Wednesday, 20 August 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam Speaker, this Bill is to repeal the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986 and thereby to terminate the inquiry which the Commission was established to carry out. The Commission was set up to inquire and advise the Parliament whether any conduct of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy had been such as to amount, in its opinion, to proved misbehaviour within the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution. The Act requires the report to be made on or before 30 September 1986 unless that date is extended by resolution of each House of the Parliament. Honourable members will be aware of the distressing news of Mr Justice Murphy's illness. In a statement issued on 1 August 1986, he said that his medical advice is that he has an advanced state of cancer in its secondary stages, and that there is no cure and no treatment. The advice is that in the absence of a remission he will not live very long. This advice was confirmed in a Special Report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to the Presiding Officers dated 5 August 1986, which was circulated to the leaders of the various parties in the Parliament and tabled yesterday. I inform the House that I was advised by Mr Justice Murphy on 5 August that his health was such that he was unable to travel; that he was going on sick leave and that he was proposing to devote himself to writing up judgments upon which he has yet to make delivery. It was with profound sadness that we all learnt of Mr Justice Murphy's illness. I know that all honourable members will have the same feeling. As already stated on behalf of the Government, Lionel Murphy and his family have already had to bear more stress in the last two and a half years than most people experience in a lifetime. They will have the sympathy of every compassionate and fair-minded Australian as they face this severest ordeal of all. We all acknowledge the precious value of life. We are very much aware of the sadness that illness can cause and we are very mindful of the great support that one gets from one's family in these times. We all wish the judge well in the future and we hope and pray that there will be a remission of his illness that may allow him to restore his health and be able to continue the great work that he has been able to do for this country. However, the matter this Parliament must now address is the inquiry. The Special Report of the Commission tabled yesterday states that the illness of the judge, in combination with the fact that its inquiry will take at least four more months, raises the question whether the statutory task set for the Commission can be discharged at all. The Commission has made plain its own views, which are that to continue hearings if the judge were too ill to take part in them would be contrary to established practice and to natural justice. Accordingly, the Commission's inquiry should be terminated forthwith, and that is what the Bill before the House now does. The Bill also includes special consequential provisions. These are made necessary by the fact that the Commission has not made, and will not be able to make, any findings in relation to matters before it. In particular it is necessary to protect from access and publication any allegations against Mr Justice Murphy. For these purposes, clause 7 has the effect of transferring the documents in the possession of the Commission immediately before the commencement of the repealing Act to the care of the Presiding Officers. Clause 8 makes it an offence to publish allegations derived from materials before the Commission. I turn to clauses 7 and 8. Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 7 make provision for the transfer into the care of the President of the Senate and yourself, Madam Speaker, as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the documents in the physical possession of the Commission immediately before the commencement of the repealing Act. As regards documents which contain any material relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy, provision is made in clause 7 (3) to exclude access under any other Federal, State or Territory law, including the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Archives Act 1983 and any law which provides for the production of documents. Evidence concerning these documents by the persons referred to in clause 7 (3) is also excluded. As regards documents which do not contain material relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy, access may be obtained but only under the exclusive code provided in clause 7 (4). Specific reference is made to any material relating to the meaning of section 72 of the Constitution. Such material could be of general public interest, and it would be able to be released if it does not contain material relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy. Access will be a matter to be decided by the Presiding Officers. As indicated, clause 7 (4) is an exclusive code; in particular, access under the Freedom of Information Act or the Archives Act will be excluded, as will any law which provides for the production of documents. At the winding up of the Commission there will be some documents with agencies covered by the Freedom of Information Act. Clause 7 (5) has the effect that the agencies are exempt from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act in relation to documents which have been created for the purposes of the Commission. Clause 8 is an overriding provision that makes it a criminal offence to disclose any allegations derived from materials before the Commission relating to Mr Justice Murphy or any information relating to consideration in the Commission of any particular allegation. Now that the inquiry is being wound up, it would be oppressive and unconscionable to allow the circulation of allegations derived from materials before the Commission but on which no report by the Commission will ever be available. The provision is limited to allegations derived-and I emphasise the word `derived'-from materials before the Commission, and any information relating to the Commission's own consideration of any particular allegation. The Provision says nothing about materials that exist independently of the Commission. Finally, I want to emphasise to the House in the plainest way that the commissioners themselves see enormous difficulties in their ever being able to complete their inquiry into any of the allegations in any satisfactory way. My own conclusion, based on what they have said, is that to continue the inquiry would be a futile and oppressive exercise. I express my thanks and appreciation to each commissioner for undertaking the inquiry that Parliament set up. Each is a distinguished retired senior judge. The presiding member of the Commission is Sir George Lush, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. Sir George retired from the Supreme Court in October 1983 after 17 years on the Bench. He was Chairman of the Victorian Bar Council and President of the Australian Bar Association from 1964 to 1966. Sir Richard Blackburn, a former Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, was appointed as the Australian Capital Territory's Chief Judge in 1977. Sir Richard was also a member of the Federal Court of Australia, and a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court from 1966 to 1971. The Hon. Andrew Wells, QC, is a former judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. Mr Wells retired in 1984 after 14 years on the Bench. The two former State judges were chosen after consultation by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with the Premiers of Victoria and South Australia. Sir Richard Blackburn accepted my invitation to serve on the Commission. The appointments were finally made after consultation with the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I seek leave for the debate to continue. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Spender —No, it is not. We saw the draft of this Bill last night around 6 o'clock and the actual Bill itself for the first time a few minutes ago. Madam SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) put: That, pursuant to contingent notice, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the second reading being made an order of the day for a later hour. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A.Blanchard, C.A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.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.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Everingham, P. A. E. Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steel Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, Dr 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. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before the debate is continued, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering the Bill and the motion to take note of papers presented yesterday in relation to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. If there is not objection, I shall allow this course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.20) —The presentation of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill 1986 to Parliament has been marked by haste and incompetence. We first got a copy of the draft of the Bill last night around about 6 o'clock; and we first saw the Bill to be presented to the House today as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) presented his second reading speech. Our position has been made plain and I make it again to this House. Despite the very deep natural sympathy we must all feel and, I believe, we all do feel, for Mr Justice Murphy and his family in this time of great pain and great personal darkness, there has been no change in the constitutional considerations which led to the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. There cannot be one set of constitutional rules for a healthy judge and another set for a sick judge. There is no alternative to the inquiry continuing so long as Mr Justice Murphy remains publicly determined to sit on the High Court of Australia. I remind honourable members that all we have had from Mr Justice Murphy is a statement of that public determination. Today the Attorney-General said-and I agree with him entirely-that we hope that Mr Justice Murphy has a remission. He went on to say that he hoped that he would be able to continue with his great work. That, of course, referred directly, and could only refer, to his returning to the High Court. That is our first objection-that is, that the constitutional considerations which led to the establishment of this Commission have not changed. Our second objection relates to the Bill itself. This is not a Bill simply to abolish the Commission of Inquiry. It is a Bill which sets up what the Attorney-General has called `an exclusive code', which is designed to bury in perpetuity any material before the Commission of Inquiry in any way relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy and which has the effect of denying access to that material in perpetuity, even if it is directly relevant to the proof of a criminal offence against some third person. The Government's determination to end the inquiry must be judged in the context of that inquiry and the reasons that led to its establishment. Let me remind the House of those reasons and that context. The inquiry was established on 8 May 1986. It was set up after months of delay by this Government and an unprincipled abdication of its constitutional responsibility to protect the standing and integrity of the High Court. It was established to assist the Parliament in determining Mr Justice Murphy's fitness to remain on the Bench of the High Court of Australia and not, as some mistakenly believe, to determine any questions of criminal guilt or innocence on any issues on which he had been previously tried. It was commonly understood-and I challenge any member of the Government to deny this-that Mr Justice Murphy would refrain from sitting on the Court while the inquiry was being held. No one whom I recall on the Government front bench suggested that he should do other than refrain from sitting on the Court while the inquiry was being held. No one mentioned Mr Justice Murphy's constitutional right to sit on the Court and that he should exercise that constitutional right while the Commission was on foot. How could that be suggested in terms, very simply, of judicial propriety? It was self-evident that to sit while his very fitness to sit was under examination by this Parliament and by the Commission established by the Parliament for that purpose must inevitably be damaging to the integrity and standing of the High Court, since one outcome of the Commission could be a resolution by both Houses under section 72 of the Constitution. What would be, in that circumstance, the views of litigants who had been before the Court? What would be the views of litigants who had been before the Court and whose position had been judged by a judge who was himself then under judgment? How could it conceivably be argued that it was proper or desirable in those circumstances for the justice to sit? It cannot, and nobody at the time sought to advance that argument. The only reason it has been advanced now is out of sympathy. We all feel sympathy for Mr Justice Murphy. Many of us have known him outside of this House and have no feelings of political animosity towards him. I and many others, and I believe and hope everybody on my side of the House, would exclude any such question. There are no politics involved in this matter; there is no political credit to be gained, save credit that might be and should be gained for upholding constitutional principle-an odium that should be wreaked by those in the Government who would abdicate once again constitutional principle. The Commission of three retired judges was to report to this Parliament its findings of fact and its conclusions as to whether the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy had been such as to amount, in its opinion, to `proved misbehaviour' for the purposes of section 72 of the Constitution. The report and accompanying evidence were to be presented by 30 September, unless that date was extended by resolution of the two Houses. The report was intended, under the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act setting up the Commission of Inquiry, to form the basis for Parliament's decision. Regardless of whatever opinions the Commission might form, the ultimate judgment under the Constitution was for this Parliament itself. I remind the House of the circumstances of Mr Justice Murphy's return to the High Court bench. There was news of his grievous ill health, evoking feelings of sympathy across the country from every decent Australian. Then there was his unilateral decision to return. There was the disapproval of that decision voiced by the Chief Justice. I must say that it was contemptible of the Attorney-General on behalf of the Government yesterday to suggest that there was dissent from other justices. I remind the House that not a single justice has expressed such dissent. The Chief Justice, who will retire in a few months time, was in the position where he had to express a view since otherwise silence on his part would have been judged by many to be assent to Mr Justice Murphy's return. He said-and has anybody here quarrelled with this proposition: It is essential that the integrity and reputation of any Justice of this Court be seen to be beyond question. That being so, I regard it as most undesirable that Mr Justice Murphy should sit while matters into which the Commission is inquiring remain unresolved, and before the Commission has made its report. Does anyone suggest that that is wrong? Does anyone suggest that, Mr Justice Murphy's health having been put to one side, he should return to the Court while those matters remain unresolved? Such an argument cannot in all conscience be put to this House or to the Australian people. To their very great discredit the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Senator Gareth Evans, as Acting Attorney-General, have taken a different view. They spoke of Mr Justice Murphy's constitutional right to sit on the High Court of Australia, the constitutional right of a judge under investigation by this Parliament. What of their constitutional duties? When the Bill to establish the Commission was before this House, the Attorney-General spoke of the need `of protecting the standing and integrity of the High Court and the preservation of public confidence in it'. He then said that the reasons that led the Government to decide that this Commission should be established without delay were those very considerations. Forced into accepting responsibility, he stated what he said were the Government's views. Now that has disappeared; those views have vanished. Yet in constitutional terms nothing has changed. That is not simply the view expressed on this side of the House; it is a view which is unequivocally confirmed by the special report of the Commission of Inquiry which was tabled yesterday in this House. I quote from that report, which states: The situation which existed at the date when the Act became law, 13 May 1986, was such that Parliament regarded the task allotted to the Commission as one of national importance. That situation remains unchanged. So it does. The only thing that has changed is the knowledge we all have of the justice's grievous ill health, but that has nothing to do with whether it is right or was right or desirable for Mr Justice Murphy to resume his position on the High Court. It is characteristic of this Government that it should jettison constitutional principles and seek to justify its actions on the ground of the justice's ill health and to contrive by that means that sympathy should blur and bury the constitutional issues. I fear that Mr Justice Murphy's own views cannot pass examination, nor can they pass challenge, since he stated his own view of the Commission. He asserted the right to sit for so long as he believes he should, and that is all we have from him in public terms. I quote from his own recent statement where he said: Between 15 and 30 July I received from those assisting the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry a number of purported allegations. In my view they are either untrue or do not constitute misbehaviour. I have already been cleared of many of them by the unanimous decision of the first Senate Committee. Who in the House embraces that position? Apparently the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Government itself. Mr Justice Murphy's answer was to arrogate to himself the task of judgment and, it must be said, to treat with plain and deep contempt the Commission and Parliament itself. His answer is in flat opposition to the character Parliament gave to the Commission to determine the relevance of allegations and to determine their truth, and it is directly contradicted by the special report which makes plain that the task of the Commission was no easy or trivial one but one of weight, gravity and complexity. Before quoting from that report I ask the House: How could it possibly be accepted that the justice himself was to be allowed to make the judgment as to whether or not an allegation should be answered? How could it possibly be suggested that it was open to him to make the judgment as to whether an allegation was true? These were matters reposed by the Houses in the Commission, and on which the Commission was bound by its charter to report to the Houses. The Houses were then to make their own judgment on the report. I quote from the report which was tabled yesterday in this House. I start with paragraph 5, which reads: The situation which existed at the date when the Act became law, 13 May 1986, was such that Parliament regarded the task allotted to the Commission as one of national importance. That situation remains unchanged. The Commission, through counsel assisting it, has considered a great quantity of materials which, in combination with further inquiries, has led to the drafting of `specific allegations made in precise terms'. Those completed have been delivered to the Judge. Some are still in preparation. Evidence on the first allegation to be considered was to begin today. In the result no evidence has been heard and therefore nothing decided. 6. Counsel assisting the Commission estimate that the hearing of evidence on all present allegations, including cross-examination, up to the stage at which the Judge might be called upon to give evidence would last at least four months and possibly longer. The Act fixes 30 September 1986 as the date for the making of the Commission's report, but under section 9 (2) that time may be extended. It is perfectly plain, therefore, that the material before the Commission was of great bulk, weight and complexity; otherwise the time required by it for examination of the material would be very much less than four months. The report continues: 7. If Parliament were to leave the Act in operation, with the requirement that the Commission make its report by 30 September, the Commission might be unable to complete the hearing of evidence relating to even one allegation, and certainly would not be able to deal with most of the allegations. If no case to answer were disclosed in the allegations so heard, and they were in effect dismissed, the other allegations would remain in the air, and the situation which the Act was intended to correct would remain unchanged. If a case to answer were disclosed, the Judge could be required to give evidence and could be cross-examined. If the final decision were adverse to the Judge, the fact that most of the allegations remained unheard would lead to the result that the Houses would have incomplete materials for their further deliberations. The Commission does not favour the course of selecting a few allegations for immediate hearing on the sole or principal ground that they could be rapidly disposed of. 8. If the Commission is to carry through its task to completion, it will be necessary for the Houses to extend time to a date not earlier than 31 March 1987. It is for the Government to make plain what Mr Justice Murphy's intentions are. It has the responsibility to do that because it has responsibility for the administration of justice. The High Court stands at the pinnacle of our system of administration of justice. So long as Mr Justice Murphy remains publicly determined to sit as a justice of the High Court, I regret to say, the Commission of Inquiry must continue. His health entitles him to deep sympathy, but it does not give him special rights. The High Court as an institution is far more important than the personal interests of any one member of it. In summary, therefore, there have been no changes to the constitutional considerations that led to the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission. It is undesirable for Mr Justice Murphy to sit while the issues before the Commission remain unresolved. His health is irrelevant to both those matters, although the unwisdom of a man sitting, in his health, on reserved judgments is all too obvious. If his health became such that he were unable to take part in the inquiry, it would be contrary to natural justice for it to continue. I repeat my expressed hope that he will reconsider his decision, make his intentions clear and public and make it plain that he does not propose to sit further on the High Court and will resign. Before passing to the Bill itself, I must say something about the Attorney-General's second reading speech. The Attorney-General said that the medical advice was confirmed in a Special Report of the Parliamentary Commission. I have not seen the medical advice which was before the Commission, but the Commission does not confirm anything save that, and I quote from paragraph 2: At the sitting this morning, counsel for the Judge tendered a statutory declaration to which was exhibited a copy of the medical certificate which you have already seen. `You' being the Presiding Officers. The quote continued: On this material, supported by statements from the bar table that the Judge was unable to travel, counsel applied for an adjournment of hearings until parliament next sits. I wish, therefore, to emphasise the point that the Commission is making no final judgment and, indeed, so far as I could see, could make no final judgment, about Mr Justice Murphy's continued health or about the course of this dreadful affliction from which he suffers. Turning now to the Bill itself, the Bill is not simply a repeal of the Commission; it is a burial of the Commission and of all of the evidence before it. This is effected by clause 7 and by what the Attorney-General has quaintly referred to as `an exclusive code'. Under clause 7 the Presiding Officers jointly have the exclusive right to possession of any document that was in the possession of the Commission immediately before the commencement of the clause as a law. Further, under clause 7, notwithstanding any other law, no person other than a Presiding Officer-let me repeat the words `other than a Presiding Officer'- is entitled to access to a class A document. A class A document is defined as meaning a document that contains material relating to the conduct of the Hon. Lionel Keith Murphy. It does not say: `adversely reflecting on the conduct of Lionel Keith Murphy'. It says `relating', and that means, of course, relating in any way, for good or for bad, even if the way in which it relates is purely in passing and even though it contains material which is directly relevant to the proof of criminal activities by some third person. So long, therefore, as a document falls within the description of a class A document, it is to remain in the possession of the Presiding Officers. The effect of the Bill is not limited to documents brought into existence for the purposes of the inquiry, and here lies one of the cardinal problems. Under the Act which set up the Commission, the Commission was to have access, by section 13, to documents and materials held by the National Crime Authority relating to the Stewart inquiries. Therefore, so long as any of the Stewart documents contain references to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy, and regardless of what that reference is or what else appears in those documents, access is barred forever, for all time, to such material as may be in the possession of the Commission at the time this Bill becomes law. That prohibition is deliberately based on the full sanction of parliamentary privilege. Even Parliament itself, even the Houses or the committees of the Houses, are to be denied access to those documents. Could anything be more extraordinary? Class B documents-that is, any other documents in the Commission's possession at the time this Bill becomes a law-are also to be excluded from any external inquiry or access and, once again, forever, save with the written authority of the Presiding Officers. I would read that as meaning the written authority of both Presiding Officers; so if one disagrees, access to those documents can never be had. Once again, this Parliament and its committees are to be denied access to those documents. Quite extraordinary powers are here vested in the Presiding Officers. It is they who are to determine questions of access, not the Houses themselves, unless this law is changed. What are we dealing with? What are the reasons for this? The result is not simply to bury forever documents relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy, even where those documents may contain material directly relevant to the proof of a criminal offence committed by some third person, but to deny this Parliament and the Australian people forever access to class A material and to deny this Parliament and the people forever access to class B material, save on the terms provided for by the Presiding Officers, if they so provide. Surely this is the most extraordinary attempt we have ever seen to seek to preserve in perpetuity documents from public scrutiny, regardless of the public interest in having those documents scrutinised and regardless of the public interest in having those documents, or some of them, turned over to the law enforcement authorities. I wish to make it perfectly plain that I am not suggesting in any way that we are here concerned with criminal offences committed by Mr Justice Murphy. I am talking about criminal offences which may be disclosed and material which may be relevant to criminal offences committed by third persons. These provisions will remain for the next 500 or 1,000 years if the Bill becomes a law of this country. The Petrov documents themselves have been released. We all know that under the release provisions of the Archives Act, Cabinet documents are released after a certain period. Documents dealing with the most sensitive matters of national importance are released. Documents containing allegations of the most serious kind relating to high officials have been released. The Petrov documents were one such case, where the Prime Minister spoke of the public need to have these documents released. They were released, I recall very clearly, containing as they did the wildest, most bizarre and unsubstantiated allegations against some great Australians. There are other public policy objections to the Bill. I shall now deal with one further major objection to it. Under section 34 of the Act, the Commission may communicate information that it receives relevant to the commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State or of the Northern Territory, or to the National Crime Authority or to the police. With the repeal of the Act, once this Bill comes into force, the Commission's power to communicate such information will cease and all the material in its possession will then become subject to the defences of the legal fortress that the Government has erected by this Bill. There are further objections to be found in the terms of clauses 5 and 8 of the Bill and the very wide exclusions contained in those clauses on the use of information. Time does not permit an examination. I point to it so that it will be remarked on at a later time and in a different place. I conclude: In government, we believe that fairness should be accorded to Mr Justice Murphy and we shall accord that fairness to him and to his reputation. I do not speak of a revival of the Commission. I am talking here about the Bill and the effect that it has on the preservation of documents within the legal fortress. But we believe that the law enforcement authorities should have access to relevant material and that not to give them access would be a denial of public duty at which this Government, whose flexible morality is notorious, is willing to connive. While we believe that the interests of fairness must be closely considered, all the material must, in due course, be open to public examination. To adopt any other course would be to give to this material a status and secrecy quite unknown to our democratic processes and quite opposed to basic public principles. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.51) —I rise to support fully the words of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), on the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill. I am as concerned as he is about many aspects of the repeal of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act. The shadow Attorney-General has very clearly identified one of the critical problems relating to the legislation with which we are dealing, and that is the body of material that will remain after the inquiry has concluded. When one considers that only a short time ago the parliamentary commissioners were seeking an extra six months to investigate fully a number of the allegations made in relation to Mr Justice Murphy, one must have cause to be very much concerned about where the material will go and when the people of this country and members of this Parliament will have proper access to it. As I understand it, there were very good reasons for the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry seeking an extra six months for the examination of the allegations made against Mr Justice Murphy. I understand that it had reached the point where it was considering in particular 12 counts on which a prima facie case could be made out to indict Mr Justice Murphy for criminal offences. The mere fact that so many prima facie counts could be subject to consideration and require further investigation must make one gravely concerned about what will happen to this material. I suggest that the reason the inquiry has been closed down relates not so much to the purported state of health of Mr Justice Murphy but more to the enormity of the material that has been put together by the Commission and the ramifications that flow from that material for this Government and for the national security of Australia. If I can deal specifically with some of the criminal matters that were subject to investigation, I gather that several of those prima facie counts that were being looked at were built very much around the alleged criminal association of Mr Justice Murphy with well-known Sydney crime figure Abe Saffron. As the inquiry moved on its course of investigation, Mr Justice Murphy, on learning of these developments, made a statement that the purported allegations were baseless. As we have heard from the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy indicated clearly that he intended to sit again in the High Court of Australia. In doing that, he has effectively judged himself, without proper examination of the material, and has not allowed the Commission to conclude its deliberations in a proper way. As I understand it, a number of matters that were laid before the Commission go beyond matters of criminal association and go to other areas of great concern. In that regard I wish to take honourable members back to a document that I discussed in this House in the earlier session of this year. I refer to the evidence given before a committee of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, the Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly upon Prostitution, on Tuesday, 15 November 1983, by one James McCartney Anderson, a former business associate of Abe Saffron. I do not intend to transgress all that material in its entirety again but I wish to draw the attention of the House to one particular element of that transcript of evidence, in particular page 104 of the in camera evidence, because it goes to the very matter that I am talking about-not the primary matter of the alleged criminal associations of Mr Justice Murphy but his alleged associations in other areas and the implications that may have for our national security. I can deal with this document with full liberty because, at the invitation of the Attorney-General, I did subsequently draw that document to the attention of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. I forwarded my Hansard speech and I understand that subsequently the full in camera evidence was obtained and studied by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. I especially draw the attention of honourable members to page 104 of Mr Anderson's in camera evidence before that Select Committee upon Prostitution on 15 November 1983 where he said: The greatest security risk that Australia faces is the corruption that exists in New South Wales and other States, only this one more than others. You could start a spy ring here without any problems at all. This was followed by a question from the Committee: By using Mata Hari type spies, you mean? The answer was: Using ladies to compromise politicians, members of the armed forces; it is nothing new. But for some reason or other Australian politics find it very difficult to comprehend that it could happen here. This is why the drug scene got out of control because nobody thought it could happen in Australia. In relation to that material, which I understand was studied very closely by the Parliamentary Commission in association with other accompanying material laying down a similar line of investigation for the Commission to follow, I draw the attention of honourable members to an article that appeared in the Melbourne Age on Tuesday, 19 August. We are talking about a fairly recently published article. In that article there is a lengthy discussion about the political pressure that has been exerted by people, including politicians, over a long period in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners program and the attempts made to repress the material in that program. I will not read the article in its entirety because not all of it is relevant to the subject at hand. But I would like particularly to draw attention to one critical section of that article about the suppression over the years of various ABC Four Corners programs. The article was written by Jane Sullivan, Green Guide editor of the Age, and was in the Age of Tuesday, 19 August. It states: In 1977, Mr Justice Murphy promised the then producer of `Four Corners', Mr Brian Davies, that he would sue the ABC ``to its back teeth'' if it put to air an interview with the retiring head of the CIA, Mr James Angleton, saying that Mr Murphy's raid on the ASIO headquarters in 1973 when he was Attorney-General had ``worried and angered Washington''. The interview was never shown on television but was later broadcast on the ABC radio program `Correspondents Report'. Mr Murphy did not sue. Referring back to Mr Anderson's comments and considering them in relation to the Murphy raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in 1973, one wonders what the motivation then was. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I just draw the honorable member's attention to the fact that he does seem to be straying a little bit off the subject, which is the repeal of an Act. He might just bear relevance in mind. Mr ALDRED —I will bear that very much in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I understand that these are among the matters that were the subject of investigation by the Commission, and I find it of great interest that the Government attempts to close down a commission which was attempting to pursue these matters. I just leave the House with the following questions: What was the real purpose behind the Murphy raid on ASIO in 1973? What particular documents were taken away by the then Attorney-General? What events happened elsewhere in the world subsequent to that? Who was the ASIO officer who helped the Attorney-General to acquire those documents at the time? What later happened to that ASIO officer in terms of his promotion in ASIO? In relation to what I said about Mr Anderson's testimony before the Select Committee upon Prostitution, what other possible ramifications might that have? That is why I say that we are really looking at a subject that has enormous implications. One realistically has to say that in fact what the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry was looking into goes far beyond the matter of criminal associations. Just briefly, on that same matter, I draw the attention of honourable members to statements in recent times by the former senior MI5 officer, Peter Wright, who has been attempting to get material published here in Australia. He has indicated quite clearly in discussions that he believes the former Director-General of MI5 in the United Kingdom, Sir Roger Hollis, had acted for the Soviets for a long period and that that had an overflow to the situation here in Australia. One then brings that back to the Murphy raid on ASIO in 1973 and the statements of Mr Anderson. There are many unanswered questions if this material is to be buried. What does it all really mean? Who really was Mr Justice Lionel Murphy and was he doing something other than just acting in an improper manner in a criminal sense? I lay those questions before the House because we have not had a clear answer to them. If the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry had been allowed to pursue its full and proper course, it might have been very interesting to see whether these matters could have been studied further. I do not think we have heard here today the end of any of these matters. The Government has attempted to close off debate on this subject by closing down the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. But a lot of the material that the inquiry has been looking at is held in other places and I think we will see developments in various areas that will go beyond the inquiry. The attempt by the Government to close it down will prove to be abortive in the longer term in terms of suppressing proof. I draw the attention of honourable members to one other related matter in relation to the Anderson material which, as I have said, was studied in great detail by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry and also in relation to other material that it then uncovered that flowed from this. If I may just be indulged I will read the lead-in question to Mr Anderson's testimony in order to give it a sense of perspective. This is the beginning of Mr Anderson's testimony and it refers to a separate but related matter relating to the national well-being of this country. I understand that this too was the subject of consideration by the inquiry. The questioning went as follows: CHAIRMAN: Mr Anderson, I would ask you now to further pursue the point at which I cut you off. I feel it is necessary even though it may not be terribly relevant to our terms of reference. Having started on a line I think it has to be pursued. You started talking about Cabinet Ministers, judges and the like, and their involvement. Could you elaborate on that? Mr DOWD: Perhaps, Mr Chairman, you might indicate that Mr Anderson should indicate (a) what he knows and (b) those things which he personally observed and where he was present at conversations, as best he can?-A. As you will appreciate, I did not realise I was coming here until I spoke to Mr Dowd at 8 o'clock last night. Q. Mr Chairman, I had spoken to Mr Anderson a fortnight ago before he was going overseas with this date in mind and told him about this date. Of course, then, he went overseas and I could not contact him until he got back yesterday?-A. The prostitution side of it, and judges, you may find this a bit embarrassing, but I can certainly substantiate it. I would have to speak to a member of the media who has, I believe, fully documented this particular incident where the four most powerful men in this country, the Prime Minister, the federal Attorney-General, Treasurer and Minister of Energy I think he was, Mines or something, Mr Connor. He is dead now; the other three are very much alive. There was a problem of $4 billion worth of loan money and certain legal action was taken by Mr Sankey. There are overtures made. I was in Mr Saffron's office when he phoned-you have to correct the terminology; I do not know if he was the Chief Justice of Australia, or one of them-Mr Lionel Murphy. Mr BOWMAN—He is one of the judges? Mr Duncan —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to Standing Order 75, which states: No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof, against any Member of the Judiciary . . . It seems to me that this is going fairly close to transgressing that standing order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -I have asked the honourable member for Bruce to remain relevant to the Bill. The honourable member seems to be saying that this is all relevant to the fact that there is a secrecy provision in the Bill and he is canvassing what he believes may have been said to the Commission of Inquiry. I do not think that that really is relevant to the Bill that is before us. I think the point that is being made by the honourable member for Makin is quite true, that Mr Justice Murphy is a justice of the High Court. The honourable member for Bruce should restrict his remarks to the Bill before the House. Mr ALDRED —I will conclude the section I was reading because it puts the matter into perspective. In talking about this Bill it is very difficult not to mention the justice. This was one of the matters that were being investigated by the Commission. Perhaps I can just have your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to complete this sentence. It states: Mr BOWMAN: He is one of the judges? ---A. I am not sure if he was the federal Attorney-General then or if he had been shunted - we are talking about him in his capacity as Attorney-General- Mr DOWD: He was at that stage federal Attorney-General? ---A. I was present when Mr Saffron approached me and said he had been approached by a Mr Morgan Ryan and Mr Lionel Murphy to try and bring certain criminal actions that were pending and had been causing a great deal of trouble to the federal Government to a speedy conclusion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not think that the honourable member can make imputations and continue to make those sorts of imputations. Mr ALDRED —I have read in all I intend to read into the record. What I am saying-I come back to my very opening comments-is that this legislation today is not about the health of Mr Justice Murphy. This Bill is about closing down an inquiry that has become enormously damaging to this Government because of the enormity of the material it has uncovered in not only the area of criminal associations but also the area of national security. That is the very reason this Government wishes to bury this inquiry so that things will not proceed further in relation to investigating these matters including, as the shadow Attorney-General has correctly stated in his comments prior to mine, the investigation of matters that may relate to offences committed by other third persons. Whether one is talking about the loans affair, national security or the alleged criminal associations of Mr Justice Murphy, what his real role was and who he really is, I think it is a great tragedy that this Bill is being put through today with such great speed. Notwithstanding this attempt to forestall and close off debate on these important matters here today by closing down the inquiry, the Government will not prevent at some stage the truth on these matters and the truth about Mr Justice Murphy's real role in this country eventually coming out. Mr REITH(Flinders)(11.10) —I will not detain the House terribly long on this matter, but I would like to make some comments. I must say at the outset that this has been a very sorry matter in terms of handling what has been a unique constitutional situation in regard to the High Court of Australia. It does need to be put into perspective because the High Court is one of the two fundamental institutions which guarantee and protect the rights of individuals, the rights of all Australians. That is its importance; it carries with it the importance which we have as members of this Parliament to ensure the integrity of the High Court. We had an unfortunate situation when the Government, with a range of mixed motives-it did not quite know how to deal with the situation-back in May 1986 effectively flick-passed the constitutional problem to the High Court. In the House of Representatives on 6 May at page 3130 the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said: I think any government and any parliament would welcome the High Court being in a position to express a view about matters. At page 3135 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: Clearly, they are not going to be issuing a judgment of the High Court but they will be, obviously, coming to some conclusion. What that did was place the High Court in a most unenviable position. But on that very day, according to documents received under the Freedom of Information Act recently by me, the Attorney-General's Department forwarded to the Chief Justice copies or extracts from Volume 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, the Stewart report, and also copies of Volume 1. It was only after some considerable debate in this place that the Government realised the error of its ways and moved to the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. In introducing the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Bill, the Attorney-General said in the second reading speech: It is necessary for the standing of the Judge and of the High Court that all allegations be dealt with one way or the other. I remind honourable members that we on this side of the House in fact supported that move. In a unique constitutional situation it seemed to us to be sensible to move to the establishment of an inquiry so that an objective statement of facts could be collated and then presented to the Parliament so that the Parliament was then in a better position to exercise its constitutional responsibilities under section 72 of the Constitution. We had a number of objections about the Bill establishing the inquiry. Some of those objections were brought about by the fact that the Government was forced, through indecent haste, to prepare the legislation and there were a number of errors and queries about it. It was also embodied in that legislation that the inquiry would effectively operate in secret. I think it was in the public arena for two or three minutes when the Commission of Inquiry was first established that the counsel assisting advised us that all further hearings would be in camera. It was a sensible course of action for the sake of the integrity of the High Court from the layman's point of view. All he knew was where there is smoke there is fire, that the Federal Parliament had a supervisory responsibility in respect of the administration of justice in this country and it was therefore appropriate that a commission be established. It had the benefit, as often these sorts of commissions have, of taking the matter out of an immediate political context. The rationale for the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry rests on a number of issues, facts or matters. The first is that a member of the High Court had had allegations made against him in the public arena. The making of those allegations and the fact of those allegations being made public raise in the public's minds questions as to the suitability of a member of the High Court. The fact is that nothing has changed. No circumstances have arisen since the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry which would in fact detract from the rationale for the establishment of the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry in the first place. The Government has provided no answer to the fact that when it established the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry the circumstances which it considered grave enough for the establishment of that inquiry from a constitutional point of view have not changed. I have a number of specific objections about this Bill. Some time ago, on 5 August, I lodged an application under the Freedom of Information Act for certain documents. I was able to lodge that application because this Parliament in that Act has decreed that information on a whole range of matters should be available to citizens. I applied under that Act for a copy of the transcript of the proceedings of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, copies of all submissions presented to the Commission and copies of affidavits, reports or other documents presented to the Commission to assist the Commission with its functions as specified by section 5 of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Act 1986. I have done so, the application has been acknowledged, and this Bill now contains a clause which effectively operates retrospectively so as to bar that application, and in particular clause 7 relating to custody of documents. I might add that, whilst the Freedom of Information Act provided the right to seek access to that information, the Government in its haste omitted to place into the enabling legislation an exemption from applications under the Freedom of Information Act. It was an omission either by the sheer fact that the whole thing was done in a hurry, or for reasons unknown to me. The House now has before it the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Repeal) Bill which effectively will bury all information raised in the proceedings of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. It seems to me that even given a statement that Mr Justice Murphy would no longer sit on the High Court, it may well be that information has been obtained on the conduct of other persons who have had an association with Mr Justice Murphy. It was only a little while ago that Mr Justice Murphy made an application to the High Court for an interim or interlocutory injunction. We were told in the judgment of the High Court that: The information which is being considered by counsel for the Commission falls into two categories: (a) allegations relating to the plaintiff's conduct in judicial office and (b) allegations relating to the plaintiff's conduct otherwise than pertaining to judicial office . . . That, of course, exposes the arguments about the definition of misbehaviour. I think that members of the public are entitled to know what it is that the Government has considered sufficiently of concern to it-political concern, it might be an obvious conclusion to draw-that it should present a Bill today which is an effective stopper to this sort of information ever getting out. I conclude by saying that the constitutional reasons for the establishment of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry are not in any way affected or detracted from by the illness of Mr Justice Murphy, regrettable though that may be on a personal basis. This has been a difficult matter. It has not been well managed by the Government, and it seems to me now a matter of some very adverse judgment on the Government that it should rush in today with a Bill which will bury for all time some connections with Mr Justice Murphy, and the conduct from a historical point of view of one of the members of the High Court, so as to keep it from public view. In all these matters in the end it is important for the integrity of our institutions that the real circumstances-the perspective and the circumstances in which issues such as these in the public arena have been dealt with, the manner in which they have arisen and the circumstances which gave rise to them-ought in the end to be available for public scrutiny. It is not to the Government's credit that in what appears to all intents as a means of protection or of silencing criticism of Mr Justice Murphy this Bill be introduced today, thereby, using the words of the honourable member for North Sydney, burying for all time the information and evidence collected by the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.31) —in reply-I wish in reply immediately to rebut the allegations continually made by all Opposition speakers that this is an attempt to prevent evidence that may or may not have been available to the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry from being made available. The statement by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) asked, in effect: `Was there some crime or suggestion of crime committed by a third party?' Let me scotch that suggestion once and for all. The Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry Bill, to which nobody opposite really addressed his mind, contained provisions whereby matters or material before the Commission were to be handed back on request. I would be amazed if people felt that something had been given to the Commission which they were not going to ask to have back if it was in the context as submitted here today. Section 18 (2) of the original legislation provides for that. The honourable member for North Sydney is looking a little puzzled. Where a retention is requested, the Commission will be able to deliver it. Mr Spender —We do not know what has happened. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am telling the honourable member that if a request were made the material would be handed back. Can the honourable member imagine somebody suggesting that he would not want it back? I make a further point for the honourable member's benefit. I would be grateful if he did not interrupt because he has had more than a fair uninterrupted opportunity to raise a number of matters, which I will advert to soon. Section 34 of the original legislation says that the Commission may communicate information where in the course of its inquiry there might be a suggestion of the commission of an offence. Does the honourable member think the Commission would not have done that or would not do it even now if that were the position? Again, I make the point that the suggestion has been made that clause 5 in this Bill is something novel when it is virtually a repeat of clause 16 in the original Bill. Further, there is an addendum to clause 5 that defines `document' in that sense as being limited to a document created for the purpose of the Commission and no other document that might be available to the Commission. Having said all that, it completely destroys most of the arguments submitted here today. Mr Aldred —Come on. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will come on on the basis that I think it is important to look at what the Opposition has said today. The honourable member for Bruce made no reference to anything on which he has any evidence. He referred to somebody named Anderson giving evidence. I assume that he is still available, and if he is he is the sort of person the honourable member would love to discuss matters with. But, as I understand it, he is a convicted criminal of no repute. That is the sort of allegation the honourable member wants to rely on today. I say no more about that matter. The honourable member went on with a mental aberration as to the involvement with the Central Intelligence Agency, MI5 and every other aspect, which I doubt very much would have been allowed to go unnoticed or even not investigated, since 1973. The honourable member's Government was in power for a fair period after that. Can one imagine relying on the honourable member for Bruce today to come up with something, novel, new, never before investigated, as to what might have been the suspicious movements of people way back in those days? I think the problems of security in 1973 directly related to the fact that the Premier of Yugoslavia was visiting this country and there was some suggesting that his security could not be guaranteed. I say no more than that, but the honourable member might, for his edification, like to look at one of the problems faced by governments in those days. The honourable member for Bruce went into the Sankey case and everything possible. If he wants to look at the matter from the point of view of what happened there, I remind him that it was found in the course of litigation that there was no evidence to warrant people, members of government being arraigned at that time. The honourable member just has an outrageous, suspicious mind and he has used that mind to introduce into this House today a sense of venom and vindictiveness which has no relationship to what we have been discussing in this Bill. It is outrageous to think of Parliament being used, abused and misused on this basis. We have here some suggestions as to what has happened in this matter and the position is very clear. There is medical evidence-it is not immediately in front of us, but it was in front of the Commission and its members accepted it; I have no doubt it is accurate-of the terminal illness of Mr Justice Murphy. I am mindful of the fact that in the ordinary work of courts of justice a case does not proceed if a party is not capable of following the case or instructing the legal advisers. The Commission itself said of this: It would be contrary to established practice under natural justice. This is the Commission itself saying these words. In this situation it seems inevitable that the Commission, and more importantly Parliament, would be represented as hounding the judge. Mr White —Why doesn't he step down? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not have to address every aspect in the honourable member's mind. I will tell him later what the position might be. Mr Aldred —You haven't answered the question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Bruce will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point that I wish to make is this: On 5 August-- Mr Aldred —You still have not answered the question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Bruce interjects again I will deal with him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On 5 August the Commission itself came forward with the concept of the matters immediately causing concern in terms of how Commission members saw the problems in front of them at that time. Could the Commission continue in the face of the medical evidence? The Commission members made it very clear that they were not able to continue. They made it very clear that the prognosis was such that it would be impossible and virtually futile for the Commission to continue. They made it very clear that the hearings would be in the judge's absence because he is unable to travel, which is a matter of medical evidence as well, and that this would be contrary to established practice and natural justice. That was their submission to the Presiding Officers to which, of course, the Opposition has been privy. The submission was given to them and therefore it is no surprise. Having said that, I point out that here is a commission which is unable to function for reasons which relate directly to the terminal illness of the person and that is the point that is clear here. I want to emphasise this: If a miracle were to happen and the judge were to be restored to health, I have no doubt that the Opposition would pursue the matter. I want to make this point: If there is evidence out there in the market-place somewhere, whether it be with the Age, the National Times or some convicted criminal, it will not stop there. They will publish it-of course they will. But what does that do for what we are about here if, at that particular stage, there is no judge available to answer those allegations. That is the incredible, dreadful thing that we face now. Mr Aldred —And no inquiry to investigate it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Bruce. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —These matters are not of recent innovation. The allegations would go back years. Have a look at the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge and what it was endeavouring to investigate; have a look at the so-called Age tapes and have a look at what Mr Justice Stewart said about the validity or worth-or worthlessness-of the transcripts. Mr Spender —That is not what he said. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes it is. Mr Spender —You haven't read it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have read it and we can debate that at another time. It is very clear that we have had all that material. The outstanding position here is that the Opposition was in government throughout that period of the Age tapes. Opposition members had access to all the information. I would be surprised if they were not able, willing or anxious to pursue it. Mr Aldred —We were not in government; not in 1973. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They were in 1978, 1979 and 1980 and that is the relevant period of the Age tapes. The Opposition also had the Federal Police getting the information. It had the acknowledgement that the police had that information and it discussed the matter with the Commissioner of Police. I wish to make this point about the Commission of Inquiry: We have had all the debate of years gone by and we have the present position in which surely there is no doubt about the medical evidence and there is no doubt about the fact that the Commission itself says it cannot continue. That is the position that we have here. On that basis I come to the point about what happened in recent times. For some extraordinary reason the honourable member for North Sydney said that the Commission had been established `after months of delay'. Those were his exact words. He said `months of delay'. Mr Spender —Precisely. Durack said that it should have been established well over a year ago. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am talking about the honourable member who said there had been `months of delay'. Let me make this point to the honourable member that-- Mr Spender —I referred to that in my second reading speech-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has had his opportunity to address the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member cannot take it; that is his problem. Let me talk about his Press statement on 29 April this year. On that date a statement was issued by Senator Fred Chaney, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and Mr John Spender, QC, MP, shadow Attorney-General. It said: In view of the jury's finding in the trial of Mr Justice Murphy, the Opposition does not propose to take Parliamentary action in terms of section 72 of the Constitution based on the specific issues dealt with in the criminal trial. Claims that the trial was politically motivated are plainly wrong. It should be remembered that the prosecution of Mr Justice Murphy was launched by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, whose office was created by and whose appointment was made by the present Hawke Labor Government. I do not know what that does for Mr Temby's independence. The statement continued: The second trial was directed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Once that statement was issued it was very clear that there was to be no pursuit of the matter pursuant to section 72 of the Constitution. Mr Reith —Hang on. Why don't you read it again? You didn't get it right the first time-you should read it again. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a pity that the honourable member did not make his contribution when he spoke during the debate and that he has to do it now by interjection. That Press release was issued on 29 April. Soon after there was a suggestion that Mr Justice Murphy would meet with his fellow justices. I wish to come right to the point. This suggestion that there would be a reason for the establishment of a commission was never even mentioned in the week of 29 April. It was never mentioned at any stage. Why is the honourable member for North Sydney suggesting that there were months of delay. There was no reason to have a commission. There were no allegations at that stage; they had all been dealt with by the courts. The honourable member says so himself in his reference to section 72. Then came a point of issue that the judges themselves were to have a meeting on the Monday, which was rather unusual. That was the first Monday in May. They issued a statement saying that Mr Justice Murphy would make a submission to the court about matters that may or may not have been in what is called the Stewart inquiry. On that score we were uncertain as to what they were discussing. We were of the view that they must have had some discussions among themselves about the position of Mr Justice Murphy because he agreed to refrain from sitting pending that explanation to his fellow justices. That is the position. In fact, we said that on the Monday evening. We were a bit surprised to find on the Tuesday morning that the justices themselves had issued a Press statement for the first time saying that that was never their intention, they were not dealing with the matter as a court and they were not considering the matter in terms of whether it was right or wrong that Mr Justice Murphy should sit with them; they merely wanted an explanation. That left some confusion certainly in the Parliament and in the public mind about what was to be done about that matter. That is where the Commission sprung from. The justices themselves issued a Press statement on the Tuesday morning saying that they were to have a discussion but they were not dealing with the matter as a court and they were not actually finding on the merits. They said there would be no findings. Therefore, we said that we would have to do something about what were deemed to be the allegations. I put it very clearly to honourable members: That is the real reason why the Commission was established. We had to establish the position of Mr Justice Murphy. We could not leave that position uncertain. Would the judges have another meeting a week later? Would there be more discussions? Where was the public interest and public credibility from the point of view of saying what was happening? So we had to establish that Commission. The Opposition entered this debate so pure and anxious to say that there is no animosity and no politics. Opposition members should read the Hansard, following that opening expression. One wonders what they would say if they were to be animus and concerned about the issue from the point of view of Mr Justice Murphy and where he sees his role. Mr Justice Murphy knows that he has a very difficult illness and knows in his own mind that he stepped down for a temporary period to discuss matters with his fellow judges. He refrained voluntarily, and in the middle of this Commission has come this dreadful prognosis. Is he not entitled, in the eyes of himself, his wife and his family, to say: `Look, I am not going to be left in a position where there is never an explanation of this matter from my point of view'? He made that explanation to me when I saw him on 5 August. He said: `I discussed this matter with my fellow judges and they never objected to my sitting with them'. I make the point that it is not contemptible of me to say that, as the honourable member for North Sydney said. It is not contemptible and never will be. One day the true story may be written. The honourable member for North Sydney says that is the position, so I will make the position very clear to him. Mr Spender —You will do anything to save yourself, won't you-anything at all. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not have to save my position; you have to save yours. The honourable member opened the debate by saying there was no animosity and no politics, but said in the context of the debate that Mr Justice Murphy should resign and should never be allowed to sit. That is the position from the Opposition's point of view, yet there is not one tittle of evidence to suggest that. No other person has suggested it. I make the point that when I discussed the matter with His Honour he made the point that there was no objection from his fellow judges to sitting with him, and on that basis he has gone back to the Court. In Mr Justice Murphy's mind, as well as in the eyes of his family, particularly his sons, that is a redeeming factor. Bearing in mind the prognosis is a very dangerous one for life expectancy, is Mr Justice Murphy to die with this over his head? There has been no satisfactory explanation of these allegations, which have been out in the market-place for years. What fairness, honour or integrity is there in any Australian who would say that he should go to his eternal reward with that sort of smear and innuendo over not only his name but also his family? Any man would do the same, bearing in mind that he voluntarily agreed to step down to talk about some matters that were allegedly in a report. That is the real issue here. We all hope that he will recover, but the prognosis is directly the opposite to that. The Opposition has to bear in mind today that the reason for the Commission arose because of some meetings with the judges; there was no other reason. The statement is very clear that when he was acquitted in April there was no other matter pending, and even the honourable member for North Sydney has to admit that. It was very clear in Mr Justice Murphy's statement that he was going to be on the Court the following Tuesday. All arrangements were made; then there was a meeting of the judges on Monday. There were no other accusations or allegations, nothing outstanding at all, and that is still the position now. There has been no proof of anything, except perhaps some suggestion by newspapers such as the Age and the National Times in particular which feel that they have some allegations to make. On that score, the Commission has taken evidence and has made a recommendation that it is unable to continue because it would be unfair and contrary to natural justice when it has the medical evidence in front of it. The Commission has made it clear that the allegations could not be disposed of rapidly and suggests that the judge should not be hounded by allegations or evidence, either in the Commission or in the Parliament. The Commission has said all that. It is for those reasons that we will terminate the Commission. I hope also that we can terminate the innuendoes and allegations that have been made here today. They are not new; they were ventilated in the Senate inquiries and have been the subject of litigation in New South Wales, where the judge was acquitted. They have also been the subject of further discussions. I regret the nature of the debate today. I hope it ends on the basis that everybody wishes Mr Justice Murphy a restoration to good health and continued good health. I hope also that those people see no objection to his being able to counter any allegations they might wish to make in the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, Peter Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B. Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S. Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R. Cowan, D. B. 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. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, Dr D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Mountford, J. G. Shipton, R. T. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member claims to have been misrepresented he has the indulgence of the Chair. Mr SPENDER —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said in his reply to the debate that I had raised something as a quite fresh matter which I had not raised some time ago. Let me quote from what I said to this House on 8 May 1986 to put on record the rebuttal to what he said. I quote from page 3442 of the Hansard which states: We are not debating this legislation tonight because of some principled decision by this Government. The Government has been driven here by the Opposition, by the inexorable pressure of events, and by the mounting tide of public opinion. It has abjectly surrendered the position it has taken in the past. It has half-heartedly brought this Bill into the Parliament because it has been forced to do so and not for any other reason. It did not lack warnings. In September 1984 Senator Durack said to the Senate: If the Government really were willing to resolve the substance of this matter . . . it would co-operate in establishing a form of parliamentary commission. I said further, referring to the so-called impossibility of the Parliament looking at issues which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) alleged were before the High Court of Australia: The impossibility has disappeared and the Australian Labor Party, condemned by its own Leader, has been dragged here on a pretence of integrity which demonstrates not only a grievous and cowardly failure of duty over months but also an unprincipled abdication of constitutional responsibility. I repeated those words `unprincipled abdication of constitutional responsibility' today. The Attorney-General read from a statement which I made on 29 April 1986 and implied very clearly that what I was saying was that there was nothing to look into. I read again the relevant part of that statement: In view of the jury's finding in the trial of Mr Justice Murphy, the Opposition does not propose to take Parliamentary action in terms of Section 72 of the Constitution based on the specific issues dealt with in the criminal trial. I repeat these words `based on the specific issues dealt with in the criminal trial'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Mr Deputy Speaker I wish to make a personal explanation in reply to the inference made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I claim to have been misrepresented. The honourable member endeavoured to misrepresent what I said in the sense that he quoted what Senator Durack said in 1984 in an earlier Hansard debate. I have no objection to his saying that but it must be read in context. Subsequent to 1984 there was a trial of Mr Justice Murphy, who, in April this year, was acquitted. That is the difference. I was explaining to the House that the honourable gentleman- Mr Spender —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: This is not a personal explanation. It is not a statement of misrepresentation; it is an argument. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is alert to the possibility of a resumption of debate and will take action at the appropriate time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not anxious to argue but the honourable gentleman has misrepresented me by suggesting that I said the wrong thing when I said to him today that he was talking about months of delay when in fact on 29 April he was not raising any issue at all. It is not much help to the House to be talking about what Senator Durack said in 1984 and I want to make the point- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair intervenes. On judgment, the discussion is taking the form of renewed debate. Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(11.55) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: State Mail Centre, 501 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne. The Australian Postal Commission requires new accommodation for the State Mail Centre currently located in the existing sub-standard Mail Exchange building, for the processing of mail. The new accommodation will provide loading bays for mail trucks and containers, as well as offices, staff amenities and official and staff car parking. The new centre will be the main Victorian facility for, first, the exchange of mail between Victorian mail centres and other States, and, secondly, customers' lodgement of bulk mails. The new building is a single-storey structure sited to harmonise with its surroundings. All operational facilities, staff amenities, offices and loading bays will be on ground level, including an allowance for on-site car parking of 158 vehicles. The proposal is the result of a publicly advertised request by Australia Post for offers to supply a building on a fully serviced site with suitable vehicle access and within a defined distance from the central business district. The recommended offer was developed to the satisfaction of Australia Post and local and State authorities and its design is satisfactory to the Public Works Committee. The total estimated cost of the proposed work is $10.8m at April 1986 prices. I would like to thank the Public Works Committee for its prompt consideration of the proposal. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(11.57) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available to me. The Opposition regrets that the Victorian Government withdrew the preferred site for this project and notes that the Standing Committee on Public Works was a little less than fully satisfied with the proposal that the Minister is putting forward. This is an indication of some haste in this matter, and it is to be hoped that the Minister will note this and ensure that those matters that concern the Public Works Committee do not lead to some sort of fiasco in this project. I ask the Minister to ensure that the private sector only is involved in the construction of the State Mail Centre at Port Melbourne. I ask him also to give special attention to ensuring that there is no overrun on this project in the way that the price appears to have escalated between February and April. The Opposition, despite its reservations, has no objection to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Mr Scholes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.59) —The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill has the support of the Opposition. The Bill sets out to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, which was passed by the Parliament during the period of the Fraser Government. The proposal underlying the amendments is to create a more specific relationship between the legislation and the dumping of radioactive materials in Australian waters as well as meeting Australia's inter- national commitments in relation to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which was recently signed by the Government. It is proposed also that there be a convention for the protection of the natural resources and environment of the South Pacific. Therefore, the purpose of the amendments is threefold: First, to change the original legislation; secondly, to meet the international requirements of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty; and, thirdly, to meet the expected requirements of the protection of the natural resources and environment of the South Pacific. The legislation is based initially on the 1981 Act, which was passed in this Parliament as a means of bringing into effect the London convention which dealt with high-level waste disposal in the sea, including nuclear wastes. The amendments will prevent the dumping at sea of any radioactive material which has radioactivity in excess of 35 becquerels per gram. I should emphasise that this is an arbitrary figure. It is based on a level of activity slightly above that of naturally occurring potassium, which is not potentially harmful to marine biota. A substantial amount of research has been carried out in recent years on the likely impact of the dumping in deep seas of high-level nuclear wastes, which has been one of the possible solutions to the growing international problem of what to do with the substantial amount of waste which is currently being created, especially by economies in which the generation of power through nuclear means is a matter of great importance. For example, in France 40 per cent of all power generated is from nuclear sources. In that context it is worth noting that the Opposition naturally supports the decision announced by the Government in the Budget last night that France should be permitted, along with all other countries that use Australian exported uranium for peaceful purposes, to buy our uranium. However, the fact is, as was pointed out by a leading Australian miner, Mr Hugh Morgan, on the AM program this morning, it is highly unlikely, given the fact that the French have been locked out of the market in recent years, that they will be prepared to re-enter in the short term. This legislation is based principally on the political necessity, as perceived in the South Pacific, of making it very clear to the world as a whole that the nations of the South Pacific, including Australia, are not in any sense happy about the continuation of French nuclear testing in our region. One of the provisions in the Act makes it fairly clear that, while French nuclear testing is not specifically referred to by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in his second reading speech, nevertheless, sources of pollution from the carrying out of tests, even if they take place well below the surface of the ground, could be defined as the dumping of materials of a radioactive nature. Therefore, the essential problem that we shall face in future is the manner by which we solve the problem of the growing amount of radioactive nuclear materials, which is the result of the nuclear industry. The Pacific, as we are well aware, is the largest physiographic feature on the planet. It occupies some 35 per cent of the earth's surface and has an average depth of 4,282 metres and a volume of approximately 708 million cubic kilometres. It is said that the average residence time for water molecules in its deep waters is about 1,000 to 1,300 years. It should be pointed out that sea water, as with all elements of the natural environment, contains radioactivity. The radioactivity of sea water from all natural radionuclides is about 750 dpms per litre, much of which is derived from potassium. The Pacific Ocean contains some 2.4 x 10 to the 11th power curies of natural radioactivity. In 1970, the total burden of artificial radionuclides in the sea amounted to less than one per cent of this total. It is perfectly clear that there is no perceived threat to the Pacific at this time. In the northern Pacific in recent years, however, the Japanese have been dumping the residue of their nuclear industry as a matter of course. This has resulted in a considerable amount of political activity by nations throughout the Pacific region. In 1981, the Japanese sent to Australia and elsewhere a high-level delegation to try to explain to nations in the region how it saw the problem and in the hope of receiving our support. The then Minister, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), said in a letter tabled in the House on 2 June 1981: Australia made it clear that it was opposed to the Pacific region becoming a dumping ground for the indiscriminate and uncontrolled disposal of nuclear waste. The Japanese technical mission which visited South Pacific countries to explain Japan's proposed operation held discussions with officials in Canberra during August 1980. It was during these discussions that Australia's views on the matter were made known to the Japanese. The officials advised the Japanese mission that Australia considered it essential that the disposal of nuclear waste in any environment, and in particular the Pacific Ocean, should be undertaken only in compliance with the strictest safety measures and in full accordance with the relevant international agreements on the subject. Australia has taken a position to this effect at meetings of the South Pacific Forum. Events have moved further since then. As I said, we are presumably now about to have on the statute books, if the Parliament passes the legislation, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and all the implications of that which will follow. The difficulty, however, rests with our ability to realise that, while it is still apparently economically feasible for major nuclear waste dumps to be contained on the land, the issue may well arise in the future of the extent to which, if at all, low level nuclear waste disposal is possible in certain parts of the oceans where it can be quite clearly proven, in geomorphological terms, that there is no likelihood of a dangerous spreading of the nuclear waste. These are issues which may well have to be considered in the future. I am well aware that there are members of the so-called left wing of the Government party who resent in any context the use of nuclear power. But people need to remember this: When we are talking about the dumping of low level nuclear waste we are in fact not referring to the dumping of radio isotopes and so forth, or major elements of the fuel rod process for the generation of power. Often what we are referring to are such simple things as the dumping of old uniforms, gloves and materials used in hospitals where radiological work is essential for the protection from and the treatment of diseases such as cancer. While this material exists-and it clearly will continue to do so for the foreseeable future-the world must face up to how it will overcome these growing problems of nuclear waste. The United States of America, for example, has estimated that there are some 2.3 million cubic metres of low level waste, 77.6 million gallons of highly radioactive liquid waste, 331,000 cubic metres of transuranic waste, 175 million tonnes of radioactive uranium mining tailings and 6,700 tonnes of spent nuclear reactor fuel. By the early twenty-first century, the accumulated high level radioactive waste requiring disposal will be an estimated 10 million curies. This is about 25 per cent of the natural radioactivity of the oceans at present. It is worth noting that in France, for example, one million tonnes of wastes of all types are being produced daily. That does not necessarily demonstrate the true situation because, as I said earlier, it does not distinguish between high level wastes and low level wastes. The vast majority of that waste, in fact, would be low level wastes which present no foreseeable threat whatsoever. I think it is worth noting, in terms of the maximum radioactivity levels covered by the Treaty, which refers specifically to those in excess of 35 bequerels, that even natural substances, such as granite, produce levels very close to that reading. People tend to forget that all of nature is radioactive; it is a question of the degree to which radioactivity can be centralised to damage human beings or the biosphere as a whole. One of the areas which will require significantly greater research in future years will no doubt be the impact, if any, the dumping of nuclear wastes in any part of the ocean can have on the fish population. It has been hypothesised on the basis of scientific models, that one can detect through the food chain a clear link between radioactivity which may contaminate crustaceans, deep in the ocean or on the bottom of the sea, and that found in species ultimately right up to sharks, which in turn gain most of their nutrients from eating other species of fish. These varieties in turn can be captured by fishermen and sold on the open market with the result that human beings can also receive some contamination. While there is no evidence of which I am aware that such nuclear contamination has yet been identified, it is significant, that in looking at the question of overall polluting of the ocean, there have been some very unsavoury examples of what ocean pollution can mean. For example, there was in the late 1970s the Minamata Bay episode in Japan, when residents ate fish and other marine life that was heavily contaminated with mercury. Many of those people died as a result of acute mercury poisoning. In fact, by April 1977 it was certified that some 1,076 residents were victims of the disease and a further 3,000 were potential victims. Needless to say, mercury, cadmium and various other heavy metals in particular, present a constant environmental poisoning potential which must forever be kept in mind. Even in Australia in the estuaries of our rivers we periodically have problems with contaminated oysters. A case of this in the Derwent estuary in the 1970s caused considerable difficulties when it was discovered that some oysters contained 26,000 parts per million of zinc because up river from that area there was a large zinc plant. Toxicity, therefore, which can be directly implanted in the ocean as a result of the actions of humanity, is something with which we must continue to be particularly concerned. I do not think it is overstating the fact to say that in the last hundred years or so the land and the seas of the world have probably suffered more pollution directly attributable to human activity than in any of the four billion years of their previous existence. While the Mediterranean under some conditions can be seen as a beautiful blue sea, I have noted the extraordinary amount of pollution that is found there, principally because of the virtual absence of tidal activity and the effect of the winds. Those states which are on the eastern seaboard tend to get the lot. Everything dropped from one end of the sea to the other floats through and finally is deposited on the coastline of either Egypt, Israel, the Lebanon or Syria. These are difficulties which need to be faced by legislation such as this. While it is proposed in this Bill to give protection against the effect of nuclear pollution of the Australian Continental Shelf and our 200-mile continental fishing zone, it is also provided in the legislation that no Australian citizen will be able to pollute and any citizen who does so will be subject to the laws of Australia. I think it is very significant that very considerable areas will be covered by the Treaty. We are talking about a huge area of water. The big problem we are facing, however, is the extent to which the mini-states of the South Pacific can be expected to police adequately the very real problems that will be facing this area. In recent years the Australian Government has played a useful role in providing coastal patrol boats to a number of these states, such as the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, to give them some capability of protecting their 200-mile exclusive fishing zones. In this context, of course, we have the difficulty that the United States tuna fishing fleets chose to ignore the 200-mile economic zone because the United States had decided not to sign the Law of the Sea Treaty. Nevertheless, the whole question of pollution and the utilisation of resources in what are now the exclusive economic zones in the South Pacific will be something which Australian governments from here on in will have to take a lot more seriously than they have in the past. There is no likelihood, in my opinion, on the basis of the limited resources and the significant lack of wealth of most of those South Pacific nations, with the possible exception of Papua New Guinea at one extreme and also of Fiji, that these States will alone be able to safeguard the interests of the region. As I said earlier, there is a tendency in this legislation to point the accusing finger, yet again, at the fact that the French are continuing nuclear testing in the South Pacific below the Muroroa atoll. Some research has been carried out; there have been scientific visits; reports have been tabled to the effect that as yet no certain damage is taking place to the structure of the geomorphological formations in those areas. But nevertheless, there is a constant fear that from that deep nuclear testing in the ocean floor we may well ultimately see a significant increase in the level of nuclear pollution of the South Pacific. The people of the South Pacific nations in particular are concerned that, in turn, this will affect the basis of their whole economic system and their way of life-namely, access to the sea and the fish in the sea which form the basis of their food supply. Already there have been cases, which have not been proven, in some of the Pacific Islands where major diseases and apparent sicknesses have been caused by polluted fish. But there is no evidence at this stage that that pollution is necessarily directly caused by uranium leakages from nuclear tests in the Pacific. Nevertheless, it is a possibility which makes people very concerned and, as one learns in politics, perceptions of people's expectations of disaster are often worse than the overall result. For all those reasons, it is significant that this legislation is before the House. It will be supported by the Opposition because we believe that Australia has a continuing role to play in the South Pacific. We have to back up the nations in that region. They are not only our neighbours; they are in a sense our potential allies because the South Pacific represents to Australia, in strategic terms, at least as important an area of ocean as does the Indian Ocean on the other side of the continent. We are in every sense of the term a two-ocean continent and our responsibility as competent allies and friends is to be seen not just in defence terms but in our willingness and ability to play our role by giving support, where appropriate, in legislation that backs agreements of this nature. The Opposition, as will be discovered in due course, has some difficulties with some of the proposals that have been put forward by the Government, but that is not to be seen in any sense as an unwillingness by the Opposition to support at least the principles which are enunciated in the legislation that is before the House. For that reason, on behalf of the Opposition, I support the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill 1986. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(12.18) —I rise with great pleasure to speak on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill, and I was pleased to hear the Opposition spokesman on the environment speaking in support of this very important Bill. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand here and discuss this subject, which is very close to my heart and I trust to everyone else's-that is, the protection of our environment. In particular, I would like to talk about the dumping at sea of radioactive waste and outline why it is so critical that we as a nation support the proposed amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act. For those who are not familiar with that section of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, I will run through the proposed amendments. The Government believes that each country involved with the South Pacific nuclear-free zone should undertake not to dump radioactive waste and any other radioactive matter within the South Pacific nuclear-free zone; to prevent the dumping of radioactive waste and other radioactive matter by anyone in its territorial sea; not to take any action which will assist or encourage the dumping by anyone of radioactive waste or other radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the South Pacific nuclear-free zone; to support the conclusion as soon as possible of the proposed convention relating to the protection of the natural resources and environment of the South Pacific region and its protocol for the prevention of pollution of the region by dumping. This is with the aim of precluding dumping at sea of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter by anyone anywhere in this region. At present, ocean dumping of hazardous waste violates only some international accords. This Government believes that such dumping should not be allowed under any circumstances in the South Pacific nuclear-free zone. The dumping of packaged low and intermediate level waste, usually incorporated in concrete, in steel drums, into the deep ocean, has been practised for several decades. From 1967 to 1982 this practice was carried out annually by a few European countries. Eventually, the dumping was opposed by some 45 European countries. Then several South Pacific nations entered the picture when Japan proposed trial dumping in the South Pacific. As a consequence of this opposition, no disposal of waste took place in the North Atlantic in 1983, pending reports from several inquiries which have been carried out by governments and responsible authorities. These inquiries included assessments of the wider political, legal, economic and social aspects of radioactive waste dumping at sea, costs and lists of comparative land-based options and whether it could be proved that any dumping of waste and other radioactive matter at sea would harm or not harm life and cause significant damage to the marine environment. Unfortunately, the convention resolved to ban only high level wastes specified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, in co-operation with other international bodies, as unsuitable for dumping at sea. That sort of legislation does not go nearly far enough. The Australian Government is acting in a farsighted and scrupulous manner to prevent future problems arising from the unknown quantity of radioactive waste dumping in our oceans. It is far better to act now than to regret inaction later. No other issue affecting society has resulted in as wide a gap between beliefs held by the public and the scientific community. In fact, our esteemed scientists even disagree with one another about the effects of ocean dumping, and recommend that much more research be undertaken. No one-and I mean no one-really knows what the end result of dumping radioactive waste in the oceans of the world will be. Some will be thinking that, since only low and intermediate level wastes will be dumped at sea, what is the fuss about? Why should it not go ahead? But the danger in letting countries dump their radioactive waste into our oceans lies in some unscrupulous countries dumping any type of waste, whether it be low, intermediate or high radioactivity, simply because of their wish to save money and because of the extreme cost of storing nuclear waste in other ways. Some countries and some people have no scruples where money is concerned. If honourable members opposite do not understand this point, let me explain. The aim of radioactive waste management is to contain or dilute the radioactive material to such a degree that disposal will not present a significant biological hazard. Radiation doses to individuals are maintained as low as is reasonably achievable within limits recommended by the International Commission for Radiological Protection. Glass is used for the solidification of high level nuclear waste, which is said to be very stable because it has good resistance to heat, chemical action, radioactions and mechanical stresses. The vitrified waste is stored in stainless steel containers chosen to resist corrosion. This waste is then kept for 30 to 50 years in water ponds or air cooling chambers or the reprocessing plant. Hopefully, after this time, the heat output would have declined sufficiently to allow the containers to be transferred to boreholes in rocks where natural cooling is adequate. In the Swedish nuclear waste management proposals, the drums that I have mentioned would have a 10-centimetre cladding of lead and an outer case of 6 millimetres of titanium. The process is extremely expensive. A great deal of time is involved and it is certainly not just a matter of throwing a few burnt rocks of uranium on a pile and forgetting about it. I am sure that countries with a nuclear industry agree that the option of dumping the lot into the ocean sounds a great deal better and a great deal cheaper. We are all aware that modern society creates waste materials that are supposed to be disposed of in nature without unduly disturbing the ecological equilibrium. But effective disposal techniques have not been found for some of this waste. Most plastics do not degrade. Poisonous mercury does not degrade or decay; nor do many other man-made materials. We live and breathe amidst discharges of noxious gases, aerosols, exhaust emissions of motor vehicles and increasing radioactivity. Yet we continue to produce these articles that are not easily disposed of. We now face a more serious threat from the careless disposal of nuclear waste-in particular, as I have already said, from the dumping of radioactive waste into our very lifeline, the sea. The oceans of the world make up the largest percentage of the surface of the earth. They are an essential component in our food chain-essential for the survival of humanity. Yet some of us maliciously and wantonly disregard the delicate balance of this our most precious resource. We continue to dump rubbish, sewage, detergents, oil, radioactive waste and other materials into our oceans. If the basic objective in the disposal of radioactive waste is the protection of man and his environments from unacceptable harm, how can sea dumping be justified when so little is known of the effects of this procedure and of the harm that it will continue to cause on the ecological equilibrium? Did the rules prevent the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from trying to cut costly safety measures at Chernobyl? Have these regulations and postulations of various governments and scientists around the world prevented France from atmospheric nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll? According to a report from a scientific mission to Mururoa, the pattern of past testing beneath the atoll rim has produced in the sub-surface a repository of nuclear waste products whose depth probably varies from 500 metres to 1,200 metres. The French claim that any leakage from the volcanics and limestones will be stopped by the impermeable transition zone. The transition zone which occurs between the volcanics is highly variable in thickness and rock type. This casts grave doubt on its ability to act as a barrier to radioactive leakage. The potential exists for leakage of water from detonation cavities into the biosphere. Even though this process takes a good many years, that is not an excuse to ignore the possible future ramifications. This risk should not have been taken by them. We have to show those countries that we mean what we say. We have to educate people to the dangers of a casual attitude towards any sort of nuclear waste management. At this time I will refer to the Government's decision to sell a stockpile of $66m worth of uranium to the French. I can sell the Budget in my electorate, and I can sell some of the hard decisions. But I cannot and will not sell this decision. I believe it is wrong and I will do all within my power to get it changed. I was elected in 1983 and my maiden speech was devoted solely to peace and disarmament and to what I thought were the principles and philosophies of the Australian Labor Party in not selling uranium to people who do not care about this area of the world. I have said previously that I will work as hard as I can to make certain that this decision does not go ahead; my lobbying has started already. To return to the Bill, there are many examples of radioactive matter leaking or spilling or contaminating plant. I will give a few examples. In 1958 in Canada at the Chalk River plant an irradiated fuel element broke and the plant caught fire. There were two months of intense contamination. An area of 400,000 square metres around the building was contaminated. In 1970 at the Hanford reactor in the United States of America a loss of coolant automatically started the primary scram system. Scram is the rapid reinsertion of control rods. The system failed due to a short circuit. The back-up scram system worked. General Electric stated before the accident happened that the probability of a failure of the scram unit was one in 10 billion; the actual rate so far has been one in 10,000. Past accidents at Hanford occurred in 1954, in 1955 and in 1966. In 1971 at Waterford, Connecticut, United States of America, the Mills Cone reactor suffered a malfunction of the system valve which caused the radioactivity and hence the power lever to rise beyond the fuel or rated power level. The scram system or reactor safety system went into action. But, had it failed, there would have been a rapid core meltdown or nuclear runaway explosion and finally a major public disaster. Defective equipment allowed plutonium oxide to escape into the atmosphere at Oklahoma City in the United States of America. Twenty-two workers were contaminated. There are more recent accidents, of course. Most honourable members will remember the Three Mile Island accident in the United States of America in March 1979. The authorities are still cleaning that up. At that time that was considered the worst incident in the history of commercial nuclear power stations. The reactor was almost new, having been in operation for only three months. Investigations which have since been carried out have found that both the manufacturer and the operator hurried through the start-up period. The accident was caused by a stoppage of the main feedwater pumps, that is, a failure of the secondary cooling circuit; by the failure of the emergency pumps to operate because of the line being closed, which represented a breach of procedure; by the failure of a pressure valve to close, leading to the loss of the primary cooling fluid; and by the failure of operators to recognise the above fault, leading to the manual shutdown of the automatic emergency core cooling system. How long will we ignore these so-called accidents when it is obvious that they are usually the fault of greed or of a casual attitude towards the most destructive force in mankind's history, or of a total lack of regard for the safety precautions that must be followed. We do not have to go back as far as 1979 or Chernobyl. Just in the last month John Lysaght (Australia) Ltd at Hastings in Victoria lost a radioactive americium 241 cylinder which has since been traced to Australian Portland Cement Ltd in Geelong. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) here. John Lysaght is one of the largest employers in his electorate and he is very well aware of this matter. That cylinder was found in a cement grinding mill in Geelong. Let us just imagine what would have happened if that piece of radioactive material had gone through the grinding mill and been mixed up in the cement. The radioactive cylinder fell out of its casing into an iron scale pit at Lysaght's. The cylinder was transported to Geelong where the scale was used as raw material to make cement. The cylinder could have been dispersed with over 30,000 tonnes of cement. A report in the Age of 15 August, in a small paragraph, I think on about page 5, stated: ``Finding the cylinder was like finding a needle in a haystack,'' the spokesman said. Health Department officials have taken the cylinder to Melbourne laboratories for analysis. Even though radiation levels in the material were analysed by the Health Department and the Australian Radiation Laboratory and classified as safe, the question remains of what might have happened had the cylinder contained high levels of radioactivity. Let us follow the cylinder from the accident point through to Geelong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The remarks of the honourable member for Dunkley are of more than ordinary interest but he is rather stretching their relevance to the Bill before the House. Mr CHYNOWETH —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, let us imagine what might have happened if that cement had been put into buildings. The radioactive emissions would have affected generations of Australians. I could go on but honourable members all get the picture. The hackneyed expression `prevention is better than cure' has come back to haunt us in a most terrible way. We have to stop pretending that these sorts of accidents will not happen; they do, they have and they will continue to happen. Surely it is time to stop the ostrich-like syndrome and take as many positive steps as possible to eliminate such grave dangers from our environment. The Government's anti-sea dumping proposal is one such step. There are already 30 years or more of experience in storing nuclear waste, but we continue to be careless. Is it worth the risks? Is it worth ignoring? This Government thinks not. Close to home again, recently I was at Kakadu National Park with my colleagues on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The Government has had a request from the ranger uranium mine to allow it to release periodically contaminated water into the Magella Creek apparently during appropriate periods of high natural flow during the wet season. A large framework of Federal and Territory legislation exists for water management in the Alligator River region. Yet our friendly scientists seldom have enough information to make statements regarding the changes which could occur due to excess exposure to radiation. What point is there in conducting environmental studies if they are unable to tell us what will happen and why? The Magella flows finally into the sea. If Ranger dumps waste water, can we prosecute it under this Act? Under these circumstances, to consider seriously anything other than the banning of ocean dumping of radioactive wastes would be criminally negligent. In pointing out the anomalies in what has been said and what is proposed for future nuclear power plants waste disposal and what generally happens now I am alerting all honourable members to the fact that talking about it is cheap; sensitive disposal of nuclear waste is expensive. I know which course some countries take when faced with expensive decisions. When will mankind have the maturity and the intelligence to prevent such horrendous damage to our world and allow future generations to inhabit a world which has not been poisoned by radioactive waste? It can be done and it will be done if the Government continues to lead the way and implement such legislation. I support this Bill and I urge the House and all those in Australia who are listening to support it also. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(12.40) —I support the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill which seeks to oppose the dumping at sea of radioactive waste and other radioactive matter by Australian citizens in Australian waters. For too long we have viewed our seas as dumping grounds for our waste products with no thought whatsoever of the ramifications on the marine life and ecological balance. However, now in our more enlightened frame of mind, we are beginning to understand how the sea is affected by our actions and the ecologically sensitive nature of this vast resource. This piece of amending legislation is a recognition of this growing awareness of the waters covering three quarters of the earth's surface. Yet to my mind, this Bill does not address the real problem of radioactive waste disposal. I pose the question: If we elect not to dump these wastes into the sea, what do we do with them, how do we dispose of them? I contend the dumping at sea of radioactive wastes was never a serious alternative in Australia because of the limited amount of radioactive material generated throughout our country. Nevertheless, this Bill as presented does not preview alternative methods of disposal under consideration, nor does it address the inconsistencies existing between the Commonwealth and State governments in dealing with this problem. This situation was brought to the Commonwealth's attention following the release of recommendations by a joint Commonwealth-State committee on the management of radioactive wastes arising from medical, industrial and research use of radionuclides. In November 1983 the Committee made several suggestions which were accepted by the Federal Government, Northern Territory, and all States except Victoria. Cabinet endorsed the following recommendations in February 1984: A uniform code of practice for user disposal of very low level radioactive waste to air, water and landfill areas be adopted nationally; a national program be commenced to identify sites potentially suitable for the disposal by way of shallow ground burial of radioactive wastes, with site identification to be based on internationally accepted criteria; the Commonwealth investigate the development of facilities for interim and long term storage of radioactive wastes; and, finally, the States agree to actively assist in the establishment of national storage and disposal facilities, and in the operation of appropriate administrative arrangements to permit access to such facilities by all participating governments. Victoria has refused to accept radioactive waste burial in shallow trenches in its State on environmental and health grounds, but it acknowledges other parts of Australia may be suitable. It was not until a year and a half later in mid-1985 that the Government, through the Department of Resources and Energy, initiated a program to act on one of these recommendations. Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Resources and Energy, announced the Department would begin investigating sites for shallow ground burial, and should report back within six to nine months. However, at the same time, the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council sounded a warning about shallow ground disposal, cautioning adequate site selection could take many years involving several Commonwealth and State authorities. Since then, we have heard nothing regarding these investigations, leaving Australia with no cohesive national plan for the disposal of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes. As a result, we continue to have these wastes scattered throughout Australia, stored in Commonwealth and State facilities. Because of this lack of adequate, centralised control, we have had our own minor nuclear shocks, mistakes and coverups over the years. While not on the same scale of Chernobyl or Winscale, these revelations make it necessary to take some more positive action to develop a comprehensive approach to nuclear waste disposal. Basic uniform procedures must be legislated for in several areas such as packaging, labelling and transport of radioactive substances throughout all States and Territories. Whilst all of these areas are of equal importance, I will concentrate my attention on the issue of transporting radioactive waste across State lines. As it stands now, we have no national code of practice for the safe transport of low and interim level wastes. The original intention of the Environmental Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act, 1978, was to develop various codes of practice in consultation with the States. Where State laws did not follow the codes, the Commonwealth was able to make regulations enforcing the codes within a State or Territory. The Commonwealth, since that time, has prepared several codes, including one for safe transport of radioactive substances based on the International Atomic Energy Agency regulations. Yet, the States, with the exception of South Australia and the Northern Territory, have not incorporated them into State law. This is not a problem overseas because of the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it has caused situations here where accidents have occurred and no one was willing to take responsibility for them. In 1984 there was a serious incident in New South Wales involving a leaking isotope container dispatched to the Lucas Heights nuclear establishment from a consignor in Brisbane. The State of New South Wales felt it could not act and requested the Queensland Government to prosecute, but without result. Many constitutional specialists state the Commonwealth has ample external affairs powers to apply its Environmental Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act directly within the States. This could be with or without the consent of the State governments. There are other serious considerations which need to be addressed when approaching a legislative framework within the transport area. Some of these are: The safety of the driver and assistants, as well as the public, the consignor and consignee in respect of radiation from intact, closed containers; the likelihood of and protection against terrorism and/or robbery; adequate policing of regulations and deterring penalities; adequate, standard and easily recognisable warning signs; and, traffic and other special arrangements for major transport of highly dangerous radioactive materials. I am quite astounded these very basic considerations are not being reviewed or enforced by the Federal Government. As I stated earlier, the dumping at sea of nuclear wastes was never a serious alternative generally because of the amount of wastes generated within Australia. What the Minister for Resources and Energy should be addressing is the issue of the introduction of adequate International Atomic Energy Agency codes which are uniform throughout Australia. There are currently sufficient existing transport requirements to justify the formal use of IAEA regulations. The States and the Commonwealth should be more interested in updating their radiation protection legislation. Radioactive wastes will not go away because of neglect of adequate law enforcement. Consideration of this problem has been going on since 1979. Is it not about time we seriously confront the issue and make some positive moves in the right direction? I call upon the Minister to stop nibbling around the edges and come to some hard conclusions about this very real, pressing problem. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! It being close to 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with Sessional Order 101a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery Senator the Hon. Guy Charbonneau, Speaker of the Senate, and the Hon. John Bosley, Speaker of the House of Commons, in the Parliament of Canada. With the concurrence of honourable members, I propose to provide the two Presiding Officers with seats on the floor of the House. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Speakers Charbonneau and Bosley were thereupon seated accordingly. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that Senator Charbonneau and Mr Bosley are leading a parliamentary delegation from Canada. Other members of the delegation are present in the Speaker's Gallery. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to the delegation a warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the Australian dollar has dropped today to a level below its pre-Budget close of US63.30c-we will see whether the Treasurer laughs as the dollar goes down-and the fact that last night the growth figures for the United States economy were revised downwards, is the Treasurer still confident about his growth projection of 2 1/4 per cent for 1986-87, and does he still expect a significant reduction in interest rates during the course of the year? Mr KEATING —The historic changes the Government made to Australia's fiscal policy last evening will of course make a difference to the underlying fundamentals of the Australian economy in both the medium and long term, and the judgments in foreign exchange markets no doubt will be gauged to the medium and long term outcomes in the economy. While one always sees movements in the foreign exchange rate and money market rates whenever there are substantial public announcements, I do not regard the movements up or down over the last 24 hours as being of any significance in making a judgment about the foreign exchange market's view of the Government's changes. I say with all respect that, if the honourable member for Mackellar thinks that, he has a lot to learn about the way in which the foreign exchange market will make a judgment about this country. The honourable member asked me a question about the growth assumptions in the Budget. The growth assumptions in the Budget are both hard and reasonable ones. We have forecast gross domestic product growth at the level of 2 1/4 per cent and for the non-farm economy 2 1/2 per cent, and the contribution to growth coming this year-1 3/4 percentage points of the 2 1/4 per cent of GDP or the 2 1/2 per cent of non farm product-comes from a stronger net export performance being driven by the devaluation of the exchange rate. I remind honourable members that in last year's Budget we forecast a contribution to growth from net exports of 1 1/4 percentage points, which was driven by the 20 per cent depreciation of the dollar at that time. Since that time we have had a further 20 per cent depreciation of the dollar. Now, as it is some time since February 1985 when the exchange rate first fell, the impetus to growth, to a better net export performance, coming after depreciation of the exchange rate, I think would lead anyone to believe that the assumption of 1 3/4 percentage points, given the fact that we achieved 1 1/4 percentage points in the national accounts last year, is entirely reasonable. In terms of the other elements of the growth forecast, we have 0.5 per cent for gross national expenditure, for demand-and 0.5 per cent is almost the lowest figure since 1956-57. It is a most modest assumption. It is important in terms of cutting down demand for imports, and between the 1 3/4 percentage points coming off net exports and the 0.5 per cent off GNE, it makes the assumptions entirely reasonable. The external assumptions have been based on International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development assumptions, including judgments about the weakening of the United States economy, but so much of the contribution to growth in this year will come from the replacement of imports within Australia. We will not be sucking in imports at the rate we were, and a lot of our exporters will also be finding markets for their exports, as indeed Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd did over the last year by lifting manufactured exports of steel products by 25 per cent. Mr LINDSAY —Will the Minister for Trade explain the aims and objectives of the Agricultural Marketing Innovation Fund established in the 1986-87 Budget? Mr DAWKINS —The Agricultural Marketing Innovation Fund was announced as part of the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry on economic and rural policy. The Budget provides for the first instalment of $5m to be provided through the Australian Trade Commission for this important new initiative. With the depressed state of agricultural markets around the world, Australia has to find new ways to support agricultural marketing around the world, not only of raw agricultural products but also of processed agricultural products, food and so on. This program is designed to provide the necessary research and back-up to develop new products and to take advantage of new opportunities as they emerge. The Australian Trade Commission, along with the Department of Primary Industry, assisted by expert advice from statutory marketing authorities and so on, will be seeking proposals from the industry under this program. This will mark a new beginning in terms of a revived thrust for agricultural marketing of Australian products around the world. This initiative is in sharp contrast to the statements of that rather bizarre Liberal member in Western Australia. Of course we are used to the Western Australian Liberal Party producing some fairly bizarre individuals, but there have been no remarks quite as extraordinary as those made by Mr Lightfoot in a letter to the Secretary of State in the United States of America. This reveals that what Opposition members want, at least if they do not dissociate themselves from Mr Lightfoot, is to see an aggravation of the problems being confronted by Australian farmers, which would see a further reduction in farmers' living standards, and as well an undermining of the Australian currency and a reduction in the standard of living of all Australians. The important thing is that it is bad enough for Mr Lightfoot to be making those remarks, but it is infinitely worse that the Leader of the Opposition has not dissociated himself from those remarks, even when he was given the opportunity to do so not only in the House yesterday but also through the media this morning. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for O'Connor may well wish to dissociate himself from those remarks, recognising that the National Party in Western Australia is breathing heavily down the back of his neck in relation to his Federal seat. Mr Tuckey —It is you blokes who are wanting to run wild. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor would do well to consider his position. Mr DAWKINS —In more ways than one. Mr Tuckey —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are back to personal attack and if you are going to tolerate it, what am I entitled to do? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr DAWKINS —Madam Speaker, I think it ill becomes the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party in this place to retain their silence on this matter. It is a very important issue which would have very severe consequences for the Australian agricultural industry. It is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to do whatever is necessary in order to sabotage the recovery within Australia. Of course, he seeks to ride to power on the back of a broken economy which he himself has attempted to sabotage. We do not intend to stand idly by while these kinds of ridiculous proposals are made. We are doing everything we can, both on a bilateral basis and a multilateral basis and indeed with special marketing efforts, to ensure that the agricultural trade of this country enjoys better prospects in the future. Mr CARLTON —My question is again addressed to the Treasurer. How does the Treasurer expect to get the import replacement needed to redress our ailing balance of payments problem, given that he has forecast a one per cent decline in business investment this financial year? Mr KEATING —The forecast in the Budget Papers of a decline in business investment of one per cent is translated literally from the Statistician's forecasts or intention surveys taken about investment at the height of uncertainty about the course of public policy over the last few months. We are not of a view to inject any discretion into that judgment, but I think that the change in sentiment which will arise both within Australia and about Australia will markedly improve that investment outcome over the course of the year. Mr Carlton —Oh! So it is going to be higher. Mr KEATING —No, the Budget forecast stands. Personally I think it will be higher because the huge stimulus available from the depreciation, the profitability now of the traded goods sector of the economy and the capacity for business to import replacements on an accelerated scale obviously mean that that potential is there. Also, it needs to be understood that we have had quite a deal of excess capacity left over from the Howard recession of 1982-83. While we have been using that extra capacity utilisation-- Mr Carlton —You think it is going to be higher. Mr KEATING —The fact is that 1982-83 was the first year of negative growth in 30 years and factories were lying idle right across the economy. We are now using that capacity up to capacity utilisation. Obviously, as we have indicated in the case of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, we have seen a 25 per cent increase in steel exports coming off a given level of capacity. No doubt we will see full capacity utilisation and investment where necessary. Also, within that investment forecast, there will be a topping off and a decline in the non-building construction sector over the year and that will be replaced by other investment synonymous with the investment forecasts in the Budget. No doubt some of that investment will be in other sectors of the economy as well as in the non-residential construction area. The essential and fundamental restructuring of the economy which is now taking place, the rebuilding of our import competing structure, a better net export performance and the winning of export markets by the supercompetitiveness of the Australian economy at this time will produce obviously a great incentive to invest here. In his question, the honourable member mentioned the obvious impact upon financial markets of this massive decline in the public sector borrowing requirement. The fact that for the first time in memory the Commonwealth Government will have no new treasury bond raisings this year, that the whole program will essentially be a roll-over of the maturities program and the decline of $2.2 billion in absolute terms in the public sector borrowing requirement will reduce public demands upon Australian financial markets and savings, leaving those savings to be taken up by the Australian investment community. I have no doubt, because of rational decisions it will take looking at its best interests and the opportunities available in the economy, that that investment will be taken up and, as I say, I think exceeded in the terms of the outcome over the course of the year. Mr CLEELAND —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer to the criticism of some commentators that the Government's approach to wages policy presented in last night's Budget is too soft for current economic circumstances. Is this criticism of the Government's centralised wage fixing system a valid one? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. The quick and short answer is no, but I will add to that. In the pathetic situation in which the Opposition-and particularly its leader-finds itself, in the aftermath of a Budget which has been almost universally acknowledged as responsible and effective-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr HAWKE —I will not take up the three-quarters of an hour available to me by going through all the quotes; instead I will content myself with a couple. The pithiest, most accurate and most concise was in an editorial in the Australian Financial Review which gave this five word summary: . . . economically responsible and politically honest. That is absolutely spot on. I do not think the pathetic crew opposite would suggest that the next quote has come from a really radical organisation. It is from the Australian Bankers Association, which said: A strong response to the current economic conditions. This firm action in the fiscal area will ease pressure on monetary policy and work towards a reduction in interest rates. Again, that is absolutely accurate. In this situation where the Opposition finds itself deserted, bereft and alone one looks to see where it is at its most pathetic and, of course, one finds it in what Opposition members have to say about wages. When I appeared in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation studio this morning I was followed by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not prompt the comment of the person there, but as I left and the Leader of the Opposition came in that person said quite gratuitously, but quite accurately, to the Leader of the Opposition: `That is the only seat of the Prime Minister that you will ever be occupying.' I may say to the very effective and very honourable Minister for Communications that, after seeing what intelligent and perceptive people are employed by the ABC, we might have to have another look at the Corporation's funding. In his pathetic peregrination around the studio this morning the Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to talk about the fact that the comparison in wages outcome under this Government with the international sector was `pathetic'. Let us look at page 40 of Budget Statement No. 1 on which there is a very interesting table. On that page there are international comparisons of average earnings. This is what we saw in the last year of the stewardship and irresponsibility of the then Treasurer. What was the comparison? Let me give it to honourable members. In 1982 the movement in earnings for the major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners was 6.5 per cent, while in Australia it was 16.5 per cent-154 per cent higher. Last year for the OECD countries it was 4.6 per cent and in Australia it was 6.2 per cent. In other words the differential has been brought down from that massive 154 per cent under Mr Howard to 35 per cent under us. Let us look at what has happened in terms of real earnings in this country in the past three years, compared with what has happened with three of our major competitors. In Australia there has been a 5 per cent decline in real earnings. As the Treasurer quite properly put it in his brilliant Budget Speech last night, one of the basic reasons why we have been able to get massive economic growth and high employment growth is the general responsibility of the trade union movement in this country under the prices and incomes accord. In a situation where we have had an average annual rate of growth of between 4 and 5 per cent in non-farm gross domestic product, because of the responsibility of the trade union movement we have had a 5 per cent decline in earnings. While we had a 5 per cent decline in earnings, the United States of America has a one per cent decline in earnings. What has happened in the United Kingdom? The United Kingdom was held up last night by one United States commentator as the role model. He said that we should look at that golden land of the United Kingdom to see what sort of wages policy we should have. In terms of real wages in the past three years, the United Kingdom had 13 per cent unemployment and a 10 per cent increase in real earnings, while Japan had a 5 per cent increase in real earnings. That is the relative outcome. In relation to real unit labour costs, I read to the House from page 59 of the Budget Papers: Real unit labour costs in the non-farm sector fell by 1 per cent in 1985-86, bringing the cumulative fall since 1982-83 to over 7 per cent; a further 1 per cent fall is forecast for 1986-87. The tragedy is not simply that the Opposition will not learn from its culpable negligence in 1982 but-shame heaped upon shame-it promises more of the same. The Opposition will get rid of the accord which has produced a 5 per cent decline in real earnings. What will it bring back? Exactly the same system it had in 1982 which gave a 16.5 per cent increase in earnings while the rest of the world was trailing with a 6.5 per cent increase. The Opposition was an abysmal failure when it was in government and, because it has not learnt, it is even worse, unimaginably so, in opposition than it was in government. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his Government's former ban on uranium exports to France and the Treasurer's admission that this ban `failed to serve a useful purpose'. Given the parlous condition of our balance of payments and our export sector, will the Government remove other bans on uranium exports which are also serving no useful purpose? Will the Prime Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that, whatever the Caucus might decide, the Government will keep the Budget promise to scrap the ban on uranium exports to France? Mr HAWKE —I will answer fully the question put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, but let me say at the outset that no one is more conscious that I am-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite may well laugh at the concerns of the young people of this country, but they will laugh to their great detriment at the very legitimate concerns that the young people of this country have about the dangers of nuclear war. This Government understands those concerns. We made a decision in 1983, which we gave effect to in 1984, because we hoped that the suspension of the sale of uranium to France may play some part in persuading France to cease its nuclear testing in the Pacific. That was a legitimate hope and we took that decision in the understanding of the very real and legitimate concerns felt by many people, particularly the young people in this country. We have found in fact that, although we have made the most persistent representations to the Government of France, that has made no difference, and in light of the circumstances confronting us in this Budget we decided that it was no longer appropriate to continue that process. The effect on France of the ban was that we inflicted a penalty on it of forcing it to buy uranium cheaper on the spot market than it could have under the contractual arrangements. It seemed no longer sensible for us to continue that policy. Let me say that I will ensure that every relevant Minister-myself, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and every other Minister who has contact with France after the resumption of sales-will take every opportunity to continue to put to the Government of France the opposition of this Government to nuclear testing. Having said that, let me say this as to the budgetary impact of the decision we have taken: Because of the fact that sales will be resumed, the net positive result in terms of the Budget will be $66.4m. If one looks at what the position will be in terms of our balance of payments in the years ahead, it is reasonable to assume that Australia may get up to something like $200m per year in current terms through the 1990s. Let me make the position quite clear in regard to safeguards. While France is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in terms of safeguards it has a commitment to behave exactly as those states which have signed the Treaty, and has done so. The safeguards agreements which are in place have established a framework for assurance that, in accordance with Australia's nuclear safeguards policy requirements, Australian origin nuclear material exported to France remains in peaceful use. Madam Speaker, as you know, as Australia knows and as the International Atomic Energy Agency knows, Australia has the most stringent safeguard requirements in the world and on safeguard grounds there is confidence about selling uranium to France. Nuclear safeguards on Australian origin nuclear material in France are applied under the Australia-France and the Australia-European Atomic Energy Community nuclear safeguards agreements. I notice that in some quarters it has been alleged that Australian nuclear material has been used in the French weapons program, either in the Super Phoenix fast breeder reactor program or indirectly after the reprocessing of spent fuel. Those allegations are incorrect, as the Super Phoenix reactor is operated for peaceful purposes as part of a European program of co-operation in breeder development for peaceful purposes. No Australian uranium has been used in Super Phoenix; no Australian uranium has been reprocessed by France. If it had been, it could only be used for peaceful purposes under the safeguards agreement. I repeat that the decision of this Government was taken in good faith in the first place. It served no purpose in terms of producing the result that we still want to achieve; that is, the cessation of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. I repeat that I, the Foreign Minister and all relevant Ministers at every opportunity will continue to put to the people of France that they should desist from nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Mr Connolly —I raise a point of order. Would the Prime Minister table the document from which he read? Mr HAWKE —No, the Prime Minister will not. Madam SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister reading from a public or confidential document? Mr HAWKE —A confidential document. Mr GORMAN —Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs noted media reports about the case of a 13-year-old Vietnamese boy, Nguyen Phi, with a terminal malignant illness who is seeking the urgent entry of his parents from Vietnam? Have there been any developments with this case? Mr HURFORD —I do know of this case. It has drawn a great deal of sympathy in the community. I cannot altogether get away from the good news of the Budget because I can report to the House that it was brought to my attention by my friend, the Chairman of the Special Broadcasting Service, Sir Nicholas Shehadie. Like Sir Nicholas and the Government, I have a great commitment not only to ethnic radio and television but also to the greater security and the good fortune of the SBS, so much so that when Sir Nicholas drew this to my attention I immediately followed through in spite of the fact that he learned about it from the Mike Willesee show. Having learned about it myself in that way I want now to tell the House that the sad story relates to this young 13-year-old boy who arrived in Australia in the care of an aunt as long ago as September 1981. He has a malignant tumour and a life expectancy of only up to one year. I understand that his parents have been sponsored for some time to come to this country but, hitherto, were not able to receive an exit permit from Vietnam. The night before last I was able to see the Vietnamese Charge d'Affaires, and I pay tribute to the prompt action of the Vietnamese Embassy. It has now secured an exit permit for the boy's mother and father, and I am hopeful that he will be reunited with his parents within the next few months. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the detailed answer he gave to my previous question on uranium exports. I again ask the Prime Minister: Given the parlous condition of our balance of payments in the export sector, will the Government undertake to remove other bans on Australian uranium exports which are also, like the French ban, serving no useful purpose? Mr HAWKE —If the Leader of the Opposition knew anything about the subject he would know that there were particular circumstances regarding the export to France concerning Queensland Mines Ltd and that what was involved there was an outlay of Commonwealth funds to Queensland Mines because of an existing contract with France. There is no comparison between that and any other area of the existing or potential uranium industry in Australia. Mr GEAR —Will the Minister for Science inform the House of the Budget implications for the Commission for the Future in restructuring our economy? Will he tell the House of the implications of a policy advocated by the Leader of the Opposition-the man who is so far behind that he thinks he is coming first-of scrapping this important initiative? Mr BARRY JONES —The Budget allocation for the Commission for the Future for its second establishment year will be increased from $623,000 to $936,000-a rise of 50.5 per cent-taking the organisation to a plateau with a staff allocation of 10. I should add that the Victorian Government has provided a senior officer at no cost to the Commonwealth. The Western Australian Government is proposing to do the same. Mr Sinclair —A positive step. Mr BARRY JONES —It is regarded as good value by the States, and I hope that other States will follow suit. Expenditure for 1986-87 will comprise 0.16 per cent, less than one-sixth of one per cent, of the allocation for my Department-so let us not get it out of proportion. The Commission is already filling a major gap in community understanding by providing information and education about changes in science and technology which have profound, rapid and wide-ranging social and economic implications. The Commission is hoping to establish an innovative and productive culture for Australia by working with a variety of community and business organisations. It has been used by instrumentalities from every State- Mr Hodgman —Tasmania? Mr BARRY JONES —Including Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory, and it is producing publications for unions, parliamentary committees and business organisations. Substantial publishing, seminar and media programs will be completed in 1986-87. A Clearing House in Future Issues has been established. The Commission will be carrying out a major program entitled `Futures and Education' for the Bicentennial Authority over the next three years. It would be difficult to point to another place where $900,000 of government money is being better invested in helping re-orient Australia's business management, education systems and employee organisations towards re-thinking national positions about the future. The Commission was set up to encourage Australians to accept the challenge provided by computer technology and the advent of the `information society', and it is now in its first full year of establishment. We cannot afford not to raise debate in the work force, in our schools, in our Parliament and in our board rooms about the need to develop that new Australian culture, to pull ourselves by the bootstraps out of what is clearly an economic and social crisis. The Commission for the Future is more than paying its way. The Leader of the Opposition is a political amnesiac. He cannot remember anything about the past. For example, he cannot remember the projected $9.6 billion blowout of his last Budget. He cannot remember anything about that. He has no historical sense and he has absolutely no sense of or interest in a commitment to the future. His value systems are totally materialistic. He measures value only in dollar terms and he is interested only in financial year to financial year. He is capable of thinking only weeks ahead. We cannot just be thinking months ahead. We need to raise community awareness of how Australia will change between now, the year 2000 and beyond. Mr N.A. Brown —I ask the Treasurer a question about the more immediate future and, in doing so, I remind him of his now infamous banana republic interview on 14 May in which he said that a growth outcome of less than 3 per cent would result in an increase in unemployment. I ask the Treasurer: Now that we know the Budget predicts a total growth of only 2 1/4 per cent in this financial year what now, according to the Government, will unemployment rise to during this financial year? Mr KEATING —The Budget assumptions make clear that the employment forecasts, off the gross domestic product forecasts, are for a 1.75 per cent employment growth over the course of the year. Honourable members will know that, in the last three or four years, work force growth has slowed considerably to be now well under 2 per cent. The judgment, therefore, about the unemployment rate turns upon the participation rate which, over the last year, has been at an all-time high, as high as it has ever been since the Australian Statistician has been collecting the data. That high is coming particularly from women rejoining the work force in the buoyancy of the labour market of the last couple of years and particularly last year where we saw employment growth of nearly 4 per cent. As the economy slows and conditions in the labour market deteriorate somewhat it is reasonable to assume that the participation rate will probably stabilise or fall and, in that context, the judgment about the movement in the participation rate is the essential judgment about where the unemployment rate will finally lay in year average terms for 1986-87. One has to understand the level at which we will key off will be the last figure for June 1986, which was 7.6 per cent. So it is a matter for judgment. The number of unemployment benefit recipients is the question in relation to Commonwealth Budget outlays. We have an increase of 36,000 there, which is effectively 46,000 as we believe that by a tightening of the procedures for unemployment benefit recipients we can reduce the figure by 10,000 to a net 36,000. In the circumstances, it will mean that the gains against unemployment-the very rapid gains, the 11 per cent employment growth over the past three years-will be somewhat eroded. But, considering the massive magnitude of the growth in employment over the past 12 months, nearly 4 per cent-and 11 per cent over the course of the past three years of the consolidation in the economy this year is entirely appropriate to the current account conditions that Australia faces. Hence the Government's satisfaction with the forecast-- Mr N.A. Brown —But what is the unemployment rate going to be? Mr KEATING —I gave the honourable gentleman an answer-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman has asked the question and he has got the answer. Mr KEATING —He is thick, Madam Speaker. I told him about- Mr N.A. Brown —I may be thick, but what is the unemployment rate going to be? Madam SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr N.A. Brown —I am not getting an answer. Mr KEATING —We do not make an unemployment forecast in the Budget Papers and, from memory, there was not one made in the time of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to a recent study undertaken by Mr Brian Buckley, a former Liberal Party staffer for the Australian Institute of Public Policy, an organisation established with the efforts of a former Liberal member of Parliament, John Hyde? Does the study purport to recommend ways to save public sector expenditure in line with coalition policy? Does the study recommend the abolition of the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs and Veterans' Affairs? What would be the result of the implementation of the coalition's hidden agenda on Aboriginal and veteran Australians if this study were to be implemented? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen the report. I think that all those who know Mr Hyde know that he is a man of great courage and great endeavour. He would have to be to try to provide any kind of intellectual stimulus to this pathetic group that calls itself an Opposition. Nevertheless, the importance of the study lies in the fact that the Opposition continually demeans on every possible occasion all those employees in the public sector. It never stops saying that the simple way of solving our economic problems is to dismiss large areas of the public sector and abolish departments. That is its position. It is like its position on privatisation. Opposition members all support privatisation until such time as we ask them: `What are you going to privatise?' If the Opposition is saying that it is a simple exercise in abolishing departments in the Public Service, that is a position, but it is about time the Leader of the Opposition and his relevant shadow Ministers told us just what departments they want to abolish. Does the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, who I think people say has some real commitment to veterans in this society, support the view that the Department of Veterans' Affairs ought to be abolished? Is he prepared to stand up in this chamber and adopt the hidden agenda which links into the Opposition's generalised approach? Is the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs prepared-- Government members-Who? Who? Mr HOLDING —I am not certain whether it is the honourable member for the Northern Territory or the gentleman who-- Mr Cunningham —Wilson Tuckey? Mr HOLDING —Well, it is not Wilson Tuckey. The position is this: Veterans and Aboriginal people in Australia are entitled to know that when this Government talks about abolishing-- Mr N.A. Brown —The Government? Mr HOLDING —The Government. These documents are out. They are public; they are circulated and they cause considerable anguish in various levels of the community. They are not repudiated by the Leader of the Opposition, nor are they repudiated by shadow spokesmen. The people of Australia are entitled to know what the Opposition's alternative criteria are. Mr Howard —Oh, come on. Mr HOLDING —The honourable gentleman had better not wave his hand at me, otherwise the shadow Attorney-General will have a go at him. I believe it is time that the Opposition had the integrity either to say `Yes, that is our policy' or publicly to repudiate it through its purported shadow spokesman. Mr SINCLAIR —I remind the Prime Minister that the market is somewhat sceptical about the $3.5 billion deficit figure in the light of the Prime Minister's commitment in his 1984 policy speech, part of which read: The trilogy will be met in the first year, 1985-86. The tax commitment is certainly for each year. If the trilogy had not been ditched this year and last year, would tax collections have been $400m lower in 1985-86 and $1,400m lower in 1986-87? As the Prime Minister's credibility is about as dramatically devalued as the dollar, will he advise the House of the status of this current undertaking? Mr HAWKE —I made it clear at the time that this Government imposed upon itself the historic discipline of the trilogy that should drastic changes in economic circumstances occur which required an appropriate stance of policy, that stance would be taken. Let me make it clear in regard to the trilogy that the two legs of it concerning reductions in outlays and proportion of gross domestic product and the deficit as a proportion of GDP have been more than met. They have been very substantially met. Aggregate taxation receipts in 1985-86 were slightly less than the budgeted levels. Had the nominal GDP anticipated at the time of the Budget formulation in 1985 met that expectation, the expectations in regard to the trilogy limit would have been satisfied not only on Budget night but also as an outcome. In the event, as is made quite clear in the Budget Papers, the planned limit has been exceeded. I make it quite clear that it remains our objective to reduce tax receipts to 25 per cent of GDP. That is the trilogy limit. However, we made the deliberate decision in the circumstances of this Budget formulation that the more important priority in the interests of the whole community was to reduce the Budget deficit to the level of $3.5 billion. I just make the point that, even with the decisions that we have taken, and making the adjustment for change in the method of financing health care, tax receipts are a lower share of the GDP in the Budget than the peak that was reached under the Treasurership of Mr Howard. If we turn to page 358 of Budget Paper No. 1, we see that tax as a proportion of GDP in 1981-82 was 24.7 per cent. If we adjust the 25.5 per cent for 1986-87 for the financing of Medicare, it comes out at 24.6 per cent. It is the indisputable fact that the peak of tax as a proportion of GDP was achieved under the Treasurership of Mr Howard. Finally, on the question of the tax outcome, I remind the House again of what I pointed out to it at the end of the previous session when the question of tax achievement under Mr Howard was admitted by him. I will read what he said on 8 November 1983, and honourable members should remember that the former Government had seven and a half years to do something about reducing tax as a proportion of GDP. In November 1983, speaking of his own former Government, he said this: When the former Government-- his Government-- left office, taxation as a proportion of the gross domestic product was higher than it was as a proportion of GDP in 1975. That is a correct statement, it is there for all to see and I cannot dispute it. In other words, they had seven and a half years to reduce taxation as a proportion of GDP and when they went out of office after seven and a half years it was higher than when they came in. That is what they did in 7 1/2 years of office. Fortunately, they will not be given another chance to devastate the Australian economy. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Administrative Review Council on the Review of Customs and Excise decisions: Stage 4-Censorship. This report was tabled in the Senate on 11 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the Paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 27a (1) of the Australian Capital Territory Parole Ordinance 1976, I present the annual report of the Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory for 1984-85. This report was tabled in the Senate on 11 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present volumes 1 and 2 of the Law Reform Commission's report on the recognition of Aboriginal customary laws. This report was tabled in the Senate on 12 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and for the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Official Establishments Trust for 1984-85. This report was tabled in the Senate on 12 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to sub-section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present a report by ASTEC entitled `Towards a cashless society?'. This report was tabled in the Senate on 12 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government's discussion paper on statutory authorities and Government Business enterprises, proposed policy guidelines, together with the text of a statement by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, Senator Walsh. This document was tabled in the Senate on 10 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. 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) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the financial management program. This report was tabled in the Senate on 11 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I present the Australian Electoral Commission's final report on the operation of the funding and disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act in relation to the December 1984 Federal elections. The Commission's interim report was tabled on 19 November 1985. The Government proposes to send the report to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for consideration in the broader context of its current inquiry into the operation of the new electoral legislation at the last Federal elections. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 35 (1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, I present a report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act for 1985. This report was tabled in the Senate on 11 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 17A of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the annual report on the Commonwealth Schools Commission for 1985. This report was tabled in the Senate on 11 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 43A (2) of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for 1985. This report was tabled in the Senate on 11 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present a report relating to the review of Technical and Further Education funding. This report was tabled in the Senate on 11 June 1986 and was made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945, I present the annual report of the Life Insurance Commissioner for 1985, together with a half-yearly financial and statistical bulletin. The reports were tabled in the Senate on 12 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present volume 1 of the Commission of Inquiry into Compensation Arising from Social Security Conspiracy Prosecutions. This report was tabled in the Senate on 10 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 14 of the River Murray Waters Act 1983, I present the annual report of the River Murray Commission for 1985. This report was tabled in the Senate on 10 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present a document relating to the provision of financial assistance to South Australia for the Adelaide and northern towns water filtration program and the country towns water supply improvement program. The document was tabled in the Senate on 12 June 1986 and made available to honourable members during the winter adjournment. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do, indeed-twice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —I was first of all misrepresented by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). During the course of answering a question from his own side, the Minister for Trade said that I had not in any way commented upon or dis- sociated myself from remarks apparently made in a letter by the West Australian Liberal member, Mr Lightfoot. The reality is that I received only one inquiry about my position regarding Mr Lightfoot from the Press and I indicated that I certainly did not share Mr Lightfoot's views. I can only say in the House that his views on this issue would be repudiated by every member of the Liberal and National parties who sits in this Parliament. It raises a fascinating new concept of political responsibility to suggest that the national leader of a political party is responsible for each and every act. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister dissociates himself from every remark made by Joan Coxsedge, George Crawford or Frank Walker or, indeed, from the comments made on uranium by people in his own party. As far as I am concerned, this is a new concept from the Minister for Trade: If some character makes a remark, we have to run around dissociating ourselves from it. I make it perfectly plain to the Minister for Trade where I stand. The House ought to remember that the joint all-party delegation went to Washington as a result of an initiative by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt). If it had not been for him, that initiative would not have got off the ground. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will stick to where he claims to be misrepresented. If the Deputy Leader of the National Party wishes to say something, that is a matter for him. Mr HOWARD —I am prepared to take responsibility for him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think the honourable gentleman has to do that. Mr HOWARD —He is a very honourable man. Mr Young —What about Malcolm? Will you take responsibility for him? Mr HOWARD —On many issues, I will. The even more grievous misrepresentation came from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). A new version of creative accounting was unveiled this afternoon. Whenever an historical Budget figure does not suit the Prime Minister, he goes back over it and he says-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable gentleman get to where he claims to be misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I have to, because otherwise honourable members might not be certain which of the misrepresentations I am referring to. It relates to the comparative taxation records of the former Government and the present Government. To the eternal embarrassment of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last night, and of the Prime Minister today, page 358 of this year's Budget Papers reveals the fact that the highest level of taxation receipts recorded under any government in peacetime was recorded in the Budget brought down by the Treasurer last night. All the creative accounting and all the Prime Minister's attempts to say that if we leave out one or two departments we look better, do not wash with this Parliament or with the Australian public. Whatever he says, he and the Treasurer are the biggest taxing Prime Minister and Treasurer that this country has ever seen. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, twice. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —I have been seriously misrepresented twice. The first misrepresentaton-published in today's Mercury-is attributed to Senator Tate, Labor, who, I am told, is from Tasmania. Senator Tate is quoted as accusing me of engaging in `puerile political posturing' when I forewarned at the weekend of massive cuts in the freight equalisation scheme to the detriment of all Tasmanians. The figures speak for themselves. Mr Young —This is not a personal explanation. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, it is. In the past two years the Hawke socialist Government has cut the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme by a total of over 12 per cent, putting in jeopardy the jobs of up to 2,000 Tasmanians. Secondly, and again in today's Mercury, Senator Grimes seriously misrepresented me by claiming that my statement that 2,000 Tasmanian jobs would be lost was `absolute nonsense'. Senator Grimes's remarks relate to my prediction at the weekend that Commonwealth spending in Tasmania would be cut by at least $40m in `Tuesday's Budget'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman knows that he can indicate only where he was misrepresented. Mr HODGMAN —That is right. I was about to. I have only one sentence to go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable gentleman tell the House where he was misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —I am telling you. I have tried to go quickly to save time and I had only one sentence to go. I said that Senator Grimes's remarks related to my prediction at the weekend that Commonwealth spending in Tasmania would be cut by at least $40m in `Tuesday's Budget', I was wrong. Commonwealth spending in Tasmania was cut by a massive $61m in last night's hate Tasmania, Keating Budget. 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 assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many post office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. by Mr Adermann,Mr Brumby,Mr Burr,Mr Coleman,Mr Conquest,Mr Dobie,Mr Downer,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Hicks,Mr Hollis,Mr Humphreys,Mr Lloyd,Mr McGauran,Mr Martin,Mr Mildren,Mr Millar,Mr Milton,Mr Reith,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Saunderson,Mr Shack,Mr Shipton,Mr Snow and Mr Wilson. 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 Beale,Mr Brumby,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawker,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson and Mr Willis. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That families have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of their net disposable income through: Failure to index family allowances-resulting in a 50% loss in their real value since 1976 Abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18-even those still at school Failure to increase the spouse rebate since 1982 Discriminatory taxation system-which penalizes single income families. Recognising the cost benefit to taxpayers when the intact family unit itself delivers essential care to the extended family. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take immediate action to: Restore the lost value of family allowances and to index them to cover future price rises Introduce optional income-splitting for taxation purposes Retain the spouse rebate. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Brown and Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular: the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependents who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in horizontal tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many larger families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Your petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the CPI; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson and Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. We are concerned by media statements that the Government intends to restructure the family allowance payment in a form that will reduce its assistance to families. 2. Remind the Government that the family allowance payment is not a Social Security payment as such but a replacement payment for a tax rebate once enjoyed by families for their responsibilities. 3. Whereas the tax rebate would be indexed to the CPI the present family allowance has lost real monetary value since 1976. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: (i) The family allowance payment be indexed to the CPI. (ii) That there be no adverse adjustments to family allowance payments in the 1986/87 Budget. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shack. 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 Blanchard,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Ms McHugh,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson,Mr Scott and 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 Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 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 $2.00 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 $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Conquest,Mr Halverson and Mr Shack. 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 any fees for prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) to introduce ``concessional user status'' for pensioners would lead to confusion. 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 free of charge. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. For 1988 to be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year'' (FIERY) as a vital action to ignite global co-operation for Worldpeace and as an international aspect of the Australian Bicentenary. 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 deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees, soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation, sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Humphreys,Mr Nehl and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament will legislate, or act in accordance with the present legislation to replace the current members of the Film Censorship Board who have admitted to Senator Harradine on 12th December 1984 as reported in the Senate Select Committee on Video Material, (see attached extracts), that they are not applying either the blasphemy or obscenity tests as required under the provisions of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations, and that these persons be replaced by persons who will apply these and the other related test in accordance with the said Regulations. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Downer,Mr Steele Hall and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that persistent rumours 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: Ensuring 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Halverson and Mr Hicks. 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 divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a second language program in schools. We request that the Australian Government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 Budget. by Mr Baldwin and Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of Australia shows that- Approximately 100,000 Australians live on the verge of homelessness, dependent on Government resources to survive, or sleep out of doors or in refuges. Over 700,000 households, or in excess of 2 million Australians are living below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. In addition, there are thousands of households with special needs, such as the disabled, who are not well catered for in the private sector but who nevertheless require suitable housing. Waiting lists for public housing have almost doubled in the past five years to 146,000 by June 1985. The list is expected to grow to some 250,000 by 1990. We therefore ask that the Australian Government, as a highest priority- Undertake a campaign to bring the issue of poverty and, in particular, housing-related poverty, to the attention of the Australian public. Increase expenditure on public housing through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, by at least 15% annually in real terms. Increase rent relief payments for those on low incomes in the private rental market. Use its influence with State and Territory governments to encourage them to increase their expenditures on public housing. by Mr Blanchard and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the Government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of average weekly earnings. 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Duncan and Dr Harry Edwards. 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: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. 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 Hawker and Mr Tuckey. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag; 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 address itself to the injustices perpetrated by the South African Government. To bring further international pressure and condemnation on the vicious regime of the Botha Government, the petitioners urgently ask that immediate action be taken to close the South African Embassy in Canberra until such time as apartheid in South Africa is fully dismantled. by Mr Brumby. 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 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% 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 Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia calls on the Commonwealth Government to recognise that the imposition of a charge on the prescription of Epileptic drugs 1. is a discrimination against sufferers because of their condition 2. causes hardship to epileptics, particularly pensioners 3. is likely to cause increased hospitalisation of sufferers who cannot afford the charge and thus impose an increased cost on the hospital system 4. is contrary to the spirit of the U.N. declaration on the Rights of the Disabled and Mentally Retarded Person Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth Government do revoke charges on the prescription of Epileptic drugs as a matter of some urgency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefit tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament House. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners humbly pray that you 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 Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page 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 Ian Robinson. 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 Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. 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 in Parliament. This petition of Riverina residents shows that we vigorously oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy. We believe that the above Bill seeks to alter the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which can only be altered by a properly conducted Referendum. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory identity cards. by Mr Hicks. 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the high cost of ski lift tickets imposed during winter by the operators of resorts within the Snowy Mountains of Australia. Your petitioners below believe the Snowy Mountains are an asset for all Australians to enjoy and should be within the financial reach of all and not just the wealthy few. Your petitioners therefore request that the Parliament take action to reduce the cost of ski lift tickets imposed by the operators of resorts within the Snowy Mountains. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously urge, for the sake of economic development of the Illawarra region, the Federal Ministers Mr Brown and Mr Willis to recommend funding of the Illawarra Planetarium Project, as recommended to them by the Government of the state of New South Wales. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to ensure that the Illawarra Planetarium project receives sufficient funding to proceed as planned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia pray that: 1. That the Commonwealth Government increase the monies allocated to the Victorian State Government for road funding, so as to allow adequate funding for the construction and maintenance of roads within the Shire of Cranbourne. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we the undersigned are totally opposed to the Government's policy to tax pony club income. Your petitioners urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to allow tax exempt status for pony clubs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Calare shows- The proposed gold tax will severely affect the livelihood of numerous people involved in the exploration, mining and service divisions of the gold mining industry in this district. Your petitioners therefore pray that the proposed gold tax not be introduced. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has imposed the Fringe Benefits Tax, such a tax will increase inflationary pressures, lead to a net loss in employment, will add significant cost and time burdens to business in this country and is in every sense an inequitable taxation measure. The following people in the State of Tasmania therefore urge the Federal Parliament to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. 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 they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. 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: That in the wake of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, no nuclear reactor can be considered entirely safe. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government close down the Lucas Heights reactors immediately and permanently, and that no new nuclear reactors be built 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. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear-armed warships makes a priority nuclear target of ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the following warships, all capable of launching nuclear weapons deployed in the British or United States navies, will be visiting Sydney between 29 September to 13 October-HMS Illustrious, HMS Beaver, HMS Fort Grange, HMS Manchester, HMS Amazon, HMS Olmeda, USS Missouri, USS Paul F. Foster, USS Oldendorf; and that these warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons will be participating in the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy We therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons; and to require that foreign warships participating in the anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy not be carrying nuclear weapons in Australian territorial waters. 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. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian Republic on or before 1st January, 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: Inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; Arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; Upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government (a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time; (b) call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All federal members of parliament and senators make strong representation to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mr Cadman and Mr Hicks. 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: There is an urgent need to upgrade and extend the facilities at the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Provide the necessary capital funding for the Northern Rivers CAE to ensure North Coast students have access to a tertiary institution capable of providing them with the skills they will need to meet the challenges of the future. 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 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 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned stud breeders of Australia showeth: 1. Stud breeders are deeply concerned over the Federal Government's decision to create a new tax which will be most harmful to the industry. 2. If passed, the proposed tax law would cause chaos in an industry that caters for the domestic and export markets. 3. Could cause the loss of pedigreed animals in all spheres of the industry for years to come. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will: (a) Reconsider the stud stock tax and so remove an added burden on stud breeders. (b) Formulate policies that will de-regulate the industry and achieve an environment which caters for the depressed economy resulting from the devalued dollar. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That in its present form the Australian Bill of Rights 1985 does not represent the reasoned opinions of public opinion. 2. The Bill denies more rights than it upholds. 3. That one day's debate in the House of Representatives was insufficient time for our elected representatives to debate legislation which will control our lives indefinitely. Your petitioners therefore pray: (a) That the Bill lay before the House to allow reasoned debate by the electors of Australia. (b) That our elected representatives be allowed to consider the Bill without haste. (c) That any divisions on the Bill be recorded by a conscience vote by Members and not on Party lines. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable taxation deductions; That the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: (1) That in the past, because of their remoteness, citizens in rural areas have not been able to receive SBS (Multicultural) television through conventional means. (2) That recently those citizens have been able to receive the SBS television service from the AUSSAT satellite by means of receive-only earth stations. (3) Now express concern that by Government decision this service is to be terminated. Your petitioners therefore urge that SBS television continue to be made available to citizens in rural areas of Australia by means of the AUSSAT 1 satellite and receive-only earth stations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Nathalia and district draws to the attention of the House that we demand recognition and financial support in Government policies for the millions of Australian women who choose to stay at home accepting the responsibility to strengthen the sanctity of family life which is the basic and God-given unit of society. Your petitioners therefore pray that the above action be taken. by Mr Lloyd. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take adequate action to ensure employment growth. 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 N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.12) —We raise this matter of public importance because it gives the Opposition an opportunity to make three significant points about employment and unemployment in Australia. We do that because we believe very firmly, and we suggest that it is clear beyond any doubt, that the big sleeper in this Budget that we received last night is unemployment. If we go several months down the track, the biggest single failure of this Budget will be in exactly that field-the failure to expand employment and the inevitable increase in unemployment in this country. If we had any doubt about that, that doubt was certainly dispelled by the performance of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in Question Time today. When we gave him an opportunity to set the record straight and to make a clear and unequivocal statement on the Government's predictions for unemployment, he ran away from the question and was not prepared to put his flag to the mast on what the Government expects the rate of unemployment to be. We venture to say that, when we look at all the economic tests and if one applies common sense and logic to them, the biggest single failure-there will be many of them in this Budget several months down the track-as a result of the Budget and of the economic policies now being pursued by the Government will be a higher rate of unemployment and a failure to generate the number of jobs that are needed in this country. We will make these three points to the House today to amplify this point with respect to unemployment and the great danger that lies ahead of this country in the failure to generate jobs. But, before we put those three basic points, we can put in a nutshell the whole issue of employment and unemployment as it is faced today. The Government at the moment is telling us two things which are the basis of this whole complaint and the basis of the employment and unemployment situation. The Government is telling us in the Budget and in all of its statements two things: The first is that our inflation rate will be 8 per cent in the course of the coming financial year and that in that financial year that rate of 8 per cent, which we know is 800 per cent greater than that of some of our trading partners and 600 per cent greater than that of other trading partners, is the rate that will exist in this country. But not only will there be an inflation rate of 8 per cent in this country in the course of this financial year; that rate of inflation will also be in the context of an economy of falling growth and shrinking trade. That is the first thing that the Government is telling us. Having told us that, it has given us its response as to what its wages policy will be in the light of that inflation rate. So we will have an inflation rate of 8 per cent, shrinking trade and a decaying economy. What is the Government's response when asked what wages policy it will adopt in the course of this financial year? The Government's response is: `Well, add wage costs that are greater than those of our trading competitors. Do not try to erode the disadvantage that we have but look at what the wage increases are in comparable countries overseas, increase those, add some more for the claims for superannuation, do not do anything about the extravagant holiday loading and penalty rates and then let us have that awarded in the course of this financial year as our rate of wage increase in this country'. We say that, when one puts the 8 per cent inflation rate, that we know we will have, together with the Government's response that it will take the wage increases that exist in comparable trading partner countries and increase the wage expectations that will be awarded in this country, that is a formula for nothing but employment disaster in this country. That is the employment and unemployment situation in this country at this time. But in this matter of public importance we will make three points that cover the whole field of employment and unemployment. The first is that the Government has deceived the people about the prospects for employment growth in this country. The second point is that the Government has embarked on policies that it is now pursuing and that can only reduce employment and increase unemployment in this country. The third point is that the Government's response in the programs that it is now financing to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars is nothing more than a hotchpotch of incompetence. So that the matter of public importance can be presented in a structured way, which we like to do, my colleague the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) will devote his remarks to demolishing the pathetic performance of the Government's training, employment and job creation programs. But, without wishing to trespass on his field, I cannot resist the temptation to inform members of the House of the Government's response in one of those programs. The Government keeps putting out handy publications to explain to people, particularly young people, how to get a job. One chart is appropriately called `The Job Hunting Game', which is what it is under the policies of this Government. In this brochure, proposition 4 in the advice to young people looking for a job is: `You slacken off and go to the beach for a few days'. I suppose that is the advice that can be given to many people under the policies of the present Government until we get a better and more responsible government in this country. We see that the first thing that is now very clear about the employment policies of this Government is that it has deceived the people about the prospects for employment growth in Australia. To establish that deception we do not need to go back any further than four weeks ago. Four weeks ago the employment and unemployment figures for June were released. Those figures were greeted with considerable enthusiasm by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). He looked at the unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent and he said: `Well, isn't that marvellous? What does this unemployment rate of 7.6 per cent tell us?' He leapt into print and he said: `It clearly explodes the myth perpetuated by the Federal Opposition that we are stuck at an unemployment rate of 8 per cent'. He was presented in June with an unemployment figure of 7.6 per cent and he said: `Well, that is the end of the Opposition's argument when it has tried to perpetuate this myth that the unemployment rate in Australia is stuck at around 8 per cent'. It is true that we had given a persistent warning month after month that, if we continued with high taxes on business which stifled investment, if we continued to impose new taxes on business, if we continued to adopt high interest rate policies, if we continued to do nothing about holiday loadings and penalty rates in this country, if we maintained union power at its present extent in this country and if we did not argue in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for full wage indexation, we would have increased unemployment. What happened? Only a matter of a few weeks later the next month's figures came out. What did they tell us about this so-called myth that the Opposition was perpetuating? They showed us that the unemployment rate had already gone up to 8.3 per cent, which is where it rests now. Of course, the Government had said: `Don't worry about this, we can hold the line'. It might have gone up to 8.3 per cent, but there is going to be unemployment growth, according to the Minister, which will hold the line. We are a bit concerned about it, but there will be employment growth, to use his own words, which would be sufficient `to hold the line on unemployment'. That line was held not a day into the present financial year until the situation that we are now presented with came about. It became very apparent to us not only that there was an increase in unemployment to 8.3 per cent, but also that the only reasonable conclusion one could reach about the future would be that there would be further increases in unemployment. One does not have to go any further than that to show, particularly over the last month, that there has been a continued fabrication of deception by the Government as to the real underlying depth of unemployment in this country under the policies which are calculated not to generate employment in this country but to reduce it. The proof is now before us in the last unemployment figures and the proof will be seen month after month as the unemployment figures continue to be released. Secondly, we say that the Government is now embarking upon policies which can only reduce employment and increase unemployment. Who can forget as a starting point those memorable remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) only a few days ago, last weekend, when he said: `Wait for the Budget and we will have a look at employment policy. When the Budget is delivered the Treasurer will come in and he will give an unequivocal statement; he will give unequivocal information and unequivocal detail as to what the Government's wages policies will be over the course of this year'. We have now had the unequivocal detail; we got that in the Budget Speech made by the Treasurer last night and we got some more unequivocal detail from the Treasurer in Question Time today. The only thing that emerges from it is, first of all, that the Government does not know what the unemployment rate will be for the rest of this financial year and, secondly, that the Government is embarking and continuing on policies which can only have the result of increasing unemployment in this country. We have got the unequivocal detail that the Government believes it to be, so let us have a look at what it is. The first thing the Government is going to do is to try to discount wages by 2 per cent in the next national wage case. We say that if there is any sense, because there clearly is, behind discounting of wages because of the effect of the devaluation, the Government must discount for the full effects of the devaluation. It is pointless doing anything else. Secondly, the Government says: `There is another national wage case coming up next April'. What is the unequivocal detail it gives us about that? The Government says: `When the April national wage case comes up next year we will have a look at it and if circumstances warrant it we will have a look at the possibility of arguing for some discounting on that occasion too'. We say it is clear as burning daylight that if the Government wants to get any confidence back into this economy it must, first of all, recognise the overwhelming significance of wage costs and the part that that is playing in holding this economy back and, secondly, that if it wants to restore any confidence with overseas markets it must now declare that it will argue for full discounting in the April national wage case. The third part of the unequivocal detail that the Government condescends to give us is that wage increases looked at on an award basis over the coming financial year will be 4 3/4 per cent or thereabouts and they will be broadly comparable, we are told, with those of our major trading partners. That must surely be the greatest deception of all. It is absolute nonsense and can be shown to be so. In the first place the Treasurer is talking about award wages-he seems to be like other members in the Labor Party because they do not know anything about employing people-and the fact that employers have to pay actual wages across the counter. If we look at actual wages in this country-it is buried there in the detail of the Treasury statements-we come to the conclusion that there will be an increase in wages of something over 6 per cent in the course of this financial year. If one adds the full potential costs of superannuation, which the Government does nothing to discourage but everything to encourage the unions to pursue, our wage expectation could indeed be higher over the coming year. But when we look at the reality which is buried in the Treasury papers we see that there is an expected increase in wages of over 6 per cent. What does that tell us about how we will compare with the countries with which we have to trade and with which we have to compete? It tells us that we are well ahead. Let us look at the comparable countries and their figures. In the United States of America, on the last figures, there was an increase in wages in the last year of 3.5 per cent; in Japan, 3.7 per cent; in Germany, 3 per cent; in the major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading countries, 4.6 per cent; and Australia, as we are told in the Budget Papers themselves, over 6 per cent. It is clear-this is in the Budget Papers and it is in there for anyone to read-that it is above the average for Australia's major trading partners. As I said at the outset, the whole thing can be expressed very concisely because what the Government is presenting to this country is simply a situation where our inflation rate will be 8 per cent. Comparing this with at least one of our trading partners it will be 800 per cent higher than the inflation rate in that country and many times the inflation rate in virtually all of the others. This is the situation that has faced the Government, and it is now presenting us with an inflation rate of 8 per cent because of its policies. It says: `In reality, let us look at what is paid in other countries and we will pay Australian workers more'. We say that that is a formula for disaster and it is to the Government's advantage, if it has its wits about it, to wake up to itself and abandon that course. What should the Government do if it wants to get this thing back on the track before unemployment goes through the roof? Firstly, there must be a wages freeze if we are to stick with the present centralised system. Secondly, and most importantly, it must abandon its taxes on business, both those that it implemented before the Budget and those that it implemented last night, the new taxes which can only act as a disincentive to employment and can only act as a powerful force to prevent the generation of more employment in this country. The Labor Party seems to forget that if it imposes taxes of $1.4 billion it cannot help get any result other than an increase in unemployment in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.28) —It is very interesting to receive a lecture from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honour- able member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), about employment policy. When he was a Minister in this country, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, he showed he knew all about employment policy by prevailing over a period of minimal employment growth and a strong increase in unemployment. It was a period in which the economy was going downhill rapidly, a period in which the number of unemployed teenagers increased by 45,000, and a period in which wages blew out by 17 per cent in the 13 months that he was the Minister for Employment. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see what kind of credentials the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brings to these sorts of debates. He has been there and he certainly has not done it. He has shown that he was an absolute and abject failure when he had the opportunity as Minister for Employment to show what he could produce. He produced 16,000 jobs in 13 months, an increase in unemployment of 75,000 and an increase in wages of 17 per cent. That was his contribution to the welfare of the Australian nation. So we start off with an appreciation of what credentials the Deputy Leader of the Opposition brings to his shadow portfolio and to debates of this nature when he seeks to lecture the Government about employment policy. This Government does not have to hang its head in shame to anyone in this country or anywhere else about employment policy. We have shown quite clearly that we have what it takes to create strong employment growth in this country. For three years we have demonstrated enormous success in that area. There has been an increase in employment of 640,000 in 3 1/4 years in this country, and for the last couple of years we have had the strongest employment growth of any country in the Western world. Those are credentials which indeed stand us in good stead when we say that we know what it takes to produce jobs in this country and to bring the unemployment rate down, particularly if honourable members appreciate that we did all that after inheriting an economy which had gone through the floor and in which there had been a massive recession; indeed, the worst recession for 50 years. It is from that basis that one must now look at the situation that the nation is in. We are in a situation where clearly we have to make an adjustment to our economy. This adjustment is not caused by the failure of government economic policies and it is not caused by a failure of the trade union movement to adhere to a rigid prices and incomes accord. It is not due to the failure of business to perform. It is due solely to the fact that we as a nation have been afflicted by a tremendous burden, by the deterioration in our terms of trade and by a catastrophic decline in our export prices, which forces us as a government to make a very substantial adjustment. If anyone is to blame for this situation, one would have to blame those people who were in government over most of the post-war period-the people who shaped the Australian economy. They produced an economy which was industrialised on an inefficient basis, which was not able to produce manufactured exports, and which had a narrow export base-an industrialised country with Third World exports which, despite the minerals boom, was still 80 per cent reliant on agricultural and mineral products and a small proportion of manufactured exports as a proportion of total exports. We see an economy that needs a strong structural adjustment. This problem if anyone is to blame, flows from the fact that the previous Government allowed the economy to develop in this way. Other nations which are blessed with considerable resources, and nations of comparable size such as Canada, for instance, in the post-war period industrialised in a way that gave them strength and a capacity to withstand the imposts from falling commodity prices that weigh so heavily on us at present. They built up manufactured and other exports as a proportion of total exports from 20 per cent in the early stages of the post-war period to about 50 per cent. We did not do that. We relied on our agricultural exports and said that we were the lucky country. Then we had the mineral boom and said that that made it even clearer that we were the lucky country. The fact is that we have the present problem in greater magnitude than any other country because the fall in commodity prices devastates our exports much more than in countries which have a much more diverse array of exports, which have competitive manufacturing industries and which are able therefore, to withstand the fall in commodity prices much better than we are. The fall in commodity prices and the change in the terms of trade are catastrophic for us. We have no alternative but now to take a much quieter role in terms of economic growth in the next year or so while we as a nation adjust to the balance of payments problem which has been foisted upon us. In a situation where the nation is absolutely compelled to have a slower rate of growth, we shall of course have a slower rate of growth of employment. That does not mean that employment growth has ended or that we will have soaring unemployment. It means that for a time we shall have a lower rate of growth in employment than we have been blessed with in the last couple of years. We are looking at employment growth this year of approximately 1.75 per cent compared to 3.9 per cent in 1985-86-a considerable reduction but still growth. In those circumstances it is not a disaster and does not mean a tremendous rise in unemployment. It is clear in the Budget Papers and from what I have said publicly and recently when the July figures for employment and unemployment came out, that we as a nation have to face the likelihood of some increase in unemployment. That increase will not be large, in our view. It is quite clear in the Budget Papers that we expect some increase in unemployment, but not a large increase. That increase is virtually unavoidable in the present circumstances, given that we have to make such an enormous adjustment to the balance of payments. That is indeed to be regretted, but when we get through that period with a lower rate of growth of employment and some slight increase in unemployment, we will then, if we have got the other factors right-which I am sure we will-be able to move into a stronger growth path with higher growth of employment and some further reductions in unemployment in future years. That is the scenario that faces us. It does not give us great pleasure to say to the Australian people that we are most likely looking at some increase in unemployment in the current financial year, but the situation could be a hell of a lot worse if we did not do what we are doing in this Budget and in other areas of economic policy. As we have said in the Budget and in other statements made by various Government economic spokesmen, if we do not make the adjustments we need to make, if we do not make a considerable reduction in the deficit, if we do not discount wages, inevitably we will be forced to make a further reduction in the exchange rate and/or by increased interest rates. There is no alternative. Either we make the adjustment ourselves with some pain, with some reduction in living standards and some slight increase in unemployment, or it will be foisted upon us. If it is foisted upon us it will be a hell of a lot worse. The fall in living standards will be very much higher and the increase in unemployment will be much greater. In those circumstances we believe that the most sensible thing is to make those adjustments deliberately ourselves rather than have them foisted upon us by the international economy. The Government has been prepared to stand up and take that course. It will not make us magnificently popular for a time, but we believe that the Australian people, as there is already evidence in the response to the Budget, have already appreciated the fact that this nation needs to make an adjustment and to remain in control of its own economy. If we do not make these adjustments now, if we do not do what needs to be done in the present circumstances and have them foisted upon us, we will lose all control of our own affairs. That would be a disaster for the nation because it would certainly mean much greater pain than would otherwise be inflicted. That is the situation that faces us, and all this Opposition talk of deception and so on is a load of nonsense. There has been no attempt to deceive the Australian people. The situation and what it involves has been spelt out clearly and specifically. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to say something about wages policy. I do not think he actually said very much but he got on to the subject. It was made clear in the speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that at the next national wage case the Government will seek a further two per cent discount. That is essential if we are not to have the inflation impost from the further devaluation which has occurred since September last year-a devaluation of around 20 per cent. If we are not to have that increase in import prices feeding through the consumer price index into wages and back into the CPI and perpetuating the wages-prices inflation horror, we will have to have a discount so that that will not happen. That is a responsible attitude for the Government to take. Obviously it is not easy for us in the context of the accord to say that we are to have that adjustment, but we believe that it has to be done. We believe that it is economically responsible that it be done and that therefore we have to do it. We are not seeking to hide anything in this respect. We are saying quite blatantly and openly to all concerned that we have to have that discount in order to have a lesser rate of wage increase and to avoid an inflationary spiral. We are looking at what we need in terms of competitiveness. We agree with the Opposition that that is important. Devaluation has made us massively competitive. We are now enormously competitive with the 40 per cent devaluation in the trade-weighted index that we have had since early 1985. It gives us magnificent opportunities. Indeed, it is that devaluation which is now becoming the engine for growth in this financial year. It will provide most of the growth in domestic product this year, with net exports contributing most of that growth. The devaluation gives us the basis for that. It means that we can get structural adjustment going in this country and develop a wide array of exports in order to make our export industries much stronger than they were previously. This is essential if we are to get out of the balance of payments problem. The wages adjustment is necessary to ensure that the devaluation which gives us all these opportunities does not get fed into inflation and therefore start to destroy that competitiveness. The Opposition sought to make comparisons with overseas wage rates and growth. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pointed out in Question Time that if comparisons are to be made about comparative increases in wage rates between Australia and overseas countries, we should compare the position when the previous Government was in office with the situation since this Government came to office. In the last year of the previous Government there was a 6 1/2 per cent wage increase for our major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners and a 16 1/2 per cent increase for us. Our increase was 10 per cent more-an extraordinary differential. In 1983 the increase for our OECD trading partners was 4 1/2 per cent compared with 5 1/2 per cent for us, so they were slightly ahead; in 1984 it was 4 1/2 per cent for overseas countries and 7.7 per cent for us, which meant they were a bit further ahead; and in 1985 it was 4.6 per cent overseas and 6.2 per cent here. In this year and in 1987 we are looking at something like a further 6 per cent increase if one takes account of the discounting and also allows for some drift. Therefore, we expect again to be slightly ahead of overseas countries, but very much in the same ball park. Certainly the differential will be nothing like that which would destroy the massive competitiveness which we as a nation have and which gives us enormous opportunities to expand our export industries and make the very important structural adjustments. Quite clearly we as a nation have magnificent opportunities at present. Every cloud has a silver lining, so to speak, and in present circumstances we can certainly make use of the devaluation in a way which would not be possible had it not occurred. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also mentioned that the Treasurer when making his comparisons of wages here and overseas, was using award rates of pay. That is absolutely untrue. He was not doing that. He was referring to earnings, so was the Prime Minister and so was I in the figures that I gave the House just now. I understand that there is to be some assault launched on the employment and training programs conducted by my Department. Those programs are very effective and although the job creation program-the community employment program-has been scaled back, it has been extremely important for the long term unemployed. It is a program which has done much to assist the long term unemployed to get jobs. The traineeship program, which is coming into force now, will provide much training in 1986-87. It will introduce a system of training which will be of enormous benefit to young people in this country in the future. Already 4,500 traineeships positions have been created and over 2,000 trainees are in place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SMITH(Bass)(3.43) —I must make some remarks about the comments of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). It is rather interesting to analyse his remarks because he seems to be pulling back a little from some of the rhetoric we have heard from him in the past. Certainly, to just stand up and blame the problems that we have now solely on the terms of trade is a little bit rich. We must remember that at some time in the 12 previous years a Labor government was in power so it cannot all be our fault. The unions have priced us out of jobs. The figures show that new business starts have dropped during the time that Labor has been in government. As to the question of wages and the 2 per cent discount, businesses and responsible commentators want much more than 2 per cent discounting at the next wage case. The Minister should go in and argue for no increase at all. The Budget deficit referred to last night of $3.5 billion is to be financed solely by increases in taxes and is the bottom line result of last night's efforts. These increased taxes will have, in combination with previously announced taxes, a cumulative effect on employment growth prospects and these prospects are now clearly in jeopardy. The `great communicator', the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), has made much of jobs, jobs, jobs-we have heard that so many times over the past couple of years-but the delivery over the next 12 months now looks awfully doubtful. This Budget's soft underbelly-the rubbery figures-is clearly in the employment prospects. The Budget Speech states: Unemployment could rise a little. A little! The Minister knows as well as I do that he is worried and that the community should be worried. Six months from now we will see what `a little' really is. The response to the employment issue has been inadequate to say the least. One could say-and I think honourable members on both sides of the House would agree-that the youth of this nation are the key to the future. If we look at the last census we see that 50.4 per cent of the people in this country are under 30. The Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls youth survey which was conducted by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the Minister for keeping Labor in office, indicated that Labor must do something and do something it did. We had the Priority One public relations exercise, we had appearances on Countdown, we had rock concerts, we had the Australian traineeships scheme launched-and we know what a debacle that has been initially-and we have had the Prime Minister appearing endlessly on talkback shows. It seems that he can talk the best. We have also had examples of glossy publications which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) showed honourable members during his speech. I sometimes wonder whether the Minister actually looks at some of these pamphlets before they are sent out. One of them says: `Before you do anything, don't do anything without going through everything in here'. It then says: `Get ready, get set, go-no worries'. No worries! That is what the Minister would have us believe now after last night's effort. But it is clearly not sufficient. Rhetoric does not reveal the full picture. In June 1986 there was an 8.3 per cent unemployment rate. In June 1985 the rate was 8.4 per cent, so clearly there has been no marked change over a 12-month period. Youth unemployment is appallingly high. In June 1986 it was 22.7 per cent, the highest monthly rate since March 1985. The average length of unemployment had increased from 33 weeks in March 1983 to 51.9 weeks in March 1986. Once again young people have suffered. In March 1983 the youth unemployment rate was three times the adult rate. In March 1986 it was 3.5 times that rate. Now we have this Budget. The community employment program has been cut by $90m and one hopes that the more bizarre schemes will be cut out. When the legislation last came forward in this House the Opposition supported the Government but pointed out that CEP was full of examples of how not to help unemployed people and how to waste money. If CEP funding is aimed at the right projects, a $90m cut should have no adverse impact on employment creation for those most needing assistance. We urged the Government then to focus more on traineeship funding for youth. This has at least now been realised by the Government. However, traineeships have been slow to start and the reason has been plain for everyone to see. The Minister's former union colleagues are interested in maintaining existing jobs, not in providing the flexibility of approach to facilitate a greater opportunity for traineeships. The Australian traineeship scheme has so far failed to deliver the promised goods. The reasons are many, but two perhaps warrant special mention. Priority One was an ill-conceived program launched with an overload of hype and a paucity of substance. Secondly, the unions actively worked to ensure its initial failure. Unions can play a vitally important role in the Australian traineeship scheme if they recognise two very basic truths. The first is that the high level of youth wages relative to adult wages is a significant barrier to increased youth employment. Secondly, expanding and educating the work force is in everybody's interests and the big beneficiaries, of course, are those who gain employment. What about the national task force into traineeships which was set up by the Government in February this year? Initially it was appointed for 12 months. Will the Government make public the recommendations that that body has made to it? Perhaps it should tell us how the task force is going-we have not heard anything about it. Perhaps it should tell us what the members of that task force are saying. Also, we note that the new community volunteer program, which is simply a new name for an existing program, is to have a new national advisory group. I ask the Minister: How does he justify that and is it really necessary? When will the Government come clean on the `work for benefit' proposals of the Prime Minister. We remember his address to the nation-the one that did not get the rave reviews in the newspapers, the one that failed. No one quite knew what the Prime Minister meant when he referred to community work for youth. Most people thought he meant work for benefit was necessary and he got some credit for that. But the Budget tells the Prime Minister that that is not on, that we will have a voluntary scheme. The Prime Minister changed his mind, just as he did on uranium. Where is the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) or the `Black Irishman' as he is called? Where is that man of principle today? I did not see him get up and walk out last night How did it feel for him to see himself written up in Time magazine recently as the `defender of the unemployed'. Certainly we will watch him over the next six months because it is quite clear that the unemployment situation is the soft underbelly of this Budget and that will be very plain for the whole community to see. People like the honourable member for Melbourne often think that they are the only ones in this place who have compassion. They certainly are not. Many of us, on both sides of the Parliament, are concerned. It is significant to see that this Party on the first opportunity after the Budget to raise a matter of public importance, has raised the question of the future of employment growth. We certainly need and hope for a better investment climate to permit greater growth. We hope for a stronger approach to traineeship schemes rather than just more rhetoric and confusion. We hoped for the compulsory work scheme but got a wishy-washy pale compromise. We hoped for honesty in employment estimates but got fudged responses and the ever earnest Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations wringing his hands yet again. There has been an inadequate response to one of Australia's greatest social problems. The Government will be judged harshly for its deceit, for the false hopes it has generated and for its sheer inability to bring into line all its union friends to ensure that jobs, jobs, jobs are a reality. To address this human tragedy of unemployment, new attitudes are required in key areas. The labour market must be made more flexible. Training programs must be just that and not short term measures. Our antiquated apprenticeship system must be overhauled and there must be closer links with educational institutions. Increasing participation rates in education are vital for our future. Unions must become more compassionate towards those without jobs. The preoccupation should be with improving employment, not the perverse situation of gaining improved benefits at the expense of improved employment. No one wants to see unemployment used as a means of exploitation. That is not in the nature of a civilised nation, which we like to think our nation is, or at least can be. Employment prospects are dependent on many factors and the Budget Papers are very illuminating in this regard. We find in them an admission that employment growth will shrink to 1.75 per cent this year and a decline in employment growth will cause an increase in unemployment. On page 59 of the Budget Papers there is an admission that an average unemployment rate of at least 8 per cent will remain for 1986-87. In fact, it is likely to be far higher. The consumer price index is forecast to be 8 per cent, which will certainly hurt our competitiveness, which in turn will disadvantage the employment prospects for which we are looking. It is our view there needs to be an examination of the apprenticeship system as it operates in Australia. The Budget allocates $122.6m for trade training. Trade-based training is union controlled and is not producing the greatest assistance for employers and employees. There clearly needs to be an examination of the apprenticeship system. Money spent on schemes which are unproductive must be reviewed and could be reallocated. There must be a re-examination of all unemployment schemes. The Kirby report, the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, is not a final document; it is but a start. Those schemes which clearly are not performing the functions for which they were designed will have to be looked at far more closely. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(3.53) —The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and his much maligned, but accurately maligned, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), went through the same routine as they have done in this place on many occasions. But it is worth reflecting on the history of this discredited Opposition when it was in government. My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) did that very well and I do not intend to canvass that ground again. It is worth making a couple of general points, because if one were to rely upon the contributions of Opposition members one would almost necessarily embrace the view that wages policy-and wages policy alone-is the only part of a very complex economic equation. Opposition members have run through a few statistics, but even on the ones they ran through they ought to hang their heads in shame. For example, it is worth looking briefly at the employment record of the Opposition. The Hawke Government has created 640,000 jobs in its term of office of just over three years. That is not statistics, that is 640,000 people in jobs who otherwise would not have had jobs. Under the previous Government 337,000 jobs were created in 7 1/2 years, which is less than half the jobs in twice the amount of time. That record speaks eloquently for itself and there is no need for me to address that particular issue in my contribution to this matter of public importance. The Opposition will not be allowed to forget the economic vandalism it visited upon this country and in particular the hypocrisy of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party will not be allowed to go unchallenged. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations addressed with some eloquence and even more accuracy the economic vandalism that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party visited upon Australia, in particular the young Australians about whom the honourable member for Bass was waxing so philosophical. In the term of office of the Liberal Party, it was the young people particularly who suffered. Some people in Tasmania, as recently as a few weeks ago, were not prepared to allow him to forget it; nor should they. While I do not embrace their methodology, the message is one that should not be forgotten. One of the most important economic variables-and it was not addressed by anyone opposite-is our international competitiveness. We all know that there are a number of ways in which we can go about defining Australia's international competitiveness, but unit labour costs adjusted for exchange rates relative to a basket of our major trading nations is certainly a most important variable, and those on the other side of the House with any economic training would not dispute that. Let us use that measure. During the life of the Fraser-Howard Government, there was an improvement of not much more than a lousy 2 per cent in that variable. This is one of the fundamental equations that this country needs to address. The record was an increase of marginally in excess of 2 per cent. Over the period of the Hawke Government that index of international competitiveness has improved by in excess of 20 per cent. Of course, one can always use statistics and come out with a whole range of interpretations of them. We all know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The reality is-the honourable member for Bass is agreeing-that that index is important. Those figures-they are not the Government's, they are in the Budget material handed out last night-give a major indication of the movement in this country's economy. The movement in real gross domestic product under the Hawke Government has been 4.6 per cent and under the Fraser-Howard Government it was 2.9 per cent. The movement in real non-farm GDP under the Hawke Government has been 4.2 per cent and under the mob of vandals opposite it was 2.4 per cent. Under the Hawke Government inflation has averaged 6.5 per cent and under the former Government it was 10.7 per cent. Another figure which might be of interest to the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is the average number of working days lost per annum through industrial disputes under the vandals opposite, of whom the Deputy Leader was one of the main bovver boys. Under the former Government three million working days were lost per annum, compared with 1.3 million days lost under this Government; almost one-third of the former Government's rate. The Hawke Government has created about 640,000 jobs in three years, compared with 337,000 jobs created by the former Government in over seven years; an absolutely disgraceful record. I go back to the main issue before us today, the issue of wages. Wages policy has been one of this Government's great success stories. It is all right for those on the other side of the House to attack any particular policy initiative of this Government-perhaps that is their duty-but I can tell them that the people of Australia will become sick and tired of a whingeing Opposition which is not prepared to put any alternative policy settings before this Parliament or the people. Opposition members come in here and knock. They have interest groups such as Bob Ansett on the fringe benefits tax. They can go to Bob Ansett and say: `We will abolish the fringe benefits tax'. Hooray! They can go to others and talk about the assets test or the capital gains tax. They can go to all those interest groups and say `If you want to blame someone, blame the Hawke Government', but what is it going to put in place? There has not been one speech in this House from the Opposition on where it would derive the alternative revenue that is fundamentally necessary to run this country; nor have Opposition members been prepared to indicate in any substantive way, in terms of reductions in government expenditure, precisely where they would impact any proposed reductions. Honourable members opposite simply will not do it. They will not do it because it is a fundamental tenet of opposition life that one goes out and attacks. One does not leave oneself open to criticism by saying: `We might chop this area of government expenditure', or `We might have to increase revenue from this source'. Honourable members opposite will not do it. But at the end of the day, before the next election, they will have to put up some alternatives not only in these areas but also in terms of wages policy. Really, they do not have a wages policy. The previous Government never had a wages policy. It ebbed and flowed between full indexation, partial indexation, a wage freeze and so on. It did not know where it was going. People will recall that vividly. In particular, people will recall the involvement of this discredited Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in that process. Our record ought to be stood in stark contrast to the fiasco of the wages policy that the previous Government had before we came into office. Let me refer to its crowning achievement of which I have had some experience. I had to go round in those years and try to negotiate redundancy packages for workers, for example, in the metal trades industries, who were being laid off in their thousands as a result of the 1982 metal trades case. That was a very sad and sorry experience and one that I will never forget. In any event, honourable members opposite ought to accept the responsibility for it because it was a fundamental and inevitable result of having no wages policy at all. I could go on and talk about a whole range of the Opposition's other indictments but I will simply say this: I get sick in the gut sitting in this House and seeing honourable members opposite, who have more cheek than the rear end of an elephant, coming into this place and putting up these stupid criticisms without having the intellectual honesty and the political courage to put forward any viable proposition. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The time for the debate has concluded. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a very short personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, although unintentionally. During the speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) he chastised me, I think unintentionally, for in effect misquoting the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that, during the debate, I made some references to wages growth and I referred to a statement by the Treasurer with respect to the growth of wages last year and the expected growth this year and I said that the Treasurer was referring to award wages. The Minister said: `No, that is not right. The Treasurer is referring to average earnings'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the Deputy Leader of the Opposition get to the point at which he was misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes. If I could simply quote very briefly from page 11 of the Treasurer's Budget Speech where he said: Last year award wages grew by 4 1/2 per cent. Clearly, the Treasurer was referring to award wages. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the Deputy Leader-- Mr N.A. Brown —Just a moment, if you do not mind. Will you let me finish my sentence, Madam Deputy Speaker? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will heed the Chair. It is my right to ask him to come-- Mr N.A. Brown —It is not your right to interrupt me when I am speaking. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will stop challenging the Chair. I ask him to come to the point at which he was personally misrepresented. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would kindly contain yourself for 30 seconds I will finish what I am saying. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to the point. Mr N.A. Brown —The Treasurer said in his Budget Speech and I quote from it: Last year award wages grew by 4 1/2 per cent. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you want to have any future in that chair or any respect for it yourself you will enable members to finish what they are saying. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would like to address the chamber and, in particular, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and point out to him that it is not up to him to challenge the rulings and to cast personal aspiration on the Chair. Mr Price —Aspersions. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member. Mr N.A. Brown —I do not know what your aspirations are, but I should think they are probably not very high. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not withdraw those remarks and apologise to the Chair I will name him. Mr N.A. Brown —I withdraw and apologise and I make the point, Madam Deputy Speaker- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be seated. I call the honourable member for Chifley. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The Chair should not interrupt members when they are making their speeches. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That was not a point of order. Mr N.A. Brown —It was a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be seated. There is no point of order and I find his tone offensive. It should rather be confined to the kindergarten. I call the honourable member for Chifley. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Deputy Speaker, you have no respect for the Chair yourself. (Quorum formed) Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has made offensive comments to the Chair, to withdraw and to apologise. It reflects not on the personality in the Chair but on the institution itself. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Deputy Speaker, what you have said is absolutely correct. I withdraw and apologise and I simply make the point that members have the right to speak also. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw unreservedly. Mr N.A. Brown —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have and I will again if you wish. Mr PRICE(Chifley) —I present the 249th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled `Proposed computer acquisition for Repatriation General Hospitals by the Department of Veterans' Affairs'. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr PRICE —by leave-This report contains the findings of the Public Accounts Committee's inquiry into the proposed computer acquisition for repatriation general hospitals by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This proposal was the first received by the Committee under its standing reference to examine and report on major computer acquisition proposals before they proceed to Cabinet for approval of funds. The Committee accepted this standing reference in May 1985 in response to the Government's concern that major computer acquisition proposals are often of such complexity and raise such important related issues that they cannot be dealt with adequately under the severe pressures imposed by the Budget timetable. It is intended that the Committee's scrutiny of automatic data processing acquisition proposals will occur outside the annual Budget process and will precede any Cabinet approval for the commencement of tendering and acquisition action. The Committee has circulated to all departments its guidelines on information to be submitted to support major automatic data processing proposals and invited comments from departments. Should the information requirements be too onerous, the Committee stands ready to review or amend them. The Committee recognises that there is always the danger that the planning process receives excessive attention and is in effect elevated above the operational tasks itself. In the absence of any approach by the Public Service Board or individual departments, the Committee can only assume that its guidelines are fulfilling their objectives. Some of the major matters which the Committee was requested to examine in its review of these proposals include their justification and cost effectiveness, employment and industrial relations issues, technical and other risks and provisions for Australian industry participation. The Committee is refining its approach to computer acquisition proposals and is conscious that it should not delay proposals. Accordingly, not all proposals may be subject to a full public inquiry. The Committee has found benefit in supplementing the public inquiry process by on-site inspections and informal discussions. In this proposal the inspection of Concord Repatriation Hospital and Royal Adelaide Hospital convinced the Committee of the urgent need to achieve significant improvements to the service provided to our veterans. The Committee has been concerned at the lip service being paid by departments to Australian industry participation. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce has appeared as an expert witness in a recent hearing, together with the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The Committee considers that Australian industry participation is of vital concern. It therefore sees the need for departments to give full attention to this issue. The Committee has been disappointed with some departments' attitudes and considers that their proposals do not comply with the spirit of the Government's Australian industry participation policy. The Committee will be devoting particular attention to this issue and some proposals may need to be rejected. Having made some quite general observations about the ADP inquiry process, let me turn to matters relating to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Department's proposed computer acquisition for repatriation general hospitals was approved by Cabinet and funds of $2.6m were included in the 1985-86 Budget, subject to advice from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). The Minister for Finance subsequently advised the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on 1 August 1985 that no expenditure should occur until a satisfactory report on the proposal had been received from the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee is concerned that this proposal was not referred to it directly as a result of a Cabinet decision as envisaged under the arrangements agreed between the Committee and the Minister for Finance. It also notes that the intention of the reference was, as the then Minister for Finance, now the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), stated in his speech, to ensure proposals are reviewed outside the Budget cycle, and well in advance of any decision to commit funds. This clearly has not been the case for this proposal where funds had already been approved for the current 1985-86 Budget subject to a satisfactory report from this Committee. The Committee is unequivocally of the view that all proposals should be referred to the Committee by Cabinet itself and well in advance of any request for, or approval of, funds. The proposal from the Department of Veterans' Affairs is to upgrade the computing capacity and facilities available in repatriation general hospitals-RGHs-to provide an integrated hospital information system to improve patient care and treatment, including admissions, scheduling of patient services and discharges. The Department proposes to acquire an IBM computer for Concord RGH and IBM compatible computers for the four other mainland capital RGHs at an equipment cost of $10m over the four years 1985-86 to 1988-89. The Department proposes to acquire the IBM computer for Concord without going to public tender, but to request tenders for the computers for the other RGHs. The Committee did have some initial reservations about the relationship between IBM and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. However, the Committee has been assured that this relationship is not inappropriate given the history of the repatriation general hospital computing project. The Committee has identified opportunities for the Australian software industry and will be interested to see the outcome. The Committee's major conclusions about this proposal are that: The Department of Veterans' Affairs has not to date conducted the development of an integrated information system for the repatriation hospitals in a manner consistent with existing planning guidelines and sound project management practices; the computing systems at repatriation general hospitals generally lag well behind those available in other public hospitals; and some form of integrated hospital information system is the most effective way to satisfy repatriation general hospital information requirements and that the patient care system proposed offers the only appropriate vehicle to achieve this in an IBM compatible environment. The Committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs proceed with its negotiations with the Department of Finance and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services with a view to purchasing computers for the repatriation general hospitals; that the Department of Veterans' Affairs supply the Committee, accompanied by comments from the Department of Finance, with information on computer capacity requirements before placing an order for a computer at Repatriation General Hospital Concord; that the Department of Veterans' Affairs respond to the other Committee recommendations through the Minister for Finance minute mechanism prior to proceeding beyond the purchase of the Concord computer; and that, should the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services accept the arguments put to it by the Department of Veterans' Affairs for a certificate of exemption for an IBM computer for Repatriation General Hospital Concord, a supply and development contract be concurrently negotiated with IBM which ties further development and support for the patient care system related software to the initial IBM computer acquisition. The Committee also makes several general recommendations for future computer projects. Some related recommendations are also contained in the Committee's report on the Australian Audit Office computer acquisition, which was tabled previously. From its experience with the Department of Veterans' Affairs proposal, the Committee recommends that departments include in their strategic plans a clear statement where the proposed acquisition of computer software is subsequently likely to involve or influence computer hardware expenditures; and that this information be explicitly drawn to the attention of the Department of Finance, the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and this Committee. I recommend the report to honourable members. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr KLUGMAN —I have just seen this morning's edition of the Advertiser. I notice an article on the tabling of a report on the pecuniary interests of members referring specifically to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). The end of the article reads: Dr Klugman, chairman of the committee of members' interests which administers the legislation on declaration of pecuniary interests, said the two men were in contempt but it would be up to individual parliamentarians to bring up the charge from the floor of the House of Representatives. I did not say that they were in contempt. I said that if any member of parliament considered that any other member was in contempt, it would be up to him or her to raise the matter in the House. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House on the next day of sitting. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the implementation of the reciprocal agreement on social security signed with Italy on 23 April this year. The Bill will also effect minor amendments to the Social Security Act 1947 to ensure that the agreement meshes with the Act. The reciprocal agreement which has been concluded with Italy is the first in a network of new cost-sharing agreements which the Government is seeking to conclude with each of Australia's migrant source countries. The background to this initiative was outlined in my statement to the House on reciprocal social security agreements on 8 May 1985. A copy of that statement has been distributed to honourable members with this speech. Reciprocal social security agreements are formal arrangements which countries enter into to ensure that people who move between them receive social security pensions and benefits on a fair and equitable basis. They are treaties binding countries under international law and are put into effect under the domestic law of the countries concerned. Like the agreement with Italy, Australia's future agreements will be based on principles which are in line with international practice. Those principles are: Shared responsibility: Each party to the agreement will contribute to a person's total social security coverage. Equality of treatment: The residents and citizens of both countries will be given equal access to each other's social security laws. Totalisation: Periods of residence and/or contributions in both countries will be added together to give people the minimum period of residence or contributions required to qualify for a pension from either or both countries. Pro-rata basis: The total amount of pensions to be paid by each country to people residing in the other will be based either on the length of a person's residence or contributions. The Social Security Proportional Portability of Pensions Act 1986 enabled this principle to be adopted for Australia. The reciprocal agreement between Australia and Italy specifically addresses the social security rights of the following groups of people: Those who have resided in Australia and cannot claim Australian pension entitlement because they now reside in Italy; those who ceased contributions to the Italian social security scheme when they migrated to Australia and who now cannot claim Italian pension entitlement; and those from Italy who are now in Australia and do not have access to Australian pensions because they have not resided here long enough. The Government will be pressing to get the agreement with Italy ratified as soon as possible in order that the benefits it gives can flow to the intended beneficiaries. In developing this agreement with Italy, the Government has formulated a four-stage process to be followed for future agreements. This process involves: Detailed exchanges of information, including written material and face to face meetings to enable both country's officials to understand each other's social security systems; consultations with communities in Australia likely to be affected by an agreement; negotiation of the terms of an agreement, taking into account community views; and ratification, legislation and implementation. In keeping with my undertaking to the ethnic communities in Australia, relevant communities will be consulted before the commencement of formal negotiations. Exchanges of information between Australia and the country in question need to take place before consultations can be conducted with the community concerned so that the implications and the viability of an agreement can be explored with the community and its concerns taken into account prior to the commencement of formal negotiations. As with my community consultations in 1985, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia will be invited to assist with further consultations. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris. (Quorum formed) Bill read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(4.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985 to give effect to the announcements made by the Government on 12 June 1986. It adjusts the rate of duty and excise on petrol and diesel which is hypothecated to the Australian Land Transport Program Trust Fund. This measure, and the decision to hold payments in 1986-87 under the Australian bicentennial road development program and ALTP to $1,250m, forms an integral part of the Government's overall economic strategy. The Bill will reduce the rate of duty hypothecated to the Trust fund by 0.235c per litre from 1 July 1986. It also authorises the repayment from the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the revenue generated in the period from 1 July 1986 by the 0.235c per litre adjustment, taking into account subsequent indexation adjustments and any interest earned by these funds while they are retained in the Trust fund. These amendments do not alter the Government's fundamental commitment to developing a better road system for Australia. This Government, more than any of its pre- decessors, has highlighted the need for a road system which serves the interests of the Australian community, including our industries. We have recognised that roads facilitate the interaction of commerce between our major cities, between communities and within communities. We are, in effect, bringing all Australians closer together. Road transport is a fundamental part of the Australian way of life. Well designed and constructed roads make significant contributions to Australia. They reduce costs; they save lives; they encourage all forms of industry. They repay to Australia far more than their cost. However, in the current economic circumstances, where Australia is under pressure from external factors, it is essential that each sector of the economy and the community makes a contribution towards the overall well-being of the country. The downwards adjustment and the excise rate proposed will reduce payments to the Trust Fund by about $50m a year from that originally projected for 1986-87. Turning to details of the Bill, clauses 1 and 2 contain the usual citation and commencement provisions. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the rate of excise payable to the ALTP Trust Fund to be 3.610c per litre from 1 July 1986 by the insertion of section 14a into the principal Act. This varies by 0.235c per litre the rate which would otherwise have applied from 1 July. Clause 4 of the Bill makes a minor adjustment to the wording of section 15 sub-section (7) of the principal Act. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the revenue generated by the 0.235c per litre adjustment to be paid out of the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In accordance with the established indexing procedure for the rate of duty of excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel under ALTP, this variation of 0.235c will also be indexed with the associated revenue to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in due course. Clause 5 also provides for any investment income which may accrue to these moneys whilst they are held in the ALTP Trust Fund to likewise be paid to Consolidated Revenue. I commend the Bill to honourable members. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.32) —The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill is a Bill which every member of the community would applaud. It seeks to repeal existing legislation and replace it with stronger legislation to stop the dumping into the sea of any material containing radioactivity of any significance. I am sure that everyone in the House and every thinking person will be very keen to see that we do not add nuclear material to the environment of the seas, because there is no way of knowing where it is going to end and no way of containing it once it has been so deposited. The Bill carries with it a very strong responsibility for Australia, and I am afraid that it is a responsibility which Australia does not fully recognise. It is inevitable that there will be an accumulation of nuclear waste in the world. That is happening now. Many tonnes of nuclear waste which are stored throughout the world must ultimately be disposed of. Although we have seen the wisdom of not consigning it to the sea, we have to find a repository for it, and in this area Australia must address its responsibilities to the nations of the world. In Australia, we have geologically stable and geographically remote areas where we could safely contain uranium nuclear waste, and we also have the best technology in the world in the Ringwood Synroc technology. In times to come, responsible people in the environmental movement will recognise that Australia must take the step of offering to the world facilities for the storage of high level nuclear waste. I would like to mention the Synroc system. It has enormous potential to do good for the world and bring some stability to the world, because it locks up nuclear waste in the atomic matrix of the synthetic titanium rock. This is much more leak resistant than the present proposed method of borosilicate glass. While I would not denigrate borosilicate glass in any way, for I believe that that, too, is a safe method, there is no doubt that the Synroc method is at least 10 times safer. For that reason, we have to give it great consideration. I shall take a few minutes to explain the system. Holes are drilled into the earth. Areas with a very stable formation, for instance, the Yilgarn shield in my electorate, or the very large gabbro deposits west of Broken Hill, are found and the holes are drilled. The nuclear waste, which has been contained in this matrix, is then encased in a stainless steel cylinder and lowered into the holes. The holes are proposed to be about 4 kilometres deep. The containers are placed at 100-metre intervals, the intervening space being filled with a high yield bentonite clay which expands when it comes into contact with water, thereby making the holes quite impervious. To my knowledge, no water is found at depths greater than 1,000 metres in Australia. If a hole were 4,000 metres deep, without any water, it is unlikely that there would ever be an ingression of water. But if water penetrated these holes, it would swell the bentonite clay and seal off the hole. If water happened to penetrate, it would simply stay in the hole because it would have nowhere to go. It is a very safe method of containing nuclear waste. Australia has a great responsibility to the world. I would be very concerned if Japan, which is geologically very unstable, were to start consigning nuclear waste to the ground in its territory. It would be far more appropriate if Australia said to the Japanese: `In the interests of the environment, we would feel much happier if you sent your waste to us and we will store it for you'. Of course, there would be a price for this. Just in passing-a fact that I am sure no one is really concerned with-I should say that this vital industry is probably worth about $2 billion a year. This is Australian technology in which we are pre-eminent in the world. The Bill is also important because there is a lot of concern in the community about radioactivity. It is a very emotional subject and there is an enormous amount of misinformation. I listened to the debate in this House on the subject. I have spent some time looking at the nuclear industries in France and Great Britain. I am very impressed by the safety standards in the industries in those countries. I read with some alarm about the leaks that occurred at Sellafield. I went to Sellafield to have a look at the situation. It is true that a leak occurred there. A beaker containing water was pumped from the control zone and the alarms were sounded, but in getting it back some was spilt and some went into the Irish Sea. As a result of that spill, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority cleaned up 90 miles of beach, took away 400 tonnes of debris from the beach, including many old refrigerators, and restored the beaches to a level which they had not enjoyed for many years. I then saw some scaremongering by the anti-nuclear lobby, saying that there had been an alarming upturn in bowel cancer in this area. It is true that bowel cancer is unusually prevalent in that part of the United Kingdom. It is also prevalent in some other parts of the United Kingdom where there is no nuclear industry. That alone would cast doubts on the assertion. What is common to most of those areas is the presence of raw sewage. There is a suggestion that cancer is caused by a virus, and it may be that the raw sewage, not radiation, is the cause of the cancer. Unfortunately, in the Thames estuary, where there is also a lot of raw sewage, they do not get any bowel cancer; they just get larger fish. There is clearly a lot of misinformation about this. The fear that is generated by radiation may inhibit the development of positive industries in Australia. The mineral sands industry-mineral sand being a radioactive material-would do much more for Australia's terms of trade if it were value added in this country. As it is, we send it overseas and the rare earth materials are extracted overseas. That is where the great value added component comes in. I would like to draw particular attention to neodymium, which is one of the minerals of the future. It is a slightly radioactive material. In fact it has a half-life of some million years. Some people say: `Ooh, ah, a million years. This will be dangerous'. The reason that it has a half-life of a million years is, of course, that the radiation level is very low. I point out that that is also the case with plutonium which, despite all of the shock horror, is a relatively low radiator. That is why it takes so long to revert to a half-life. Mr Hodgman —What is your radiation level? Mr CAMPBELL —Neodymium is a very interesting material. It is one of the rarest constituents found mainly in monazite. As honourable members will know, particularly the learned honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), Australia has 80 per cent of the world's monazite deposits; in fact it has 80 per cent of the world's mineral sands resources. Western Australia has 80 per cent of Australia's resources, most of them in my electorate of Kalgoorlie. Mr Cohen —Most of everything is in your electorate. Mr CAMPBELL —That is right; it is the centre of the world and so that is very appropriate. I am sure that, if God had a chance, that is where he would make heaven. Neodymium is very interesting material because it has the property of enhancing magnetism. It is a very magnetic material. Alloys made from neodymium will in fact reduce the size of electric motors in the future. They will make electronic components much smaller. It will be a mineral much in demand. It would be a criminal shame if Australia were to continue to export monazite principally to France and Japan and to have the neodymium extracted there. We should do that in Australia and have an industry from a major resource and a major value added component. I mention that because one of the things that may inhibit the develop of such an industry is the fact that there are ignorant people who talk about radiation but who do not really understand it. The world has had the effects of Chernobyl brought very closely to its attention lately. Of course, Chernobyl was the disaster that the anti-nuclear lobby had been waiting for. It was to be the big one. Unfortunately for that lobby, it really has not turned out that way. When we look at the Russian industry, we must realise that it is probably the most inefficient and probably the most dangerous nuclear industry in the world. It is certainly by a very large margin more dangerous even than that of the United States of America's nuclear industry which, in terms of safety, cannot hold a candle to the industries in Britain, France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries where standards are much higher. But even in Chernobyl, where no attempt was made at containment and where large amounts of nuclear material were released, it appears that the long term effects will not be as horrendous as we have been told. I have seen some figures recently in which Sweden states that it expects that it will have eight additional cancer deaths from the release of this energy. That is regrettable. But I am sure that in the equivalent period far more people will be killed as a result of coal mining than as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. I also believe that vast steps will be made in a cure for cancer. So, while we may lose some people, others will be saved. Chernobyl was not the great disaster that the anti-nuclear lobby had been waiting for. I guess those same people will now be out praying that an accident will happen in Europe or America. In fact, I talked about this to the anti-nuclear senator from Western Australia, Jo Vallentine. She confided to me that an accident in Russia was not really much good to the anti-nuclear lobby because it needed one in America or Europe to make a bigger impression. I often wonder about that mentality. This Bill also deals with the South Pacific nuclear free zone. That needs to be applauded. Like so much legislation that we have seen, it is one of those Bills that do not really do any harm even though they do not do much good. For that reason, I believe one can applaud the legislation. I must also say that one has to be a little cynical about it because one of the things that one notices about large nations and superpowers is that they can always be relied upon to do what they think is in their best interests at the time. So, no matter what treaty obligations they enter into, we can always be assured that, when it suits them, they will not honour their obligations. I guess that is one of the very few certainties in this world. In saying that, while it sounds somewhat cynical, I believe the action of the United States in relation to trade as it affects this country illustrates that only too clearly, to the detriment of our farmers. I believe the nuclear industry has a very good safety record. The fact that this sort of legislation is supported and applauded by the industry is an indication of that. It is unfortunate that there is so much nonsense talked about this industry by what are basically the very conservative forces in the world. I refer to the sorts of people who opposed the invention of the steam engine, who required people to walk in front of cars with red flags because things had not been done a certain way in the past. It is unfortunate that my Party, the Australian Labor Party, for the very reason that it has a very democratic structure is vulnerable to attack from single issue zealots. It is a source of great regret to me that a number of such people have infiltrated the Party. I might just say in passing that one of the great tests of the anti-nuclear lobby is to say to its supporters: `What is alpha radiation? What is beta radiation? What is gamma radiation?' I will bet London to a brick on that very few of them know the answer. But these are the people who talk with great authority and who are interviewed incessantly by the Press as authorities on the subject. But, when one asks them the basic questions, they simply do not know. It is a pity that we have a Press that has such abysmal ignorance on this subject that it is not capable or competent to question such people usefully in this regard. I was called to speak at short notice. I think I have done an enormously good job filling in 15 minutes; and I am afraid that that is all I have to say. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.48) —I am a man of the sea. The electorate of Denison is bounded from Claremont to Taroona by Australia's most beautiful river, the River Derwent, into which waters flow from as far away as the Tasman Sea and from the Southern and Antarctic oceans. I have lived by the sea all my life. I have been involved with the sea all of my life as a yachtsman, as a member of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve and as one who genuinely loves the sea. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill 1986, although I want to make it quite clear that my vote in favour of it does not imply support for the next piece of legislation that we will deal with, namely, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill upon which it is constitutionally based. It is important to note that this legislation came into being in 1981 during the term of the Fraser Government. It was clearly based on the foreign affairs powers in that it related at that stage to arrangements for dumping of radioactivity in Australian waters, which is now subject to change because of decisions that have been taken on that practice; this legislation bans such a practice completely. This Bill will prevent the dumping of all radioactive materials in Australian waters. I say `hear, hear' to that. The Government's reasons for this tightening up measure are to fulfil our obligations under the recently signed South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the proposed convention for the protection of natural resources and the environment of the South Pacific. I mention in passing that that convention is somewhat similar to the International Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the headquarters of which are based in Hobart in the Federal electorate of Denison-a decision very properly taken by the Fraser Government, the then Prime Minister and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). The 1981 Act's provision for dumping radioactive waste is to be totally repealed as this section is based on the London Convention which deals with high level wastes. I think it is fair to say that this Amendment Bill will prevent the dumping at sea of any radioactive material which has radioactivity in excess of 35 becquerels per gram. This level is an arbitrary one based on the level of activity slightly above that of naturally occurring potassium but which is not potentially harmful to marine biota. The Government maintains that the only international standard which measures potentially harmful levels of radio- activity is in fact the International Atomic Energy Agency formula. This is so complex that it is considered unworkable in decision-making for dumping. Even though the levels of radioactivity allowed are extremely low, the Government's advisers maintain that in the time since the 1981 Act was implemented there has been no dumping application which would have failed the proposed new limits. That is good news. Whilst this Bill does break new ground and totally bans the dumping of radioactive materials in Australian waters it is, as I said, based on the Treaty obligations and the Treaty provisions in a piece of legislation which I will be voting against for reasons which I will explain when we get to that debate. Nevertheless, I support this Bill. I am told that the majority of the earth's surface is covered by water and that 97 per cent of the human body is water. A lot of people say that they are aquarians, and I suppose without putting it too simply water is really the fundamental basis of life on this planet. Therefore I think it is fundamental that we are very careful not to do anything to the waters that surround our continent which might-I emphasise the word `might'-endanger future generations. I have said before and I will continue to say that the people who live here today do not own Australia; we are trustees for an asset which we have to pass on to our children and to our children's children, hopefully in a better condition than when it came into our hands. Many people will have heard of Mr Gordon Barton, the founder of that great corporation, IPEC. Mr Barton, who I have known for many years, developed a practice which, if it were done universally throughout Australia, would make this nation a much more beautiful place. Wherever he and his family went for a picnic he would not leave that picnic area until he had filled the boot of his car with the rubbish that had been left by previous persons visiting that scene. I saw Mr Barton on one occasion actually filling the boot of a Rolls Royce which he was driving on that day. He kept driving along the highway until the boot was absolutely filled. He, his wife and children all participated. I note with pleasure the presence of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) in the chamber because this falls within his area. Mr Barton said that that was a practical application of a dictum to him by his parents when he was very young to leave any place he went into more beautiful at the time of his departure than it was when he arrived. Mr Cohen —You always do that when you depart from an area. Mr HODGMAN —I do not know whether I am being complimented or insulted. We are not on air, so the mass populace will not have the opportunity of judging the Minister's remarks. Those who read Hansard will have to form their own opinion. That was Mr Barton's theory. I now note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Kooyong. Mr Cohen —Your leader. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed. I was speaking a moment ago of the decision that the honourable member and the former Prime Minister took to base in Hobart the International Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Mr Peacock —You lobbied me very hard on that issue. Mr HODGMAN —I did indeed. I must say I will look forward to lobbying the honourable member hard in the future on other issues. I therefore find myself in the position of supporting the principle of the legislation. I repeat the caveat that I added at the beginning; namely, that that does not imply support for the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill which in fact I will be opposing and voting against along with the Opposition. It is wise perhaps when one is dealing with the environment, not in all cases but certainly in the case of a moving material, and water is a moving material, to err on the side of caution, and therefore the total ban has my support. I noted with some interest the speech of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who is the shadow Minister and spokesman on the environment in this House, when he said, I thought with some considerable effect, that it was a presumption for us today to believe that all uses of the ocean and the ocean floor are at this moment known to mankind. I will quote what he said because I think it is a very profound statement. He stated: Consider the possibility that the ocean floor, even at great depths, may some day have enormous value to man. It would be arrogant in the extreme for us to believe that all possible uses of the sea are known. What interests me is that that is almost exactly the position in relation to krill. Some 30 years ago nobody had heard of krill except a handful of scientists. Nobody had any idea of the enormous natural resource and the enormous wealth which we have in krill. It is a small organism found in the Southern Ocean, in the Antarctic Ocean as it is more commonly known, which, properly harvested, could feed mankind. It is not an exaggeration to say that krill, properly harvested-there are many tests going on at the moment; indeed, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is testing somewhat excessively by taking a considerable amount out under the provisions of the Treaty-with its protein high value component added to roughage has a capacity to feed mankind. I say it is something which nobody knew about 30 years ago. I note the presence in the chamber now of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). That is why I thought the point he made was very valid. It would be quite arrogant for us to presume or assume that we know everything about the sea, the ocean and what it can be for mankind and for the destiny of this planet earth. Mr Cohen —This is all very fascinating, but what has it to do with the Bill? Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry the Minister did not realise that it was very related to the Bill because I am indicating my reasons for supporting a total ban of all radioactive material. I thank the Minister for his help. My remarks are not only relevant but also I thought I was delivering them in a very rational, reasonable and persuasive manner. Mr Connolly —As always. Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for Bradfield for his comment. Having said the nice things, I just want to say one or two words on the other side of the coin. It is all very well for us to pontificate about our views of protecting the oceans in our region from nuclear or radioactive contamination. I am sick and tired of sections of the Australian Labor Party pontificating to the Australian people about the dangers of the presence in Australian waters of ships belonging to our allies which may be nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed. The thing that staggers me is the deafening silence of the Hawke socialist Government and those who aid and abet it in clinging to office on the involvement of nuclear activity by the Soviet Union in our region. The Minister more than anybody else should realise that the matters I am about to mention just simply cannot be fobbed off. The increased Soviet presence in the South Pacific poses the greatest threat there is to the national security of Australia, and the greatest threat our nation probably will ever have to face. When are we going to hear those champions-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! I point out to the honourable member for Denison that this is not a cognate debate. We are actually debating the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill. I believe that the comments that he is making are pre-empting the next debate which is on the Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. Would the honourable member please confine his comments to the Bill he is debating? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact I had nearly completed my remarks. I shall be speaking on the other Bill. I was conscious of that. I have one minute to go. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to retain those comments until that occasion. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I will. I am complaining about the dumping of radioactive material by the Soviet Union in waters some of which come to Australia. I want to refer to two matters which have never been raised in this House before and about which I feel strongly. I wonder why the Hawke socialist Government says nothing about them. The first relates to the recent action of the Soviet Union in test firing SS18 Mark 4 missiles with a range of 1600 kilometres and with 10 warheads, each 50 times more destructive than the Nagasaki weapon, into the vicinity of the Cook Islands, which is not very far from Australia and New Zealand. That matter has been commented upon in national magazines and newspapers. The Bulletin in particular has run a series of articles on the subject. I am still to hear a squeak from the Hawke socialist Government as to what it feels about protecting the environment, namely, the waters adjacent to the Cook Islands, Australia and New Zealand from the deliberate dumping, which is the only way in which one can describe it, of Soviet nuclear missiles. That was the point I wanted to make, because I have nearly concluded my remarks. Here we are pontificating about any radioactive material being dumped in Australian waters. I pointed out in my opening remarks that the level which we had previously set, 35 becquerels per gram, was based on a level of activity slightly above that of naturally occurring potassium-that is salt in ordinary language-but which is not potentially harmful to marine biota. What is the more worrying for the future of mankind-that sort of level, or Soviet SS18 Mark 4 missiles with a range of 1600 kilometres and with 10 warheads each 50 times more destructive than the Nagasaki weapon? If one is to have a go at radioactive materials getting into our area, I think something should be done about that aspect. Finally, I would point out that those who complain about nuclear-propelled vessels which are part of the forces of our ally the United States of America coming into our waters say not a word about Soviet nuclear-propelled vessels in the Southern Ocean, the Antarctic Ocean and the fishing waters of Kiribati. There has been too much double-speak and I will reserve my further comments, which will be even stronger, for the debate that follows in which I shall be honoured to follow the honourable member of Kooyong. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.02) —I appreciate the support from both sides of the House for the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill. Clearly it is not a Bill on which there is a lot of controversy, and it has general support. I wish to respond briefly to a number of points that have been raised in the debate. Not all the points referred to the dumping of waste at sea, which is strictly defined in the context of the conventions, treaties and agreements concerned. The Bill relates to the discharge of waste or other matter from a vessel, aircraft or platforms into the sea for the purpose for disposal. The honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) referred to the code of practice for the safe transport of radioactive substances in 1982. This code was formulated under the provisions of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978 which was enacted under the Fraser Government and makes no provision for mandatory enforcement in the States, as the honourable member suggested. Since it is a matter within the responsibility of my portfolio, I am able to say that the transport code is being revised in the light of new regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1985. When revised, I anticipate its satisfactory implementation by all States and the Northern Territory. Meanwhile my Department is continuing to co-ordinate with State and Territory authorities in the implementation of the code. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) made a number of references to the Soviet Union and its dumping practices in the high seas. He also mentioned the whole nuclear involvement of the Soviet Union in a number of respects. This matter should really be raised in the debate on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. Australia has no jurisdiction to control activities of foreign countries on the high seas. The honourable member mentioned the actions of the Soviet Union in the vicinity of the Cook Islands; by virtue of ratifying the Treaty Australia, with other nations, will achieve those objectives. The honourable member will be able to raise those matters in the next debate. This is not a complex Bill. It seeks to amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act. I think that all matters have been carefully canvassed. The legislation will prohibit the dumping of nuclear waste at levels over 35 becquerels per gram in Australian waters and by Australian ships. That is all it sets out to achieve and is what it will do. I thank honourable members for their support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Debate resumed from 5 June, on motion by Mr Hayden: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(5.08) —The Opposition is not prepared to support the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, which gives legislative sanction to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. We have determined not to support this Bill notwithstanding our concern with the questions of waste and dumping in the South Pacific, both of which we have strenuously opposed and sought to prohibit during our period in government and on which we have given the Government support. We have chosen to vote against this legislation because of the constraints that this Bill will have on Australia's security and its impact on our allies, for reasons that I shall enunciate. I stress, however, that the measures relating to the prohibition of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear waste dumping in the South Pacific have always been strongly maintained by the Opposition. I believe that a stronger and more viable alternative exists other than inclusion in this Treaty. Prohibition of nuclear testing and nuclear waste dumping in the region ought to be removed from this Treaty, predicated as it is and enshrined in domestic legislation and in a separate international covenant. I have read for some time how this Treaty was brought about by the activities of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at the South Pacific Forum. We are rather used to latter-day commentators and historians ignoring the genesis of most of these matters. In fact, the genesis of this Treaty occurred in the late 1970s when the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, and I attended a South Pacific Forum meeting. Mr Anthony, strongly opposed also to the dumping of waste and the testing of nuclear explosive devices in the South Pacific, suggested that we should consider the possibility of having a treaty to prohibit those two matters. That was the genesis. It was subsequent to that and after the election of a Labor government that this devious group opposite saw in this proposal the opportunity to coddle their consciences with a treaty proposal that would allegedly declare a nuclear free zone. From that developed the concept that causes us concern for reasons that strike at our security. In his second reading speech the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said that the Treaty was `the authentic and collective voice of the South Pacific region'. Well, it is not. It is a treaty that is not wanted at all by some and there are others who want even more than is covered by the Treaty. The Minister told the House that the Treaty had been `welcomed by the international community'. Well, it has not. It has not even been welcomed by our friends. I have not read one congratulatory message from any of our Western allies. I have read a strong message of support from the Soviet Union. It may be that in the minds of some this represents the international community, but it does not to members on this side of the House. At this stage the United States has reversed its position as to whether it will sign the protocols. My feeling is that, experiencing the difficulties that it is in a diplomatic and trade sense in negotiating fisheries agreements with island states of the South Pacific, the United States by the end of the year may well feel that it should sign these protocols. It is capable of withdrawing from the provisions at any stage and I feel that down the line it may well sign them. Nothing that the Opposition has determined in terms of opposition to the Bill will be qualified by the United States not being a member state here, but nevertheless signing a protocol. It has not got to that point and it may decide not to. My own inkling is to assume that the United States may sign it. That does not qualify one whit the concerns that I will put today in relation to the Treaty. I have said that this Treaty could weaken, not strengthen, our security. The Treaty and this implementing legislation are, in my view, inconsistent with our national security interests. The prohibitions of the Treaty on Australia's freedom of action will apply irrespective of any future shifts in the balance of military and strategic forces in our region, or indeed in the world. Regardless of how critical it may be to our own survival that at some future time we may wish to provide facilities such as home porting to our allies, such an arrangement will be forbidden by the Treaty. We would not be able to do this even if we were at war and our national survival was at stake because the Treaty is to remain in force indefinitely. There are some who believe-and I gave some consideration to this as a recommendation of the Opposition because of my strong views in favour of prohibiting dumping of nuclear waste and nuclear weapons testing in the South Pacific-that perhaps in this chamber we should indicate our concerns but then vote for the Bill. But the more I considered it the more I recognised that we could prohibit those two factors that I have mentioned both domestically and by international treaty and that that would be the proper course of action rather than allowing measures prohibiting them to go through at such enormous cost to our security. The reality is that when this treaty Bill has legislative effect, it may in circumstances override ANZUS. Is there anyone who would then, on balance, say that our desire to prohibit the dumping of waste and our opposition to nuclear testing should be embraced notwithstanding that consequence? Peter Henderson, who was formerly Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, stated recently in words that I thought were rather apt: We would have done better to have said openly to the island governments that for overriding defence reasons, involving the maintenance of their own security as well as Australia's that a real nuclear free zone simply cannot be reconciled with our mutually shared interests. In foreign policy the duty of governments is significant, is it not? It is to plan against long term contingencies and to do nothing which might compromise our national security. The Treaty in this Bill denies the likelihood of a deteriorating regional environment and the consequences that would have for us. The legislation before us would fetter our ability to respond to what could be a radically altered strategic environment. For so long the South Pacific has been a quiescent region with tiny micro states, now states in their own right. Hitherto, in the main, they were colonial territories which in recent times achieved their own independence. That does not apply to all of them, particularly New Caledonia which is still a French colonial territory. But in the main those British interests and others have moved towards a path of self-government and independence. It has been a quiescent region. However, there are now emerging trouble spots and some political turbulence which may pose a threat in the long term to vital Australian and broader Western interests. Complacency is the last thing that we need. Taking the wider Pacific region itself, the same concerns apply. I might add that for over 30 years regional order and stability, consistent with the interests of the free world and the successful denial of Soviet access, have been achieved through an effective management role performed by Australia and New Zealand and ultimately depending on United States underwriting of the area's security. Recent developments have injected a new volatility into the region, placing greater strains-indeed very significant strains-on existing alliance security arrangements. From Australia's viewpoint these developments could result in further deterioration of our political and strategic environment. The New Zealand Government's refusal to allow port access to any United States nuclear armed or powered vessels has unquestionably greatly encouraged the Soviet Union and its proxies to upgrade their interests and involvement in this area. I have recited in this House before statements made by Mr Dibb, who has given advice to this Government on defence planning and defence matters, in which he has drawn attention to the long term desire of the Soviets to break up ANZUS. That is not just our view, it is the view of a significant adviser to the Labor Government. As he has put in different words, the Soviets have been interested in the unravelling of ANZUS to the extent that that would assist their own longer term interests. Thus, fundamental Soviet objectives have been the unravelling of ANZUS, the decoupling of Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific countries from the Western alliance and the erosion of the deep seated positive sentiments towards Australia and the United States. Mr Hodgman —Whose side is the Prime Minister on? Mr PEACOCK —Oh well, on this issue of ANZUS you will recall that the only action that the Prime Minister took was to write a letter to Prime Minister Lange early last year and when it was leaked to the newspapers he ran away from it. Honourable members will recall that I described that letter in this House in great detail. As I said on that occasion, it was a letter to Lange from Shorty. The New Zealand Government's action, which Soviet radio asserted might act as `a chain reaction leading to the collapse of the ANZUS bloc', must be seen in the context of other regional tensions. In this increasingly unsettled environment within that broader region, Soviet power and activity continue to increase in the Indian Ocean, South East Asia and the North Pacific. The Soviet push for on-shore and port facilities in the South West Pacific increases with even greater success and Soviet naval power continues to grow dramatically in the Pacific region. In fact, the Soviet Pacific fleet represents 35 per cent of its naval assets and is the largest of its four fleets. Mr Connolly —The most modern, too. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed. It possesses more than 800 modern surface ships and submarines. Cam Ranh Bay is the Soviet Union's largest base outside the Warsaw Pact. What little over a decade ago was a major American base is now the nerve centre for the Soviet Union's largest naval fleet. Its capacity to project that power to the region about which we are talking-this so-called nuclear free zone of the South West Pacific-is undeniable. It is just no good drawing a map and saying that henceforth this is a nuclear free zone, when the super-power has a capacity to project the sort of power about which I am talking into that region. The capacity is there, it is undenied. Honourable members opposite may like to wish that away, but it is just that-wishful thinking. It is no wonder that the Soviets have so embraced this Government's South Pacific nuclear free zone. It restricts the United States-the only weapons state to deploy in the defined zone-yet the Soviet Union's power base at Cam Ranh Bay will be unaffected. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the United States can project power into this part of the world from Subic Bay and Clark, so that gives it a balance. It is the consistent approach of people on the other side to produce this form of moral equation or power equation in terms of saying: `Well, if the Soviets are there, it is balanced by the Americans'. We are not in the business of equating the Soviet Union with the United States; that is the harsh, underlying reality of our approach to international relations. We affirm our place as an ally of the United States and in the broader Western alliance and have no truck with this moral or other equivalence argument which seeks to put them on the same pedestal. Until recently the Soviet Union accepted that the effectiveness of the Western alliance system, embodying ANZUS, constituted an effective deterrence system inimical to the intrusion of its strategic interest in the area. Now it has perceived that, the ANZUS lake is no more. A major Soviet goal to undermine the pro-Western alliance system in the region is undoubtedly succeeding. It is in this context that the Soviets have welcomed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and it is in this context that we have to look at the legislation we are being asked to ratify today. We ought to have no illusions about that. While Soviet penetration and actual gains are still restricted in the South West Pacific region, it is important that we appreciate the opportunity that increased regional destabilisation has given the Soviets. It is also crucial that we focus attention on the fundamental issues at stake. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and this Bill fail to do that. I refer the House to clauses 11 and 15 of the Bill, which are of particular concern. Clause 11 states: A person who stations, or does any act or thing to facilitate the stationing of, a nuclear explosive device in Australia is guilty of an offence . . . The Treaty defines stationing as including `transportation on land or inland waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment'. This is an extraordinarily wide definition that in effect could strait-jacket successive Australian governments from offering home porting facilities to the United States Navy or base facilities to the United States nuclear-capable aircraft or nuclear-capable ground units. It is not the argument of the Opposition that we want to stockpile nuclear weapons in this country, but we will not abide a clause which says that in time of peril to this country, need, war or a threat to our security, if our allies want to enter our ports-home port, if one likes-or deploy troops, they will be forbidden to do so by this Bill because of the definition clause defining stationing as including transportation on land or inland waters and deployment. If we were in the perilous situation of asking the United States to come to our aid, is it to be thought that this legislation is to override ANZUS? I will not mention the very significant figure opposite to whom I went and discussed this matter on one occasion. I said to him: `I am deeply concerned that in a time of crisis for this country, this legislation will override ANZUS'. He said to me: `Yes, that may be so, but of course we would ignore it.' What a great safeguard, a great fallback. I said to him: `You may not be around at the time. I have to proffer viewpoints, programs and policies for my Party and in government on foreign policy terms for the security of my nation. I am not going to have some Mickey Mouse proposal overriding my country's most basic defence treaty, nor is my conscience eased because you tell me you will ignore the legislation'. Mr Hodgman —Was that Old Silver? Mr PEACOCK —I am not prepared to indicate who it was. He accepted my argument, but he was not prepared to go on with it because of the internecine fighting. To keep the Left happy we have this. This is an extraordinarily wide definition which could strait-jacket successive Australian governments from offering home porting facilities to the United States Navy or base facilities to the United States nuclear-capable aircraft or nuclear-capable ground units. It applies to all our allies. The same applies to nuclear-capable or nuclear-powered British vessels as well. Indeed, the United Kingdom is part of the five-power arrangements with us and is a direct ally, quite apart from its membership of the Western alliance. In the event of war this treaty would continue to apply and would, in law at least, prevent us from offering such facilities to the United States or other allies. The legislation could also be interpreted as being at odds with the United States Government's policy to neither confirm nor deny whether its vessels or aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons. Similarly, clause 15 of this Bill allows the presence of nuclear explosive devices on foreign ships visiting or navigating in or through Australian waters or on visiting aircraft, but restricts this to apply only to transiting movements. As such, it specifically denies the deterioriating regional stability to which I referred and would severely limit our future options. Whilst the United States would lose its options, which under certain circumstances might be absolutely vital for our defences, the Soviet Union, interestingly enough, would have no restrictions on its nuclear stationing in places such as Cam Ranh Bay because its nuclear threat to the whole South Pacific remains totally unconstrained by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. There is a further problem with the Treaty; that is, once the Treaty exists and implementing legislation is enacted, it can be extended. Time and again we have heard demands that this Bill does not go far enough. In fact, one island state of the Pacific thinks the Bill does not go far enough. Beyond a smaller island state are our friends, the New Zealand people-regrettably governed by others who could not be described in quite such friendly terms, the current New Zealand Government-- Mr Hurford —Are you suggesting that that Government is not supported by the majority of New Zealanders? Mr PEACOCK —I will answer the Minister's question. The Government was supported at the last election by the majority, but I do not assess what is in the interests of my country on the basis of some vote in another nation. My duty is not to respond to what some left wing government in New Zealand wants. My duty is to do what is right in Australia. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs can sit in the chamber with his pack appealing all he likes to his lefties who walked out last night. This Government's duty ought to be to the security of this country and it should not be bowing and scraping to a left wing government across the Tasman. The sooner it gets that right the sooner we might have a more effective ANZUS. If I reply in fulsome terms it is because I am sick to death of hearing from the Government that ANZUS problems revolve around us being kind and gentle to New Zealand. They do not. We could have fixed that problem if we told the New Zealand people that they could not have it both ways. But this Government was too gutless to do that. It thought it could ride along with their nonsense, that they could stay within ANZUS but not allow our allies to enter into their ports. I am sorry to sidetrack on that. I am not here to abide by the vote of the New Zealand people. I am an Australian and my duty is to this country and to our own defence. Mr Hurford —You are not answering my question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Kooyong ignore the interjections. Mr Hodgman —Ignore the Kiwi lovers. Mr PEACOCK —I love the New Zealand people, the Government that they have will not last beyond the next election, but far be it from me to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation. I have already talked of what transpires when we put something down. There is always some bunny who suggests that it has not gone far enough. The Government's left wing here has said that already and Prime Minister Lange is now saying that. He has already declared that frequent Australian port visits by United States warships could be interpreted as `stationing' and that is disallowed by the Treaty. Interestingly enough, others have suggested that our export of uranium could be in violation of the Treaty. This schizophrenic Government has done the right thing in regard to the export of uranium to France but it will duck and weave on this question. I can see this Bill being debated for the next week or two. I will lay any money that honourable members opposite would like it to be dealt with by tomorrow. Mr Coleman —The honourable member for Hughes says that it is against the treaty. Mr PEACOCK —That is right. Prime Minister Lange said that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty was an important first step towards prohibiting nuclear maritime passage or deployment of submarines. As the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) has indicated, it does not take much imagination to see how the left wing of the Australian Labor Party, over time, will insist that the Treaty is further radicalised. The underlying assumptions of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, the Government's about-face over assisting with the MX missile tests, its rejection of the United States invitation to participate in strategic defence initiative research, its opposition to the United States strategic modernisation and now the steerage of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty are fundamentally weakening our own participation in the Western alliance and providing an opportunity for others to exploit and decrease our own security in this region. We are profoundly worried about the direction that is being taken by this Government. Let me just go back to those aspects of the Bill that relate to the dumping of nuclear waste and nuclear testing in the region. As I began, let me reiterate that the Opposition supports the aspirations of the region to ban nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste in the region but we are of the firm view that these aspects, currently incorporated in the treaty Bill, can be legislatively and internationally enshrined without undermining our security environment. We recommend strongly that a separate international convention relating to the dumping of nuclear waste be negotiated. I suggest that such a protocol would be better pursued separately since it would be easier to persuade the nuclear powers to accept restrictions on their high seas freedoms in relation to dumping rather than as a subsidiary part of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to which they clearly have reservations on other grounds. Indeed, I also maintain that the verification and control procedures, as presently described in the Treaty, are actually inadequate for detecting covert dumping of radioactive waste within the region and it leaves open the question of land-based waste disposal. A separate protocol, a stronger one relating to nuclear waste disposal, would be both emvironmentally and strategically better. Similarly, our opposition to nuclear testing in the region is well known. In place of those clauses in the Treaty, consideration could also be given to a further, separate convention. So there is some clarity as to where the Opposition stands. We reject the Bill because it compromises our security. It compromises it by severely restricting our future options. We believe that nuclear testing and nuclear waste dumping should be addressed as separate protocols. We are quite prepared to argue that in any forum. I am sure that we would get almost unanimous support for that-let us exclude one well known continental nation-and be able to police both matters far more effectively if major powers did not feel that they were so constrained with the other elements of this Treaty. If the Government follows the Opposition's lead it would have a more vigilant approach on dumping and on testing, which we oppose. As I have said, we would have separate international conventions dealing with those matters and we would be able to have verification and control procedures which would be stronger than those that are currently in this treaty. Mr Charles —I agree with you on dumping. Mr PEACOCK —We should have done that on dumping. Mr Charles —I agree with that. Mr PEACOCK —I am glad to hear that the honourable member does because I am not seeking to play politics on the issue. As I have said, it was a matter that we sought to approach when we were in government and, regrettably, it got caught up with this larger Mickey Mouse proposal which, as I have said, has the capacity however to arise to a shape greater than Walt Disney produced. We are unprepared to see any diminution of our national security. On balance, we are opposed to the Bill. I say `on balance' solely because I would have liked to have supported the propositions on waste and on testing. But I believe that the better approach is to oppose this Bill, to argue for stronger measures on waste and dumping and not to compromise this nation's security in regard to our duties, our obligations and our opportunities under our alliances. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(5.38) —I am privileged to be able to participate in the debate on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill tonight. Let me say at the outset that I welcome the reference by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) to Moscow because that subject is part of the contribution that I wish to make to the House tonight. Perhaps following my contribution the honourable member for Denison will be a little wiser about what is really happening in the world in the move towards nuclear disarmament and the promotion of world peace. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. As I have mentioned on a previous occasion, if it receives a speedy passage in the Senate it will be a world first because we will be, as the Australian Government and the Australian people, the first country in the world ever to pass a law which will have the effect of banning testing of nuclear weapons, of banning the permanent stationing of nuclear weapons and, importantly, sending a signal to the world and to our neighbours that we will never acquire nuclear weapons for ourselves. For that reason I believe that this legislation ought to command the support of all members of this Parliament, not just the members of the Australian Labor Party. I believe that it is appropriate to draw to the attention of this House the history of this legislation. I am not one of those people-I do not believe my colleagues are either-who seek to make this issue a single and narrow partisan party political one because it is well known that another party represented in the Parliament and another senator support the thrust of this legislation. If that be the case I give them credit for their past initiatives and I hope that they will give, in whatever form they deem appropriate, their continuing support to these initiatives. Having said that let there be no mistaking that this piece of legislation is a creature of the Australian Labor Party. It is one of the most widely discussed pieces of legislation that has come before this Parliament in the history of the Hawke Labor Government. It is a product of consensus and a product of the unanimous sup- port of all members of the Australian Labor Party, and I think that needs to be put on the record. The Australian Government has led the way with the implementation of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. I shall address myself shortly to some of the comments of the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs about his perception of the lack of support that this treaty has received in international forums. Let me first of all for the record go through the outline the Bill. It seeks to give domestic legislative effect to certain of Australia's obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. I was privileged to be in Rarotonga on the occasion when the Treaty was concluded, and honourable member will be aware that the Treaty has received wide support throughout the world. The Bill is supplemented by proposed amendments to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act relating to the dumping of radioactive wastes and the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill relating to the application of safeguards to nuclear material, which cover Treaty obligations referred to but not provided for in this Bill. Importantly, the Bill establishes offences relating to the manufacture, production and acquisition of nuclear weapons, research and development relating to the manufacture or production of nuclear weapons, the possession or control of nuclear weapons, the stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia and the testing of nuclear weapons. It also makes it an offence to commit any act which facilitates the manufacture, production, acquisiton or testing of nuclear weapons, extends these provisions beyond Australian territory in certain circumstances and provides appropriately severe penalties for the offences. The Bill establishes the legislative framework for inspection in Australia by Treaty inspectors as required by the Treaty, and provides for the appointment by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) of authorised officers to accompany and assist international inspectors while they are in Australia. I believe that this is an important feature of the Bill. It means that it is not dependent on Australians alone for enforcement. It will set up an international regime which we hope will be followed and supported by all other countries which are parties to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The inspectors from the Australian Safeguards Office are provided with powers to assist the Treaty inspector and authorised officers in carrying out the Treaty inspections. I emphasise that the enforcement of the Bill, in my opinion, could be improved. I take the view, as have many of my colleagues over a long period, that as much legislation of this Parliament as possible should confer standing on citizens of this country to enable them to ensure that the provisions of the laws of the Australian Parliament are complied with. While I strongly support the Bill, I hope that in future years the sentiments of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which strongly support the views that I have expressed today, will be followed and that the Bill will be amended accordingly. The Bill is expressed to apply to the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, each of the States and the Northern Territory, and the prohibitions contained in the second part of the Bill bind the Commonwealth. Clause 7 further provides that the Commonwealth is not liable to prosecution for breach, but the prohibition is nevertheless enforceable against the Commonwealth or its agencies by way of a prohibitive injunction, which requires the person against whom it is issued to refrain from undertaking certain acts. Such an injunction could be obtained by a private individual if the individual can show that the Commonwealth's action involves the invasion of a private right of his or her that is recognised in law or equity, or by the Attorney-General if the action involves the invasion of a public right. The Attorney-General may act either on his own motion or in relation to a private individual. I emphasise in addition that, although the Commonwealth may have an immunity from prosecution under the statute, its servants can commit crimes against the statute in certain circumstances. If the Commonwealth is immune from the statute as a whole, a Commonwealth servant acting in the course of his or her duties will share this immunity. If, on the other hand, the Commonwealth is immune only from the penal provisions of the statute but is bound by the rest of it, as in this case, Commonwealth servants are obliged to comply with the statute and may be held criminally liable for failure to comply. Subject to the preliminary comments that I have made, the legislation creates offences that are binding on servants of the Commonwealth. Effectively it sets up a regime that no future Australian Government will ever be able to ignore. In the course of the comments made by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs it was suggested that there had not been support for this concept in other forums throughout the world. I draw the attention of honourable members to the position of Indonesia. There has been a great deal of debate in recent times about Indonesia and its perceived threat to Australia or otherwise. I could not think of a more effective way of sending a signal to Indonesia that this country is not intent upon waging war in future and is committed to a policy of peace than the passage of the Bill. It is clear that, despite the sentiments expressed by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Indonesia shares the view of the Australian Labor Party Government on this issue. Honourable members ought to know that the Association of South East Asian Nations, ASEAN, has decided to draft as soon as possible a treaty to create a nuclear weapon free zone in the region and that Indonesia is the main advocate of that zone. ASEAN Foreign Ministers at their annual meeting instructed senior officials and a working group to produce a comprehensive definition of the principles, objectives and elements involved. They noted with `special interest the conclusion of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty'. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, the outgoing Chairman, made a strong plea for action on the zone in his opening address. He said: The intensified arms race is diverting scarce resources and scientific talent towards destructive purposes instead of towards a revitalised world economy and accelerated economic progress for the developing nations. He said that the global nuclear threat was holding hostage all nations, including the members of ASEAN, to the perceived security interests of a few nuclear weapon states. If the Leader of the Opposition had bothered to read the second reading speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, he would know that it is not only Indo- nesia and ASEAN that have expressed support for the Bill. In September last year, at the third review conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in its final declaration welcomed the achievement of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty as consistent with article 7 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In October 1985, the communique issued by the 46 Commonwealth Heads of Government, following their meeting in the Bahamas, welcomed the Treaty as follows: . . . an important step in global and regional efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. That is hardly a fringe organisation. The members of that organisation, ranging across countries and including members of the Western alliance, non-aligned countries and a whole cross-section of world opinion, have recognised the importance of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and this Bill forms an important part of this Government's strategy. I turn to the Liberal Party's view about this Bill. There are people in the Liberal Party-decent people-who believe that the only moral position on this Bill that should be adopted by true Liberals is one of support. Unfortunately they are not in the majority and so we have an attempt by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), to resurrect Cold War rhetoric of the 1950s. He has talked about the perceived Soviet threat in the South Pacific and, if he had his way, he would have us believe that we were about to be subjected to some imminent invasion or threat by the Soviet Union. I direct his attention to the answers given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to questions that I have placed on the Notice Paper concerning the presence of Soviet naval vessels in the area covered by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Minister said that there has been no record of a sighting of a single Soviet naval vessel in the whole of the area covered by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in either 1985 or 1986. I intend to pursue this matter further. However, one can hardly argue that such a statement by the Ministers of this Government could give rise to the notion of any Soviet threat. It is just rubbish. The shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong, on this and other occasions has raised the actions of the small, usually impoverished island states of the South Pacific which are alleged to be jumping into bed with the Soviet Union because they have the gall to enter into commercial trading arrangements with it. Perhaps Australians will no longer accept those arguments as having any veracity, because, although the reported move by Vanuatu to establish some form of diplomatic relations with Libya is a relatively recent event which Australia should watch with interest, let it never be forgotten that it was the honourable member for Kooyong himself who established diplomatic relations between Australia and Libya. So if there is a Libyan connection in this country's Parliament it would have to be the honourable member for Kooyong. So let us have some balanced debate about the question of Soviet presence in the South Pacific because, after the action of the United States of America of selling subsidised produce to the Soviet Union to the detriment of all Australians and particularly the primary producers, it can no longer be possible for anyone to attack with credibility those small island states for getting the best possible deal for their fish and other resources. I also asked another question, question No. 2948, of the Minister for Defence. I asked him whether or not any past government had opposed a nuclear component for the Australian Defence Force and whether there was any time in the past when a government had supported nuclear weapons being acquired by Australia. Of course, in accordance with the precedent of past governments, the Minister stated that he was not aware specifically, not having access to the Cabinet records of previous governments. But he highlighted a very important point that ought to be reiterated today: That it would be surprising if consideration had not been given by one or more of the Australian governments in the period between 1945 and the ratification of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973 to this question of the costs of acquiring a nuclear capability. Let it be remembered that it was not the conservative parties which signed the non-proliferation treaty, but in fact the Whitlam Labor Government. As I move towards the conclusion of the remarks tonight, I want to refer to what I believe to be the primary force that led to the Bill being introduced into this Parliament. It is to the credit of the Australian Labor Party, and especially to the credit of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that they have responded to a certain force. That force was the power and the commitment of people in the peace movement in Australia, not just people in the Labor Party but people ranging right across the social and political spectrum. Let me tell the honourable member for Kooyong that a whole generation of people have had enough of phoney politicians. They have had enough of the cynicism and initiatives of politicians who do not make a real contribution to world peace and disarmament. They supported the enactment of this particular piece of legislation and it is to the credit of this Government that it has responded. Let me also say in relation to the question of uranium that I know that other speakers on this Bill and other members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, both in private and in public, have expressed their heartfelt and sincere view that Australian uranium ought not to be exported to France. I would be a weak and ineffective person if I did not on this occasion also reiterate my strongly held moral views on that issue. Mr Peacock —If it is that strong, will you vote against the Budget? Mr TICKNER —If this provides some opportunity for the Opposition to make some short term cynical capital, let me tell honourable members opposite again that the Australian people are too smart. The peace movement knows what the Liberal Party of Australia would do in respect of Star Wars; it knows that it would support deep Australian involvement in MX testing. It knows of the Liberals' opposition to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. What the people want is a principled stand by the Australian Labor Party and by all members of this Parliament in one of the most important moral and political issues of our time. I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs and my own Party for their support for the peace movement as exemplified by the introduction of this historic legislation, a first for Australia and a first for the world. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.57) —I would just like to take up the remarks of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), and remind him that he has a unique opportunity actually to demonstrate that he means what he says. He got up and lectured us about great moral imperatives, suggesting that this is one of the great moral decisions of the age. He has this terrific moral position about the exportation of uranium. He has a unique opportunity in this Parliament to demonstrate the strength of his moral commitment. I will have a couple of bob on the side that his rhetoric is far in advance of his actions. It is typical of the people from the Australian Labor Party to get up and pontificate about these sorts of matters. However, when it comes to the real test, when the pressure is really put on them, when they have an opportunity to stand up in public and vote on the issue, just watch them-they will scuttle out the door. I bet that if he is not in the House at the time he will be outside, not standing up the way he demonstrated today in his flowery talk about great moral issues. We will not see any of that. At least three of his colleagues last night during the Budget Speech got up and walked out of the House. I did not notice the honourable member who just sat down walk out of the House to demonstrate his great moral commitment. Mr Tickner —I am walking out now. Mr MacKELLAR —He is now walking out of the House because he knows that when the pressure really comes on he will go along with the Party line because his bread and butter is determined by that. He has now walked out of the House because he is not even prepared to defend himself after having made the usual flowery statements which we hear from the left wing of the Labor Party. That is all they are-flowery statements. There is no real commitment. When the test comes they will vote in accordance with the Party line because that is the way in which their party endorsement is decided; that is where their bread and butter is decided. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill 1986 is a Government effort to appease its left wing. We have just heard one of its members in this House mouthing the usual sorts of platitudes. At the same time it is an attempt to appease the political forces behind the communist-organised Pacific Trade Union Forum. The reality is that this is a unilateral measure which has only one effect and we should not forget what that effect is. It will encumber United States foreign and defence policy in the Pacific. The Labor Party came to power with a great deal of ignorance about the politics of the Pacific, except in so far as what was communicated to it by the left wing trade union leaders who were active in the Pacific Trade Union Forum. Let us remind ourselves about the Pacific Trade Union Forum. It was organised by pro-Soviet trade unionists who are also affiliated with the World Federation of Trade Unions, and it is specifically directed at agitation designed to embarrass United States relations throughout the Pacific. The key New Zealand figures in it are also key figures in the Labour Party in New Zealand which, as we have no need to remind ourselves, has thrown out the ANZUS Treaty and placed United States-New Zealand relations in crisis. That is not too strong a word to use about the present relationship between the United States and New Zealand. The Pacific Trade Union Forum has been a principal instrument of agitation for a nuclear free zone. Of course, the Forum's supporters are not satisfied with this treaty because it leads each participating nation to decide whether to accept visits by nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships. Article 5 of the treaty states: Each party in the exercise of its sovereign rights remains free to decide for itself whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft to its ports and airfields. This has a number of predictable effects. First, it will focus political hostility on United States defence arrangements. The United States is to be regarded as a figure of suspicion. The treaty is saying: `If you want to pick on the United States, as New Zealand has done, go ahead and do so. We will even legislate to make that a valid exercise'. That is the real political effect of this document. Secondly, it is an open invitation to the Pacific Trade Union Forum, which I remind the House is a Soviet supported institution, to continue its propaganda war against the United States. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it binds Australia internationally to the proposition that no facilities will be accorded to the United States which involve nuclear arms maintenance. That is the effect of it. It freezes the United States into a situation where it is required to look to other non-treaty areas in the Pacific if, for example, it should be forced out of the Philippines. I mention the Philippines because the reality is that the United States bases there are under some political pressure which results from the present nature of Philippines politics. Those bases do a singular service to the security of the Pacific and Indian oceans. They are a prime political target and are made more exposed by this treaty. I wonder whether the Government wishes that to occur. The United States has placed very important defence reservations into its constitutional relations with island governments in the mid-Pacific. The United States base at Guam is a vital link in the security chain. The significance of that chain has been remarked upon by Mr Caspar Weinberger, when he said that seven defence agreements to which the United States is a signatory are located in that chain. They include bilateral treaties with Japan, Korea and the Philippines, the residuals of the Manila pact which involves Thailand and the in-limbo ANZUS Treaty. He pointed out that over $US137 billion of trade in the Pacific accounts for almost 30 per cent of United States foreign trade. In effect, he says that the security of the United States has become increasingly interdependent on the security of each of its Pacific allies. Thus the linking of mid-Pacific politics with south-west Pacific politics is a dynamic which will carry important implications for the stability of United States relations with its mid-Pacific partners. It is vital that this rash of anti-Americanism, which is emanating particularly at the moment from New Zealand, be contained. It is very doubtful whether, by meeting it half way, as this Government does, it will do anything more than aggravate the issue. I wonder whether that is what the Government wants to do. I remind the House that the present United States Consul-General in Sydney, Mr John Dorrance, is a much-respected official who is authoritative on Pacific questions. He wrote an article which was published in 1984, and he pointed out that, in an emergency, the United States lines of communication in the Pacific would tend to move south out of the range of Soviet aircraft. He went on to make the point that the security of the former Pacific trust territories is a United States responsibility under the constitutional settlement that now governs them. The stability of that political relationship between the United States and island governments is important not only for the United States but for Australia. There are grave doubts that the pressures from the Soviets for a politics of agitation in the Pacific will be anything but increased by this treaty. We heard from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) that the Soviet Union is benign, that we have not seen any Soviet vessels around, and we need not worry about it and that there is no immediate threat of a Soviet takeover. I have heard that sort of talk for so long that it is becoming very repetitive. There is no looking ahead in that attitude whatsoever. Because a Soviet vessel has not been sighted in the Pacific during the past three weeks, two years or whatever it is, we are asked to believe that, in the longer term, nothing will happen. It is really leaving us hostage to fortune, and it is not good enough for any government charged with the responsibility of maintaining the security of this nation to have that sort of head-in-the-sand attitude. Mr Hodgman —The honourable member for Hughes is very short-sighted, too. Mr MacKELLAR —He may be; he is certainly short-sighted politically. Essentially, the outlook of the treaty is neutralist. It says in effect that the Pacific can opt out of the great issue of maintaining strategic balance by going it alone in a nuclear-free zone. As an enticement to the United States to sign the protocols, the Pacific Forum has provided the option of opting out if there is an adverse change in the strategic situation. So the Australian Government is uneasy about the effect on the Indian-Pacific security system, but it has now gone too far to back off. The problem is that this treaty throws an onus on the United States to prove its bona fides, but it does nothing to make explicit legitimate concerns about the Soviet outreach in the Pacific. The concerns arise from the political, economic and military activities of the Soviet Union. Economic pressures are evident in the desire of Pacific island governments to move closer to the Soviet Union by settling fishing arrangements with it. And it is true that there has been a certain concern expressed by this Government at these arrangements. Politically, the existence of this treaty reflects something of the agitation sponsored by Soviet propaganda, and the fact is that New Zealand has already been heavily impacted politically through its policies on nuclear-armed and powered vessels. But the basic thrust of Soviet power is to neutralise the power of the United States fleet to support the security system of its alliances in Japan, South East Asia, and, of course, into the Indian Ocean and the Middle East. The Soviet Union has the asset of being able to secure the assistance of anti-United States political agitation in this country and in New Zealand, with the consequence that the real significance of ascendant Soviet power is downplayed. We heard a classic example of that in the speech by the honourable member for Hughes. Let us have a look at the facts, because they are fairly stark. In the Melbourne Age Supplement on Defence 86, the Commander-in-Chief United States Pacific Command, Admiral Ronald Hays, argued quite sensibly that Moscow realises that democracy, peace and economic well-being among the Pacific nations will thwart Soviet regional ambitions. A stable environment, he thinks, is fundamental to the United States interests. I believe that this treaty has placed Australian diplomatic efforts in the wrong direction and instead of encouraging confidence in the United States intentions does exactly the opposite and feeds on prospects of instability. Admiral Hays listed the following Russian developments of significance: A Far Eastern theatre nuclear force that fields one-third of their SS-20 missile inventory. 80 backfire bombers capable of striking targets throughout the Pacific with either nuclear or conventional weapons. An increase over the past two decades from 20 to 50 modern mobile combat divisions. In the occupied Japanese northern territories, improved and permanent military bases supporting more capable aircraft and nuclear-capable modern missiles. A Far East arsenal of more than 1,700 sophisticated tactical combat planes, to include the latest MIG31 and SU27. A rapidly growing Pacific armada-the largest of their four fleets. In fact, the Pacific fleet contains a third of their naval assets. Those facts would not be disputed by any respectable analyst, but the question might well be asked: `Why does this information have to be made available to Australian public opinion through a United States source?' Why has not the Government alerted the people of Australia to these facts? What does the Government have to hide in relaying to the Australian public the facts about the increase in Soviet power and authority? An indicator of the difficulty that this Government has with its left wing is that it cannot confront Australian public opinion with the full facts. So the United States has to do it for us in our own country. According to Admiral Hays, on any given day 40 to 50 Soviet naval units can be found operating throughout the Pacific and Indian Oceans. We all know the significance of the loss of Cam Ranh Bay facilities to the Soviets. It provides a port in South East Asia and gives the Soviets easy support facilities to Soviet operations not only in the Pacific but also in the Indian Ocean where the Soviets are also supported from bases in South Yemen and Ethiopia. The admiral, like us all, is concerned about the political manoeuvring in the Pacific. He observes that Moscow, with more nuclear weapons than any other nation, can feel only encouraged by the spectacle of the United States and New Zealand slugging it out over the visits of naval ships. Accordingly, he argues that the Soviet strategy in the Pacific is clear. He says: Their short-range objective is to establish good relations and some dependence. In this they have offered Fiji what the admiral describes as `a grab bag offer . . . including deals in sugar, fishing, trade and cultural visits'. In the longer run they hope to engender suspicion of all things Western and eventual alienation against Western influence. They are the views of the United States Pacific Command. I have no doubt that in the main the Government agrees with those views, but it is very much afraid of offending the left wing by saying so. Therefore, we have a situation where Australian public opinion is left to see its way clear to support the United States alliance amidst assaults on it by the champions of the Soviet arguments. Unfortunately we have had some champions of that Soviet argument taking part from the Labor Party side of the House in this debate. There is a further concern that the Australian Government has led off on its own to draw up this treaty for a nuclear free zone. It is very clear that the United States is very reluctant about the concept. We have had to go to the United States on bended knee to plead with it to attach its signature to a protocol which has the dubious merit of inviting the United States to denounce the protocol if things turn out bad for the United States in the Pacific. We all know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been guilty of many misjudgments from the time that he blew out the Australian wage system, to its present day encumbrance on our manufacturing competitiveness and through this to our current economic tribulations. Let us hope that he can be justified in his optimism which led him to place more emphasis on concern about United States nuclear policy in the Pacific than on Soviet activities and intentions. I do not think he is right. I think he should be very careful to analyse in the longer term the Soviet ambitions in this part of the world and right throughout the world. In my view this treaty does nothing to thwart those ambitions and it does very little indeed to bolster up the support for our treaty partner, the United States. The chickens will inevitably come home to roost and it will be for some other government to bear the burden of coping with the mistaken approach to foreign policy represented in this sad legislation. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(6.13) —Much of what the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) has said hardly stands up to scrutiny. I will deal with it a little later as I will deal with a few comments from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) in his earlier address to the chamber. When Australia signed the Treaty of Rarotonga, on the fortieth anniversary of the world's first experience of nuclear weapons, it immediately undertook a number of significant international obligations. The purpose of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, together with two complementary Bills, is to give statutory effect to those obligations. Indeed the package of related Bills goes far beyond the technical requirements for ratification of the treaty. The legislation provides a comprehensive legal framework giving support to every aspect of the treaty and is a demonstration of the most practical kind of the Government's commitment to global and regional security and arms control. It is appropriate at the outset to focus on the Treaty to which this legislation will give domestic legal effect. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty has been the subject of a great deal of criticism, most of it either contrived or based on ignorance or deluded understanding of international affairs. The Treaty of Rarotonga represents a significant achievement, an important step forward, that has gained recognition and respect in international forums. The South Pacific Forum countries, and particularly Australia and the Hawke Labor Government, have demonstrated in this Treaty not only a commitment to and a desire for peace in a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons but also that they can do the hard, tedious and difficult work that progress on disarmament and arms control requires. The treaty demonstrates a growing maturity among the nations of the South Pacific. It shows a clear and rational appreciation of the delicate and difficult balance between the desire for isolation from the nuclear world and the realities of national, regional and collective security. As is the case with any and every measure, as a guarantee of preservation against the threat of nuclear war it leaves much to be desired. Nevertheless, it remains an important step. Much of the criticism of the Treaty of Rarotonga, particularly the paternalistic platitudes from the Australian Democrats, condemns it on the grounds of inadequacy. Critics say that it does not go far enough, that it is not tough or far reaching enough and that it does not prohibit the transit or visits of nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels or aircraft. Some have even ventured to say that without a comprehensive ban on all nuclear material, including ships, within the zone, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is worse than useless and that the region would be better off without it. Such comments reflect more on the ability of those voicing such criticisms to come to grips with the reality of life in an irreversible nuclear age than they do on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Much is often made of comparison with the Latin American nuclear free zone treaty known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco with the view of establishing that as more credible than the zone in the South Pacific. What must be clearly understood from the outset is that the Treaty of Tlatelolco operates as a land based treaty covering the sovereign jurisdiction of its member states in South America, which is entirely different from the geographic factors inherent in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone which encompasses vast areas of international waters and shipping lanes. For the South Pacific treaty to attempt or to purport to do what it would have no power to do-that is, to regulate the passage of ships in international waters-would be to damage the credibility of the entire treaty in the eyes of the international community. Similarly, the question of port visits was an issue that could have prevented any treaty being resolved had the South Pacific nations not recognised that every nation has a sovereign right to continue collective security arrangements with external powers. Indeed, one could say that those collective security arrangements that form the Western alliance have been a factor, some might say a major factor, in the peaceful development of the Pacific region to date. To compromise those arrangements, as some argue, in measures neither legally nor practically enforceable, would not enhance the reality of disarmament or arms control one inch. Mr Andrew —Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —A quorum is not present. Ring the bells. The bells being rung- Mr Baldwin —What is the point of all this? Mr Tim Fischer —Democracy. Mr Charles —What a load of crap! Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take offence at the language used by the honourable member. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call on the honourable member for Isaacs to withdraw that comment; it was entirely unparliamentary. Mr CHARLES —If he is such a prude, I will withdraw in deference to the Chair. (Quorum formed) Mr CHARLES —There is another group which, more for the attraction of political point scoring than intellectual commitment, has contrived to denigrate the South Pacific nuclear free zone because it goes too far. Most obvious in this minority is the former Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong. As I said earlier, I will refer a little later to the comments that he made in his previous address. The honourable member referred to the treaty in a radio interview on AM some time ago as both dangerous, a folly and a farce. Perhaps a more rational, objective and relevant view is that of Dr Robert O'Neill, a director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. On AM on 8 August last year, speaking of the treaty, Dr O'Neill said: I think the concentration of the treaty on nuclear testing, the actual stationing of nuclear weapons in the area, and the ban against the dumping of nuclear materials, is looking at the most sensible, the most deliverable parts of the whole array of anti-nuclear measures that can be taken. I think Mr Hawke is on the right side of this issue. I think he will demonstrate to the rest of the world that there is a serious concern with nuclear activities in the South Pacific. I think it also helps to underline that the concept being implemented is a sensible one, one that does not infringe any international orders. It does not seek to deprive major maritime powers of their traditional freedoms of the high seas that they have been used to and, generally speaking, the role that Australia has played in trying to bring this kind or regime about is I think a highly creditable one. The Government's South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Bill will take that highly commendable role one step further. It will enact, as part of a comprehensive package, a statutory obligation on Australia to prohibit the manufacture, production, acquisition, storage and stationing, and research and development into nuclear explosive devices. This applies regardless of whether these explosions are so-called peaceful purposes which is allowed under the Tlatelolco Treaty. This will extend to all Australian territories. Part II of the Bill provides severe penalties for offences related to the possession, control, stationing, testing and the nuclear explosive devices. The Bill further provides for complementary legislation to give effect to other South Pacific nuclear free zone obligations, specifically the prevention of the dumping of radioactive waste in the South Pacific and safeguards in relation to the handling of nuclear material. In accordance with the treaty obligations undertaken by Australia, the Bill provides the structure and ground rules for inspections to ensure monitoring and compliance of the treaty and procedures for the lodgment of complaints of treaty violations. Appropriately, the penalties for breaches of the Act reflect the gravity of the offences and demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government views the observance of the treaty. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will refer briefly to some of the comments made by the honourable member for Kooyong in his earlier address to this House. He suggested that a conservative government would have home porting or permanently stationed missile or other nuclear weapons on Australian soil if that government felt that it was appropriate to do so. We have been through all that in the 1960s when the conservative government took us down the Vietnam road where over 500 Australians died. We are still trying to find the reason. This was engineered by a former conservative Prime Minister, not for the well being of the South East Asian area or for the well being of the globe, but purely for political reasons. `All the way with L.B.J.', said another conservative Prime Minister and the conservative government took us down that road. Here we have the honourable member for Kooyong, the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs and former Leader of the Opposition-he probably will be again after the next election-saying: `Yes, it is no problem. We will have home porting, we will station nuclear weapons on our soil if we think it is appropriate'. I am sorry to say to the honourable member for Kooyong that the vast majority of Australian people just do not agree with him. That is absolute nonsense. I hope he goes to the next election and the election after that with the sort of nonsense that we are to station nuclear weapons on Australian soil and that we will be in every scrap that is going. Australia has grown up and matured a little more than those days when we were carted in to every scrap by every conservative government that ever sat in this Parliament. The honourable member for Kooyong also referred to New Zealand. In numerous debates in this House I have asked him what he would have done. He has still failed to answer that question in the hours he has spent on his feet in this House. He said today in effect that he would have gone to New Zealand on a big white charger and told the people there what they should be doing. I think the people of New Zealand would not have taken too kindly to that. The diplomatic politics of `thump them over the head hard and often and they will get the message', is well gone. That is why we have seen some diplomatic boo boos even from the United States of America at times when it occasionally has a rush of blood to its head and tries that sort of thing. It does not work. Equally, if any foreign nation came into Australia, if any foreign Prime Minister or Minister for Foreign Affairs from another country came in and said, `Listen you lot, it is about time you did this, that or the other or we will get heavy with you', the Australian people would not wear it. Equally, if someone did that to New Zealand, it would take offence too. We do not win battles or win people over by threatening to bash them into the ground. That is all that the honourable member for Kooyong was offering today. He would have charged in and he would have told them. We have done a lot of work. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is at the table, has done a lot of work, as has the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). At this stage the people of New Zealand, through their government, do not agree with our position. We will persevere, but we cannot tell them what to do. New Zealand is a sovereign state and it will have to make its own decisions. We disagree with the people of New Zealand, but so be it. I agreed with one comment made by the honourable member for Kooyong during his speech regarding dumping. There could be a separate protocol in the treaty for dumping. Perhaps that should be looked at in the not too distant future. I think that is a good thought and perhaps it could be pursued. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) talked all sorts of nonsense that really had no relevance to the legislation. He said it would disenfranchise the United States right across the board, which is rubbish. This Bill does not change the existing situation in the South Pacific; it enshrines the existing situation where there is no nuclear testing, no stationing of nuclear missiles and no dumping of nuclear wastes, et cetera. It enshrines that, and so that should be. It does not alter the situation regarding the United States or anyone else in their capacity to transit the waters, to keep their obligations under treaties or alliances such as the ANZUS treaty. When the Hawke Government assumed office and started work on a South Pacific nuclear free zone, it recognised the difficulties that lay ahead. It was mindful of the abortive attempts of the New Zealand Rowling Labor Government in the early 1970s whose idealistic zeal wilted in the heat of international reality. Certainly those naive and ever hopeful of a dramatic, simple eradication of nuclear weapons remain disappointed and disillusioned by our efforts. For those so deluded, nothing short of their particular vision, no matter how hard fought, is ever enough. And yet to the majority of the Australian people an effective, responsible compromise has been reached. The Hawke Government has ensured that while preserving Australia's right as a sovereign nation to maintain its collective security arrangements, our region has made a rational, mature step on to the international stage. This Bill and the Treaty to which it gives effect come at a time when there is little to speak of in the recent record of global or regional disarmament and arms control initiatives-and this is an arms control initiative. When the record, the reality and all the relevant factors are weighed, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty remains in front as a worthwhile achievement, and as an important element in the Hawke Government's highly credible efforts in disarmament and arms control. I urge all honourable members on both sides of the House to support the Bill to demonstrate our collective support for the enacting into Australian law of the provisions of the Treaty of Rarotonga. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(6.31) —My reasonably brief contribution to the debate on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill will be based on an element which I regard as extremely important. I refer to the impression given to the world as to why this Government is enthusiastically supporting this legislation. My personal contribution to this debate is based on information I and others have gathered over a period of years. It is no good saying, as did the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), that not a single Soviet vessel has been sighted in the South Pacific. That is absolute nonsense. I have had the advantage of a briefing, as has the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), with Admiral Hays. We were led by an eminent member of the Labor Party, the member for Brisbane (Mr Cross). We were given the facts clearly and precisely. What we heard was not just a political contribution. Admiral Hays had no political barrow to push. I had had a previous briefing from Admiral Long and both were totally in accord. The substance of that briefing was to the effect that the intrusion, manoeuvres or exercises by Soviet vessels in the Pacific at present are equal to the Soviet movements evaluated in the Indian Ocean. That ran to some 30-odd submarines alone. Is this some sort of communist kicking exercise or scare tactic? No, this came from the Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, CINPAC, the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Ocean area, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Persian Gulf area, to use the old term. Here were the facts. In addition, there was further information that can be checked out. One may ask what the Soviet Union has to do with all this. I am talking of processing this particular anti-nuclear zone and what sort of messages will go abroad. Will the message be that there are elements in the present Government who are more than anxious to create close relationships with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? I think the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself recently stated that now is the opportunity to take advantage of the situation in view of the difference of opinion with the United States of America over the wheat agreements. I do not think there are any members of this House who represent more wheat growers than I do. I have two problems. One is that I have a close affinity with-and I make no secret of it-and an admiration for the United States of America. Without the United States where would the sort of world we want be? Who would provide the safeguard? Who would serve warning on these tyrants who have a totally obnoxious philosophy? I face a dilemma. The wheat growers in my area are in real trouble and one of their greatest problems arises from the wheat agreements. One fact is always overlooked. What is said when dealing with the bases is that we should serve notice on the Americans, tell them to get the hell out of it, pack up and to get out of Pine Gap. Mr Nehl —No way. Mr KATTER —No way, as my honourable friend says. That is so for a very obvious reason. Our protection, our defence, our security and our capacity to go to bed at night with the feeling that we are pretty right for the time being at least rests very heavily on the one safeguard we have. I refer to an element of protection from one of the most powerful nations on earth. If the United States moves out, who moves in? In dealing with this nuclear free zone I ask whether there is anyone in this nation who would support the possiblity of any sort of nuclear conflict, or anything that even suggests the possibility of a nuclear holocaust. No one would support that. Let us be reasonable about this. What concerns members on this side of the House-and I know that there are members opposite who are equally concerned-is that this legislation is not even-handed. Has there been a great uproar, a great outcry about Chernobyl? We have read about it in the media but there have been no demonstrations-or perhaps there were one or two. If Reagan were to drop one word somewhere, the media which seem dedicated to the destruction of American leader after American leader-one wonders about it-would scream to high heaven. They would say: `Here is the brutal arms runner, the international gangster who wants to cause a holocaust and star wars'. I will tell honourable members something, and every newspaper, radio station and television station, if they are interested in the likes of me, can use it if they like. I say: Thank God we have Star Wars and that particular process and operation'. We have served notice on the Soviet Union that the sort of country that protects us is one step ahead of it. It has a technical advantage which, for the time being at least, will give protection. Those who lean towards the Soviet Union throw up their arms in despair and ask that Star Wars be got rid of because it is catching up with their mates in the Soviet Union. It is not catching up, but it is well ahead in that category. Star Wars is to them a dirty word. In relation to the South Pacific, the toe in the door argument could be put forward. I am sure the honourable member for Hughes was not serious when he said there was not a single Soviet vessel in the South Pacific. He could not possibly have given thought to that comment. I am sure that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is at the table and for whom I have great respect, would regard that comment as an absolute joke. One adds to the argument the fact that heavily armed nuclear submarines are prowling around. They are in the area. Add to that the Soviet base in the vicinity of Japan in the north-west Pacific. That base is just as advanced as, if not more so than, the Soviet bases in Eastern Europe. It is every bit as capable of conducting a global war. One can take one's pick, one can have either a nuclear war or a conventional war. The Soviets are ready for it and are ready to press buttons. There is another great danger, and it relates to the mentality of certain small countries. The psychological argument is, `Be red or dead'. The Soviets say to the emerging peoples of the world, who are feeling their way: `We are so far ahead of the United States, we in the communist world, we in the Eastern Europe group of nations, that you are gone if you stick with the United States'. When Libya was attacked they ran for cover. However, it was rather interesting that when that incident was over West Germany and some of those countries began to come back to the fold because they were not committed in any way. It is very easy to stand on the sideline and say `Go to it, Reagan, give them another burst', as long as we are not involved. But there are some countries that are involved-God bless them and God protect them. Thus we have this combination of three elements-and I will go through them again. First, there is the intrusion, the toe in the door of the South Pacific by the Soviet Union; then there are the ships that prowl around; and then there is that giant organisation which the Soviet Union has up on the north west rim of the Pacific basin. If that does not add up to an obvious threat, I do not know what does. My final comment is-and I will sit down after this-that we must be terribly careful that when this legislation is passed-regrettably it will go through-we do not serve notice on the world that we are not even handed. Let us not say `Well, okay we have created this situation' and add to it the attitude of the New Zealand Government and Mr Lange. In these circumstances why would the United States not say `It looks as if we are finished there; all we have left is Indonesia'? Let us face up to realities. If this country is to go in that direction, lean a little more towards Lange all the time and put up this umbrella, we must accept the consequences. Could it be that the trade consequences are a result of this attitude? I totally oppose the Bill on that basis of all the dangers that are involved. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(6.42) —The contribution of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), provides a useful illustration of the difficulty of conducting a rational debate about these sorts of matters. I found his contribution extraordinary in that he referred constantly to the Soviet threat and the possibility of Soviet ships entering the South Pacific region, yet he made no attempt at any stage to demonstrate how the ratification or coming into force of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty would affect in any way the operation of United States forces in the South Pacific region. The Treaty and this South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill have been drafted arduously in order to avoid any possibility of placing an impediment in the way of the operation of United States forces in the relevant region. Therefore I really do not know what the honourable member is talking about. There is a legitimate area of debate about how much virtue one sees in the United States alliance and that has gone on extensively in the Australian Labor Party, but for the honourable member for Kennedy to try to infer that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty has the consequences that he implies is utterly ludicrous. The Treaty has been carefully drafted to avoid any such consequences. This piece of legislation is the Government's attempt to give legislative force to the substantive provisions of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The Government has chosen a particular legislative path from several possible options. It has deliberately gone beyond what was minimally required in order for Australia to ratify the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Were we to do the minimum in the legislative area to ratify the Treaty it would involve provisions regarding the privileges and immunities of inspectors, sea dumping and a couple of other matters. What the Government has in fact done is give legislative force to the substantive provisions relating to the non-acquisition, testing and stationing of nuclear weapons. I think that decision is to be applauded and I strongly support the Government's going down that particular path. It is worth considering the sort of treaty that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is. Its title is the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, but it is not that in the sense that it does not preclude all kinds of nuclear related activities from its area of operation. Obviously it allows nuclear powered or armed vessels to transit and to visit ports at the discretion of the signatory states. It also permits the stationing of facilities such as the ones we have in Australia which are part of a global nuclear war fighting apparatus. In that sense the Treaty is a little bit of a misnomer. On the other hand, it represents something more than simply a nuclear free weapons zone treaty in that it has provisions relating to dumping of radioactive waste and also the prohibition of the detonation of ostensibly peaceful nuclear explosions in the area. I guess if one were trying to think of a title for it one would conclude that this title is as appropriate as any, but it is a little inaccurate to describe it as a comprehensive nuclear free zone treaty. Since the debate on this proposal was revived in 1983, various points of view have been put forward in the region as to what the treaty should involve. These range from the view held by Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and New Zealand, which would prefer to see a more comprehensive type of treaty encompassing the transitting and visiting of ships, to the views of states such as Tonga and more recently the Cook Islands, which seem to have some concern that the Treaty would impede the operation of United States forces and the functioning of the ANZUS alliance in the region in some way, although no one has been able to point out in what way the Treaty would have those consequences. There is a range of viewpoints there. I might add that the Treaty has aspects which are unenforceable in any legal sort of sense. The best indicator of that is the way in which the boundaries of the treaty zone are drawn. The boundaries do not consist of the areas-the land areas, territorial seas and so forth-where the signatory states have some power actually to enforce the provisions of the Treaty. The Treaty zone takes in a very broad area ranging from the boundary of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in the east, to the boundaries where the zone abuts the Antarctic treaty area in the south, to the Equator with a little variation to include Kiribati in the north and in the west it is essentially the boundary of Australia's territorial waters. That is a vast ocean area and it includes an awful lot of water that is not part of anyone's territorial sea. Obviously any provisions relating to those areas are unenforceable in any legal sense. In fact, the Treaty specifies that it is not intended to violate any aspects of the law of the sea or anything of that sort. In other words, to a considerable degree the Treaty has a symbolic significance and a so-called picture frame model for determining the boundary of the Treaty signifies the fact that to a large degree it is a type of political statement as distinct from something that is totally legally enforceable in the strict sense. I wish to talk about the value of a treaty of this kind. Its critics from various sides claim that it is a `Mickey Mouse treaty' which has no real effect on the real world. The arguments put forward there are generally along the lines that all the signatory States are signatories to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which covers a number of significant aspects of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. A further argument is that there is no nuclear activity of the sort prohibited by the treaty within the treaty zone, apart from the French nuclear testing in Polynesia, which the French have made perfectly clear they have no intention of stopping, irrespective of whether the Treaty is adopted. It could be argued that the Treaty's impact on activity in the South Pacific nuclear free zone is minimal. In one sense that is true, although the adoption of a treaty of this sort would apply a degree of moral pressure on France which over time might exert some impact on the French to stop testing earlier than they might have done otherwise. It is arguable that there might be a benefit of that sort. To say that the Treaty's coming into force will not change the status quo in the zone area does not imply, in my view, that the Treaty has no value. The main value of the treaty is in terms of impeding any future possible nuclear activity of the sort prohibited by the Treaty in the area, particularly in the territories of some States which might sign the protocols, which might otherwise like to station nuclear weapons or conduct tests. I think there is an impediment to such states engaging in such activities. Australia's action in pursuing this Treaty sends a most important signal to a state such as Indonesia, which might be contemplating developing nuclear weapons, or might contemplate it at some future stage. It is an important and explicit signal that we have no intention of going down that path. Obviously, if Australia had actively and successfully pursued the adoption of this Treaty and were then to start to develop nuclear weapons, it would look pretty stupid. In my opinion, there is a major impediment and a major disincentive to states in the area going down that track. That sort of pressure arising from the regional context complements the provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which all South Pacific states are signatories. The most important aspect or benefit of the Treaty is in terms of placing some sort of impediment in the way of possible future nuclear activity in the region. I referred earlier to the variety of positions taken by potential signatory states and ratifiers. A number of those states recently expressed some reservations about the Treaty, including some that initially were quite happy to sign it. One of the most important examples is Papua New Guinea, which signed the Treaty in September of last year, but since the change of government there has been a degree of ambivalence in its position. It is now tending to favour a tougher line along the lines of Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. Those two states have reservations because they do not think the Treaty is tough enough. On the other hand, we have the statement by Sir Thomas Davis, the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, indicating his belief that the Treaty might in some way impede the operation of ANZUS and that in consequence his country might contemplate formal neutrality. There are a number of non-sequiturs which escape me. I do not see how, if a country decides to go down the path of neutrality, that should be an impediment to its ratifying the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The fact is that there are a number of difficulties in terms of potential signatory states and ratifiers and hopefully they will be smoothed out. Whatever view one takes about whether a tougher type of treaty is more desirable than the one we have-frankly, I am somewhat sympathetic to that view personally, but that is obviously not the Government's position-it still remains the case that getting this Treaty in place, bedded down and accepted is of considerable value for the reasons I outlined earlier. It is a crazy approach to say that because the Treaty does not encompass all the elements one would like to see it encompass, one should regard the Treaty as having no value and should try actively to impede its coming into force. I do not think that is a rational course of action, even if one takes the view taken by New Zealand, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and apparently Papua New Guinea about the desirability of other elements in the Treaty. Another question relates to the position of the states which might be expected to sign the protocols attached to the Treaty. The first of those protocols involves states which have territories in the area-the United States of America, Great Britain and France-and which adhere to the provisions of the treaty in respect of their territories in the treaty zone. There is no prospect of the French acceding to that protocol in the foreseeable future, but the other two states might go along with it. Another significant protocol is the one which is supposed to be signed by the five existing nuclear weapons states. They undertake not to use, or to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons against signatory states in the area. There are some obvious difficulties there. For example, the Soviet Union might wish to target the joint facilities in the event of a nuclear war breaking out. It is difficult to see how it could fail to target those facilities, which seems to suggest that it would be difficult for it to give an undertaking on that protocol, or an undertaking which is meaningful or credible. It seems to me to be a significant problem and I hope some formulation can be arrived at which enables that to be overcome. We might be waiting for a long time before we get a definite response on the protocols, if the Treaty of Tlatelolco is anything to go by. Some of the signatory states to that Treaty did not endorse the protocols, notwithstanding that they had no objection to or problem with them, until a considerable time afterwards. We might be waiting for a long time, but hopefully not. The protocols do not have to be signed in order for the Treaty to come into force-basically the Treaty only requires eight states to ratify it before it comes into force-but we might be waiting a long time for a definite outcome on the protocols. I think the Treaty has value. There may be some potential problems-we should not hold our breath on the protocols being signed-but it has great symbolic importance. The desirability of such arrangements is explicitly recognised in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and at the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference last year the initiative in establishing the zone was applauded. I think it is a definite step in the right direction. I am happy that the Government has gone down the path of legislating the substantive provisions of the Treaty. I conclude on a somewhat different note. I am among those in the Australian Labor Party who were very disturbed at our decision in effect to allow the resumption of uranium shipments to France before it ceases testing in the region. Given the great importance of symbolism, one could not imagine a worse type of symbolic gesture than that. Even if one takes the view that by continuing to adhere to the ban we are just giving the French the opportunity to get uranium on the spot market at a cheaper price than they would have had to pay under the contractual arrangements, the ban on uranium shipments to France was never a huge practical impediment to the French continuing a program to develop nuclear weapons. Any cost differentials that might emerge are pretty insignificant in terms of the decision of the French to develop or not develop nuclear weapons. In my opinion, the overwhelming importance of the ban on uranium shipments to France was what it signified about this country's stance on such matters and I regret the decision that has been taken as part of the Budget process. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(7.00) —I join with my colleagues on this side of the House in expressing some considerable concern about this legislation and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. This Treaty is, of course, the centrepiece of the Government's specific strategy and it really has to be seen in the overall context of the political, strategic and economic situation in the Pacific region today. Clearly, when one looks at that overall scene, one sees that, in the last two decades, the Pacific has been one of the power-houses of global economic growth. There has been an enormous increase in trade within the region and each nation, with very few exceptions, has enjoyed considerable economic growth internally. As a result of this change in the economic situation in the Pacific and its growing importance economically, the region has also assumed much greater political importance, and that assumption of greater political importance was inevitable. I think it is true to say that, in the main, over the last two or three decades, the Pacific, particularly the South Pacific, has in a political context enjoyed a great deal of stability. There are two real reasons for its achieving that stability and they are important to understand. First of all, that stability has been derived from the economic success of the region and from the growth in trade between the countries of the region which, as I have said, has been immense. Secondly, that region has remained stable because of the security it has been given by the network of alliances. I think it is important to emphasise that the ANZUS alliance has been the centrepiece of that network of alliances, be they formal alliances or informal alliances. It has been to the advantage certainly of the South Pacific that conflict between the super-powers has not really been a reality in that region. In fact, there has been effectively no Soviet presence in the South Pacific until the last few years. The exercise of the policy of strategic denial, as it is sometimes called by the United States of America, with the support of Australia and, in the past, New Zealand, has really been a policy of great success and, as I am emphasising, has provided tremendous stability for the region. There is no doubt that that whole scene has begun to change quite significantly. If one were to go back 10 years I suppose that one could identify the starting point of that considerable change. From a position of great stability, we have now begun to move towards a degree of unfortunate instability in the region. I think that has two basic causes. One of the causes is certainly not a change in the economic circumstances of the region because economic growth in the Pacific is still going ahead, despite the problems that Australia has. The first of the two causes is a substantial change in domestic policies and politics in the countries of the Pacific. One has to look only at countries such as Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand to see the way the political situation in those countries has changed so markedly. We had Father Lini of Vanuatu at the recent South Pacific Forum exercising a new sort of political muscle by concentrating his remarks on the situation in the Middle East and South Africa and apparently refusing to discuss the growing encroachment of the Soviet Union in the South Pacific. This change in domestic politics and the domestic political flavour of these countries has led to a change also in foreign policy attitudes. There has been a growing feeling against the super-powers. There has been a growing belief in the concept of what is sometimes called moral equivalence, which is something I strongly oppose. There has also been a very strong growth in feeling against the French. I must say that I think some of that feeling against the French is quite legitimate, particularly in the context of their nuclear tests and their attitude to New Caledonia. There is also a growing feeling against countries such as Australia which are perceived to be the big brother, both economically and politically in the region; it is believed that a policy which separates their interests from those of a larger country is an assertion of independence and should be pursued. We have seen very recently reports of something known informally as the Melanesian association which includes Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands. That sort of development at least shows a very significant change in foreign policy attitudes in the region and, in my view, it is not a terribly positive change. It is also important to emphasise the growing role of the Soviet Union in the region. This has been emphasised by a number of my colleagues. It is indisputable that the Soviet Union has launched a diplomatic offensive in the South Pacific whereas previously it really had no interest or involvement in the region-at least not since the early part of the last century. In the last few years it has begun a diplomatic offensive which has concentrated on obtaining fishing rights in a number of countries. Of course we are all aware of the signing of an agreement with Kiribati in 1985, under which the Soviets agreed to pay, I think $1.7m per annum in rent. It has held talks with Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu with a view to developing fishing rights but the logical extension of that is to enhance its political influence. In doing that it is, of course, affecting the stability of the region, affecting the balance of power in the region, and that is something that, as Australians, we should resist and regret. It is interesting to recall the words of Moscow Radio on 15 July 1984, the day after Mr Lange was elected Prime Minister of New Zealand. Moscow radio said: The Lange victory could set off a chain reaction leading to the collapse of the ANZUS bloc. Of course that was said in the light of it being a good thing. So the Soviet Union has a growing interest and also growing political influence in the area. Others have spoken at some length about the buildup of Soviet military forces. I do not want to repeat all that but it is an important point to make. The Soviet Union's Pacific fleet is the largest of its four fleets. Some 32 per cent of the Soviet Union's naval assets are in the Pacific region; it has about 800 ships and 120 submarines in that part of the world. I conclude by referring to Prime Minister Lange of New Zealand, who said that the Soviet objective in the Pacific was `to neutralise the Pacific'. I could not have put it better but it is ironical that a man such as Mr Lange should make that remark. The challenge for Australia is to meet these changing circumstances. We have to do what we can, as a significant nation in the region, to maintain the economic stability of this part of the world as well as its political and strategic stability. I do not believe that the Government has done that. It has done the reverse. First of all with the exception of this South Pacific treaty it has pursued a policy of virtual negligence in this area. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has been very active in a number of areas of the world and he has done some very positive things but he has not concentrated on the Pacific. I think I am right in saying that he has visited the Pacific islands only once in his three years as the Foreign Minister. It has certainly not been one of his priorities. All of us noted the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) not to attend the South Pacific Forum recently but to send his deputy. As the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has pointed out, the Government has stood by and watched the ANZUS alliance crumble. I believe, as does the honourable member for Kooyong, that the Government should have done a great deal more to try to hold up the ANZUS alliance and maintain New Zealand's involvement, particularly in the light of the developments I have already described. The Government has made one sole contribution and that is the subject of this debate-the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Frankly much of this Treaty is quite platitudinous and much of it is already covered by other international agreements. Basically it reiterates a great deal of what is in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a treaty to which Australia is not only a signatory but also one which it has strongly supported on a bipartisan basis. The Treaty moves against testing and that is laudable. The Liberal Government under Malcolm Fraser opposed French nuclear testing; the present Government opposes it as did the Whitlam Government. There is a bipartisan position on that matter. The treaty opposes the dumping of nuclear waste and all of us on this side of the House agree with that. It allows the passage of nuclear armed vessels through the region and of course we support that. The Treaty also, with the permission of the host country, allows visits by ships and planes-under, I think, Clause 15-to the various ports and airfields of the region. All of those measures are supported by this side of the House and it would be wrong for honourable members on the other side to conclude falsely that we do not support them. I want to emphasise that point. Why is it necessary to reiterate all these things in the form of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty? The answer is that the raison d'etre of the Treaty-this needs to be understood-is to attack the French and the French involvement at Muroroa, and possibility at a later stage in New Caledonia. I do not condone what the French are doing at Mururoa-quite the contrary-but I think this has to be understood as the raison d'etre of the Treaty. When we consider the Treaty in the context of other countries that are important to us as members of the Western alliance, that is a very significant factor. I have two objections to the Treaty. One is that it is basically an anti-French treaty and little else, and except for the platitudes that we all support, it embarrasses a number of our major allies. Secondly, I think it could be described also as the first stone that has fallen from the edifice which is the Western alliance in our region. It could eventually lead to an avalanche which would swamp ultimately the Western alliance in the Pacific. Let us consider the point about the Treaty embarrassing our allies and the Western alliance. It is important to note that the United States of America and Great Britain, as well as France, have been asked to sign the protocol of the Treaty. So, too, have the Soviet Union and China. The Soviets are very happy to sign the protocol. I quote from Izvestia of 7 August 1986. It said: The creation of a nuclear free zone would contribute to the formation of a multilateral system of security in the Asia-Pacific region. Actually, that is not something that we want. We have gained great stability through the ANZUS alliance in the region and the role that it has played. Izvestia also said: At the consultations held in February 1986 in Moscow with a delegation of the South Pacific forum, the Soviet side declared that the Treaty, together with the protocols under discussion, basically meet the criteria which the Soviet Union put forward in regard to nuclear free zones. There is much support from the Soviet Union, and doubtless it will sign the protocol, but for countries such as the United States and Great Britain, which are much more important to our security, our stability and our economy than the Soviet Union, it is a matter of considerable embarrassment. Great Britain is being asked to sign the protocol, and it must be understood that effectively it is being asked to denounce France. That is a difficult position for the British. They do not condone French nuclear testing at Mururoa, but at the same time they are allies with France in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They are not in the militarily integrated part of NATO, but they are NATO allies. Perhaps more importantly, Great Britain is a partner with France in the European community. The British support the concept of a nuclear free zone, but one of the criteria they use for their support of a nuclear free zone is that all the states in the region should agree with the zone. Clearly, in this instance France is one of the states in the region, and France, for its own reasons, believes that it cannot agree to the terms of the Treaty. The Treaty creates a very real dilemma for a country such as Britain and as a result it is not clear whether Britain feels that it can reasonably sign the Treaty. It has received, inevitably, strong representations from the French not to do so. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) said recently in Fiji that the British were going to sign the protocol to the Treaty, as were the Americans, but that does not prove to be the case. As yet, neither country has made a commitment. The Americans have similar problems with the Treaty, but they have additional ones. They are worried that the Treaty could be the beginning of the end of the concept of strategic denial in the region, and I have explained how that would happen. They are concerned also that this is part of what they describe as the nuclear allergy. In other words, they fear that it will spread and that there will be greater pressure on the Americans to support nuclear free zones in other parts of the world or, even if the Americans do not support them, for those nuclear free zones to come about. There is a proposal for a Nordic nuclear free zone. Norway is a member of NATO, so clearly that presents a problem. There is a proposal for a South East Asian zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. That too, I think, would present a major problem to the United States in maintaining the balance of power in our part of the world and it would also present a problem for Australia itself. One of the real problems with this Treaty is that it presents divisions for the Western alliance in the Pacific region-divisions between Britain and France, divisions between the United States and France-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.15) —I take the opportunity during the adjournment debate tonight to raise a matter which has been the subject of some adverse Press comment so far as the Government is concerned and also to express my personal concern that the Government did not announce in the Budget last night any changes, either administrative or otherwise, to its most retrograde fringe benefits tax arrangements. I will read to the House a telex of which members of the State Emergency Service of New South Wales have recently been informed concerning the impact of fringe benefits tax on members of that Service. Honourable members will be aware that the State Emergency Service has some employees and it also has associated with it a large number of volunteers. The telex reads: Fringe Benefits Tax and Personal Income Tax Following a seminar with the Treasury and Public Service Board, the new FBT requirements has necessitated a change in personal income tax. Payments of travelling expenses, meal allowances, mileage allowances and other determined benefits to volunteers and permanent staff will: 1. Be included as expenses on group certificates for permanent staff. 2. Be included on statements of earnings for volunteers. It is imperative that all volunteers and permanent staff maintain a dairy in such detail that will allow the appropriate declarations when submitting income tax returns, to be provided. A precise record is essential. Divisions will be required to maintain an exact record of all payments to volunteers, for advice to this office when clarification of records to be kept, etc is received from treasury consultants. Finance Branch will retain the records for permanent staff. All records are to be maintained from 1.7.86. Please note that this Department will not be keeping records of payments made by employees but rather payments made to repeat to employees and volunteers. It is recommended that volunteers and permanent staff obtain the 3 booklets, Employee's Work Expenses, Travel Expenses and Car Expenses from their local post office or taxation office. The details relating to the overall application of the fringe benefits taxation legislation will be the subject of further discussion with the Treasury's consultants. Immediately any information is available, divisions will be advised accordingly. Please ensure all volunteers are informed. The date of that telex, which related to the fringe benefits tax that was to operate from 1 July, was 15 July. So not only are employees of that organisation to be affected by the fringe benefits tax but also volunteers in relation to any travel expenses, meal allowances and mileage allowances paid to them when acting in relation to emergencies. Those payments made to them are to be included in a statement of earnings. Everybody knows that recently in New South Wales we had some disastrous floods and storm damage and volunteers were called out to assist during that emergency. It was not until the emergency was over and the volunteers sought recoupment of these funds that they were advised that they may have to produce to the Commissioner of Taxation at some future time, in order to ensure that they do not have to pay tax on any allowances they receive, diary entries, log books and the like to prove, for substantiation purposes, that they actually incurred the expenses for which they later recouped an allowance. I think this is disastrous for the State Emergency Service of New South Wales, but even more so for this Government. More particularly, it has been handled in a most inept way in that these people in New South Wales who give of their time and who volunteered to assist in emergencies have been put in a situation in which they are likely to be at the beck and call of the Commissioner of Taxation in relation to this matter. It may be-- Mr Webster —Is what you are saying true? Mr RUDDOCK —I have a copy of the telex. I read it to honourable members so that they will be aware of the situation and so that they will be able to see the very nature of the nightmare that we have, that volunteers are affected in this way and that people who have given of their time are likely to be required to keep quite complex and detailed records for fear that amounts which are paid to them merely so that they can recoup out of pocket expenses are not taxed at a later point in time. That is the impact of this legislation. I did not think that this area could possibly be affected. I can forgive the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for his slip of the tongue when he referred to this measure as the `mad fringe benefits tax' when he was challenged on this matter on television in New South Wales. The fact is that when bureaucrats are charged with the task of administering legislation of this sort, situations like this do arise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(7.20) —The flood of documents and papers crossing honourable members' desks this week has included the report of the Australian delegation to the twenty-third session of the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, held last November in Sofia, Bulgaria. This report was actually tabled in the House on 4 June this year. Perhaps this is not an appropriate time to urge further reading on honourable members. Nevertheless, I do urge honourable members to study this document. It is appropriate to record here that at this meeting Ambassador Whitlam was elected to the executive board of UNESCO, an appointment in which I believe all Australians can take pride. A reading of the report will show the breadth of activities with which UNESCO is involved. But I must say that UNESCO has been under unprecedented stress over the past two years and I have no doubt that this stress will continue. It is a matter of regret that the United States of America and the United Kingdom have recently withdrawn from this international body. I firmly hope that these withdrawals, which took place despite the exceptionally wide range of reforms recently undertaken in UNESCO, are temporary. I believe that the United States and the United Kingdom decisions to withdraw from UNESCO were made on ideological grounds. There is a general disenchantment among conservative parties on both sides of the North Atlantic with multilateral arrangements. The United States has a history of withdrawal from international organisations, but it was a surprise and, indeed, a disappointment that the United Kingdom decided also to withdraw. The Western media-and in this I must include the Australian media-have pursued a campaign of disinformation and destabilisation against UNESCO. It is a matter of regret that some members of Australian conservative parties have jumped on the bandwagon of misinformed abuse and criticism of UNESCO. We need to promote UNESCO more in this country, to understand the work it does and the benefits the world community gains from membership of this international body. In that respect I urge honourable members to take the time to look at this report and see the wide range of international activities with which UNESCO is involved. We must always ensure that information about UNESCO is correct and not hesitate to correct the flood of disinformation that appears in the Press. For example, there have been frequent insinuations of financial misappropriations and malpractice in UNESCO. Few people yet realise that UNESCO's accounts have been examined and certified by the British Auditor-General ever since 1951. Articles critical of UNESCO are still syndicated with no indication of the changes which the board has brought about since May of last year. Finally, I might add how delighted I was with the announcement that Mr Charles Mott would be our next Ambassador and permanent delegate when His Excellency, the present Ambassador, Mr Whitlam, returns to Australia. Mr Mott is an assistant secretary with the responsibility for international organisations and humanitarian affairs in the Department of Foreign Affairs. That such a senior public servant was appointed to the post illustrates this Government's commitment to the work of UNESCO. From time to time, there is criticism of UNESCO's work because some honourable members have not taken the time to acquaint themselves fully with the work done by that international body. A reading of the Australian delegation's report which went to all honourable members' offices today or yesterday will at least make them better informed about its work. Mr REITH(Flinders)(7.25) —As honourable members will be well aware, the Mornington Peninsula forms an important part of my electorate. Mount Martha and Safety Beach are two adjoining areas that would lay good claim to being some of the best parts of that electorate. They have a population of about 2,000, many of whom have retired there to enjoy the many wonderful attractions. In June 1985, for reasons that have been the subject of some controversy, television reception in the Mount Martha area was completely lost. People in that area have been without television reception for over 12 months. The commercial television stations were contacted. I pay tribute to them for their work and commitment to install translators to improve the position. On 13 March 1986, technical details of translators were submitted to the Department of Communications. Then came what must be one of the most amazing pieces of bureaucratic red tape and blockage one could come across. The Department's response was that it could not provide licences for the new translators. It could not because the Government is changing the licence system, from one that requires licences for equipment to one that requires licences for geographical service areas. The application that was lodged was for a licence for equipment. The Government said: `We are not issuing those any more. We shall give you a licence for a service-based geographical area'. Because Mount Martha forms part of Melbourne, that would mean a service area licence for the whole of Melbourne. The service area licence for the whole of Melbourne is subject to an application for conversion from one sort of licence to another which will not be completed by the end of the year. When the licence conversion is completed, the current necessity for a licence application for equipment will be obviated and such a licence will no longer be required. At the end of the year, when another permit is issued, we shall not need the permit that we now need to solve the problem at Mount Martha. On 5 June, I received a nice letter from the Acting Minister and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) who said that the new system that the Government had introduced would expedite licence applications. He said: Contrary to your Press Statement on the issue, recent amendments to Broadcasting Legislation will expedite the establishment of these translator stations. The Minister had a shot, as did the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), at the commercial television stations for not providing sufficient information. On 16 July, the Minister for Communications told me: In spite of many promises the Melbourne commercial television stations have still not submitted planning proposals to my Department. It is embarrassing for the Minister that the final information required had been lodged prior to his signing and forwarding the letter to me. The only information that was really required by the Department was submitted on 13 March. We are faced with the situation in which basically we are told: `Red tape has stopped us from issuing you this licence. We would like to help you, but we cannot'. Then there was an interesting letter from the Department of Communications to Channel 7. Because of all the red tape and mucking around that has been going on, I want to put that statement on the record. It states: Should any difficulty be experienced in completing the necessary procedures in time to commence operation by mid December other interim licensing arrangements will be instigated. The cat is out of the bag. They told us that they could not fix us up until the end of the year, but now we have received this letter from Mr Knowles in the Department of Communications saying: `If the problems get out of control there is a way round the problem in the first place'. The people of Mount Martha and Safety Beach have been without television for over 12 months. There is no reason for them to be without television and it is about time the Government started to do something about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILES(Braddon)(7.30) —It is interesting that red tape has been mentioned tonight. I reflect on an incident which occurred during the recess. I need another flag outside my office in Burnie in Tasmania. When I rang up and asked for it, they said: `That will be all right. You can have a flag, but you must have a flag pole'. I said that there was no great need for us to have a flag pole; we had had one for 10 years and it was very good. I asked them to send me the flag. They said: `You had better ring Hobart and check out the details there'. They said: `No. You must have a flag pole with your flag'. We thought that this was a bit ridiculous. They told us to check it out with Canberra. So we telephoned people in the administrative section here, and they said: `There is no way round it. You have to have a flag pole if you want a flag'. After about two hours of telephone calls to the administrative people, we decided to take the flag pole and the flag. It cost us $97 in postage for the flag pole and the flag, when all I wanted was a flag sent through the post. That is what red tape is like these days in Australia. Another piece of red tape which I am glad to see will never be implemented is the Bill of Rights. That piece of legislation was knocked out of this country by people power. The people around Australia-not just hundreds or thousands, but tens of thousands-rallied against this type of legislation which was proposed by the Government. It is a great tragedy that the Minister for Resources and Energy and a former Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said that this was a victory for troglodites, neanderthals, drones and thugs. That simply is not the case. There are tens of thousands of genuine Australians around this country of ours who believe that if we ever gave any government-it does not matter what colour it is-the task of defining people's rights, one day there would be a government which would take away those rights. Such a government would use it as a precedent and would say: `Once upon a time you gave us that responsibility to determine your rights; surely it is a government's responsibility to be able to take them away'. On that basis, the Australian people rejected this type of legislation. Another reason why they rejected it was that they could see that unelected bureaucrats in Australia-I do not say that in derogatory terms, but simply to define them-would be able to determine what people could do. The Australian people rejected that. They also rejected the idea of bureaucrats determining what should be taught in our government schools. There is a great tradition in Australia that our Government schools are free of indoctrination. The people could see that Government schools would introduce indoctrination of values and beliefs of which they did not want any part. If the Government has genuinely withdrawn the Bill and will not resurrect it in some other form, it has been a great day for democracy because the people have been able to influence Government decisions. That is what it is all about. It is a tremendous credit to the people that the Government has taken the step of withdrawing this legislation. Credit is also due to the Senate, which spent a long time debating it-the longest debate ever-so that the Australian people had time to investigate the legislation.The Government tried to rush it through here. It was passed through the House of Representatives at ten to three in the morning. Many people just did not know anything about it. The Senate held it up so that rallies could be held right around Australia. It is a great thing for this nation that that occurred and it shows the importance of having a Senate which has the will to hold up that sort of legislation. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(7.35) —I just want to make a few observations this evening about that disgraceful letter sent by a Liberal member of the Western Australian Parliament, a Mr Lightfoot-- Mr Scholes —Light-headed. Mr ROBERT BROWN —That was a good interjection-sleight of foot, light-footed and very light-headed. That letter emulated with magnificent similarity the type of behaviour and attitude we have grown to expect from members of the Opposition generally here in the national Parliament just the same as within the State legislatures. It reflects very unfavourably on the national sentiment and the national concern of conservative parties in Australia when spokesmen for those parties stoop so low as to send a letter deliberately intended to sabotage the markets that Australia has so seriously developed over many years in order to provide the sort of economic security and welfare for our great farming communities in Australia, which are supposed to be supported by these people who sit up here in cockies' corner. Mr Hollis —Not too many of them are here tonight. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Not one is here at the moment. We might come more easily to accept and to understand that as well. I am glad to see, however, that four members of the Liberal Party of Australia have come in here to hear my comments about one of their colleagues over in Western Australia. We have appealed to the honourable member for O'Connor, Mr Tuckey, to repudiate that approach to the American Administration by one of his geographically and philosophically close party colleagues. At this stage he has failed to do so. Mr Beale —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. The honourable member for O'Connor made a personal explanation this afternoon in which he dissociated himself from that position. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I should have informed the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Beale —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask that you ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The Chair is not in a position to know whether the honourable member for O'Connor did or did not do that, so I do not think that I am in a position to direct the honourable member for Charlton to withdraw; but the honourable member for Charlton might take cognisance of what the honourable member for Deakin has said and withdraw in his own way. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I accept the sentiments that have been expressed by the honourable member for Deakin and I withdraw. In fact, the normal courtesy is that when a reference of that kind during the adjournment debate is to be made about another honourable member, the honourable member is at least advised. I failed to do so, and I withdraw that. The reason that I was not able to advise the honourable member for O'Connor that I would be making reference to him was that I did not know that I would be doing so. The attitude that has been adopted by Mr Lightfoot is simply in accord with the traditions of the Liberal Party. I make very quick reference to a couple of examples. Before the 1983 elections we had the notorious comments by the then Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Fraser, suggesting that people would be better off putting their savings under the bed. He obviously intended to force a run on the banks, with all of the disruption to the Australian financial system that that would have brought about. At the same time the then, I think, National President, or at least the New South Wales President of the Liberal Party, a financial consultant and adviser, Mr John Valder, advised his clients to send their money out of Australia-again designed almost certainly to create financial chaos in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I have called two speakers from my left. I will now call two from my right. I call the honourable member for Lowe. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. With great respect, the reason that you called two members from this side was that there was no person seeking the call on the other side. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I can call the way I wish to call. I have called two from my left. I will call two from my right and that will balance the proceedings for the evening. The honourable member for Denison will get the call after that, if he rises. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(7.41) —In the electorate of Lowe, as I am sure is the case in the electorates of all of my colleagues, there is great activity for the bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Mr Beale —They have just cut the funds back for it. Mr MAHER —They will take their share of the cuts with every other group in society. The Australian people are looking forward to the two-hundredth anniversary of settlement of Europeans on the eastern coast of Australia. The Australian people will mark the occasion. But, during the recess, I did some research on the early settlement of our nation and on the arrival of the First Fleet at Sydney. There are a number of diaries and very detailed records and accounts of this. In fact, there are about four that were written before the end of the eighteenth century by people who came out on the First Fleet-people who made records, kept diaries and journals, and went back to the United Kingdom, or Britain as it was then-and wrote their memoirs. From reading one of these accounts by a major with the First Fleet, it came home to me very clearly that we must have the co-operation of the French nation, the French people, when we launch our bicentennial celebrations. I have no intention tonight to discuss the resumption of uranium sales to France. But I believe that we must appreciate that, when the First Fleet arrived at Botany Bay, within a short time La Perouse and his fleet from France sent out by the King of France arrived at Botany Bay. Before the British Fleet had left Botany Bay to sail to Port Jackson, La Perouse was also at Botany Bay. La Perouse and the French remained at Botany Bay for months. While they were there, the British were in Port Jackson. For a long time Australia, or the settlement at Sydney Cove as it then was, was touch and go. There was starvation and shortages and always the chance that everyone would perish. Yet the French were there and provided camaraderie and friendship for the officer class on the British boats and transports. I feel that there must be a rapprochement with and a greater involvement of the French nation in our bicentennial celebrations. It had never come home to me until I read these diaries that we have this debt to the French people and that we had an enormous contact with the French at the time of founding our colony. The French did not come to Australia to found a colony. They came on an expedition, an exploration, a voyage of discovery. They were surprised to find a British transport at Botany Bay ready to make a settlement. They had no idea that there were any white settlers in this part of the world. I commend to honourable members some of these early diaries. The distressing details in them reveal how soon after the white settlers arrived smallpox spread throughout the whole of the Aboriginal community, killing half of the Aboriginal community. The point is made by some of the editors that there was a delay. It is perhaps possible that the smallpox did not come to Australia from the white settlement, from the First Fleet; it may have been introduced by Malay traders coming to the north of Australia. But half of the Aborigines were decimated in that epidemic which struck the whole of what is now the east coast of Australia. I wanted to raise this matter because there have been difficulties with France in this part of the world with the catching and apprehension of spies in New Zealand. But New Zealand had sorted out the situation. It has released the spies into the custody of the French Government. I put it to the Minister responsible for the bicentenary that we must have not only the co-operation of the United Kingdom in the bicentennial celebrations but also French involvement, because they were here. They came to Botany Bay at the time Governor Phillip-a very humane man-was there with his fleet. Before he had left Botany Bay to settle in Sydney-which was a lucky decision-the French had arrived. The French are part of our bicentennial. In my electorate of Lowe we had a settlement for the French Canadians who were sent out to Australia as convicts when the Speaker of the Canadian House led a revolt in French Canada. I put these matters before the House because I have never heard them mentioned before and I trust some action will be taken on them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.46) —If New South Wales and Victoria did as well as Tasmania in earning export income Australia would not be experiencing the worst balance of payments figures since Federation. In short, if New South Wales and Victoria pulled their weight, and even equalled Tasmania's excellent per capita performance, our nation would not be in the terrible mess it is in right now. The figures speak for themselves. For the nine months ended 9 March 1985 Tasmania's per capita export income was $1,315. For the same period the per capita export income figure for New South Wales was a paltry $915. For Victoria it was only $1,115. In the nine months ended March 1986 Tasmania maintained its impressive record in earning export income. Again, let the per capita figures speak for themselves: Tasmania, $1,535; Victoria, $1,355; and New South Wales, trailing, $1,070. If Tasmania were assessed today as a claimant State against the traditional standard States of New South Wales and Victoria we would financially be on clover. Sadly this is not the situation, as recent history conclusively proves. Right now our State is suffering and 6,000 Tasmanian jobs are on the line as a direct result of the deliberate actions of the Hawke socialist Government in Canberra. The Premiers Conference of 13 June 1986 saw Tasmania's funding slashed by $91m in real terms. In percentage terms Tasmania was cut worst of all, by a massive 6.5 per cent in real terms. Queensland was the next State most harshly treated, with a cut in real terms of 5 per cent. The all-States average cut in real terms amounted to 4 per cent. Why was Tasmania singled out for such harsh and discriminatory treatment? One can readily contemplate political reasons for this treatment-such as Denison, Franklin, Lyons, Bass and Braddon. The call by the Premier of Tasmania, the Honourable Robin Gray, for an independent review of Tasmania's financial maltreatment and mistreatment by the Hawke socialist Government is fully justified, and is in fact supported by all thinking Tasmanians right across the political spectrum. The savage cuts of 13 June 1986 follow three earlier substantial reductions in Commonwealth assistance and spending in Tasmania inflicted during calendar year 1985. In the May 1985 mini-Budget Tasmania sustained losses of Commonwealth assistance totalling $20m. The major items were a cut of $6m in the air fare subsidy, a cut of $5.3m in the freight equalisation scheme, a cut of $3m in funding for the community employment program and a cut of $2m in local government assistance. At the May 1985 Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting worse was still to come. Total cuts amounted to $28.7m, of which a reduction in general revenue assistance of $20m was the major item. Again in the August 1985 Commonwealth Budget Canberra struck and Tasmania fared badly at the hands of Mr Hawke and Mr Keating, suffering cuts of $13m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member will refer to Ministers by their titles. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The grant total of cuts in Commonwealth funding to Tasmania in calendar year 1985 was therefore a massive $61.7m. It can be seen from the foregoing that Commonwealth assistance and spending to Tasmania has been cut by a staggering $152.7m in just 13 months. That figure is minuscule in the Commonwealth's $80 billion-plus annual budget, but will have a savage impact upon our tiny Tasmanian economy. I turn briefly, without debating the entire Budget, because that will come later, to what happened in the last 24 hours. A government which pledged to be led by a man who was going to be Prime Minister for all Australians and to bring all Australians together has been responsible for cutting Tasmania's freight equalisation scheme by 12 per cent in the past two years, a massive cut which will place up to 2,000 jobs in jeopardy. Last Saturday at the State Liberal Party conference I predicted cuts to Tasmania in Commonwealth spending in last night's Budget of $40m, and I was wrong. We have checked the figures now. Mr Beale —How much? Mr HODGMAN —A total of $61m was robbed from Tasmania on top of $152.7m. I thought the crime State of Australia was New South Wales with this extortion and robbery, ripping off people and forcing them into poverty, but what has been done to Tasmania is criminal and disgraceful. It is guaranteed that Tasmania will not have a Labor member of the House of Representatives for the next quarter of a century, and the Labor Party will never get a vote from anybody on this side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(7.51) —Last Wednesday in Adelaide the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) presented the national awards for innovation in local government. It was the first time that this award system had been developed and it was with great pride that I was able to be there to witness the winner of the national award for economic development as the City of Moe, the city in which I have my electoral office, comprising some 16,000 people. An award was presented giving recognition to a housing finance scheme. I bring this to the attention of the House as I believe that that award is something that will be picked up by other local governments around Australia because of its benefit to those people in the cities seeking to buy their own homes. The article states: The City of Moe developed and promoted an innovative scheme aimed at addressing the housing needs of lower to middle income groups. The scheme involved Council undertaking a new role as a `facilitator' and `advocate' for its community in the private housing market. Council negotiated a $2 million loan from the National Australia Bank for administration through a Co-operative Housing Society. The Housing Society was then able to lend to the target group of low to middle income earners at standard bank rates. The $2 million loan from the bank to the Housing Society was insured through the Commonwealth Government's Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Council then embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign through the local media, solicitors and estate agents to promote the scheme. In 1984-85 more than 180 families were assisted through the scheme to find private housing. The scheme has subsequently expanded with additional establishment loans from other banks resulting in further Co-operative Housing Societies being formed with further loans being available. The Housing Finance Scheme has broad applicability for local councils seeking to take on a more pro-active role in their community. It has been adopted by many other local authorities in Vic. and the Australian Council of Co-operative Housing Societies has claimed that the adoption of the scheme by other local councils made a significant contribution towards lending by major financial institutions to Co-operative Housing Societies in 1984/85. The remarkable part about this is how it has developed. The article continues: This lending increased by 540 per cent in 1984/85 to a record $120 million which financed 2,400 homes in Vic. While a number of other local authorities in other States have become involved in the housing finance area, this seems to be the most comprehensive and broadly applicable approach developed. I have great pride in presenting this information to the House. Several councillors in my area have worked particularly hard on this scheme. No one has worked harder than Shire Clerk Peter Lerstang and the President of the Housing Co-operative, Councillor Peter Wells, who has worked particularly hard to make this a very important project. The city of Moe has initiated an award which has won the national award prize. I believe that this practice will eventually extend throughout Australia. At the national awards it was quite obvious that all the councils that were present and witnessed this event were very keen to see what this council had done in relation to local housing. I am sure that the award will initiate the spreading of this co- operative venture across Australia. I have great pleasure in bringing to the House the initiative of my local area. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(7.56) —I wish to make a few remarks about the role of small business in the Australian economy. Last night we heard the Budget Speech. Business of any sort was not mentioned, especially small business. Ninety per cent of business activity is conducted by small business, which is by far the greatest employer in Australia. Australians tend to concentrate their interests on large organisations such as the BHPs and CSRs of this world, but the courageous and hard-working individuals of the nation, particularly those from a migrant background, tend to be in small business. They dedicate their lives to improving their lot, to making a success of an investment, to backing their judgment and skills against others and competing against them to build something for their future and for the future of their children. This process not only has contributed greatly to the enriching of Australia in practical terms but also has added a diversity and strength to technology, to our general pool of knowledge and to managerial expertise. Small business around Australia has been particularly concerned about some of the measures the Government has taken over the last few months. In the first few days of this session I know that members of the Australian Labor Party would be very aware of the feelings of small business in the electorate. I suspect that even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you descend from that high place and resume your functions as an elected member for an electorate in Sydney, are made aware by those people you represent of the significance of small business. I suspect that you would even be aware of the recent by-elections held in New South Wales and of the results of those elections and that the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Barrie Unsworth, said that one of the main features that concerned the Australian Labor Party in the results of those elections was the problem of small business and particularly some of the taxes and charges placed on small business by this Government. This is a matter of great concern. I have viewed the matter objectively and looked at the results of huge meetings held around the nation, with massive attendances. Since I have been a member of this place I cannot remember an issue which has aroused so much concern and strong feeling. To my knowledge such people have never risen up and taken such strong action against government. I cannot remember such firm action from the types of people now demonstrating against this Government at public meetings and national gatherings. The extent of the feeling is epitomised by the proprietor of a newspaper shop whom I met in the town of Pimpama in Queensland. It is not a large place; I suspect that there would be three or four shops. The area serviced by this newsagency proprietor was small. He said that he employed a teenage girl to assist him in the shop on Saturday mornings because business was really brisk at that time. This teenage girl, naturally, wished to receive some sort of recognition for the work she did, apart from her salary. She said to her boss on a couple of occasions: `I wonder whether I could have a paddle-pop?' Normally on a Saturday morning she would eat three paddle-pops. The proprietor is liable for fringe benefits tax for the paddle-pops he gives his employee at cost. He has begun the practice of asking her to sign and initial the sticks of the paddle-pops and to date them. It is his intention at the end of seven years of saving paddle-pop sticks to send them to the Australian Taxation Office to find out how much fringe benefits tax he owes. That demonstrates the seriousness of the situation because the Tax Office can go back that length of time and force the payment of fringe benefits tax. It is a terrible tax. The Government fails to understand the important role of small business in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 August 1986: Australian National University Act-Statutes- No. 186-Superannuation Funds (Investment and Management). No. 187-Parking and Traffic Amendment No. 2. No. 188-Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2320) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Territories, 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 Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Department of Territories (a) $687,000 (b) $883,000 Parliament House Construction Authority (a) $161,184 (b) $256,169 National Capital Development Commission (a) $230,000 (b) $260,000 ACT Electricity Authority (a) $101,404 (b) $141,257 ACT Schools Authority The information concerning the ACT Schools Authority is contained in answer to Question 2307 which was answered on 17 April 1986. ACT Health Authority The information concerning the ACT Health Authority is contained in answer to Question 2318 by the Minister for Health. (2) Department of Territories The figures in (1) include staff salaries and expenditure on publications, advertising, displays and media monitoring. National Capital Development Commission The expenditure comprised mainly salaries and the publishing of information on the planning and development of the National Capital. In addition, during 1983/84 the Canberra Planning Exhibition at Regatta Point was extensively refurbished and upgraded in order to cater for the 250,000+ people who visit the Exhibition annually. The total cost, including reconstruction was $1.18m. Parliament House Construction Authority The Public Relations expenditure included exhibition and display material in the Authority's Exhibition Centre, photography, production of pamphlets, advertising and similar items concerned with providing the public with information on the design and construction of the new Parliament House. ACT Electricity Authority The expenditure was incurred to provide advice to consumers on the wise and efficient use of electricity, energy audits for pensioners and other disadvantaged consumers, publicising the danger of trees interfering with power lines, use of electricity outside peak hours and the availability of other Authority services. (3) Department of Territories No assistance was obtained from any Public Relations consultants. National Capital Development Commission (a) the Billy Blue Group (b) $42,000 (c) for graphic design assistance for the publication `The Way We Are', the Commission's Annual Report magazine for 1983/84. Parliament House Construction Authority No public relations consultants were retained by the Parliament House Construction Authority. However, specialist services such as exhibition design and the preparation of editorial material have occasionally been commissioned under the supervision of Authority officers. ACT Electricity Authority Outside assistance was not sought for public relations. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $690. (Question No. 2527) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 18 November 1985: (1) Does his Department, or any statutory authority responsible to him, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does his Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied, by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by his Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. (6) Does his Department play a role in determining what grants shall be paid from the ACT Community Welfare Fund. (7) Has the Tau Community Association received grants from the fund; if so (a) for what purpose, (b) what amount, (c) on what conditions and (d) on what date or dates. (8) Did his Department's search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission disclose a failure at the date or dates, of the grant or grants, or earlier to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance. (9) What action was taken to ensure compliance with the law before progressing the grant or grants. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Grants made under the following programs require the recipient to be incorporated or in the process of incorporation: (a) Home and Community Care (b) Crisis Accommodation Program (c) Supported Accommodation Assistance Program The sponsors of the projects under the Community Employment Program must be incorporated or have a legal personality by virtue of other legislation. Liaison with the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission takes place as necessary regarding compliance with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953. However, it is not a condition of all grants provided by my Department or its statutory authorities for the recipient to be incorporated. (3), (4) and (5) For (2) a-c above, my Department verifies with the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission that the recipient organisations are incorporated or in the process of incorporation. Under the Community Employment Program, the certificate of incorporation is checked or the legal title of each sponsor is verified. In the provision of all grants, cases are referred as necessary to the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission for investigation of compliance with Ordinance requirements. In addition, my Department monitors the funding situation by applying its own conditions, including the provision of financial statements. Organisations seeking and receiving Community Development Fund grants are required, upon application, to provide their most recent audited statement, annual report, statements of income and expenditure for the past and current financial years. Upon completion of the grant, the organisation is required to present an acquittal certified by an executive member of that organisation which states that purposes and conditions of the grant have been complied with. (6) No, presuming that the question is intended to refer to the ACT Community Development Fund. Departmental officers provided advice to the advisory committees of the former ACT House of Assembly. (7) Yes. In 1984-85 the Tau organisation received $1,200 towards Theatre for the Deaf and Theatre for the Over-50's, and in 1985 received $34,750 towards operational funding. In 1986, Tau was granted $1,900 for equipment, and $39,750 towards operational funding (of which the second quarter instalment has been paid). The above grants were made available through the Community Development Fund. (8) and (9) Tau is an incorporated association and was registered on 13 February 1984. My Department has not conducted a search of the register of the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission in connection with Community Development Fund grants to the Tau organisation and does not generally do so in relation to other grants from the Fund. However, such investigation is carried out if there is considered to be cause for concern in any particular case. The cost of answering this question is estimated at $250. (Question No. 3248) Mr Hodgman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) Did the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) prepare a valuation of the plant and equipment at the Belconnen Mall, A.C.T.; if so, will he table the valuation in the House. (2) Did the ATO valuation of the Belconnen Mall contain any component for redevelopment of the site. (3) Is the apportionment, in the agreement for sale, of $8 921 710, which is listed as goods, for plant and equipment. (4) If the ATO did not prepare a valuation of plant and equipment what steps did he take to verify the figure of $8 921 710. (5) Is the Commonwealth now prevented from disputing the correctness of the figure of $8 921 710; if so, how does he reconcile this with his answer to my question without notice (Hansard, 14 February 1986, pages 585-6) concerning the sale of the Belconnen Mall. (6) Did he read in full the agreement for sale prior to its execution. (7) Is it a fact that if the figure of $8 921 710 for plant and equipment is maintained and upheld (a) there will be a tax windfall to the purchasers in excess of $2.4 million, (b) the purchasers will be entitled to claim nearly $5 million for further depreciation of plant and equipment which has already been depreciated by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority and (c) there will be an additional tax burden of $2.4 million imposed upon the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. (8) Is he able to say whether the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is satisfied with the situation. (9) Did he discuss the proposed sale with the Minister for Territories prior to the close of tenders; if so, (a) on what dates, (b) at what places, and (c) what were the material particulars of the discussions. (10) Did he consider the arrangement of Commonwealth-funded bridging finance to facilitate the sale of the Belconnen Mall. (11) Was the option of writing-up plant and equipment offered to any of the other tenderers prior to the close of tenders. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that a specific valuation of plant and equipment at Belconnen Mall was not carried out by the Australian Taxation Office. A valuation of chattels was prepared for Stamp Duty purposes. Chattels for Stamp Duty purposes are substantially different from plant and equipment for income tax purposes. (2) I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that a valuation of the Belconnen Mall by the Australian Taxation Office, prepared to assist in consideration of the tenders, did contain a component covering the present valuation of approved additional development rights. (3) Yes: The extent to which the items qualify as plant for income tax purposes is, however, a matter for the Australian Taxation Office to decide. (4) See answer to (1) above. I was not aware of the figure included in the Contract for Sale for the value of goods until 12 February, nor was there any reason why I should have been. (5) Under the relevant taxation laws the taxation affairs of the purchasers of the Belconnen Mall are, of course, confidential. However, I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that in accordance with normal procedures the Australian Taxation Office scrutinises all contracts for the sale of real property to assess if the amount specified in the contract for goods and chattels which are claimed to be exempt from stamp duty are reasonable. If such an assessment took place in the case of the sale of the Belconnen Mall then the Australian Taxation Office has the power to adjust the amount on which stamp duty is paid. In regard to the implications of the figure specified in the contract for the sale of the Belconnen Mall on future depreciation claims by the purchasers, see my answer to (7) below. I should also point out at this stage that the difference between the figure specified for plant and equipment in the Contract of Sale, which was the value ascribed by a valuer appointed by the purchasers, and the value recorded on the Canberra Commercial Development Authority's last tax return for 1984-85, is the result of depreciation for taxation purposes, which is calculated on the original purchase price with no allowance made for subsequent inflation and other factors which might affect the actual market value of the items. Consequently, the depreciated value of plant and equipment for taxation purposes will, in many cases, be less than its market value. As I have said in my answer to a question without notice by the honourable member for Fraser on 14 February 1986 (Hansard pages 582-583): `If, as a result of (enquiries by the Australian Taxation Office) it was the view of the Australian Taxation Office that the amount supplied by the purchaser for both stamp duty and income tax purposes was incorrect, appropriate assessments would be issued by the Australian Taxation Office in accordance with the usual procedures of the Australian Taxation Office.' (6) No, nor was there any reason why I should have done so. (7) If the figure of $8,921,710 specified in the contract for plant and equipment is, after scrutiny by the Australian Taxation Office, considered to be appropriate (i.e. it represents the consideration payable solely for assets upon which depreciation deductions are properly allowable for income tax purposes) then the purchaser will, of course, be entitled to obtain the taxation consequences flowing from the income tax law. The purchaser in this regard would be in no different position to any other purchaser. If the figure is considered to be excessive (i.e. some items did not qualify for depreciation deductions), the normal provisions of taxation law will apply and the benefit to be obtained by the purchasers would be reduced. It will be clear from the above that the purchasers of the Belconnen Mall were not placed in any more favourable position for taxation purposes than would apply in any similar commercial transaction. In addition I am advised by the Commissioner for Taxation that the taxation law provides in such cases that the profit enjoyed by the vendor on the sale of the plant and equipment at a price which is greater than its previously written down value for taxation purposes is liable to income tax up to the amount of the original cost to the vendor. In the case of the sale of the Belconnen Mall, because the Canberra Commercial Development Authority was a public authority which paid tax, it received tax benefits through the depreciation provisions of the income tax laws to the extent to which plant and equipment was written down. These benefits were reflected in a greater amount being available to the Government from the resources of the Authority on its winding up. If increased taxation is assessed as payable by the Authority there will of course be no real loss to the Commonwealth. As I pointed out in my answer to the Member for Fraser's question without notice on this subject on 14 February 1986, it does not matter whether the funds in question come to the Commonwealth via increased income tax or direct from the reserves of the Authority (see Hansard, page 583). In conclusion, it is worth noting that the so-called ``windfall'' going to the purchasers is no more, and no less, than could have been enjoyed by any other purchaser of the Mall or of any other commercial property. I would expect the purchase price offered would have been assessed by the purchasers on the basis of that commercial reality. (8) The Minister for Territories has advised me that he did not receive any formal advice from the Canberra Commercial Development Authority about this matter other than the resolution of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority passed at its meeting of 17 December 1985 and referred to in my answer to part (6) of question number 3142. The Canberra Commercial Development Authority was a Statutory Authority of the Commonwealth and as such was expected to abide by Commonwealth Government policy. (9) I had no discussion with the Minister for Territories concerning the proposed sale of the Belconnen Mall between the time the Government agreed to place the Belconnen Mall on the market and the close of tenders. (10) It was part of the Government's budget strategy for the 1985-86 financial year that the sale of the Belconnen Mall would be completed in that financial year. Consistent with that, the tender documents made clear that settlement was required at about the end of March 1986. Any proposal to sell the Belconnen Mall on the basis of `Commonwealth-funded bridging finance', which presumably would have involved deferment of payment beyond the end of the 1985-86 financial year would have been inconsistent with the Government's budget strategy and the tender conditions. (11) I am advised by the Minister for Territories that the answer is yes. (Question No. 3277) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) How many social security clients have participated in the overpayment amnesty in each month of its operation. (2) How many recipients of each category of benefits came forward under the amnesty in each month and which offices of his Department were involved. (3) Did he modify the amnesty guidelines because of public speculation about the program prior to his statement on 12 February 1986. (4) Was there a disclosure of information from his office before 12 February; if so, was it deliberate. (5) Has he initiated an investigation into how the disclosure occurred. (6) Has the officer responsible been identified; if so, has any punitive action been taken. (7) Did he approve the disclosure of information. (8) When did he first agree to have an amnesty. (9) Was the amnesty a Departmental initiative. (10) Will he supply a copy of the documents used to calculate the level of overpayment as mentioned in his statement to the House on 12 February. (11) What is the expected cost of running the amnesty. (12) Why was the period 12 February to 31 May 1986 chosen for the amnesty. (13) On what grounds did he discriminate between circumstances of overpayment falling under the amnesty and those not falling under the amnesty. (14) Have special amnesty forms been devised; if so, when (a) were they ordered and (b) will they be ready. (15) What will be the cost of the new personal computer-based systems to be installed in regional offices. (16) Are the new computers necessary because Stratplan has not yet been fully implemented. (17) Will they become redundant when Stratplan is fully implemented. (18) What training of staff will be needed to operate the systems. (19) What will the training cost. (20) When will it be completed. (21) Will there be delays in the briefing of necessary personnel; if so, will this result in an extension to the amnesty. (22) Does he expect to implement another amnesty. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Amnesty claims for each category of payments received during each month of the Social Security Amnesty were: Benefit type Feb. Mar. Apr. May Total Unemployment benefit ... 191 452 424 1,508 2,575 Sickness benefit ... 14 36 28 97 175 Special benefit ... 3 3 3 21 30 Age pension ... 74 104 264 3,139 3,581 Age pension (over 70) ... 42 76 152 2,731 3,001 Invalid pension ... 47 81 163 1,203 1,494 Sheltered Employment Allowance ... 1 . . . . 9 10 Widow's pension `A' ... 50 89 97 600 836 Widow's pension `B' ... 15 17 37 390 459 Widow's pension `C' ... . . 1 1 1 3 Supporting parent's benefit ... 114 169 202 1,123 1,608 Wife's pension (age) ... 2 4 8 96 110 Wife's pension (invalid) ... 11 25 29 261 326 Rehabilitation allowance ... 4 3 3 6 16 Carer's pension (age) ... 2 3 3 - 8 Carer's pension (invalid) ... 3 2 2 5 12 Family allowance ... 13 17 28 92 150 Handicapped child's allowance ... - 1 - 5 6 Double orphan's pension ... - - - 2 2 Family income supplement ... 4 4 3 25 36 590 1,087 1,447 11,314 14,438 All Regional Offices of the Department were involved. (3) and (4) No. (5) to (7) Not applicable. (8) The Government agreed to an Amnesty in December 1985. (9) In accordance with convention, Departmental advice to Government is confidential. (10) The overpayment statistics in my statement were based on my department's computerised accounting records which showed the following: $ Balance of overpayments outstanding 1 July 1984 ... 104,316,724 Debits raised 1984-85 ... 60,151,741 Recoveries 1984-85 ... 40,649,909 Balance of overpayments outstanding 30 June 1985 ... 123,818,556 (11) The cost of running the Amnesty was approximately $1.1 million. (12) It was decided that a period of 3 months would give sufficient time for all potential applicants to become aware of and claim the Amnesty. The timing was integrated with that of other elements of the total overpayments package. As a result of misleading press speculation about the Amnesty in early February it was decided to advance the start date from 1 March to 12 February. (13) I refer the honourable member to my statement to the House of 12 February where this question is extensively canvassed. Briefly, the Amnesty was designed to help only current clients who have, or originally had, a genuine right to a social security payment but who were subsequently overpaid because their circumstances changed and they did not inform my department. It clearly excluded those who deliberately set out to obtain a payment or payments to which they had no entitlement. (14) A master copy of the claim form was distributed to regional offices on 13 February. Bulk supplies were ordered on 12 February and distributed to State headquarters of the Department on 14 February. (15) The net cost will be $0.5 million over three years. (16) and (17) No. (18) Training will be provided to a selected officer in each regional office. That officer will be responsible for training other relevant regional office staff. (19) Training will cost an estimated $80,000. (20) August 1986. (21) and (22) No. (Question No. 3357) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos 3216 to 3243, what (a) was the stated purpose of each overseas trip made by employees of the Minister's Department and of all statutory authorities that report to the Minister in 1984-85, (b) was the classification or job description of each officer making each trip, (c) was the duration of each trip, (d) were the countries visited during each trip and (e) was the estimated cost of each trip, with air fare component identified separately. Mr Scholes —The following answer to the honourable member's question has been prepared from an examination of movement requisitions held by the Department and from information supplied by statutory authorities: DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES (a) Purpose (b) Classification/ Job Description (c) Duration (d) Countries (e) Total Estimated Cost Air Fare Component $ $ Meeting of Australian Environmental Standing Committee and Inspection Tours Assistant Secretary Technical Services Branch 30.6.84 to 7.7.84 New Zealand 1,755.34 1,001.60 Attend 1984 Council of Nature Conservation Minister's Standing Committee First Assistant Secretary, Parks and Conservation 30.6.84 to 7.7.84 New Zealand 1,917.17 1,016.90 As above Science 4, Conservation and Agriculture 30.6.84 to 7.7.84 New Zealand 1,766.44 924.60 Inspect Public Library buildings City Librarian 19.7.84 to 21.8.84 England, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and France 9 779.79 4 901.00 Set up Australian National Week National Week Exhibition at the International Garden Festival at Liverpool (England) Technical Officer Class 2, Australian National Botanic Gardens 28.7.84 to 11.8.84 England 1,695.73 Nil-Travel sponsored by Qantas Attend Conference in America on Information Systems Assistant Secretary Finance and Supply Branch 18.8.84 to 2.9.84 USA 5,899.72 3,701.60 Attend 15th Australasian Land Administ'n Conference Assistant Secretary Residential Lease 22.8.84 to 3.9.84 Papua New Guinea 2 898.32 1,123.50 Inspect Volvo Headquarters Building at Gothenberg Chief Executive Parliament House Construction Authority 22.8.84 to 24.8.84 Sweden 1,505.00 665.00 Recalled to duty while on leave in United Kingdom Travel Overseas on behalf of Canberra Development Board Deputy Executive Director, Canberra Development Board 5.9.84 to 29.9.84 USA, UK, France, Germany, Hong Kong 9 574.08 5 371.99 Investigate museums, art galleries and similar facilities in relation to the Museum of Australia project Chief Architect National Capital Development Commission 5.9.84 to 12.10.84 Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, France, USA and Canada 15,196.00 8,357.00 To attend 9th International Congress of Agricultural Medicine and Rural Health at Christchurch Chairman of the former Capital Territory Health Commission 5.9.84 to 14.9.84 New Zealand 1,049.00 490.00 14th Biennial Conference of Registrars of Title Registrar of Titles Registrar's Office 7.9.84 to 16.9.84 New Zealand 1,742.42 762.00 To attend Metropolis Conference, Paris and U.N. Debate on Cocos Keeling Islands, New York. Secretary 4.10.84 to 15.11.84 Switzerland, France, Netherlands, West Germany, Belgium, UK, Canada, USA 27,255.40 13,100.00 Attend International New Towns Association Conference Chief Planner National Capital Development Commission 8.10.84 to 4.11.84 USA, Netherlands and France 9,959.00 4,973.00 Attend UN General Assembly Cocos Discussion Director-Cocos (Keeling) Islands Section, Dept Territories 1.11.84 to 13.11.84 USA 6,649.07 4,215.00 Attend Australian/Indonesia Boundary Maritime Boundaries Delimitation Negotiations First Assistant Secretary, Territories Division 13.11.84 to 17.11.84 Indonesia 2,511.07 2,086.40 Overseas mission for Canberra Development Board Trade Commissioner, seconded to Canberra Development Board 12.11.84 to 25.11.84 USA 3,667.15 1,904.00 Attend the World Widelife Fund Plant Advisory Group Meeting Science 5 Australian National Botanic gardens 14-15.12.84 USA 144.00 Nil Sponsored By International Union for Conservation of Nature Conference on foster care Social Worker, Grade 4 Welfare Branch 19.1.85 to 30.1.85 New Zealand 463.64 Nil Recalled to duty Represent Canberra Tourist Bureau at Australian Travel Conference Bahrain, at International Tourism Bourse Berlin and Corroboree London Tourist Commissioner, Tourism Branch 24.2.85 to 26.3.85 Bahrain, Germany, London 6,403.75 2,110.00 To attend seminar at Salzburg on organising health care and visit health service organisations in Ontario Senior Assistant Commissioner of the former Capital Territory Health Commission 28.2.85 to 21.3.85 Austria and Canada 6,262.00 5,100.00 Discuss co-operation on planning and development proposals for Futian and other parts of Shenzher Director, Metropolitan and Canberra Central Planning, National Capital Development Commission 16.3.85 to 24.3.85 China Expenses and airfares paid by the Department of Trade Canberra Tourism Bureau Represent Canberra Tourist Bureau at Aust. Pavilion at Travelshow 1985 in Auckland and Wellington, and Sales Promotion in North and South Islands. Industries Promotions Officer Canberra Tourist Bureau 2.5.85 to 16.5.85 New Zealand 1,592.15 195.00 As above Manager (Canberra Office) Canberra Tourist Bureau 2.5.85 to 16.5.85 New Zealand 1,672.15 195.00 Give lectures and exchange data; meet Professor Rover and contribute to a Botanical Reference Book Science 1, Australian National Botanic Gardens 4.5.85 to 12.5.85 USA 948.87 Nil-Following Period of Research at Kew Gardens, UK on LWOP-Recalled to duty in USA while returning to Australia. Trade Exhibition pursue investment enquiries; Interview Prospective Business Migrants A/g CL Ad. 9 Canberra Development Board 18.5.85 to 27.5.85 China 2,392.40 969.00 To attend Annual Conference of the Australian Institute of Food Science Technology at Christchurch Science 2 (Medical Laboratory Technologist) of the ACT Health Authority's Public Health Laboratory 19.5.85 to 24.5.85 New Zealand 958.00 612.00 Attend State Tourist Commission presentations to 300 German Travel Agents organised by DER (Deutsches Reiseburo Tourist Authority) Branch Manager, Melbourne Canberra Tourist Bureau on special Placement with Australian Tourist Community, London 20.5.85 to 24.5.85 Germany 1,100.35 457.00 To attend International Health Management Seminar at Orlando, Florida and visit certain US and UK hospitals Chairman of the former ACT Health Authority 28.5.85 to 20.6.85 US and UK 13,198.00 8,205.00 Follow up inspections of New Libraries Executive Officer, Canberra Public Library Service 17.6.85 to 21.6.85 Finland 1,130.27 Nil Recall to duty while on furlough Inspect the Parliament House building in Port Moresby Chief Executive and Project Manager 19.6.85 to 21.6.85 New Guinea 3,740.00 2,840.00 The cost of answering this question is estimated at $700. (Question No. 3826) Mr Sharp asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: When may I expect an answer to my Question No. 3162 placed on notice on 12 February 1986. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: An answer to Question No. 3162 was provided on 5 June 1986 (Hansard, page 4839). (Question No. 3851) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: In view of his statement on 17 April 1986, that the limited amnesty on social security overpayments was making a significant contribution to the overall campaign against fraud and overpayments, how many social security recipients have reported that they have been in receipt of overpayments and what amount has been saved as a result, since the inception of the amnesty. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 14,438 clients of the Department applied for the Amnesty. Of these 13,591 were accepted and 10,527 had payments reduced or cancelled. These reductions and cancellations equate to an estimated yearly saving of $19.7m. (Question No. 3865) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: What will be the effects of computerising his Department's systems with respect to (a) the time required to process such things as licence renewals and applications and aircraft registrations and renewals, (b) the projected savings in manpower through decreased labour intensiveness in such things as filing and retrieval, (c) the increased ability to accurately monitor and analyse changes in the aviation industry as a result of the implementation of his Department's policies and (d) his Department being able to meet its commitment for a 2 per cent per annum staff reduction. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department is installing a General Computing Network (GCN) to improve its management information systems, thus providing a basis for further improvement in staff productivity, service to the industry and in economy in the use of resources. The first systems using this facility will become operational late in 1986 and other systems will come into production during 1987 and subsequent years. (a) A new system aimed at improving the processing of licences and aircraft registrations is being developed. (b) The new management systems are aimed at improving overall efficiency and productivity. (c) A new statistical system is under development which is aimed at improving the quality of information held and analysis performed on trends in the aviation industry. (d) The Department's three year corporate plan involving a 2 per cent per annum staff reduction is now in its third year and is not directly linked to the GCN. (Question No. 3947) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: $ (a) Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism ... 181,368 (b) Australian Sports Commission ... 11,314 (c) Australian Tourist Commission ... 1,258 TOTAL ... 193,940 (Question No. 3955) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Local Government and Administrative Services Casual cars with driver: $177,543. (This amount represents the cost of vehicles booked through the Commonwealth's Central Transport Authority and, in some cases, taxis or private hire cars rather than Commonwealth vehicles would have been provided.) Cars on permanent or temporary hire without driver: $656,608. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd Cars on permanent or temporary hire without driver: $84,370. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation Casual cars with driver: $106. (Question No. 3978) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Does the Australian Government own or does it rent the residence in Geneva of the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament. (2) If it is rented, what is the annual rent. (3) If it is owned by the Government, what was the purchase price. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The residence of the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament in Geneva is rented by the Australian Government. (2) Rental for the residence in 1985-86 was $A172,255. (Question No. 4094) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1986. (1) What Australian manufacturers of commercial fire arms and munitions exported their products during 1984, 1985 and 1986. (2) What was the (a) nature, (b) quantity and (c) destination of these exports. (3) What steps are taken to ensure that such exports are not diverted to military uses. (4) Have the procedures of government policy in this area been changed in the last 2 years; if so, (a) when and (b) what was the nature of these changes. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) I refer Mr Tickner to the answer given by the Minister for Trade to question 4093. (Question No. 4100) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Has he had discussions concerning the proposal to establish shop front consumer information centres; if so, what action has he taken to promote this concept. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No action is being taken by the Government to promote the establishment of shop front consumer information centres at this time. However, a study of community access to government information was commissioned and the results are now being analysed to consider what action should be taken. (Question No. 4161) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) What is the extent of overservicing uncovered by the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) each month since it has had responsibility for this function. (2) What additional overservicing has been deterred by the HIC each month since it has had responsibility for this function and how is this calculated. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Health Insurance Commission has had responsibility for the administration of this function since May 1985. However, it is difficult to measure the extent of excessive servicing which has occurred since that time on a monthly basis. The Commission is not empowered to determine that excessive servicing has occurred. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Commission to provide initial identification of practitioners who appear to be providing excessive services. This initial identification relies partly on retrospective study of statistical parameters and partly on observation at the point of claiming benefit. If following further examination it still appears that excessive servicing may have occurred, the matter is referred to a Medical Services Committee of Inquiry which may make recommendations to the Minister for Health. It is the Committees which have access, in medical confidence, to clinical aspects of the services and this represents the only point at which excessive services may be positively identified. Thorough examination of the servicing of a limited number of a practitioner's patients by a Committee may take several months, and a Ministerial determination and an appeal period will then follow where excessive services have been identified. It will be appreciated that the time span involved in this process does not enable the uncovering of execessive servicing to be quantified on a monthly basis. In addition, requirements for medical care are not constant from month to month or even quarter to quarter. There are seasonal variations and there may be an unusual epidemic or other unusual circumstance, such as the NSW doctors dispute which makes statistical comparisons difficult. Insofar as quantification is possible, the figures provided in response to Question No. 4162, asked by Mr Porter on 29 May 1986 and subject to the above qualification, are considered to provide an indication of the extent of excessive servicing dealt with by the Commission since it has had responsibility in this area. (2) Much of the deterrent effect arises from practitioner's knowledge that invigilation occurs and from the publication of Determinations in respect of excessive servicing by particular providers. In addition, the Commission's medical advisers counsel practitioners who are generating unusually high costs, or who appear to be providing excessive services. These visits provide an opportunity for features of the particular practice to be discussed, and can have a significant deterrent effect. However, for the reasons already specified, the extent of deterrent effects on excessive servicing cannot be expressed on a monthly basis. (Question No. 4162) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: What are the (a) dates on which medical practitioners were ordered to repay monies as a result of overservicing and (b) relevant dates of the alleged overservicing in each case for (i) 1984-85 and (ii) 1985-86 Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Listed below are the dates medical practitioners (providers) were referred to the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry (MSCI) in their State, and the dates on which determinations were made by the Minister for Health following MSCI hearings. These dates have been divided into five categories to give the current status of recovery action in relation to the appeal processes available to these medical practitioners. Provider State Date Referred Date Determined C'wealth Benefit To Be Repaid Category A Provider currently in appeal period (30 days) following adverse recommendation by MSCI and determination by Minister: 1 NSW 6.2.85 21.5.86 4 341.90 Maximum repayment possible: 4 341.90 Category B Providers who have appealed and are awaiting MSRT consideration: 2 NSW 2.5.84 30.4.86 13,172.30 3 NSW 9.11.84 4.3.86 5,271.80 4 NSW 19.8.83 11.9.84 3,358.90 5 NSW 8.7.82 26.2.85 66,420.50 6 NSW 24.2.83 19.2.86 4,886.45 7 QLD 20.5.85 9.4.86 11,618.15 8 QLD 10.8.84 28.4.86 7,570.90 9 QLD 10.8.84 19.2.86 25,861.62 10 SA 4.7.84 4.3.86 4,326.20 11 SA 15.1.85 30.4.86 6,442.25 Maximum repayment possible: 148,929.07 Category C Providers currently being considered by MSRI: 12 NSW 10.9.82 25.1.84 6,556.20 13 NSW 22.2.82 28.3.84 1,606.68 14 QLD 24.1.83 6.5.85 1,438.65 Maximum repayment possible: 9,601.53 Category D Providers who have repaid monies owed: 15 NSW 25.7.83 2.10.84 11,603.85 16 NSW 4.7.83 20.7.84 6,253.45 17 VIC 29.4.81 23.7.84 1,283.94 18 VIC 12.9.83 6.5.86 5,272.80 19 QLD 6.8.84 19.2.86 7,547.70 20 WA 17.8.83 30.4.86 1,565.85 Repayment made: 33,527.59 Category E Providers whose appeal periods have expired, did not appeal and in respect of whom recovery action is pending: 21 NSW 5.4.82 25.8.82 6,630.55 22 NSW 16.4.84 19.2.86 3,096.80 23 VIC 3.10.80 28.10.82 11,782.84 24 QLD 31.5.85 6.5.86 8,497.65 25 WA 2.8.83 29.10.85 3,420.55 Repayment to be made: 33,428.39 (b) The following table lists the reference periods of MSCI hearings for each of the practitioners referred to in the previous part of this question. These periods are the dates between which overservicing is considered to have occurred. The dates of determinations are divided into (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) prior to 1984-85. Also listed are the number of services concerned and the number of patients in each case. Provider Reference Period (i) Determined 1984-85 (ii) Determined 1985-86 (iii) Determined Prior to 1984-85 No. Services No. Patients Category A Provider currently in appeal period (30 days) following adverse recommendation by MSCI and determination by Minister: 1 1.12.83-30.11.84 . . 21.5.86 . . 365 24 Category B Providers who have appealed and are awaiting MSRT consideration: 2 1.1.82-31.12.82 . . 30.4.86 . . 1,157 30 3 1.1.83-31.12.83 . . 4.3.86 . . 407 17 4 1.10.81-30.9.82 11.9.84 . . . . 268 10 5 1.10.80-30.9.81 26.2.85 . . . . 2,718 31 6 1.4.81-31.3.82 . . 19.2.86 . . 502 30 7 1.2.84-31.1.85 . . 9.4.86 . . 1,910 22 8 1.7.82-6.7.84 . . 28.4.86 . . 1,140 22 9 1.1.82-31.12.84 . . 19.2.86 . . 2,242 36 10 1.10.79-31.5.82 . . 4.3.86 . . 257 102 11 1.1.82-31.12.83 . . 30.4.86 . . 956 133 Category C Providers currently being considered by MSRT: 12 1.7.80-30.6.81 . . . . 25.1.84 843 29 13 1.4.80-31.3.81 . . . . 28.3.84 231 10 14 1.7.81-30.6.82 6.5.85 . . . . 286 31 Category D Providers who have repaid monies owed: 15 1.7.81-30.6.82 2.10.84 . . . . 1,352 30 16 1.7.81-30.6.82 20.7.84 . . . . 663 28 17 1.7.79-31.12.79 23.7.84 . . . . 471 64 18 1.1.82-31.12.82 . . 6.5.86 . . 330 3 19 1.1.82-31.12.83 . . 19.2.86 . . 768 24 20 1.7.80-30.6.83 . . 30.4.86 . . 301 14 Category E Providers whose appeal periods have expired, did not appeal and in respect of whom recovery action is pending: 21 1.1.80-31.12.80 . . . . 25.8.82 951 25 22 1.7.82-30.6.83 . . 19.2.86 . . 381 12 23 1.1.79-30.6.79 . . . . 28.10.82 2,049 86 24 1.2.84-31.1.85 . . 6.5.86 . . 788 23 25 1.10.81-30.7.83 . . 29.10.85 . . 358 19 For your information the number of providers currently before MSCIs is: New South Wales ... 8 Victoria ... 2 Queensland ... 2 South Australia ... 1 Tasmania ... 1 Western Australia ... 0 14 The total number of excessive services in respect of which determinations were made in financial years 1984-85 and 1985-86: 1984-85-Total: 5758 1985-86-Total: 11,862 (Question No. 4217) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of staff, (b) classifications of staff, (c) (i) number and (ii) cost of staff hours and (d) amount of other costs involved in work directly associated with the recent social security amnesty in each State and Territory. (2) How many calls were received on the amnesty ``hot line'' telephone number from callers (a) seeking information about the amnesty, (b) providing information about suspected social security overpayments and fraud and (c) on other matters, in each State and Territory. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Staff years (1) (a) New South Wales ... 2.6 Victoria ... 1.6 Queensland ... 1.3 South Australia ... 0.7 Western Australia ... 0.7 Tasmania ... 0.2 Northern Territory ... 0.2 Australian Capital Territory ... 0.2 TOTAL ... 7.5 (b) Clerical Assistant Grade 6. (c) (i) approximately 14,300 hours, (ii) approximately $154,000. (d) The cost of publicity for the Amnesty to date is $722,460.59. A further expenditure of approximately $20,000 is anticipated when all accounts have been submitted. (2) The Amnesty Hotlines received a total of 69,240 calls. No categorisation of calls by type is available. Calls received in each State/Territory were: New South Wales 25,717; Victoria 17,139; Queensland 8,298; South Australia 8,154; Western Australia 7,342; Tasmania 1,539; Australian Capital Territory 800; and Northern Territory 251. (Question No. 4218) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986. (1) What is the (a) age, (b) sex and (c) number of persons who came forward under the recent amnesty. (2) What is the (a) benefit category, (b) length of time the benefit was received, (c) amount of previous benefit paid and (d) value of overpayment for each person referred to in part (1). Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) This dissection is not available. (c) 14,438 claims for the Amnesty were received. (2) (a)- Benefit type Total claims Unemployment benefit ... 2,575 Sickness benefit ... 175 Special benefit ... 30 Age pension ... 3,581 Age pension (over 70) ... 3,001 Invalid pension ... 1,494 Sheltered employment allowance ... 10 Widow's pension `A' ... 836 Widow's pension `B' ... 459 Widow's pension `C' ... 3 Supporting parent's benefit ... 1,608 Wife's pension (age) ... 110 Wife's pension (invalid) ... 326 Rehabilitation allowance ... 16 Carer's pension (age) ... 8 Carer's pension (invalid) ... 12 Family allowance ... 150 Handicapped child's allowance ... 6 Double orphans pension ... 2 Family income supplement ... 36 Total ... 14,438 (b) and (c) This information is not available. (d) Where a claimant satisfied the provisions of the Amnesty legislation there was no debt due to the Commonwealth. No details are available about any overpayments arising in the case of persons claiming the Amnesty but not covered by its provisions. (Question No. 4219) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: What was the number of (a) inquiries received, (b) forms dispatched, (c) completed amnesty forms returned, (d) amnesties granted and the amount of overpayment recovered, and (e) amnesties granted to persons with a previous record of receiving overpayments from his Department, for each State and Territory and category of social security benefit during the course of the 1986 amnesty. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The total number of calls received by the Amnesty Hotlines was 69,240; however, it should be noted that not all calls were associated with Amnesty eligibility. For example, the Hotlines were also used by clients for inquiries about the new client advices issued to all pensioners for payday 1 May 1986. Although a breakup of Hotline calls for each category of benefit is not available, calls received in each State/Territory were: NSW ... 25,717 Vic. ... 17,139 Qld ... 8,298 SA ... 8,154 WA ... 7,342 Tas. ... 1,539 NT ... 251 ACT ... 800 Total ... 69,240 (b) No information is available on the number of Amnesty claim forms sent to clients. (c) A total of 14,438 claims for Amnesty were received. A breakup by State/Territory and benefit category is set out in the following table: NSW and ACT Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT Total Unemployment benefit ... 802 623 442 236 356 100 16 2,575 Sickness benefit ... 66 51 26 13 15 3 1 175 Special benefit ... 11 7 3 2 4 3 . . 30 Age pension ... 1,110 1,331 413 339 329 53 6 3,581 Age pension (over 70) ... 1,157 1,073 215 251 265 39 1 3,001 Invalid pension ... 385 603 138 145 194 25 4 1,494 Sheltered employment allowance ... 2 5 2 . . 1 . . . . 10 Widow's pension `A' ... 241 316 116 69 71 20 3 836 Widow's pension `B' ... 167 139 55 35 50 9 4 459 Widow's pension `C' ... 1 1 . . 1 . . . . . . 3 Supporting parent's benefit ... 496 411 287 131 220 41 22 1,608 Wife's pension (age) ... 30 46 7 12 14 1 . . 110 Wife's pension (invalid) ... 90 118 30 45 41 2 . . 326 Rehabilitation allowance ... 2 . . 5 3 4 2 . . 16 Carer's pension (age) ... 4 2 . . . . 2 . . . . 8 Carer's pension (invalid) ... 4 3 1 1 2 1 . . 12 Family allowance ... 41 52 31 10 10 4 2 150 Handicapped child's allowance ... 1 2 . . 1 . . 2 . . 6 Double orphan's pension ... . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . 2 Family income supplement ... 16 7 5 1 5 2 . . 36 Total ... 4,626 4,791 1,777 1,295 1,583 307 59 14,438 (d) Amnesty claims granted were 13,591. In these cases no overpayment existed by virtue of the legislation. For cases refused Amnesty coverage no detail is available of any overpayments raised. A breakup of Amnesty claims granted by State/Territory and benefit category is set out in the following table: NSW and ACT Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT Total Unemployment benefit ... 689 540 387 190 285 88 14 2,193 Sickness benefit ... 45 41 20 11 15 3 1 136 Special benefit ... 9 7 3 2 2 3 . . 26 Age pension ... 1,084 1,314 403 323 320 52 6 3,502 Age pension (over 70) ... 1,146 1,057 208 243 257 37 1 2,949 Invalid pension ... 372 594 127 135 187 21 3 1,439 Sheltered employment allowance ... 2 5 2 . . 1 . . . . 10 Widow's pension `A' ... 222 305 113 62 68 20 3 793 Widow's pension `B' ... 160 137 52 32 47 8 4 440 Widow's pension `C' ... 1 1 . . 1 . . . . . . 3 Supporting parent's benefit ... 451 383 254 119 206 37 22 1,472 Wife's pension (age) ... 30 46 7 12 14 1 . . 110 Wife's pension (invalid) ... 87 113 28 40 39 2 . . 309 Rehabilitation allowance ... 2 . . 4 3 3 2 . . 14 Carer's pension (age) ... 4 2 . . . . 2 . . . . 8 Carer's pension (invalid) ... 4 3 1 1 1 0 . . 10 Family allowance ... 32 49 29 9 10 4 2 135 Handicapped child's allowance ... 1 2 . . 1 . . 2 . . 6 Double orphan's pension ... . . 1 1 . . . . . . . . 2 Family income supplement ... 16 7 5 1 3 2 . . 34 Total ... 4,357 4,607 1,644 1,185 1,460 282 56 13,591 (e) Statistics about Amnesty grants to persons with a previous record of receiving overpayments were not kept. (Question No. 4221) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) What (a) were the major reasons for overpayments and (b) the actions he has initiated to prevent the circumstances occurring again, for each category of benefit overpayment recently granted an amnesty. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The major reason for overpayments incurred by persons claiming the Amnesty was a previous failure on the clients' part to advise my department of changes in their circumstances. (b) I refer the honourable member to my statement to the House of 12 February 1986 where measures, being taken to prevent overpayments arising, are extensively canvassed. These measures include a practice adopted by my department of reviewing selectively where it believes there is a risk of incorrect payments. A detailed analysis of the characteristics of Amnesty payments is currently being undertaken and the results will be used to refine the selection criteria of these review processes. (Question No. 4222) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: Will his Department initiate any prosecutions of persons who came to its attention during the course of the amnesty but who were not covered by its provisions; if not, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is the longstanding policy of my department not to prosecute a person who has breached the Social Security Act if that person voluntarily brings the matter to attention. Such overpayments are, however, raised for recovery purposes. Cases involving overpayments revealed as a result of Amnesty claims but not covered by the Amnesty provisions are being dealt with according to this policy. Other cases that came to attention during the Amnesty by means other than voluntary disclosure are being dealt with under the Department's normal prosecution guidelines. Briefly, these guidelines involve consideration of whether, prima facie, an offence has been committed, intent has been demonstrated and socio-economic or other factors relevant to a decision to proceed to prosecution are present. (Question No. 4262) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) What consideration has been given to the recommendations of the report `Supporting Service Families' released by him on 30 April 1986. (2) What action has been taken to implement the recommendations of this report, other than the action announced in his statement of 30 April 1986. (3) When will the recommendations of this report be implemented. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During my press conference on 30 April 1986 I indicated my intention to implement all the recommendations contained in Mrs Hamilton's excellent report `Supporting Service Families' with the timing depending upon resources available. I have also accorded high priority to raising the self esteem of the families of Australian Defence Force Members. The Defence Chiefs of Staff Committee at its meeting of 21 May 1986 considered Mrs Hamilton's report, together with a brief from the Department's Services Personnel Policy Committee on the report. The Chiefs of Staff Committee welcomed the report as a helpful and useful document and supported both the implementation of its recommendations and the provision of personnel for the implementation team. (2) Defence Deputy Secretary A and the Assistant Chief of the Defence Force (Policy) have accepted joint responsibility for co-ordinating the implementation of the report's recommendations and financial cover has been programmed for the next five years to cover the estimates which relate to the proposed Australia-wide Defence Families Information and Liaison Service. The Hamilton Report Implementation Team, headed by Brigadier Phil Davies, has commenced the task of examining ways to address the issues raised in `Supporting Service Families'. The Team has no authority to implement those recommendations relating to conditions of service. This is the responsibility of the Department's Director General of Service Conditions. However, the team will monitor progress in this area and provide advice as to the impact that perceived conditions of service shortfalls have on families of defence force members. The team's task is to co-ordinate within six months the implementation of those recommendations that can be given immediate effect, and to prepare within the same period a detailed strategy for implementation for those with longer term implications. Its principal objectives are: (a) To determine and implement those recommedations of the report which can be given immediate effect. (b) To prepare a detailed strategy of implementation for those recommendations of the report with longer term implications. (c) To establish the Australian Defence Families Information and Liaison Service. (d) To prepare for the Minister for Defence, by 5 December 1986, a progress report on the strategy for implementation of the report's recommendations. (e) To establish a National Consultative Group of Service Spouse to advise on the implementation of the report's recommendations. (3) Mrs Hamilton's recommendation that `there should be a firm entitlement to at least two nights motel accommodation for a family leaving an area, rather than the variable local arrangements that currently exist', has already been approved. With effect from 17 June 1986 the first night's accommodation is granted automatically on the night of removal uplift, with a second night provided at the member's request-with no justification required. The establishment of a small full-time secretariat to assist the relevant senior officers in pursuing the recommendations contained in `Supporting Services Families' was endorsed by the Defence Chiefs of Staff Committee on 21 May 1986. The Hamilton Report Implementation Team has been formed and is operating at Monaro House, Braddon. Details of the Team's objectives appear above at (2). In conclusion, the team has been able to comence operations on a positive note because of the general acceptance of Mrs Hamilton's report. Their efforts will, however, be directed primarily at establishing the Defence Family Information and Liaison Service organisation as it offers practical support in the field, Australia-wide, to families of Defence Force members. Conditions of service matters on the other hand must be referred and processed through departmental and Government machinery, and this involves delay. (Question No. 4290) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: What was the (a) Distribution, and (b) The use of the funds allocated to the International Year of Shelter for the homeless in (i) 1984/85; (ii) 1985/86. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) The approach to International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (IYSH), recommended by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements and being followed by the Australian Government, includes an assessment of needs, the documentation of some good demonstration projects and the evaluation of existing housing policies and programs. In 1984/85 $100,000 was appropriated to the Department of Housing and Construction for the development of the Australian strategy for the IYSH including a strategy to inform the community about the International Year and how they could participate. Actual expenditure in 1984/85 was $98,601. (ii) In 1985/86 $650,000 was appropriated for IYSH, actual expenditure was $458,554. (b) (i) In 1984/85 $98,601 was expended as follows: $69,887 to develop an IYSH information program including the planning, development and pre-production costs for a film to inform the community about the International Year and the Australian IYSH program contribution of $19,620 to two national conferences on the housing problems experienced by women and youth. $8,742 to develop a proposal for the development of housing education materials for inclusion in the curricula of secondary schools incidental expenditure-$352. (b) (ii) During 1985/86 $458,554 was spent in the following areas: $187,907 to prepare IYSH project reports on 13 projects being funded under existing housing programs which demonstrate innovative ways of alleviating the problems of homelessness and inadequate housing; to conduct 10 research projects into areas of specific housing need, low-cost methods of building construction and current public housing arrangements, and to undertake 10 State Government and community projects to increase public awareness of IYSH and housing issues. These projects were selected following advice from the IYSH Non-Government Committee and State Governments. Information generated by the demonstration and research projects will be widely disseminated to community groups and all levels of Government to assist in the on-going development and review of existing housing policies and programs. $155,462 for the preparation of brochures and posters; advertising; the compilation of IYSH address list of community organisations; the development of a handbook for the documentation of IYSH projects; and the further development and production of the IYSH film $36,000 for the initial drafting of housing education materials for consideration by the Curriculum Development Centre prior to their introduction into secondary schools $3,372 for costs, including travel, associated with the conduct of four (4) meetings of the IYSH National Committee of Non-Government Organisations $50,000 contribution to the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) for U.N. IYSH projects in developing countries in the Pacific Region $35,839 towards the cost of running conferences on the housing problems faced by women and foster children; and the World Planning Congress. (Question No. 4300) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) What funds have been provided to (a) child care centres and (b) after school hours programs in the electoral Division of La Trobe for each of the financial years 1981-82 to 1985-86. (2) How many child care places were funded for each of these years. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Funds provided to child care centres in the Federal Electorate of La Trobe: 1981-82 $ 1982-83 $ 1983-84 $ 1984-85 $ 1985-86 $ Capital ... nil 11,111 nil 24,580 166,720 Recurrent ... 6,023 6,000 29,143 134,717 373,543 Total ... 6,023 17,111 29,143 159,297 540,263 (b) Funds provided to After School Programs in the Federal Electorate of La Trobe: 1981-82 $ 1982-83 $ 1983-84 $ 1984-85 $ 1985-86 $ 16,593 20,741 22,164 36,101 44,552 (2) The number of child care places and after school programs places funded for each of these years is: 1981-82 $ 1983/84 $ 1984-85 $ 1985-86 $ Child Care ... 82 82 82 157 252 Outside School Hours Care ... 95 95 95 155 79