Air Niugini... Mon., Tues. Sydney Port Moresby Air Pacific... Mon., Thurs. Monday Friday Sunday Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Suva Honiara (iv) Nadi Suva (via Vila) (v) British Airways... Monday Thursday Auckland Brisbane London London Cathay Pacific... Thursday Brisbane (via Sydney) Hong Kong Philippine Airlines... Saturday Sydney Manila Singapore Airlines... Tues., Sat. Thursday Brisbane (via Sydney) Melbourne Singapore Singapore Thai International... Saturday * (via Sydney) Bangkok Notes: (i) Operated by Ansett under an arrangement with Qantas; (ii) Joint Qantas/JAL service, using Qantas B767 aircraft; (iii) Operated by Corse Air International under an arrangement with Air Caledonie International; (iv) Operated by Air Pacific as the designated airline of the Solomon Islands; (v) Brisbane-Vila-Brisbane sector operated by Air Pacific as the designated airline of Vanuatu. Effective 17 June 1986 Air Pacific will cease to operate services through Vila. (3) Total number of passengers inbound was 251,372 and total number of outbound passengers was 241,094, giving a daily average of 686 inbound passengers and 660 outbound passengers. It is not possible to provide an average by each day of the week. (Question No. 3962) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Has the Government initiated any investigations of the present status of Australia's fisheries; if so, what are the results of these investigations. (2) What is the level of depletion of fisheries stocks and will he quantify the level of depletion. (3) What are the economic consequences of a de- pletion of fishery stocks. Mr Kerin —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) Since 1971/72 the Australian Government has commissioned a large number of studies on the status of the fish stocks in Australian Waters. More than 33 percent of total expenditure of over $22 million from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account has been devoted to stock assessment or closely related work. Research projects have covered a diverse range of fish, crustacea and molluscs. Some of the species studied have included abalone, barramundi, red spot whiting, demersal reef fish, prawns, rock lobsters, oysters, spanner crabs, sand crabs, squid, northern pelagic species and south eastern trawl finfish species. Budget allocations for the Fishing Industry Research Trust account have increased from less than $1 million in 1979/80 to over $5 million in 1985/86. Over 45 percent of the total Fishing Industry Research Trust Account expenditure of just over $5.5 million was directed to stock assessment work. The results of all Fishing Industry Research Trust Account studies are made available following assessments and acceptance by the Fishing Industry Research Council and are published. In addition, the CSIRO devotes a substantial proportion of its Budget for the Division of Fisheries Research to stock assessment. Major work undertaken includes studies on the northern prawn fishery, the southern bluefin tuna fishery, the western rock lobster fishery and the trawl fisheries off southern Australia. As the States and the Northern Territory also have responsibility for management of fisheries, they initiate programs of fisheries research. Funds expended directly equate to the level of funds made available by the Commonwealth to the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account. (2) The information obtained from the research undertaken indicates that very few species are endangered by over-exploitation. Scientific evidence is that fish populations are capable of increasing at a much higher rate than the environment can normally support and thus they can sustain a reasonable level of fishing mortality in addition to, or in place of, natural mortality. However, it is very difficult to accurately monitor the condition of fish stocks and this is one reason why the Government is introducing new management plans for all our fisheries. The two major fish species which have caused serious concern are southern bluefin tuna and gummy shark. With the co-operation of Japan and New Zealand, controls have been introduced on catches of southern bluefin tuna. An Industry/Government Task Force has been established to advise Commonwealth and State Governments on options for the management of the southern shark fishery. (3) Australia's fisheries yield an annual commercial value of over $500 million. They are also major dollar earners yielding over $400 million in export income. Moreover, fishing by amateurs and sports fishermen generates substantial returns to many businesses in Australia. Accordingly, over-exploitation of Australia's fisheries would have considerable adverse economic consequences. The Government has given a high priority to fisheries research and management in recognition of the economic importance of the fishing industry and other adverse consequences of over-exploitation of our fisheries resources. The rapid increase in funds allocated for fisheries research has been mentioned in answer to the first question. In recent years new and improved management plans have been implemented or are under consideration for all our major fisheries. (Question No. 3973) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) What is the percentage of general practitioner services which have been charged above the scheduled fee, for the last quarter for which figures are available, in (a) the Australian Capital Territory, (b) the Northern Territory, (c) New South Wales, (d) Queensland, (e) Tasmania, (f) Victoria, (g) South Australia and (h) Western Australia. (2) How many general practitioner services were there per person in each of the States and Territories during 1984-85 and what proportions were for bulk-billed general practitioner services. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The percentage of general practitioner consultation services which were charged above the schedule fee in the December quarter 1985 in each State and Territory is: (a) Australian Capital Territory... 50.0 (b) Northern Territory... 48.9 (c) New South Wales... 19.1 (d) Queensland... 36.7 (e) Tasmania... 28.2 (f) Victoria... 37.6 (g) South Australia... 24.2 (h) Western Australia... 39.9 (2) The number of general practitioner consultation services per person in each of the States and Territories in 1984-85 and the percentage of these services which were bulk-billed is: Services per person % Bulk- billed (a) Australian Capital Territory... 3.3 30.0 (b) Northern Territory... 2.3 44.8 (c) New South Wales... 4.5 60.5 (d) Queensland... 3.9 50.4 (e) Tasmania... 4.1 42.2 (f) Victoria... 3.8 46.6 (g) South Australia... 4.2 48.5 (h) Western Australia... 3.7 50.2 Note: (i) The above statistics relate only to consultation items performed by general practitioners; (ii) The statistics are extracted from data supplied to the Department by the Health Insurance Commission. They relate to medical services for which Medicare benefits were paid by the Health Insurance Commission in the December quarter 1985 for (1) above, and in the financial year 1984-85 for (2) above; (iii) States and Territories are determined from the postcode of the practice in which the services were rendered. There are small variations between the above figures and those included in the Health Insurance Commission's Annual Report for 1984-85 as the latter were based upon different definitions of State/Territory. (Question No. 3975) Mr Price asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Did Mr J. Manos and Mr J. Camilleri, representing independent chicken meat processors, apply to become members of the new Chicken Meat Research Council. (2) Were their applications successful. (3) Who are the industry representatives on the Council. (4) Of the 5 industry representatives are 4 from Amatil and Inghams controlled companies and the fifth the executive director of the New South Wales Chicken Meat Growers' Association, the principal supply group of Amatil and Inghams. (5) Have the activities of Amatil and Inghams been the subject of an unfavourable report by the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA). (6) In view of the PSA report and the present composition of the Council, is the operation of the Council seriously compromised. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. The Research Council's Selection Committee received 57 applications and conducted 14 interviews. Mr Manos and Mr Camilleri were interviewed by the Selection Committee. Six persons names were nominated to me by the Selection Committee for membership of the Chicken Meat Research Council. (3) There are no industry representatives on the new Council. Members were selected for their individual skills and expertise in a range of areas. Council membership is Dr Alex Lascelles, Chairperson; Mr Jim Jenkins, Government member; Dr Errol Best; Dr Clive Jackson; Dr Alan Johnson; Mr Tim Luckhurst; Dr Ron MacAlpine; Dr Rod Ryan. (4) In addition to the Chairperson and Government member, membership of the Chicken Meat Research Council includes four persons employed by Amatil or Inghams or their subsidiaries, the executive director of the New South Wales Chicken Growers' Association, Secretary, Australian Chicken Growers' Council, and a person employed by the CSIRO. (5) The Prices Surveillance Authority conducted an inquiry into the Table Chicken Industry and reported to the Treasurer on 19 February 1986. The Authority was unable to satisfy itself that prices for day old chicks are presently being set on a competitive basis nor was it satisfied that major processors related by ownership were operating at arm's length in marketing dressed chicken. It recommended that surveillance under section 21 of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983 be exercised over the supply of day old chicks and of dressed chickens sold at wholesale by companies affiliated with Amatil Limited and Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd. The Treasurer announced on 10 March 1986 that he had accepted the Prices Surveillance Authority's recommendation. (6) No. The Research Council's Selection Committee has been established with an independent Chairperson, an Australian Agricultural Council representative, a National Farmers' Federation representative and a member with scientific expertise. In addition, three industry re-presentatives are added when selections are made for a specific Council. The Selection Committee makes its selections against objective criteria set out in the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. It is charged with the responsibility of nominating to me the best available persons to provide a mix of skills related to the new Council's activities. I am satisfied that this has been achieved in relation to the membership of the Chicken Meat Research Council. (Question No. 3976) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Have changes recently been made to the availability and cost to pensioners of (a) Dilantin, (b) Clomed and (c) Bethlamycin. (2) What is the cost of a basic prescription of each of these drugs to a patient. (3) If changes have been made, what was the reason. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The cost of these drugs is as follows: Dilantin $1.11-$1.57; Clomid $14.63; Bleomycin $455.06. In the case of Dilantin price varies with formulation. (3) The National Health Act was amended from 1 July 1985 to allow for the listing or continued listing of unique single brand items as pharmaceutical benefits where price disagreements with the manufacturer cannot be resolved. These arrangements have reduced hardship to patients requiring medications which would otherwise not be available through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The reasons in respect of each drug are as follows: Dilantin, an anticonvulsant used in the treatment of epilepsy is considered unique and essential by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). However, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau noted that the cost increases claimed by the manufacturer, Parke Davis Pty Ltd, could not be substantiated and that at the present prices-to-chemist a reasonable gross margin was included in the cost of goods. Therefore, the Bureau was not prepared to recommend an increase in the price of Dilantin. Clomid, used in the treatment of anovulatory infertility was not listed as a pharmaceutical benefit as its manufacturer, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd, did not apply for such listing previously. In October 1985, the company requested that the PBAC recommend the listing of Clomid as a pharmaceutical benefit subject to a special patient contribution. The PBAC so recommended. Bleomycin, used in the treatment of certain cancers, was deleted from the Schedule of Benefits on 1 June 1983 after the manufacturer, Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd, had unilaterally increased its price-to-chemist to a level which was deemed to be incompatible with continued listing as a pharmaceutical benefit. The deletion of this item resulted in hardship to patients, particularly those receiving treatment outside the public hospital system who were required to meet the manufacturer's full price (between $1000-$1300). The PBAC therefore recommended that Bleomycin be relisted as a pharmaceutical benefit to be used in the treatment of specified cancers subject, if necessary, to a special patient contribution. (Question No. 3979) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Has the price for beef in New Zealand now fallen below the Supplementary Minimum Price (SMP) Scheme level, and could the NZ Government be required to subsidise exports of NZ beef by up to $NZ1 million per week; if so, what action is being taken to ensure that the NZ beef industry does not use this subsidy to be a weak seller on the US market. (2) When will the SMP Scheme end for beef and for other NZ agricultural exports. (3) What are the various SMP schemes estimated to cost in (a) 1984-85 and (b) 1985-86. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. As part of the New Zealand Government's policy to place its sheep and beef industries on a more commercial footing, the Supplementary Minimum Price Scheme was terminated with effect from the end of the 1983-84 season. However, the industry stabilisation scheme administered by the New Zealand Meat Producer's Board has continued. Beef prices have recently fallen to a level which may trigger the NZ ``minimum price'' mechanism. Under the legislation the NZMPB is required to make up the difference between the market price received and the stipulated minimum price to producers. I have been advised that the New Zealand Minister of Finance recently approved an overdraft on the Meat Board's Meat Income Stabilisation Account at the Reserve Bank. This will enable the Board to provide supplementation up to the minimum price until 30 September 1986. Any drawings on the Reserve Bank's funds will have to be repaid by farmers and will be charged a commercial rate of interest. As the New Zealand meat industry will have to pay commercial rates of interest on moneys borrowed to make up minimum payments it would seem unlikely that the scheme operates in such a way as to induce New Zealand meat exporters to reduce prices unnecessarily on the US market or on other world markets. 2. The SMP scheme for beef and for other NZ agricultural exports was terminated with effect from the end of the 1983-84 season. 3. For the 1984-85 season, the SMP scheme was terminated and replaced by one off lump sum payments which were made on wool (NZ $0.6 million) and sheepmeats (lamb NZ $93.8 million, mutton NZ $37.9 million). No lump sum payment was made for beef and no such payments are to be made in the 1985-86 seasons. (Question No. 3994) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) Has he received representations for Ms V. Browning, recently returned from Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia, regarding Australia's aid to Ethiopia; if so, does she claim (a) that our aid is being used for political purposes, and (b) that the Ethopian Government is very repressive. (2) Does she urge (a) sanctions against Ethiopia and that our embassy should be closed and (b) that aid should be increased or initiated to the (i) Relief Association of Tigray, (ii) Eritrean Relief Association, (iii) Oromo Relief Association and (iv) West Somali Red Crescent Society. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Senator Chipp on 16 April forwarded to me representations from Valerie Browning on the situation in Ethiopia and Somalia. It was claimed that the Ethiopian Government is repressive and asked that Australian food aid, which might be used to encourage resettlement and villagisation, be investigated. Ms Browning asked that Australia support efforts to bring about a sanction on Ethiopia until both resettlement and villagisation are stopped. She also requested that the Australian Embassy in Addis Ababa be closed and that aid be increased to the Eritrean Relief Association, the Relief Association of Tigray, and that aid be initiated to the Oromo Relief Association and the West Somali Red Crescent Society. An interim reply has been sent to Senator Chipp advising him that Ms Browning's correspondence was being examined by the Department. The views of the Australian Embassy, Addis Ababa have been sought on Ms Browning's submission and a comprehensive reply will be forwarded to her shortly. (Question No. 3995) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the United States Farm Bill, as it affects cotton, will not have any serious impact on the EEC but will disadvantage Australia more than most other cotton exporting nations. (2) Are Australian growers (a) world leaders in efficiency and (b) not subsidised. (3) What action has he taken to hold the US to its undertaking that the Farm Bill will not hurt Australian cotton growers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1) The basic objectives of the new US cotton program are to lower surplus stocks and regain lost export markets. The program will involve substantial releases of subsidised stocks onto the open market and will force export prices below already depressed levels. The EEC is not a significant cotton exporter, with only one EEC member country, Greece, producing raw cotton. It is therefore correct that the new US cotton program will not have any serious adverse impact on the EEC. However it will cause particular hardship to other cotton exporting countries, many of them with developing economies relying heavily on earnings from cotton. The Australian cotton industry is likely to be seriously affected by the US cotton program both due to the fall in world prices and to the difficulty of competing against US subsidised cotton in major export markets, particulary in the East Asian region. Australian cotton sales to these markets have increased significantly in recent years, reflecting the competitiveness of the Australian industry. (2) (a) Yes. The Australian cotton industry is distinguished by a high degree of both economic and technical efficiency. For example, Australian cotton yields are consistently close to the highest in the world. In 1983/84, Australian cotton yielded an average of 1,291 kg per hectare, more than double the world average. (b) Australian cotton growers receive no direct Government subsidies. This is in sharp contrast to US cotton growers who will receive up to 50% of their returns from Government subsidies under the new US farm legislation. (3) The Australian cotton industry's concerns about the US cotton program were put most forcefully to the US authorities during the Prime Minister's recent visit to Washington. Our views were noted, but the US administration made it clear that the program was in place for 1986/87 and there was no prospect of it being changed. Nevertheless, Australian officials in Washington will remain in close contact with US officials on the whole question of the US cotton program. We shall be using the avenues established by the Prime Minister to ensure that our specific concerns about the effects of US farm provisions on Australian markets for cotton are kept before the US Administration. Overall, our chief objective is to continue pressing on the US Administration the disastrous effects of its programs on world markets for agricultural commodities. (Question No. 4028) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to Mr I. Chirita's protest in front of Parliament House. (2) Will he make representations to the Romanian Government to allow Mr Chirita's family and fiancee to leave Romania. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Australian Government has already raised Mr Chirita's case with the Romanian authorities on numerous occasions. With respect to Mr Chirita's father, Marin Chirita, the Romanian authorities have said that he has permission to leave, but no longer wishes to do so. The Australian Embassy in Belgrade has made numerous attempts to contact him directly so as to assure itself as to his wishes and to do what it can to place him in direct contact with his son. The Embassy has spoken by telephone to members of Marin Chirita's family in Romania who have indicated that he is well, but working temporarily away from his home village. The Embassy is continuing its efforts to contact him directly. Immigration officers from our Embassy in Belgrade spoke with Mr Chirita's fiancee, Codruta Marc, in Bucharest in March 1986. She told them that she first applied to leave Romania at the end of 1985 as a tourist. This application was rejected as the Romanian authorities insist that she make applicaton to migrate permanently as a fiancee. Miss Marc only made this application in March, after the meeting with the Australian Immigration officers. In view of this, the onus at present is on Miss Marc and Mr Chirita to complete the required Romanian formalities. The Australian authorities will continue to monitor this case. (Question No. 4033) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: Has he seen the 8 point peace plan for Cambodia proposed by the Prime Minister of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea; if so, what are the 8 points. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The eight points, announced on 17 March by HRH Prince Norodom Sihanouk, President of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, are as follows: ``One. The tripartite Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK) calls on Vietnam to get into negotiation with it in order to discuss about the process of the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea. We do not demand Vietnam to withdraw all its forces from Kampuchea at once. We accept the withdrawal of the Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea in two phases within a definite period of time. Other countries may take part in the negotiation according to their judgment in order to help bring about a political solution to the problem of Kampuchea. Two. After the agreement on the process of the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea, there will be a cease-fire so as to allow Vietnam to withdraw its forces according to the said agreement. Three. Both the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops and the cease-fire must be supervised directly by a UN observer group. Four. After the first phase of the Vietnamese troops withdrawal, Heng Samrin and his faction get into negotiation with the tripartite CGDK in order to set up a quadripartite coalition government of Kampuchea with Samdech Norodom Sihanouk as President and His Excellency Son Sann as Prime Minister in conformity with the spirit of the great national union and national reconciliation so that each of the four parties should have the same rights as political forces in the national community. Five. The quadripartite coalition government of Kampuchea will hold free elections under the supervision of a UN observer group. Six. Kampuchea will be restored as an independent, united in her own territorial integrity having a liberal democratic regime, peaceful, neutral and non-aligned country without any base of foreign troops on her soil. Kampuchea's neutrality will be guaranteed by the UN with the presence of its observer group on the spot for the first two or three years. Seven. Kampuchea welcomes all countries from West as well as from East and neutral and non-aligned countries to help rebuild the country. Eight. As for Vietnam, Kampuchea independent, united in her own territorial integrity, peaceful, neutral and non-aligned is willing to sign with it a non-aggression and peaceful co-existence treaty and to establish economic and trade relations between the two countries for ever.'' (Question No. 4045) Mr Sinclair asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 May 1986: (1) Is he able to say when Mr Justice Stewart first applied to the New South Wales Government for indemnities against proceedings under State law for matters arising from the Stewart Royal Commission inquiry into the Age tapes. (2) Is he able to state (a) the response of the New South Wales Government to this application and (b) the reasons given for that response. (3) Has further action been taken seeking indemnities; if so, (a) what and (b) with what result. (4) Is he satisfied that this action of the New South Wales Government has not jeopardised (a) full investigation of the Age tapes and (b) the proper pursuit of investigations and prosecutions. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) These are matters for the New South Wales Government and it would not be appropriate for me to respond to them. (4) I have no reason to believe that the investigation was prejudiced in relation to any matters with which the Commonwealth is concerned. (Question No. 4047) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 1986: (1) Is it a fact that a fishing agreement was signed recently between the USSR and Vanuatu; if so, was this agreement signed in Vila for the Soviet Union by the USSR Ambassador to Australia. (2) Is he able to say who accompanied the USSR Ambassador to Vanuatu for this occasion. (3) Was the agreement signed whilst 2 Australian submarines were present in the area. (4) Is he able to say whether the USSR delegation disembarked on Yasawa `I' Rara. (5) Is he also able to say whether the agreement allows for onshore USSR fishing fleet facilities. (6) Does the signing of the agreement endanger Australia's security. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) To my knowledge no fisheries agreement has been signed recently between the USSR and Vanuatu. The Prime Minister of Vanuatu, Father Lini, told me on 23 May of this year that he had made no decision on such an agreement. (2) to (5) See above. (6) The honourable member is referred to the answer I gave on 30 November 1985 to question No. 1791 on the same subject. (Question No. 4052) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 22 May 1986: (1) Have there been recent changes in (a) policy or (b) procedures regarding access to Australian Archives files; if so, (i) what are the changes and (ii) why were they made. (2) Does the release to the public of all Australian Federal Police (AFP) files held by the Australian Archives require prior authorisation by the AFP. (3) Has such a directive been issued to Australian Archives staff; if so, (a) by who and (b) why. (4) Are all AFP files held by Australian Archives affected by this directive regardless of their age. (5) Is this practice in conflict with the Government's commitment to freedom of information. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Policy on public access to Commonwealth Government archival records is governed by the provisions of Division 3 of Part V of the Archives Act 1983. These provisions have not been amended since the Act was proclaimed on 6 June 1984. (1) (b) Detailed procedures for the implementation of the public access provisions of the Archives Act 1983 are contained in the Australian Archives Access Manual. The Manual, which is in 3 volumes, is regularly updated in order to provide comprehensive guidance for staff engaged in the access examination of Commonwealth archival records. Copies of the Manual are available for public inspection at all regional offices of Australian Archives. (2) and (3) Under arrangements entered into under section 35 (1) of the Archives Act 1983, both the AFP and the Australian Archives examine all AFP records subject to an access request by a member of the public to determine whether an exemption under section 33 of the Act should be applied. The section 35 (1) arrangement was entered into by the Director-General of the Australian Archives with the Australian Federal Police and the consequential directive to Archives staff was issued by the Assistant Director-General, Records Services, Australian Archives. (4) Yes. (5) No. Access to AFP records or any other records in the open access period may be withheld only if the records concerned are exempt under section 33 of the Archives Act 1983. (Question No. 4053) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 May 1986: (1) What regulations or guidelines (a) govern the smoking of cigarettes, pipes and cigars in Commonwealth cars and (b) where are they published or documented. (2) Is it a fact that Commonwealth car drivers are not permitted to smoke but their passengers are; if so, why. (3) What penalties are there for not observing these regulations or guidelines. (4) Is he aware of studies providing evidence that passive or sidestream smoke is hazardous to the health of non-smokers. (5) Is he concerned for the health and comfort of drivers and non-smoking passengers in a car which is also carrying a smoking passenger. (6) Will he introduce regulations banning smoking in Commonwealth cars; if not, why not. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) There are no regulations governing smoking in Commonwealth cars. Internal departmental instructions require Commonwealth car pool drivers not to smoke in cars, except as outlined in (2), and for clearly visible `No Smoking' symbols to be displayed in all Commonwealth car-with-driver vehicles. (b) The internal instructions are included in the `Standard Practices' issued by the central office of my Department's Transport and Storage Division and are issued within regional offices of that Division. (2) Drivers employed in the Commonwealth car-with-driver service are generally not permitted to smoke in their cars. On lengthy journeys involving country travel drivers may smoke if they obtain the agreement of their passenger(s). The ``No Smoking'' symbols are an indication of car service policy and are expected to discourage passengers from smoking. As a matter of courtesy and good social standards, passengers are expected to obtain the permission of others in the car before they smoke. The prohibition on drivers not smoking is long standing and was introduced mainly to set high aesthetic and behavioural standards. (3) There are no penalties because there is no Commonwealth law prohibiting smoking. Commonwealth car drivers may be disciplined if detected smoking in their cars in breach of departmental standing instructions. (4) Yes. (5) Yes. (6) No. In the absence of a relevant Commonwealth law, the existing standing instructions are adequate. I do not expect Commonwealth car pool drivers to operate as policemen or informers. I do expect passengers to observe high standards of courtesy to others whilst travelling in Commonwealth cars. (Question No. 4074) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 26 May 1986: Can he advise whether the Gagudju Association has made application to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for approval to construct a service station, take away food and supermarket complex at the intersection of the Arnhem Highway and Pine Creek Road in Kakadu National Park; if so, is its proposed location and other factors consistent with the Park plan of management. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 23 October 1985, the Gagudju Association wrote to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service about a possible store, service station and supermarket, suggesting a site at the intersection of the Arnhem Highway and the Oenpelli Road. The letter anticipated discussions on the proposal. No such discussions have taken place. No plan of management currently applies to the site but a Gazette Notice was published on 11 June 1986 notifying that a plan of management has been prepared and inviting public representations in connection with the plan. The draft plan does not provide for a development at the intersections of either the Oenpelli Road or the Kakadu Highway (i.e. the Pine Creek Road) with the Arnhem Highway. Following receipt of public representations, the plan will be amended as necessary, submitted to me and then laid before both Houses of Parliament. (Question No. 4078) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Has Australia yet to fully develop its cultural links with India; if so, what steps have been taken to develop these links. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department, in consultation with relevant national cultural bodies such as the Australia Council, the International Cultural Corporation of Australia, Musica Viva, the Print Council of Australia, NIDA and others, and State Government Ministries, has been actively seeking to strengthen Australia's cultural links with India. An important step will be the convening in August of this year of a Mixed Commission meeting, under the Australia-India Cultural Agreement, of cultural relations officials of each country, to plan a program of reciprocal cultural relations activities and exchanges for the following two years. A quite active program of cultural exchanges is thus occurring, flowing from the Government's recognition of the importance of the bilateral relationship. Of course budgetary constraints will mean that we are not able to accomplish as much as we would ideally wish to see develop. (Question No. 4089) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Is he able to state what progress the UN Commission of Transnational Corporations has made concerning the adoption of a draft code of conduct for such corporations. (2) Is he also able to state what steps are proposed to implement this code. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Following agreement on various elements of the code of conduct which had been tentatively reached at the special session held from 20-31 January 1986, a special session of the UN Commission on Transnational Corporation was held for one day on 14 April 1986 to review the results of further informal consultations, and to determine the future of the negotiations. Among the outstanding issues discussed at the January session were observance of domestic laws, regulations and administrative practices, settlement of disputes, free choice of law and means of dispute settlement, non interference in internal political affairs, fair and equitable treatment, national treatment, the transfer by TNCs of payment related to their investments, respect for national sovereignty, nationalisation and compensation and reference to international law and international obligations. Although progress was made on some issues, agreement was not recorded in a formal way at the end of the session. At the January special session it was therefore decided to conduct informal consultations for the purpose of identifying possible solution for the outstanding issues. A decision was adopted by consensus whereby the Secretary-General would undertake consultations with a view to reporting, no later than the organisational session of the Economic and Social Council for 1987, on the prospects for success in any resumed session. (2) The Intergovernmental Working Group on the Code of Conduct was established in 1977 by the Commission on Transnational Corporations to prepare a text of the Code for consideration by the Commission. In 1982 the Commission decided to abolish the Intergovernmental Working Group and to transfer the task of completing the elaboration of the text to a special session of the Commission open to the participation of all states. All delegations have emphasised their commitment to completing the code. The informal consultations following the January 1986 special session helped to identify the main areas of difficulty. The twelfth session of the UN Commission on Transnational Corporations held from 9 to 18 April 1986 supported the recommendation made by the Commission at its special session on 14 April 1986 to reconvene the special session at an appropriate time. (Question No. 4105) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What progress has been made in the development of a notification and assessment scheme requiring importers and manufacturers of chemicals to (a) notify their intention to introduce new industrial chemicals and (b) provide prescribed information about the properties of, and potential effects of, exposure to such chemicals. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Consistent with the Government's announced intention to introduce as quickly as possible a national chemicals notification and assessment scheme, drafting instructions for Commonwealth legislation to implement the scheme have been prepared and have been the subject of extensive consultations with interested parties, including industry, the trade union movement and Commonwealth and State Government agencies. The scheme will provide for evaluation of the potential health and environmental hazards of chemicals being newly introduced into Australia and, selectively, for similar evaluation of existing chemicals. My Department, which has responsibility for development of the scheme, is compiling an Inventory of existing chemicals; that is, chemicals previously manufactured in or imported into Australia. The close-off date for nomination of existing chemicals for inclusion in the Inventory is 15 August 1986. In May of this year my Department conducted a workshop on methodology for the environmental assessment of chemicals under the proposed scheme. (Question No. 4121) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Assistant Director-General of UNESCO, Mr D. Najman, and a US employee, Mr E. Solomon, have been dismissed from the UNESCO staff by the UNESCO Director-General. (2) Is he able to say whether the UNESCO Director-General gave any reasons for these dismissals. (3) Is he able to say whether the UNESCO Director-General is seeking election for a third term as UNESCO Director. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have been informed that notice of separation has been given to Messrs Najman and Solomon. Both officers have the option to appeal under arrangements at UNESCO and through International Labour Organisation (ILO) provisions. (2) The Director-General is not required to make public his reasons for giving such notice and as far as my Department is aware he has not done so. (3) The Director-General has not indicated whether he will be a candidate for re-election to the position in 1987, when the matter will be decided by the UNESCO General Conference. (Question No. 4135) Mr Gayler asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) What Commonwealth funds have been approved for expenditure in electoral divisions of Queensland for (a) rural and urban arterial roads and (b) national highway projects under (i) the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program and (ii) the Australian Land Transport (ALT) Program since the inception of these programs. (2) What projects have been approved for Commonwealth funding in the electoral division of Leichhardt under the (a) ABRD and (b) ALT Programs since their inception. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) See Table 1 below. (1) (b) See Table 2 below. Note: For both Table 1 and Table 2, the cost of projects crossing electorate boundaries cannot be accurately allocated to the separate electorates; consequently there is an element of double counting in the figures provided as the total cost of individual projects is included in each relevant electorate. (2) (a) and (b) See Table 3 below. Table 1 APPROVED FUNDING FOR URBAN/RURAL ARTERIAL ROADS BY ELECTORATE-QUEENSLAND $ Bowman... ALTP...1,350,000 ABRD...1,118,000 TOTAL...2,468,000 Brisbane... ALTP...512,500 ABRD...380,000 TOTAL...892,500 Capricornia... ALTP...1,231,000 ABRD...8,207,000 TOTAL...9,438,000 Dawson... ALTP...560,000 ABRD...3,141,106 TOTAL...3,701,106 Fadden... ALTP...440,000 ABRD...22,400,419 TOTAL...22,840,419 Fairfax... ALTP...1,400,000 ABRD...1,563,000 TOTAL...2,963,000 Fisher... ALTP...3,420,000 ABRD...5,887,000 TOTAL...9,307,000 Forde... ALTP...3,373,000 ABRD...16,280,971 TOTAL...19,653,971 Griffith... ALTP...230,000 ABRD...2,436,000 TOTAL...2,666,000 Groom... ALTP...3,722,000 ABRD...3,685,174 TOTAL...7,407,174 Herbert... ALTP...4,067,000 ABRD...5,292,071 TOTAL...9,359,071 Hinkler... ALTP...2,700,000 ABRD...1,620,000 TOTAL...4,320,000 Kennedy... ALTP...9,573,000 ABRD...15,037,021 TOTAL...24,610,021 Leichhardt... ALTP...4,200,000 ABRD.... . TOTAL...4,200,000 Lilley... ALTP...55,000 ABRD...23,690,000 TOTAL...23,745,000 Maranoa... ALTP...10,450,000 ABRD...20,583,866 TOTAL...31,033,866 McPherson... ALTP...1,970,000 ABRD...13,645,560 TOTAL...15,615,560 Moncrieff... ALTP...4,170,000 ABRD...15,274,000 TOTAL...19,444,000 Moreton... ALTP...345,500 ABRD...1,300,000 TOTAL...1,645,500 Oxley... ALTP.... . ABRD...225,000 TOTAL...225,000 Petrie... ALTP...178,500 ABRD...2,723,000 TOTAL...2,901,500 Rankin... ALTP...4,580,000 ABRD...9,288,000 TOTAL...13,868,000 Ryan... ALTP...2,497,500 ABRD...16,144,000 TOTAL...18,641,500 Wide Bay... ALTP...1,162,000 ABRD...1,800,000 TOTAL...2,962,000 Note: 1 ABRD is over the life of the program (ie, from 1982/83 onwards) ALTP includes projects approved in 1985/86 only; 2 National Highways are not present in all Queensland Electorates. Table 2 APPROVED FUNDING FOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS BY ELECTORATE-QUEENSLAND $ Bowman... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Brisbane... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Capricornia... ALTP...9,130,000 ABRD...5,630,000 TOTAL...14,760,000 Dawson... ALTP...13,550,000 ABRD...42,294,293 TOTAL...55,844,293 Fadden... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Fairfax... ALTP...3,880,000 ABRD...25,356,816 TOTAL...29,236,816 Fisher... ALTP...6,230,000 ABRD...7,672,859 TOTAL...13,902,859 Forde... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Griffith... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Groom... ALTP...6,700,000 ABRD...12,020,189 TOTAL...18,720,189 Herbert... ALTP...5,755,000 ABRD...5,663,007 TOTAL...11,418,007 Hinkler... ALTP...8,350,000 ABRD...6,300,000 TOTAL...14,650,000 Kennedy... ALTP...12,781,000 ABRD...39,887,000 TOTAL...52,668,000 Leichhardt... ALTP...3,270,000 ABRD...5,937,334 TOTAL...9,207,334 Lilley... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Maranoa... ALTP...10,667,000 ABRD...12,990,001 TOTAL...23,657,001 McPherson... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Moncrieff... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Moreton... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Oxley... ALTP...5,310,000 ABRD...17,388,374 TOTAL...22,698,374 Petrie... ALTP...2,960,000 ABRD.... . TOTAL...2,960,000 Rankin... ALTP...3,150,000 ABRD...2,500,000 TOTAL...5,650,000 Ryan... ALTP.... . ABRD.... . TOTAL.... . Wide Bay... ALTP...6,235,000 ABRD...12,796,816 TOTAL...19,031,816 Note: 1 ABRD is over the life of the program (ie, from 1982/83 onwards) ALTP includes projects approved in 1985/86 only; 2 National Highways are not present in all Queensland Electorates. ROADS (B) REPORT ON ROAD FUNDING BY FEDERAL ELECTORATE Legend: FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCE-Details Federal Funding Sources as follows: ABRD Only, ALTP Only, RGA Only. ABRD/RGA, ABRD/ALTP, All Funds. STATE FUNDING-Includes funding from All sources EXCEPT the Commonwealth. APPROVED COST-Total approved cost of a Project. This may be in excess of the sum identified for Commonwealth and State funding. (i.e.: Uncommitted funding.) DATE APPROVED-Date Project received Ministerial Approval. NOTE: In cases of Jointly Funded projects the State Funding and Approved Cost are included (IN TOTAL) for each Project. In order to avoid double counting these fields are not Totalled. Table 3 AUSTRALIAN BICENTENNIAL ROAD PROGRAM APPROVED LOCAL ROADS PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ELECTORATE OF LEICHHARDT (QLD) Report DBA007-Report date: 2.6.86 Project Project name Description ABRD cost Federal funding source State funding Approved cost Date approved DD. MM. YY $ $ $ AQL0174 Lake St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.2 km widen and AC overlay from Gatton St to Grove St 13,000 ABRD only . . 13,000 12.8.83 AQL0175 Grove St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.2 km widen and AC overlay from Lake St to Sheridan St 13,000 ABRD only . . 13,000 12.8.83 AQL0176 Howard St, Cooktown Cook Shire: 0.65 km construction to unsealed standard from John St to Orchard St 40,000 ABRD only . . 40,000 12.8.83 AQL0177 Poison Creek Rd Cook Shire: Construct causeway over Poison Ck 40,000 ABRD only . . 40,000 12.8.83 AQL0186 Porters Promenade Johnstone Shire: 1 km full construction to bitumen standard from David St to Boyett St (LGA project on MRD-controlled road-LGA contribution to job) 260,100 ABRD only . . 260,100 12.8.83 AQL0188 Fisherman's Landing Rd Mulgrave Shire: 0.65 km construction to 3.6m bitumen for access to international speedway-stage 1. Refer AQL0294 32,000 ABRD only . . 32,000 12.8.83 AQL0189 Morgan Rd Mulgrave Shire: 0.6 km construction to 3.6m bitumen 33,000 ABRD only . . 33,000 12.8.83 AQL0190 Kruckow Rd Mulgrave Shire: 0.6 km construction to 3.6m bitumen access to municipal rubbish dump 33,000 ABRD only . . 33,000 12.8.83 AQL0191 Holloway's Beach Esplanade Mulgrave Shire: 1 km bitumen widening 66,000 ABRD only . . 66,000 12.8.83 AQL0192 Douglas & Jardine Sts, Thursday Is. Torres Shire: Construction of roadside drainage 8,000 ABRD only . . 8,000 12.8.83 AQL0193 Stephen & Olandi Sts, Thursday Is. Torres Shire: Construction of roadside drainage 18,000 ABRD only . . 18,000 12.8.83 AQL0194 Pilot & Olandi Sts, Thursday Is. Torres Shire: Construction of roadside drainage 21,000 ABRD only . . 21,000 12.8.83 AQL0195 Pearl St, Thursday Is. Torres Shire: Replace existing drain with large culverts between Douglas St and Chester St 15,000 ABRD only . . 15,000 12.8.83 AQL0290 Bloomfield Rd Cook Shire: 0.5 km construction to gravel standard (stage 1), 40 km south of Cooktown at ``Black Pinch''. Refer AQL0432 40,000 ABRD only . . 40,000 6.10.83 AQL0294 Fisherman's Landing Rd Mulgrave Shire: 1 km construction to 3.6m bitumen for access to international speedway-stage 2. Refer AQL0188 66,000 ABRD only . . 66,000 6.10.83 AQL0308 Pine Ck approaches Construct 6m bitumen approaches on deviation on Yarrabah Rd, 9.9-10.5 km from Bruce Hwy in Mulgrave Shire. MRD-controlled local road 400,000 ABRD only . . 400,000 20.12.83 AQL0395 Lake St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.2 km widen and AC overlay from Florence St to Minnie St 21,300 ABRD only . . 21,300 29.3.84 AQL0396 James St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.2 km widen and AC overlay from McLeod St to Lily Ck 19,300 ABRD only . . 19,300 29.3.84 AQL0397 Martyn/Anderson Sts, Cairns Cairns City: Widen and AC overlay at roundabout 6,000 ABRD only . . 6,000 29.3.84 AQL0398 Anderson St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.1 km widen and AC overlay from Martyn St to Chaplain Ave 7,500 ABRD only . . 7,500 29.3.84 AQL0429 Abbott St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.2 km AC overlay from Florence St to Minnie St 19,200 ABRD only . . 19,200 31.1.85 AQL0430 Minnie St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.3 km AC overlay from Q.G.R. to Draper St plus 0.1 km overlay from Abbott St to Lake St 29,000 ABRD only . . 29,000 31.1.85 AQL0431 Poison Creek Rd Cook Shire: Construct causeway across Eight Mile Ck 40,000 ABRD only . . 40,000 31.1.85 AQL0432 Rossville Rd Cook Shire: 0.5 km construction to 7.5m bitumen (stage 2) on ``Black Pinch'' realignment. Refer AQL0290 50,000 ABRD only . . 50,000 31.1.85 AQL0433 Whyanbeel Rd Douglas Shire: 1.2 km reconstruction to bitumen standard, 11.6 km from Mossman 82,450 ABRD only . . 82,450 31.1.85 AQL0463 Mackey Ck Bridge Construct concrete bridge, 1.8 km from Bruce Hwy on Yarrabah Rd in Musgrave Shire. MRD-controlled road 300,000 ABRD only . . 300,000 4.11.85 AQL0464 Cooktown-McIvor Rd Widen to 6m bitumen from Two Mile Ck towards airport, 2.3-4.9 km from Cooktown in Cook Shire. MRD-controlled local road 900,000 ABRD only . . 900,000 4.11.85 AQL0476 Morton St, Kuranda Mareeba Shire: 0.42 km construction to bitumen standard including drainage and kerb and channel from intersection with Kennedy Hwy 70,000 ABRD only . . 70,000 4.11.85 AQL0487 Aurukun town streets Aurukun Shire: Construction to bitumen standard including installation of concrete culverts 30,800 ABRD only . . 30,800 20.2.86 AQL0488 Abbott St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.2 km asphalt overlay from Minnie St to Upward St 29,750 ABRD only . . 29,750 20.2.86 AQL0489 Gatton St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.1 km asphalt overlay from Draper St to Martyn St 9,000 ABRD only . . 9,000 20.02.86 AQL0490 Woodward St, Cairns Cairns City: 0.1 km asphalt overlay from Clemenson Ave towards Polentz St 9,250 ABRD only . . 9,250 20.02.86 AQL0492 Poison Creek Rd Cook Shire: 0.3 km construction to 7m gravel on approach to 8 Mile Ck 42,000 ABRD only . . 42,000 20.02.86 AQL0493 Rossville Rd Cook Shire: Selected clearing (stage 1) from Black Pinch to southern boundary of Rossville 29,500 ABRD only . . 29,500 20.02.86 AQL0494 Rossville Rd Cook Shire: 6 km drainage and gravelling selected sections (stage 2) from Black Pinch to southern boundary of Rossville 148,820 ABRD only . . 148,820 20.02.86 Total-local roads 2,941,970 Total-ABRD 2,941,970 AQN0038 Liverpool Ck-Cowley Reconstruct and widen, 127.3-131.6 km north of Ingham on Bruce Hwy 1,710,114 ABRD only . . 1,710,114 20.12.82 AQN0039 Cowley-Moresby Reconstruct and widen, 131.6-134.8 km north of Ingham on Bruce Hwy 1,409,220 ABRD only . . 1,409,220 20.12.82 AQN0084 Nind Ck approaches Construct approaches to new bridge on parallel alignment, 144.3-145.6 km north of Ingham on Bruce Hwy 1,118,000 ABRD only . . 1,118,000 09.08.84 AQN0122 Skeleton Ck-Sawpit Gully Duplication on southern approaches to Cairns, 78.2-80.4 km north of Innisfail on Bruce Hwy 1,700,000 ABRD only . . 1,700,000 19.11.85 Total-National Highway 5,937,334 Total-ABRD 8,879,304 LQN0040 Gilliesway Connection Intersection Reconstruct and channelise intersection, 64.9-65.4 km north of Innisfail on Bruce Hwy 200,000 ALTP only . . 400,000 16.07.85 LQN0041 Mulgrave Rd Traffic Signals Installation of traffic signal co-ordination equipment in Cairns on Bruce Hwy 50,000 ALTP only . . 300,000 16.07.85 Total-National Highway 250,000 LQZ0013 Ingham-Innisfail Maintenance over 150 km on Bruce Highway between Abergowrie Road, Ingham and Edith/Ernest Streets intersection, Innisfail in MRD districts 9 and 11 *1,450,000 ALTP only . . 1,450,000 16.7.85 LQZ0014 Innisfail-Cairns Maintenance over 89 km on Bruce Highway between Edith/Ernest Streets intersection, Innisfail and Captain Cook Highway, Cairns in MRD district 11 1,570,000 ALTP only . . 1,570,000 16.7.85 Total-National Highways Maintenance 3,020,000 * NB: Not all maintenance expenditure on this section falls within the electorate of Leichhardt. LQR0031 Kuranda Bypass Construction on deviation, 13-14.5 km from intersection with Captain Cook Highway on Cairns-Mareeba section of Kennedy Highway 2,100,000 ALTP only . . 2,100,000 18.9.85 LQR0034 Whites Creek Section Construct and seal, including replacement of timber bridge with culverts, 98.4-101.3 km north of Mount Molloy on Mount Molloy-Laura section of Peninsula Development Road 1,000,000 ALTP only . . 1,000,000 18.9.85 LQR0050 Mourilyan Harbour Road Reconstruct and widen to 7m bitumen for 5 km from Bruce Highway 1,100,000 ALTP only 1,403,000 2,503,000 26.3.86 Total-Rural Arterial roads 4,200,000 Total-ALTP 11,062,400 LQL0005 Aurukun Shire 1985-86 allocation for Council controlled local roads 25,200 ALTP only . . 25,200 16.9.85 LQL0028 Cairns City 1985-86 allocation for Council controlled local roads 195,200 ALTP only . . 195,200 16.9.85 LQL0032 Carpentaria Shire 1985-86 allocation for Council controlled local roads 186,200 ALTP only . . 186,200 16.9.85 LQL0037 Cook Shire 1985-86 allocation for Council controlled local roads 322,900 ALTP only . . 322,900 16.9.85 LQL0043 Douglas Shire 1985-86 allocation for Council controlled local roads 64,000 ALTP only . . 64,000 16.9.85 LQL0069 Johnstone Shire 1985-86 allocation for Council controlled local roads 202,600 ALTP only . . 202,600 16.9.85 LQL0082 Mareeba Shire 1985/86 allocation for council controlled local roads 249,600 ALTP only . . 249,600 16.09.85 LQL0093 Mulgrave Shire 1985/86 allocation for council controlled local roads 242,100 ALTP only . . 242,100 16.09.85 LQL0124 Torrres Shire 1985/86 allocation for council controlled local roads 64,700 ALTP only . . 64,700 16.09.85 LQL0139 Aurukun Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 25,200 ALTP only . . 25 200 16.09.85 LQL0162 Cairns City 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 195,200 ALTP only . . 195 200 16.09.85 LQL0166 Carpentaria Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 147,100 ALTP only . . 147 100 16.09.85 LQL0171 Cook Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 313,100 ALTP only . . 313,100 16.09.85 LQL0175 Douglas Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 224,400 ALTP only . .224,400 16.09.85 LQL0198 Johnstone Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 283,200 ALTP only . . 283,200 16.09.85 LQL0211 Mareeba Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 310,300 ALTP only . . 310,300 16.09.85 LQL0221 Mulgrave Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 284,000 ALTP only . . 284,000 16.09.85 LQL0250 Torres Shire 1985/86 allocation for MRD controlled local roads 32,100 ALTP only . . 32,100 16.09.85 LQL0261 Cook Shire 1985/86 special allocation for works on peninsula developmental Rd (MRD-controlled local road) undertaken by Comalco civil earthworks crew 50,000 ALTP only 50,000 100,000 18.09.85 LQL0264 Mareeba Shire 1985/86 special allocation for council controlled local roads 40,000 ALTP only . . 40,000 21.10.85 LQL0280 Torres Shire 1985/86 special allocation for council-controlled local roads 135,300 ALTP only . . 135,300 21.10.85 Total-Local roads 3,592,400 (Question No. 4146) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) How many pensioners were there each month in each category of pension in the electoral division of Corangamite from December 1984 to April 1985. (2) How many pensions in each category have been (a) cancelled, and (b) reduced. (3) How many pensioners in each category have had their fringe benefits (a) cancelled, and (b) reduced. (4) What percentage of pensioners in each category have been affected by the assets test. (5) How many pensioners have not yet lodged the assets test forms. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The information sought is not available. Relevant statistics for geographical areas smaller than States and Territories are available only by Social Security regions and by postcode districts. Tables showing the number of pensioners whose pension has been reduced or cancelled, by Social Security region and by postcode districts, have been prepared but are too voluminous for incorporation in Hansard. Statistics for particular postcode districts or Social Security regions are available on request. (Question No. 4154) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) How many persons who are entitled to little or no age pension have opted to take advantage of the pensioner loans scheme. (2) What is the pensioner loans scheme interest rate. (3) Has the pensioner loans scheme interest rate changed: if so (a) when and (b) by how much. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 22 people have been granted assistance under the Pension Loans Scheme. A further 3 claims have yet to be determined. (2) Ten per cent per annum simple interest. (3) (a) and (b) Yes. When the scheme was introduced in March 1985 the interest rate was 13.5 per cent per annum. This was reduced to 10 per cent per annum in May 1985 with retrospective effect to March 1985. (Question No. 4155) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: How many persons (a) are currently and (b) for each of the last five years, have been paid a supporting parents benefit who have a dependent fulltime student aged 16 to 24 and who have no other children under 16 in their custody, care or control. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The number of supporting parent beneficiaries who have dependent fulltime students aged 16 to 24 and who have no other children under 16 in their custody, care or control, for the years requested is shown below: (a) as at 4 April 1986, 3,229. (b) as at 30 June 1985, 3,076; 1984, 2,452; 1983, 1,903; 1982, 1,378; 1981, 1,066. (Question No. 4165) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 June 1986: What is the (a) number and (b) percentage of invalid pensioner beneficiaries whose medical disabilities include (i) silicosis and (ii) asbestosis. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A sample survey of major causes of invalidity and other impairments of invalid pensioners was conducted by my Department in 1979. Analysis of the survey data was published in December 1980. Owing to the size of the sample, it was not possible to estimate the numbers of invalid pensioners suffering from less common conditions. This applied to silicosis and asbestosis sufferers, who were included in the category `Other diseases of the respiratory system'. No other morbidity surveys of invalid pensioners have been conducted since 1979. (Question No. 4177) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report by former UN Special Rapporteur, Lord Colville, which cited 2117 disappearances of persons in Guatemala in the last 7 years. (2) Is he able to say what the current state of human rights abuses is in Guatemala and what the Australian Government's response has been. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) A new Guatemalan Government, under President Cerezo, assumed office on 14 January 1986 with a stated commitment to the reduction of human rights violations. The Government quickly took a number of important steps to improve the situation including the dissolution of the notorious Department of Technical Investigations of the National Police (DIT), the arrest of 600 DIT operatives, the establishment of both a parliamentary investigation into human rights abuses and a Supreme Court investigation into clandestine gaols and recognition of the Interamerican Human Rights Court. Despite the Government's action, human rights violations continue to occur and the situation remains of serious concern to the Australian Government. Australia supported a resolution at the Commission on Human Rights in March 1986 which welcomed the new Guatemalan Government's commitment to human rights and encouraged it to take measures to ensure all agencies and authorities in Guatemala fully respect internationally accepted standards of human rights. The Australian Government will continue to monitor the performance of the Guatemalan Government in improving the observance of human rights in that country. (Question No. 4180) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) What success has the Government had in persuading each of the nuclear weapon states to sign the protocols of the Nuclear Free South Pacific Treaty. (2) Is he able to say what the attitude of each of the nuclear weapon states is to this Treaty. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Protocols have not yet been finalised by the Forum nor opened for signature. I would not expect any government to predetermine its attitude to signing a text which it has not yet seen. (2) I do not believe that any of the nuclear weapon states have yet reached a firm and definitive attitude to the Treaty, nor would I expect them to do so ahead of receiving and studying the definitive text of the Protocols. (Question No. 4189) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an Amnesty International paper dated April 1986 which summarised the law and practice of various countries where persons have been detained for attempting to leave any country including their own, or attempting to return to their own country. (2) Is the right to leave any country including one's own and the right to return to one's own country guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. (3) Is it a fact that the following countries are referred to in the Amnesty report as violating these human rights: Albania, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Israel and the occupied territories, Romania, Turkey, USSR, Vietnam, Chile, Jordan and Mozambique. (4) Will he ensure that the Government continues to pressure these and any other countries found to be violating accepted international standards regarding freedom of movement. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) The Government attaches particular importance to the right to leave any country, including one's own, and the right to return to one's own country. This right as embodied in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies in Australia. The Government will continue, without bias, to press the case for this right and other human rights in its dealings with other Governments and to oppose human rights violations wherever they occur.