Tuesday, 16 September 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. In the Daily Telegraph of 1 September last, in an article by Kerry-Anne Walsh headed `Angry Labor MPs join push against Hurford', the following extract appeared: The backbenchers are enraged at Mr Hurford's offer in the letter to talk about `moves afoot to discipline those few Labor backbenchers who caused a fuss on uranium sales to France'. The letter was sent a day after three left-wingers stormed out of Parliament over the Government's decision to resume uranium sales to France. South Australian John Scott and Victorians Peter Milton and Lewis Kent made headlines by briefly interrupting Treasurer Paul Keating's Budget speech by their walk-out. Labor Party sources said that if Mr Hurford's statement referred to the actions of the rebel backbenchers he was breaching Parliamentary privilege. Again on the same date, in the Australian, there was a similar reference to the same matter. The matter would seem to raise a question of parliamentary privilege and within our Standing Orders there is certainly a commitment that no action should be taken by any member which in any way would impede him in the execution of his duties. In the letter of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) dated 20 August 1986 to Mr Jeremy Cordeaux, the following words appeared: ``. . . or if it were today in addition to Budget matters we could talk about moves afoot to discipline those few Labor backbenchers who caused a fuss on uranium sales to France. There were also comments by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) to the effect: Unfortunately, there are some people in this game who would sell out their grandmother's Christmas dinner for personal gain. Therefore, I think it would be pretty low if a Minister used on a radio station inside information of moves afoot without consulting his colleagues face to face. I ask you, Madam Speaker: Has that matter been referred to you? If not, I raise it as a matter of privilege without arguing the precedents within it, and ask for your ruling as to whether the matter should be dealt with now as a prima facie breach of privilege and then considered in further detail by the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges. Madam SPEAKER —As is normal in these cases, I will take the matter on board and report back to the House. Madam SPEAKER —Since the last meeting of the House I have had the opportunity to make an appraisement of the apology offered by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) to me on that occasion. At that time I had not read the transcript of his Press conference. However, I have now made a comparison of what the right honourable member said on 21 August and his explanation to the House on 22 August. At his Press conference he is recorded as saying: Whatever the evidence, it certainly is not evidence that should be put in the hands of the Speaker who we saw this afternoon is inclined on occasions to rather hasty action. Later on he is recorded as saying: And certainly if, as one would hope, Mr Justice Murphy recovers from his illness, then it certainly is a matter that you can't just leave buried in the custody of the Speaker and the President. As I've said today, I rather doubt, in the circumstances of the Speaker's behaviour, that she necessarily is a person into whose custody I'd want documents of this kind left. The Leader of the National Party, in his explanation to the House, stated: Madam Speaker, the remarks were not meant to be about you but about Parliament, about the occasional misbehaviour of miscreants such as myself and the fact that I did not believe that Parliament was a suitable repository for documents containing allegations that are unresolved by legal commissioners. I therefore withdraw those remarks and apologise, for they were in no way directed against you or the office you hold. In accepting that apology, I assumed, as I am sure other honourable members did, that the right honourable member had been inaccurately reported. However, having compared the statements, I can only conclude that the right honourable member has misled the House. I advise that, in my opinion, the transcript of his Press conference contains serious personal reflections on the Chair, which constitute a breach of the privileges of this House, and his subsequent apology constitutes a contempt of the House. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I raise several matters in relation to this item, which you had the courtesy to advise me about-- Mr Mountford —You lied. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard —Madam Speaker, are you going to have that remark by the Treasurer withdrawn? Madam SPEAKER —Did the Treasurer make a comment that I did not hear? Mr Keating —I said nothing. It must have been another member. Mr Howard —Well, it was another one. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Howard —Is he going to withdraw it? Madam SPEAKER —Be quiet for a moment. The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Mountford —I withdraw, although I think it was-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw unreservedly. Mr Mountford —I withdraw. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Speaker, with respect to the matter you have now raised, I thank you for the courtesy of forwarding to me today the transcript of the apology which was made by me to the House on 22 August. I raise first of all the question that there have been no new matters intervening since the time when I gave my apology and the time when you accepted that apology in the House. The matters which were canvassed were matters which were contained entirely within transcripts that were then available which followed a Press briefing that I gave on 21 August 1986. They were available at the time you called on me to make the apology in this place. As a result, the matter should have been raised at the time that it first appeared, that is, at the time you requested me in the first instance to apologise. I suggest to you that standing order 96 applies as much to the Presiding Officers as it does to any other member of this House. On the second account, I take it as a grave offence that you have suggested that in any way, in apologising, I have not completely withdrawn those remarks. How could I have withdrawn those remarks unless I had made them? The point of my apology was that I had admitted having made those remarks. I could hardly have withdrawn them if they had not been made by me. That was the whole point of my coming into this place and apologising to you and withdrawing the remarks. I suggest to you that there is no possible way in which I could have misled the House, because I would not have withdrawn the remarks if they had not been made. That seems to me to be fairly symptomatic of the whole basis of the apology. The third item that I canvass with you, Madam Speaker, is that when I explained the circumstances to the House I was attempting to say to you and to the House that I think it is important that if there are documents of a quasi-political character-I suggest to you that matters pertaining to the Murphy inquiry are becoming more and more of that character-it is essential that those documents not be retained in a forum in which politics is very much the barb of the whole debate. This place, you and Mr President are very much within the political forum. The point I was seeking to make was that the remarks pertaining to a legal inquiry should not properly be contained within the custody of an officer or a chamber where politics, rather than the law, is the subject of everyday concern. Madam Speaker, as I explained to the House on 22 August, I believe that my fairly brief, but nonetheless totally accurate, comment was very pertinent to that point. I again quote: . . . I did not believe that Parliament was a suitable repository for documents containing allegations that are unresolved by legal commissioners. Madam Speaker, I repeat that those remarks sought to draw attention to the fact that the whole question of the outstanding matters affecting Mr Justice Murphy is very much under consideration by three legal commissioners. That commission remains intact at this time. The Senate has not yet dealt with the allegations. They are legal matters, not political matters. Madam Speaker, if you are suggesting that in what I said I was seeking other than to make reference to the fact that this is a political chamber, not a legal chamber, you are drawing an inference that is not justified by any of the content of my additional remarks. Madam Speaker, I believe that on those three grounds there is no basis for your assertion that I have misled the House. Apart from that, I also draw your attention to the fact that the matter was resolved by the decision that you gave on 22 August-that is, by your conclusion in reply to my remarks, in which you said: `I thank the right honourable gentleman'. Madam Speaker, the matter should have been raised. The items were entirely available to you, your officers and everybody else; they were printed in the Press. If you felt that my apology was insufficient the matter should have been raised on that occasion. Secondly, I believe that you have drawn an inference-an innuendo-that it is not for you to draw. The remarks, which I made intentionally, related to the fact that I do not believe that a political forum is a place where legal documents should properly be held. It is for that reason that I intended, when I spoke to the House on 22 August, to draw the comparison, and for that reason I withdrew my remarks. Thirdly, Madam Speaker, I believe that when I have withdrawn those remarks it is quite improper for you to say that in some way I was asserting that I had not made them. I could not have made that assertion if I had not made the remarks. It was because I believed them to be a reasonably accurate-I cannot testify to their exact accuracy-cover of the remarks I made that I withdrew them and apologised to you, which I again do. Madam Speaker, I do not believe that there is any basis whatsoever for your assertion that I have misled the House. I could not have withdrawn the remarks unless I had made them. I asserted on that day that I was withdrawing them and I assert again that having made remarks of that character I do not believe that this place, you as the Presiding Officer or Mr President in a political forum are appropriately the custodians of documents which I believe should be more of a legal than a political character. On that basis I contend that I have not misled the House. I put to you that the suggestion that I have done so is not in accordance with the fact. I suggest that even if it were the matter should have been raised on 22 August when it was first considered, for there is no new intervening material. On that basis I do not believe it proper that the matter has been raised again today. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) that when the matter was raised in the House I accepted what he said and his apology, not having read the transcript or listened to the tapes. The new evidence comes as a result of listening to the tapes. The two comments made at the Press conference, he will see, have absolutely nothing to do with a political forum or the Parliament being a correct repository for papers that come from the legal commission. They are a direct attack on the Speaker of this House. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —Madam Speaker, as your Deputy, I would like to make some remarks on the explanation given by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). I think that his explanation in relation to your remarks was somewhat lacking. I do not think this matter should be taken lightly by the House, because any attack upon the Speaker should be construed by all honourable members as an attack upon the House itself. Having heard what the right honourable member has said, I think it is appropriate that the House should carry a motion which makes that point very clear. I move: That this House- (1) is of the opinion that- (a) the comments made by the Leader of the National Party during a press conference on Thursday 21 August and correctly reported in the Canberra Times the following day were highly critical of Madam Speaker and- (i) constitute a breach of the privileges of this House, and (ii) were deliberately calculated to attack the Speaker's right to discipline Members by calling into question her personal character and, (b) the Leader of the National Party's statement to the House on Friday 22 August, being clearly at odds with his original comments, misled the House, and thus constitutes a contempt of the House, and (2) condemns the Leader of the National Party for his personal reflections upon the character and integrity of the Speaker of the House and her capacity as Speaker to perform her duties. Mr Peacock —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. It would appear to me that the honourable member is reading from a typed, and therefore prepared, statement. Would you advise the House, Madam Speaker, who, in addition to the honourable member for Grayndler, and perhaps the Leader of the National Party, was informed by you that this matter would be raised, and in so advising would you advise us why the honourable member for Grayndler was so informed? Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Donald Cameron —You are crooked, too. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Kooyong that the honourable member for Grayndler has the floor. He is entitled to make his own statements to the House. Mr O'Keefe —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I demand that the honourable member opposite withdraw his reflection upon you. He called you a crook. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I withdraw. Mr LEO McLEAY —Madam Speaker, it is obvious from the comments made by the Leader of the National Party that there is a considerable discrepancy between what was reported in the Canberra Times, what he said at his Press conference and what he said in the House later as a personal explanation in relation to what you said to him. It is obvious today from what the right honourable gentleman has said that there is a considerable discrepancy between what he said at his Press conference and what he said to the House. It is absurd for anyone to suggest that the right honourable member, in making that reflection upon you, Madam Speaker, was really talking about Parliament as a forum and that you and the President were not really included in it. When one looks at his remarks-I made a point of taking them down-one finds that the honourable gentleman said that he did not think that evidence should be put in the hands of the Speaker `who we saw this afternoon'-that is the afternoon he made those remarks-`is inclined on occasions to rather hasty action'. He went on to say at the Press conference that he rather doubted, in the circumstances of the Speaker's behaviour, that she necessarily was a person into whose custody he would wish to place documents of this kind. That is not a reflection upon the Parliament; that is a personal reflection upon you, Madam Speaker, as the Presiding Officer of this House. As such, it should be recognised by all honourable members that, if we are to accept that the Chair in this place is to have some dignity and that the Chair is the honest arbiter of disputes in the chamber, the right honourable gentleman should have had the strength of his convictions and stood up on 22 August and said that he made those remarks-maybe he made them in the heat of the moment; maybe he was misreported-and that he unreservedly withdrew them. But for him to get up and to put before this House the sham argument that he was not really talking about you or reflecting upon you, Madam Speaker, but was reflecting upon some institution is an absurdity. The House should recognise that and should condemn the right honourable member for it. I think that one should always judge people upon their standards and the standards that they ask of others. Even some honourable members on my right seem to agree with that. It is probably worth while looking at what the right honourable member for New England, the Leader of the National Party, has said about the standards of reflections upon Presiding Officers in this Parliament. Earlier this year, when he was trying to have a slice at the Treasurer (Mr Keating), as recorded on page 1038 of the Hansard, he said to you: Madam Speaker, in accordance with standing order 97, in a moment I shall table that document. But I wish to draw your attention to the procedures and practices of this place with respect to attitude to yourself, to members of this House and to chairmen of committees. Of course, within the Standing Orders and according to Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice, you will know that a reflection on the character or actions of the Speaker, inside or outside the House, may be punished as a breach of privilege. You will know that, indeed, there have been many occasions when such matters have been canvassed before the House. He went on to say that these sorts of things are things that the House should take a very dim view of. They are not my words; they are the words of the Leader of the National Party. In March of this year he said that he thought that any reflection upon the Speaker or one of the Presiding Officers should be something taken very seriously by this House. That was only a few months ago. But he came in here on the 22nd of last month and he came in here today and said that of course it was just a simple little thing and that he did not really mean it. To suggest that it is a matter of little consequence which does not require a full and open withdrawal when one says that the Speaker cannot be trusted to be a repository for documents placed before this Parliament is a scandal. The right honourable member for New England should do what a previous Speaker of this House, Archie Cameron, did when he was put in the same position of casting some aspersions on one of the Presiding Officers. Cameron at least had the strength of his convictions and stood up here, said that what he had done was wrong and apologised. In fact, Cameron even went further in his remarks and said that he felt that he had broken with a long tradition of never withdrawing and that he would withdraw at any time he was called upon in the House to do so. I think that the right honourable member for New England should have the strength of that conviction. After today's debate he should look at what Cameron said. The right honourable gentleman has been in this House for many years-probably longer than the rest of us. He is a Privy Councillor. He is a man who raises matters of privilege in this House frequently. I can recall him raising at least one or two this year and in the time I have been in the Parliament I can recall at least seven or eight occasions on which he has raised matters of privilege. He ought to know what privilege is about and he ought to know that one cannot get away with doing what he did last week-going outside this chamber, making a disgraceful attack upon the Speaker and then coming in here and saying that the remarks were not meant to be about you, Madam Speaker, but about the Parliament. The remarks at that Press conference were about the Speaker. The remarks at that Press conference were a reflection on this Parliament. The right honourable gentleman at least ought to have the strength of character that Archie Cameron did. He should uphold the dignity of the Parliament and put beyond doubt the integrity of the Chair. If the right honourable gentleman is willing to do that, if he is willing to withdraw, I will do what Les Haylen did back in 1945-seek leave of the House to withdraw my motion. Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I ask that the documents that the honourable member quoted from be tabled. That includes the typed motion that he has moved. Madam SPEAKER —There is no provision within the Standing Orders for that. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.24) —The Opposition will totally oppose this motion. Madam Speaker, may I say that the concern of the Opposition that this matter should have been raised and the circumstances in which it has been raised were heightened when my colleague the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) handed me your note to him dated today and indicating to him that, having read the transcript of his Press conference, you intended to raise the matter in the House again today. The letter was signed `Yours sincerely, Joan Child'. That note carries an annotation to the effect that it was received by hand at 12.52 this afternoon. Yet the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) was able to give a prepared speech. We have enormous respect for the honourable member for Grayndler; he is very quick on his feet. I believe that other members on this side of the House, as I did, found your unwillingness to indicate who had been given prior notice of this matter, other than the right honourable member for New England, very disturbing. The fact that my colleague received this notice at 12.52 p.m. does not give us any cause at all for joy. I say to you, Madam Speaker, and the House that it ill behoves anybody in the Australian Labor Party to lecture this House about how Speakers of this House should be treated, because a few of us on this side have witnessed the assassination of Speakers by members of the Labor Party. We have witnessed their track record, their capacity and their respect. This matter goes to the reputation and position of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This alleged admonition of my colleague, the right honourable member for New England, is about upholding the dignity of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This Parliament and the honourable members who now sit behind the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the Labor Party side ought to be reminded that when it comes to disagreeing with Speakers those opposite are the world champions. What really concerns the Opposition and what is the real basis of our rejection of this motion is that, as everybody in this House knows, comments by the Leader of the National Party which led to his expulsion arose during a very heated debate on a matter that has caused a great deal of controversy in this Parliament. Like many honourable members on both sides of the House, he made comments which ultimately led to his expulsion from the House. The right honourable member then held a Press conference and he made some other remarks. When the concern of the Speaker about those remarks was expressed, my colleague apologised in the House and withdrew those remarks-- Mr Sinclair —As I did again later. Mr HOWARD —He withdrew them again a moment ago. Time and again honourable members on both sides of the House make remarks for which they are called to account and which they then withdraw. As far as the Speaker has been concerned on other occasions and as far as we have been concerned, that has been the end of the matter. Are we to have a new standard of conduct in this Parliament that says that an unqualified withdrawal and apology by the right honourable member for New England will not be good enough? Will he be treated in a fashion unlike that afforded any other member of this Parliament? A moment ago the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) was asked by the Speaker to withdraw a slur on the character of the right honourable member for New England. He withdrew. Did we say: `Oh no, that is not good enough. We want some other kind of apology and withdrawal.'? Did we say that he ought to be dragged before the Bar of the Parliament for contempt? Madam Speaker, I remind you with every respect that your most important duty is to preserve a perception of fairness and balance in the way you administer your duties. I believe that I speak for every member of the Opposition when I say to you that we are greatly disturbed that in this matter you are not doing that. We believe that the apology that was tendered by the right honourable member for New England, the Leader of the National Party, was quite adequate in all the circumstances. To require him to go any further than the apology that he has already given and the withdrawal that he has already made is to impose upon him a double standard. To require him to make an apology is to treat him differently from the way other people have been treated. I only say to those members of the Government who may have had knowledge of this move by you, Madam Speaker, that, if they really believe that this kind of behaviour by you and the Government will enhance the reputation of this House and produce better debate and a higher standard of exchange, they have made a very bad mistake. The action that has been taken will be greatly resented on this side of the chamber. The treatment of the right honourable member for New England is unfair and the Opposition will totally oppose it. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(2.30) —I support the motion. Bearing in mind all the documents that we supposedly have before us, if the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) or his staff cannot copy a few pages of Hansard, that incompetence will be one of the reasons why he will go down the drain at the next election. The right honourable member for New England held a Press conference after being legitimately suspended from the House. He interjected not once but on seven occasions, as reported by Hansard, and under standing order 303 (e) he was suspended. He then held a Press conference during which he made certain remarks which were in part reported correctly in the Canberra Times. The right honourable gentleman said: I rather doubt, in the circumstances of the Speaker's behaviour-- not the Parliament's behaviour but the Speaker's behaviour- that she necessarily is a person into whose custody I'd want documents of this kind left. You said, Madam Speaker, that if the remarks of the right honourable gentleman were made as reported, and verified by him-in other words, the right honourable gentleman was given a chance to verify that which had been reported, and all honourable members know that they should not believe everything they read in the newspapers because not everything is recorded accurately-you would ask him to withdraw them. The right honourable gentleman said: Madam Speaker, the remarks were not meant to be about you but about Parliament, about the occasional misbehaviour of miscreants such as myself . . . That is totally at odds with the following: I rather doubt, in the circumstances of the Speaker's behaviour, that she necessarily is a person into whose custody I'd want documents of this kind left. When I was on my way home from Parliament on that evening I heard the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program PM. During that program various quotes of the right honourable gentleman were played from his Press conference and from what he said in Parliament. As a member of this Parliament I was aggrieved that I had been deliberately misled, as had Parliament and you, Madam Speaker, by the right honourable gentleman. It is nonsense for the right honourable gentleman to come into the House and suggest that he genuinely withdrew the remarks he had made at the Press conference. That is not true. The right honourable gentleman tried to deceive the House and now he arrogantly says: `I have already apologised for that'. But he did not do that. He said that the remarks were not made about the Chair, but they were. What has he withdrawn? I would like him to inform the House about that. Has he owned up to the fact that he made the remarks that were attributed to him? I thought originally that the Canberra Times must have got it wrong, but it did not. That was shown by the tapes the ABC played. The facts are clear. The right honourable gentleman deliberately misled the House. If he had apologised for his remarks, I suggest that the matter would not have gone any further; but after Parliament had risen and the tapes were produced, it was clear that the right honourable gentleman's remarks inside the House and outside were contradictory. I support the motion before the House. It concerns the most outrageous action I have ever seen in my six years in this Parliament. About the only correct thing the right honourable gentleman said was when he described himself as a `miscreant'. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary `miscreant' means: `. . . depraved . . . heretic; vile wretch'. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.36) —The public of Australia who no doubt are listening to this debate would be interested to know that today Caucus has been radically divided on questions of uranium and on the question of a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) on the subject of mining in Kakadu National Park, and that the House rose four days after the Budget was introduced on the basis that the Government was unable to explain to the Parliament or to the people that its Budget was a total failure. Since then we have had a series of incidents within the Government which shows that it is not prepared to face up to the people in the way it should. So today we have an ambush, on the basis of what I find to be one of the worst instances that I can recall since I first entered politics a little while ago. I would like to refer again to three elements, Madam Speaker. The first is your letter to me. I received it at 12.52 p.m. Your Deputy, who moved this motion, obviously had a prepared speech, and the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) had a number of references which could not have been acquired in the few minutes since notice was given to this House. I find it fascinating not only that that has occurred, but also that in the normal procedure where there is a consideration of privilege it involves the Committee of Privileges of this House. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what consideration has been given by that Committee to this issue. Is it a matter that the Government has cooked up in its anxiety to run for cover? The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) laughs, and well he might. The House will remember that he is introducing a prosecution-within seven days, I think-on the question of whether there have been abuses in the administration of social welfare. It takes up to nine months, or perhaps two years, for the average person who has been abusing unemployment benefit to be prosecuted. The reality is that this Government is running scared. Ministers are unable to answer the proper questions of the people, so what do they do? I thank them for their flattery. They have decided that, as they cannot get rid of me in any other way, they will in a per-emptory fashion pursue a course of action which is false in its origin. Madam Speaker, I have apologised twice, and if you like I shall do it again. I apologise for the remarks I made and I withdraw them. I cannot see how one can withdraw remarks that have not been made, but I mention the circumstances of your Deputy, whom we all recall not so very long ago abused the position in which you sit when on 20 May 1986, seeking to participate in a debate while sitting in the chair, he offered the following comments: I would like to add my warm regards to the Minister on the passage of this legislation which builds on the landmark work he did in this area in a previous Labor government. First, we have the circumstance of an ambush. Secondly, we have the climate in which the man who moved the motion, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, grossly abused the privilege that he was called on to exercise as your Deputy while sitting in the chair. Thirdly, we have the climate in which the two members who are responsible for this motion-I hesitate to call them `honourable' in this climate-have introduced a motion which certainly-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I would like to say two things. If the Leader of the National Party is verifying that these are the words he actually spoke and that these are the words he is withdrawing, I am quite sure that the honourable member for Grayndler will withdraw the motion. May I inform the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to his question, that the Chair was approached on this matter by a number of members of the Government who intended to raise the matter themselves today. As I started the matter back on 22 August, it seemed to me right and proper that I raise it. Whether I had raised it or not, it would have been raised in the House today. Mr SINCLAIR —In answer specifically to the intervention by the Leader of the House (Mr Young), may I say that I did acknowledge, do acknowledge and for the fifth time withdraw the remarks and apologise to the House. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr SINCLAIR —Now, may I continue on the motion-- Mr Leo McLeay —As I said in my earlier remarks, if the right honourable gentleman is willing to do that, I am quite willing to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. Madam SPEAKER —Is the honourable member for Grayndler seeking the leave of the House? Opposition members interjecting- Mr Leo McLeay —Of course, if members of the Opposition want us to persist, I am more than happy to do so. But as I said in my opening remarks, if the right honourable member for New England were to take the principled position that Archie Cameron did in 1945, I would have no hesitation in seeking leave to withdraw. The right honourable member has said that he recognises the remarks and unreservedly withdraws, and it is fine that the matter should end there. If the House gives leave, I shall be willing to withdraw. Motion-by leave-withdrawn. Ms Jakobsen —I am still unclear as to whether the right honourable member has withdrawn the remarks he said that he said or the remarks that he actually said. Madam SPEAKER —To make it quite clear to the House, the right honourable member has withdrawn the words that he said about the Chair in his Press conference. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House express its deep regret at the death on 7 September 1986 of the Hon. Leslie Harry Ernest Bury, C.M.G., a former member of this House for the Division of Wentworth from 1956 to 1974 and a former Minister of the Crown, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Leslie Bury was born on 25 February 1913 in London and was educated at Queen's College, Cambridge. In 1956, he was elected to the House of Representatives for the New South Wales seat of Wentworth for the Liberal Party of Australia in the by-election held following the resignation of the Rt Hon. Sir Eric Harrison. During his 17 years continuous service to the Parliament, he held a series of ministerial portfolios, including the senior post of Treasurer from 1969 to 1971 and Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1971. Leslie Bury was a member of several parliamentary committees. He also represented Australia at numerous parliamentary conferences and on delegations overseas. Before entering Parliament, he was executive director of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development and the Australian representative on the International Monetary Fund in Washington. He held various senior posts in the Public Service in Canberra and was the President of the Canberra Branch of the Australian Institute for International Affairs from 1949 to 1951. During World War II, Leslie Bury served in the Second Australian Imperial Force from 1943 to 1945, with heavy artillery fixed defences and with the 12th Australian Radar Detachment. Madam Speaker, Leslie Bury was a long-standing and respected member of the House of Representatives and of the Parliament. On behalf of the Government. I extend to his widow and family our sincere sympathy in their bereavement. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition warmly supports the motion of condolence which has been moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Leslie Bury entered the Federal Parliament for the seat of Wentworth in 1956. He brought with him a very rare and distinguished background in treasury and financial matters. He was a person who had served with very great distinction the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and in the middle 1950s he brought to the Federal Parliament a background in those areas which was not at that time very well represented. The Prime Minister has reminded the House of the various ministerial positions held by Leslie Bury. It has perhaps escaped the notice of some honourable members that Leslie Bury was the Minister to preside over the introduction of the first home owners scheme. In fact, the first home owners scheme was introduced by the Menzies Government after its victory in the 1963 election. Leslie Bury was given the job on his return to the Ministry, after his two-year absence resulting from his comments about the impact on Australia of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market, of overseeing the introduction of the first home owners scheme. That scheme continues today. It is a scheme which has been spoken of warmly by governments from both sides of politics. I am sure that honourable members opposite would allow me to make the observation that Australian Labor Party Ministers for Housing in recent years never tire of talking about the first home owners scheme. I think it is fair to say that their predecessors from this side of the House have also talked fairly regularly about the benefits of it. Perhaps it is appropriate to remember, as we move a motion of condolence for Leslie Bury, that he was in fact the Minister in the Menzies Government who gave the first home owners scheme its start. His ministerial career was a very wide and varied one. Of course he was very well and affectionately known to members of the Liberal Party in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, to Liberal members of parliament and members of the Liberal Party organisation. I can remember first meeting Leslie Bury when I began attending meetings of the New South Wales State Council of the Liberal Party in the late 1950s. He was a well liked and well regarded member of parliament and he was always accessible to members of the organisation. After his retirement in 1974 he was very greatly missed and very warmly regarded by all his friends and colleagues, particularly in the electorate of Wentworth. I know that I speak on behalf of all members of the Liberal Party in conveying to his wife, Anne, and to their sons the sympathy and the condolences of his many friends and the remembrance of a very rich contribution, both in war and in peace, in politics and in finance, to the service of the country he loved very dearly. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I rise to join the National Party of Australia in the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I suspect that my colleague, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and I remain the only members of this chamber who worked with the late Les Bury. He was a remarkable man. I guess from the National Party's point of view I should mention the difference that he had with my predecessor, as Leader of the then Country Party, Sir John McEwen, over the question of Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. It was on that basis that in fact he was briefly sacked from the Ministry, only to return some years later when he certainly once again distinguished himself. However, it is of interest that on that first occasion the difference really lay in the impact on Australia of protectionism in world trade. Today that, of course, is the barb of the mission being undertaken by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) in Uruguay on an occasion when all honourable members of this House would wish him well. As far as the actual circumstances of Les Bury's career are concerned, the motion moved by the Prime Minister and supported by the Leader of the Opposition has detailed much of the impact. I remember Les as a laconic gentleman. He certainly had a quiet application to his job. He also had a very balanced assessment of the problems which he from day to day found himself having to address. He favoured firmness. He was certainly one who did not seek publicity but worked as a quiet achiever in a way that earned the admiration of those of us who were his colleagues. He represented the seat of Wentworth for many years and, as such, was very close to the heart of that great city and the business affairs within it. As a former officer of the Bank of New South Wales, he also represented Australia internationally on the International Monetary Fund and, of course, had considerable close friendships within the Treasury and the Reserve Bank. He had a very close association with both those bodies outside the political forum. I extend to his wife Anne and his four sons, Peter, Michael, John and Nicholas, my very deepest sympathy and that of my wife and members of my Party. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give my support to this motion of condolence. Leslie Bury's career has been outlined by honourable members who have already spoken. The various positions he held in the banking world, the Public Service and the Ministry all indicate the great standing he enjoyed in the country at large and the level of his achievements. At the same time, the packed memorial service last Friday at his family's church, St Mark's, Darling Point, and the appreciative reception given to the very eloquent panegyric by Canon Whild, indicate the very high standing he also enjoyed in his local community. A child of the vicarage and always, in a sense, a man of the vicarage, he was known and respected for his character, integrity and humanity. These were never more clearly displayed than during that brief stumble in his distinguished career to which the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) referred, when Leslie Bury was obliged to resign as Minister for Air in July 1962. Support for him in his electorate of Wentworth was never stronger than at that time. The incident also showed something else about Leslie Bury. He resigned, of course, or was obliged to resign, because his opinions concerning the value of Britain joining the Common Market differed from those of the Government. It is important to note that in his speech during the debate on the Common Market, when the House resumed for the Budget session in 1962, he did not underestimate the economic problems that Britain's entry to the Common Market would create for Australia. However, he stressed the political, defence and security considerations that led him to support Britain's application for entry. He said that twice in our lifetime wars erupting in Europe had caused the slaughter of many thousands of young Australians, and the prospect of these dynamic nations now burying their ancient animosities was a development that Australians could not but support. I quote one characteristic sentence from that speech: European integration, of which the Common Market is an essential expression, is a keystone of the grand design for Western survival. Sir Leslie Bury was not only a man of character, he was also one of that rare species, a man of vision. I offer my sincere condolences to Mrs Anne Bury and her family. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —I rise as someone who served with Leslie Bury for six years in this Parliament. He was a man of great charm and great intellectual achievement, and a man of great personal courage. When I first entered this House in 1966 Leslie Bury was most helpful, as he was to all new members. He extended the hand of friendship-a friendship which I was to enjoy during the ensuing 20 years. We also shared a background in the economic department of the Bank of New South Wales, although, of course, I was there some years later. Leslie left this House due to ill health, which dogged him for the remainder of his life. He showed great courage during this time, and I believe the dedication of his wife and family carried him through that very difficult period of his life. I extend to Anne, and to Peter, Michael, John and Nicholas and their families, my personal sympathy and condolences. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on 30 August 1986 of the Hon. Dame Annabelle Jane Mary Rankin, DBE, a former senator for Queensland from 1946 till 1971, a former Minister of the Crown, and High Commissioner to New Zealand from 1971 to 1975, places on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement. Annabelle Jane Mary Rankin was born in Brisbane on 28 July 1908. She was the daughter of the late Colonel C. D. W. Rankin, a former Queensland State member and Minister for Railways. Annabelle Rankin was elected to the Senate for the Liberal Party of Australia in the 1946 Federal election, being the first woman from Queensland to enter Federal politics. Dame Annabelle was a pioneer in the involvement of women in Australian Federal politics and public life. In October 1947 she was appointed Opposition Whip, the first woman in any Westminster-style parliament to hold this office. In June 1951 Annabelle Rankin was appointed Government Whip, a position she held for 15 years. During her Senate career she served on several parliamentary committees, including the Standing Committee on Public Works. Annabelle Rankin was created a Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the Queens Birthday honours in 1957. Dame Annabelle followed Dame Enid Lyons to become Australia's second woman to hold a position of Cabinet or ministerial rank in the Federal Government when she became Minister for Housing in the Holt Government on Australia Day 1966. She held this portfolio until her retirement from parliament on 24 May 1971. Upon her retirement from parliament Dame Annabelle, as we know, was appointed High Commissioner to New Zealand, the first woman appointed to a diplomatic post in another country. She held this position with distinction until September 1974. Dame Annabelle had a record of considerable community service before she entered the Federal Parliament. She was a Sunday school teacher and State Secretary of the Girl Guides' Association and early in 1943 she became Assistant Commissioner of the Young Women's Christian Association war service attached to the Army where she was responsible for welfare services for servicewomen in Queensland and northern New South Wales. Throughout her 25 years of parliamentary service her community concerns were paramount. Dame Annabelle was a long-standing and respected member of the Senate and served her country and her party with distinction. Her parliamentary achievements were recognised when in 1984 the new Federal seat of Rankin was named in her honour. On behalf of the Government, I extend to her family our sincere sympathy at the passing of a very fine Australian. Death of the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin Death of the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin Death of the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin Death of the Hon. Dame Annabelle Rankin Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I warmly support the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I know that I speak particularly on behalf of members of the Liberal Party of Australia from Queensland in expressing thanks and remembrance of the contribution that Dame Annabelle Rankin made to Australia and to the fortunes of the Liberal Party in the Federal Parliament and in her native State of Queensland. She was, as the Prime Minister said, something of a pioneer in the involvement of women in the political affairs of Australia. She was the first woman in Australia to administer a Federal department, the first Australian woman to head a diplomatic mission, the first woman in any Westminster parliament to hold the office of Government Whip and the first woman from Queensland to enter the Federal Parliament. By any measure and by whatever criterion of political belief or commitment, that was a very remarkable achievement. As the Prime Minister noted in his remarks, she had a very distinguished career in various service and other organisations before she entered Federal parliament. After her retirement from Federal politics and diplomatic activity she continued her very heavy involvement in voluntary and service organisations. Throughout her career she maintained a particular interest in the welfare of young people, the handicapped and the aged. She was their frequent advocate in the Senate and held high office in a number of associated organisations. She was the Vice-President of the Multiple Handicapped Children's Association and patron of the Cystic Fibrosis Association, and she worked tirelessly for the Children's Hospital Foundation and the Queensland Spastic Children's Welfare League. She was a very active member of the Quota Club and of the Business and Professional Women's Association and she was the first woman to be appointed to the Board of Governors of the Utah Foundation. The former honourable member for Moreton, Sir James Killen, described Dame Annabelle as having exercised a matriarchal influence over the whole of Queensland politics. She entered politics at a time when, unfortunately, women were expected by too many people to participate in public affairs as women and for women. She did not see her role in that light and often remarked that in Parliament we worked as a team, not as men or women but as citizens. It is appropriate, as the Prime Minister observed, that a Queensland Federal seat now bears her name. Dame Annabelle's record is an impressive one for any Australian. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia, I record our regret and sadness at her departure. We acknowledge the enormous contribution she made to the nation and to our Party. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in paying tribute to the contribution of the late Dame Annabelle Rankin. She was quite a remarkable person. I was interested to hear the comment of the Leader of the Opposition about Dame Annabelle having had a matriarchal impact on Queensland politics. I found that she had a very sisterly effect on those of us who worked with her. In Cabinet she managed to tone down somewhat the language and the vehemence of the debates. She certainly was able to offer a personal contribution in her measure of understanding of people-I think of the difficulties of mothers within the community-to her portfolio as Minister for Housing. Even though Dame Annabelle was born in Brisbane, I read that during her early times in the sugar cane district of Childers she rode a pony to her first school. Her memory of her bush beginnings certainly was a contributor to her attitude in so many of the debates in which she became involved. It is difficult in a few words to encapsulate the lady who was Dame Annabelle Rankin, but reading through the headlines of Press comments on her does it so well. In a report on a biography of Dame Annabelle by Waveney Browne, entitled A Woman of Distinction the Courier-Mail calls her `a thoroughly nice lady'. In the Canberra Times in 1966 she was described as `a woman in a man's world'. She said of herself `I don't think of myself as a woman'; she thought of herself as a `citizen' and a `member of the team here'. She said: I have always done my work like this, and that is the way I will continue to do it. She was an advocate of `home work' and `hard work', as the New Zealand Herald described her upon her first taking up her duties as High Commissioner for Australia in New Zealand in 1971. A more fitting description than any came upon her retirement as Minister for Housing. A Canberra Times headline by Rosemary Fairbairn on 4 June 1971 described her as `the Dame would play politics, not dolls'. She was a remarkable lady and certainly had a tremendous influence in the Parliament and across the whole of Queensland. There is no doubt that she achieved what she did, not because she was a woman but because of herself. She was always unimpressed with the cause of women's liberation. She just went ahead and did what she wanted, saying that she did not have time to think about it. She believed that all women should be interested in politics, no matter what their occupations. She believed that the woman who has the greatest responsibility and greatest role is the wife and mother. She certainly had a great influence on her community. To her sister Jean, on behalf of my colleagues and myself in the National Party, I extend our deepest personal sympathy. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin) —I would like to add my voice in support of this motion of condolence. As the first Federal member of this Parliament to represent the division of Rankin, I consider it a distinct honour to do so. I had the pleasure of meeting Dame Annabelle Rankin when she officially opened the Rankin electoral office for the Australian Electoral Commission. It was only a brief meeting, but the woman was impressive, even though she was not in good health. I have said before that it is a great honour to represent the division of Rankin and I think that Dame Annabelle's memory is well served by the naming of this Federal division. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —I associate myself with the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). Dame Annabelle Rankin was brought up in a political atmosphere. Her father was a Minister in the only non-Labor government in Queensland between the First World War and 1957-the A. E. Moore Government. As a consequence of that, her knowledge of politics was contributed to by her early years when she was brought up in the country town of Howard some miles north of Maryborough. In 1946, when she was first elected to the Senate, she was one of three non-Labor members of the Senate. Neil O'Sullivan and Walter Cooper were the only other two non-Labor members of the Senate. As a consequence of that, she had a lot to do, although being a Whip of three is probably an easier job than being a Whip of many more. After 1951, when the coalition gained control of the Senate, she filled that position with some distinction. As previous speakers have said, her contribution to politics here, her representation of Australia overseas and her overall representation of the people of Queensland are things for which I am sure we all thank her and remember her. Indeed, she was a very kind and generous person, a person one could approach with great ease and a person whose great knowledge of people I always found very rewarding. She was a person I will miss in a political sense in Queensland and I know that the Liberal Party of Australia will miss her as well. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —I wish to support this condolence motion and to record the appreciation of Queensland women for the trail blazed by Dame Annabelle Rankin in the Federal arena, as she set a pattern for women to follow. Dame Annabelle was an articulate, capable woman. Her record in office as she balanced ministerial duties with family duties did much to demonstrate the energy and efficiency that women can bring to the office of a Federal representative, and this is appreciated. I would like to record my sincere sympathies to her family. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I would like to make a few brief comments in support of what previous speakers have said. Dame Annabelle was a Minister when I came into this place in 1966. Along with a number of other members and senators, I attended her funeral in Brisbane a few days ago. I would simply describe her as the epitome of decency-a thoroughly kind, lovable person who proved that women can make it without being unduly aggressive. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —I wish to associate myself with the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I came to know Dame Annabelle Rankin both before and after my election in 1984. In later years, after her retirement from Parliament, she was a resident in my electorate at Deception Bay. She was very much involved in the community there and earnt the respect of the local people. I would like to express my sympathy and that of the local community to her sister Jean because Dame Annabelle was loved and will be missed by everyone who knew her. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will be absent from Australia on government business until 4 October 1986. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) for his observation of good will in the important task that the Minister is undertaking on behalf of Australia. As all honourable members know, the Minister will be representing the Australian Government at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks at Punta del Este in Uruguay. Following that, the Minister will undertake discussions in Europe. In his absence, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will act as Minister for Trade and will undertake his representative duties in this House. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Does today's government decision on Kakadu National Park totally preclude new mining activity taking place within stage 2 as well as stage 1 of the national park and, with the exception of Coronation Hill, allow exploration only in stage 3? Is this decision therefore not at total variance with the Prime Minister's letter of 1 September to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment in which he said that he would have serious reservations about any proposal that would result in the imposition of a more restrictive framework? I ask whether it is also not at total variance with comments made by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, yesterday when he said: I would like so far as the existing Park is concerned to see some assessment of the resources there to proceed . . . Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The assumption underlying his question is wrong. Let me make clear the effect of the Government's decision. It will mean that there will be no mining or exploration in the existing Kakadu National Park, stages 1 and 2. That is not at variance with what I have said. In regard to what is referred to as stage 3, which is the Goodparla and Gimbat pastoral leases, we will extend the national park beyond its existing boundaries. But we have made clear, firstly, that there will be no mining of uranium. Stage 3 is the area which is the more highly prospective regarding non-uranium resources, particularly it seems for gold and platinum. In the processes of government, in discussions in the relevant committees and in Cabinet we will be undertaking the steps which will enable the assessment of the non-uranium resources in stage 3. We believe that this represents an appropriate compromise between the two essential interests that a large number of honourable members-not only on the Government side of the House-have, that is, that we should have a proper concern for our great natural heritage. Stage 2 of the national park will be submitted for World Heritage listing. I believe that that decision will meet with the approval of the great majority of the Australian people. I was concerned to ensure in regard to the most prospective area for non-uranium resources, which is stage 3, that we should not preclude our capacity to ascertain what is there and, according to national interest considerations, have the possibility of developing that. The decision by the Government will ensure that those two sets of considerations will be met properly. Mr WRIGHT —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the allegations made in the Queensland Parliament last week concerning a decision by the State Minister for Primary Industries to direct the Agricultural Bank of that State to lend $145,000 to a prominent member of the National Party of Australia? Can the Minister tell the House whether any Federal funds are involved? Will he comment on whether such activities are a normal part of primary industry ministerial activity? Mr KERIN —As we know, Queensland is the State of corruption. The only thing that really strikes me in my visits to Queensland is the deeply-held love between the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia at this time. It is really wonderful to see the great love between those two parties there. In answer to the honourable member's question let me say that I am aware of the allegations. They concern me deeply. I would imagine that in times such as these, Mr Turner, the State National Party Minister involved, would receive numerous requests for favours for his National Party mates. After all, that is the way the system works up there. I find it very sad, however, to consider the possibility that in the twilight of a distinguished career in the service of Queensland agriculture Mr Turner appears to have given in to the temptation to be of service only to the Queensland National Party. It is especially sad because the recipient of this $145,000 State jackpot is a failed National Party candidate for the Senate. I have to view these allegations most seriously because it appears that a large part of the money loaned by the Queensland Government to the individual concerned was not its to lend at all-it was the Commonwealth's. Of the $145,000 loaned, $85,000 was granted at 4 per cent under the natural disaster relief arrangements. As honourable members are aware, this scheme is funded by $3 from the Commonwealth for every $1 from the State in years of heavy demand, and after Cyclone Winifred this is one such year. We have a situation in which the Commonwealth and the States have agreed on a scheme under which the Commonwealth, the taxpayers of the nation, funds the bulk of natural disaster relief in adverse years. However, we find that in Queensland it is handed out to National Party candidates at 4 per cent interest, at the whim of National Party leaders. This $85,000 was loaned by the Agricultural Bank at the express direction of the State Minister and against the express advice of the client's trading bank, the Rural Reconstruction Board, an agency of the Queensland Government, and Elders. The Board considered the poor man's finances to be past the point of no return in terms of viability. His business equity was being eroded at a rate in excess of $2,000 a week. All the advice to him was that he should sell-a view shared by the pastoral house's finance manager, his trading bank manager and the Rural Reconstruction Board. These views were known to Minister Turner. But Father Joh Bjelke-Christmas intervened and loaned the man $85,000 at 4 per cent-three-quarters of which appears to have been the Commonwealth's-and $60,000 more at 13.5 per cent, which was properly the Queensland taxpayers'. The Queensland Premier has shown his disregard for these allegations, calling it a loan of a lousy $145,000. I would like to suggest to the Queensland Premier that it is not a lousy amount but it was a lousy decision. My colleague the Minister for Finance is attempting to establish with certainty whether the State is liable to repay to the Commonwealth any of the moneys loaned. To obtain a natural disaster relief loan we need to be sure that the recipient had experienced some real natural disaster apart from being a member of the National Party. In the meantime let it serve as a reminder to the taxpayers and voters of Queensland: It is time they stopped Sir Joh and his Party cronies playing Father Christmas at their expense. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his Press conference in Brisbane last week, when in answer to a question on Soviet influence in the Australian anti-uranium and peace movements he said: Of course they are involved in it . . . I'm just stating the obvious. In the light of his admission that elements of the Australian peace movement are under the influence of the Soviet Union, will the Prime Minister specify more precisely the nature of that influence and the levels to which it reaches? Will he also give the House an assurance that such groups have not received any government funding through the International Year of Peace grants? Mr HAWKE —For obvious and understandable reasons on the other side of the House, what I said at Brisbane has been blown up somewhat. Let me make clear what I was saying and the extent to which I wanted to extend it into the Australian situation. I was stating the obvious when I said that there were interests in the world, not only in Australia, which when addressing themselves to this issue had motives other than concern about the mining, transport and export of uranium. I went out of my way then and subsequently to make it clear that I was not attempting to cast aspersions on the great bulk of the people in Australia, who have a deeply held conviction on this issue. Honourable members opposite will do their purposes no good at all if they attempt to take from what I say some suggestion that the great majority of people in Australia who have expressed their concern at the mining and export of uranium have ulterior motives. I have never believed that and I do not believe it now, and I certainly did not want to convey the impression that that was in any general sense the case. People within the Labor movement, the trade union movement, the churches and a whole range of groups which have no conceivable connection with or influence from the Soviet Union hold particular beliefs on this issue. It is a well known non-state secret that I do not share their view, but I do accept, as I have consistently, the integrity of their position. I say to the honourable member for Kooyong that I have no information as to the degree of influence, financial or otherwise, where that influence exists, but it would be passing strange to believe that it does not happen in this country as I believe it does in others. As to the final point of the honourable member's question, I have no evidence before me that any such group which may be in that category has received any funding under the International Year of Peace. Mr KENT —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Has his attention been drawn to the statement by the right honourable member for New England that stolen ammunition and weapons were shipped from Australia to Sri Lanka by Tamils to be used by terrorists? Has the right honourable member submitted any evidence in support of his allegations to the Minister or to the police? Is the Minister aware that baseless accusations against a peaceful community such as the Tamils, many of whom came to Australia to escape from racial violence in Ceylon, are harmful to our multicultural development? Finally, will the Minister request the right honourable member for New England to submit evidence, if he has any, against individuals instead of accusing a peaceful community of good Australian citizens? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is debating his question. I call the Minister for Defence. Mr BEAZLEY —I share the honourable member's concerns about the position of the Tamil community in this regard. I share his appreciation of the Tamils as a peace loving community within our multicultural society. When I saw the Press release by the right honourable member for New England in the terms in which it was put out I was more than a little mystified. Unlike the general argy-bargy of politics in this place where we quite freely dispense allegations with regard to the activities of other people and each other, these allegations were couched in quite precise terms and in some considerable detail right through the right honourable member's Press release. It was concluded by a statement that he regarded the advice that had been given to him to be advice on excellent authority and that there was a serious matter of security concern for the Government to be obliged to consider. When members of Parliament raise those sorts of security issues with me I always take them seriously. Generally they do so privately. When they believe that a serious matter of security concern has arisen they will come to me privately from both sides of the House and raise it with me. I cannot say that that has occurred in this case. In answer to one part of the honourable gentleman's question, I am not aware of any of the evidence that has been presented in this regard. Nevertheless, having not had that evidence presented to me, I made the best efforts I could to inquire through my Department and through other departments affected by those entirely specific and detailed allegations as to what their foundation might well be and whether we could discover any truth in the matter that required our attention. Having gone through those detailed allegations I cannot find any accuracy in any of them. In the first place it was suggested that a million rounds of ammunition had been stolen from an Australian ammunition factory and shipped to overseas terrorists. Ammunition Factory, Footscray is not missing, honourable members will be pleased to know, one million rounds of ammunition. Furthermore, one million rounds weighs 44 tonnes and represents two heavily laden semitrailers. Clearly, employee pilfering could not account for this bulk even over the period of a year. It would require an employee to pilfer 5,000 rounds per working day. This represents 25 ammunition containers of 200 rounds each per day. As each container is heavy this volume is not credible. Of course the employees could have spread the load around a bit. People would have witnessed a whole lot of workers coming out of Ammunition Factory, Footscray with their trousers round their knees and bits and pieces of ammunition dangling out of their pockets. I am pleased to inform the honourable gentleman that that event has not occurred either. These suggestions are entirely bogus. The right honourable member then came to the conclusion that ammunition was shipped via Darwin, Brisbane and Melbourne in waste paper containers. That has roused the irate indignation of one waste paper exporter to Sri Lanka, who has pointed out the absolute impossibility of doing that without whoever's machine was doing the compressing blowing up in the faces of the people who were doing that compressing. I will not go any further into that, because he has said that he intends to take legal action in regard to that suggestion. I do not know whether he has done so, but if he has it is clearly not a matter appropriate for comment here. The right honourable member went on to say that, because of all this, the Army was recently forced to buy one million rounds of ammunition on the open market as the Government factory was unable to meet the order. The statement implies that we could not meet the order because it was stolen. Indeed, an order for six million rounds of 5.56 millimetre ammunition was recently put to tender overseas, and Australian production of this calibre will commence in June 1987. It was put to tender for the simple reason, not that rounds had been stolen, but that we do not produce it. We will produce it under the self-reliant defence policies of this Government, but we do not do it yet. Over the last six years, there have been 18 overseas orders of 5.56 millimetre ammunition and orders of other calibres. During the right honourable member's time as Minister for Defence, an order for one and a half million blanks was placed in the United States. The right honourable member also claimed that a terrorist had stolen the ammunition while working at the Ammunition Factory, Footscray. He claimed that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation had been notified but had allowed him to escape overseas. Subsequently, on the Willesee program, reporter Martin King claimed that he had spoken to this same terrorist some months earlier, who had convinced him that he was indeed a terrorist. The Willesee program did not run the story, despite the reporter's conviction of the terrorist's bona fides, nor did it raise the matter with me and my Department or my office, although it was subsequently raised in discussions last week. Theft is a matter for the Australian Federal Police, not ASIO, to investigate and there was no theft to investigate. The so-called terrorist was identified by the Willesee show reporter on Friday evening. His name is Ram Damieen and he was employed as a national employment scheme trainee from the Aborigines at the Ammunition Factory, Footscray, from June 1984 to March 1985. He claimed that he was an Aborigine and had lost all his papers in Cyclone Tracy. Mr Damieen worked as a supply clerk. He had nothing to do with ammunition or paper work related to ammunition. As a temporary employee, contrary to the assertions of the Leader of the National Party, he did not have an ASIO security check. The Willesee reporter stated last Friday that, off camera, Mr Damieen claimed again to be a Tamil terrorist. The Federal police have since interviewed the gentleman and he told them that he was an Aborigine, that he had been grossly misrepresented and was going to take legal action. Police investigations are continuing, but the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who has responsibility for such matters, informs me that Mr Damieen may be the first Tamil who knows how to play the didgeridoo. I believe that the right honourable member must give us more information on his claims and his sources. It has been reported in the Sun-Herald newspaper that, immediately after his media conference, the representative of a Canberra lobbying group, Carney Hocking and Associates, was telephoning journalists advising them to ring the Sri Lankan High Commission for confirmation. That group is headed by Mr Carney, formerly on Mr Sinclair's staff, and, as I understand it, the group has a public relations account for Air Lanka. My office has also been told-it is not obviously as reliable a report as that-that a freelance journalist was complaining in the Press gallery on Friday that Mr Carney had given the story to that journalist and it was going to get a big run on Sunday, but that he had given it instead to Mr Sinclair. This all sounds very curious, and obviously there will be opportunities during the days ahead for the right honourable member to clear that up. To get back to the point, not one single item in that Press report was factually based-not one. They were detailed accusations, not the general argy-bargy that we throw around the place at each other from time to time. They were obviously introduced in the context of his embarrassment at dealing with the problems raised by the absurd claims by the Leader of the National Party in Queensland about this Government's attitude to terrorism. It is this Government that has taken its responsibilities seriously in that regard and it is this Government that has ensured that it is a primary requirement of ASIO to pay attention to the operations of potential terrorist organisations, if any, in this country. I might say that that preoccupation has sometimes come in for criticism from conservative circles, who believe that the principal function of ASIO should be counterespionage and that it should not concentrate on these types of issues. So obviously he was doing his best, as a loyal National Party member, to cover for his colleague back in Queensland. But his best was not good enough, particularly when it came forth in such detail, such spurious detail, as subsequent investigations have found. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Minister for Defence a question and draw his attention to the Auditor-General's report, which is to be tabled later today, in which, referring to Footscray and other ammunition factories, it is stated: These factories have a lamentable history of inadequate accounting. The sustained lack of interest displayed in the financial reports by management represents a serious breach of public accountability obligations and shows little evidence of the commercial orientation necessary for efficient operations. In light of his claim in his Press statement that, with the exception of 25,000 rounds, all ammunition produced at the ammunition factory in Footscray is accounted for, how did he reach that conclusion? Where is that ammunition? What does he believe that ammunition is being used for? I also draw the honourable gentleman's attention to that part of his Press statement which stated that in another incident a small amount of explosives and ammunition was stolen, and refer him to the answer by the Special Minister of State to a question on notice in the Senate Hansard of 8 April 1986 which referred to four break and enter incidents between 29 December 1985 and 18 January 1986. I ask him: On what basis does he believe there was only one such incident? What guarantees can he give this House that the figure he stated, that is, only 25,000 rounds are missing, is accurate? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the right honourable gentleman for his question and appreciate the fact that he is now running a thousand miles an hour away from his previous accusations. Let me now start with the 25,000 rounds. Indeed I felt that the occasion of his particular Press release required of me that I state in answer to him the maximum possible extent of the problem which was present at the time and to which I was obliged to respond. The point I make concerning the 25,000 rounds is that we have subsequently gone through an accounting procedure on that matter and we can now fail to account for only a few hundred. So in fact the bulk of that 25,000 since then has been accounted for. The right honourable member will no doubt be pleased to know that. I come to the basic suggestion about the problems with accounting not only in that factory but across the board in defence factories. We have had some real problems over the last three years catching up with the mismanagement of the government factories which has occurred and which was permitted to occur by the honourable member's Government when it was in office for that very substantial period. The fact that we are prepared to confront those problems is evident in the rationalisation in which we have engaged in all the defence factories. We have been obliged in that process to lay off workers. We have been obliged in some circumstances to shut factories as we start to introduce commercial practice into them, that is, commercial practice related not only to their accounting procedures but also to their operations overall. I think that the Auditor-General correctly identified a long historical problem in regard to accounting procedures in the defence factories. He would also be in a position to be able to identify correctly the fact that this is the Government that is actually doing something about it after 30-odd years, the only Government that has done anything about it, compared with the pusillanimous performance in that regard when the Opposition happened to be in government. As I have said, in a number of those factories we have introduced direct and more effective accounting methods. Honourable members would also note that the Auditor-General has referred to the fact that this Government has begun to address those problems. In regard to the theft of ammunition-the one million rounds that the right honourable member is looking for-that is supposed to be a matter of ASIO investigation, there have been police investigations with regard to small amounts of missing ammunition from factories, not the amounts that are going to be used to fight a great terrorist war in Sri Lanka, the Middle East or anywhere else, but a few rounds here and there. The result of those police investigations is that a person is going to have to go to trial and an employee has also been dismissed. So these matters are being picked up by the police and are being dealt with. Opposition members-Oh, oh! Mr BEAZLEY —Honourable members opposite go: `Oh, oh!' This is a bit different, is it not, from a million rounds for the heinous terrorists that we are supposed to be supporting-a bit of pilfering here and there which is supposed to cover that particular exercise? The right honourable member seeks assurances on guarding arrangements at factories. As with the accounting problems at factories, so too we addressed the guarding arrangements at factories left depleted by the right honourable member's tenure as Minister for Defence and his predecessors in that regard. There has been at those factories a tightening of security procedures to deal with the sorts of problems that have arisen from time to time with regard to pilfering and break-ins. Nobody is ever able to produce-not this Government, not the previous Government-absolutely foolproof security procedures anywhere. I would say that the procedures we have been introducing in the defence factories are markedly superior to anything that was attempted while he was in office. Investigations have proceeded and been brought through to some degree of success, at least to the extent that charges can be laid. With regard to the particular 25,000 rounds, as against the one million, that the right honourable member has got particularly uptight about, I am able to assure him that we are down to being unable to account for only a few hundred of those, and a bit more effort on behalf of the people shifting paper on the issue will probably eliminate most of those as well. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Rt Hon. Sir Peter Kenilorea, Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent earthquakes which have devastated the Kalamata region of Greece. What information can he provide to the House in relation to this tragedy and what action has the Government carried out? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member for Calwell refers to a subject which of course has brought considerable grief directly to many in Greece and also to many of our Australian citizens and would be a matter of concern to the Australian community generally. I have nothing to add to the general details that have been available in the Press as to the extent of the tragedy that has occurred there. I can say to the honourable member, however-and I believe I would be speaking on this matter not merely for the Government but for the whole House-I have sent a message to the Prime Minister of Greece in these terms: I was very sorry to learn of the earthquake which occurred in Southern Greece and of the death, injuries and destruction at Kalamata. This is a human tragedy which will draw worldwide sympathy, but it is felt particularly acutely in Australia where so many of our citizens have strong personal and family ties with your country. Indeed Australians have notable connections with the Messinia region ranging from the landing of Australian troops at Kalamata during the Second World War to the many thousands of Greek Australians whose origins are in this part of Greece. I concluded by saying: On behalf of the Government and of all Australians I would like, through you, to convey to the relatives of those killed and to those injured and suffering the effects of the destruction our deepest sympathies. Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Treasurer. On what basis does he maintain that Sydney is his principal place of residence for the purpose of claiming ministerial and parliamentary travel allowance? Mr KEATING —I can see, on the basis of organised questions, how the Leader of the Opposition is again wishing to play the man and not the ball, but so be it. I am quite happy to be in that particular game any time he likes. There is nothing irregular about my travel allowances. I own one residence in this country and it is in Sydney. That is the basis of my claim, as were the claims of a plethora of coalition Ministers during their period of office. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Much misleading information has been published relating to the log book record-keeping requirements for motor vehicles subject to the fringe benefits tax. What action can the Government take to clarify the situation? Mr KEATING —The changes to the fringe benefits legislation, in terms of the claims for motor vehicle costs and deductions, reflect the possibility of users of vehicles for business purposes being able to substantiate a high proportion of their deductions. At the moment two bases of substantiation are available in respect of motor vehicles. One is the statutory rule. I am not certain that many taxpayers understand that they do not need to fill in log books. Log books do not have to be filled in if owners of vehicles wish to use the statutory rule which has been provided by the Government. I do not have a copy of the precise rule with me, but it means that the write-off is around 40 per cent for 5,000 kilometres of vehicle usage, and for usage up to 25,000 kilometres it is about 75 per cent to 80 per cent. In other words, if a motorist wishes not to bother about the log book, he does not have to. He can fall back on the statutory rule if he so chooses. If, however, the owner of a business or a self-employed person wishes to claim 80 or 90 per cent, or something of that order, and substantiate to the kilometre the differentiation between private and business use, then the log books, quite properly and sensibly, are available for that purpose. All they need to do is enter the private mileage in the log book each day and the balance is automatically designated as business mileage. It is not an onerous obligation. The notion that has been put about by the coalition, that a person must fill in details of every trip is, of course, nonsense. All people have to do is make clear what is their private mileage and the balance is business mileage. The whole purpose of this, of course, is to remove from the tax system the blemish whereby people who have the use of vehicles make claims at the taxpayer's expense which are really claims for private use. I remind the House that many investment advisers and accountants are still advising their clients that because of the concessionality of the statutory rule it is still worth their while to own and operate a motor vehicle. The log books are available for any owner of a vehicle who wishes to substantiate the fact that he or she can claim a higher level of business use than would be available under the statutory rule on the basis of block kilometres. Mr PETER FISHER —I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to the decision introduced by stealth last week to increase the base price of diesel fuel by 5.8c per litre, which will further affect farm returns by $76.2m. Why did the Government increase the cost of fuel when there was an urgent need to ease domestic costs and slash the tax burden on fuel? Mr KERIN —I am not responsible for this area of government policy. I will check the honourable member's question with the relevant Minister, who I assume is either Senator Button or Senator Gareth Evans. Mr MILDREN —Is the Minister for Communications aware of concerns raised by the Post Office Agents Association regarding possible closures of post office agencies? Can the Minister indicate whether there is any substance to these rumours? Mr DUFFY —The matter raised by the honourable member in relation to concerns expressed about the closure of post offices is well known to me. The honourable member has also raised this issue with me by way of correspondence. The fact is that the publicity that has been given to this matter by the Association is very misleading, particularly in two areas. There is an indication that due consideration is not given by Australia Post to the closure of post offices, which is not true. As the honourable member is aware, there is a difficulty in relation to finance, because of Australia Post having to carry out its financial obligations under the Act. There has been considerable consultation before any post office has been changed. The recent publicity by the Association in relation to the proposals for the closure of post offices has been greatly exaggerated. I have indicated recently to the honourable member that, in relation to a couple of specific cases, the concerns are without foundation. Mr COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and refers to the funding by the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council of the official bureau of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in Australia, the Palestine Information Office in Melbourne. Is it the normal practice of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council or of any other board to provide funds to political groups which advocate or defend the use of terrorism? If so, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that this practice is discontinued? Mr COHEN —As the honourable member knows, I have long had sympathy for the Palestinian cause! I think I should briefly outline the history of the Australia Council and how it operates, although I would have thought that the honourable member knew that. The Australia Council is appointed by the Government, as are the boards. We have a principle of arm's length funding and peer group assessment; that is, the boards, which are made up of artists with specialist expertise, assess applications for grants and recommend them to the Council. The Government does not interfere with the decision-making process. Neither this Government, nor its predecessor, nor the Whitlam Government, which set up the Council, has ever interfered. We have always adhered to the principle of arm's length funding. In July 1985 the Community Arts Board gave a grant of $5,000 to an organisation called the Palestine Information Office. The grant was towards the costs of mounting a visual exhibition of the cultural traditions of Palestine in association with a large number of art works-paintings, et cetera-provided by or especially pre- pared for the exhibition. The exhibition was to bring together contributing artists of Australian-Arab background, in addition to artists from the Aboriginal, Italian, Greek and Peruvian communities, similar to exhibitions on the same theme held previously in Japan, Italy, France, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the United States of America. Mr Coleman —To promote the PLO. Mr COHEN —There is no PLO office in this country. The Palestine Information Office is headed by a man by the name of Ali Kazak, an Australian who is obviously sympathetic to the PLO. There are people of Palestinian origin in this country. They form one of numerous ethnic communities, of which there are dozens in this country. Mr Slipper —Why fund them? Mr COHEN —For the same reason we fund other ethnic organisations in their artistic pursuits. We adhere to the principle of arm's length funding and the decisions must be made by the Australia Council and its constituent boards. Mr CAMPBELL —I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is aware of the plight of Mr White who, while engaged in a regular passenger service between Cyprus and Sidon, in an act of piracy by the Israelis had his boat boarded and confiscated on the high seas and directed to Haifa. Mr White spent a month in an Israeli gaol and was released without charges being laid. Will the Attorney-General tell me what action this Government feels it ought to take in view of the very strong support we are giving to the Israeli Government in recovering from this country people who it claims have committed offences in Israel? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not aware of the matter. I will have inquiries made and inform the honourable member. Mr HODGMAN —I ask the Prime Minister to confirm or deny the fact that out of some 430,000 questionnaires sent to business proprietors throughout Australia in relation to the fringe benefits tax or the FBT-now known as the farewell Bob tax-less than 50 per cent have been returned, indicating massive public opposition to this tax. I remind the Prime Minister that 1 October-the first payment date-is now only 14 days away. I therefore ask the Prime Minister: What action does his Government intend to take against the thousands of businessmen in this country who refuse to pay this tax and against those, including me, who are advising hardworking Australians not to pay this vicious, iniquitous socialist tax? Mr HAWKE —The question should properly have been directed to the Treasurer, who is responsible for administration in this area, but I am more than relaxed about answering the question from the honourable gentleman. One never ceases to be amazed by the double standards on the other side of the House, not least those of the honourable member for Denison who is at the forefront of trumpeting the responsibility upon the trade unions to obey the law of this country. The Leader of the Opposition said: `Let there be 1,000 Mudginberris'. Mr Howard —Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —`Hear, hear!', he says. What was the point of his proposition? He is saying that where the law exists it should be obeyed. I happen to agree that where the law exists it should be obeyed, and I have said so on both sides of the industrial fence. What I find totally difficult, indeed impossible, to comprehend is how people can come into this House and on the one hand say to the organised work force of this country that it should obey the law of this land properly passed through this Parliament but on the other hand not only tell others, whom they regard as being of their ilk, not to obey the law but also actively encourage them to disobey it. They will be judged by the great bulk of the people in this country who will benefit from the fact that this Government at last has taken steps to bring equity into the tax system in this country. The fringe benefits tax is part of a total package of tax reform. It is estimated that in the next full financial year it will bring in approximately $600m as part of a tax package which will bring in $1.5 billion. Not one cent of that will be kept by the Australian Government. In fact, $4.5 billion will be paid out in the next full financial year to the taxpayers of this country, the overwhelming majority of whom have had an undue burden placed upon them in past years because of the way in which our predecessors in government protected the few privileged in this community and imposed a greater burden upon the many. We will overcome the legacy which was left by the Leader of the Opposition who, when he walked out of the door of the Treasurer's office, bequeathed to the people of this country a maximum tax rate of 60c in the dollar. As a result of the combined measures undertaken by this Government, by 1 July next year we will have reduced the Howard 60c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar. One of the central features by which we will be able to do that is the bringing to an end of the iniquitous system whereby a privileged few in this country were able to avoid their burden and so pass on a greater burden to the mass of the people in this country. If the honourable member for Denison, the Leader of the Opposition or any honourable member on the other side of the House believes that the Opposition will derive some political advantage from encouraging a few people to break the law they should start to understand political arithmetic. While the mass of people silently approve and the people who are having their perks taken away from them are making a massive noise against the loss of their privilege, if the Opposition reads that as a potential political advantage I hope that it will continue to do so because at the next election it will find, to its great disadvantage, that it has been massively wrong. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is he surprised that there has not today been a question from the Opposition dealing with economic issues? What does this say about the general acceptance of the Budget by the Australian community? Mr KEATING —I am not surprised. The Opposition is always delving and rolling in trivia. Such matters as the Ordnance Factory, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and my travelling allowance tends to rate ahead of major economic issues. I can only assume that the Opposition thinks the Budget is entirely appropriate for Australia and has no queries about the cast of economic policy and that, despite the protestations of the Leader of the Opposition about how the Government should not be diverted from the principal task of managing the economy, he thinks it is going fine. Otherwise there may have been a question about it. However, to the more general point, going past the irrelevancies opposite us to the relevance of the Australian public, in the last couple of weeks in the opportunity I, the Prime Minister and other Ministers have had in touring the country we have found a very high degree of acceptance by the Australian public that the Budget is a correct strategy for Australia, that it recognises the difficulties of our external trading conditions, that Australia is living through the worst terms of trade that it has experienced since the Second World War, that restraint with equity was the order of the day for the Budget and that the Budget achieves that objective. In achieving that objective it has done what it set out to do, that is, to reduce consumption and demand and to lift the emphasis upon savings and investment. I think that is well understood and it is a commentary on the good sense of the Australian public that it can see the attempts by the Government to deal with this externally induced economic problem. Yet the comments of the Opposition remain where they have always been in respect of economic policy-entirely and completely irrelevant. Madam SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General, dated 15 September 1986, on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-September 1986, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for the year 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations Act 1976, I present a report by the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations on Population Monitoring and Forecasting: Inter-government Issues, Concerns and Options. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report on the legal aid needs of youth, together with the text of a statement. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry and Acting Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985, I present the final report of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation, together with the Auditor- General's report for the period 1 July 1985 to 5 January 1986. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry and Acting Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985, I present the final report of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, together with the Auditor-General's report for the period 1 July 1985 to 5 January 1986. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to regulation 23 of the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Regulations 1981, I present the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management annual report for 1985 together with the Auditor-General's report and the audited financial statements and balance sheets. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903, I present the annual report of the Royal Military College of Australia covering the period 1 February 1985 to 31 January 1986. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947, I present the annual report of the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund for 1985, together with the Auditor-General's report, audited income statements and balance sheets on this Fund. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to sub-section 99 (3) of the Telecommunications Act 1975, I present the Australian Telecommunications Commission annual report and financial statements, together with the Auditor-General's report for the year ended 30 June 1986. Motion (by Mr Howard) agreed to: That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton), on the ground of parliamentary business overseas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I have just been informed by the Clerk that because of the number of petitions the House has received today, which obviously has resulted from the three-week long non-sitting period, there has not been sufficient time available to collate them and to prepare an announcement. It is suggested that leave should be granted for the petitions to be presented at a later hour this day. Leave granted. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The total failure of the Government's economic management resulting in the loss of Australia's AAA international credit rating. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(4.05) —On Wednesday, 10 September, in New York, Moody's Investor Services Inc., one of the major credit rating organisations in the world, announced that Australia's AAA credit rating, which it had held ever since it entered foreign markets, had been reduced to AA1. This was a very sad day for Australia because the rating given by Moody's and the rating given by the Standard and Poor's Corporation, which will also be reviewed later this year, determine the interest to be paid by Australian governments and government instrumentalities when they are borrowing overseas. So whenever the Australian Government needs to borrow money abroad to make up for deficits in the Budget or for any other purposes, or Qantas Airways Ltd or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia wishes to borrow abroad, it will pay, as a result of the economic failures of this Government, a higher rate of interest than it otherwise would have paid. Ultimately, that will cost every taxpayer in Australia more money. There is a flow-on effect from that. Not only does the downgrading of the Government's credit rating reflect adversely on the Government and push up the borrowing rate of the Government and government instrumentalities, but also it is a grave reflection on Australia as a whole. It is a national disgrace. It is shameful that this Government should be the first Government to suffer the humiliation of having Australia's AAA credit rating reduced in international financial markets. Moody's, in giving its explanations for this action, which had been very seriously considered long before the Budget and, indeed, delayed until after Moody's had seen the Budget, mentioned a variety of economic and structural weaknesses which `cloud the nation's flexibility for servicing long-term external debt over a five to 10-year horizon'. In other words, for the first time in Australia's history, an international credit rating agency has said that there is doubt about Australia's capacity to be creditworthy and to repay its debts. The Australian Financial Review reports: Moody's said that Australia's overseas debt had risen rapidly over the past several years-from a total of $US18 billion in 1981 to $US59 billion currently. The agency believes that continued shortfalls in foreign currency receipts will result in further build-up in external borrowings. In a devastating reference to the Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) Moody's is reported as saying: Recent measures by the Government to reduce public spending are steps in the right direction, but they are likely to be insufficient to put a brake on the build-up in debt requirements. One of the major items on the Treasurer's agenda for this Budget was to meet the requirements of international markets in reducing public spending and taxes. The article continues: Moody's said that its rating decision also reflects several internal factors,-- that is, factors over which the Government has control- including inflation rates running at twice the OECD average and unemployment pressures. Industrial and labour market rigidities are further expected to hamper the country's efforts to shift economic resources into areas with high foreign exchange earning capacity. In other words, this highly respected international credit rating agency turned its thumb down at the fourth Keating Budget. It said that there were some positive aspects within the Australian community and talked about the liberalisation of controls on direct investment and capital inflows, something that the Government acted upon too late, and months after the Opposition had suggested it. Moody's mentioned the floating of the Australian dollar and, in what we would regard as a double-edged statement, referred to tax reform. But it said that the effects of these measures are still too uncertain to provide a level of investor protection compatible with Moody's AAA rating category. What a disgrace it is to be the first Treasurer of Australia to preside over the downgrading of Australia's international badge of probity and creditworthiness. I do not think it will be any news to honourable members on this side of the House that the Treasurer has long expressed a great admiration for J. T. Lang, who was the Premier of New South Wales in the 1930s and wanted to repudiate overseas debt. He was sacked by the Governor of New South Wales for so doing. Here we have the person who admires J. T. Lang being the first Treasurer who has presided over a downgrading of Australia's international credit rating. What were the reasons for this downgrading? Summarised, they were that debt was rising to a point where Moody's doubted whether Australia had the capacity to pay it back over the longer term with certainty. It said that the recent changes in economic policy and the recent measures-it was referring, of course, mainly to the Budget-were insufficient to change this situation. It talked about internal factors within Australia-the high rate of inflation, rising unemployment and an industrial relations and labour market system which was so rigid that Australia could not adapt to changing external requirements. What does the Opposition say about this? The Opposition says that the Government brought this on by its own recklessness, its own deceit and its own gutlessness. What do we mean by recklessness? This Government was reckless from the very beginning. When the Government came into office in March 1983 it had the ball at its feet. The economy was coming out of recession, the drought was breaking, the Fraser wages pause was in place and it had the confidence of the business community and of the international financial community. It had everything in front of it to bring Australia out of the recession and to make Australia secure against any forthcoming international shocks. But what did the Government do? It embarked on a campaign of reckless spending and borrowing. It doubled the rate of expenditure that we had over the seven years of the Fraser Government. From 2.1 per cent in real terms on average over the seven years of the Fraser Government it has risen now, at this point of budgetary forecasting, to 3.9 per cent on average, which is almost double, and it will blow out during this financial year. What about debt? When this Government came into office the external debt overall-private and public-stood at about $36 billion. At the last count by the Reserve Bank at the end of the financial year it had risen over the period of this Government from $36 billion to $88 billion, and the forecast is that it will rise to over $100 billion before this financial year is out. The public debt for all three levels of government, which stood at $14 billion when the Government came into office, as at last December, the latest period for which we can get figures, had gone from $14 billion to $31 billion. It is rising and it is probably over $40 billion by now. There is the question of servicing that debt. Do honourable members realise that it now takes about 40c in every dollar we earn abroad in export income to service our external debt? This is the recklessness of the economic program of this Treasurer. This economic program, make no mistake about it, has failed. It has clearly failed in the eyes of the world and it has clearly failed in the eyes of the Australian voter. Of course, that is not all. While all that was going on, things started to go wrong. They started to go wrong in February 1985, when the dollar dropped very substantially. But the Government ignored the signal. There was further evidence of failure and, indeed, the Government noted in its Budget Papers of last year that there would be difficulties with the terms of trade. By October and November, when we had dreadful balance of payment figures, dreadful inflation figures, and inflationary wage settlement and the dollar marked down again, it was obvious to everybody that the economy was in trouble. Yet this Treasurer and his Prime Minister embarked on a deliberate campaign of deceit of the Australian community. They continued this right through into May this year. Indeed, on 9 May the Treasurer said this to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, his own advisory group: Overall, 1986 is emerging as a year of slower, but still satisfactory growth, a year in which we will see consolidation of the very strong gains of the past three years and in which the economy can deal with the imbalance on our external account. It is notorious that only five days later the Treasurer, having said that to EPAC and having deceived it, went on the John Laws program-- Mr Keating —That's right. Mr MacKellar —He said: `That's right'. Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer says that he did deceive EPAC. We have his first admission that he deceived EPAC. He went on the John Laws program and said that we were moving to the point of being a banana republic. This is the level of public debate that was engendered by this Government and this is the depth of deceit to which the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were prepared to go. Throughout the whole of this period the Government was utterly gutless in taking any notice of the signals and taking the necessary steps to bring the economy round. On 3 January the Opposition put up a four-point plan. It said that the Government must cut spending, that it must delay the wage case and that it must relax foreign investment controls. These points were put up in a program published by us on 3 January this year. What was done? Absolutely nothing was done. We suggested that there be a mini-Budget and that spending cuts should come into place before the beginning of the financial year, but nothing was done. The Government was gutless because it was concerned about the Labor Party National Conference in July. We suggested that the wage case be delayed and the productivity deal with the unions be called off. We also suggested that the anti-investment taxes introduced in September of last year be removed in order to encourage business investment. None of these things was done. The Government was not prepared to face up to the trade union movement and speak common sense to it. Indeed, the Government put a fraudulent case to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in March and it did not even mention the deterioration of the terms of trade in its submission to the Commission. So the Commission, although it did not accept the actual case on productivity, allowed the powerful unions to go ahead and pursue the 3 per cent superannuation claim by industrial action. This is the history of recklessness, deceit and gutlessness of this Government. It did nothing from October right through until the Budget in August, which was said to be the great panacea. The Government said: `Wait for the Budget and everybody will see that this will be the answer to all our economic problems'. Moody's Investor Services, which had decided to look at the rating of the Australian economy, waited for the Budget. Representatives came out here and spoke to the Treasurer and Treasury officials. They spoke to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who argued in favour of retention of the AAA rating for Australia because it is a matter of national honour that we retain our international creditworthiness. However, having examined the figures of the Budget against the claims made for it by the Treasurer and having given the Treasurer an opportunity to explain what he had done and why, they went back to New York and objectively downgraded Australia's AAA rating to AA1. It was quite clear that anything that might have been said about confidence in the Treasurer by international markets is absolutely nonsense. I understand that the Treasurer gave a pep talk to members of Caucus this morning. He told them that all they had to do was to be positive and to wait for the turnaround in the economy. I wonder whether Caucus members remember the J-curve. They were told to wait for the J-curve to turn around the balance of payments. Senator Button did not believe it. In May the Treasurer told the Australian people: Let me make the point that the Australian economy has been entirely robust. The Treasurer presumably also deceived his own party room. It is a national disgrace that we have lost our AAA credit rating. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.20) —The honourable member's time has expired, that is for sure. I have heard some dishonest presentations here in my time but that just about takes the cake. The matter of public importance is related to the Government's so-called economic mismanagement in the loss of Australia's AAA rating; yet everything that is said by Moody's Investor Services Inc. gives the lie to that statement. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) in his last utterance said that Moody's came to Australia, asked about the Budget, and, having examined the Budget figures, went back to New York and downgraded Australia's AAA rating. But Roger Knye, one of the people who came to Australia and who chairs the Australian desk at Moody's, said: Moody's thinks the Budget was a brave one. In a rating review we take into account the wisdom or lack thereof of a country's economic managers. One of the positive features of the Australian scene is the intelligent guiding of the ship of state. So what about that? The honourable member tried to make the cheap point that Moody's made a judgment about the Budget then decided to bring Australia's AAA rating down when, in fact, Moody's explicitly says that the Budget was brave. Mr Knye said on the AM program on the day of the release of the rating: There are many factors that went into our decision. Chief among them was our view that external conditions such as commodity prices, restrictive access to agricultural markets and supply-demand imbalances for Australia's raw material exports, were combining in such a way that Australia would be, would find it somewhat more difficult to earn the requisite foreign exchange needed to service its debt. He went on: Our downgrade should not be interpreted as a black mark against the current Government or any future government. The honourable member for Mackellar knows that those things were said. He knows that Moody's made a judgment about Australia's terms of trade over the five to 10 years of the survey period that it was examining. Yet the honourable member tries to make a cheap point. On the day of the release of the rating statements from the Opposition became more extreme as the day went on, more strident and ridiculous one after the other. Nobody listened because Australia has had enough of the strident immaturity of these political opportunists. Australians want to look hard at our national condition and pursue sensible policies towards a more secure economic future. They are not interested in the headless-chook antics of the honourable member for Mackellar. The other thing that the honourable member said in closing was that the Government was gutless. He said this about a government which has brought the coalition massive Budget imbalance-the massive fiscal deficits of Treasurer Howard-from 5 per cent of gross domestic product to 1.4 per cent in prospect. Supposedly we are gutless. We pull these outlays down for this year to 1.4 per cent as a Budget deficit and outlays to zero; yet the honourable member for Mackellar, when speaking to the National Press Club, said: It is not therefore in the public interest that an Opposition geld itself by announcing in intricate detail which interests it might challenge with its expenditure cuts. This would invite the maximum degree of opposition from the interest groups directly affected. Mr Carlton —That's right, too. Mr KEATING —That is right, is it? The honourable member talks about gutlessness. His Party is not even prepared as an opposition to say where it would change outlays, much less as a government. We can see the nakedness of the statement: It is not therefore in the public interest that the Opposition geld itself by announcing in intricate detail which interests it might challenge . . . In other words, the Opposition says: `We made a mess of it in government but even in opposition we will not come clean on where our fiscal policy-- Mr Carlton —Read the next paragraph. Mr KEATING —I know what the honourable member says, that he would bring spending growth to zero. Why would anyone believe the honourable member when he is not prepared to say-- Mr Carlton —That wasn't the next paragraph. Mr KEATING —Yes, it is. I have the honourable member's speech. It says that growth will go to zero. Why would anyone believe the honourable member when he not only does not have the guts but also does not have the decency to say where his public outlays cuts would fall? Does the honourable member think that it is fair enough for this Government to labour over outlays changes for five months and bring down a Budget which offends certain groups in the community to get the requisite changes in the macro- economy when for him no such discipline exists? Mr Carlton —It will in due course. Mr KEATING —No, this is not in due course. The honourable member makes it quite clear that he will not outline any outlays changes. He talks about gutlessness. My God, the honourable member is unbelievable-talk about double- speak. If the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) decides to put the cue in the rack, I know that one of the first casualties of that change will be that the honourable member for Mackellar will be replaced forthwith as shadow Treasurer. Let us consider what Moody's said. Moody's made it quite clear in everything it said-I go back to its Press statement. It said: Moody's emphasised that Australia's international credit quality remains strong. It went on: In this regard, several recent structural changes are viewed positively by Moody's including liberalisation of controls on direct investment and other capital inflows, the floating of the Australian dollar, and tax reform. Who did all those things? It certainly was not the coalition. Moody's went on: These should eventually lead to a more balanced economy. It went on: On the positive side, Moody's said that many fundamental factors bode well for Australia's long term credit quality. It said further: The agency cited the nation's political stability, its strong natural resource base, sound economic management . . . Everything the honourable member said has been put down by Moody's utterances about its review. I make the other point that the major United States rating agency, Standard and Poor's Corporation, has reaffirmed Australia's AAA rating by making it clear that it is not about to undertake a review as Moody's has. Other commentators in New York City interested in Australian sovereign debt say that they are not in a position to commit themselves to a view about the terms of trade over a five to 10-year period. One can have a subjective view about the terms of trade over a five to 10-year period. Moody's was prepared to put that subjective view into place in this assessment. Many other groups, Salomon Brothers Inc. for instance and Morgan Stanley International Inc., indicated that they were not prepared to make a judgment about the terms of trade over a five to 10-year period. I suggest that it would be a very brave person or institution that would try to forecast the price of oil, wheat or non-ferrous metals over a five to 10-year period. It is basically on those factors that the review has changed the rating. Even so, it is a movement from AAA to AA1 which, of course, is the next category. Moody's emphasises that Australia's international credit quality remains strong. I notice that the honourable member for Mackellar brings out the notion about the J-curve-how there is not one. He keeps making the point that Moody's made it clear that it believes that Australian enterprises will take up the opportunities provided by the devaluation of the Australian dollar and that it was confident: . . . in the private sector's eventual ability to respond to competitive challenges from overseas. Apparently the champion of the free market, the coalition, is not at all confident about the capacity of private business to take up the opportunity because it says that there will be no J-curve, there will be no change in net exports despite the fact that the national accounts indicated clearly that there was a 1.3 percentage point contribution to growth from net exports in the last year compared with the 1.25 per cent forecast in the Budget, which of course was scoffed at by the honourable member for Mackellar who said that there would not be a J-curve. The Government said the figure would be 1.25 percentage points. The outcome of the national accounts was 1.3. In this Budget we are saying that the figure will be 1.75 percentage points from net exports and we have the huge driving force of a 40 per cent depreciation behind it. Apparently the free marketeer opposite, the honourable member for Mackellar, does not believe that a 40 per cent price change on the exchange rate will make any difference to the pattern of imports and exports, that the free market economy of Australia will not respond, that the price signals do not matter. The honourable member talked about the J-curve being an L-curve. The lack of economic literacy of the honourable member for Mackellar and the Opposition in general is startling. The fact that this country will secure a real and effective depreciation of that order of magnitude and the changes that already have been secured in our national accounts in net exports and will be secured this year give the lie to the claim that there is no J-curve. It is obviously there. Of course, it was swamped by the terms of trade decline. It is with the swamping of the terms of trade decline that the Opposition chooses to muddy the waters and suggest that there is no effect operating in the economy. Indeed, without that 30-odd per cent depreciation, the Australian dollar returns of the Australian primary export sector would have been decimated. As it is, they have suffered markedly under the decline in the terms of trade. As I have said, our export earnings in Australian dollar terms would have been decimated. The Opposition does not believe in the J-curve, market economics or the entrepreneurial capacity of Australian business. Is it any wonder that Australian business does not believe in the Opposition? I heard in an interjection talk about labour market rigidity. Let us examine that. The fact is that the data put down that claim. I shall quote the OECD's figures on the changes in annual real wages between 1983 and 1985: In Australia the change was minus 5.3; in the US it was minus 0.6; in Japan plus 5.8; in Germany plus 3.8; in France plus 3.1, and in the United Kingdom plus 10.9. In other words, the greatest change in annual real wages was in this country. The claim that there are labour market rigidities and inflexibilities is put down by these figures. What is not put down is the central fact that Australia has a centralised wage system. It has the British craft union structure and is not organised on an enterprise or industry basis. Which party has the policies to draw the best economic circumstances from that condition? It is clear that the Australian Labor Party alone has that capacity. The coalition Government gave us a 16 per cent wage increase in 1980-81 and 1981-82 because it was not in any position to manage the economy. What is the Opposition's wages policy? What a joke! It has decided to allow opting out for enterprises with fewer than 50 employees, but the enterprises would opt out into a centrally determined wage. It is upward flexibility, not downward flexibility. That is what the Opposition calls wage flexibility. When the honourable member for Mackellar was quizzed about how he would handle a depreciation, he said at the National Press Club: We would go to the Arbitration Commission. So the Opposition wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants the centralised system for depreciation-it will trot off to the Arbitration Commission to get change there-but it will not have the Commission dealing with organisations which have fewer than 50 employees. There will be opting out for them, but they will only opt out to a minimum wage that is determined by the same commission. That is the Opposition's policy. Intellectually, it is a disgraceful joke, yet Opposition members advance it in this place and elsewhere. The Opposition has no wages policy, no incomes policy and no fiscal policy. If it does not have a wages policy and a fiscal policy, it will have no credentials for economic management. It is saying that it has a $5.9 billion set of receipts commitments, and the Leader of the Opposition has implicitly stood by that by saying that he has junked his outlays commitments but not his receipts commitments. The shadow Treasurer will not say where the outlays changes will be. The Opposition wages policy is a joke and would be washed to one side in the real economy, if it were ever put into place. Yet Opposition members talk about the Opposition's credentials and how it advises the Government. The Opposition crowd could not raffle a duck in a pub. We all know that and we have always known it. Does the Opposition think that Australian business will ever trust it again? Does the Opposition think that Moody's Investor Services or Standard and Poor's Corporation or the great institutions of the United States, Britain, Germany or Japan have any confidence in it? The answer is that they have none whatsoever. The final put-down of the nonsense and tripe spoken by the honourable member for Mackellar was the reaction of the foreign exchange markets to the Moody's decision. I received a telex from Morgan Stanley in New York telling me that the decision was taken with a grain of salt. That was the reaction of the markets around the world. I advise the Opposition to do its best at political opportunism and urge the honourable gentleman to make the most of his shadow portfolio. I do not mind entertaining him while dealing with these matters of public importance because he will not be here in this job. He will be a long time in opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(4.35) —As usual, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has not faced the realities of the situation to which I attempted to direct his attention a couple of months ago. Largely, he devoted his speech to making debating points vis a vis my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), and not to very good effect. This is the fact before the House: Moody's Investor Services has taken away Australia's AAA credit rating-but the Treasurer does not address that. That rating has been taken away from us because of the dimensions of our present economic predicament, together with assessments of our ability over the next few years, under this Government's policies, to meet our obligations in respect of the debt it has accumulated and will accumulate. Someone has to set forth the dimensions of our predicament, which the Treasurer has glossed over. Over the past three quarters we have had nil or slightly negative growth in non-farm gross domestic product. We have the yawning deficit in the balance of payments of upwards of $1,000m a month, or about $30m extra into hock every day. The August deficit figure was $1.24 billion, and the Treasurer said: `We welcome the improvement'. Improvement on what? It is an improvement on the April figure of $1.5 billion, which generated the banana republic comments, and on the figure for October 1985, which was of about the same order. However, the August figure was above the average of recent months, and we are on course for a total deficit this year of about $15 billion. Mr Cadman —Mr Micawber would have been a better Treasurer. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Many people could have been a better Treasurer. We have a yawning deficit, and that has to be financed by borrowing overseas. So our debt is on course for reaching $100 billion during the financial year. Thus, growth is at a standstill and we have a yawning balance of payments deficit. Our debt is expanding. The sinking Australian dollar has stabilised temporarily at about 60c, but with a significant quantum of Reserve Bank intervention. Inflation is 8 to 9 per cent, which is highly dangerous; indeed we may trace the course that is already in motion-a devaluation-inflation spiral. That is highly dangerous. In comparison, inflation in Germany is virtually zero and it is a couple of percentage points only in the United States America and in the other countries which are our trading partners. We still have in place an accord, the centrepiece of which, in principle, is an adjustment of wages to the inflation rate where there is foreshadowed an application for a two points discount, but what is two points in relation to adjustment to 8 per cent inflation? There are vast problems in that area. Another dimension is that unemployment is rising to 10 per cent, on the Government's own figuring in the Budget Papers. Further, investment is flat. According to Mr Crean of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, it is abysmal, and it is set to fall further on the Government's own projection. Yet if advantage is to be taken of the devaluation, about which the Treasurer has had a good deal to say, there must be new investment in import competing industries and export industries. But that investment is not forthcoming because no one believes that the competitive position, which has been significantly improved, will be retained. Why should they-businessmen-when they look at inflation figures of the order I referred to? Associated with all this we have interest rates at crippling levels, going through the roof with the prime rate touching 19 per cent the other week. It has come back a little but interest rates are at crippling levels and that also is very adversely affecting the necessary investment. These are the dimensions of the problem we are looking at. I stress to the people who are listening that this Opposition is not knocking Australia. We are not putting down the long term prospects of Australia-under the right policies. But we do not have the right policies. That is and has been the problem. It is important that the Australian people recognise who brought this situation about. It has certainly been exacerbated by the adverse movement in the terms of trade, by low world commodity prices, but the principal factor, particularly in the early stages, was the policies of this Government and in particular its profligate spending. I cannot spend time elaborating on the Budget deficit of $8 billion in 1983-84, but it was not a Howard Budget deficit. There was a forward projections figure of about $9.8 billion. But the Hawke Government brought in a $8 billion deficit embracing, in its own terms, $2.5 billion for its own new programs. So we are talking about a deficit of $5.5 billion-in the hands of those opposite-and we would have had it down further. Need I talk about the 1984 deficit and the profligate spending of that year when we had a whole range of headings of very large increases in spending-sport and recreation expenditure was up about 60 per cent; the community employment program was up 80 per cent; the bicentennial program was up 350 per cent. It was the greatest spend-up of all time. Now this year we have a projected deficit of $3.5 billion. Everyone knows that that is a phoney. In the first place it has been substantially affected by significant increases in indirect taxes, particularly the excise on petrol which will add to inflation and make even more difficult the rectification of our fundamental problems. When the Govern-ment should have been cutting spending we had precious little of that, as indeed the Moody's statement said. Secondly, as we know, the deficit figure of $3.5 billion relies heavily on a number of once-off changes-a Reserve Bank profit of the order of $600m; a deferral of the granting of the tax cuts, saving the Government $650m; and there is a difference in the impact of such expenditure cuts as were made, in the next year compared with this year, of the order of $500m. The real underlying deficit is thus in excess of $5 billion. The Government, in an act of bravado, will shortly bring in a Bill to introduce new tax rates as from 1 July next year that will cost another $3 billion. So the Government will go into next year, in effect, with an underlying deficit of $8 billion at least-that is, if it does go ahead with the tax reductions. Does the Government imagine that the markets have not been able to do those sums and to look forward to the incompetence and understand the sheer deceit, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) said, of shifting the problems into that period? No wonder further support has been necessary to uphold the dollar at the 60c level. The Opposition does not suggest that there is any quick fix, any easy, overnight solutions to these difficulties. There is a long, hard haul ahead, but these matters underline the imperative necessity to implement the major, historic changes, changes in long-standing attitudes and institutions, required to allow this country to realise its tremendous potential, which we do not deny for one moment. These are in particular the requirements that governments in Australia should spend, borrow, tax and interfere much less, and the need for genuine tax reform and major changes in our wages and industrial relations system. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(4.45) —As usual when I enter a debate on a matter of public importance such as this it is good to follow the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). He makes some very reasonable points, and those points are worthy of canvassing. I am very pleased to hear him admit that the problems facing the Australian economy are many-fold and that there are no easy solutions. I would be the first to endorse the remarks that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has made in that regard. Quite clearly, the Government has no easy fix or easy solutions at its disposal to face the problems that have been foisted upon it. We have heard today words such as `recklessness', `deceit' and `gutlessness' thrown about the chamber with great abandon, directed at this Government and in particular this Treasurer. I believe that that is nothing but nonsense. If we look at the record of this Government since it came to power and the deceit that was here when we first arrived on this side of the House we find that prior to the election the people of Australia were being told by the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), that the deficit was very low and that we had no cause for concern. We were suddenly in government and found out from the Treasury that we had a deficit of over $9 billion. The Opposition has the gall to say that we are deceitful and that the Treasurer of this Government is deceitful. It tries to tie this in to some spurious notion that the downgrading of our credit rating by Moody's Investor Services will mean doom and gloom in Australia. That also is nothing but nonsense. Let us look at what happened when Moody's decision was announced. We can do no better than to refer to some of the newspapers that reported this at the time. What did they say? The Age, for example, on 12 September stated: The financial markets yesterday brushed aside the Moody's downgrading of Australia's credit rating to welcome the latest trade figures by lifting the value of the dollar and cutting interest rates. The honourable member for Berowra has talked about interest rates going through the ceiling again. The result has been that since then interest rates have been going down and the dollar has been going up. We have talked in this place previously about the volatility of the dollar. It is a phrase I have used before and I will not repeat it, but one can describe just how that operates. Quite clearly, when we have a floating dollar we will be subject to movements as they occur. What else was said when Moody's gave us the AA1 rating? What did it mean? The Sydney Morning Herald on 12 September stated: Intrinsically, Australia's down-grading from AAA to AA1 does not mean a lot. It will raise by fewer than 0.25 percentage points the cost of overseas borrowing by the Commonwealth and its authorities, with some flow-on possible to borrowers in the private sector. The main significance of the move is political. Many may see it as what Moody's said it was not: a black mark against the present Government. I repeat that many may see it for what it was not-a black mark against the Government. That is exactly right. How did other financial institutions view the position? The Treasurer went to the position of the Standard and Poor's international agency. What did it do? It strongly praised the Australian economy on the eve of its annual review of the nation's credit rating. That New York-based firm still has Australia in the top AAA rating. Mr William Chambers of that organisation was reported as having said that: its rating was usually reviewed after the announcement of a country's Budget. However, the article continued: He said that Australia's balance-of-payments problems and foreign debt was obviously of concern to the agency. `But that (the balance of payments) is something Australia has very little control of', Mr Chambers said. `It is a problem that has been imposed on it.' We have been saying that for some time. The Treasurer, in his brave and courageous statement to the people of Australia in setting out the scene for Australia's problem, alerted the people to that position and this Government has set about doing something about it. We have brought down a very brave Budget. If we go back to pre-Budget times we can recall the doom and gloom merchants on the other side. Those brave economists out there, all working for private banks, were saying that we must have a Budget deficit of $4 billion or we will be in really deep trouble. The night the Budget came out, the Treasurer announced a figure of $3.5 billion. Suddenly, because they had not reached that figure in their estimations, they all scurried away and said: `There must be something wrong with the figures. We didn't think of $3.5 billion'. Mr Donald Cameron —Rubbery figures. Mr MARTIN —The honourable member says that the figures are rubbery. Let us have a look at the figures for the last three years for which this Government has brought down Budgets, in terms of its commitments under the trilogy. Coopers and Lybrand published a most interesting review of the Budget in August 1986. It looked at the outcomes of the Budgets, under the Government's trilogy of commitments, for 1984-85 and 1985-86, and it projected the outcome for the 1986-87 Budget. What did it have to say? The honourable member for Berowra mentioned the point about the deficit. In 1984-85 the deficit was $6.746 billion, in 1985-86 it was $5.742 billion and the projected deficit for 1986-87 is $3.5 billion. Quite frankly, the figures that have been projected in Budget after Budget have been verified. Every one of the commitments of this Government under the trilogy has been met, bar one projection for the 1986-87 Budget, which is a 0.5 per cent over-run on an increase in tax revenue as a proportion of gross domestic product. That will be the only over-run that we have had for four years. Yet Opposition members come here and tell us that we are economic mismanagers and that the Treasurer is presenting to the people of Australia deceitful, reckless and gutless policies. That is arrant nonsense. How did the people of Australia react to the Budget? We have heard of this. In Question Time today, we heard the Prime Minister clearly point out, from his visits around the country-the Treasurer has been going around the country as well-the fact that people have been generally supportive of the Government's endeavours. For example, on Wednesday, 20 August the Australian, which is no great supporter of this Government, said: The Federal Government has given us a tough Budget, but one that deserves considerable praise. What do we see in the Australian Financial Review? Again, some on this side of the House say that the Fairfax Press does not give us a good go. I happen to be a strong believer that the Australian Financial Review does that. Under the heading `Mr Keating's remarkable Budget', it said: The Treasurer, Mr Keating has produced a remarkable Budget. He has met the most optimistic of market expectations, maintained a high level of welfare spending, confounded many of the criticisms which the Opposition had signalled in advance and taken the very real political and economic gamble that his measures might not be fully effective in time to save Labor at the next election. * * * But it is also economically responsible and politically honest. The premier economic newspaper in the country said that the Budget was `economically responsible and politically honest'. What did the real estate industry have to say about this? Here we have a report headed `Keating budget is good news'. It states: The Budget news released this week may be horror to some but to the real estate industry things could be looking up. `Good news for the industry!' said Mr Phil Roberts, Executive Director of the Real Estate Institute of Australia. `The general thrust of the budget will in time take the pressure off the interest rates. I consider the approach taken by the Government is good'. Time and time again, we can point to those in the community who have seen the successive Budgets of this Government and this Treasurer and who have all sung their praises. The Metal Trades Industry Association said: `Government administers the right medicine'. Mr Bert Evans said that the Government had administered the right dose of medicine through the Budget to get the economy going. All those people cannot be wrong. The Government has taken a clear, concise and important step in guiding the economy along the road to recovery from overseas forces that have impinged upon it-forces that have come through our balance of payments, our terms of trade and through export and import prices that have been beyond the control of this Government. Indeed, even if the Opposition had been in power, it would have been beyond its control-far more beyond its control, because it would not have known how to handle it in the first instance. I reject out of hand this matter of public importance, which says that the Government has been a total failure. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. 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 or 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Andrew,Mr Baldwin,Mr Beale,Mr Beazley,Mr Blanchard,Mr Blunt,Mr Braithwaite,Mr John Brown,Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Campbell,Mr Carlton,Mr Cobb,Mr Conquest,Mr Cunningham,Mr Drummond,Mr Duncan,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fife,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Gear,Mr Grace,Mr Steele Hall,Mr Hawke,Mr Hawker,Mr Hayden,Mr Hodges,Mr Holding,Mr Hollis,Mr Hunt,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Jull,Mr Katter,Mr Keating,Mrs Kelly,Mr Kent,Mr Keogh,Dr Klugman,Mr Lamb,Mr Langmore,Mr Lee,Mr Lindsay,Mr Lloyd,Mr MacKellar,Mr McLeay,Mr Mildren,Mr Millar,Mr Milton,Mr Peter Morris,Mr O'Keefe,Mr O'Neil,Mr Peacock,Mr Porter,Mr Ian Robinson,Mr Ruddock,Mr Scholes,Mr Scott,Mr Sharp,Mr Shipton,Mr Sinclair,Mr Snow,Mrs Sullivan,Mr West,Mr Wilson and Mr Young. 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 Bilney,Mr Brumby,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Hawker,Mr Howe,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Keating,Mr Kent,Mr Lamb,Mr Price,Mr Reith and Mr Young. 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 Beale,Mr Conquest,Mr Drummond,Dr Klugman,Mr McGauran,Mr Rocher and 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 in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact not only on the family unit but on the families with multiple births. That any reduction in the spouse rebate would also affect these families drastically and that the House of Representatives assembled oppose any move to reduce the spouse rebate. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore family allowances to their former level if they are reduced and restore the spouse rebate should the Labor Government reduce this rebate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. 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. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. 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 Allowances; 2. indexation of the Family Allowances 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 Beazley. To the Honourable the 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 penalises 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. by Mr Maher. 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 Baldwin,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Gear,Mr Hodges,Mr Peacock,Mr Spender and Mr West. 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 12 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 Beazley,Mr Drummond,Mr Duffy,Ms Fatin,Mr Gear and Mr Maher. 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 Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the 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 Grace,Mr Hollis and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% 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 Baldwin and Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Sharp. 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. 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: Objection to the display of advertisements, and promotion of Alcoholic beverages and Tobacco products via Television, Cinema, Magazine, Newsprint, Posters, Billboard and at sporting venues. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to introduce such legislation and take whatever action is necessary to prohibit all such advertising and promotions, in order to protect the youth, families and people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Keogh. 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 closure of the Wollongong area office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. 2. That the impact of the closure of the office in Wollongong will be particularly felt by the non-English speaking migrants and community at large from Shoalhaven to Hellensburg and as far as Wingecarribee and Wollondilly. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that the area office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Wollongong is kept operational and fully staffed. by Mr Hollis and Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 26 April 1986, the Soviet Union has not yet adequately explained to its citizens or those of the Soviet-occupied Baltic States, Ukraine and other areas affected by the radiation fall-out the potential short-term and long-term health hazards and available modes of prevention or reduction of radiation poisoning. Neither have the appropriate medicines for substitution therapies to minimise bodily accumulation of radioactive elements been adequately provided. 2. That the Soviet Union operates many nuclear power stations without the elementary structural safeguards against radioactive spillage regarded as mandatory in the west. Of particular concern is the safety of the largest Soviet nuclear power station at Ignalina in Soviet occupied Lithuania, of similar design to Chernobyl, which already has a record of operational problems. Radioactive spillage at Ignalina would quickly contaminate the whole of Latvia, Lithuania as well as vast areas of Europe. We request that the Australian Government will, 1. Through the World Health Organisation, provide medical aid and broadcast medical information to the victims of radiation exposure following the Chernobyl disaster. 2. Through the United Nations Organisation request the Soviet Union, (a) to close down all nuclear power stations similar to Chernobyl till protective structures are built. (b) permit international inspection of such safety structures. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keating and Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 is having a detrimental effect on the car industry generally in South Australia, and more particularly, on employment in that industry. 2. The Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Bill 1986 contains many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting and its administrative implementation is an unwarranted burden on Australian businesses and the Australian taxpayer. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House repeal as a matter of utmost urgency this regressive legislation which imposes a disincentive to economic and employment growth, thereby jeopardising the well-being and living standards of all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled. And we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth. That the anomalous Fringe Benefits tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefits tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sport clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their renumeration packages; 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business; 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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 the anomalous Fringe Benefits Tax is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair on the grounds that- it adversely affects business throughout Australia, including farms, by creating a further tax burden it destroys incentive, it has caused unemployment, it is costly to administer and its complexities have caused confusion and widespread anger. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Fringe Benefit Tax legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors 2. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes 3. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance 4. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith and Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) that the phasing down and eventual closure of the services of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Glen Waverley will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of disabled Australian citizens; (2) that the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre is `purpose' built and its loss would deprive disabled Australian citizens of a unique multi-million dollar facility; (3) that the essential accommodation for disabled Australian citizens will no longer be available. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) that the phasing down of the services of the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be reversed immediately; (2) that the one-hundred-and-four-bed residential facility be fully utilised immediately; (3) that sufficient funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to operate the Centre at full capacity. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows: 1. In or about August 1985 the Commonwealth Department of Aviation established certain helicopter transit and access lanes for the Sydney Metropolitan area. 2. Certain of these transit and access lanes approximately follow the course of the Parramatta River and extend over Sydney Harbour. 3. The abovementioned lanes have been set by the Department of Aviation at an altitude of 500 feet between Ryde Bridge and Middle Head. 4. Your petitioners are concerned at the noise presently generated from and about the abovementioned lanes by the transit of helicopters and are concerned that over time the present noise levels will significantly worsen due to the inevitable increase in helicopter traffic along the abovementioned lanes. Your petitioners therefore pray that the abovementioned helicopter transit and access lanes which presently pass by the suburbs of Birchgrove and Balmain be removed or relocated in order to eliminate the creation or the likely creation of any noise nuisance affecting or likely to affect the residents of Birchgrove or Balmain. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitious, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament becomes aware that the Public has no legal right to influence the setting of Standards for Television Programming, that we deplore the new Standards which come into force on 1st February, and that we call on Parliament to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2), so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining Television Standards, and screening hours, shall consult with the Australian people. because at present the Tribunal is compelled by law to consult only with television stations on these matters, because the new standards are a result of such consultation, and have already been implemented without public discussion, because the new Standards are ambiguous, and without definition, because the new Standards are composed of modifying terms which circumvent the proscriptions, because the media is only motivated by aspirations of pecuniary superiority, because, in contrast, the public is only motivated by their wish to exercise pastoral care over the nurturing home environment of their children, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe extreme importance to ``the storyline'' of a film screened, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe total unimportance to the effects of viewing, especially violent films, on the young, the impressionable, the immature, the unstable, or the socially disadvantaged, because we refuse to accept the media-imposed assessment of community standards, and because we wish to impart our demand to be consulted, our demand to have legal status in decision-making, and the right to counsel those whose decisions so deeply affect our homes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth 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 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth 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 Mr Slipper. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament 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. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: 1. The Australian government exert pressure on Moscow to- (a) Allow the International Atomic Energy Commission full expert investigation of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its human consequences; (b) Allow Australian Ukrainians to send medical aid to family and friends in Soviet Ukraine; and, (c) Allow free communication between Australian and Soviet Ukrainians. 2. The Australian Government- (a) Launch a public appeal to help the Chernobyl victims; (b) Support the removal of Russian nuclear weapons out of Ukraine; (c) Support the decolonization of the USSR so that captive nations like Ukraine and the Baltic states are not exploited for Soviet Russian nuclear purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That an additional tax on gold production would drastically affect the gold mining industry and impoverish the communities and infrastructure dependent on its existence and continuing development. 2. That any additional taxation raised with such a tax would not compensate for the loss to Australia of export earnings, employment opportunities, infrastructure development and the multiplier effect of the gold mining industry in all these areas, on the general community. And we your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Campbell. 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 health 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. IImplement 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 power 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 respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: We strongly condemn the Australian Government's reversal of its electoral policy to restore land rights, dignity and economic security to the aboriginal people. We call on the Australian Government to immediately set about negotiating a treaty with the Aboriginal sovereign nation, and that this treaty with full land rights, be implemented under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, before 1988. We call on Australian Government to adequately fund and support the negotiating process of the Aboriginal nation. Should the Government fail in this resolve, we call on the Australian people to demonstrate their solidarity with the Aboriginal people by boycotting the bicentennial celebrations and sharing a national year of mourning in 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Australia's volumptious interest rates are casting this nation into permanent perdition by spreading over outwards beyond our shores, through lack of parliamentary controls for the benefit of continental investors. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians from all parties to unite and unwind this destructive absurdity which is neither logical or morally correct, and stop projecting time absorbing incidental incidents that are not of fundamental importance. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we the undersigned are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to proposed taxation changes and the introduction of new taxes, value added tax, consumption tax or retail turnover tax, capital gains tax, death duties, gift tax or inheritance tax. We wish you to repudiate any or all of these taxes in part or full. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect our society from these taxes. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keating. 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: That we are dissatisfied with the present Federal Government's policy on Community Languages. And request that the Australian Government take urgent steps to formulate and approve a policy for the teaching of Community Languages, on a permanent basis, in the day schools, in order to safeguard the linguistic and cultural heritage of all Australians. Moreover, with the present petition, we request that Community Language Resources Centres be instituted, to operate within communities, in order to assist schools in the implementation of Community Language programmes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. The present Australian national flag is not distinctively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had an opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australia as a sovereign, independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag falsely proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52% of Australians surveyed wanted a competition for a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: (a) Appoint a Committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum at the time of the next general elections, in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs which will include the present Australian national flag and the winner of the Ausflag-Bulletin-2MMM.FM competition of March 1985. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament of Australia assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That this is not Canberra's money to muck around with, the money was taken off our husbands through their tax to give to us mums. (2) That our children do not suffer. (3) That our family's have enough hardships without taking any more away from us. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (1) Please not to proceed with the cutting of our endowment. (2) Ensure our children do not have to suffer because of your Parliament. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Socialist Government should not continue to rob the taxpayers of Australia by failing to pass on the fuel tax cuts due under the Import Parity Pricing System. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Marsfield be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal and banking requirements, or even to collected registered, certified letters and parcels. Many of us are pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Offices are about 2kms away with no convenient public transport. Also for those of us who work during the week, this is the only Post Office open on Saturday mornings where we can collect our parcels, do our mailing and other services it provides. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humble pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Marsfield Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that persistent rumour suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Persistent rumour suggests that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 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. Reviewing 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. 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 we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ``Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-``God save the Queen''. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) We oppose the introduction of a Tertiary Administration fee on the grounds that it will pave the way for an elitist system of education available only to those who can afford to pay; and (2) We oppose the introduction of a tertiary administration fee on the grounds that it will provide the legislative machinery to increase tertiary fees at any time deemed necessary by government, offering no recourse to tertiary students. What your petitioners therefore humbly pray; that the House take all possible steps to withdraw the introduction of the Tertiary Administration Fee. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hayden. 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 Labour 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 every pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: (a) Aboriginal and Islander languages, which numbered approximately 260 when Europeans first arrived, are even more seriously endangered-already 145 have become extinct. (b) English-speaking population expansion and English-speaking mass media expansion threatens the survival of the remaining languages of Australia. (c) Aboriginal languages reflect an ethos that is truly Australian and unless steps are taken to implement language maintenance, this ethos will be lost not only to Aborigines but to non-Aboriginal Australians, and to the world. We humbly pray the Government to: 1. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide $300,000 per annum for a guaranteed period of ten years to enable the Aboriginal community of Australia to establish a co-ordinating body to implement steps to prevent the extinction of the remaining languages, and to introduce programmes which will enable these languages to continue into the future for the sake of all Australians. This body will enable us to maximize existing financial, material, and human resources, and is the least expensive way of implementing urgently needed maintenance programmes. 2. Through the Prime Minister's Department, provide finance for the establishment of Regional Language Centres-ten are urgently needed-cost $200,000 each. and we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purposes for our Nation. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable, the speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the Flags Amendment Bill, 1984, as presented to the Senate and passed, which ensures that the Australian Flag cannot be changed except by referenda, be brought before the House of Representatives. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the Flag Amendment Bill, 1984, will be presented to the House of Representatives at the earliest possible time. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned believe that the quality of reception of the Brisbane SBS UHF television station is of a very poor quality in many of the Brisbane suburbs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to erect a translator capable of providing a service comparable to that of the major cities in Australia. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed Legislation. by Mr Hunt. 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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners wish that all medicines prescribed by a registered Medical Practitioner may be available free of charge by the Government to all pensioners for the following reasons: 1. The enormous cost of some drugs, including pain relieving ones, not at present on the ``free list''. 2. That certain drugs essential for permanently disabled, such as epileptics are at present being charged for and therefore present a great financial burden to the pensioner. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will consider our wishes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of 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 identifications 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows woodchipping and clear-felling will destroy the Otway Forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway Forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That basic human rights and freedoms continue to be ignored by the government in Poland. That there are still some 350 political prisoners in Polish jails, despite an amnesty declared on 22 July 1986. That the government in Poland continues to deny such persons the status of political prisoner and frequently submits them to physical and mental torture, refusing them even basic medical attention. That the government-created and government-controlled trade unions have no standing among the workers, who still regard the suppressed and outlawed Trade Union Solidarity as having been their only true representative body. That there is no freedom of thought at Polish universities and no freedom of expression in Polish media. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should do all in its power and authority, through the Government of Australia, to alleviate the suffering of the Polish people and to ensure that the government in Poland recognises human rights and freedoms, admits to the existence of political prisoners and allows them humane treatment, freeing all such prisoners as soon as possible; and that the government in Poland restores former rights and privileges to the Trade Union Solidarity, re-establishes basic university freedoms, re-admits academics who were dismissed for their political beliefs, and introduces true freedom of expression in the Polish media. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectively showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at proposed cuts to the functions of the Human Rights Commission. In particular the undersigned believe that the Human Rights Commission or any body that may replace it in December must be allocated adequate resources for complaint handling and community education in the areas of human rights and equal opportunity. The functions at present carried by the Human Rights Commission and the additional responsibilities relating to ILO Conventions III require increased resources if the rights of Australian citizens are to be safeguarded effectively, particularly in States and Territories which at present lack anti-discrimination legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, this petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. The agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint De- fence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. 2. In the advent of war between the United States and the Soviet Union access by the United States to Pine Gap facilities makes it a prime nuclear target. 3. That all the most important U.S. Bases in Australia have nuclear First Strike functions is clear, with Pine Gap for example having the ability to pick out land targets for the U.S.A. Sea-Launched Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. 4. Action against U.S.A. Bases in Australia is Over- due and Urgent. They endanger World Peace and are an outrageous violation of Australia's National Sovereignty. We most strongly oppose any renewal of the Pine Gap lease to the U.S.A. and call for its closure and all U.S. bases in Australia. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric System and request the Government to restore the Imperial System. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Pain, suffering and death are occurring as a result of the action of sections of the medical profession and private health insurance companies. People are being forced into private health funds and denied treatment until they do so. We call on the Government to take action against these doctors and private health insurance companies who are engaging in this practice. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Allan Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 Ruddock. To the honourable the leader and members of the House of Representatives of Australia: the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, eg petitions by some action, eg referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr Scholes. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. there is a lack of public information about the content and intention of the proposed legislation on Plant Variety Rights; 2. there is concern that the ethical and moral issues of granting private proprietorial rights over genetic resources have not been properly and publicly considered; 3. there is evidence to suggest that such legislation may lead to a reduction in the plant diversity; 4. there is reason to fear that farmers may be restricted in their activities due to the controls placed on the use and propagation of seed stocks; 5. evidence suggests that Plant Varietal Rights legislation will lead to higher costs for the farmer, the consumer, the plant-breeder and the taxpayer and 6. evidence suggests that Plant Varietal Rights legislation will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australian resources; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure: (i) that information be made freely available to allow full and informed public discussion of the issues involved. (ii) that the Government undertake to carry out an analysis of the costs and benefits involved to the various sectors of Agriculture and the Nation as a whole. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the President and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interest of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessary rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Pet- ition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has directed the Federal Department of Aviation to institute cost recovery methods in compliance with the recommendations of the Bosch Report Into Aviation Cost Recovery, and whereas the company Airlines of Tasmania provides the only regular commuter airline service between the islands of Bass Strait and Tasmania, the actions of the Government in this regard will impose a severe financial strain on the continued viable operation of the company Airlines of Tasmania which is so necessary for the livelihood and commercial trading operations of the people of the islands of Bass Strait. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government will not proceed with such action in relation to cost recovery in the aviation industry as could jeopardise the continued operation of Airlines of Tasmania. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble pet- tion 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 every pray. by Mr West. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully request that: The world's resources would 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: There is an urgent need to up-grade and extend 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 showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain residents the State of of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the Report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney which recommends the establishment in 1987 of a Western Sydney State University along lines detailed in that report. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth Government acts promptly to rectify the serious deficiencies in Higher Education in the Western Sydney Region by taking all actions necessary to enable the New South Wales Government to establish the University. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Menzies 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 N.A. Brown. 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 Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honour- able House (the Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The current 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 Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned petitioners of the electorate of Farrer, do respectfully show our concerns about the Government's acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the Clothing, Textile and Foot- wear Industry. Your petitioners express the strongest concern over any moves to withdraw tariff protection for the industry immediately. Your petitioners do humbly request that any decision relating to the industry be tempered with regard to the employment situation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. or any site within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the citizens of the Goulburn Valley, electors of the Division of Murray respectfully showeth: That they request that SBS (channel 28) television be made available to the people of this electorate. Your petitioners humbly pray that you hear their voices and see their needs for the availability of having SBS (channel 28) present in their electorate. by Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell Uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House or Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gilmore electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill is of great concern to many Australians who believe that the Bill will adversely affect the majority of citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers' conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The Government's actions in changing levels of pharmaceutical benefits will adversely effect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependent on existing benefits. The Government's actions are little more than yet another burden placed upon our Australian citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Restore pharmaceutical benefits to their former level, therefore lifting this inequitable burden now being placed squarely on the infirm throughout Australia. Give a firm undertaking not to further desert those citizens in need of medical support. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Goldstein speaking for a period not exceeding 17 minutes. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(5.08) —I rise today for my 17 minutes to respond to reports tabled by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on the last day of sitting and will divide my time equally between the reports dealing with commercial radio and those dealing with commercial television. The report regarding commercial radio is comprehensive and might finally give a hint of progress to those entrepreneurs and consumers anxious to see established additional radio services in regional areas of Australia after years of frustrating delay and inaction. But, as the report itself suggests, the equalisation of regional television services is to receive priority, so it will be still some time before additional radio services become available. The lack of departmental resources, combined with the problems associated with band II clearance, will mean even further delays to the long-awaited expansion of radio service in the rural areas of Australia. I note that the radio report alludes to the need for an indicative plan that would provide a program for change and assist in the decision-making process. Such a plan is long overdue and when completed should take away some of the ad hockery, uncertainty and false expectations which have plagued this Government's approach to broadcasting since it was elected in 1983. A coherent, detailed and well thought out framework, which presumably such a plan could provide, would go a long way towards putting the development of radio broadcasting in Australia on a more rational and predictable path. The study outlines various options for expanding regional commercial radio services. Reading between the lines, it would appear that option C, the so-called market groups approach, is the one favoured by the authors of the report. Approach C would involve the Minister and the Department of Communications categorising the regional radio markets into four groups: Firstly, markets where there is a prima facie case that a new competitor would be viable; secondly, markets where there is a doubt about the viability of a new competitor; thirdly, markets where it is believed that a new competitor would not be viable; and, fourthly, markets that are so small that special measures may be needed. The report then suggests several ways in which the new or extra services could be brought to those markets. The options range from using the existing supplementary scheme, combined with the use of ministerial planning powers, to a fast-track option which would abolish the supplementary scheme and allow the rapid introduction of additional services. Of course, the advantage of that method, apart from a more speedy introduction of services, is that it would reduce the time and effort currently expended by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in what are sometimes unnecessary and costly licence hearings. The coalition would favour a more streamlined and less bureaucratic process in respect of the whole licensing system. We do, of course, favour the supplementary licence scheme. In the section on structural matters, the report raises the issue of ownership and control provisions with respect to radio. The Opposition parties are also in favour of a review of the current ownership provisions, particularly if changes are undertaken in the context of the public interest. At present, the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 restricts any one owner to owning no more than eight radio stations, of which only four can be in any one State. Moreover, there is a limit of four metropolitan stations throughout the country and a limit of only one metropolitan station in any one State. The Tribunal observed: Compared with television, there is no significant concentration of ownership in commercial radio. I believe that the Government should seriously consider a loosening of the current ownership provisions as they apply to commercial radio. In the area of programming, the coalition is particularly concerned that new independent radio licensees may not provide a decent choice and range of programs; rather, they may concentrate on trying to compete with the existing licensee for the same market niche. The report refers to this type of programming as `me-tooism'. In such cases a supplementary or additional permit-which is the Opposition's policy-granted to the existing operator has a distinct advantage. The additional programs can then be geared to the audience not currently catered for by the first commercial signal. That means that there is a genuine attempt at alternative programming. Given that the concentration of ownership does not appear to be a major issue in the radio field, the Government should give due consideration to the problem caused if there is `me-tooism' in programming when new independent licences are issued. Additional quantities of programming may not necessarily lead to better quality in terms of what is available to listeners. In other words, if the existing station tries to cater for all the needs of the community and the new licence holder concentrates, for example, on rock music because the majority of people seem to prefer that sort of music, before we know it the existing licence holder will also turn to rock music and no other tastes will be catered for. A supplementary licence inevitably leads to a catering for other tastes because the one licence holder will not set up a station in direct competition with its own programs. Another crucial issue raised is that of commercial viability. We believe the notion of commercial viability needs a thorough overhaul. A Liberal-National Party government would look at loosening the viability criteria, as currently applied by the Broadcasting Tribunal, and allowing market forces a more prominent role in determining the viability or otherwise of a particular market. For too long, detailed and truncated arguments about viability have been allowed to delay proceedings before the Broadcasting Tribunal unnecessarily. With respect to the Forward Development Unit's earlier study on AM-FM conversion, I must observe that the three options presented to the Minister were totally unenlightening. With specific reference to the question of converting existing commercial AM services to the FM band, the report suggested three options: Firstly, allowing all commercial stations to convert; secondly, allowing regional commercial stations in competition with an FM station to convert; and, thirdly, allowing no conversion. The Minister made a brief reference to these alternatives when he commented on the latest radio report, but nothing new was presented. I would have thought that these three options were obvious, without there needing to be a detailed study, and I believe it is an issue which the Government should seriously consider. It should seriously consider allowing AM stations to convert to FM if spectrum space permits, and of course, in regional Australia it should. It rests on the available resources of the Department to allow the necessary planning and implementation of such a move. Many people in the private sector with consortiums ready to invest and provide services to rural Australia are now debarred from doing so by the policies of the Government and the obstructions that are placed in their way. We can see no obvious reason why those AM stations which wish to convert to an FM frequency should not be able to do so if technical circumstances permit. Of course, it is not only commercial radio operators that desire access to FM frequencies. We must remember that the needs of the national and public broadcasters must also be considered when planning is undertaken with respect to the use of spectrum space. In summary, it can be said that these three long overdue reports have raised a series of significant issues relating to broadcasting in Australia. The decisions made in the next few months and years that will arise as a result of these three reports and associated community discussions will have a momentous impact on the broadcasting industry for decades. It is crucial that the Government get it right and it is imperative that all interested parties and the public take the opportunity to comment on these reports to ensure that decisions are taken on behalf of all Australians. I must say that decisions taken to date in respect of regional commercial television do not fill one with hope in that regard. In the balance of my contribution I will refer to regional commercial television and I will amplify these remarks when I speak during the Budget debate tomorrow. The Minister, in the statement to which I am now replying, said: `Equalisation is well within our reach'. I wonder what he meant by that. What is equalisation? Is it the same number of services in each region? The Government's early propaganda led us to expect that that would be so, but it is now clear from the Minister's statement that will not be so. Tasmania, we are told, will be a special case, and so will South Australia. There are to be two services in Tasmania, but in regional South Australia there will be one service. The result of these policies is that Mildura, a small centre, will have three services. Hobart, a State capital city, will have two services. Regional South Australia, such as Mount Gambier, Port Pirie and Loxton, will have one service. That is a very strange way of achieving equalisation. Nevertheless, the Minister assures us that it is well within our reach. What is within our reach? The answer must surely be the aggregation of viewing areas, regardless of the effect that has on the production of local programs, the lack of genuine community of interest between the areas to be aggregated together, local advertising revenue and local employment. Mr Cowan —The Minister has not considered those aspects. Mr MACPHEE —Not only has the Minister not considered any of those aspects; he has not consulted anyone who has. He has not consulted local communities, nor has he seriously consulted licence holders. At no time were the licence holders consulted by the Government about the most fatal flaw in the entire proposition, which is the so-called one-in, all-in aggregation. Mr Peacock —Did he not talk about that? Mr MACPHEE —He did not discuss it with them and the Department did not discuss it with them. The important point is that the policy adopted by the Government now will bring about an aggregation of viewing areas, regardless of the adverse effect that will have on all aspects of local production, employment and advertising. At the moment a delegation of staff-not management, staff-is visiting Parliament House from Channel 8, which covers Bendigo and Traralgon in Victoria. It is here to register its opposition to the Government's policy. Members of the delegation know that their jobs are at stake. Because they are here I might as well give an illustration of the way in which the policy of the Government will work, to show what a nonsense it really is. In regional Victoria services provided by Channel 8 operating from Bendigo cover Gippsland through a Traralgon station which formerly had a licence on its own but proved to be too small. The service operating from Ballarat covers a good deal of western Victoria and there is a very small station at Mildura confined just to its own area. The Bendigo and Ballarat stations are both financially able and extremely willing to provide a supplementary licence, to provide the genuine alternative program to which I have just referred in respect of radio so that people can see a second commercial service alongside that of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. Both organisations are willing to do that. All the Minister has to do is say that he will grant them a supplementary licence. Each of them, by that supplementary licence, would provide a greater viewer choice than is now possible under the Government's policy or, of course, is possible under the Government's refusal to provide a supplementary licence. Mr Jull —And more jobs. Mr MACPHEE —It does mean more jobs. More people will be employed locally and there will be more advertising because there will be alternative programs. Let us look at this matter. Under the proposition now adopted by the Government there will be competition for the major audiences if there are two or three licence holders in the area. There will be a duplication of programming which means that no alternative programs will be provided. Equalisation should be seen in terms of diversity of programming; it should not be seen just in the number of services. The Government wants to aggregate the areas now covered by Bendigo, Ballarat and Mildura. The result of that will be that those three stations will need to set up facilities in the areas now covered by the other two and to set up expensive equipment for the insertion of local advertisements, local news, and the coverage of sporting and other activities. Obviously the cost of producing those will be greater than if only one area is being covered, and the cost of installing the equipment is estimated to be about $20m a year. What will the stations get for that? They will lose their existing market and have a great problem in trying to split three ways the other two markets. In effect, there will be a loss of local production. The day after the Minister made his announcement about localism, Mildura announced that it would seek to trigger off an immediate aggregation of those areas. Mildura could easily be sold by its existing licence holder to someone else who would immediately take the network programs from Sydney or Melbourne with national advertising only and no local programs. The service would cover Bendigo and Ballarat, meaning a greatly expanded market for Mildura. In that way localism could immediately be wiped out because the other two stations, quite simply, could not afford to provide it. Why run local programs and local advertisements at substantial cost when one's competitor is making a profit by networking from Sydney or Melbourne? That is the logical consequence of this measure. One regional television executive recently said: `What responsible business manager could be expected to leap at the chance to invest $20m in order to lose up to 50 per cent of the audience and slash profits?'. To prove the point in respect of Bendigo, I remind the House that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), a Labor Party member, a member of the Government, said the following on 26 August: At a time when the Government is taking the necessary tough decisions in relation to our Balance of Payments position, it would be irresponsible to encourage the importation of an additional $400m or more of overseas capital equipment. That is what is involved in this policy. Even if one does not agree that the Government is taking the necessary tough decisions, it is guaranteeing that we will import another $400m worth of overseas equipment while we are on a buy Australian campaign. Mr Peacock —He is even more stupid than the Minister. Mr MACPHEE —The honourable member for Bendigo then stated: The vast majority of regional broadcasters provide a first rate service-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Kooyong to withdraw the comment he just made. Mr Peacock —I withdraw. Mr MACPHEE —The honourable-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.26) —The Loans Bill 1986 is a machinery of government type of Bill. Basically it occurs because we are not allowed to overdraw the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government and therefore defence and certain other expenditures that would be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund have to be charged to the Loan Fund, which is another fund of the Government, or there has to be an arrangement to reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund from the Loan Fund. The purpose of this Bill is to allow the Government to meet certain defence and other expenditures from the Loan Fund rather than the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is all perfectly unexceptionable. The Opposition has no quarrel with that or with the particular sums to be taken out of the Loan Fund. However, in passing I point out that the extent of the moneys that have to be borrowed is governed by the Budget deficit of $3.5 billion. We could draw attention to the excessive borrowing program of this Government. However, I will leave that matter to a later hour this day when I will speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). There is a trick to this Bill which was raised by the Government last year. The Senate in its wisdom decided to amend it and on that occasion the Government accepted the amendment. Let me explain to the House exactly what that means. The Loans Bill comes into the House on an annual basis. Last year, for the first time, the Government tried to amend the Bill to provide for a standing Act. In other words it would no longer be necessary to introduce a new Loan Bill each year to provide for the borrowing requirements of the Government from the Loan Fund. I have to confess that the Opposition in this House let the matter slip. We did not object to the Bill in this House. However, the House of review, very sensibly, had a closer look at it because it was not acting under the very fast time program that we have to act under here. The Senate decided, certainly with the support of the Opposition as a whole, that the Bill should be amended to retain the form of an annual loan Bill, not a standing Act of the Parliament. We had the support of the Australian Democrats and independent senators in that matter and those amendments were accepted by the Senate. When they came back to the House of Representatives the Government was not exactly gracious in accepting the amendments but at least it did accept them and that was that. I want to make it quite clear in giving the Opposition's view on this Bill that we have no intention whatsoever of delaying it. Some people get nervous about this matter because the same Bill was delayed in 1975. I want to make it quite clear that we have no intention whatsoever of proceeding along the lines that certain people did in 1975, so let there be no spectres of that kind. All we are concerned about is that this Bill should be an annual Bill so that if there are any controversial matters relating to it or any matters we want to raise in the Parliament we will have every opportunity of doing so and it will not merely be a question of the Government relying on standing legislation. This means that we will ask that a committee of the whole House examine the Bill and we will move amendments to bring it back to being an annual Bill. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.30) —I have listened to the comments by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and note his comments about the Loans Bill being an annual Bill as distinct from a standing Bill. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) in his second reading speech discussed that matter. I take up a point raised by the honourable member for Mackellar at the outset of his discussion; that is, the role of the Loans Bill in funding the Budget deficit. This debate provides a good opportunity in this place to strike a contrast. Earlier today we had some debate about economic strategy. This debate provides a good opportunity to strike a contrast in terms of economic strategy because essentially it comes down to the deficit. The honourable member for Mackellar mentioned the $3.5 billion deficit. It is a source of some satisfaction to us on this side of the House that we have been able to achieve a $3.5 billion deficit. This deficit contrasts with the $9.6 billion projected deficit that was the legacy of the then outgoing Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I emphasise that contrast in terms of the funding restraints and pressures on government. The community at large recognises that this Government had to address a very serious issue. In the face of declining commodity prices it was very important that we brought in a deficit that would minimise impact on financial markets. It is in that light that we ought to address the broad economic issues. It is important in this place to try to provide that focus. In going around my electorate I have found that the emphasis now in the community is that we are in difficult times and there is a need for some very serious economic decisions to be made. There is a recognition that those decisions are being made by this Government. This debate provides the opportunity, as do other debates- we had the matter of public importance debate earlier today and the Budget debate will be resumed later today-to show the community that all the decisions we are making head in a particular direction and fit within a framework. That framework is to recognise, on the one hand, that there has been a massive decline in commodity prices and, on the other hand, that the decline in commodity prices is being reflected in the balance of trade, the value of the dollar and interest rates. So there is a relationship between all those factors. Domestically, there is also a recognition that we need to take account of those factors in terms of the Government's fund raising efforts. I note that there will be no bond raisings as a result of this Budget. Further, there is the need to address wages policy. So when we are talking about something like the Loans Bill as it applies to the funding of a prospective Budget deficit, it is important that we take a moment in this House to show that a clear strategy is being developed by this Government and that that strategy takes account of the present difficult times. Let me sketch briefly the very difficult issue we have to address-a decline in world commodity prices. It is well understood in the community that that decline would have occurred irrespective of which party was in government. Had the Opposition been in government, the same issue would have had to be faced-that is, a massive decline in commodity prices. It is important to recognise that in framing debates in this place. Between 1981-82 and 1985-86 there was a 28 per cent decline in coal prices. Another major commodity that has attracted a lot of attention in recent times is wheat. There was a 27 per cent decline in wheat prices between 1980-81 and 1985-86-a very large decline. There was a 22 per cent decline in wool prices in the same time-frame. Iron ore prices, which are very relevant to my State of Western Australia, suffered a 26 per cent decline. There was a decline in aluminium prices-Western Australia being a producer of bauxite-of 28 per cent from 1983-84 to 1985-86. So we are talking about a very short time-frame and a very substantial decline in commodity prices. There was a 24 per cent decline in beef prices. In respect of sugar, which is a very important industry, particularly in respect of your State of Queensland, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was a 68 per cent decline in prices. That has had a major impact on the economy. Might I add that this Government has moved to address that problem with respect to Queensland. The only difficulty we have had has been in getting the Queensland Government to recognise its responsibilities in that respect. Barley is very important to my State of Western Australia. There has been a 48 per cent decline in the price of bulk feed barley. I interpose here that there has been some good news recently with respect to malting barley. The European barley crop has not quite come in as expected and it is likely that Australian malting barley will be able to be sold in the European market at reasonably good prices. So in all of these areas there are windows of opportunity for us as a government. There was a major downturn in oil prices, of which everyone is conscious, between 1981 and 1986. I will now talk about London Metals Exchange prices because they are quite significant. There was a downturn of 62 per cent in the price of silver between February 1983 and August 1986. There was a 39.3 per cent decrease in the London Metals Exchange price of lead between December 1981 and August 1986. There was a 15 per cent decline in the price of zinc between January 1984 and August 1986. So there has been a considerable decline in a very short period. Between January 1984 and August 1986 the London Metals Exchange nickel price-again, Western Australia is a miner of nickel-fell by 20.1 per cent. All those commodity prices are significant in terms of Australia's trade. We have seen a decline in most commodity prices and we have had to react to it. I mentioned just a moment ago windows of opportunity. This Budget strategy has been to set out a platform for the economy to operate on. That platform has been designed to reduce Budget outlays, to reduce the deficit and to reduce the impact on the money market, thereby setting the scene so that, if there is an upturn in commodity prices and a downturn in interest rates, we will be in a position to move ahead in terms of economic recovery. It is crucial that we have set in place an important strategy. To draw a contrast-clearly that is the function of this sort of debate-what we are talking about is setting in place policies ranging from fiscal policy, which is mainly focused upon the Budget, to monetary policy. Monetary policy has been a matter of concern to us, because we were adjusting monetary policy earlier this year to do something about the value of the dollar and interest rates adjusting capital inflow. What we are seeking in our trade policy is an expansion of the volume of exports and import replacement production. We are doing that because the floating of the Australian dollar has given us the capacity to pursue those lines. In regard to exchange rate policy, the floating of the Australian dollar has meant some important structural changes, but these changes were very necessary for the Australian economy because we were living in an artificial world for far too long. The floating of the Australian dollar has meant that we have now begun to recognise where Australia is placed internationally. Finally, no policy on this side of the chamber contrasts more strongly with that of the Opposition side than does our wages policy. We have a wages policy which fits within the framework of the prices and incomes accord and which, in sum, represents, if you like, a social wage approach to wages policy. We have a policy, but the Opposition does not have a clearly defined policy. The Opposition has a series of propositions and options which it might pursue, but it does not have a cohesive wages policy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) — Order! The honourable member is getting a little wide of the debate. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to set the framework in which to focus on the Budget deficit. When we put our policies in place, aiming for a deficit of $3.5 billion, we were able to demonstrate to the Australian community that we had policies. The context of this Bill, which seeks to fund a deficit of $3.5 billion, is that this Government has been outstandingly successful in the most difficult of times, recognising what basically is a $6 billion loss in income. To be able to turn around and place a Bill in this context, I believe, is quite an achievement. It is an achievement in another sense, which I think is an important function of this chamber, in that we are able to communicate to the community precisely what we are trying to do. There is a recognition in the Australian community that the strategy that is being pursued is a cohesive strategy; that is, it is a strategy designed to make some tough decisions. They are decisions that I think many would prefer not to have to make, but they are tough decisions and they are decisions that are understood by the community as being responsible decisions as part of that strategy. In the context of this debate on the Loans Bill, the crucial thing we are aiming at is to say that we have an economic strategy and that that economic strategy is being well thought through and is designed to deal with the conditions which we face. I will make just a couple of remarks in closing. There has been some considerable discussion in the financial Press and in the political arena recently about the assessment of Australia in terms of our deficit strategy and the AA1 assessment by Moody's Investor Services. What I think has to be emphasised in the context of this Government's economic management is that those overseas who are making assessments of how we are performing are saying that, yes, this Government is taking account of the difficult economic circumstances that face it and that it is not retreating from those objectives or from the very difficult evidence confronting it of those declining commodity prices that I referred to. This Government is addressing those issues and it is doing so responsibly. What comes out of the Moody's assessment and what comes out of the comments by other financiers on the international stage is that the Australian Government is providing the necessary ingredients for an economic recovery-an economic recovery based on making tough decisions and putting in place a policy framework. The centrepiece of that policy framework, in terms of the Budget, has been the $3.5 billion deficit. I think we can contrast this role and approach to economic management by the Government with what is being provided opposite. There has not been up to this stage the degree of rigour and analysis that is required in the context of these difficult economic times. I say that because I think we are subject now to more scrutiny in the Australian community and in the international community than we ever have been. That is not a bad thing if as a government we are up to doing the job, but it is a difficult thing if one is not up to doing the job. I am very confident that we as a government can put the necessary mechanisms in place and I think the Budget strategy shows that we are doing that. In closing, in the context of this Loans Bill I say that this Government has said to the Australian community: We are about making difficult decisions, we are making those difficult decisions, which range through the policies I referred to earlier, and overall they provide a recognition that we can, if we are serious enough about it, set the framework for economic recovery, particularly into 1987. There is already evidence that the international community has recognised that the Australian dollar has been undervalued, that it is now improving in value, that interest rates are starting to come down and that the international financial community has a renewed confidence in the Australian community. And why not, because what we have in Australia is a community that is capable of great vigour, great achievement and great performance. We have shown it in the past and I am quite confident that we can do it in the future. What is required and what is being offered in this place is economic leadership. I ask the Australian community to pause for one moment and to think in terms of the quality of leadership that is being provided in economic management here. If the community looks at that quality of economic leadership, it sees that it is there. One can identify the components of a necessary economic policy. I do not think it does the Opposition a great deal of credit in terms of contrasting its policies with those of the Government. We are quite confident on this side. I think the economic leadership is there, I think the platform for economic recovery is there and I believe that there are many reasons why we in the Australian community should be confident of the future. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.45) —At about this time last year the Government sought to stray from what had been the practice of successive governments. In its Loans Bill 1985 this Government wanted for itself the power to borrow money, under that particular instrument, not for purposes arising out of its taxing and spending for and confined to the year 1985-86, but for evermore. It seems that every day in this place we see the Government moving to take more and more out of the realm of the Parliament and vest it in the Executive, and I suppose we should not be surprised. The fact that the Senate wisely rejected the ploy last year certainly has not deterred the Government from trying on the same thing again this year. It is bad enough that successive governments have adopted a similar device each year for the sole purpose of avoiding the need to refer their proposed borrowings to the Loan Council for approval. At least the enabling legislation in the past had the virtue that it had to come before this Parliament each and every year. The present Government does not want to be under any such constraint. First, as its predecessors wanted and achieved, it wants to avoid the constitutional limitations on borrowings. Secondly, and more importantly than that, it wants to be able to do this very thing for evermore and a day. As to the first element, the Government avoids constitutional constraints by pretending, in the Minister's second reading speech and in the explanatory memorandum, that these borrowings will be raised for spending for defence purposes only. That is plainly a ploy. That might seem like a good enough trick because the government of the day can get around the Constitution in that way and because it has become accepted practice and, therefore, precedents can be claimed. The second element is far more important for a number of reasons. What is being sought in this Bill is, in effect, an open-ended cheque. While it is nominally a Loans Bill, in reality it is a loans and appropriation Bill. An esteemed colleague of mine who has retired to the Ministry in the Tasmanian Parliament, former Senator Peter Rae, said in the other place last year that it is more like a Khemlani affair avoidance Bill. But more than that, it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and it is contrary to the spirit of parliamentary representation in that it effectively prevents us from debating the merits of a particular measure brought down each year and entitled the Loans Bill for that particular financial year. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) introduced into the debate a few factors which I must say are relevant because they all have an effect and influence on the Government's need to borrow this money. He alluded to interest rates. It is interesting to note that the estimates of interest rates for various Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries as at 30 June read something like this: In Australia the rate was 8.4 per cent; in Japan it was 0.5 per cent; in the United States of America it was 1.7 per cent; in West Germany it was a creditable -0.2 per cent; in France it was 2.3 per cent; Italy was pushing us hard at 6.3 per cent; in the United Kingdom it was 2.5 per cent; and in Canada it was 3.7 per cent. The average inflation rate last year for OECD countries was 2.6 per cent. Looking at it another way, the average for major OECD trading partners was 2 per cent. Australia's inflation rate, as can be readily seen from those figures, is more than triple the OECD average, more than four times that of our major trading partners, almost five times that of the United States of America and a disastrous more than 16 times that of Japan, our major trading partner. They are factors which will influence the consequences which arise from this legislation, which merely gives the Government the means by which it will borrow to offset its budgeted deficit. Those inflation rates will come into play, just as they affect the value of our dollar and affect our ability to roll over existing loans and to take out new ones. The honourable member for Stirling also introduced the matter of our trade policy. He omitted to mention that our balance of payments is a disaster area, it having deteriorated significantly in the past two years. In 1985-86 the current account deficit blew out to a record dollar level of $13.7 billion, or more than 5.9 per cent of gross domestic product. That blow out of almost $14 billion in 1985-86 compares with the Budget forecast for that year of only $10.7 billion. When we talk about the Loans Bill and how much we must borrow to make up the deficit naturally we are suspicious because last year the Government was out by $3 billion or $4 billion. That does not give us any confidence in the Government's projections this year. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will understand why I say that. The current account deficit exceeded $1 billion in nine of the 12 months of last financial year. Mr Hodgman —Shame! Mr ROCHER —It is shameful. Prior to the Hawke Government the monthly current account deficit in this country had never exceeded $1 billion, yet it exceeded that figure nine times-in nine months out of 12-last financial year. The current account deficit had almost doubled from $7.3 billion in 1983-84, the first full year of the Hawke Government. The OECD has forecast that in 1986 our current account deficit as a percentage of GDP will be the largest in the OECD area. On top of that, Australia's foreign debt is at alarming levels. It totalled around $35 billion when the Hawke Government took office in 1983. The latest official figure-for December 1985-puts that figure at $75 billion. In this year's Budget Papers, the Treasury estimated that our foreign debt had reached $86 billion by June 1986. The Reserve Bank of Australia in its latest annual report put that figure at $88 billion, but who will quibble about a couple of billion dollars under this profligate Government? These latest figures also support the confidential Treasury forecasts, which were reported in the Australian newspaper a month or so ago, of our foreign debt reaching about $85 billion by June 1986 and a staggering $100 billion by June 1987-less than 12 months away. On this basis our foreign debt will have increased by $65 billion during the four years of the Hawke Government. A $100 billion foreign debt represents something like 35 to 40 per cent of GDP and will generate an annual interest bill of, I guess, at least $9 billion or 3.5 per cent of GDP. I see some young people in the gallery. This is the sort of legacy, girls and boys, that you will be left under this Government because by the time you are taxpayers you will have to pay it back. I have to apologise to you for that. This is considerably more than the Government spends on health, education or defence each year. Mr Price —I take a point of order. The honourable member should address his remarks to the Chair, rather than to the gallery. Mr Peacock —That is not a point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —That is not a point of order, but I ask the honourable member for Curtin to be more relevant to the Bill before the House. That is the same caution that I had to give to the previous member who spoke. Mr ROCHER —I appreciate that. My reason for straying into that area was that the honourable member for Stirling also transgressed. Of course I shall get back to the Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is a correct point of order that the honourable member address his comments through the Chair. Mr ROCHER —I would not like to leave the accusations and allegations by the honourable member for Stirling unanswered, he having made them before you drew the matter to his attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have already indicated, this has great implications for our borrowings in that the value of the Australia dollar has plummetted under this Government. Last year's Budget forecast was for an average exchange rate of 68 on the trade weighted index for last financial year. However, the TWI did not reach that level on any one day, let alone average it through the year. There are many things that I might have said. We are under constraints of time once again. It seems that with this expanded Parliament it is no longer fashionable to allow speakers the full speaking time allowed under Standing Orders. I know that the Whips make special arrangements. I will abide by them in the spirit of those co-operative arrangements. Mr Hodgman —It is a pity in your case. This is an excellent speech. Mr ROCHER —I thank the honourable member for Denison. We are told in the explanatory memorandum that the Bill was drafted as standing rather than annual legislation. That is the point on which we stick. My colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has made it quite clear that we will move an amendment to this Bill. Its successors will be considered with the support of the Senate, if not with the support of the Government, each year as they should. We do not subscribe to even more power being delegated to the Executive at the expense of the contributions which can be made by the elected representatives of this country. I will support that amendment when it is moved. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.56) —Australia today owes the world $88 billion. By June next year Australia will owe the world $100 billion. In short, before we become 200 years of age we will be indebted nationally in the staggering amount of $100 billion. This derelict, incompetent, bunch of economic vandals known as the Hawke socialist Government is borrowing Australia into bankruptcy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the honourable member for Denison that I called two previous honourable members to order on irrelevance. I suggest that the honourable member at least commence his comments by being relevant and pertinent. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. This legislation will make it easier for the Government to borrow more without the overview of the Parliament and in breach of the spirit of the Constitution. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you see what that is like? It is like putting a vampire in charge of a blood bank. That is the point that I am making. This derelict, incompetent bunch of economic vandals, which has already borrowed this nation into bankruptcy, in this legislation is seeking to bypass the annual scrutiny of the Parliament and rape the Constitution. The explanation by the Minister who introduced the Loans Bill, the Minister for Jeremy Cordeaux, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) who represents the Minister for Finance and is in the House is a sham and a ploy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Again, according to Standing Orders I ask the honourable member for Denison to address the Minister by his correct title. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. He said in this incredible document read in the chamber that this Bill is simply a machinery financing measure. I will speak at some length on those words to demonstrate that they are a sham and a ploy. This is not a machinery financing measure. This is a very skilfully prepared piece of legislation to enable this Government to get this country more into hock without being overviewed by the Parliament, by the House of Representatives and the Senate. This legislation is Khemlani mark 2, Iraqi breakfast, Nugan Hand and Australian Council of Trade Unions-Bourke's store rolled into one. It is the most derelict, disgraceful piece of legislation. It is very much to the credit of our colleagues in the Senate that they realised what had occurred. I am delighted that the shadow Treasurer, who spoke so eloquently on this Bill earlier this evening, will move amendments which will be put to the Parliament and which will demand-I repeat demand-that we know from this day on until the end of this shabby Hawke socialist Government every dollar and cent it borrows in the name of Australia and the rope it is putting around the necks of unborn Australians. You will be staggered to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that during the term of office of the Hawke socialist Government Australia's overseas debt has trebled. Your home budget, Madam Deputy Speaker, has not trebled in that period, and certainly your home borrowings will not have done so. So why do we stand by and let the Government, which makes Mr Whitlam and Dr Cairns look like a couple of choirboys at a Sunday school picnic, borrow us into bankruptcy? Every little child born in Australia comes into the world with a national debt of $4,820 around his or her tiny neck. If the Government is not held in check, by the time it is thrown from office at the next Federal election that figure will have passed the $5,000 mark. The Government has borrowed excessively and has proved that it is not a good credit risk. What an insult to the people of Australia that the Government has destroyed the credit rating which came in in the aftermath of the McMahon years during the term of the Whitlam Government. The credit rating of AAA, the highest in the world, has been taken from us because of the Government's incompetence and economic mismanagement. I have said it before and I shall say it again: If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were accountants they would now be in gaol for what they have done to the Australian economy. We have lost our AAA rating. I heard an Opposition member try to fob that aside as though it mattered not a bit, but the enterprising and extremely persuasive honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) knocked that one on the head. The loss of the rating means that from this day onwards every loan that is arranged from Australia, when we borrow overseas, will be increased by 0.3 per cent as a minimum and in some cases the increase will be 0.5 per cent. What will this mean to our borrowings, which will be $20 billion in the next financial year? It can be said conservatively that as a result of the incompetence of this disgraceful and discredited Government everybody in Australia will collectively be paying between $70m and $100m in additional interest. The problem will not rest solely with the Federal Government. It will go down through the State governments, to local government and statutory authorities, to Mr and Mrs Australia, who will be paying more and more because of the incompetence of the persons who are currently in charge of our economy. We do not own Australia and we do not own the economy. We are trustees. It is our responsibility to pass Australia's economy on to our sons and daughters in better shape than when we received it. I welcome with relish the impending arrival of a Liberal-National Party government that will get this country back on to the economic rails. I am certain that the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), and those who work with him know what has to be done and will have the courage to do it. I have said before and I say again that we are at greater risk in 1986 than we were in 1975. It will take a decade to clean up the economic mess which has been inflicted on the people of Australia by the Hawke socialist Government. I for one do not cringe at the possibility of utilising the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution whenever and wherever they become available. The founding fathers expected that one day, though they hoped it would not happen, the country would find itself in the hands of a government so bad that it would have to be forced out of office. That is why they gave the Senate greater powers than any other upper House in any other Western parliamentary democracy. How are these comments relevant to the Bill? They are relevant because it was the Senate which drew the attention of the people to the sneaky and discreditable piece of legislation that is before us and its implications. If this had sneaked through, those opposite, whom I would not trust with my son's piggy bank, could have borrowed, borrowed and borrowed without coming back here for annual parliamentary approval. To say that the Bill is a simple machinery financing measure is wrong, and that second reading speech is not worth the paper on which it was typed. Who are the big borrowers in the Hawke socialist Government? Leading them-I advised the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) that he would get a special mention-is the Socialist Left. I am pleased to give an illustration of how incompetent it is financially. If it cannot handle the financial affairs of the Carlton North Branch of the Australian Labor Party, whose minutes of the meeting of Tuesday, 5 August, have fortuitously come into my hands, how could it handle the finances of Australia? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I must ask the honourable member for Denison to come closer to the Bill before the House. I have given him plenty of leeway. Mr HODGMAN —What I am going to do, Madam Deputy Speaker-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable gentleman is going to become more relevant. Mr HODGMAN —I shall obey you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always obey you. No one on this side of the House gives you greater respect than I do. I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker: If a microcosm of the Hawke socialist Government-the Socialist Left, led by a potential Prime Minister, the honourable member for Melbourne-cannot organise the finances of the Carlton North Branch of the ALP, if it cannot tot up the petty cash and make it come out, how can the Hawke socialist Government be entrusted with the vital and fundamental role of safeguarding the nation's economy? The best thing about the Carlton North Branch of the ALP-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to discontinue his irrelevant line of thought. Please come back to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I shall conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have one minute left. I shall deal with the Carlton North Branch of the ALP on the adjournment. The Socialist Left is financially incompetent and it hates the Prime Minister's guts. It is clear also that it cannot spell. It does not even think that you are a speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it said that for the meeting of 2 September it did not have a speaker. It said that you were going to come along at a quarter to nine. I shall have something more to say about that later. I just want to thank the honourable member for Melbourne for coming into the chamber. I intend to bring to the Parliament plenty of news about the powerful Carlton North Branch of the ALP, but I shall do that on another occasion. The amendments to be moved by the shadow Treasurer deserve the support of every rational thinking and caring member of the House. I even appeal to the few remnants of sanity that I can just see dimly among the ranks of the Hawke socialist Government to join us and support the amendments. This is bad legislation and it deserves to be thrown out neck and crop. The Senate deserves to be supported totally. The more I read the Bill the more I see the ghosts of Khemlani, the Iraqi breakfast, Nugan Hand, and ACTU-Bourke's. These ghosts float before us as testimony of a government which has borrowed the nation into bankruptcy. The sooner this bunch of economic vandals is thrown from office, with the Prime Minister being dragged screaming from the Lodge, the better for Australia. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.08) —in reply-In closing the second reading debate I thank the four members who took part in it, but in a couple of cases I cannot thank them for the contributions they made. I must say to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that the only thing that can be said about his speech is that it was in keeping with the total irresponsibility of his speeches normally. It is a disgrace. He has no credibility even on his own side of the House, let alone this side. The honourable member for Denison may joke and want to be hail fellow well met with Government members, but that will not make up for the fact that his rhetoric is empty. What is more, it is rudeness that he uses most of the time to get in his cheap jokes. The honourable gentleman's main theme was that the Loans Bill is not a machinery measure, and he attacked my second reading speech. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who led for the Opposition, had the decency and credibility to accept that this is a machinery measure. I know that when we discuss the Bill in Committee he will present his reasons for moving certain amendments. I do not think that they will be very good ones, but at least he accepts that this is a machinery measure. The honourable member for Curtin also made a couple of points on this Bill that need response. One of the things he said was that the Bill allows government to know more and more and avoid the need of coming up before the Parliament with the answers. He said that the Government wants to avoid the constitutional limits on borrowing for ever and a day. `Seeking an open-ended cheque' was another remark we heard from the honourable member. Another comment was that the Bill is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and parliamentary representation and avoids annual debate on loan measures. Unfortunately, I was not able to be in the House at the time. Mr Peacock —You were too busy on the radio. Mr HURFORD —Yes, I am getting plenty of invitations, I will be pleased to tell the honourable member. Mr Peacock —I can just imagine. Mr HURFORD —Even the honourable member's wife invites me and I am always very glad when she does. It is pleasant to talk to her. I understand that she is very pleased to have me, and we will do it from time to time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask honourable members on both sides of the House, including the Minister, to come back to the point of the Bill at hand. Mr HURFORD —I thank you for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to have a little repartee with these gentlemen because they realise that they will be laughing on the other side of their faces after this whole episode is over. Let us look at the assertions by the honourable member for Curtin. I will not even bother to answer the nonsense from the honourable member for Denison because he really is getting more incredible every day. He cannot even get support from his own side, so why should we on this side take the time to answer him? All assertions such as those made by the honourable member for Curtin are wrong, as a reading of the Bill and its associated explanatory memorandum clearly demonstrates. Let us go over the facts. The Loans Bill would have no effect if Parliament did not appropriate moneys for specific purposes. I wonder whether the honourable member for Denison has just thought about those words. He suggested that this Loans Bill itself gives an opportunity to borrow. That is nonsense. It does not. It is a machinery matter and we have to have the appropriation first. We will have appropriation Bills year after year in order to ensure that this machinery is used. It merely enables the charging to the Loan Fund of moneys appropriated by Parliament from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As I have said earlier and I will say again, the Bill is a machinery financing measure. The provisions of the Bill prohibit borrowings for expenditures additional to those authorised by the Parliament. The Bill will not detract from the Parliament's ability to debate the Budget or the associated deficit financing measures. The deficit and borrowing requirement are announced in the Budget Speech and in the Budget Papers. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Mackellar in his speech on the Budget later tonight will be addressing these subjects. He does not need the Loans Bill, and nor does anybody else, to debate these particular subjects this year, next year or in the future. The attitude of the Opposition displays its belief that it will stay in opposition forever. It does not need this measure as an excuse to bring up certain matters. It does not need it at all. It has other Budget Bills in order to bring up these subjects. If it were really working in the interests of this Parliament and this country it would make sure that this was a standing measure so that we did not have to take the time of the Parliament year after year on this sort of matter, this mere machinery measure, or have to listen to the incredible nonsense of the honourable member for Denison. That sort of nonsense should not be allowed to take up the time of this House. There are specific safeguards in this Bill as it is written. The Treasurer may borrow moneys only in accordance with other Acts authorising the issue of Australian Government securities. The annual appropriations of the Parliament set the limit on borrowings for defence purposes in any financial year. Appropriations of Parliament and the limit on borrowing authorities set by the Loan Council set an overall limit to borrowings which might be made pursuant to the Bill. The Loan Council borrowing limit is established pursuant to the terms of the financial agreements between the Commonwealth and the States and the Financial Agreement Acts. No member of Loan Council may borrow outside the approval limit set by Loan Council without further express approval of that body. That merely is pointing out in other words what I have said already, that this is a machinery measure. Another line of nonsense has come not from the person leading for the Government but from the two back benchers who peddle their line of stupidity in this debate. Mr Rocher —Oh, come on! Mr HURFORD —I will accept the word of the honourable member for Curtin who was much more rational than was the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to clarify the position. The Minister is attacking two back bench members of the Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —Those were his words. Who is he attacking? Mr HURFORD —In case I said those words, I appreciate the opportunity to correct them. I meant members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Curtin took exception and I have now accepted his word. So it is one back bench member of the Opposition to whom I am directing my attention. In effect he said that there should be no borrowings whatsoever, that we were putting this country into hock, and so on. I remember the honourable member for Curtin breaking Standing Orders, playing to some young people in the gallery and apologising to them. Obviously, he does not understand what has happened in this Budget-a reduction in the deficit to $3.5 billion. Is the assumption underlying what the Opposition is putting to this Parliament that it would collect $3.5 billion more in taxation or that it would cut government spending by a further $3.5 billion? It is just as well for everybody who is taking note of this debate to contemplate what the Opposition is putting to us. There are some pains in what the Government has had to do in this Budget. We do not like doing it in many cases, but we have to do it responsibly for this country. We should just remember that the contributions from the Opposition in this debate are such that one would have to assume that it would raise $3.5 billion more in tax or cut government spending by $3.5 billion. I close the debate and ask the House to accept the motion before it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(6.19) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 1, page 1, line 5, omit ``Loans'', substitute ``Loan''. (2) Clause 3, page 1, line 11, omit from the definition of `` `defence service' '' ``a financial year'', substitute ``the financial year''. (3) Clause 3, page 2, lines 1 to 3, omit the definition of `` `financial year' '', substitute the following definition: `` `financial year' means the year ending on 30 June 1987;''. (4) Clause 3, page 2, lines 4-15, omit the definition of `` `relevant appropriation Act' '', substitute the following definition: `` `relevant appropriation Act' means- (a) the Supply Act (No. 1) 1986-87; or (b) an Act, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act, appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the service of the financial year ending on 30 June 1987, being an Act that is expressed to have effect subject to this Act.''. (5) Clause 4, page 2, line 19, omit ``a financial year'', substitute ``the financial year''. (6) Clause 4, page 2, Omit ``that financial year'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``the financial year''. (7) Clause 5, page 2, line 29, omit ``a financial year'', substitute ``the financial year''. (8) Clause 5, page 2, line 31, omit ``that financial year'', substitute ``the financial year''. (9) Clause 6, page 2, line 37, omit ``a financial year'', substitute ``the financial year''. (10) Clause 6, page 3, omit ``that financial year'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``the financial year''. (11) Clause 9, page 3, omit ``a financial year'' (twice occurring), substitute ``the financial year''. (12) Clause 9, page 3, omit ``that financial year'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``the financial year''. (13) Clause 9, page 3, after sub-clause (2) add the following sub-clause: ``(3) Nothing in this Act shall be taken to authorise expenditure (otherwise than for the expenses of borrowing) after 30 June 1987.''. The more I listened to the Minister for signing `farewell Bob tax' letters the more I became suspicious of the intentions of the Government. There was no need for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) to go on at considerable length in denigration of my friend the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and to a slightly lesser extent the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). I made the view of the Opposition in this matter perfectly clear. We think it is important for the Parliament to consider the Loans Bill on an annual basis and the amendments I have moved are merely to give effect to that intention. I will not delay the House further because we will divide if the Government persists in not accepting our amendments. We do not wish to delay the House unduly. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(6.20) —I second the amendments. In the spirit of the speech made by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), I shall not keep the chamber for long. One point was not clear in the summing up of the second reading debate by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). He claimed that the Loans Bill is a machinery measure. Of course, the Appropriation Bills will be relevant before this Bill comes into effect. I suppose then the Government will take all pains to make sure that this Bill does not receive royal assent before the Appropriation Bills are passed, because this Bill comes into effect on the day it receives royal assent. If the Appropriation Bills are not passed, I would suggest that there could be some problems. They led me to say what I did in my speech in the second reading debate. I think that had the Minister understood that he would have been a little more charitable in his response. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.21) —The Government cannot accept these amendments. We believe that this Loans Bill should be a standing Bill and that it is taking up the time of the Parliament each year on a mere machinery matter. There is every opportunity for honourable members to debate all the issues in other Budget Bills without having to have this one each year. We are ever hopeful that wisdom will prevail in the Senate and allow us to have this standing Loans Bill. I repeat that the fact that the Opposition does not want to go along with this measure shows that it believes that it will be permanently in opposition. From that point of view, it is being realistic. To address the point raised by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), may I say that there is no need whatsoever for us to wait until after the Appropriation Bills are through before this one is proclaimed, because this is a mere machinery measure. This one is not used until appropriations transfer funds into the Loan Fund. Mr Rocher —But it can be. Mr HURFORD —It could be used only if certain measures were passed through this Parliament to use it. Mr Rocher —Like what? Mr HURFORD —I will make sure that the honourable member gets some further briefing on the subject. I thank him for an honest contribution, which is in such contrast to the contributions of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). Once again, I say that we cannot accept these amendments. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 67 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C. Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C. Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Watson, D. J. H. Fisher, Peter Webster, A. P. Goodluck, B. J. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L.J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G. Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S. Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F. Fitzgibbon, E. J. 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. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Halverson, R. G. Free, R. V. Shipton, R. F. Staples, P. R. Katter, R. C. Kelly, R. J. Shack, P. D. Griffiths, A. G. Sullivan, K. J. Dawkins, J. S. Tuckey, C. W. Cleeland, R. R. Brown, N. A. Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Hurford)-by leave-proposed. That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.33) —In speaking to the third reading I take just one minute to say that I am not going to reply to the idiotic comments made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) during the second reading debate, but I want to be heard to support what the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) said about the date upon which this disgraceful legislation will receive royal assent. It is not a matter to be fobbed off, and I forewarn the Minister and the other members of the Hawke socialist Government that if they make an error on this, not only will it be Khemlani all over again, not only will it be 1975 all over again, but also it will be a lot worse. The sooner the Government is thrown out, the sooner the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is dragged screaming from the Lodge, the better. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! The honourable member for Denison is irrelevant. His comments are also irrelevant. I am sorry, I apologise. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.34) —in reply-Madam Deputy Speaker, leave it to me to tell the House that he is irrelevant, that those remarks are irresponsible once again. I will be very happy with the third reading of this Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I would like to put on the record that it was the comments of the honourable member for Denison which I found irrelevant to the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.35 to 8 p.m. Madam SPEAKER —Earlier today the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) rising on a matter of privilege, referred to media reports of matters involving government party members, and the reported reference in a letter from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) to `moves afoot to discipline those few Labor back benchers who caused a fuss on uranium sales to France'. The right honourable member asked whether the matter had been referred to me. I inform the House that it was raised with me, but not as a complaint of breach of privilege or contempt as such. I had, however, turned my attention to the issue, and have now studied the remarks of the right honourable member on the matter and given it careful consideration. House of Representatives Practice states: To attempt by any means to influence a Member in his conduct as a Member is a breach of privilege. So too is any conduct having a tendency to impair a member's independence in the future performance of his duty. A comment of some relevance was made by the House of Commons Committee of Privileges following an inquiry in 1947 into a case involving Mr Brown, MP. The Committee stated: Your Committee think that the true nature of the privilege involved in the present case can be stated as follows: It is a breach of privilege to take or threaten action which is not merely calculated to affect the Member's course of action in Parliament, but is of a kind against which it is absolutely necessary that Members should be protected if they are to discharge their duties as such independently and without fear of punishment or hope of reward. That case was certainly not on all fours with the present issue. However, the statement I have quoted suggests to me that it is not what we might think of as the pressures of ordinary political life that members must be protected against, but rather those pressures which are of such a nature that members must be protected against them. A complaint which has some bearing on the present case was raised in November 1983 in our own House. My predecessor noted at the time there did not appear to be a case where the Committee of Privileges, either of the House of Commons or of this House, had reported in connection with disputation in respect of parliamentary party processes, and to the best of my knowledge, that remains the case. In considering the 1983 complaint, my predecessor referred to decisions of two Speakers of the House of Commons, one following a complaint that `unexampled pressures' had been used to influence government members in connection with the Suez crisis. The Speaker at the time, Speaker Morrison, reportedly observed that the activities of Whips and `the usual channels' had never been regarded as a breach of privilege of the whole House. In another case, in 1975, in connection with a complaint about Cabinet guidelines for the conduct of Ministers in the House, during the course of consideration of Common Market matters Speaker Selwyn Lloyd stated: In general, I think that arrangements made within political parties in this House would be unlikely to raise questions of contempt or privilege. I also note that while comments have been made and concerns expressed to me about the reference in the letter attributed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, no member claims to have been intimidated. Further, apart from the reference in the letter, no actual evidence has been placed before me of what might be regarded as either obstruction or intimidation. I should also remind the House again of my belief that the House should invoke its great powers in respect of privilege and contempt sparingly, and only when it is considered necessary to provide reasonable protection to the House, its members and officers from such improper obstruction as is causing or likely to cause substantial interference. My conclusion is that, important as the general subject is, on the basis of the material before me and in light of such precedents as are available, I should not accord precedence to a motion in respect of this matter. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I note that the normal courtesy is that some notice is given of the timing of such a response. I regret that in this instance I had no idea that this matter was being raised. I apologise if the message had been given to me, but I was not aware of it. Madam SPEAKER —I asked my staff to notify you before 6 o'clock. Mr SINCLAIR —I apologise, but I did not receive that notification. Madam SPEAKER —I shall check. Mr SINCLAIR —I shall, too. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conclusions you have reached, but I think it is also important that members of the Parliament understand that if they seek to raise matters of privilege, it is correct that they be raised with you and not canvassed in the media. Part of my concern in this instance was that the matter was not raised with you but was canvassed outside the Parliament. I know nothing of the matters other than what was contained in the extracts from the print media which I passed on to you. I think there are occasions when there could well be an attempt to interfere in the way in which a member voted. I accept that in this instance that was not so. I think that if members believe there has been such undue interference, it would be far better if the matter were raised initially with you in this Parliament rather than for it to be canvassed at large in the media in such a way that people have the general belief that there might well be a breach of parliamentary procedures when, as you have suggested in this instance, that is not so. Madam Speaker, I accept the advice you have submitted to the Parliament in this instance. I hope that members of the Ministry also take note of your conclusions and observe the portent of them in the course of their subsequent behaviour. Madam SPEAKER —I say to the Leader of the National Party that if my staff did not advise him that I would be reporting on the matter at 8 o'clock, I give him my apologies. That was my instruction in regard to both yourself and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Sinclair —I apologise. I had not received it and I will check. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Madam Speaker, if I may make a few comments, I have listened with interest to much of your response. I know that you would have taken into account the Browne and Fitzpatrick case. The Committee of Privileges of this House reported that Browne and Fitzpatrick, by publishing certain articles, were guilty of a serious breach of privilege. In regard to the matter that was raised by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) indicated by his words to the radio commentator that he intended perhaps to publish, by way of the radio, certain matters which could be construed to bring pressure to bear to intimidate members. I know that you would have considered the difference in the form of media which was intended in this case. Therefore, the Minister's intention to publish by a different form would have been noted by you, and I believe that should be noted by the House. The Minister has in the past used similar processes to disclaim his actions. This is not an isolated case as far as the Minister is concerned. Madam SPEAKER —I have just been informed that the office of the Leader of the National Party of Australia was notified by my office at 6.30 tonight. Mr Sinclair —I apologise, Madam Speaker. My staff have sent me a note to say that they were advised but they had not advised me. So the fault lies with my staff, and I regret that. Mr John Brown —Shocking! Mr Sinclair —Even the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism knows that sometimes those things happen. I apologise, Madam Speaker, as I knew nothing of it. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(8.10) —It is now three weeks since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought the Budget before the Parliament. Since the Budget was delivered the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer and members of the Government have been trying to sell it throughout Australia. If honourable members follow the media and the writings of economists and those who should know, it is evident that the Budget has not been received by the Australian people in the way the Government intended it to be received. In other words, the Budget has not reached the expectations of the average Australian. I am sure that most Australians were of the opinion that the general economy was so unsound that they wanted positive steps taken and the major problems concerning the economy tackled. Australia needs a fundamental change in direction. In other words, Australians were looking at three particular issues for reform. These issues were, first, the reduction of government spending; secondly, the reduction of taxation; and, thirdly, the reduction of union power. It is no use the Government trying to blame the markets of the world for the problems that we are going through at the present time. It is quite evident to any person that we have been running into trouble with our economy for three years or even more. If one looks at the promises made by the Prime Minister in the 1983 election campaign and queries some of the administrative moves made by the Government over the last three years, one appreciates that they have not put Australia back on course. Mr Ian Robinson —He broke his promises. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Page says, the Prime Minister has broken promises. But let us not forget that in the month before the election the Prime Minister said: `This country is divided and we are going to bring Australia together'. That was the main issue he placed before Australians. He said: `We have to bring Australia together for our social life and for Australia's productivity'. My memory goes back to the summits we had on taxation and industrial relations, the people who attended them and their outcomes. We did not see the outcomes in true terms when the Treasurer presented the Budget the other evening. Today we see a divided Australia, with the National Farmers Federation, the Small Business Association and the people who do not agree with the Government on uranium mining. People within the Prime Minister's own political party are divided on and disturbed about the actions of the Government. Has anybody ever seen a country so divided as Australia is at present? Did we believe in 1983 that in September 1986, after the Prime Minister had promised to tackle the inflationary trend, interest rates, and such things, our gross national debt would be $85 billion? We never believed that we would see a trade deficit of over $15 billion. We never believed that we would see interest rates three years later taken up to a prime rate of 18 and 19 per cent. Did we believe that inflation would be about 8.4 per cent, that the value of our dollar would be down to approximately 62c against the American dollar? Do honourable members recall that in 1983 this Prime Minister said: `Within a very short time we shall reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre'. The tax on petrol has increased from 5.8c a litre in 1983 to over 24c a litre at present. The Prime Minister said that he would reform taxation. Did honourable members believe that they would see a capital gains tax when this Prime Minister said that he would never bring in a capital gains tax? Mr Fitzgibbon —He changed his mind. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Hunter says, the Prime Minister changed his mind. However, the honourable member should not have changed his mind because he is on the line at this time. Did we think that we would see a fringe benefits tax that would worry almost every Australian, every small businessman and farmer in this nation? Did we believe that we would see a 30 per cent superannuation tax imposed? We were not told about it. Did we believe that negative gearing would be done away with? In speaking on Bills before the House I have warned the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that if the Government wants to accommodate the people it represents in this Parliament it cannot afford to do away with negative gearing. Did honourable members believe that they would see the assets test come in? No, but it has been introduced. Did honourable members believe that they would see unemployment at 8 per cent and 22 per cent for the youth of Australia? Did we believe as Australians that we would see a Constitutional Commission set up in this country to review Australia's Constitution? Mr McGauran —Who makes it up? Mr COWAN —That is right. We can look at the people who are on it. Did we believe that we would also see this Government contribute funds towards a new flag competition for Australia? Let us look at all the things that have happened. I have not finished yet. Did we believe that we would see a Bill of Rights Bill come before the Parliament against the wish of the majority of Australians? The Australian people were opposed to it. Thousands of petitions were presented to the Parliament about it and the Government backed away. It was not game to face the matter because it knew that the Senate would not accept it. Did we believe that we would see ANZUS collapse so far as Australia is concerned? Why did not this Prime Minister go to the Prime Minister of New Zealand and say: `We want you to remain in ANZUS'? I am talking not about the economy but about the security of this country and our foreign aid that comes within the Budget. Did we believe that we would say no to the Americans concerning their MX missiles? Did we believe that we would see the Soviet fishing fleet come to South East Asia and get the support of some of the countries in that area? What objection was raised by this Government about the Soviets' penetration of the countries which are so near to us and which we have been assisting? Did honourable members ever believe that we would see a person who led the Communist Party in this country, Mr John Halfpenny, put at the top of the list of the Government's Senate team from Victoria? Every night one turns on one's television, Mr John Halfpenny is in competition with the Prime Minister. He is getting more media coverage than even the Prime Minister of Australia. Did honourable members ever think they would see such division in a major political party as we see on uranium at this time? After that performance, how can we believe that this Government has the will and the vision to overcome the momentous problems that Australia has at present? The Treasurer says that the Budget was tough. Not one major function of this Government has been reduced in the Budget. The Budget shows that the Government has been able to reduce the deficit to $3.5 billion, which we are all very pleased to see. However, it is a rubbery figure. How did the Government arrive at it? It did it by putting off pension increases and delaying taxation reductions. Honourable members opposite need to talk about these things. These are the reasons why they were able to reduce the deficit. The cost to revenue of the proposed tax cuts has been reduced to $1.4 billion, but let us look at the imposition of extra taxes. I wish I had more than 10 minutes in which to address the Parliament on this matter. I wanted to talk about the milk industry. The Government has a tax on milk, a tax on wine and a tax on everything else. Mr McGauran —Orange juice. Mr COWAN —Orange juice, and the citrus growers of Australia are affected. Now all these other extra taxes and impositions on this country are coming out into the open. What about the Medicare levy? The Government put that up. The private hospital subsidy was taken away. Today half the sick people in Australia are in private hospitals. Pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners have been taken away. I have spoken about the delay in introducing tax cuts. I spoke about petrol. Last Friday the price of diesel fuel for the primary producers of this country went up by approximately 6c a litre. The farmers in this country will pay more for their diesel fuel. Fuel costs today are one of the greatest contributors to farm costs. Under this Government the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, but this is typical of socialism in a country. Honourable members opposite know that what I say is quite correct. I would like to say something about taxation. Of course there must be reform. Taxation reform must give incentive to the individual to work and to expand business. I remind honourable members opposite that President Reagan, upon coming to office, reduced taxation by 20 per cent and created over six million new jobs. The taxation reform that we look for in Australia must allow for income splitting for families, spreading the burden across the taxpayers of the country and allowing for a reduction in personal taxation. The Government must have confidence. Is it necessary for the Commonwealth to be involved, as it is, in such areas as education, housing, Medicare and other important areas which I believe should be left to private enterprise or the States? Political analysts have demonstrated in recent times how easy it would be to save at least $7.5 billion from our Budget each year in government costs. I talk in general terms, because it is important that we do so. I would love to talk more about milk and petrol, I would love to talk more about the farmers, but I raise a matter that was discussed this afternoon in the Parliament; that is, the allocation in the Budget for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I am worried about regional television. The measures the Government intends to adopt are not in the interests of country people generally. It is all very well for the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to say: `If television stations want to aggregate country people will have the opportunity to see three commercial stations'. In country areas we are accustomed to seeing local news, local issues and local advertising on television. I believe that the cost of equalisation, the cost of the coverage of at least three stations-particularly on the north coast and in the north-west of New South Wales-will make it extremely expensive for advertisers, will adversely affect programs and will not bring the equality that we are talking about. It was said in the chamber only this afternoon that it will cost at least $20m for a station to aggregate, to install the equipment. We are concerned with keeping up the standard of our programs and providing the services we would like to see provided, particularly as far as country television is concerned. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.25) —It is an indubitable fact that Australia has as its current Prime Minister one of the greatest leaders this country has produced, a Prime Minister who has a clear vision of the direction his Government should take. The 1986-87 Federal Budget provides that direction-a direction to all Australians to face up to the challenges of a changing world and the direction to achieve the vision we all share for a better Australia. The 1986-87 Federal Budget was, by any standard, a tough Budget. It was a Budget which called for restraint on the part of all sections of our community. Restraint is necessary. For a responsible Federal Government, budgetary restraint was unavoidable. The last 18 months have seen dramatic falls in the world market prices for almost all the primary products exported by Australia. Despite the depreciation of the Australian dollar, the terms of trade for Australian goods since December 1984 have dropped by 13.5 per cent. These price falls are the result of forces totally beyond Australian control. In United States dollar terms, over the past five years coal prices have fallen by 25 per cent, beef prices in the last two years have dropped by a quarter and sugar prices have fallen by half since the late 1970s. The rise in the current account deficit, which is now estimated to be at $14 billion, can be attributed in the main to the devastating change in the international conditions affecting our internationally traded goods. All reasonable Australians know the necessity for restraint. That is why this Budget provides for zero real growth in outlays. This has involved the cutting of nearly $3 billion from the cost of existing programs. The Budget also provides for increased tax raisings of about $1.4 billion. The Government has served notice that it will seek discounting of two percentage points in the next national wage case. In summary, the Budget provides for a deficit of $3.5 billion overall; that is, $6.1 billion less than the deficit inherited from the Fraser-Howard Government. If 1986-87 is to be the year of consolidation of Australia's economy, it is also the year of continuing Hawke Government projects in the Herbert electorate on a scale unmatched elsewhere in Australia. The historic aspirations of the people of the Herbert electorate are being realised at a pace which has drawn resounding acclamation. No government, Federal or State, in the history of Australia has given more aid for the development of north Queensland than has the Hawke Government. Three and a half years ago there was no Burdekin Falls Dam, no new Townsville domestic air terminal, no School of Tourism and Hospitality, no Great Barrier Reef Wonderland project, no Commonwealth Government Centre and no School of Technology, and the Bruce Highway in north Queensland was not only dangerous to motorists but also a disgrace to the previous Liberal-National Party Government. North Queensland needed these Hawke Government projects. It needed the jobs that went with them. I have spoken often in this House of the importance of the Burdekin Dam to Townsville, a city of more than 106,000 people continuously plagued by periods of drought and water restrictions. Without water from the Burdekin Dam, Townsville will not have the capacity to meet the water needs of further industrial development, population growth will be limited and Federal Government plans to expand its defence presence in Townsville will be seriously handicapped. The sum of $29m has been allocated in the Budget for the completion of the Burdekin Falls Dam by March 1987. The Hawke Government is paying the total cost of the $122m Burdekin Dam, surely the greatest national water resources project in Australia since the Snowy Mountains scheme. I record the outstanding achievement of Paul Johnson, Burdekin Dam project engineer, in guiding this project towards completion. The sum of $9.5m has been allocated in the Budget towards the cost of a new domestic air terminal at Townsville. Construction is well advanced. Due for completion in November 1987, the $16m terminal will be able to transit more than 1,200 passengers at any one time in air-conditioned comfort and will be one of the most functional and attractive air terminals in Australia. The Budget also provides funds for the $20m Great Barrier Reef Wonderland, a Commonwealth-State bicentennial project being developed in Townsville and hailed as unique because it will include the largest live coral reef aquarium in the world, the first omnimax theatre in the southern hemisphere and the first general branch of the Queensland Museum outside Brisbane. The aquarium will create enormous scientific interest in addition to being a spectacular means for visitors to experience the wonders of the Great Barrier Reef. Visits to the reef can be inhibited by the distance to be travelled off-shore, occasional weather restrictions and the cost involved in making such a trip. To be opened in June 1987, the Great Barrier Reef Wonderland will make the reef come alive for many more people. The aquarium will consist of a large main tank containing live coral reef, a small tank containing predators, an extensive interpretive area and a theatrette for audiovisual displays. Dividing the main tank and the predator tank will be a transparent acrylic tunnel approximately three metres wide through which visitors will walk and be subjected to a genuine underwater viewing experience. Great Barrier Reef Wonderland will not only further enhance Townsville's international renown as a centre of excellence in tropical marine science but also provide an attraction of wonder and beauty to the tourists of the world. The list of new ventures funded by the Hawke Government goes on and on. The new $12m School of Technology on the Pimlico technical and further education campus is due for completion in October 1986. Totally funded by the Hawke Government, it is the largest single TAFE project currently underway in Australia. On the same campus, another Hawke Government building-the $4m School of Tourism and Hospitality-now has more than 600 students. The Federal Government bears the total cost of roadworks along the Bruce Highway. This financial year, the Hawke Government is spending tens of millions of dollars on road works in north Queensland, particularly along the Bruce Highway between Townsville and Ingham. Good roads are more than a strip of bitumen. They bring tourists, help industry and create jobs. Townsville is home to the Third Brigade of the Australian Army and is the site of a Royal Australian Air Force base. North Queenslanders applaud the resolve and commitment of the Hawke Government to a modern and strong Australian Defence Force. Total defence outlay in 1986-87 is estimated at $7.5 billion. This is an increase of 11.1 per cent over 1985-86 outlays on defence and represents an underlying real growth of one per cent. The defence budget provides for the continued improvement of living and working conditions for defence personnel, for operating costs and for investment on weapons, equipment and facilities. The Budget also announced a $20.7m project to move the RAAF's No. 9 helicopter squadron from Amberley to Townsville by early 1989. The move would follow the re-equipping of the squadron at Amberley with Sikorski Black Hawk helicopters. Detailed planning of the facilities required to support an increased helicopter presence at Townsville are already underway. Included will be a new parking apron, a hangar, workshops and administrative facilities expected to cost about $19m, as well as houses for married personnel which could cost up to $8m. The Budget provides $450,000 over the next three years to establish a north Queensland health surveillance unit. The unit will monitor and study the incidence and distribution of marine-based illnesses and other tropical illnesses which occur in northern Australia. I stress that the Federal Government alone is financing tropical health research in Townsville. The Queensland Government has refused to contribute towards the establishment of such a health unit. On 24 June 1986 a large number of persons attended a public meeting in Townsville in response to a massive publicity campaign by certain sections of the local media on what they perceived to be the state of the national economy. The committee organising the public meeting circulated a questionnaire to thousands of people in the Townsville region and I seek leave to table details of the committee's questions and the respondents' answers, as summarised by the committee. Leave granted. Mr LINDSAY —The Federal Government is to provide up to $5m over the next three years towards Australia's hosting of the fifth International Festival of Pacific Arts, to be held in Townsville in August 1988. Festivals of Pacific arts are the main cultural events Australia shares with its Pacific neighbours. This financial year $300,000 has been allocated to commence planning for the festival and to establish an office in Townsville. A board of directors will be named soon and money should start to flow to the project in November. The festivals are a major means of cultural exchange. They draw together up to 2,000 people of diverse cultural backgrounds from over 25 nations through the South Pacific for traditional performances of song and dance, and exhibitions and demonstrations of traditional arts and crafts. As the festival will serve to highlight, under the Hawke Government Australia is emerging once again as a nation to be respected in the world. This Government has rejected conflict and confrontation and replaced it with co-operation and compassion. The Hawke Government has ended the drift, the division, the lack of direction, the loss of confidence, the absence of leadership and the blindness about where Australia was headed and what Australians could achieve together. We are creating a better, more caring, more tolerant, more diverse and more realistic Australia. It is a more cohesive, richer and enriched Australia-an Australia of which each citizen can be justly proud. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.35) —We are discussing the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and, on behalf of the Opposition, I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not opposing the passage of this Bill, the House condemns the Government for- (1) the failure of the Budget to tackle Australia's fundamental economic problems, namely: (a) the record and rising level of overseas debt; (b) excessively high levels of government spending and taxation; (c) an inflation rate 4 times the average of our major trading partners; (d) interest rates once again approaching 20%; (e) a wages policy that does not take account of the capacity of individual enterprises to pay, and (f) the pernicious effects of the anti-business, anti-investment taxes such as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax, and (2) the loss of Australia's AAA international credit rating following the failure of the Budget'. It is now four weeks since the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced the much heralded Budget which was to solve all our economic problems. In the weeks leading up to the Budget the Australian dollar was under assault in foreign exchange markets. Almost a year of warning signals had produced from the Government nothing but deceit and prevarication, unwillingness to share with the Australian people the full extent of our difficulties and paralysis in the face of the emerging crisis. Month after month the figures were bad-inflation, balance of payments and rising foreign debt. Month after month the Opposition demanded that the Government face up to its responsibilities. We said that the Government should tighten fiscal policy, delay the March wage case and the productivity case, halt the legislation to impose new anti-business, anti-investment taxes, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, and remove foreign exchange controls. We first made a detailed statement to this effect on 3 January this year. The Government did not respond. The most powerful evidence of crisis began to build up in October and November of last year. Earlier-in August-the Government, in its Budget statements, warned of difficulties with the terms of trade. By marking down the dollar in November 1985 the foreign exchange markets delivered their second blunt warning to the Government that its policies were imperilling the Australian economy, having delivered a warning shot in February 1985. The warnings were ignored by the Government. High spending continued. The ludicrous charade of the March wage case and the productivity-superannuation deal continued with the Government presenting, in collusion with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, false evidence to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission was forced to acknowledge the weight of the evidence against the case on productivity concocted by the Government and the ACTU, yet demonstrated its subservience to the industrial might of the trade unions by giving them a licence to gain by industrial action what they could not gain by logical argument. Never was so clearly proclaimed the danger to economic good sense and industrial harmony presented by the current charter of the Commission. Having surrendered on wages policy, the Government refused to act on fiscal policy. It was self-evident in January that government spending had to be cut to reduce the deficit on our current account with the rest of the world. Yet nothing was done. The Opposition called for a mini-Budget in April or May to get spending cuts in place by the beginning of the new financial year-on 1 July-but nothing was done. Right up to 9 May this year the Treasurer misled the Australian public on the true state of the economy. On 9 May he treated his own formal advisory body-the Economic Planning Advisory Council-with contempt by telling it that the domestic economy was strong enough to withstand external pressures. Yet only five days later on the John Laws radio program he admitted that we were heading towards the economic status of a banana republic. The fact is that we are witnessing a massive failure of policy by the Hawke Government. For three and a half years it has been pursuing a policy direction which has been quite wrong for Australia. In March 1983 it had every opportunity to succeed. The economy was emerging from the recession caused by the wider world recession and a disastrous drought. The Fraser Government's wage pause was in place. The Government had the good will of practically the whole of the Australian community, including the business community. It had the ball at its feet. Tragically, it gambled with Australia's future security. It deliberately pumped up the economy by enormous increases in spending, financed by higher taxes and massive overseas borrowing. The wages pause of the coalition Government was abandoned in favour of the inflationary policy of wage indexation demanded by the trade union movement. Taxes and business charges were lifted to their highest levels ever. Even if our external trading position had remained strong, the disastrous impact of these policies on Australia's competitiveness and economic strength would have worked its way through. The failure to respond to our deteriorating external position, evident now for a good twelve months, has merely intensified the inevitable crash which has occurred. The simple truth is that the Government's economic policies have failed. The accord has been a disaster for Australia. The irresponsible Budgets of the last three years have led inexorably to the worst crisis since the Great Depression. The Treasurer has used Australia's previously high credit rating to gamble with Australia's future on the world commodity markets. He recklessly drove the Australian economy on borrowed money in the hope that commodity prices would turn up. He trod the high wire, to the applause of the impressionable crowd and those who hoped to gain from his gambling. However, the croupier's spin did not turn in his favour. Commodity prices did not turn up. We were left with massive foreign debt and a crippling burden of interest and capital repayment. The Treasurer has betrayed his fiduciary responsibility to the Australian people. He has left us defenceless, with no policy for recovery. The Government has no strategy; it has no sense of purpose. It lunges in all directions except those necessary to correct the damage its policies have done to Australia. This Budget signals the Government's failure. It has not cut spending, it has not cut taxes. It has not put value back into the dollar, it has not generated investment, and by its reckless gambling it has destroyed Australia's proudest symbol of financial stability and trust, its AAA international credit rating. This Treasurer, proclaimed the world's greatest by an international money magazine at the height of his gambling spree with our money, has now been cashiered by the bank. What a shameful episode. What a record to leave in Australia's financial history, to have been the Treasurer to lose our top rating for credit worthiness! Perhaps it is no surprise when we remind ourselves that the Treasurer greatly admired J. T. Lang, who recommended default in the 1930s, and was ignominiously dismissed by the Governor of New South Wales before he could bring this country into disrepute. What of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? He has let Australians down very badly. He has neither the strength nor the vision to do what has to be done. He believes in nothing and leads no one. He is a failed Prime Minister at the head of a failed government. The nature of Australia's fundamental problem is plain for all to see. It is understood by ordinary people a great deal better than it is understood by the Hawke Government. It is simply that governments in Australia at State and Federal levels have been living beyond their means. Governments are spending far more than the Australian people are prepared to pay for through their taxes and the borrowings needed to sustain this level of spending are higher than Australia can afford. Government spending has moved far beyond the point where it can be sustained by the revenue base available to the Government. Indeed, the Government has spread its largesse so widely that even vital health services are starved while frivolous activities flourish. In every respect the Hawke Government has worsened this problem of overspending. Spending for Federal purposes has risen each year to higher and higher levels and tax collections have risen to the highest levels in Australia's history. Interest payments on the Government's debt are now the second highest item of Federal spending after social welfare. These interest payments can be funded in the end only by higher taxes. The Hawke Government's policies have been an economic version of Chernobyl: One by one all the safety valves in the Australian economy have been shut down until the critical chain reaction has occurred, blasting the floor out from under the economy and the dollar. Every Australian is suffering from the fallout, through high taxes, high interest rates and rising prices. The remedy is not complicated. It is not difficult to see or to understand. It is available to any government with the courage not to sacrifice the Australian people in order to appease special interest groups or trade union bureaucrats. The remedy is to reduce government spending to levels which Australia can afford and which the Australian people can comfortably and willingly pay for, without an oppressive burden of taxes or interest rates. I do not want to suggest that the solution lies wholly in the hands of government. Ultimately, it lies very much in the hands of the Australian people. It depends in the end on a recognition of the limits of what government can do for them and that the quality of their lives is really in their own hands. Nor do I want to suggest that the whole failure of the Government lies in its excessive spending. The competitive efficiency of Australia in a fiercely competitive world depends greatly on the capacity of its industries to adapt freely to changing circumstances, both in their work practices and in their cost flexibility. Yet the Hawke Government, as a conscious act of policy, has reinforced the power and influence of the most reactionary force in Australia today, the trade union bureaucracy. The very same people who forced restrictive work practices on whole industries through bullying and intimidation, who shut down the petrol supplies of Sydney and Melbourne to secure additional benefits for employees already earning $40,000 per year, who closed the ports for a week after the Prime Minister's national broadcast calling for effort and sacrifice, are feted and garlanded by the Prime Minister and his Ministers, invited to the innermost councils of government, favoured in the decision-making process and granted a power of veto over the government's most important decisions. The Government has not merely failed to curb the excessive power of bureaucratic trade unionism; it has used all its energies to strengthen it. Not only has it failed to begin the process of reform of our outdated and inefficient industrial relations system, but it is preparing to entrench it further by legislating to implement the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which ran up a white flag in the face of trade union aggression. The troika of excessive spending, high taxation and over- powerful trade unionism has been driven over the Australian economy, leaving it crippled, bereft of an adequate fiscal and wages policy. Last November this weakness was exposed. Without curbs on spending and wage levels the government had to rely on high interest rates to prop up the dollar. As a result, interest rates rose to their highest real levels since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This Budget was supposed to provide the remedy. Not surprisingly, it has failed. Yes, the deficit was reduced by $2.2 billion, but $1.5 billion of this came from higher taxes and $0.6 billion came from windfall gains arising from Reserve Bank currency dealing. So we have no credible fiscal policy. What about wages? We are told that at a time when our inflation rate is more than four times that of our major trading partners and more than 16 times that of our main trading partner, Japan, the Government will humbly beg the trade union movement to accept a miserable 2 per cent discounting of wages against inflation. We are told that to ask for more would be `industrially unrealistic'. On top of this the most bullying and thuggish unions are encouraged by this Government to extract 3 per cent superannuation contributions from terrorised employers on behalf of conscripted employees, 86 per cent of whom do not believe in compulsory unionism. What sort of a cloud cuckoo land of industrial relations do we live in, especially when those who quite legitimately question the system are referred to by an hysterical Prime Minister as `political troglodytes' and `economic lunatics' and accused of treason by the Minister for Trade? For this misguided and divided Government, the game is up. The international financial community believed its prospectus, backed it with its money, lost that money when the dollar fell, and has now lost confidence in the Government. Business, both foreign and domestic, has ceased to invest in Australia. Australians themselves are investing off-shore in increasing volume. The Australian people are fearful of their future and distrustful of the Government. The Prime Minister behaves erratically and unpredictably. The Labor Government's own grass roots organisation is beginning to disown it. And, of course, Australia's families are left poorer by this Government, with higher Government charges, higher prices, higher taxes and the increasing threat of unemployment. We in the Opposition recognise the seriousness of the task we face. As soon as this discredited Government can be removed by due democratic process, we shall begin our task. We are not of a mind this time to come into office merely with the intention of tidying up. We will indeed have to tidy up, but we will also make fundamental changes in the economic and social structures of Australia that will set the course well into the next century. The industrial relations system set up by the Liberal Alfred Deakin in 1904 to redress the imbalance of power between capital and labour will be changed for the same Liberal reasons, although this time in the other direction. The overreliance on government will be reduced and Australia will be transformed into a country of greater self-reliance and self-confidence as we move into our third century of settlement. The taxation system will be changed to remove the Keating barriers to entrepreneurship and investment, and also to provide incentive to personal and corporate taxpayers. Foreign investment controls will be removed. The transport and communications systems will be opened up to cost-cutting competition. Government interference and regulation will be reduced to the minimum. In the classical Liberal tradition, all aspects of our society will be examined. Those that work well will be retained and strengthened, those that can be improved will be improved and those that serve no useful purpose will be abandoned. We are determined that this fortunate, peaceful, well-educated yet self-indulgent society of Australia will break free of its self-imposed shackles and earn its place as one of the leading nations of the fastest growing region of the world. Ours is not a cold and calculating economic purpose, unrelated to the needs and aspirations of ordinary people. Change will not be made for the sake of change, or in pursuit of some untried ideology. But change is needed, and widespread change, that will bring practical and tangible development and benefits to individuals and their families, and allow them to shape their own lives with security and hope for the future. We look forward to the opportunity to bring about this change-not by direction of government, but by releasing the energies of the Australian people. We are convinced that it will not be long before we are called back into service. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Porter —I second the amendment and I reserve my right to speak. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(8.55) —It was very disappointing to listen to the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). As has been said, he could drum up only 22 of his own members and coalition partners to listen to him. Mr Porter —How many have you got? One. Mr PRICE —I am not a Minister and neither am I a shadow Minister. The performance of the honourable gentleman was most disappointing. Mr John Brown —You have great quality. Mr PRICE —Thank you. I agree that there is great quality on this side of the chamber at all times, as the Minister points out. I want to address some of the issues raised by the shadow Minister. He has talked about the necessity to try to cut government expenditures; and what do we find in the Budget? The Budget deficit has been reduced from $5.726 billion to $3.503 billion. The deficit has been cut in the Budget by some $2.223 billion, to $3.503 billion. If we had taken no action on outlays and receipts, the deficit would have been $7.5 billion. This is a government which has had to face the hard task of trying to address and get right the nation's economy. The feature of Opposition speakers that I do not understand is the confrontationist language that they use and the constant harassment of the ordinary men and women of Australia, whom they want to blame for the current economic situation, in particular the current account deficit. They suggest that somehow the ordinary men and women are responsible for getting us into the present position and that they should be willing to see wages slashed, slashed and slashed again and not merely accept the wage restraint that we have provided under the accord. It is not necessary to be an economic genius to realise that if wages are slashed and slashed again we shall not land one extra tonne of wheat, wool, iron ore or aluminium in our export markets. The slashing of wages will not help. The Government's real accomplishments have been achieved by working in co-operation with the trade union movement. The Opposition keeps on talking about the evil influence of the trade union movement when it has produced real labour unit cost reductions so that these costs in 1986 are comparable to the levels that applied in the 1960s and 1970s. I could understand the constant chant about trade union power and the constant attack on the trade union movement if we had record levels of industrial disputation, but we do not. We have the lowest level of industrial disputation, from so-called evil trade union power, that we have had for the past 18 years. It is the best that we have had. I want to rehearse some of the real gains that the Government and the trade union movement, through the prices and incomes accord, have achieved. (Quorum formed) I was outlining some of the real achievements accomplished by this Government and the trade union movement in the form of the prices and incomes accord. We ought to recall the legacy left to us after the Fraser years by that Treasurer, dishonest John Howard. He provided record unemployment and double digit inflation, and real hope for the future was taken away from so many of our families. The fastest growing industry in Australia was the dole queues of the Commonwealth Employment Service offices. That was the economic record and legacy of the previous Government. What have we accomplished? We have accomplished the fastest economic growth of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We have had the most consistent period of sustained high level growth since the early 1970s, we have had the fastest employment growth rate in the world, and we are the only OECD country projected to have a further fall in unemployment. More than two-thirds of the job growth has been in full time jobs. Almost 90 per cent of jobs created have been in the private sector. Fifty-seven percent of new jobs have gone to women, and a total of 630,000 jobs have been created since April 1983. Inflation prior to devaluation has been more than halved. Profitability, as a proportion of gross domestic product, rose from 11 per cent to 15.5 per cent. Industrial disputation is at its lowest level for over 18 years. As I mentioned, real unit labour costs have been significantly reduced and are now below the levels obtaining in the late 1960s and 1970s. Opposition speakers have drawn attention to Australia's inflation rate, as though this is the only measure of competitiveness in the economy. I point out to honourable members opposite that if the 6 per cent differential between our inflation rate and that of our international competitors were maintained, it would take until 1996 to erode the competitive gains that have been achieved in this economy. Of course, we would all like to see inflation reduced and that is why we are proposing a 2 per cent discount in the next wage round. We will get it down, but let us not be side tracked into trying to suggest that the inflation rate is the only measure of competitiveness and that somehow this is preventing Australia from competing. The major problem we have is in our current account deficit, which is currently running at $14 billion per annum. But that is not a situation that has been brought about by the trade union movement or by some aspect of government policy. Most rational economic observers are happy to say that the real problem has been a real decline in our terms of trade; that is, the money or the price we get when we export goods. Had we not had that decline in the last 12 months, our current account deficit, rather than being projected at $14 billion per annum, would have been $8 billion. I will give three examples of what has happened to the price of our commodities. Between 1980-81 and 1985-86 wheat prices fell from $US181.90 to $US133 a tonne-a fall of 27 per cent. The most recent price has not been $US133 but $US103 a tonne. The same applied to coal. Between 1981-82 and 1985-86 average coal export prices fell from $US54.85 a tonne to $US39.41 a tonne-down 28 per cent. Between 1981-82 and 1985-86 Japanese contract ore prices fell from $US21.90 a tonne to $US16.10-down 26 per cent. Of course, this Government is addressing Australia's loss of prices in its export markets. This is what this Budget is all about. I want to get back to my opening point. It is not the ordinary men and women of Australia who are to blame for this situation. A wage cut of 20 or 30 per cent that is obviously advocated by the New Right will not solve our problem. In fact, I refer to a Committee for Economic Development of Australia study on exploiting opportunities in the Pacific basin. That study concluded that, despite business perception, cost factors are not the real problem. The real problems are associated with developing skills in marketing and technology, and with competing in terms of value added to the consumer rather than associated with prices alone. There is no doubt that we have a long way to go in solving the problem. The difference between this Government and the Opposition is that we are saying: `We have to face up to it as a nation'. We are not trying to blame one sector over another. We all have a contribution to make, but may I say none more so than the business entrepreneurs in Australia. We will overcome our problems-not tomorrow, not in the next three months, but over time. Mr White —Why don't you get off their backs and give them a go? Mr PRICE —We do not, like the honourable members opposite, blame ordinary Australians and suggest that, in a period when real labour unit costs have been reduced-- Mr White —You are talking rubbish. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member for McPherson will cease interjecting. Mr PRICE —He is a bit of a jackass, I am afraid, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Martin —He comes from Queensland. Mr PRICE —Yes, he comes from Queensland. Perhaps we will hear a speech on corruption from him later on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Chifley will not compound the problem. Mr PRICE —No. I always like to listen to Queensland National Party members talking about corruption in Queensland. I am sorry. Mr White —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether I am offended or not and I seek your guidance as to what exactly the honourable member means by `that member comes from Queensland'. Perhaps the honourable member might like to explain it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is not in a position to offer members guidance. There is no point of order. Mr PRICE —I apologise to the honourable member. I called him a National. I meant no insult by that. He is easily confused for a National. I withdraw those words unreservedly. The real difference is that in a period when real labour unit costs have been reduced, when there is an unprecedented period of industrial peace, we are not about blaming the ordinary men and women of Australia for our current crisis. We are not going to say to them: `You're going to be the victims of any economic action'. We are going to say: `Everyone has to bear the burden equally'. I am very concerned to hear Opposition speakers talking about this inflexibility that is required in the trade union movement, and bringing up work practices. For the record, there has been a process by which parties can sit down and negotiate work practices that need improving. We have had some excellent examples in the steel plan, as the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) would know, in the car plan, and more recently in the heavy manufacturing industry plan. All parties to that plan are satisfied with the real progress being made, but once again the trade union movement is being painted into a corner as being somehow the guilty party that forced these conditions on unwilling employers who would never have agreed to them and in fact did not. Of course, these things were obtained by a process of negotiation and the proper mechanism is for them to be unravelled by that same process. As I have outlined, there are some good examples of how it can be done on an industry basis. We have the opportunity to do it also at enterprise level. My constituents know full well what the implication of a Liberal government is. Hope is taken away, dole queues are created and the social fabric of the community that I am proud to represent is torn asunder. Therefore, when this Budget has been described as economically sound and politically honest, they can understand that and they can understand that they are being called upon to make some sacrifices. I conclude on a matter that is of some interest to me and which concerns the university. I am rather disappointed that the Education Minister, Senator Susan Ryan, continues to boycott the western suburbs of Sydney by refusing to go there and have a look at the position herself. I am pleased to say that other Ministers have visited my electorate, including the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and, on Friday, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). They are certainly not boycotting the area. It is also a matter of disappointment to me that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and its head, Hugh Hudson, and the head of the Higher Education Board in New South Wales, Ron Parry, are still refusing to consult and underpin the activities of the new advisory council. I am looking forward to that blockage being unblocked. Real progress has been made towards achieving a senior high school. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Mr Hudson suggested that the area of greatest need was in lifting participation rates. We have had two public meetings in the electorate organised by my friend and colleague the State member for Riverstone. There was a tremendous turnout of parents and students, but, I am afraid, only a handful of Teachers Federation officials. Judging by the will of that meeting, most of the teachers and all of the parents and students were in favour of a senior high school, and if there had been a little bit of rope there and some white sheets, we might have had about three fewer Teachers Federation officials in New South Wales. However, I was rather disturbed that, at the second meeting, it became quite clear that the Teachers Federation has given up on the parents and is trying to manipulate the students against a senior high school. I remain confident that we will get a senior high school, which will have a dramatic impact on participation rates and the quality of passes and will provide extraordinary numbers of students not only from my electorate but from others for the new university, which I am sure is inevitable. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(9.14) —I rise in this Budget debate to support the amendment in regard to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) which has been moved by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). This Budget is like a hall of mirrors. It is full of illusions. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) proclaims that the Budget reins in government expenditure, when in fact outlays are increased by 6.9 per cent in money terms and by a small amount in real terms. That is his present forecast, but already there are indications that there will be a significant real terms blowout. He proclaims, like a wizard, that he is reducing the Budget deficit to $3.5 billion, when there was a stretching rather than a cutting. The lower deficit was achieved by lifting taxes, by accounting methods such as the Reserve Bank's currency trading profit, and by the Government's heroic assumptions about economic growth. I might add that this assumption about the Reserve Bank's currency trading profits implies as significant a change in the value of the Australian dollar in the current year as occurred in the last, disastrous financial year. Far from reducing the size of government, the Budget does not provide for the abolition of one single ongoing function of the Commonwealth Government. Most of the Budget savings are matters of tinkering with the machinery of government, with the timing of reforms and of indexed payments, rather than real savings and giving the machine the overhaul it needs. The Treasurer appears to give us a long-heralded tax cut, but this is an illusion now as it was an illusion when those tax cuts were first announced. Whereas before the Labor Government came into office the standard rate of tax was just over 30c in the dollar for the great majority of taxpayers, under the Hawke-Keating tax plan the standard rate of tax would have been 46c in the dollar. The average weekly earner and those on incomes below the average are supposed to be thankful that the standard tax rate, instead of being increased to 46c in the dollar, is being increased to 40c in the dollar. Now there is the further illusion of the postponement of the expectation of a tax cut that was to help Australian families, which means that the real benefits of that gain, certainly in this financial year, are lost by the delay, by increases in the Medicare levy and by fiscal drag as well as by the increases in indirect taxes that impact particularly heavily on families with children. For the second year in a row the Hawke Government has broken its trilogy commitment not to increase taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Had the Government not broken the trilogy commitment, tax receipts would have been $400m lower in 1985-86 and $1,400 million lower in 1986-87. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this is a taxing, not an axing, Budget. Coupled with that, the Budget tells us that the foreign debt is likely to continue, for nothing in the Budget demonstrates that steps have been taken to reduce the rapid escalation of Australia's foreign debt. This increase in the foreign debt will not only impose a heavy burden on this generation year by year, by allocating an increasing proportion of its overseas earned revenue to the servicing of overseas debt, it will also impose a massive burden on the children of today. Something needs to be done about that. There needs to be a major change in policy. Although I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on that topic this evening, I simply want to say this: I believe in a free market economy in Australia. I believe in the ideal of a free market economy for the world. But we do not have a free market economy in the world. Major trading blocs are taking advantage of Australia's too-rapid desire to move into a world free market economy. The time may come when we in Australia need to recognise that many of those who are our closest trading partners are taking advantage of us. They are taking us for a ride. They are benefiting from our naivete. We may one day find that we have to use some of the strategies that became necessary in times of previous governments if we are to protect the Australian economy, Australian families, the Australian worker and Australian investments. Whilst I would like to develop the topic further, all I want to place on record tonight is my concern that all of us who have ideals and goals may have to take a step back or maybe a step sideways before we can take that big leap forward that we have attempted to take all too soon at such great price, not so much to us-if it were to us, we should bear the price-but to our children. The price we are expecting people to pay is a price we are expecting our children to pay. I do not believe that we in this Parliament today should be allowing the implementation of economic policies that are putting such a huge potential burden on the future prosperity of Australia's children. The principal topic I wish to talk about in relation to the Budget tonight is its impact upon Australian families. It is an anti-family Budget. The effect of the Hawke Budgets-this one and its predecessors-has been to bring about a major shift in the burden of taxation from single people and married couples without children to families with children. Let me run through some of the figures produced by the Institute of Family Studies. It compared two households where both adults were working, and because both were working they were achieving a household income of $40,000 a year. One household had no dependants and the other had two student children aged 16 and 18 years. As a result of the last two Budgets introduced by the Australian Labor Party Government the disposable income of the married couple without children has been increased by $10 a week, whereas the disposable income of the family with children has, by contrast, been reduced by $6 a week. Is that a sensible way to achieve what is the illusion of tax reform? Tax reform is not merely tax reduction; tax reform is making the levying of the burden fairer and more equitable, taking more note of capacity to pay, recognising the responsibility borne by parents in maintaining children and by spouses who are at work in maintaining spouses who are not at work. If we go on taxing families in the way we have been, in the way this Government has been, more and more of those spouses who are being supported by taxpayers in a personal sense and more and more of those children who are being supported by taxpayers out of their disposable income after tax will, because of the pressures put upon Australian families, cease to be happy intact families and will move into the sole parent, supporting parent category where the supporting, caring parent along with the cared for children become the responsibility of government and the public sector and in that position are forced into poverty. The largest group of Australians in poverty are children. A vast number of children are living below the poverty line. In many instances this is because the custodial parent is not getting any support from the non-custodial parent. A second reason for their being moved into poverty is that our taxation and social security system is failing Australian families. It is not a family taxation and social security system; it is a system for individuals who have a greater capacity to pay tax while they are single, while they have no children. Yet they are not paying the tax that they should pay in order that when they do have children they can get fair treatment under the taxation system. If we had a social conscience and genuine feelings of compassion as well as proper concern for the future of the nation we as members of parliament would be deeply concerned not only that poverty is increasing but also that the number of poor children is rising alarmingly. In spite of the rhetoric about the family which has been the stock-in-trade of many in this House, debate on the specifics of family policy has been weak and policies implemented to assist families have been far outweighed by those which have burdened them and weakened their economic viability. Not only the unintended but sadly sometimes the intended consequences of tax and social security changes introduced in the name of reform have penalised families in general and two-parent single-income families in particular. One of the most fundamental and significant causes of poverty is the substantial error we have made, and continue to make, in the structure of our tax and social security system as it impacts upon families. Measures in past years and in this year's Budget have increased the disposable income of families without children by more than $10 a week, and in stark contrast, impact upon and have reduced the disposable income of families with dependent children. I believe that the time has come when we should develop family policies, when we should have taxation and social security policies that are based upon a life cycle concept, policies which recognise the fact that the great majority of Australian taxpayers pay the taxes that they ultimately receive as social security benefits. Today's social security beneficiaries are tomorrow's taxpayers; today's taxpayers are tomorrow's social security beneficiaries. The great majority of Australian people are at some stage either taxpayers or social security beneficiaries, and sometimes for periods they are both. I was fascinated to read an article the other day which indicated that 25 per cent of pensioners and social security beneficiaries pay tax through the income tax system. They represent 10 per cent of Australian income taxpayers and they pay $800m in tax on their pension as well as their other incomes. But the system is failing in its recognition of the responsibility taken by parents for maintaining children, and by spouses for maintaining dependent spouses. For those who are outside that concept, for those who in many instances are not married, the system is fine. They are individuals, they are treated as such and they receive benefits as individuals. But children in intact families, dependent spouses in intact families, are assumed to be dependent upon the breadwinning member of the family or their parents. I am very concerned that some very strange ideas are circulating in some academic circles. In an article, the Centre of Policy Studies in Victoria noted: While it is certainly true that the presence of dependants does indeed reduce ability to pay, it is debatable whether this should be regarded as a reason for reducing tax liability any more than should the buying of a boat which likewise reduces the ability to pay . . . Since the decision to have children, however, is usually one of choice, it is arguable whether the tax system should recognise such costs. Economic analysis of this kind shows children being thought of as durable goods. As has been pointed out by another writer, this idea can be translated as follows: A child is costly to acquire initially, lasts for a long time, gives flows of pleasure during that time, is expensive to maintain and repair, has an imperfect second-hand market . . . Likewise, a durable good, such as a refrigerator . . . or a boat! If that sort of mentality is influencing policy makers in the way in which the tax and social security systems deal with children, we have a very serious situation on our hands. I believe children must be treated as people, as the future of the nation, and that the support of children by taxpayers should be recognised by way of tax relief which is at least equal to the extent of the minimum cost of providing those children with their basic needs. I believe the same should be true in the case of dependent spouses. It is absurd that we should be paying to separated families five times as much as we allow the taxpayer who is supporting a spouse in an intact, happy home. That differential does affect social behaviour as well as the economic viability of the single income household with a dependent spouse and dependent children. Assistance by way of allowances for children also needs to be sensitive to the ages of the children. Recent studies have shown that $1,000 is the minimum cost to provide for a child aged two, whereas $2,500 is the anticipated cost to a family to provide for a child in his or her teens. I think we need life cycle financing for families. We need a family policy. We need tax policies that are sensitive to the needs of Australian families. A taxation system which does not favour those with the responsibility for bringing up dependent children is a taxation system without social vision. We need a tax policy, a social security policy, with a social vision. This Budget fails Australian families, as it has no such vision. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.34) —I was simply amazed to listen to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), a member of the Liberal Party, when he had the audacity to move his amendment to the motion for the second reading a few moments ago. In his amendment he talked about high levels of government spending. He talked about the inflation rate and a wages policy. He also talked about the effect of this Budget on business. He certainly has a political cheek to move such an amendment because he was part of the Liberal-National Party Government that left the Hawke Labor Government and the people of Australia with a Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. He was part of the former Liberal-National Party Government that actually created negative growth in its last year in power. He was part of the same Government that overshot its expenditure targets and blew its estimated deficit targets for five Budgets in a row. Yet he has had the audacity to talk about overspending. The honourable member for Mackellar talked about the present inflation rate. What was it under the Liberal-National Party Government? In 1979-80 it was 10.1 per cent; in 1980-81 it was 9.4 per cent; in 1981-82 it was 10.4 per cent; in 1982-83, its last infamous year, it was 11.5 per cent. Those figures should be compared to the low of 4.3 per cent and the high of 8.4 per cent under Labor. As for his comments about wages, I doubt whether few Australians have forgotten that it was under the Howard-Fraser Government that the work place became a battleground. If we look at the record and the statistics, we find that between 1976 and 1982 more than three million days were lost on average each year in industrial disputation. As for jobs lost and the unemployment situation, under the Carlton Government-if we want to talk about it in that way; it was the Liberal Government, the Howard Government, the Fraser Government-the level of unemployment rose to 718,000. In comparison, the Hawke Government has created 634,000 new jobs. The honourable member talked about the nation's trading situation internationally. It was under the Liberal-National Party Government in 1981-82 that the Australian people suffered a recession. It was under the Liberal-National Party Government in 1981-82 that the current account deficit rose to 6 per cent as a percentage of gross domestic product. It is also a matter of statistical record that the former coalition Government, in which the present member for Mackellar was a prominent front bencher-he was a Minister at the time, and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), was the all-powerful Treasurer-presided over the destruction of our nation's manufacturing and service industries. It was under Howard that Australian manufacturers were stifled by an overvalued exchange rate. The little assistance that was given was focused on negative protection measures, with few positive measures to encourage competitiveness and export growth. I have taken the trouble to look up the actual facts and figures of that time, when whole sectors of the industry collapsed and disappeared. Regardless of what members of the Opposition now promise, the people of Australia will look at the facts of their past performance. In 1980-81 assistance given to heavy industry by the Liberal-National Party Government amounted to $47.9m. Under the Hawke Government last year, this figure rose to $109.1m. In the light industry area-we remember that the Liberals are supposed to be industry conscious-the assistance received by that industry in 1980-81 amounted to $18.4m. Under the Hawke Government last year it jumped to $123.3m. In 1981-82 the Howard-Fraser Government spent a miserable $25.5m on technology development. If one contrasts that with what the Hawke Government has spent in the last year, one will find that it has almost trebled to $67.8m. The total assistance given to manufacturing industry in 1980-81 by the Howard-Fraser Government was only $138.5m, yet in 1985-86 the Hawke Government spent $466.4m. The honourable member has had the audacity to move an amendment referring to effects on business! The Liberal and National parties want people to think they have changed, but there is no better test than the test of past performance. The Liberal-National Party Opposition has always been great on promises, but it has certainly been light on performance. It has never been concerned about our international competitiveness. As Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition knew what had to be done in regard to the dollar, but he kept it overvalued, making manufacturers unable to compete with the imports which flooded in, and wrecked Australian jobs and industries. It was during his reign that so many companies went off-shore. It was when we sent our publishing firms to Hong Kong and Singapore. As in the past-it has not changed now-the Liberal-National Party coalition still sees Australia as an agrarian economy, selling mainly food products and unprocessed minerals. The Hawke Labor Government, on the other hand, has had to pick up the shreds and make the tough decisions to get Australia back on the economic tracks. The Opposition will go to any lengths to try to deny what it has done but, slowly, and surely, the truth is being revealed. A month ago the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia-the MTIA-known as the national voice of engineering employers, published a booklet entitled `Australia's Foreign Debt-Budget Implications', written by Dr Clive Edwards, MTIA's chief economist. On page 23 it states: MTIA's task force on industry competitiveness recently pointed out that Australia's manufacturing sector is still conditioned by the traumatic developments of the early 1980s; (by) the large wage and on cost increases, the over valued exchange rate, the severe recession of 1981-82 and 1982-83, all of which led to a reduction in the size and capabilities of the sector, i.e., the manufacturing sector. Who was in government from 1980 to 1983 when this happened? It was the Liberal and National Country parties. Business leaders must laugh when they now hear the honourable member for Mackellar, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the honourable member for Bennelong and others making all these pro-business promises, because business leaders know their record-a record of large wage and cost increases, a record of a pittance in assistance to business, a record of over-valued exchange rates and a record of uncompetitiveness in industry. It is also interesting to see what the MTIA publication said in conclusion. It made a number of points and the main one was that to reduce growth in Australia's net foreign debt there had to be a slowing down of growth in government spending and a reduction in public sector or government borrowings. This is exactly what the Hawke Labor Government has done. In real terms, after allowing for inflation the rate of increase in government spending has been held to zero. Mr Hawker —That is not a cut. Mr WRIGHT —It has been held to zero for the first time in something like 30 years, yet the honourable member says that. Government borrowing has been reduced so that more money is available for private sector investment in productive activities that will increase exports and replace imported products with Australian made goods. It would appear that, despite all the pessimism and the prayers almost of the Opposition that things will continue to go bad, many Australian businesses are looking to the future with optimism. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, according to a survey by the Australian Chamber of Manufactures carried out in Victoria-this survey covered 205 companies which account for one in three jobs in manufacturing in that State-a new optimism is appearing and that optimism is being generated by this Hawke Budget. The survey found that there is mounting evidence that improved international competitiveness in manufacturing is beginning to make itself felt. It found many companies were increasing exports and were finding it easier to compete against imports. This is not just because of the devaluation of the dollar but because there is a new attitude, a new approach, better corporate planning, new products and innovative marketing strategies. There is a new confidence that will expand as industry begins to see and grasp the opportunities that now exist under this Government. I believe that this Budget is generating further confidence because, unlike our opponents in the Liberal and National parties, people in every walk of life now realise that the Hawke Labor Government is prepared to put aside short term political popularity for long term national economic advantage and development. This approach sharply contrasts with the Howard-Sinclair attitude. At a time when this country should be stopping the lurks and rorts, at a time when the welfare cake should be shared amongst those who are the needy, not the greedy, at a time when investment should be directed at productivity rather than quick quid schemes, we find this Opposition will do anything and say anything to try to attract votes. It has come forward with a massive program. It wants to abolish the fringe benefits tax and reintroduce entertainment rorts, at a cost of $700m to the ordinary people. The Opposition wants to get rid of the capital gains tax, but at what cost? It would be at a cost of another $5m. The flow-on of the world oil price will cost Australian taxpayers another $400m. The Opposition wants to reinstitute negative gearing, which would add another cost of $50m. It wants to repeal the assets test. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) said earlier how he cared for pensioners. The Opposition wants those on $500,000 to still receive the pension. The Opposition wants to put another burden of $600m on the people of Australia. The honourable member talked about families on two incomes. Income splitting will cost the Australian taxpayer $2.7 billion. Those measures amount to almost $4.5 billion, and they are only part of the Opposition's promises. We must ask: Where will the money come from? If we total all the Opposition's promises to date we find that they amount to something like $11 billion. The promises are made not only by the Liberal Party. Of all the stupid things to do, a few weeks ago the National Party sent a letter to a man called Dr Doug Everingham of 50 Corberry Street, Rockhampton, asking for money. The National Party did that to a former Labor member of this House. What does the National Party say that it will do? It says that it will do the same sorts of things: It will repeal the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the assets test-the list goes on and on. Mr Tickner —I got one too. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member got one too. Labor members are receiving letters from the National Party. It is just as much a joke as its promises, because what it is promising simply cannot be delivered. Yet the honourable member for Mackellar says nothing at all about how he would find this money. He spoke here as the shadow Treasurer and what did he say about where he would find this money if he ever got into government? He said not one word. Maybe he had nothing to say because it has already been said for him by the new extremist right movement. Let the people of Australia remember that the Leader of the Opposition says that he stands by these promises. This is the group which says that it will abolish the first home owners scheme. It is the group that the Liberal Party supports and obviously, from the letter of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the National Party supports-the group that will cut local government grants in half. This year we gave local government $585m; the Opposition would slash that figure in half. This is the group that would abolish family allowances for the first child. This is the group that would totally reintroduce university fees of $8,000 to $9,000 per student. Imagine the number of young people who would not be able to go to university. This is the group that would introduce a tax on the family allowance at the marginal tax rate of the bread winner. It is also the group that says it would remove the half-yearly indexing of age pensions and benefits. However, the honourable member for Sturt has the audacity to say that he and the Liberals are concerned about the family and the aged. What a joke. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Government who have gathered here tonight, let me say that if one had to sum up the Budget in only 100 words one could best take the words out of the introduction of the booklet `A guide to the 1986-87 Commonwealth Budget'; that is to say, the 1986-87 Commonwealth Budget makes a major shift down in government spending and borrowing that will permit Australia to vastly improve its trading performance. The Budget includes a big cut in the Federal deficit, no increases in government spending in real terms, and some increases in tax receipts, offset by income tax cuts as promised in the tax reform package. It also asks Australians to accept smaller pay rises for a while so that we can stay competitive with the rest of the world, lift our export performance, and win back a bigger share of the markets for Australia. The Budget will provide Australia with the opportunity to surmount its economic problems and maintain control over its economic destiny. No wonder the people of Australia are supporting it. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.51) —I listened with interest to the fevered speech of the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and in particular to the bit about Dr Everingham being asked for a donation by the National Party of Australia. Mr Wright —Don't tell me you got a letter too! Mr WHITE —I advise the honourable member to check with Dr Everingham to make sure that he has not made that donation. From my visits to his part of the world-central Queensland and Mount Isa-it seems to me that more people are leaving his Party in disenchantment than are joining it. The honourable member talks about our promises to abolish the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. If honourable members opposite had an ounce of sense and wanted to stay on that side of the House the first thing they would do would to be to abolish the fringe benefits tax. It is that tax above all which will see honourable members opposite transposed very rapidly, within 18 months, to this side of the chamber. The Budget of three weeks ago seems to have caused many more problems for the Government than it has sought to solve. For three weeks we have seen turmoil in the Australian Labor Party as it has torn itself apart, particularly over the issue of uranium mining. Little factions have been meeting here tonight, as they have done for the last three weeks. Mr Gayler —Yes, they are under control in the north. Mr WHITE —The honourable member was on the news today saying what he was going to do to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). What happened this morning? Nothing. The honour- able member and all the other fellows who were so brave on AM went to water, the same as they went to water last week and the week before that. The other point that must be made about this Budget is that, apart from all the problems it has created for the Labor Party and the Government, it has failed to address the real problems. Within three weeks of the Budget being introduced, the Government has announced that it will introduce a mini-Budget in May. Within three weeks of the annual Budget being brought down, it has been discredited. It is out of date and a new Budget is announced. The Budget has failed to address the problems that are besetting this country. There are no cuts in programs. There are no cuts in government spending. An inflexible labour market still dominates. Our overseas debt continues to rise, inflation is rising, and there is no real encouragement for our exports. On top of all that, the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax that are already in place, as if they were not enough, taxes are to be increased. As a final accolade from the world market, our AAA rating has been reduced to AA1. Today the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia arrived in my office. If one flicks through it one sees that almost every economic indicator put out and analysed by the Reserve Bank is on a downturn. That is an indication of how the Reserve Bank, the market-place and the rest of the world see this Budget. Let me turn to taxation. The Budget is a high taxing Budget. Few programs have been reduced but taxes have been increased. In regard to personal tax in particular, which has been sapping this country's energy for years and destroying initiative, the great promised tax cuts, which were to have been introduced on 1 September, have been delayed for three months. One begins to wonder whether those tax cuts will ever come. When one looks at the new tax rates whose introduction has been postponed from 1 September to December, one finds that those who earn $12,500 a year, who are currently paying 25c in the dollar, will pay 24c in the dollar under the new scheme. Those people are basically Labor Party supporters. They will be very grateful at the next election because the Government has given them the magnificent benefit of a one cent reduction in their tax! The Government will give those who are earning up to $28,000 a year, who are currently paying 46c in the dollar, a 3c reduction. If the Government thinks it is going to buy their votes with a lousy 3c reduction after all the hoo-ha it has been through in the last three months, it is very much mistaken. One of the other problems which beset this country is the domination of this Government by the unions. We have heard a lot in the last few weeks about the New Right. I understand the real fears of people who see the New Right as some emergent nazi-type group that is going to become dominant in this country. Mr Gayler —Do you support them? Mr WHITE —Let me say to the honourable member that I do not know who the New Right are. I suspect that honourable members opposite do not know who the New Right are, either. They are taking the opportunity to try to create a New Right to divert attention from some of their problems. They are blaming the New Right for all their ills. If members of the New Right are people such as Copeman, if he is one of the people who the Government believes are forming the secret society of the New Right, and if people such as Copeman are taking a stand against restrictive labour practices such as the 284 practices which I understand the management at Robe River objects to, I am very much in support of the New Right. Let me tell honourable members some of the work practices the management there is trying to get rid of. Unions have placed a black ban on supervisors, who cannot give orders to their men. General foremen cannot pass direct instructions to an employee. For trivial reasons the Australian Workers Union has regularly placed bans on the transport of meals. Dust suppression on roads is undertaken by watering and the trucks must be manned even when it is raining. Mr Lloyd —Even when it is raining-that is a good one. Mr WHITE —Even when it is raining. There are two men to a truck. Presumably, the trucks go up and down watering wet roads. Dust suppression agents such as oil are not allowed to be used on the roads. When holes had to be drilled nine metres apart instead of seven there was a jack-up by the union. To replace a discharged fire extinguisher after normal hours, someone was called out for four hours on double time. Five employees must be on site for the operation of a rail servicing machine designed to be operated by two people, and so it goes on and on. If the Government is blaming the New Right for trying to get rid of some of those restrictive trade practices, which are holding back this country and making us uncompetitive, let me declare here and now that I fully support them. I turn to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I would like to make some opening remarks about the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). What has happened in recent weeks makes interesting reading. During the last autumn session we had the saga of Mr Rodney Groux who was employed by the Minister. God knows where he is now, because the Minister did not know where he was when he was employing him. I presume that he is still under police investigation, but we have heard nothing about that. The Minister went overseas and got stuck into all the States. He would not say anything to the States while he was in Australia, but while he was overseas he gave the States a good bucketing for carrying out their own promotion of the tourist industry. He speculated on the Budget deficit. Do not tell me that he won that one. He was hauled over the coals by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Minister said `No, I am not really interested in politics' and that he wanted to get out, but then he said that he might stay for a while. So, we do not know what he is going to do. In any event, as far as the industry is concerned, he has become a lame duck. He has been banned in Western Australia. The Western Australians will not give him a bed or a feed over there because they believe that he has done nothing for them. There is a report that his phone is bugged by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I do not know whether the Minister says that; but, if he has said that and believes that, has he reported that to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen)? He keeps setting up expensive boards and commissions all over the place so that he can put his mates on them. He set up the Australian Institute of Sport, increased the board-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) -Order! I am giving plenty of leeway. I know that this is traditional in an appropriation debate. But this tale is going on for a rather long time. I ask the honourable member to finish it and to relate his comments back to the Bill before the House. Mr WHITE —We are talking about the Budget, we are talking about the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and we are talking about the man who is administering that Department. I think that how that particular portfolio is administered, within the context of the Budget, is very important. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I accept your explanation and I request you to accept my direction. Mr WHITE —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will come back to something that I hope you will regard as a bit more pertinent, and that is the expenditure within the portfolio and the setting up of boards and commissions and in particular the expansion within the Department. In March 1983 the Department had five officers of class 2 and above in sport and recreation. In August 1986, three years later, it has 23 officers of class 2 and above. That is an enormous expansion by any standard. Having said that, let me also say that the tourist figures indicate that the tourist industry is in a very strong state in Australia, and for that the Minister deserves a lot of credit. But it does not mean that many of the things that could make that industry better have been addressed. They have not been addressed. I refer in particular to penalty rates. Penalty rates were something that the Minister was going to fix when his Party won government. The Government has given every excuse as to why penalty rates have not been fixed. Penalty rates are still a bugbear of the industry. As honourable members opposite well know, throughout Australia we have first class hotels that literally do not operate on weekends and public holidays because they simply cannot afford the penalty rates associated with the staff when the penalty rates are one and a half, two or two and a half times the normal rates. The other problem that I very much hope will be addressed is the increasing congestion at our airports. For the life of me I cannot understand why, with the congestion in Darwin and particularly Brisbane, the Government will not accept the offers of the private sector to come in and rebuild or build new international terminals at those airports. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) should not shake his head, as it is a fact that a consortium in Brisbane offered to build a new terminal; yet when the proposal was put up it was thrown out of court. The same thing happened in Darwin. If honourable members opposite want to see this industry expand, I would have thought the sensible approach would be to accept the opportunity afforded by the inclusion of the private sector. On sport let me say just this: All of the promises that the Minister made quite rashly before the Budget came down have been doomed. He promised everyone that programs would go ahead. Unfortunately, they have not gone ahead, because the Budget was cut. For example, the national sports facilities program is now $8m short. We have problems such as the current development in Victoria where money was promised, the proposal went ahead on the basis that the money would be forthcoming, but suddenly it was not to be provided. The same thing has happened in the sports development program. The market has made its judgment on this Budget. This is the only Government and the only Treasurer to take our credit rating from AAA to AA1. The way the Treasurer prances in here, he looks as though he is proud of it; but the market is not proud of it. The market has made its judgment. Mr Gayler —Boom times. Mr WHITE —If the honourable member opposite thinks it is just the market that has made that judgment, he ought to go out and talk to some of the people who used to be his supporters and see what they think of the Budget, the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. There is one thing I will say for the Treasurer: He has done this country a favour because with his intemperate remarks about a banana republic he has brought home to the people of Australia just what a mess this economy is in. The sooner the lot opposite are tossed out and we have some competent economic managers on that side, the sooner we will get out of that mess. Mr Gayler —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The previous speaker has obviously quoted from the report of the H. R. Nicholls Society which has been distributed amongst members of the National Party, and I ask him to table that report. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.08) —Tonight there are just a few minutes left for me to comment on the Budget and to pay tribute to the great work of our Treasurer, the Hon. Paul Keating, who has made an extraordinary, dedicated contribution to reducing the deficit that was inherited by this Government from the previous discredited Liberal-National Party Government which is now in opposition. Before I deal in some depth with the Budget and the debate that is now in progress, I make a few observations on the remarks made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). He said that this Government was dominated by the unions. If that is so, how can the Budget clearly set out the fact that since 1982-83 there has been a cumulative fall in real unit labour costs in the non-farm sector of over 7 per cent? That means that, comparing profits and wages, there has been a fall in real unit labour costs. That is something about which very few countries with which we compare ourselves can boast. There is a further one per cent fall forecast in 1986-87. Yet the honourable member for McPherson and other members of the Opposition make these wild statements that the Government is dominated by the unions. If it is, real unit labour costs should be increasing. We have had talk of restrictive work practices at Robe River. That is all rubbish because if we get rid of the industrial relations system in this country, as the H. R. Nicholls Society and others seek to do, we are getting rid of a system that has given us a 5 per cent cut in earnings. The employees in this nation have accepted a 5 per cent cut in earnings over the last few years to try to get this country out of the economic malaise and economic mess which we inherited. I pay tribute to the employees in this nation. I also refute some of the nonsense we got from the Opposition about the Budget attacking families. In the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in this House he said that bulk billing will be abolished except for people such as pensioners who really need it. What about the families with four or five children or a chronically ill child? They will not be bulk billed. The letter the Liberal and National parties sent me seeking funds said that they will cut down the cost of Medicare. If that is introduced, it will hurt the families, because the families of this nation have benefited from Medicare. Medicare was the great reform of the first term of the Labor Government. We introduced a system, which is available to Australians, of free medical and hospital treatment. If those opposite stop families being bulk billed by doctors they will hurt families. People with children should not be penalised. It is all very well for the Liberal Party and the National Party to say: `We will stop bulk billing except for pensioners'. It is very unfair to families. All the gobbledy-gook that we are hearing tonight about hurting families is rubbish. Some of the compassionate parts of the Budget should be mentioned tonight while we have a few minutes. One concerns aid for diabetics. Many times I have made representations about people suffering from diabetes. The Government will supply free of charge insulin, syringes and all the accoutrements that people with diabetes need. The Government will also assist families in which somebody is chronically ill. When more than 25 prescriptions have been used in a year further preparations under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme will be supplied free of charge. I pay tribute to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for bringing these matters forward. The main benefit for families will be the tax cuts coming in later this year. By 1 July 1987 the 60c in the dollar rate of income tax which was left to us by the Opposition-it walked away from this House after the 1983 election leaving the tax rate at 60c in the dollar for the top income earners-will be cut to 49c. The 48c and 46c rates will go down to 40c. There will be other changes in the marginal rates. At the same time, there will be imputation of company tax. That will be the greatest shot in the arm for small companies and small business people. No one will pay tax at a rate of more than 49c in the dollar. This is the greatest reform that has ever been introduced in the Australian tax system. Other Labor governments said they would do it. They promised to tax all the areas of income that were untaxed and to close the loopholes, but they never had the ability to do it. I pay tribute to the Treasurer. He will go down in history as the man who brought equity and fairness to the Australian tax system. (Quorum formed) It was my hope to speak about the allocation to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. My time is fast slipping away. I pay great tribute to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for what he has done and what I observed last week when visiting the Gulf of Carpentaria. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.15) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to the Government's advanced plans for a national compensation scheme. Honourable members will recall the Whitlam Government's attempt to impose a national compensation scheme on Australia a decade ago. Nothing has changed but the means by which the Australian Labor Party intends to achieve its ultimate objective. The Party's national platform now clearly shows that Labor will develop, in co-operation with the States, a national compensation scheme on a no-fault basis. The proposals are already being progressed with the co-operation of the Labor-governed States in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. They will have a profound effect on the Australian community. As with Medicare, Labor intends to blanket the whole population with its accident scheme. All injuries resulting from road accidents, industrial accidents, accidents in the home and elsewhere are to be covered on a 24-hour a day basis. Everyone is to be caught in the net-the self-employed, housewives, children, road users and employees. A national compensation scheme will see the widespread introduction of taxed pensions for accident victims, instead of tax free lump sum payments received at common law. This tax grab is already happening without one word from the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech being necessary. These tax changes are occurring because the Victorian Government nationalised workers compensation last September and created Workcare-a scheme which erodes the common law rights of employees and places the emphasis on weekly payments, which attract income tax rather than tax free, lump sum payments. The Victorian Government is now proposing to introduce a pure no-fault road accident scheme in January 1987. This will, among other things, further advance the Federal Government's program and require a large number of road accident victims to pay substantial amounts in income tax which would not otherwise be payable. The Victorian ALP's platform, as one might expect, mirrors the Party's Federal platform. It states that a Victorian ALP Government will co-operate with the Australian Government and other States to establish a national compensation scheme. It is noteworthy that a Bill requiring the nationalisation of workers' compensation in South Australia will be introduced in that State's Upper House within the next few weeks. Again, that legislation will provide for the erosion of common law rights and lead to injured employees paying large sums of tax not previously payable. The New South Wales Government is pointing in the same direction with its workers compensation and road accident systems. At the appropriate time all of the State schemes will be integrated and expanded. Finally they will emerge as the Federal Government's national compensation scheme. There is another critical aspect of the Federal and State Labor governments' plans for national compensation which gives cause for grave concern. I refer to the propensity of socialist governments to mortgage Australia's future. The Workcare scheme in Victoria is semi-funded and a Melbourne actuary has determined that if the Government maintains premiums at their current level the scheme will be absolutely broke within a few years. The present Victorian road accident scheme is already broke, with accumulated losses at June 1985, according to the State's Auditor-General, of $1.5 billion. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr McARTHUR —It will be $1.5 billion. This led to the State's Treasurer announcing in his 1985-86 Budget speech that $30m from petroleum royalties was being pumped into the system to help alleviate the problem. Now the Government is stating in advertisements promoting its new road accident scheme that the program will be partly paid for by increased fines for serious traffic offences. The New South Wales road accident scheme has a funding shortfall in excess of $1 billion. We now have evidence aplenty of the growing threats posed by unfunded and semi-unfunded schemes. The Federal Government's proposed national compensation scheme falls clearly in this category. The Executive Director of the Institute for Contemporary Studies in the United States of America put the whole matter into perspective in his paper `Around The World Social Security Goes Broke'. He said that funding problems promise to become political crises early in the twenty-first century and that policy makers think the problem can be left for someone else to solve. But the longer they wait the more painful must be the cure. It should therefore be evident that the national compensation scheme proposed by the Federal Government will not provide a cure; rather it will perpetuate and extend a problem this nation's taxpayers can ill afford. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.20) —Parliament is often likened to the theatre-men and women strutting the stage delivering their well-learned lines and attempting to convey their views and philosophies on the great issues of the day. Tonight I wish to talk about an actual theatre which for over 50 years had dedicated itself to more political issues of the day than perhaps addressed by any particular member of this House. On 11 August, New Theatre at Melbourne completed half a century of political theatre, making it the longest continuously running theatre company in Victoria. During that time, while maintaining four or five plays each year over five decades, New Theatre remained constant, like the Northern Star, to its charter of presenting theatre with a purpose, designed to politicise its audiences on social injustices of the day. The philosophy behind New Theatre has always been left of centre, bonded to the causes of working men and women, the oppressed and the minorities. Its credo has always been that theatre can be a force for social change. Inevitably, right from the beginning the theatre has been at odds with the ruling parties and classes, whose rationale has been to preserve the status quo by ensuring that ordinary people remain powerless to bring about reforms. New Theatre encountered the wrath of the establishment as early as its second production, Till the Day I Die, in late 1936, when the anti-nazi one-act play was banned following a protest from Hitler's Consul-General to the Federal Government. Incidentally, the play was performed but the ban was not lifted until well into the war. In 1948, the theatre presented the plight of the Aborigines with productions of Fountains Beyond, a story of Aboriginal communities struggling to survive on the fringes of white settlements, and Rocket Range, about the establishment of rocket testing grounds on Aboriginal lands. This second play, which indicated the white bosses' total ignorance of Aboriginal ways, was tossed out of a drama festival because of its strong criticism of white society. New Theatre's most outstanding success was probably Reedy River, which was first presented in 1953. It brought together about 10 traditional bush songs, which were linked by a story about the shearers' strike of 1891. Music was provided by a bush band and the whole show made theatrical and folk music history. The theatre has produced this all-Australian show on no fewer than six occasions over extensive seasons. I joined New Theatre during the 1966 performance and stayed to tread the boards in The Wall, a play about an uprising in the Warsaw ghetto, MacBird, a Shakespearian satire on the Kennedy assassination, The Death of Bessie Smith, the tragic story of the famous American Negro jazz singer who died from loss of blood when she was refused admission to several white hospitals, and On Stage Vietnam, a living newspaper-style play which opposed Australia's involvement in that immoral and unwinnable war. In 1967, its performance of America Hurrah generated an incredible amount of debate in the media on censorship when it challenged Victoria's obscenity laws. The issue became a cause celebre, hastening the introduction of more sensible censorship laws. Last year it produced Sandinista, a dramatic history of the Nicaraguan revolution, and this year, Athol Fugard's Statements, a semi-documentary of a relationship between a white librarian and a coloured teacher in South Africa. This list is hardly exhaustive but it illustrates the great contribution made by New Theatre to politics and the arts. The theatre has been closely associated with many of Australia's leading writers, including Vance and Nettie Palmer, Frank Dalby Davidson, Miles Franklin, Oriel Gray and Frank Hardy. It has provided opportunities for budding playwrights, directors and actors, especially those who would not have found a venue because of the political nature of the performances. New Theatre has, in fact, premiered 63 Australian plays and was first in Australia with Brecht, Miller, O'Casey, Milligan and Dario Fo. What has kept New Theatre going? It cannot be the money. It works from show to show, its members are working people, its productions are inexpensive and its publicity is noted for its absence of gaudy tinsel. It is the people and their message which has kept them going and I compliment them all, past present and future. Nettie Palmer once said: `How do you assess a play? By what the play says and how it says it'. We might well ask: `How do you assess a parliament? By what the Parliament says and how it says it'. Many of New Theatre's issues which I have outlined this evening are still very much current. Parliament, too, must remain a force for social change, not simply a talkshop. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.25) —In this adjournment debate I want to refer to a question that was asked earlier today by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and the answer that was given by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The question was asked by someone whom we regard as a rejected member of the Queensland State House and the answer was given by a Minister who wasted the time of the House with a fairly shoddy personal attack on a Queensland grazing family and a Queensland Minister of the Crown. It was shoddy because both the question and the answer came from this coward's castle where no opportunity of response is given to the person being attacked. Mr Slipper —It was a dorothy dixer. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, it was a dorothy dixer too. It was a wasted question because earlier in the day the Queensland Minister, Mr Neil Turner, responded in the Queensland Parliament to a question that had been asked by the State Opposition Leader on this subject last week. It was answered in such a way that the Labor Party and the Leader Opposition did not ask a supplementary question, to which they were entitled, and the whole thing fell rather flat because no further explanation was required. For cheap political purposes the Minister for Primary Industry, for whom I have a fair regard, allowed himself to be used and reduced himself to gutter tactics against a person in Queensland who could not defend himself. This episode reveals two things. First, the Minister obviously has no understanding of or empathy with the man in question, who is trying to survive on the land. He does not understand the great problems that are occasioned after a four-year drought of forced sales and stock deaths, or the impact of the Government's-his Government's-interest rates of 20 per cent or better on those who live or try to live off the land. In fact, he had time to quip about the use of the term `national disaster'. I can assure him that those who live in the drought country find that it is no laughing matter to have this issue treated so lightly. Secondly, it brings to question the professionalism of a senior public servant in Queensland in making this information available, together with personal and financial details of a bank client, which a customer would consider should be confidential and secure. I understand that there are police investigations under way into the activities of the public servant who is believed to have leaked the information. The facts of this case are very interesting. The Assistant General Manager of the Queensland Agricultural Bank twice recommended the loan to the Behan family to the Board. On the second occasion, he said that the one difference between the two applications, both of which he recommended, was that the possibility of actual viability was better documented and, in the case of natural disaster funds, the purpose for which funds were sought came within its general guidelines. The Minister made great play of the fact that the bank, or the banker of the person in question and the pastoral house, had refused to fund the reconstruction. Perhaps the Minister does not know that under his own guidelines such refusal by the bank and the pastoral house is the first step in applying for natural disaster funds. In fact, after the case the bank has ceded $60,000 of its first security to the Agricultural Bank and the pastoral house has lent further funds in addition. The $160,000-as I understand it, the amount of the loan-was for $60,000 carry-on funds, which is quite normal, $40,000 to restock after the disaster of the drought and $60,000 for reconstruction. The loan was not a one-off operation by the Agricultural Bank. I understand that since March 1986 12 loans have been approved under normal lending procedures, ranging from $200,000 to $820,000. Seven loans have also been made available from natural disaster assistance, ranging from $170,000 to $500,000, all in excess of the amount lent to the Behan family. I am concerned about the Minister's allegation of corruption based in this case on absolutely incorrect leaked material. I will reject that charge where the allegation is made on that flimsy type of material. It is based on the fact that the Minister had no real experience, knowledge, or feeling for the families, the men and women, on the land. I challenge the Minister to go out to some of these forgotten places, to the areas in the central and north-west Queensland where Mr Behan's property is and the local shire is still drought declared. This area has been drought stricken for the past four years with the exception of only 10 months. I challenge him to go out and see what it is all about. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.31) —Last Friday, 12 September, most of Australia's major newspapers carried a report from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) that some one million rounds of ammunition were stolen from an Australian factory and shipped to Tamil terrorists in Sri Lanka. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in answer to a question from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) today dealt with the absurdity of this claim. I suggest that there was another reason for the claim being made last Friday. On Thursday, a document was released by Amnesty International documenting the disappearance of 272 Tamil people from Sri Lanka. The report also documents the abuse of human rights, the use of torture and killings, by the forces of the Sri Lankan Government. It was just too convenient for the Leader of the National Party to release his story the morning after the Amnesty International report was released and thus deny this report the coverage it deserved. The Sri Lankan High Commission received a copy of the report a few days before it was publicly released. There was also a meeting between the High Commission in Canberra and officials from Amnesty International about the report. The High Commission knew when the report was to be released and the publicity it would gain. I suggest that the reports about the missing ammunition were an attempt to divert attention from the contents of the Amnesty International report. I am most surprised that after the one-day wonder of the Leader of the National Party's report the Amnesty International report has received no publicity in the Australian media. We know from the reply today by the Minister for Defence that after the Press conference last week by the Leader of the National Party to announce his startling revelation, the representative of a Canberra lobby group, Carney, Hocking and Associates, was telephoning journalists advising them to telephone the Sri Lankan High Commission for confirmation of the story. That group is headed by Mr Carney, formerly on the staff of the Leader of the National Party. So now we know who the reliable source was who supplied the information to him. The plot thickens when we learn that this group has a public relations account with Air Lanka, and obviously close connections with the Sri Lankan High Commission here in Canberra. Despite the best efforts of the Leader of the National Party to divert attention from this report, I urge all honourable members to obtain a copy of the Amnesty International report entitled `Sri Lanka-Disappearances'. It will enable them to better understand the plight of the Tamil people, which I raise in this House from time to time. It is a very delicate time in Sri Lanka with negotiations for a peace settlement going on, a peace settlement that all who have an interest in that country hope will come to fruition. At this delicate time I have no intention or desire to criticise the Sri Lankan Government or its representatives here in Canberra, but I must say that this report from Amnesty International goes beyond the politics currently occurring in Sri Lanka. The report documents disappearances, torture and killings. I think it is incumbent upon the authorities from Sri Lanka to answer the very serious charges raised in this document. All members of the Parliament would do well to obtain a copy of the report from Amnesty International and study it carefully. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.34) —Whilst pensioners and the aged are asked to tighten their belts, the Government has in this most recent Budget increased expenditure on some of its pet projects. Although I will not be referring to very large amounts of money relative to a Budget of $60 or $70 billion, I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that to a pensioner who is out of pocket $80 or thereabouts as a result of the deferral of pension increases, the amounts of money I will talk about tonight are pretty significant. As a preliminary I make two points. First, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has announced that we will abolish the Commission for the Future, and that is a commitment I am very pleased to support. Secondly, the comments I want to make tonight are no reflection on the two journalists whose names I will raise. I will give the House some figures. The Commission for the Future has had its funds increased this year by 50 per cent. It is no wonder that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), has been going around the country, three weeks after the Budget was brought down, saying it is not good enough because it did not cut hard enough on the expenditure side. The third most senior member of the Government has already crippled the Government's Budget. So there is a 50 per cent increase in funding for the Commission for the Future, and a 10 to 15 per cent increase in consultants' fees. Mr N.A. Brown —Are they fortune tellers? Mr REITH —Yes, fortune tellers, as they are properly described by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Some time ago I asked for a list of consultants who had received funding in the 1985-86 year. On the basis of the papers provided to me under the Freedom of Information Act, in 1985-86 the Commission engaged consultants to the value of $146,293. The projects included the production of an annotated bibliography partly entitled `A Select Bibliography', which cost $5,200 and which one would have to say was select in every sense of the word. Another journalist prepared a written report on education futures that was so good the Commission paid $2,500 for it. In fact, if he had written the same article in the Melbourne Age, for which he writes, we could all have had it for 40c, which would have been quite a bargain. I suppose one might ask what these people know about the future. Quite frankly, I do not really know what more these journalists know about the future than anybody in this chamber, although one of the journalists engaged was once a weather man with one of the television stations. I suppose he at least has had some experience in predicting the future. I thought the House would be interested in some of these contracts. After I got the list of consultants I lodged a further application under the Freedom of Information Act for details of the consultancies. Mr Slipper —Was the Government helpful? Mr REITH —In fact, I had to lodge an appeal because I did not get the documents within the time prescribed by law, which gives the House an indication of the Government's real attitude to freedom of information. The documents were here when I arrived in Canberra today, so I have had a chance to have a quick look through them. The contract with Kenneth Davidson, who writes for the Age, is interesting. The contract is dated 6 August 1986 and states: The Consultant shall provide to the Commonwealth a written report . . . covering the issues for the future and education that arose from the conference . . . What does a consultant have to do for his $2,500? He has to attend three briefing sessions-I suppose that is something-and then he has to `synthesise the input'. If we could define what `synthesise the input' meant we would all be well advanced. The report was to be 6,000 words in length and Kenneth Davidson was to get about $350 per thousand words. If that is of some interest, Mr Charles Wright of Coldstream, to whom I have spoken and who I must say seems a very reasonable person, has done considerably better. He is getting $500 for every thousand words. That is 50c a word. His obligations are set out in an agreement of 13 August which I thought was pretty instructive. The first requirement was for him to attend the seminar. I would have thought that was the least he could do. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(10.40) —I wish to speak to the House and to the people of Australia, particularly the people of Queensland, about the fraud and deceit of the National Party Government-- Mr Smith —Careful. Mr GAYLER —I will be careful about it. I refer to the National Party Government of Queensland. I notice that when I say that, honourable members opposite, especially those from the Liberal Party, are nodding and agreeing with what I say. Earlier this evening the honourable member for Dawson tried to sweep under the carpet the unfortunate loan of $145,000, most of which was Commonwealth money, to someone who we now understand is one of the directors of the National Party in north Queensland. Once again, I see members of the Liberal Party nodding and accepting that this is what is going on in Queensland. It is clear that what we have in Queensland is a very simple fact of fraud and deception. Not only is Mrs X convicted and now spending 20 months in gaol, although the judge said that she should be allowed out after eight months, but Mr McKechnie of the Department of Sport has said: `After you had brought it to my attention, we now seem to have another fraud and deception on the taxpayers of Queensland within my Department'. But it took Mr Warburton's ability to bring it to his attention before anyone commented on it. Although we do not have any accounting in Queensland, what we do have-it is very simple-- Mr Slipper —What about the Auditor-General? Mr GAYLER —The Auditor-General-the honourable member would not even be able to spell it. Mr Slipper —On a point of order, Madam Speaker-- Mr GAYLER —Would you ask him to spell it, Madam Speaker? Mr Slipper —Madam Speaker, I find the comment by the honourable member for Leichhardt offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn forthwith. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The comment was not unparliamentary. Mr GAYLER —And he still is not able to spell it, Madam Speaker. But when one comes from the simpleton area of southern Queensland, it is an unfortunate fact- Mr Slipper —On a further point of order, Madam Speaker-- Mr GAYLER —Ask him to spell `simpleton', Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Some time ago the House gave to the Chair the right to decide whether a matter was unparliamentary. The matter is not unparliamentary, and the honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Slipper —Madam Speaker, I ask that I be heard on the subsequent point of order. I find the later comments of the honourable member for Leichhardt offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw the later comment. Mr GAYLER —I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I suppose that `simpleton' is a word that we could spell amongst us- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will continue with his speech. Mr N.A. Brown —Have a go. Mr GAYLER —The honourable member for Menzies-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member for Leichhardt stick to the point and ignore the interjections. Mr GAYLER —Thank you, Madam Speaker. What is happening in Queensland is despicable and the people of Queensland will show that they despise it in their voting habits in the very near future. Those who have raised objection here this evening will have to go out and sell what is happening to the people in their electorate. The matter is quite simple. Nationals are chasing 36 per cent of the people. Unfortunately, they will not get 36 per cent of the people-- Mr Slipper —We will get 50 per cent. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will ignore the interjection. Mr GAYLER —We need not worry about 50 per cent. In conclusion, I say that it behoves me to stand here to appeal to the people of Queensland not to accept what is being put forward in the form of space centres in far north Queensland-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(10.45) —I shall not dwell on the disgraceful and inaccurate comments of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) other than to say that his comments were nothing compared with the deception perpetrated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in respect of the national economy, which eventually led him to admit the error of his ways when he uttered those famous words about a banana republic. I too would like to refer to Queensland as it has been mentioned here tonight. I point out that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) weighed into Queensland and made an atrocious attack on the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It has backfired and it will be shown how much it has backfired on polling day. It follows the attack made by Prime Minister Whitlam in the early 1970s, when he referred to Sir Joh as a `bible bashing bastard'. That also backfired, and Hawke's attack falls into the same category. It all arose over allegations in respect of terrorism. I think it is time that we started to look at the facts in terms of the support of various honourable members and the Federal Government for certain organisations. In proof of certain aspects of this, I bring forward a letter dated 3 February 1984, which reads: Dear Colleague We understand that you have recently received a request for assistance from the African Liberation Trust Fund. We appreciate that you receive many such requests for aid because it is widely understood that the unions are key supporters of the struggle for human rights and liberation from oppression. But we would ask you to give a very full consideration to the appeal for financial support for the African Liberation Trust Fund. With the struggle in southern Africa moving towards a climax our support can help reduce the length and intensity of the conflict. The Federal Government has given its blessing to the establishment of an Information Office for the African National Congress and SWAPO. It remains for us to provide the support that will sustain this office and make it effective. It is signed, `Yours sincerely, Dr Neal Blewett, Minister for Health; Greg Crafter, Minister for Community Welfare and Aboriginal Affairs of South Australia; and John Scott, MP, member for Hindmarsh'. They are the three signatories to this letter, which shows clearly that these members of parliament and a Minister of the Federal Government, then and now, appealed for support for the African National Congress, the South West African People's Organisation and the African Liberation Trust Fund. Furthermore, I submit to the House that involved in this is a very nasty conspiracy, because it is clear from the first paragraph of this letter that it was designed to be a nicely timed follow-up to the original letter seeking donations. Therefore, it was done on a highly organised basis involving the complicity of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), and the Minister of the South Australian Parliament. They ought to be ashamed of their action in relation to this matter. This communication completely vindicates the comments made last week by the Premier of Queensland in respect of this issue. The support of the Federal Minister for Health in this matter is disappointing. He has signed the letter particularly as Minister for Health, and the letter refers to the Federal Government and the need to sustain support for the ANC and SWAPO. Of course, we all know the sort of terrorist action in which SWAPO is involved in South Africa. Obviously the Prime Minister was trying to camouflage the real position in respect of the economy-what the Government is doing in relation to the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the cutbacks being perpetrated on war widows-by his action in Queensland last week. The attack of the Prime Minister on the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, will clearly backfire. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(10.50) —I would like to thank the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who has just sat down, for advising me that he was going to raise this garbage in the House tonight. I raised this matter in the House on 25 March 1985. It is recorded at page 858 of Hansard. I am quite happy to repeat what I said because I think it is very telling on the difference between the two groups here-the Government and the Opposition. I said at that time: I am pleased to advise this House of the fine work being carried out in Australia by such organisations as the Campaign Against Racial Exploitation. The driving force is Jim and Irene Gale, two wonderfully dedicated people. I interpose that, unfortunately, Australia is the sadder because of the passing of Jim Gale. But I am glad to say that the Government, in its sponsorship of peace awards, saw fit to find that Jim Gale in his dedication to the peoples of Africa in particular was a person worthy of being awarded posthumously a peace award. His work continues. I am extremely proud to have been associated with him and his wife at that time. I will continue to work with my colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in trying to do something for the oppressed people of South Africa. I went on to say at that time: There is also the work of Eddie Funde, the representative of the African National Congress. I try to assist as a trustee of the African Liberation Trust Fund. I point out that that is shown in my personal details that were tabled in the House not so long ago; so there is nothing sinister or mysterious about my involvement. I went on: I commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his statement. I congratulate the Opposition shadow Minister for his support. I would be delighted to see more of my colleagues support the Campaign Against Racial Exploitation and the African Liberation Trust Fund. The reason I mentioned the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the shadow Minister at the time was that earlier in the speech I had said: In the period available to me I would like to address some specific matters of great concern to Australia's standing as a nation in today's world. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has recently in this House condemned the outrageous killing of black people in South Africa on 21 March this year. Similar killings at Sharpeville were carried out by the South African Government 25 years to the day before these recent killings. The Minister, speaking on behalf of this Labor Government, reaffirmed the Government's total opposition to the injustice and inhumanity of apartheid. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), wholeheartedly endorsed this Government's statement. I applaud the shadow Minister for his stand. I hope he can hold that line. I want briefly to say that the letter referred to did have wide circulation. I think there must have been a bit of a mix-up in the mail because one of the recipients was a fellow by the name of Bruce Ruxton of the Returned Services League of Australia. Something must have happened with the mail because the letter to Mr Ruxton somehow got lost and it was only in the last six weeks that he received the letter. I presume he received it only then. He had the kindness to reply to me and express his views about organisations such as the South West Africa People's Organisation and the African National Congress. I responded and said that I was pleased to receive his reply. I reminded him of his recent tour of the Soviet Union and his very complimentary remarks about the Soviet system. Those remarks appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. I would be more than delighted at the right time to table that letter to Bruce Ruxton and his subsequent reply, because I think it is with that kind of dialogue, without the hysteria that one gets from Queensland Premiers who are senile, that one gets a proper appreciation of the issues. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.55) —I do intend to speak on a matter relating to my electorate. However, I have just been advised of a letter dated 12 September 1986 from the South West Africa People's Organisation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) seeking assistance from the Government. The letter, referring to support required, states in part: The first concerns our need for help in training Namibians in preparation for their role in a future independent Namibia. This dispels any suggestion that SWAPO is not a terrorist organisation. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), who spoke a moment ago, stands condemned as a person who supports terrorism, along with other members of the Australian Labor Party. I fully support what the Queensland Premier has said and the people of Australia will no doubt condemn the ALP for its weak-kneed approach to terrorism in this country. We have the Palestine Liberation Organisation, SWAPO and other organisations which are operating under the auspices of this Government. I now wish to refer to a problem experienced by a bus company in my electorate, Kangaroo Bus Lines, which in February 1985 received a letter of demand, a log of claims and working conditions, from the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the leadership of which in many cases comprises industrial thugs. The conditions that were asked of the company were ridiculous to say the least. Among other things the unions demanded a minimum of $1,500 a week for all employees, a minimum of $100 a week in addition to all other payments as extra payment, and a rest pause of 30 minutes for each hour worked. The reply from Kangaroo Bus Lines stated: Having read the enclosed claim, I find it hard to believe that any organisation could expect a privately owned bus operation to remain in business if it had to meet the conditions as stated in your letter of demand. If these conditions were forced upon us, we would have no alternative but to close down our operations and stand down all employees. The letter concluded in effectly informing the TWU that the bus company was not interested in being covered under a Federal award, and the company mistakenly assumed that this was the end of the matter. In May of this year a staff member of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations approached the company to inspect its business operations. Since it was established the business has operated on the understanding that it was covered by a State award; but, unfortunately, according to the inspector the business somehow had become subject to a Federal award. How could this happen in a democratic society? Quite simply, the union concerned managed to include the business in a Federal award through a tactic known as setting up a roping in dispute. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations explained in its letter to me of 25 June: Federal awards apply only to actual parties to the dispute in settlement of which the award concerned was made. Federal industrial tribunals ordinarily have no power to add new respondents to an award by variation. Where it is desired to extend the scope of an existing award to new respondents, it is necessary first to create a new dispute or disputes with such employers on the subject matters involved in the existing award. Such a dispute is known as a roping in dispute and the award made in settlement is known as a roping in award. This ridiculous log of claims that no company could hope to implement effectively placed Kangaroo Bus Lines in dispute with the TWU. Kangaroo Bus Lines did not hear again from any industrial tribunal. It did not hear again from the union and it thought that was the end of the matter. But an inspector came from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I was advised that Kangaroo Bus Lines had been roped into a Federal award and that come hell or high water there was nothing that Kangaroo Bus Lines could do about it except to apply for a variation of the award to exclude it from the award. I am certain that the people of Australia would agree with me that it is criminal that a union could drag in a business in this way without previously advising it that the matter was coming before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, resulting in the company being bound by a Federal award. That is a ridiculous example of excessive union power. Not only did the employees of Kangaroo Bus Lines not wish to be included in the Federal award, but it also was in their best interest not to be so included. They now face the prospect of losing their jobs because of the onerous conditions of the Federal award which Kangaroo Bus Lines is not able to afford. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Dr Blewett —I require the debate to be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(11.00) —I would like to make a few remarks in response to the remarks made earlier this evening by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I say first of all that I am particularly disappointed that the honourable member, for whom I have had considerable respect, should join the Premier of Queensland in idiocies and simplifications concerning the very difficult issue in South Africa. I have for a long time been sympathetic to the black majority in South Africa and their struggle for rights which all of us in this society claim and have. I have followed their struggle. Indeed, I suggest that the honourable member for Farrer should examine much more deeply the problem in southern Africa before he makes the kinds of comments to which he lent himself tonight. Having long had this attitude, I must say that, when I was in South Africa in 1980 and visited Soweto and saw the contrast between the living conditions in Soweto and those in much of white Johannesburg, I found it understandable that that society has enormous internal tensions and problems. It is no good simply talking about terrorism without understanding the deep problems of that society. But honourable members do not have to believe me on this issue. I refer to the following quotation: There is no peaceful legal means in which black people in South Africa can seek to exercise political pressure on the Government because all the legal means of exercising political pressure that we know in a country like Australia, have been successively denied to black South Africans. So, they can't do anything legally to try and make their point known. . . . . If I was living without any political rights of any kind, and if over forty years I and my parents had not been able to achieve any political rights, and if I was living in the state in which people were in South Africa, then I would say if people would not respond to normal political pressure then ultimately you can't blame them if they pick up arms. Those remarks, of course, were made by the ex-Liberal Prime Minister of this country. Again, he is someone who has been prepared to study and understand the problems in southern Africa. So when a group of Australians whom I very much respect, including my colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott), Cliff Dolan, Professor Manning Clark, Don Dunstan, and the Bishop of Newcastle asked me to join in a trust fund to raise money simply in order to fund the personnel in an information office in this country for the African National Congress and the South West Africa People's Organisation, I was happy and honoured to take part. I point out that the whole purpose of this fund has simply been to fund and provide support for the personnel of that office so that their point of view-the point of view of the black majority in South Africa-can be presented in that country. They do not have the resources that the Government of South Africa has. It is important to consider this when one listens to the honourable member for Farrer-an honourable member for whom, as I say, I have considerable respect-make his simplistic statements. One expects nothing better from the Premier of Queensland, but one does expect better from the honourable member for Farrer. One would hope that he would make the effort to listen to the arguments that the people are presenting through the information office of the ANC and SWAPO. I welcome this debate, because one of the chief benefits of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's utterances has been to arouse interest in this trust fund. I hope that this debate will do the same. Madam SPEAKER —The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.04 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendment to standing order 112 be adopted for the remainder of this session: Petition to be lodged with Clerk Standing Order 112 be amended to read- 112. Every petition shall be lodged with the Clerk by 5 p.m. on the working day previous to the meeting of the House at which it is proposed that it be presented. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts and regulations relating to Superannuation and similar benefits, and for related purposes. Dr Blewett to present a Bill for an Act to amend various laws relating to health, and for related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 and the Science and Industry Endowment Act 1926, and for related purposes. Mr Macphee to move- That this House- (1) notes that the Commissioner of Taxation has issued ruling IT No. 2121 which- (a) appears to tax contractors who form themselves into family trusts or companies as though they were individuals, and (b) was intended to catch those arrangements which amount to nothing more than deceptive practices; (2) expresses its concern that the ruling- (a) appears to catch those family arrangements which have been legitimately established with the purpose of providing limited liability to family assets such as the family home or to provide a going concern legal entity for the contractor's business, and (b) has been employed in many cases by the Commissioner of Taxation to penalise contractors whose circumstances do not warrant such heavy-handed treatment, and (3) calls on the Treasurer to seek an urgent review of the ruling by the Commissioner of Taxation. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 September 1986: Aboriginal Development Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 235. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 232. Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 233. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 238, 246. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 219. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 223. Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 242, 243, 244, 245. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1986-No. 2. Copyright Act-Declaration pursuant to paragraph 10a (1) (b), dated 5 June 1986. Customs Act-Notices-1986-Nos. 6, 7. Dairy Produce Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 237. Defence Act- Defence Force Regulations-Declaration of defence practice areas-Army 1/86, dated 21 August 1986. Determinations-1986- No. 49-Attendance Allowance. No. 50-Sinai Allowance. No. 51-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 52-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 53-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 54-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 55-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowance. Defence (Re-establishment) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 231. Dried Fruits Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 220. Excise Act-Notices-1986-Nos. 9, 12. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1986-No. 8-Prescribed Goods (General) as amended (Amendment). Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 216. Fisheries Act- Notice-No. 172. Plan of Management-No. 10-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment). Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 236. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106aa, dated 6 May 1986. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 239, 240, 241. Judiciary Act-Rule of Court, dated 22 August 1986. Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for- Defence purposes-Parish of Tomerong, N.S.W. Pipeline Authority purposes-N.S.W. Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). Maintenance Orders (Commonwealth Officers) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 230. Marriage Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 227, 229. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 224. National Museum of Australia Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 217. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 226. Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Order-1986-No. 12-Marine, Part 32. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 225. Oilseeds Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 221, 222. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation-Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1986-Section 5 and the amendments of sections 46, 148d and 424 and the repeal of sections 86, 87, 100, 105 to 107 (inclusive) 111, 112, 114, 115, 179, 181, 387b and 398 of the Navigation Act 1912-1 September 1986. Public Service Act-Determinations-1986-Nos. 57, 65, 68. Radiocommunications Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 213. Re-establishment and Employment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 228. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) Ordinance-Form of declaration-Approval pursuant to paragraph 5 (a), dated 1 August 1986. Determinations- dated 20 August 1986, listing fees and/or charges for purposes of- Adoption of Children Ordinance. Agents Ordinance. Architects Ordinance. Building Ordinance. Building and Services Ordinance. Co-operative Societies Ordinance. Credit Ordinance. Dangerous Goods Ordinance. Dog Control Ordinance. Fishing Ordinance. Hawkers Ordinance. Lakes Ordinance. Liquor Ordinance. Lotteries Ordinance. Machinery Ordinance. Motor Traffic Ordinance. Nature Conservation Ordinance. Plumbers Drainers and Gasfitters Board Ordinance. Poker Machine Control Ordinance. Pounds Ordinance. Rabbit Destruction Ordinance. Racecourses Ordinance. Real Property Ordinance. Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance. Roads and Public Places Ordinance. Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance. Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance. Stock Ordinance. Surveyors Ordinance. Water Rates Ordinance. Weights and Measures Ordinance. Listing fees and/or charges for purposes of- Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance, dated 22 August 1986. Optometrists Ordinance, dated 18 August 1986. Sewerage Rates Ordinance, dated 1 September 1986. Ordinances-1986- No. 46-Betting (Totalizator Agency) (Amendment). No. 47-Blood Donation (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) (Amendment). No. 48-Motor Omnibus Services (Amendment). No. 49-Tobacco Products (Health Warnings). No. 50-Radiation (Amendment). No. 51-Optometrists (Amendment). No. 52-Domestic Violence. No. 53-Domestic Violence (Miscellaneous Amendments). No. 54-Statutory Authorities (Temporary Provisions). No. 55-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment). Regulations-1986- Nos. 13 and 14 (Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). No. 15 (Apprenticeship Ordinance). No. 16 (Optometrists Ordinance). Nos. 17, 18 and 19 (Credit Ordinance). No. 20 (Liquor Ordinance). No. 21 (Bookmakers Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 25 August 1986. Statutory Rules Publication Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 218. Superannuation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 234. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws-Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 70. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 10) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Further to his predecessor's answer to question No. 4701 (Hansard, 10 and 11 November 1982, page 3052), can he say what was the outcome of discussions between the former Treasurer and the Commissioner of Taxation in relation to the need for additional Boards of Review. (2) Does the Government intend to increase the number of Boards of Review. (3) What consideration has been given to the matters raised in parts (12) and (13) of the question, that (a) lawyers with experience in tax matters be appointed to preside as appeal officers or one-person tribunals to hear tax matters involving disputes of lesser sums (e.g. under $5000) as operated in the United Kingdom, (b) there be no automatic right of appeal from these tribunals, with appeals only arising with the leave of either a review Board or the Court and (c) the fee for an appeal to this tribunal be low (e.g. $10), but the fee for appeals to the Boards of Review be increased markedly from the present sum of $2. (4) Will the Government take action on these proposals; if so, what action. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(4) The Government's policy regarding the administrative review of decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation on objections against taxation assessments and other decisions of the Commissioner is reflected in the Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Act 1986 which was passed by the Parliament during the 1986 Autumn Sittings. That Act transferred the jurisdiction of the Taxation Boards of Review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with effect from 1 July 1986. As announced in the 1986-87 Budget a filing fee of $200 for taxation and other applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is to be introduced. The fee will be reimbursed where the application is successful. (Question No. 1860) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: Do limitations on the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) powers to investigate and obtain documentary evidence result in a lack of efficiency in the ATO's response to the challenges of organised and sophisticated tax fraud; if so, will he take steps to enact legislation strengthening the ATO's powers by bringing it into line with the provisions of section 545 of the Companies code. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Commissioner of Taxation advises that the information gathering powers contained in taxation legislation are used extensively by taxation investigators. Instances do occur, of course, where an investigation is protracted because the Commissioner's powers are contested. Generally, however, these powers are effective in achieving their purpose. Fraudulent matters of the type that the honourable member mentions are often referred to the Australian Federal Police who may obtain a search warrant issued under the provisions of the Crimes Act. The existing power of access to books, etc. that is provided by taxation legislation is similar to that provided by section 545 of the Companies Act. In terms of increased efficiency in investigating tax fraud, little could be gained from bringing the taxation provisions into line with the company law provisions. (Question No. 1861) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Does the ease with which international money movements can be effected cause considerable difficulties for law enforcement and tax authorities. (2) Is it a fact that to avoid detection and prosecution, criminals regularly put an `overseas loop' into the financing of their operations or the division of the proceeds of their crimes into their banking transactions. (3) Is it a fact that one of the foreign banks granted a licence to operate in Australia obtained a court order preventing the Australian authorities gaining access to banking records in Vanuatu; if so, did he or his Department have any discussions with the foreign banks with a view to obtaining the co-operation of foreign banks licensed in Australia in providing information to Australian authorities when required. (4) Does he propose to make it a condition for the conduct of business in Australia by both overseas and Australian-based banks that those banks direct their overseas operations to co-operate with Australian enforcement authorities investigating criminal conduct. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Several Royal Commissioners and Special Prosecutors have uncovered instances of criminals using domestic and international financial arrangements for the purposes of financing their operations, or transmitting the proceeds of their criminal activities, in ways designed to frustrate law enforcement and taxation authorities. I am aware that an `overseas loop' may be introduced in order to increase the difficulty of tracing a transaction. Insofar as the protection of taxation revenue is concerned, the Government has in place, under the current foreign exchange arrangements, a system for screening a broad range of transactions involving the outward remittance of funds from Australia. These taxation screening requirements form part of the conditions under which the foreign exchange dealers and the public have been authorised by the Reserve Bank to enter into specified foreign currency transactions. I would also mention that a factor bearing on the broader issue to which the honourable member alludes is the availability of, and access to, adequate documentation underlying international monetary transactions originating in Australia. These are matters that the Government is currently considering in various contexts, including in terms of formulating its response to the recommendations in this area of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. (3) As indicated in the 1983-84 Annual Report of Special Prosecuter Redlich, one of 16 foreign banks invited to establish operations in Australia did obtain a court order in Vanuatu preventing his office gaining access to banking records in that country. The legal proceedings to which the honourable member has referred took place in the Vanuatuan Supreme Court. The ability of Australian authorities to access banking records in another country is, of course, dependent on the law in that country. The question of improving the access of Australian enforcement agencies investigating criminal conduct to overseas banking records is a matter that is most appropriately pursued through improving mutual assistance arrangements for criminal investigation between Australia and other countries (see (4)). This issue has not, therefore, been raised with the foreign banks that have established or are in the process of establishing operations in Australia. The new bank entrants have, however, been placed on the same operational footing as existing domestically owned banks as regards their obligations and responsibilities under relevant Commonwealth and State laws, including in regard to the provision of information. (4) As I mentioned in respect of (1), the Government has under consideration a range of matters bearing on the issues raised by the honourable member. I would also note that the Government is currently engaged in consultations with foreign governments and other overseas bodies with a view to facilitating access for law enforcement purposes to financial records held outside Australia. (Question No. 1862) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Does electronic funds transfer technology cause problems for the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in the investigation of financial transactions evidencing major fraud on the ATO (a) currently or (b) in the foreseeable future; if so, what are the details. (2) What proposals does (a) the ATO or (b) his Department have to deal with the transitory and far-flung nature of the records of financial dealings handled by electronic funds transfer. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The ATO is not currently experiencing problems caused by electronic fund transfer technology, nor does it envisage problems in the foreseeable future. The ATO has to date found adequate audit trails in cases involving electronic fund transfers. (2) In view of the above, neither the Australian Taxation Office nor my Department have under consideration any proposals specific to the matter the honourable member has raised. The Government does, however, have under consideration a range of measures which would assist taxation and other investigators in uncovering money transfers through the financial system, irrespective of whether those transfers are effected by electronic or other means. These include the Australia Card proposal (and the associated requirement that it be used to identify owners and operators within the financial system). (Question No. 2051) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Department of the Treasury-The Department of the Treasury has paid $66,000 to Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls for Phase 3 of the ``National Research Program about Community Attitudes to Taxation.'' The Australian Taxation Office-The Australian Taxation Office has paid to Monahan, Dayman Adams the sums of $23,373.68, $1,966.40 and $1,521,80 for advertising on metropolitan and provincial radio. Australian Bureau of Statistics-The Australian Bureau of Statistics has utilised the services of Monahan, Dayman Adams, media consultants, of which company Mr Phillip Adams is the principal, for advertising and publicity associated with the 1986 Census of Population and Housing. Amounts totalling $396,602.22 have been paid by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to Monahan, Dayman Adams on dates, and for the purposes, as follows: 1 May 1986-$14,347.32 for disbursement to radio stations. 27 May 1986-$194.52 for advertising carried out during March/April 1986 aimed at recruiting temporary staff for the 1986 Census of Population and Housing. 11 June 1986-$382,060.38 for disbursement to television companies for participation in the 1986 Census of Population and Housing media awareness campaign. The Monahan, Dayman Adams company is retained as a `Master Placing Agency' under contract to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism for the purpose of arranging Government advertising with various media outlets, and paying the companies concerned for the advertisements they broadcast, or screen. Under the terms of the contract, Monahan, Dayman Adams are remunerated for their services by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the amounts paid to the company by the Australian Bureau of Statistics have been provided for the express purpose of disbursement to the media companies involved in advertising for the 1986 Census. Prices Surveillance Authority. Nil Royal Australian Mint. Nil Reserve Bank of Australia. Nil Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Monahan, Dayman Adams were paid $438.60 in January 1986 for producing a number of glossy posters promoting the Bank's involvement with the Festival of Perth for display in Western Australian Branches. The Bank was billed direct although the group of Monahan, Dayman Adams were engaged by the Festival organisers. (2) In respect of all above: (a) NIL (b) NIL (c) NIL (d) NIL (e) NIL (Question No. 2412) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 November 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report on page 22 of the Financial Review of 12 November 1985, stating that the Managing Director of Smith and Lane Holdings, Mr Ray Lord, has received a $488,264 home loan at a 2% interest rate from Direct Acceptance Corporation, a subsidiary of Smith and Lane Holdings. (2) Is such a benefit taxable or will it be taxable under proposed taxation changes. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The question concerns the personal affairs of a particular taxpayer and is one that ultimately has to be determined by the Commissioner of Taxation. For that reason and because of the secrecy provisions of the relevant tax law, the matter is not one on which I am able to specifically comment. In general terms, however, under the fringe benefits tax legislation which applies from 1 July 1986, a separate tax is imposed on employers in respect of the taxable value of non-cash fringe benefits including free or low interest loans provided to employees (or associates). The taxable value of a free or low interest loan will generally be equal to the difference between the interest accruing at a benchmark interest rate and interest accruing at the actual interest rate, if any, charged on the loan. The benchmark rate will generally be the lowest rate charged for arm's-length housing loans by the Commonwealth Bank immediately prior to the commencement of the relevant tax year. A maximum benchmark rate of 13.5% applies, however, for housing loans made to employees before 3 April 1986. (Question No. 2589) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Further to my question No. 1860 relating to the limitations on the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) powers to investigate and obtain documentary evidence, will he take steps to introduce legislation strengthening the ATO's powers by bringing it into line with the provisions of section 203 of the Customs Act. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As I said in answer to question No. 1860, the Commissioner of Taxation has advised that generally the information gathering powers contained in taxation legislation are effective in achieving their purpose. I note that section 203 of the Customs Act mentioned in the honourable member's question permits certain authorised persons to seize certain goods in respect of which breaches of the Customs Act have occurred. I would not see it as necessary that a similar provision be included in taxation legislation. Where questions of search or seizure arise, the Commissioner will ordinarily have recourse to special provisions found in the Crimes Act. (Question No. 2748) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that Commonwealth officers on the Commonwealth/State Co-ordinating Committee on Nursing Home Accommodation have consistently refused to accept recommendations of the Queensland Officers on the committee. (2) Is it a fact that Queensland departmental officers no longer attend meetings of the co-ordinating committee; if so, what is the reason. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. (2) Yes. The Queensland State Health Department ceased to be represented as from February 22, 1985 on the Committee which operates in Queensland. However I am now considering options to improve overall planning and co-ordination of services for frail aged people. These options, which include proposals from the Queensland Minister for Health, would subsume the current functions of the Commonwealth/State Co-ordinating Committees. (Question No. 2822) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (c) charter aircraft. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The percentages of domestic air travel (based on expenditure figures for the 1985-86 financial year, to 2 June 1986) undertaken by officers of the Department of the Treasury on the airlines in question are: TAA...68.3 Air Queensland...Nil Ansett Airlines...30.9 East-West Airlines...0.7 Commuter aircraft...0.1 Charter aircraft...Nil (Question No. 2922) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is Tritium (3H) present in stormwater drainage at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) establishment at Lucas Heights, NSW. (2) If so, (a) what is the approximate location of the stormwater drains in which the Tritium is found in relation to building 57, (b) is the dispersal of the Tritium controlled, (c) does the contaminated water pass into the Woronora River and through residential areas, (d) what measures have been taken to locate the source of the leaked Tritium, (e) is any nuclear waste stored or buried near to the leak, (f) what activities have taken place in building 57, (g) could the Tritium present in any stormwater drains be caused by water passing through buried or storm waste, (h) has the source of the Tritium been traced, (i) what action has the AAEC taken to make public the existence of the leak, (j) what action has been taken to make State authorities aware of the problem, (k) is the Tritium from this leak taken into account when assessing overall discharges of Tritium from the site, in the Authorisation Agreement with the NSW Government. (3) Does the AAEC Safety Review Committee Report 31, 1983 state that Tritium was present in stormwater drainage below building 57 at the AAEC establishment at Lucas Heights and that this fact had been known for a decade. (4) Does the Safety Review Committee recognise expressly in its Report No. 31 the adverse political and public reaction to the knowledge of such an uncontrolled dispersal of radionuclide. (5) Was this concern about political and public reaction a contributing, if not determining factor, in the existence of the leak not being made public. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Small amounts of tritium have been detected in stormwater drainage from the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories (LHRL) from time to time, coming from several different sources which have been progressively eliminated as they have been identified. Measurable amounts of tritium were last detected in stormwater samples taken in June and between August and October 1985. Since then the level of tritium has decreased to near the limit of detection which is about one three-hundredth of the permissible level in drinking water, as derived from the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. (2) (a) The tritium detected in stormwater last year was in drainage associated with the HIFAR complex, at some distance from Building 57, and from the stormwater drainage system which includes drainage from Building 57. (b) At the time that measurable amounts of tritium were detected in stormwater samples, the dispersal of tritium was not controlled. However these discharges have now been controlled by diverting them to the AAEC effluent treatment plant. (c) Stormwater containing small amounts of tritium has flowed into the Woronora River but the level of dilution is so great that tritium has not been detected in water samples taken from the Woronora River where it passes through residential areas. Where minute amounts of tritium associated with the HIFAR complex have been detected in stormwater drainage, this has mostly been in stormwater flowing to Barden Creek. (d) The tritium detected in stormwater drainage associated with the HIFAR complex was initially thought to come from authorised airborne discharges precipitated by rainfall. It has subsequently been established that condensate from a large airconditioning unit in the HIFAR area was contributing tritium to the stormwater drainage system, and this has now been diverted to the active effluent system. Water seeping through sandstone under Building 57, which contains small amounts of tritium, is being collected and pumped to the AAEC effluent treatment plant. Material is being excavated from below Building 57 to identify the tritium source. (e) Radioactive waste is stored in Building 57. No radioactive waste is buried on the LHRL site; the only buried radioactive wastes in the Lucas Heights area are at Little Forest, 1.6 km to the north. (f) Storage and treatment of liquid radioactive waste; storage of more highly radioactive liquid wastes prior to treatment; draining of heavy water containing tritium from HIFAR ion exchange columns and storage of the degraded heavy water; drying of ion exchange resin; storage of beryllium oxide; storage of asbestos prior to disposal; storage of waste uranium metal turnings prior to treatment; storage of uranium oxide. (g) The precise source is not yet known but it is unlikely to have come from buried or stored waste, since none is buried on the LHRL site and wastes stored on site are contained within weatherproof buildings. (h) See 2 (d). (i) The presence of tritium in stormwater discharges has been made known by the AAEC in its annual environmental survey reports from 1970. Such discharges were also reported in the AAEC Annual Report for 1981-82. These reports are publicly available. (j) The AAEC annual environmental survey reports are routinely made available to NSW authorities. In addition an officer of the NSW Department of Health, who is also Chairman of the NSW Radiological Advisory Council, is a member of the AAEC's Safety Review Committee. It is well known by these bodies that the presence of tritium in stormwater has never been of any significance from the point of view of public health or the environment. (k) No. The amount of tritium is negligible in relation to the authorisation. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) No, see 2 (i) above. (Question No. 3010) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Is there any land in Australia which is privately owned and which forms a critical area of habitat for endangered species. (2) What financial assistance has been provided by the Commonwealth to State or Territory Governments for the acquisition of critical areas of habitat for endangered species since March 1983. (3) Has he established a program to provide such financial assistance. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Some privately owned land in Australia does form the habitat of some of Australia's endangered species. Information about such land is developed from a number of sources. The Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) co-ordinates lists of endangered species which provides some information of their distribution. As well, information on particular species has been the subject of special study by Commonwealth agencies such as the ANPWS, The Bureau of Flora and Fauna, the Australian National Botanic Gardens and the CSIRO. The States and Territory nature conservation agencies also maintain information on the distribution of endangered species. Through these processes certain areas of private land in Australia have been identified as important for the survival of certain species. For example an area of private land near Geraldton, Western Australia may be important for the survival of a native plant Drummondita ericoides. Also former private properties fell into such a category, for instance, the property ``Red Hill'' in Queensland is part of the remnant habitat of the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby which is an endangered species. The adjacent property ``Tauntyon'' also provides some habitat for the species. Former privately owned land adjacent to Yellingbo State Fauna Reserve in the Dandenongs, Victoria, as well as the Reserve itself provides the habitat of the Helmeted Honeyeater. (2) In 1983-84 $200,000 was made available to the Queensland Government to assist in the purchase of the ``Red Hill'' property. The earlier acquisition with Commonwealth assistance of the adjacent property ``Taunton'' did not provide an area of land large enough to ensure the long term survival of the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby. In 1984-85 $12,000 was provided to the Victorian Government for the purchase of the land which was added to the Yellingbo State Fauna Reserve to secure part of the Helmeted Honeyeater's habitat. These funds were part of a total of $472,000 provided by the Federal Government to Victoria for the purchase of privately owned land under a 1976-77 agreement. (3) Financial assistance is provided to the States and Territories for land acquisition through the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977 and the States Assistance Program. (Question No. 3117) Dr Klugman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 February 1986: (1) Who are the members of the (a) Commission, (b) committees and (c) sub-committees appointed to review the Constitution and what are their qualifications. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The members of the Constitutional Commission and their qualifications are: Sir Maurice Byers, C.B.E., Q.C., Commonwealth Solicitor-General from 1974 to 1984. The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, A.C., Q.C., former Prime Minister. The Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer, K.C.M.G., former Premier of Victoria. Mr Justice J. L. Toohey, A.O., Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Professor L. R. Zines, Dean of the Law Faculty at the Australian National University. Professor E. Campbell, O.B.E., Sir Isaac Isaacs Professor of Law at Monash University. (b) The members of the Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission and their qualifications are: Executive Government Advisory Committee The Rt Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen, A.K., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.St.J., Q.C., former Governor-General of Australia. The Hon. K. E. Beazley (Snr), A.O., former Federal Minister. The Hon. Sir James Killen, K.C.M.G., former Federal Minister. Professor G. G. Winterton, Associate Professor of Law, University of New South Wales. Mr D. Solomon, Barrister, Journalist and Author. The Hon. J. Wheeldon, former Federal Minister, presently Associate Editor, The Australian. Ms S. Kenny, Barrister. Distribution of Powers Advisory Committee The Hon. Sir John Moore, A.C., former President, Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Hon. H. Storey, Q.C., M.L.C., Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Legislative Council and Shadow Minister for Education; former Victorian Attorney-General. The Hon. D. A. Dunstan, A.C., Q.C., former South Australian Premier. Mr G. Polites, A.C., C.M.G., M.B.E., former Director-General, Confederation of Australian Industry. The Hon. J. Ferguson, former Deputy Premier of New South Wales. Mr G. J. Lindell, Senior Lecturer in Law, Australian National University. Trade and National Economic Management Advisory Committee The Hon. Mr Justice M. Everett, Judge of the Federal Court of Australia and President of the Inter-State Commission, former Senator and former Deputy Premier of Tasmania. The Hon. Dr R. A. Patterson, former Federal Minister. Professor M. Coper, Associate Professor of Law, University of N.S.W. Mr R. D. E. Bakewell, former South Australian Ombudsman and former Permanent Head of the Premier's Department of South Australia. Alderman H. G. Percival, O.B.E., M.L.C., Member of Executive, Australian Council of Local Government Associations. Ms P. J. Smith, Public Affairs Manager, Australian Consumer Association. Mr M. Burrows, Principal and Partner of Baring Bros, Halkerston & Partners Ltd, Merchant Bankers. Individual and Democratic Rights Under the Constitution Advisory Committee Mr T. Purcell, Director, New South Wales Law Foundation. Dr P. Totaro, A.M., Chairman, N.S.W. Ethnic Affairs Commission. Mr R. Castan, Q.C., President, Victorian Council of Civil Liberties. Mr P. Garrett, Entertainer. Professor E. P. Willmot, A.M., Head, School of Education, James Cook University and former Deputy Secretary, Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr T. M. Keneally, A.O., Author. Mr R. Clarke, Journalist. Ms R. Galbally, Director, Commission for the Future. Australian Judicial System Advisory Committee The Hon. Mr Justice D. Jackson, Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The Hon. Mr Justice R. McGarvie, Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria and Chairman, Australian Institute of Judicial Administration. Mr W. M. C. Gummow, Barrister. Mr R. C. Jennings, Q.C., Deputy President, Administrative Appeals Tribunal and former Tasmanian Solicitor-General. The Hon. Mr Justice G. A. Kennedy, Judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Professor J. R. Crawford, Challis Professor of International Law, Sydney University, and member of the Law Reform Commission. (c) There are at present no sub-committees. (Question No. 3138) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: What is the (a) amount and (b) structure of lending by Australian banks to developing countries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Outstanding lending of Australian banks, including lending by off-shore subsidiaries, to borrowers in developing countries (using the IMF country classifications) totalled US$3.0 billion at the end of September 1985. This represented about 2.6 per cent of the banks' consolidated total assets. (b) Information on the structure of lending by Australian banks to borrowers in developing countries is not available. (Question No. 3157) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: Will Australia Council grants to artists under the auspices of the International Year of Peace be restricted to artistic projects that are in basic concord with the Government's foreign and defence policies; if so, who will make the decisions on each application for funding. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australia Council had advised me that applications to the Council for International Year of Peace (IYP) projects were assessed by a Working Party appointed by the Council and comprising-Professor Donald Horne, AO, Ms Betty Churcher and Ms Robin Nevin. The Working Party considered applications in terms of quality, artform and geographical location. Account was taken of the need for projects to focus attention and encourage reflection on the basic requirements of peace in the contemporary world which is one of the objectives of the International Year of Peace as laid down by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Applications were assessed in accordance with the Government's general guidelines for applications for assistance under the International Year of Peace program. These guidelines state that projects which are in direct conflict with established Government policy on peace, disarmament and arms control issues will not be considered. (Question No. 3260) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports alleging that systematic efforts are being made by Turkish authorities to discourage the maintenance of the Syrian Orthodox Christian community as a separate religious and linguistic community. (2) Does the Government have any recent information on alleged persecution of this group by such means as (a) discrimination in public sector employment and (b) suppression of religious teaching within the community. (3) Are there any steps the Australian Government can take to encourage the recognition of this community as a non-Moslem minority under the Treaty of Lausanne which may remove much of this discrimination; if so, what are the steps. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) (a) The Australian Ambassador to Ankara has recently been informed by the Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan that there is no direct persecution of Syrian Orthodox Christians by the Turkish authorities, although considerable migration of Syrian Orthodox Christians from Turkey has taken place. (b) The Syrian Orthodox Christians have about 30 churches and two monasteries in the area between Midyat and Mardin in south-eastern Turkey, although only 30 per cent of the area is Christian. However, Syrian Orthodox Christian leaders have expressed some concern that the new education law, which requires all children to take exams in the Islamic faith, could result in some drift away from the community amongst younger people. (3) There are no steps which the Government can take to encourage the recognition of this community as a ``non-Moslem minority''. In legal terms the categorisation of Syrian Orthodox Christians as a ``non-Moslem minority'' is a matter of fact. (Question No. 3279) Mr Lee asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Did the N.S.W. Building Society require Reserve Bank approval to operate as the Advance Bank after 1 June 1985; if so, what conditions did the Reserve Bank place on the operations of the Advance Bank. (2) Were the conditions different to those placed on other (a) existing or (b) new banks; if so, in what way were they different. (3) What additional services or benefits could the Advance Bank offer which were unavailable from the N.S.W. Building Society. (4) Could the Advance Bank offer these improved services to (a) existing and (b) new customers. (5) Was the Advance Bank bound by the 13.5% ceiling on housing loan interest rates on loans negotiated (a) before and (b) after 1 June 1985. (6) Are all other banks required to keep housing loan interest rates at or below 13.5%. (7) If the Advance Bank (a) could offer improved services to all customers as a result of obtaining a bank licence and (b) is not required to satisfy the 13.5% ceiling on home loan interest rates for all customers, why is the ceiling not imposed. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The application by the N.S.W. Building Society for a banking authority was lodged and dealt with under normal banking policy. The Governor-General granted Advance Bank Australia Limited (formerly N.S.W. Building Society) such an authority to operate from 1 June 1985. The authority contains conditions requiring Advance Bank to conform with arrangements for prudential supervision as notified by the Reserve Bank. The conditions are as follows: (a) the body corporate shall, upon request made at any time by the Reserve Bank of Australia, consult with the Reserve Bank in relation to the making or variation of arrangements for the prudential supervision by the Reserve Bank of the banking business carried on in Australia by the body corporate; (b) the body corporate shall conform with such arrangements for the prudential supervision by the Reserve Bank of the banking business carried on in Australia by the body corporate as are notified to the body corporate by the Reserve Bank, whether following such consultation or otherwise. (2) I indicated in September 1984 that all new banking authorities issued under the Banking Act would be subject to conditions requiring banks to comply with the prudential standards as set from time to time by the Reserve Bank. Prior to September 1984 authorities were generally issued without conditions. Since that time all new authorities have been issued subject to the same conditions as those placed on Advance Bank; the Bank of China's authority is an exception in that it includes an additional condition relating to the facilitation of financial relationships with the People's Republic of China. Those banks which do not have formal conditions to their banking authorities nevertheless consult with the Reserve Bank on prudential matters and conform with arrangements established by the Reserve Bank. (3) Authorisation under the Banking Act enables an institution to engage in the general business of banking. That includes the provision of chequing account facilities. It also permits the institution to operate nationally under uniform banking policies, and gives it the status of a bank in its dealings in domestic and overseas financial markets. That status reflects the high prudential standards required of banks, and the prudential supervision of them by the Reserve Bank, for the purpose of protection of depositors. (4) Yes. (5) In the case of loans of less than $100,000 for owner-occupied housing which were approved or drawn down for the first time between 1 June 1985 and the taking effect of the Government's decisions of 2 April 1986 on the housing assistance package, Advance Bank is bound by the 13.5 per cent ceiling on interest rates in the same way as other savings banks. In the case of loans outstanding prior to 1 June 1985, I have agreed that, for a period of two years, the 13.5 per cent ceiling need not apply: at the end of that period the situation is to be reviewed in the expectation that those loans would then comply with the ceiling. (6) National Mutual Royal Savings Bank has a similar arrangement to that applying to Advance Bank, operating from 26 February 1986. All other savings banks subject to the Banking Act are required to observe the 13.5 per cent ceiling on loans of less than $100,000 for owner-occupied housing approved before 3 April 1986. (7) The transitional arrangements applying to Advance Bank and National Mutual Royal Savings Bank recognise that before their conversion to savings bank those institutions as building societies generally paid higher interest rates to attract deposits than did savings banks. For that reason they also charged higher interest rates on their housing loans. It takes some time before the structure of deposits and the average interest rate cost faced by a converted institution can be brought into line with those applying to established savings banks. (Question No. 3301) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether Trustees and Executors Agency Co. Ltd (TEA) announced in March 1983 a loss of $1.1 million for the 6 months ended 31 December 1982. (2) Is he able to say whether the directors of the company (a) declared a dividend of 10 cents per share on 20 April 1983 and (b) announced a decision to go into receivership on 13 May 1983. (3) Has his attention been drawn to what Mr Justice Beach of the Supreme Court of Victoria said in response to the circumstances surrounding this company's collapse, that one could not imagine more shameful behaviour on the part of a trustee company and its directors. (4) Does Sub-section 229 (2) of the National Companies Code require that an officer of a corporation shall at all times exercise a reasonable degree of care and diligence in the exercise of his powers and the discharge of his duties and that the penalty upon conviction for breach of the provision is a fine of $5,000. (5) Are directors civilly liable (a) if a company contracts unpayable debts or (b) if they make a material omission from statements or reports relating to their company's affairs. (6) Under the `good faith' provision of the National Companies Code, are directors required to act in the interests of the company and to avoid conflicts of interests. (7) Is he able to say whether (a) TEA made a loan to Kelly Power Pty Ltd; if so, was a TEA director associated with Kelly Power Pty Ltd and (b) was the TEA Board Chairman, Mr Alexander Ogilvy, formerly associated with Arthur Young and Co. (8) Why was the company's vulnerable position not revealed in its last regular audit. (9) Why have criminal charges been brought against only one person and why has the case yet to be determined. (10) Are other directors, officers, and auditors to be prosecuted; if not, why not. (11) If other prosecutions are to take place, when will they occur. (12) Will he, at the next meeting of the Ministerial Council, seek approval for uniform legislation to increase the level of protection for investors in trustee companies and set out clearly and more effectively the codes of conduct required of directors, officers and auditors. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (2) (b) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) (a) The Companies Code provides that, if a company incurs a debt when there are reasonable grounds to expect that the company will not be able to pay its debts as and when they become due, any director or other person involved in the company's management at that time is guilty of an offence (subject to a penalty of $5,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both) and the company and the above person or persons are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the debt. (5) (b) In addition to questions of possible liability under the Trade Practices Act for misleading or deceptive conduct or under general law for misrepresentation, the Companies Code specifically makes it an offence for a person to omit or to authorise the omission from a document, required under the Act or lodged with the National Companies and Securities Commission, of any matter or thing with the effect that the document is to that person's knowledge misleading in a material respect. The Act imposes a penalty of $10,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both. A person is also liable if a material omission is made or authorised without taking reasonable steps to prevent it occurring (penalty $5,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both). In addition any person whose interests are affected by such omissions may seek an injunction under the Act. (6) The Companies Code requires a company officer at all times to act honestly in the exercise of his powers and the discharge of his duties (penalty $5,000, or $20,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment if fraudulent). Substantial penalties ($20,000 or imprisonment for 5 years, or both) are imposed for improper use of information acquired by a company officer or employee by virtue of his position and for improper use of such position to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for himself or another person or to cause detriment to the company. The Court is able to order compensation to the company against convicted offenders. The company may also recover compensation against persons who have contravened the above provision even if they have not been convicted of the offence. (7) (a) No; I am advised that Mr Peter Bunning has been a director of both TEA and Kelly Power Pty Ltd. (7) (b) I am advised that Mr Ogilvy was formerly associated with Messrs Arthur Young & Co. (8) This matter is dealt with in the Fourth Interim Report of the National Companies and Securities Commission in respect of which a certificate has been issued by the Attorney-General of Victoria stating that the publication of that report would be prejudicial to the administration of justice in Victoria. In accordance with provisions in the Companies Code, that report cannot now be published in whole or in part unless a further certificate is issued by the Attorney-General indicating that publication of the report would no longer be prejudicial to the administration of justice in Victoria. (9), (10) and (11) These parts of the question relate to matters that are subject to decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions in Victoria after completion of the examination of all available and legally admissible evidence. (12) The Companies Code already provides an appropriate level of investor protection and imposes proper standards of conduct on directors, officers and auditors. I am confident that the special investigation into the affairs of the Trustees Executors and Agency Company Limited will result in legal action being taken where contraventions of the Companies Codes provisions are supported by probative evidence. The courts have the present capacity to impose stringent penalties in cases of proven misconduct. I believe that the current provisions represent an effective way of dealing with misconduct by corporate officers. (Question No. 3305) Mrs Sullivan asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) How many persons invited by the Government to be members of the Constitution Consultative Commission and its advisory committees were (a) men and (b) women and what was the reason for their selection. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A record was not kept of all the persons approached to accept appointment to the Constitutional Commission and its Advisory Committees. Approaches were made to both men and women. As is common in such cases a number of those approached were not able to accept appointment because of other commitments. All persons appointed to the Commission and its Advisory Committees were selected because of their expertise, experience or distinguished participation in public affairs. (Question No. 3316) Mr Duncan asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Is he able to indicate how many individuals have died whilst in police custody in each of the States and Territories in each of the last 5 years. (2) Is he able to say whether the rights of persons in police custody are protected sufficiently under existing Territory and State law. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government is only responsible for the operations of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). I am advised by the AFP that no persons have died whilst in AFP custody during the last five years. (2) It is considered that internal directives, promulgated by the Commissioner in accordance with section 14 of the AFP Act 1979, adequately protect the rights of persons held in AFP custody. These directives provide for, inter alia, access to legal advice and medical attention. (Question No. 3343) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: Further to the answer to questions Nos 3216 and 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 the air fare component identified separately. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The reply includes details of expenditure from the International Conference Vote for the cost of fares, travelling allowances, accommodation, conference expenses, car hire and incidentals for Australian representatives from Government Departments and Instrumentalities, and approved observers attending the many major conferences held overseas under the auspices of various international organisations. On occasions only partial funding is provided from this vote. The Department administers this item as a common service, both because of its coordinating role in relation to the International Organisations involved and to ensure that the needs of all authorities and departments are met and in the most economical manner. Travel by Members of Parliament and personnel of all Government departments and authorities, when attending meetings as official Australian representatives, are funded from this item. The reply does not detail costs associated with posting the Department's officers to established positions overseas, the Department's Diplomatic Courier program or travel to undertake property and equipment maintenance. It does include operational travel by officers of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau, but not aid experts or contract employees. (a) Purpose of Visit (b) Classification/ Job Description (c) Duration of trip (d) Countries Visited (e) Estimated Total Cost Air Fare com- ponent $ $ To undertake a Post Liaison Visit SES 2.6-11.6 PNG 4,474 3,074 To attend a South Pacific Commission Fisheries Meeting SES 16.6-23.6 New Caledonia 1,899 949 To attend a Meeting on Pesticides in Food (Codex Committee) SES 22.6-3.7 Italy Switzerland, Singapore 8,177 4,478 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 8.6-17.6 Germany, Netherlands, France, UK 5,878 4,478 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-Multilateral Trade Committee Meeting CAC11 1.6-14.6 UK, France 6,104 4,402 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Meeting SES 2.6-26.6 UK, Austria France 7,678 4,478 To attend an International Meat Council Meeting SES 3.6-23.6 UK, Belgium, Switzerland 6,028 4,478 To attend a United Nations Sugar Conference SES 9.6-10.7 Switzerland 8,000 4,478 To attend a United Nations Sugar Conference CAC11 9.6-10.7 Switzerland 8,228 4,478 To attend a United Nations Sugar Conference SES 10.6-2.7 Switzerland 8,078 4,478 To attend an Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia Conference and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Consultations SES 1.6-19.6 Netherlands USA 6,400 4,000 To attend United Nations Meeting and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 6.6-5.7 Switzerland, France 7,866 4,661 To attend a Papua New Guinea/Australia Annual Development Review CAC11 26.5-30.5 PNG 1,892 992 To consult with Burmese and Thai Officials on Aid Projects CAC10 2.6-21.6 Burma, Thailand 4,222 2,622 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference SES 31.5-7.7 Switzerland, USA 11,000 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference SES 30.5-15.7 Switzerland, France, Ireland 11,000 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference SES 2.6-18.7 Switzerland, UK, USA 11,000 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference Workers Delegate 27.5-7.7 Italy, UK, Switzerland 10,600 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference DEIR 26.5-2.7 Switzerland, Singapore 10,600 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference SES 1.6-1.7 UK, Switzerland, Singapore 10,600 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference CAC11 1.6-1.7 UK, Switzerland, Singapore 10,600 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference Chief Statistical Officer 1.6-1.7 UK, Switzerland, Singapore 5,600 5,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference SES 1.6-1.7 UK, Switzerland, Singapore 11,000 6,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference Trades & Lab- our Council SA 29.5-27.7 Greece, Switzerland 11,000 6,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference CAC11 28.5-2.7 Switzerland, Sweden, UK 11,000 6,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference TLC(WA) 2.6-7.7 Switzerland, Sweden, UK 11,000 6,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference BLF Workers Delegate 2.6-18.7 West Germany, Switzerland 11,000 6,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference Employers Delegate Sydney 30.5-15.7 Greece, France, Switzerland, UK, Ireland 11,000 6,000 To attend the 70th Session of the International Labour Conference Employers Delegate Melbourne 31.5-7.7 West Germany, Switzerland, UK, USA, Japan 11,000 6,000 To attend the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Proposals Meeting SES 26.6-15.7 PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu 4,404 2,554 To attend the XV International Congress on Photogrammetry SES 15.6-1.7 Brasilia 5,534 4,134 To attend the 17th Session of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law CAC8 22.6-22.7 USA 8,576 4,326 To attend Australia/Papua New Guinea Officials Talks SES 11.6-16.6 PNG 1,942 1,277 To attend the 17th Session of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law Solicitor General 15.6-11.7 USA 7,105 4,326 To attend a Disarmament Conference SES 15.6-15.7 Switzerland 8,457 4,402 To attend the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development International Energy Agency Meetings SES 15.6-25.6 France 5,378 4,478 To attend a Food and Agriculture Organisation Fisheries Conference SES 24.6-9.7 Italy 6,578 4,478 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Statistical Meeting SES 1.7-7.7 Thailand 3,860 2,720 To Photograph Aid Projects Photographer Grade 2 17.6-9.7 Indonesia 4,638 1,838 To attend an International Cultural Relations Conference CAC11 17.6-27.6 Indonesia 3,296 1,846 To undertake a Study of Automatic Data Processing Systems CAC9 19.6-7.7 Canada 5,609 4,159 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit SES 15.6-28.6 New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands 2,402 1,262 To consult with Burmese Officials on Aid Project CAC7 1.6-21.6 Burma 4,227 2,622 To attend Non-Proliferation Meetings SES 30.6-14.7 France, UK, Germany, Austria' Luxembourg 7,700 5,200 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit CAC11 22.6-3.7 UK 5,362 4,402 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development CCP Meeting SES 11.6-3.7 UK, France, Netherlands, USA, Tahiti 6,186 4,478 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting and World Food Council Meeting SES 1.6-2.7 Belgium, Italy, Ethiopia France, Canada 8,543 6,993 To hold discussions with Foreign Ministers SES 7.6-3.7 USA, Canada, Germany, UK, France, Sweden, Netherlands 7,775 4,973 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit CAC8 2.6-11.6 PNG 4,678 3,478 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit CAC9 1.6-11.6 PNG 4,274 3,074 To accompany the Foreign Minister Speech Writer 30.7-8.8 Switzerland, Thailand, Singapore 2,015 -VIP To attend a Law of the Sea Meeting SES 7.8-8.9 Italy, Greece, Switzerland, UK 9,416 4,506 To attend an International Conference on Population SES 1.8-25.8 Mexico 5,709 4,209 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs SES 30.7-21.9 Switzerland, Thailand, Singapore 4,465 3,600 To attend a Law of the Sea Meeting SES 7.8-15.9 Switzerland 10,068 4,903 To undertake an Office of the Narcotics Control Board Project SES 28.7-10.8 Thailand 4,605 2,720 To attend the 6th Session United Nations Commission for International Trade Law SES 6.9-24.9 Austria 6,597 4,357 To attend an Asia and Pacific Food and Agricultural Organisation Meeting on Agriculture Assistant Statistician 24.7-2.8 Indonesia 2,842 2,027 To attend United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Conference Meetings SES 26.7-1.9 Bangladesh, UK 8,258 4,478 To attend United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Conference Meetings CAC11 27.7-22.8 Austria 9,360 5,460 To undertake Historical Records Management discussions at various posts CAC9 29.8-3.10 Italy, India, Hong Kong, Indonesia, USA, UK, France, Switzerland, W. Germany 8,556 4,751 To conduct Audit Inspections CAC9 12.10-27.11 UK, USSR, W. Germany, E. Germany 9,205 4,960 To conduct Audit Inspections CAC7 12.10-27.11 UK, USSR, W. Germany, E. Germany 9,200 4,960 To attend a Regional Conference on Small States CAC9 11.8-15.8 New Zealand 1,435 955 To undertake language training field trip CAC5 10.9-27.9 Malaysia 1,000 (RAAF) To undertake language training field trip CAC5 10.9-27.9 Malaysia 1,000 (RAAF) To undertake language training field trip CAC5 10.9-27.9 Malaysia 1,000 (RAAF) To undertake a Medical Post Liaison Visit Medical Adviser 11.8-18.8 Port Moresby 2,462 1,277 To attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting SES 6.8-9.8 Port Moresby 485 -VIP To attend a Regional Conference on Small States SES 11.8-31.8 New Zealand, Fiji 3,797 1,497 To attend an Australia New Zealand United States Meeting SES 15.7-18.7 New Zealand 265 -VIP To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs Speech Writer 11.7-18.7 Indonesia, New Zealand 425 -VIP To attend Australia.Indonesia.Singapore Talks SES 22.7-28.7 Indonesia, Singapore 2,927 2,107 To conduct an Audit Inspection CAC8 4.8-27.9 Kenya, UK, France, Ireland 9,673 4,628 To conduct and Audit Inspection CAC11 4.8-27.9 Kenya, UK, France, Ireland 9,673 4,628 To conduct an Audit Inspection CAC6 4.8-27.9 Kenya, UK, France, Ireland 8,043 4,628 To attend a Disarmament Scientific Experts Meeting Geophsicist Grade 4 23.7-14.8 Sweden, Switzerland, UK 7,612 4,647 To attend a United Nations Concepts on Security Study Group SES 17.7-4.8 USA 1,358 558 To attend an Australia New Zealand United States Meeting SES 15.7-19.7 New Zealand 350 -VIP To attend a South Pacific and Regional Trade and Economic Cooperations Agency Meeting SES 6.7-19.7 Nauru, Tarawa, Fiji 3,000 2,000 To attend a South Pacific and Regional Trade and Economic Cooperations Agency Meeting SES 6.7-19.7 Nauru, Tarawa, Fiji 3,000 2,000 To attend a United Nations Development Committee Meeting SES 3.5-4.6 USA 7,100 4,862 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit SES 5.5-28.5 Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Japan 7,421 3,921 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit CAC9 5.5-28.5 Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Japan 7,421 3,921 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit CAC9 5.5-28.5 Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Japan 7,421 3,921 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting CAC11 3.5-14.5 France, UK 5,675 4,575 To accompany the Foreign Minister to Association of South East Asian Nations Meeting CAC11 11.7-14.7 Indonesia 610 RAAF To accompany the Foreign Minister to Association of South East Asian Nations Meeting SES 11.7-14.7 Indonesia 615 RAAF To accompany the Foreign Minister to Association of South East Asian Nations Meeting SES 11.7-14.7 Indonesia 615 RAAF To attend the Australia, New Zealand United States Council Meeting CAC9 11.7-18.7 New Zealand 1,393 798 To attend the Australia, New Zealand United States Council Meeting SES 11.7-18.7 New Zealand 1,418 798 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs SES 30.7-7.8 Singapore, Thailand 4,529 3,664 To attend Bilateral Consultations of Disarmament SES 2.7-11.7 Japan, China 4,357 3,422 To attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Steel Committee Meeting SES 1.7-10.7 UK, France 5,203 4,478 To undertake a familiarisation visit and hold official discussions CAC11 7.7-16.7 New Zealand 1,728 978 To hold discussions on administration and development of conditions of service SES 29.6-29.7 USA, Canada, UK 9,234 4,934 To attend General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs Meetings SES 28.6-16.7 UK, Switzerland Belgium, France 5,728 4,478 To attend a United Nations Conference SES 9.7-7.8 UK, Switzerland 9,102 4,778 To attend a United Nations Conference SES 9.7-7.8 UK, Switzerland 9,102 4,778 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 29.7-10.7 UK, France 5,048 4,478 To attend a course on financial markets CAC11 1.7-22.7 Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan 2,039 1,574 To attend Non-Proliferation Meetings SES 27.6-10.7 Japan, US, Canada, UK, Austria, Luxembourg 8,466 5,966 To attend Non-Proliferation Meetings SES 25.6-18.7 US, Canada, France, Austria, Luxembourg 7,570 5,070 To attend Non-Proliferation Meetings SES 27.6-14.7 Japan, US Canada, Austria, Luxembourg 8,399 5,899 To attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Industry Committee Meeting SES 29.6-9.7 UK, France 5,518 4,478 To attend International Maritime Organisation Meetings CAC11 30.6-16.7 UK 5,378 4,478 To attend United Nations Conferences SES 13.7-6.8 Switzerland 7,190 4,402 To attend United Nations Conferences CAC8 8.7-8.8 UK, Switzerland 8,872 4,402 To attend Non-Proliferation Meetings SES 27.6-17.7 Japan, US, Canada, Austria Luxembourg 8,399 5,899 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 19.6-13.7 France, W. Germany Austria, UK 5,638 4,478 To accompany the Attorney-General 22.6-5.7 Hong Kong, China 4,410 3,405 To undertake a United Nations Study on Nuclear Weapons Free Zone and Disarmament Consultations SES 17.6-2.7 Canada, US 1,695 1,095 To undertake a Medical Post Inspection Medical Officer 29.6-27.7 Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, China, Pakistan, Thailand 8,217 4,647 To undertake an overseas Office Systems Project CAC9 7.7-29.8 US, Philippines, Malaysia, Japan, Canada 12,130 4,000 To undertake an overseas Office Systems Project CAC7 14.4-29.8 US, Canada, Philippines, Malaysia, Japan, Hong Kong 18,320 4,500 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC7 27.9-19.11 Nigeria, Holland, Belgium, Italy 10,626 5,500 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC4 27.9-19.11 Kenya, France, UK, Ireland 10,626 5,500 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC11 4.8-21.9 Kenya, France, UK, Ireland 9,097 4,556 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC9 4.8-21.9 Kenya, France, UK, Ireland 9,097 4,556 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC7 4.8-21.9 Kenya, France, UK, Ireland 9,097 4,556 To attend an Asian Banking Financial Market Meeting SES 4.7-22.7 Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo 7,000 1,400 To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Meeting with the Foreign Minister SES 11.7-14.7 Jakarta 620 RAAF To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Meeting with the Foreign Minister SES 11.7-14.7 Jakarta 620 RAAF To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Meeting with the Foreign Minister SES 11.7-14.7 Jakarta 620 RAAF To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Meeting with the Foreign Minister SES 11.7-14.7 Jakarta 620 RAAF To accompany the Foreign Minister SES 30.7-5.8 Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia 4,229 3,364 To accompany the Foreign Minister SES 22.7-28.7 Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia 3,000 2,100 To attend a Security Drug Enforcement Meeting SES 29.7-8.8 Thailand 5,230 3,580 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 14.10-27.10 France 5,900 4,500 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Trade Meeting SES 6.10-18.10 Thailand 4,080 2,520 To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Heads of Missions Meeting SES 9.10-13.10 Singapore 3,416 2,816 To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Heads of Missions Meeting SES 9.10-13.10 Singapore 3,416 2,816 To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Heads of Missions Meeting SES 9.10-13.10 Singapore 3,416 2,816 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-Restrictive Business Practices Meeting SES 5.10-16.10 France 6,300 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Steel Working Party Meeting SES 29.9-19.10 France 5,620 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-Local Initiatives for Employment Meeting SES 28.9-12.10 Spain 6,300 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Environment Meeting SES 27.9-21.10 France 8,000 5,000 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting SES 9.10-18.10 Belguim, Switzerland 1720 600 To undertake Audit Reviews CAC7 11.10-20.11 Nigeria, Holland, Italy 10,589 5,589 To attend a South Pacific Economic Commission Meeting CAC7 25.9-4.10 New Caledonia 1,903 1.093 To accompany the Governor-General SES 24.9-8.10 Tonga, Fiji Gilbert, Elice 1,219 NIL To attend an International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors Meeting SES 18.9-21.10 Austria 7,966 4,566 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs and International Meat Council Meeting SES 20.9-4.10 France, Switzerland 8.071 4,471 To lead the Delegation to an International Atomic Energy Agency Meeting SES 20.9-4.10 Austria 6,848 4,548 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting SES 18.9-2.10 Switzerland 6,782 4,482 To attend the 39th United Nations General Assembly Member of Parliament 25.9-16.12 US 12,831 6,555 To attend Bangkok Non-Proliferation Treaty. Prepcom Geneva; International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference Board of Governors Vienna SES 27.9-23.10 Switzerland, UK, Austria, Thailand 8,487 4,487 Head of Mission's Meeting Paris, Cairo, Officials Talks Ottawa-Washington London-New Delhi SES 10.9-26.10 US, Canada UK, W. Germany, Egypt, India 27,632 13,102 To accompany the Secretary SES 11.9-30.9 W. Germany, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Canada, US, UK, USSR, Poland, E. Germany 6,108 4,985 To be adviser to Parliamentary Delegation to Geneva and Strassbourg CAC9 15.9-9.10 UK, Switzerland, France, Holland 6,726 4,426 To attend a Study Group on Asian Tax Administration and Research SES 10.9-2.10 Japan, Korea 7,825 2,985 To attend a Study Group on Asian Tax Administration and Research SES 21.9-2.10 Japan, Korea 5,485 2,985 To attend pre-United Nations General Assembly Consultations CAC11 28.8-5.9 Japan, China 3,801 3,016 To attend South Pacific Economic Commission Officials Meeting SES 19.8-27.8 Tuvalu 2,113 1,153 To attend an International Maritime Organisation Meeting CAC11 31.8-24.9 UK 8,252 4,402 To undertake interviews at the Commonwealth Secretariat CAC11 19.8-25.8 UK 4,618 4,153 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit CAC7 17.10-3.11 Fiji, Samoa, Kiribati, Nauru 3,308 2,173 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs Ministerial Consultant 23.9-7.10 USA 6,887 5,387 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs SES 5.9-14.10 Italy, Portugal, USA, Mexico, Central America 10,400 5,540 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs SES 7.9-28.9 Italy, Portugal, USA, Central America, Mexico 8,040 5,540 To attend a United Nations General Assembly Meeting CAC11 4.10-22.12 USA 8,738 4,558 To hold bilateral talks and International Atomic Energy Agency Meetings CAC11 12.9-2.10 Malaysia, Austria, Singapore 7,795 4,295 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Meeting Thailand: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting India SES 8.9-1.10 Thailand, Malaysia, India, Indonesia 6,077 3,077 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development Meeting CAC11 6.9-26.9 UK, Switzerland 6,882 4,482 To attend an International Atomic Governing Agency Meeting and International Atomic Energy Meetings SES 3.9-30.9 Sweden, Denmark, Norway, UK, Austria 7,723 4,473 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development International Nuclear Energy Agency Radioactive Waste Management Committee SES 29.8-9.9 UK, France 5,477 4,092 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit CAC11 3.10-30.10 Sri Lanka, Egypt, India 5,944 3,939 To attend the 70th Session International Labour Conference SES 2.6-7.7 Switzerland, W. Germany, Sweden 11,000 5,000 To undertake an Implementation of Computers at Posts Program CAC9 6.7-29.8 Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan 9,180 2,040 To undertake an Implementation of Computers at Posts Program CAC9 8.2-18.2 PNG, Hong Kong 1,819 739 To undertake an Implementation of Computers at Posts Program CAC9 31.10-10.11 PNG, Hong Kong 2,214 1,143 To attend the 23rd Meeting of the Australia New Zealand Foundation Chairman ANZF 6.12-17.2 New Zealand 2,606 2,016 To attend the 23rd Meeting of the Australia New Zealand Foundation CAC11 9.12-18.2 New Zealand 1,510 920 To attend an Australia-Japan United Cultural Commission Meeting SES 9.10-28.10 Japan 2,652 4,652 To attend an Information, Computer and Communications Policy Meeting SES 29.9-16.10 Portugal, France 6,500 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meetings SES 13.9-28.9 Netherlands 6,500 4,500 To attend a United Nations High Commission for Refugees Executive Committee Meeting SES 5.10-4.11 Switzerland, UK, Netherlands 9113 4513 To attend a United Nations General Assembly Meeting Member of Parliament 12.9-12.12 USA 13,360 6,555 To undertake Staff Training CAC5 25.9-3.10 New Zealand 1,676 876 To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Economic and Heads of Missions Meetings CAC11 9.10-17.10 Malaysia, Singapore 3,272 2,122 To attend Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meetings SES 6.10-15.10 France 5,096 4,482 To attend a Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau (CSIRO) Meeting SES 17.10-10.11 UK 5,582 4,482 To attend a United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Meeting Deputy Director-General Vic. Education Dept. 12.10-8.11 Switzerland 7,381 5,309 To attend World Bank Meetings CAC9 6.10-22.10 US, Indonesia 6,607 4,658 To undertake an inspection of Medical Facilities Medical Adviser 22.11-12.12 Canada, US Jamaica, Mexico 10,257 5,657 To attend an International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Meeting SES 13.10-22.10 Austria 6,202 4,402 To attend a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CAC8 30.9-14.10 Malaysia 2,400 2,036 To attend World Bank Meetings SES 30.9-19.10 Malaysia, Thailand, 3,309 2,105 To attend a Regional Information and Cultural Relations, North Asia Meeting SES 14.10-18.10 China, Japan 4,362 3,112 To attend a South Pacific Commission Government and Administration Meeting SES 8.10-20.10 New Caledonia 2,077 1,359 To attend a South Pacific Commission Government and Administration Meeting SES 8.10-20.10 New Caledonia 1,631 1,093 To attend a South Pacific Commission Government and Administration Meeting SES 8.10-20.10 New Caledonia 1,631 1,093 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 22.10-5.11 France 6,340 4,500 To attend a Private International Law Meeting SES 5.10-22.10 Holland 7,000 4,500 To attend a Private International Law Meeting Professor of Law 5.10-22.10 Holland 7,000 4,500 To attend a Meeting of Panel of Experts to evaluate scientific and technical aspects of Sea-Dumping of Radio-Active Waste Senior Scientist 20.10-26.10 Vienna 5,202 5,402 Indian Ocean States Conference SES 21.10-15.11 Mauritius, Seychelles, Male 6,800 3,800 To attend a World Health Committee Meeting CAC10 23.10-9.11 Argentina 7,300 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 26.10-10.11 France 7,500 4,500 To attend a Board of Association of Iron Ore Exporting Countries Meeting SES 12.10-22.10 Geneva 7,700 4,500 To undertake an Aid Policy Study CAC11 14.10-3.11 Indonesia 5,400 2,198 To attend a Development Assistance Committee Working Party on Financial Aspects of Development Assistance SES 14.10-26.10 France, Indonesia 5,926 4,566 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development North South and International Energy Agency Meetings SES 21.10-8.11 France, US 8,044 4,644 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Meeting SES 16.10-22.10 Thailand 3,800 2,750 To attend an International Energy Agency Governing Council Meeting SES 17.10-9.11 France 8,106 4,502 To attend United Nations Development Program and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Conferences SES 12.10-29.10 Switzerland, France 7,200 5,000 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Committee on Science and Technology Policy Meeting CAC11 14.10-4.11 France 6,350 4,450 To attend an Australia New Zealand Foundation Meeting Chairman ANZF 10.12-14.12 New Zealand 2,065 875 To attend an Australia New Zealand Foundation Meeting CAC6 9.12-17.12 New Zealand 1,800 1,019 To attend an Australia Indonesia Meeting SES 12.11-17.11 Indonesia 3,158 2,358 To attend Mrs Ghandi's Funeral SES 2.11-3.11 India Nil RAAF To attend an Australia Indonesia Maritime Meeting SES 13.11-17.11 Indonesia 2,998 2,358 To undertake Aid Projects Talks SES 18.11-3.12 China, Hong Kong, Philippines 5,293 3,508 To undertake Officials Talks SES 18.11-26.11 China, Hong Kong 6,498 4,098 To undertake Officials Talks SES 18.11-26.11 China, Hong Kong 6,498 4,098 To attend a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Meeting SES 11.11-19.11 Fiji 1,984 1,234 To attend a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Meeting SES 11.11-19.11 Fiji 1,984 1,234 To attend a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Meeting SES 9.11-19.11 Fiji 1,984 1,234 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meetings CAC11 13.11-18.12 Switzerland, France 6,500 4,500 To attend a Heads of National Narcotics Law Enforcement Agencies Conference Detective, Police Superintendent 23.11-15.12 Thailand 5,077 3,077 To attend a United Nations Commission for International Trade Law Meeting SES 5.1-26.1 USA 6,300 4,100 To attend a United Nations Commission for International Trade Law Meeting SES 30.11-17.12 Austria 6,900 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 20.11-7.12 France 5,700 4,500 To attend an International Bauxite Association Meeting SES 14.11-2.12 Jamaica 8,000 5,000 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting Chairman Commonwealth Tertiary Committee 13.11-28.11 France 7,100 4,500 To attend an Association of South East Asian Nations Media Sessions Meeting CAC11 18.11-30.11 Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore 4,556 2,956 To attend Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Meetings CAC11 3.11-14.11 Thailand 4,240 2,640 To attend an International Dairy Organisation Meeting SES 1.11-7.11 Switzerland, Belgium 6,000 4,500 To attend an annual meeting of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research SES 30.10-16.11 USA 6,728 4,447 To attend a Home Affairs and Environment Meeting SES 2.11-25.11 Spain 5,400 4,500 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development Meeting SES 2.11-20.11 Switzerland 6,600 4,500 To attend a Forum Fisheries Meeting SES 10.11-19.11 Papua New Guinea 2,250 1,300 To attend the 13th Session of the Committee for the Co-ordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in South Pacific Offshore Areas CAC10 28.10-9.11 Western Samoa 2,303 1,511 To attend an Australia China Council Meeting SES 25.11-9.12 China 4,924 3,324 To attend a Colombo Plan Meeting SES 3.11-8.11 Malaysia 2,970 2,297 To attend a Colombo Plan Meeting CAC10 3.11-8.11 Malaysia 2,795 2,122 To attend a Codex Meeting SES 23.11-14.12 Hungary 3,500 2,300 To attend a Womens Affairs Meeting SES 26.10-6.11 London 5,602 4,402 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 28.11-10.12 France, UK 6,200 4,500 To attend an International Labour Organisation Meeting SES 28.11-17.12 UK, Switzerland 7,400 4,500 To attend a Commonwealth Senior Officials Meeting SES 5.12-19.12 USA, Jamaica 7,898 5,538 To undertake a South East Asia Familiarisation Visit SES 5.12-24.12 Philippines, Thailand, Burma 4,232 2,482 To attend a Development Assistance Committee Working Party on Financial Aspects of Development Assistance SES 29.11-11.12 France, UK, Switzerland 7,257 5,757 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Meeting CAC9 16.12-23.12 Thailand 3,392 2,642 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting CAC11 2.12-21.12 Italy, France, UK 7,402 4,402 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 1.12-10.12 France, UK 5,300 4,480 To attend a Fisheries Meeting SES 25.11-3.12 Solomon Islands 2,056 1,394 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 24.11-13.12 UK, Spain, France, Singapore 6,000 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 22.11-10.12 India, USA, France, Netherlands 6,000 4,500 To attend a Food and Agriculture Organisation Meeting SES 19.11-12.12 Italy, UK, Belgium, China 5,800 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting CAC11 19.11-12.12 UK, France, Singapore 6,000 4,500 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting Switzerland-Thailand CAC10 17.11-13.12 Switzerland, Thailand 8,500 4,500 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development Meeting Principal Research Officer 7.12-23.12 UK, Switzerland 5,500 4,500 To attend a Radioactive Waste Dumping Meeting Senior Scientist 12.1-19.1 Austria 5,500 4,500 To attend an Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission Meeting SES 9.12-17.12 Malaysia 3,200 2,200 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting CAC11 6.12-22.12 Switzerland 6,750 4,500 To attend an International Meat Meeting CAC11 3.12-17.12 Switzerland, Belgium 6,750 4,500 To attend a Forum Fisheries Agency Meeting CAC11 5.12-17.12 Fiji 2,027 1,154 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development Meeting SES 6.12-23.12 UK, Switzerland 7,308 4,558 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 8.12-20.12 France 6,800 5,000 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit SES 9.12-22.12 Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia 3,979 2,479 To attend a United Nations Meeting Federal Court Judge 14.12-22.12 UK, Austria, Switzerland 1,500 500 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit SES 3.12-9.12 Egypt 4,393 3,793 To attend a Commonwealth Senior Officials Meeting CAC11 9.12-21.12 USA 6,600 5,600 To attend an International Maritime Organisation Meeting SES 7.12-24.12 UK 8,500 4,500 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit SES 3.12-19.12 Egypt, USA, Jamaica 8,876 6,516 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Nuclear Energy Agency Meeting SES 5.1-18.1 France, USA, Canada 6,083 4,523 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Meeting SES 5.1-27.1 Thailand 3,750 2,750 To attend a United Nations Meeting SES 5.1-20.1 USA 1,779 1,030 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development Meeting CAC11 8.1-30.1 Switzerland 7,140 4,440 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC7 10.2-23.3 Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Nepal 7,217 2,597 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC5 10.2-23.3 Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Nepal 7,217 2,597 To attend an Antarctic Meeting SES 5.1-16.1 New Zealand 1,430 930 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC9 8.1-3.3 Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines 6,279 3,885 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC7 8.1-3.3 Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines 6,279 3,885 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC7 8.1-3.3 Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines 6,279 3,885 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC5 12.1-26.1 New Zealand 1,825 930 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC7 12.1-26.1 New Zealand 1,825 930 To attend a Meeting on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Chief Scientist 12.1-19.1 Thailand 3,342 2,642 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 25.1-7.2 France, Belgium 5,700 4,500 To attend a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Meeting SES 16.12-22.12 Fiji, New Caledonia 2,021 1,421 To attend a Human Resources Development in Pacific Meeting SES 26.1-3.2 Indonesia, Malaysia 4,224 2,724 To attend a Southern Africa Development Commission on Cooperation Meeting Senator 22.1-5.2 Mauritius, South Africa, Zimbabwe 6,673 5,481 To attend a Fisheries Forum Meeting SES 3.2-9.2 Fiji 2,052 1,152 To attend a meeting on Pesticides in Food (CODEX Committee) SES 21.1-5.2 Germany 6,482 4,482 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 8.2-19.2 France 6,227 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development-Steel Meeting CAC11 19.1-29.1 France 5,480 4,500 To attend an Arab.Africa Legal Commission Meeting SES 4.2-15.2 Nepal 3,229 2,544 To attend the 12th Session of the International Labour Organisation SES 17.1-7.2 Switzerland 6,884 4,463 To attend a Bilateral Safeguards Meeting SES 17.1-4.2 USA, Canada 6,900 4,900 To attend a Bilateral Safeguards Meeting SES 17.1-4.2 USA, Canada 6,880 4,880 To attend a Pacific Communications Meeting SES 11.1-21.1 USA 4,500 2,900 To attend a United Nations Registration of Ships Meeting SES 24.1-19.2 Switzerland 8,090 4,402 To attend a United Nations Registration of Ships Meeting SES 24.1-19.2 Switzerland 8,728 5,040 To attend a United Nations Registration of Ships Meeting SES 24.1-19.2 Switzerland 8,090 4,402 To attend a Conference to Enquire on Discrimination Against Women CAC11 18.1-7.2 Austria 6,335 4,402 To attend a Disarmament Meeting SES 11.1-20.2 Switzerland 7,702 4,402 To attend a Disarmament Meeting SES 11.1-20.2 USA, Argentina 2,402 1,592 To attend a Heads of Missions Meeting SES 1.3-10.3 Pakistan 4,005 3,005 To attend a Heads of Missions Meeting SES 1.3-8.3 Pakistan 4,692 3,544 To attend an Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission Meeting Director Marine Science 4.2-23.3 France 7,165 4,316 To attend an Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission Meeting SES 28.2-7.4 China, France, US, NZ 7,410 4,530 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 1.3-11.3 UK, France 5,330 4,514 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 3.3-11.3 France 5,264 4,514 To attend a Disarmament Meeting Geophysicist 10.3-3.4 USA, Switzerland 7,380 4,680 To undertake a Nuclear Policy Mission SES 23.2-13.3 Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Greece 9,194 6,000 To undertake a Nuclear Policy Mission SES 22.2-15.3 Japan, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, Greece 9,194 6,000 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting CAC11 22.2-11.3 France 6,556 4,514 To undertake New Zealand Economic Discussions CAC9 3.3-9.3 New Zealand 1,393 970 To undertake New Zealand Economic Discussions SES 4.3-10.3 New Zealand 1,521 1,082 To attend the 9th Association of South-East Asian Nations Forum Meeting CAC8 29.1-6.2 Malaysia 3,458 2,233 To attend the 9th Association of South-East Asian Nations Forum Meeting SES 29.1-6.2 Malaysia 3,458 2,233 To attend a United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs Meeting Deputy Commissioner Australian Federal Police 7.2-26.2 UK, Austria, Hong Kong, Switzerland 5,897 4,327 To attend an International Atomic Energy Agency Advisory Group Meeting SES 29.1-10.2 UK, Austria 6,368 4,468 To attend a United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs Meeting SES 5.2-10.3 UK, Austria, Thailand 5,274 3,688 To attend a United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs Meeting SES 8.2-1.3 Austria, Portugal, Switzerland 6,156 4,556 To attend a Southern Africa Development Commission on Cooperation Meeting SES 27.1-13.2 Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya 6,085 3,985 To undertake an IBM Computer Course CAC11 16.2-22.2 New Zealand 1,430 930 To attend an Asia.Pacific Cooperation Meeting Jakarta and the Ninth Association of South East Asian Nations Forum Kuala Lumpur SES 27.1-5.2 Indonesia, Malaysia 3309 2,259 To attend an Asia.Pacific Cooperation Meeting Jakarta and the Ninth Association of South East Asian Nations Forum Kuala Lumpur SES 27.1-5.2 Indonesia, Malaysia 2,595 2,145 To attend an Asia.Pacific Cooperation Meeting Jakarta and the Ninth Association of South East Asian Nations Forum Kuala Lumpur SES 29.1-5.2 Indonesia, Malaysia 3,025 2,235 To attend an Asia.Pacific Cooperation Meeting Jakarta and the Ninth Association of South East Asian Nations Forum Kuala Lumpur SES 29.1-9.2 Indonesia, Malaysia 3,788 2,538 To attend an Asia.Pacific Cooperation Meeting Jakarta and the Ninth Association of South East Asian Nations Forum Kuala Lumpur CAC9 23.1-21.2 Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines 5,622 2,122 To undertake installation of computers CAC9 2.2-4.3 New Zealand 3,475 2,303 To undertake installation of computers CAC7 2.2-20.3 New Zealand, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Fiji 6,024 2,793 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit CAC9 2.2-8.2 New Caledonia 1,436 846 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit CAC9 2.2-8.2 New Caledonia 1,436 846 To undertake a Post Liaison Visit CAC11 2.2-8.2 New Caledonia 1,436 846 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs Ministerial Consultant 5.5-19.5 Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, Nepal, Pakistan 2,130 VIP To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs Ministerial Consultant 3.3-31.3 Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Laos 4,479 3,310 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs Ministerial Consultant 15.2-18.2 Port Moresby 484 -VIP To attend a Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Meeting SES 8.2-26.2 USA 8,381 5,030 To attend a Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Nuclear Energy Agency Meeting Senior Principal Research Officer 1.2-9.2 Italy, France 5,074 4,269 To attend a Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Meeting CAC11 8.2-26.2 USA 8,381 5,030 To attend a Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 31.1-12.2 France 5,797 4,534 To attend a Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Education Meeting SES 8.2-22.2 France 5,500 4,400 To accompany the Prime Minister SES 2.2-11.2 USA 6,590 5,090 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs SES 15.2-20.2 PNG 2,177 977 To attend the 9th Association of South-East Asian Nations Forum Meeting CAC11 29.1-3.2 Malaysia 3,458 2,233 To conduct Regional Consular Conferences CAC11 10.4-2.5 USSR, Poland Hungary, Austria, Italy, India, Nepal, Thailand, UK, France, Sweden, Finland 10,053 5,400 To attend a Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development International Monetary Fund Meeting SES 7.4-29.4 France, USA, Austria, Netherlands 10,044 6,500 To attend a Meeting on Refugees SES 28.9-19.10 Thailand, Switzerland 6,560 4,280 To attend a Meeting on Refugees CAC9 28.9-19.10 Thailand, Switzerland 6,560 4,280 To Undertake Policy Planning Talks CAC7 26.3-4.4 Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia 4,727 3,600 To undertake Policy Planning Talks SES 26.3-31.3 Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia 3,890 3,141 To undertake Policy Planning Talks CAC11 26.3-4.4 Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia 4,727 3,600 To attend a South Pacific Commission Meeting CAC11 24.;3-30.3 Cook Islands 2,610 1,960 To attend a Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting Scientist 16.3-22.3 France 5,172 4,402 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asian and Pacific Region Meeting SES 19.3-27.3 Thailand 3,664 2,614 To attend an United Nations Committee on Trade and Development Meeting SES 15.4-4.5 Switzerland 7,200 4,500 To attend an International Maritime Organisation Meeting Marine Engineer 5.4-30.4 UK 7,750 4,480 To attend a Regional Consular Conference SES 10.4-18.5 France, USA, Canada 11,167 5,467 To attend Chernenko's Funeral SES 12.3-16.3 USSR 500 -VIP To attend a Conference on Registration of Ships CAC9 24.1-19.2 Switzerland 8,090 4,402 To attend the Torres Strait Treaty Ratification CAC6 13.2-17.2 PNG 1,255 555 To attend a Special Consultative Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources CAC10 21.2-16.3 Brazil, USA 10,632 6,432 To attend a Regional Conference of Ministers of Education SES 2.3-12.3 Thailand 4,664 3,364 To attend a Regional Conference of Ministers of Education CAC10 2.3-11.3 Thailand 3,842 2,662 To attend a Regional Conference of Ministers of Education CAC10 2.3-11.3 Thailand 3,942 2,642 To attend a Special Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources CAC11 21.2-16.3 Brazil 10,380 6,388 To attend a Special Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources CAC11 21.2-16.3 Brazil 10,380 6,388 To attend a Special Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources SES 21.2-16.3 Brazil 10,513 6,432 To attend a Special Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources SES 21.2-16.3 Brazil 10,513 6,432 To attend a Special Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources CAC7 21.2-16.3 Brazil 10,380 6,388 To attend a Special Meeting on Antarctic Mineral Resources SES 21.2-16.3 Brazil 10,513 6,432 To attend an International Maritime Organisation Sub-Committee Meeting Senior Principal Surveyor 15.2-25.2 UK 5,403 4,119 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Economic Policy Meeting SES 11.2-19.2 France 5,323 4,513 To attend a Symposium on Disarmament CAC11 21.2-24.2 New Zealand 1,220 950 To attend a Law of the Sea Commission Meeting SES 3.3-7.4 Canada, USA 12,162 6,008 To attend a Seminar on Joint Development Zones SES 23.2-3.3 Thailand 3,442 2,642 To attend a Seminar on Joint Development Zones CAC11 23.2-3.3 Thailand 3,525 2,325 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 21.2-18.3 France 5,700 4,400 To attend the Torres Strait Ratification CAC9 15.2-17.2 PNG 300 Charter To attend Geneva Group Consultative Level Meetings. World Health Organisation. International Telecommunications Union CAC11 12.3-28.3 Switzerland, Austria, France 6,222 4,402 To attend a Law of the Sea Tribunal CAC9 6.3-8.4 USA, Jamaica 10,601 5,031 To attend the Women's World Conference CAC8 28.2-16.3 UK, Austria 6,135 4,402 To attend the Women's World Conference CAC11 28.2-16.3 UK, Austria 6,135 4,402 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting SES 14.2-6.3 UK, Switzerland 7,818 4,458 To attend a Chemical Weapons Convention SES 17.2-1.3 USA 7,192 4,792 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 23.2-17.3 France, USA 5,602 4,650 To attend a World Congress on Law and Medicine Meeting Federal Court Judge 20.2-24.2 India 3,930 3,330 To attend an International Parliamentary Union Meeting CAC9 18.3-4.4 Spain, Ghana 8,088 6,438 To attend a Coordination Committee on Multilateral Export Control Meeting and discussion on Economic Issues SES 10.3-4.4 USA, Canada, UK, France 8,911 4,952 To attend the 7th Working Group of the International Atomic Energy Agency Scientist 10.3-1.4 France, Austria Pakistan 11,404 8,804 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit SES 20.3-4.4 Indonesia 3,881 1,943 To attend an International Atomic Energy Agency Meeting SES 22.3-30.3 India, Pakistan 4,925 4,200 To attend a European Economic Communities Vehicles Meeting Engineer 7.3-17.3 Switzerland 6,300 4,500 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Export Credits Meeting SES 7.3-23.3 France 5,760 4,400 To attend Lead.Zinc Conferences, Association of Tin Producing Countries (U.K.) SES 10.3-1.4 Thailand, U.K. 7,700 4,400 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Industry Meeting SES 1.3-15.3 France, Austria 6,119 4,600 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting SES 2.3-15.3 Switzerland, France 5,902 4,402 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting SES 3.3-15.3 Switzerland 6,950 4,600 To attend a United Nations Commission on Women SES 28.2-16.3 Austria 6,302 4,402 To attend a Law of the Sea Meeting CAC9 6.3-9.4 Jamaica 13,116 6,227 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs CAC11 3.3-13.3 Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore 4,410 3,310 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs SES 3.3-13.3 Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore 4,410 3,310 To accompany the Minister for Foreign Affairs SES 1.3-13.3 Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore 4,410 3,310 To attend a Conference on Ozone Layers SES 13.3-26.3 Austria 6,533 4,483 To attend a Meeting on Pesticides in Food (Codex Committee) Medical Service Adviser 20.3-5.4 Netherlands 6 302 4,402 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting CAC11 17.3-6.4 France 6,500 4,500 To attend a Meeting on Pesticides Residue in Food (Codex Committee) Principal Chemist 20.3-5.4 Netherlands 6 750 4,550 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 24.3-14.4 France, Switzerland 8,066 5,026 To attend an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Meeting SES 15.3-31.3 France 5,255 4,425 To attend a Disarmament Chemical Weapons Committee Meeting SES 22.3-27.4 Switzerland, Sweden 9,100 4,200 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development Meeting CAC11 14.3-3.4 Switzerland 6,500 4,500 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development SES 14.3-18.4 Switzerland 7,170 4,670 To attend a Board of Association of Iron Ore Exporting Countries Iron Meeting CAC11 15.3-2.4 Switzerland, Italy 5,762 4,402 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asia and Pacific Region 41st Meeting CAC11 16.3-31.3 Thailand 4,288 2,642 To attend an Australia-New Zealand Foreign Affairs Conference Journalist 14.3-19.3 New Zealand 1,205 885 To attend an Australia-New Zealand Foreign Affairs Conference CAC11 15.3-19.3 New Zealand 1,205 885 To attend an Australia-New Zealand Foreign Affairs Conference SES 15.3-20.3 New Zealand 1,307 907 To attend an Economic and Service Commission Asia and Pacific Region 41st Meeting SES 24.3-5.4 Thailand 3,342 2,642 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 7.10-18.10 France, Germany 6,278 4,558 To attend a Meeting on Pesticides in Food (Codex Committee) CAC11 8.3-21.3 Canada 5,750 4,150 To attend the 13th Antarctic Treaty Meeting CAC9 19.4-30.4 Belgium, Singapore, UK 6,100 4,500 To attend the South Pacific Forum Meeting SES 1.4-11.4 New Zealand 1,830 1,020 To attend the South Pacific Forum Meeting SES 1.4-11.4 New Zealand 1,830 1,020 To attend the South Pacific Forum Meeting SES 1.4-11.4 New Zealand 1,685 885 To attend the South Pacific Forum Meeting CAC9 1.4-11.4 New Zealand 1,680 940 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC7 15.4-29.5 Denmark, Sweden, Israel, Belgium 10,838 4,687 To undertake an Audit Inspection CAC5 15.4-29.5 Denmark, Sweden, Israel, Belgium 10,838 4,687 To attend a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Meeting SES 2.4-11.4 New Zealand 1,685 885 To implement Post Computer Systems CAC9 12.4-29.6 Pakistan, India, Port Moresby, Thailand, Sri Lanka 13,354 3,647 To attend an International Maritime Organisation Legal Committee Meeting SES 22.3-6.4 UK 5,572 4,482 To attend an International Maritime Organisation Legal Committee Meeting SES 22.3-6.4 UK 5,300 4,400 To attend an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 23.3-2.4 France 6,500 5,000 To attend a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species SES 19.4-9.5 Argentina 5,250 3,250 To attend a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species SES 19.4-9.5 Argentina 5,250 3,250 To attend an International Maritime Resources Study Group Meeting SES 6.4-23.4 Switzerland 7,300 4,600 To attend a Forum Fisheries Agency Regional Fisheries Co-operation Meeting SES 25.3-1.4 Solomon Islands 1,700 1,200 To attend an International Dairy Arrangement Meeting SES 22.3-2.4 Switzerland 6,140 4,600 To attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 7.4-29.4 Italy, France, Brussels, Switzerland 5,000 4,500 To attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Meeting SES 11.4-22.4 UK, France, Singapore 5,894 4,494 To attend a United Nations Research Group Study SES 7.4-21.4 USA 5,470 5,130 To attend an Antarctic Treaty Meeting CAC11 19.4-30.4 Belgium 6,150 4,650 To attend a United Nations High Commission for Refugees Meeting and Familiarisation Visit SES 13.4-29.4 Belgium, Thailand, Switzerland 6,150 4,650 To attend a Human Rights Commission Meeting CAC9 11.4-15.4 Fiji 1,580 1,200 To attend a United Nations International Childrens Emergency Fund Meeting SES 12.4-29.4 USA 8,700 5,200 To implement computerised Office Systems CAC7 10.5-13.6 Japan, Philippines 5,695 2,695 To conduct an Audit Inspection CAC7 24.4-15.6 Philippines, Thailand, China 9,546 3,479 To conduct an Audit Inspection CAC7 24.4-15.6 Philippines, Thailand, China 9,546 3,479 To conduct an Audit Inspection CAC7 24.4-15.6 Philippines, Thailand, China 9,546 3,479 To attend an Antarctic Treaty Meeting SES 19.4-29.4 Belgium 7,100 4,500 To attend a Food and Agriculture Organisation Meeting SES 16.4-29.4 Italy 7,500 4,900 To attend a German Energy Research Meeting SES 19.4-29.4 Germany 5,900 4,650 To attend an International Maritime Organisation Marine Environment Meeting CAC11 19.4-5.5 UK 4,912 4,482 To attend a Consultative Committee Antarctic Marine Living Resources Meeting SES 4.5-16.5 USA 6,722 4,122 To attend a Consultative Committee Antarctic Marine Living Resources Meeting and SCAR Meeting Senior Scientist 4.5-16.5 USA, UK 6,800 5,000 To attend the Third Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference SES 18.4-7.5 UK, Switzerland 7,200 4,600 To undertake research into Australian Involvement in War Official War Historian 28.5-14.6 Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam 3,167 2,000 To attend a Defence Co-operation Program CAC11 20.4-11.5 Maldives, Singapore, Mauritius, Sri Lanka 5,480 3,480 To attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Steel Committee Meeting SES 19.4-3.5 France, Germany 6,706 4,651 To attend a General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs Meeting SES 18.4-30.6 Belgium, Switzerland 6,300 4,620 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development-Rubber Meeting CAC11 18.4-7.5 Switzerland 6,800 4,400 To attend Bauxite Meetings SES 28.4-20.5 USA, Jamaica 9,220 5,820 To attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Study Group Meeting Vice Chancellor 12.5-25.5 Japan 4,656 2,656 To attend an International Centre for the study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property Meeting SES 5.5-11.5 Italy 5,125 4,000 To attend the South Pacific Bureau of Economic Cooperation Meeting Ecconomic Officer 26.4-13.5 West. Samoa, Fiji 3,000 1,800 To attend a United Nations Committee on Trade and Development-Nickle Meeting SES 8.4-21.4 Switzerland 6,128 4,536 To undertake Economic Research-China Academic 5.5-21.5 China 5,600 3,800 To undertake Post Administrative Visits. Chair Regional Consular Conference Washington. Examine Office Systems Projects Singapore. Project Budget Liaison Ottowa SES 20.4-5.5 USA, Iran, Canada, Singapore 10,395 6,500 To attend a Pacific Economic Conference SES 27.4-4.5 Hong Kong, Korea, Japan 4,938 3,938 To attend a Peace and Disarmament Meeting SES 8.4-15.4 Sweden 5,766 4,600 To attend the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Manpower Meeting SES 26.5-5.6 Ireland 5,595 4 815 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit CAC11 31.5-18.6 Tanzania, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Kenya, Mauritius 7,366 4,366 To accompany the Foreign Minister on an Asian Visit SES 6.5-21.5 Singapore, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka 2,378 248 +VIP To accompany the Foreign Minister on an Asian Visit SES 6.5-21.5 Singapore, Nepal, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka 2,378 248 +VIP To attend a Symposium on Human Resources Development SES 23.4-6.5 Japan, Korea, Thailand 3,500 3,000 To attend a Telecom.Maritime Fisheries.Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting CAC9 26.4-11.5 Cook Islands, Fiji, New Zealand 2,520 1,800 To undertake a Familiarisation Visit SES 27.4-5.5 Cook Islands 2,520 1,800 To visit the Association of South East Asian Nations SES 24.4-9.5 Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia 3,000 2,000 To attend a Fisheries Conference SES 27.4-5.5 Cook Islands, New Zealand 2,420 1,700 To attend a United Nations Program Development International Atomic Energy Agency Tripartite Review SES 23.4-26.4 Indonesia 2,650 1,950 To attend a United Nations Program Development International Atomic Energy Agency Tripartite Review SES 23.4-26.4 Indonesia 2,650 1,950 To attend a Steering Committee on Nuclear Energy SES 27.4-6.5 France, Switzerland 6,000 4,600 To attend a Womens Conference Senator 27.4-8.5 USA 7,100 4,600 To attend a Womens Conference CAC11 27.4-8.5 USA 6,900 4,600 To attend a Womens Conference SES 27.4-12.5 USA 6,900 4,600 To attend the Third Non Proliferation Treaty Conference CAC11 19.4-7.5 UK, Switzerland, Singapore 7,600 4,600 To attend a meeting on Pesticides in Food (Codex Committee) Food Technologist 21.9-9.10 US 6,431 4,331 To attend a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia, the Far East and South West Pacfic Meeting Princpal Veterinarian 6.10-15.10 Thailand 3,419 2,617 To attend a Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation Meeting and Senior Commonwealth Finance Officials Meeting and International Monetary Fund meeting SES 14.9-30.9 Canada, US 8,509 5,109 To attend a United Nations General Assembly Delegation meeting CAC5 20.9-16.12 US 6,919 4,523 To attend the Third Expert Meeting on Protection and Development of Natural Resources SES 14.9-29.9 New Caledonia 1,700 990 To select candidates for public administration course Lecturer Grade 2 6.7-20.7 Indonesia 3,926 1,866 To redesign Magarini Settlement Project-field visit CAC 8 14.7-10.8 Kenya 5,525 3,588 To inspect Faleolo Airport Project CAC 10 13.8-24.8 Western Samoa 2,269 1,549 To inspect Faleolo Airport Project CAC 11 13.8-24.8 Western Samoa 2,269 1,549 To attend Women in Development Conference CAC 9 11.8-16.8 Vanuatu 1,553 993 To lead team reviewing Highlands Agricultural and Social Development Project CAC 9 16.8-9.9 Thailand 5,586 2,756 To participate in joint review of Highlands Agricultural and Social Development project and to attend Donors meeting for Asian Institute of Technology CAC 9 25.8-9.9 Thailand 4,566 2,756 To negotiate memorandum of understanding re wheat silo project CAC 10 30.8-15.9 Egypt 5,376 3,526 To inspect aid projects and discuss projects CAC 8 30.9-16.10 Burma 4,514 3,214 To discuss projects and related activities with authorities in Tonga CAC 6 7.10-21.10 Tonga 2,596 1,706 To review Northern Samar Integrated Rural Development Project and discuss Project Document CAC 8 21.10-5.11 Philippines 4,002 2,534 To review Northern Samar Integrated Rural Development Project and discuss Project Document CAC 9 14.10-1.11 Philippines 4,034 2,534 To discuss aid programs with USP, and New Zealand officials CAC 8 30.9-8.10 Fiji 2,324 1,484 To evaluate National Institute of Administration project-Jakarta CAC 7 12.10-3.11 Indonesia 5,056 2,095 To attend Indonesian mines.energy seminar CAC 8 23.10-4.11 Indonesia 2,415 2,020 To participate in Indian Ocean Commission Advisory Team CAC 11 28.10-18.11 Kenya, Seychelles, Mauritius 9,670 5,020 To discuss Thai University Lecturers Scheme and Australian Language Centre CAC 10 8.11-17.11 Indonesia, Thailand 3,906 2,892 To participate in design study of Eastern Islands Veterinary services project CAC 8 9.11 26.11 Indonesia 4,881 2,546 To negotiate Memorandum of Understanding Phase III Magarini Settlement Project and Discuss Zimcord SES 11.11-4.12 Kenya 7,585 5,404 To negotiate Memorandum of Understanding Phase III Magarini Settlement Project and Discuss Zimcord CAC8 11.11-4.12 Kenya 6,172 3,798 To participate in 6 monthly review of Zamboanga del Sur Development Project CAC6 26.11-13.12 Philippines 3,764 2,547 To discuss proposals to rectify machinery for Coconut factory in Tonga SES 5.11-6.11 New Zealand 980 904 To lead 6 monthly review of Zamboanga Del Sur Development Project CAC10 23.11-13.12 Philippines 4,031 2,694 To attend Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development Meeting on Food Aid 48th Session Food Aid and 3rd IDS Seminar Food Aid CAC11 23.11-2.12 France, United Kingdom, Italy 7,601 5,119 To review Non-Government Organisation Projects CAC9 20.6-13.7 Solomon Islands 3,654 1,356 To review Western highway project Burma CAC11 2.6-30.6 Burma 5,567 3,570 To review Fiji program and Fisheries Project Tuvalu CAC9 24.2-9.3 Fiji, Tuvalu 4,041 1,866 To identify course for Thailand Rural Education Sector Lecturer Grade 3 2.2-13.2 Thailand 3,561 2,541 To attend a World Health Organisation Economic and Service Commission Meeting on Tropical Cyclone Damage Mitigation CAC8 2.2-13.2 Vanuatu 1,984 3,494 To participate in Joint review of Asian and Pacific Regions and visit other aid projects CAC8 12.1-31.1 Thailand 5,441 3,137 To lead team to Review Australian Contribution to National Agriculture Research Project Thai Project CAC9 8.1-27.1 Thailand 4,853 3,002 To attend project Consultations CAC11 10.12-20.12 Vanuatu, Tonga 2,480 1,395 To attend Project Consultations in Vanuatu and Tonga CAC10 10.12-20.12 Vanuatu, Tonga 2,662 1,395 To participate in Special Committee Budget Session and program discussions with United Nations and other bodies CAC9 3.12-15.12 Fiji, Vanuatu 2,597 1,396 To review Non-Government Organisation Projects CAC10 10.11-5.12 Nepal 4,684 2,576 To review Non-Government Organisation Projects CAC9 20.6-13.7 Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia 3,724 1,356 To appraise Phase II Study Nusa Tenggara Timur Development Project CAC7 27.6-22.7 Indonesia 6,728 3,021 To appraise Phase II Study of Nusa Tenggara Timur Development Project CAC8 28.6-20.7 Indonesia 5,543 2,262 To attend World Health Organisation, Tropical Diseases Research Meetings and Joint Inspection discussions with United Nations Industrial Development Organisation CAC8 22.6-6.7 United Kingdom, Switzerland, Austria 6,703 4,891 To review Western Highway project CAC9 2.6-30.6 Singapore, Thailand Burma 5,950 3,576 To inspect Shanghai urban studies project CAC9 24.5-11.6 Hong Kong China 6,005 3,614 To discuss Tonga Secondary Teacher Education Project with Education and Finance officials CAC9 20.5-28.5 Tonga 2,019 1,630 To consult on Agricultural University Project CAC10 12.5-20.5 Indonesia 3,606 2,120 To tour South Pacific Regional organisations as escort officer CAC11 2.5-16.5 New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Fiji, Solomon Islands 3,644 2,134 To Inspect Australian Technical Assistance Projects CAC9 18.5-31.5 Thailand 5,648 4,020 To Inspect Australian Technical Assistance Projects CAC6 18.5-8.6 Thailand 5,874 4,250 To review findings of review team on Australian assistance to South East Asian Ministers of Education Organisation CAC9 1.6-9.6 Thailand, Singapore 4,090 3,525 To inspect projects and attend Bangladesh and Mauritius Group Meetings CAC9 23.4-22.5 Thailand, Nepal, Syria, United Kingdom, France 7,972 4,566 To visit Major Technical Co-operation projects and Chinese Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade CAC9 10.4-30.4 Japan, China 5,556 3,395 To visit Western Highway Project CAC8 18.5-4.6 Burma 5,378 3,435 To review Primary health care Sanang and Somalia CAC11 3.4-8.5 Kenya, Somalia, Sanang 7,866 4,470 To evaluate Indonesia and Australia Technical Education Project CAC9 26.3-27.4 Indonesia 6,188 2,006 To lead study team on Bah Bolon Project CAC11 17.3-3.4 Indonesia 4,787 2,708 To participate as Team Member Bah Bolon Project Study CAC6 17.3-30.3 Indonesia 1,548 2,168 To participate as Team Member Bah Bolon Project Study CAC10 17.3-30.3 Indonesia 1,548 2,168 To review Northern Samar Project CAC8 21.4-11.5 Philippines 4,632 2,539 To participate in Technical education evaluation and Project inspections CAC6 22.3-6.5 Indonesia 5,989 2,258 To review Water Supply Sector CAC9 1.3-3.4 Indonesia 6,166 1,866 To undertake aid Review Mission CAC10 19.2-15.3 Thailand, Vietnam 4,716 3,222 To develop strategy plan for the withdrawal of Australian technical assistance from Northern Samar Project CAC9 21.4-2.5 Philippines 4,039 2,539 To preappraise Nusa Tenggara Timor Livestock Project Phase II CAC7 22.3-3.4 Indonesia 3,516 2,006 To escort Tour of South Pacific Regional Organisations CAC11 2.5-16.5 New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Solomom Islands 2,690 1,160 To study Feasibility of co-operative program of training for Pacific Principal International Training Institute 7.10-11.10 Suva 1,394 1,014 To inspect Australian aid projects and hold discussions with Chinese officials CAC9 19.10-5.11 China 4,731 3,241 (Question No. 3291) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) What were the sample sizes used in each State and Territory for the Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls survey on identity cards. (2) Will he release a copy of the questionnaire used by the interviewers in the field. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The sample of 2,000 adults used by ANOP included statistically representative interviews in all States, capital cities, provincial and rural areas and was structured as follows:- New South Wales... 726 Victoria ... 538 Queensland... 318 South Australia... 184 Western Australia... 176 Tasmania... 58 2,000 No separate breakdowns are available for the Territories. (2) The ANOP report, including the format of the questions has been included at Attachment D to the Government Submission to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. Copies of this Submission were distributed to all members during the second week of February. (Question No. 3446) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: (1) What sum did the Government spend on treatment of and research into (a) heart disease, (b) strokes, (c) cancer, (d) alcohol related illnesses and (e) AIDS in (i) 1983-84 (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to date, in each State and Territory. (2) How many persons received Government funded treatment for each complaint in each State and Territory in each of those years. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Commonwealth Government does not collect diagnostic information regarding services that attract Medicare benefits. It is therefore, not possible to provide the requested information on either numbers of persons receiving treatment or amounts spent by the Commonwealth, classified by type of illness. The Government, through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), spent the following amounts on research for the years 1983-1986. Cardio vascular* Cancer Alcohol related illnesses Aids $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) 1983+... 4.340 3.900 0.257 - 1984... 4.049 4.200 0.497 0.168 1985 ... 4.575 5.000 0.846 0.206 1986 ... 7.053 6.826 1.480 *1.074 * NHMRC does not record figures for various areas of heart disease and so amounts for heart disease and strokes are included under `Cardiovascular'. + NHMRC funding figures are available only on a calendar year basis. * Figure includes $0.750m allocated by AIDS Task Force. (Question No. 3491) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: During his last visit to the Soviet Union, did the Minister raise the matter of Ukrainian political prisoners with the relevant Soviet officials; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My last visit to the Soviet Union was a short stopover at Moscow airport on 15 June 1985. Although the Government regularly makes representations to the Soviet authorities on human rights abuses in the Soviet Union, time restraints did not permit me to raise the specific matter of Ukrainian political prisoners on this occasion. Australia has also been involved in complicated negotiations with Soviet authorities aimed at the possible release of the leading Ukrainian political detainee, Yuri Shukhevych. (Question No. 3670) Mr White asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Further to the answer by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to a question without notice (Hansard, 13 March 1986, page 1309) concerning a Community Employment Program grant to the Women's Centre Incorporated, A.C.T., who were the applicants for the grant. (2) Who sponsored the project. (3) What sum did the sponsor contribute. (4) Did the applicant own Tilley Devine's bar when the $140 000 grant was allocated; if not, (a) who owned the bar and (b) how was the money controlled. (5) If the applicant for the grant was not the controller of the project, what was the applicant's role in the venture. (6) Where is the final audited statement on the venture. (7) Will he table all the papers relating to the grant. (8) When is the police report to be (a) finalised (b) tabled. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(8) All aspects covered in these questions are currently the subject of an investigation by the Australian Federal Police. It would be inappropriate to comment further on those aspects before that investigation has been completed and the report examined. (Question No. 3679) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) How many jobs have been created by Hawke Governments. (2) How many were (a) full-time, (b) permanent part-time and (c) other part-time in the (i) public and (ii) private sector. (3) How many were Community Employment Program created jobs. (4) What criteria are used to define a job. (5) Which Departments or instrumentalities have created positions and how many have been created in each Department and instrumentality in each category. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total employment, seasonally adjusted, rose by 634,200 or 10.1 per cent between April 1983 and July 1986. (2) (a) Full-time employment has increased by 433,000 or 8.4 per cent since April 1983, representing 68.3 per cent of total employment growth. (b) and (c) Part-time employment rose 201,200 or 17.9 per cent over the period. Details as to the permanency or otherise of part-time jobs are not obtained by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in its monthly labour force survey. The most recent study of the nature of part-time working arrangements was that conducted by the ABS and recorded in Alternative Working Arrangements, Australia, March to May 1982, Catalogue no: 6340.0. That survey found that some 90 per cent of part-time employment at that time was on a permanent basis. (A person employed in permanent part-time work was defined as an employee who was entitled to paid holidays or sick pay. A casual part-time worker was one who was not entitled to paid leave). (i) and (ii) Information on the distribution of employment growth between the private and public sectors is available from the monthly labour force survey for the period to May 1986 (latest available data). In the three years to May 1986, total jobs in industries operating predominantly in the private sector increased by 435,900 (9.7 per cent) representing 67.6 per cent of the overall increase in employment (671,700) over the period. Of these jobs 283,200 were full-time, representing 65.5 per cent of the 432,400 full-time jobs created overall. Employment in public sector dominated industries grew by 217,800 (13.5 per cent) in the three years to May 1986 representing 32.4 per cent of overall job growth. Of the net employment growth in the public sector 149,200 were full-time jobs, accounting for 34.5 per cent of the increase in total full-time employment over the three years to May 1986. Data in the Employed Wage and Salary Earners series (ABS Catalogue No 6248.0), an alternative source of employment data based on an employer survey, indicate that in the two years to March 1986 growth in private sector wage and salary employment accounted for 85.5 per cent (420,700 jobs out of a total of 491,800 jobs) of the total increase in wage and salary earners. Data from this survey are not available as early as March 1983, and the survey excludes employers, self employed persons and all private sector agricultural employment. (3) Under the Community Employment Program (CEP) 106,635 jobs had been formally approved for funding from the time of the Program's inception in 1983 up to 14 July 1986. While current CEP guidelines do allow for part-time work to be undertaken, this has occurred only rarely, for example in certain child-care areas. Most CEP jobs are full-time. (4) The ABS definition of employment, in conformity with that of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), includes persons aged 15 years and over who, in the week during which the survey was conducted: (a) worked for one hour or more for pay, profit, commission or payment in kind in a job or business, or on a farm (including employees, employers and self-employed persons); or (b) worked for one hour or more without pay in a family business or on a farm (i.e. unpaid family helpers); or (c) were employees who had a job but were not at work and were: on paid leave; on leave without pay for less than four weeks up to the end of the survey week; stood down without pay because of bad weather or plant breakdown at their place of employment for less than four weeks up to the end of the survey week; on strike or locked out; on worker's compensation and expected to be returning to their job; or receiving wages or salary while undertaking full-time study; or (d) were employers or self-employed persons who had a job, business or farm, but were not at work. Source: (ABS, The Labour Force, Australia: Explanatory Notes). (5) Establishment statistics on Government Departments and instrumentalities have not been recorded by the Public Service Board since June 1984. However some information on staffing numbers is available. The following tables show movements in full-time and non-permanent part-time Public Service Act staffing numbers by Department and instrumentality between March 1983 and December 1985 (the most recent date for which figures are available). As at December 1985 there were no permanent part-time officers employed in the Australian Public Service. The figures have not been adjusted to take account of administrative re-arrangements over the period concerned since the detailed information needed is not readily available and would result in a very complex tabulation with large numbers of explanatory footnotes. In the period March 1983 to December 1985 the number of persons employed under the Public Service Act increased by 12,158 or 7.6 per cent. This increase included growth in full-time staff of 11,727 or 7.4 per cent and growth in part-time staff of 431 persons or 14.6 per cent. AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME STAFF EMPLOYED UNDER THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT MARCH 1983 AND DECEMBER 1985 Department/Instrumentality March 1983 Full-time Part-time December 1985 Full-time Part-time Department: Aboriginal Affairs... 748 10 763 6 Administrative Services... 5,524 60 - - Arts, Heritage and Environment... - - 334 15 Attorney-General's... 2,384 247 2,832 63 Aviation... 11,253 68 10,101 73 Communications... 768 16 809 15 Community Services... - - 2,763 103 Defence... 24,362 430 30,282 467 Defence Support... 5,862 10 - - Education... - - 1,850 115 Education and Youth Affairs... 1,621 108 - - Employment and Industrial Relations... 7,535 137 8,919 110 Finance... 983 10 1,121 16 Foreign Affairs... 3,998 29 4,145 24 Health... 4,964 68 4,352 112 Home Affairs and Environment... 313 19 - - Housing and Construction... 9,072 41 9,914 58 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs... 2,157 89 2,161 88 Industry and Commerce... 5,323 21 - - Industry, Technology and Commerce... - - 883 - Local Government and Administrate Services... - - 5,028 45 Primary Industry... 2,972 17 3,214 20 Prime Minister and Cabinet... 543 15 503 24 Resources and Energy... 790 12 785 13 Science... - - 836 20 Science and Technology... 1,104 13 - - Social Security... 16,000 119 17,276 256 Special Minister of State... 1,156 69 397 7 Sport, Recreation and Tourism... 44 - 1,482 - Territories... - - 3,972 165 Territories and Local Government... 3,513 108 - - Trade... 1,120 12 1,072 1 Transport... 1,364 22 1,527 19 Treasury... 565 6 595 14 Veterans' Affairs... 11,827 717 12,661 926 Authority or Agency: ACT Health Authority... - - 1,105 137 ACT Schools Authority... 916 12 886 6 Australian Development Assistance Bureau Aid Experts... 103 - 119 - Australian Archives... 320 29 362 41 Australian Audit Office... 629 3 573 7 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal... 98 - 140 1 Australian Bureau of Statistics... 3,594 72 3,461 62 Australian Customs Service... - - 5,348 18 Australian Development Assistance Bureau... 409 1 453 2 Australian Electoral Commission... - - 830 21 Australian Electoral Office... 736 24 - - Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office... 428 6 438 5 Australian Heritage Commission... 16 3 22 2 Australian Legal Aid Office... 189 2 203 - Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service... 77 4 119 6 Australian Science and Technology Council... 11 - 20 - Australian Sports Commission... - - 23 - Australian Taxation Office... 14,758 - 17,396 - Australian War Memorial... 157 10 195 19 Bureau of Agricultural Economics... 291 3 312 5 Bureau of Meterology... 1,718 3 1,774 5 Bureau of Mineral Resources... 534 8 579 11 Capital Territory Health Commission... 1,025 109 - - Commonwealth Ombudsman... 61 7 60 4 Commonwealth Schools Commission... 159 13 129 6 Commonwealth Teritiary Education Commission... 95 10 108 8 Export Development Grants Board... 99 - 72 - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority... 44 6 67 4 Human Rights Commission... 29 8 53 6 Industrial Relations Bureau... 219 16 - - Industries Assistance Commission... 315 7 303 23 Inter-State Commission... - - 21 - Merit Protection and Review Agency... - - 43 2 National Crime Authority... - - 195 4 National Film and Sound Archive... - - 49 1 National Library of Australia... 624 64 604 64 National Museum of Australia... - - 37 2 Office of Australian Federal Police... - - 527 6 Office of National Assessments... 76 2 71 1 Office of Parliamentary Counsel... 31 - 38 3 Office of the Supervising Scientist... 58 4 77 - Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office... 492 20 603 28 Petroleum Products Pricing Authority... 20 - - - Prices Surveillance Authority... - - 14 - Public Service Board... 794 30 681 29 Service-Wide Trainees... 122 - 106 - Royal Australian Mint... 320 3 287 2 Special Broadcasting Service... 283 5 350 73 Trade Practices Commission... 181 2 193 1 Total... 157,896 2,959 169,623 3,390 (Question No. 3690) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: What steps have been taken by the Government over the last 3 years to press for the observance of human rights and self determination for the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: This Government over the last three years has strongly and consistently deplored the Soviet Union's unsatisfactory human rights record, including in relation to the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. We have expressed our views publicly as well as conveying them privately to the Soviet authorities. Australia has also joined in international efforts calling upon the Soviet Union to abide by the important principles of human rights embodied in United Nations instruments. In response to the concern over the human rights situation in the Baltic States this Government raised the question of violation of human rights in the Baltic States at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March 1985 and March 1986. On the question of self determination, as you will already be aware, Australia does not recognise de jure the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Soviet Union, but recognises de facto the Soviet Government's control over the Baltic States. This Government will continue to support an end to the violation of human rights in the Baltic States and make efforts towards this end which can be assessed as constructive and not counter-productive. (Question No. 3698) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to Noam Chomsky's article entitled ``The United States and the Middle East'' in END Papers No. 10 Summer 1985, from the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation Ltd. (2) If so, in which respects has Australia's stand differed from that of the (a) U.N., (b) U.S. declarations and (c) U.S. performance as claimed in the article. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I have not read the article and therefore cannot comment. (Question No. 3709) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: Will he bring up to date the information provided in the answers to question No. 312 (Hansard, 8 December 1983, page 3613) and part (2) of question No. 4990 (Hansard, 10 November 1982, page 3052), in relation to ``naturalised'' and ``naturalising'' companies for the purposes of foreign investment guidelines. Mr Keating —The details sought by the honourable member on companies' status under the naturalisation provisions of foreign investment policy are as follows: Company Date Naturalising/ Naturalised Status Granted Australian Equity when Status was Granted Present Australian Equity (per cent) (1) (per cent) (1) Naturalising CRA Ltd (2)... 15.05.79 31.8 47.7 Naturalised Ashton Mining NL... 1.04.86 39.7 (3) 53.7 Tubemakers of Australia Ltd... 11.05.79 56.3 80 MIM Holdings Ltd... 3.12.79 51.1 68.2 AMATIL Ltd... 27.07.80 59 59 Aberfoyle Limited... 17.11.81 52.9 52.9 Renison Goldfields Limited... 7.05.82 51 51 Comalco Limited... 12.05.83 64.6 71.1 (1) Based on equity holdings of major foreign shareholder. (2) 24 of the wholly owned subsidiaries of CRA Ltd obtained naturalising status under the Government's foreign investment policy on 28 June 1985. (3) Ashton Mining NL obtained naturalised status under the Government's foreign investment policy on 1 April 1986. The figure in the table represents Ashton's Australian equity when the company was granted naturalising status on 6 February 1981. (Question No. 3751) Mr Downer asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) where the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principles of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or Authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84 (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) Nil (ii) $70,500 (iii) 1,202,984.08 (b) (i) Nil (ii) National study of women and family budgeting by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls. (iii) Radio commercials for the Women's Information Service, Hobart ($1,523.81) and press, radio and cinema advertising for the Priority One campaign ($250,793.46) by Monahan Dayman Adams Pty Ltd and for the Priority One campaign by Chandler Hambleton Mier Pty Ltd, an associated company of Monahan Dayman Adams Pty Ltd ($950,666.81). (Question No. 3774) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering the questions. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based partly on advice from the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio, is as follows: Department of Communications No amounts have been paid by the Department of Communications to Mr Phillip Adams. The Department has paid several amounts to the company Monahan, Dayman, Adams Ltd of which Phillip Adams is a principal in the years in question. These are summarised below: (a) (i) Nil (ii) $21,165.56 (iii) $3,859.50 (as at 23 April 1986) (b) Placement of Radio Advertisements No amounts have been paid to Mr Rod Cameron, his company or principals of his company, for projects undertaken on behalf of the Department in the years in question. Australian Postal Commission No amounts have been paid by Australia Post to Mr Phillip Adams in the years in question. The following is a summary of amounts paid to companies in which Mr Phillip Adams has an interest: (a) (i) Nil (ii) $3,394,076.50 (iii) $5,331,167.69 (from 1 July 1985 to 14 April 1986) (b) The projects on which these moneys were expended included product marketing and media planning, research, copywriting, art and design, audio visual merchandising, printing, public relations, sales promotions, advertising services and placement of advertising. Approximately 25% of the total amount paid to Monahan Dayman Adams (MDA) is for its services. The remaining 75% is paid by MDA to companies or organisations which have undertaken work such as advertising or printing etc. for Australia Post. No amounts have been paid to Mr Rod Cameron, his company or principals of his company, for projects undertaken on behalf of Australia Post in the years in question. Australian Telecommunications Commission Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) Australian Broadcasting Corporation Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Special Broadcasting Services No amounts have been paid by these authorities to Mr Phillip Adams or Mr Rod Cameron, or to their companies or to principals of their companies in the years in question. (Question No. 3798) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (1) Further to the answer to my question No. 2588 (Hansard, 12 March 1986, page 1256) relating to accounting standards, is the ``fast track'' to which he refers the 20 standards already prepared by the Australian profession. (2) What is the nature of the standards (a) which have been approved, (b) which are likely to be approved and (c) which have been issued by the profession but not yet considered by the Accounting Standards Review Board. (3) Will there be a comprehensive group of standards when the proposed standards are approved. (4) Is there any opposition or hostility from the business community to the standards already issued. (5) Will he consider, as a matter of urgency, granting financial assistance to the Australian Accountants Standards Foundation to enable it to increase production of the standards. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The ``fast track'' procedure involves the Accounting Standards Review Board identifying those existing professional standards for which it would be appropriate to expedite the ASRB's normal review and approval procedures. I understand that factors taken into consideration by the ASRB include the length of time the standard has been on issue; the degree of controversy associated with it; and the level of compliance with the standard. I am advised that in the light of those criteria, the ASRB considers that not all the profession's standards are suitable for immediate approval as approved accounting standards. 2 (a) The ASRB has approved eight accounting standards (on the dates shown) covering the following matters: ASRB 1001: Accounting Policies-Disclosure (18 September 1985) ASRB 1002: Events Occurring after Balance Date (18 September 1985) (Replacement standard notified 8 July 1986) ASRB 1003: Foreign Currency Translation-Disclosure (27 September 1985) ASRB 1004: Disclosure of Operating Revenue (7 March 1986) ASRB 1005: Financial Reporting by Segments (29 April 1986) ASRB 1006: Accounting for Interests in Joint Ventures (30 April 1986) ASRB 1007: Financial Reporting of Sources and Applications of Funds (30 June 1986) ASRB 1008: Accounting for Leases (31 July 1986) 2 (b) I am informed that the ASRB expects to approve another 3 accounting standards in the next few months dealing with, respectively, the revaluation of non-current assets, accounting for research and development, and accounting for construction contracts. A further proposed standard on measurement requirements for foreign currency translation was released for public comment earlier this year and is now being considered in the light of the submissions received before being approved. Proposed standards on equity accounting and accounting for goodwill have been submitted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Australian Society of Accountants (`the joint accounting bodies') and have yet to be publicly exposed. It should also be noted that at its meeting at Yulara on 23rd July 1986, the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities decided in principle that the disclosure requirements of Schedule 7 should be progressively replaced, as soon as practicable, by approved accounting standards. 2 (c) I am advised that there are a number of accounting standards which have been issued by the joint accounting bodies but which have yet to be formally submitted to the ASRB. These standards cover the following topics: AAS 1 Profit and Loss Statements AAS 2 Valuation and Presentation of Inventories in the Context of the Historical Cost System AAS 3 Accounting for Company Income Tax (Tax-Effect Accounting) AAS 4 Depreciation of Non-Current Assests AAS 7 Accounting for Extractive Industries AAS 9 Expenditure carried forward to subsequent Accounting Periods AAS 21 Accounting for the Acquisition of Assets (including Business Entities). (3) When all the professional standards so far issued by the joint accounting bodies have been approved by the ASRB as approved accounting standards, significant aspects of accounting will still remain to be covered by further approved standards. While the standards already issued by the profession cover the fundamental issues of historical cost accounting and their approval would bring the Australian position closer to that of the more advanced Western countries, I understand that they do not deal with a number of issues, such as consolidated financial statements, accounting for costs of employee benefits, statements of financial position and accounting for investment in entities other than subsidiaries, which, for example, are the subject of standards in the United States. In addition, the ASRB will need to monitor, and take appropriate measures to deal with new developments in accounting concepts and practices, including the emerging overseas movement to replace historical cost accounting with the concept of current cost accounting. (4) I am advised that the ASRB has received no formal complaints regarding standards subsequent to their approval. Indeed, the ASRB has introduced a number of formal procedures specifically intended to identify and resolve contentious issues before standards are approved. These procedures include the public exposure of proposed standards to provide the public, including the business community, with an opportunity to bring issues of concern to the attention of the ASRB. The ASRB is also required to evaluate the practicality and efficiency of a proposed standard having regard to its commercial and economic consequences. This assessment takes into account, among other things, the impact of compliance with, and the corresponding costs and benefits of, a proposed accounting standard on small as well as medium and large companies and on companies in particular industries. (5) The organisation to which the honourable member has referred is the Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF). It is a private organisation involved in the research and development of professional accounting standards which is funded by the members of the joint accounting bodies. I understand that AARF also receives the proceeds of licensing arrangements with commercial publishers for the printing of the professional standards and will continue to receive such funds in respect of the commercial publication of approved standards which are based on proposed standards submitted by them. At a time when there is a need for restraint in Government expenditure in all areas I do not propose that we should, at this stage, be taking on additional areas of funding responsibility. (Question No. 3852) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) What has been the cost of operating the Special Broadcasting Service since its establishment? (2) What are the estimates of its (a) share of the audience in each of the years since its establishment and (b) ratings in the capital cities and provincial cities. (3) Has the recent change from VHF to UHF transmission affected audience levels. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based in part on information provided by the Special Broadcasting Service, is: (1) Listed below are the Appropriations for the SBS for each year since its establishment. During the years 1977-78 to 1979-80 the SBS operated AM radio services only. The SBS began television transmissions in October 1980. Year Operational Capital $ $ 1977-78... 1,001,000 - 1978-79... 2,750,000 153,000 1979-80... 6,260,000 800,000 1980-81... 21,273,000 5,714,000 1981-82... 26,141,000 249,000 1982-83... 28,451,000 406,000 1983-84... 33,837,000 611,000 1984-85... 36,927,000 1,977,000 1985-86... 43,744,000 2,663,000 200,384,000 12,573,000 Grand Total... $212,957,000 Note: The above figures cover total costs for the Special Broadcasting Service, including Corporate Management, Radio and Television. (2) (a) There have been no special surveys to determine the SBS's overall share of radio audiences. Figures listed below, indicate SBS television's overall share of total audience viewing time in the period from late 1980 to early 1986. McNair Anderson conducts surveys in Sydney and Melbourne eight times a year. The table below indicates only one survey showing SBS audience share for 1980 due to the fact that SBS-TV commenced operations in October of that year. The figures for 1986 were based on the results of two surveys (the number conducted and tabulated to date). The following figures relate to shares by Homes viewing, for the period 6.00pm to midnight (ie. the period during which SBS has comparable viewing hours to other stations): Year No. of Surveys Average per cent share of viewing time Sydney Melbourne 1980... 1 1.3 2.2 1981... 8 1.5 1.9 1982... 8 1.7 2.0 1983... 8 2.0 2.5 1984... 8 2.1 2.5 1985... 8 1.9 2.6 1986 (UHF only)... 2 1.6 2.1 (b) The audience share percentage ratings for 1986 (average per cent of viewing time from two surveys) for Brisbane and Adelaide are 1.1 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively. Single survey figures for 1986 are:- - Perth: 2.2 per cent, - Wollongong: 0.9 per cent, - Newcastle: 0.8 per cent, and - Canberra: 3.8 per cent (3) Sydney and Melbourne are the only two cities affected by the VHF/UHF changeover. The best trend comparisons are provided by the percentage figures for homes reached by the SBS through its total program format in an average survey week. Figures are available since 1982 and are as follows: Year No. of Surveys Average per cent share of viewing time Sydney Melbourne 1982... 8 15.8 19.2 1983... 8 18.5 23.5 1984... 8 20.3 27.1 1985... 8 18.2 24.1 1986 (UHF only)... 2 13.7 16.9 (Question No. 3896) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the campaign in Queensland promoted by the National Party of Australia and some aspects of the medical profession claiming that the State has been significantly disadvantaged under the Medicare arrangements because of the State's so called free hospital system. (2) If so, will he detail the facts on this issue. (3) Is it a fact that Queensland received (a) special financial assistance to compensate it because of its hospital system and (b) additional moneys which were untied and which have gone into consolidated revenue. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. My attention has been drawn to the campaign in Queensland prompted by the National Party claiming that the State has been significantly disadvantaged under the Medicare arrangements because of the State's so called free hospital system. It would appear that the Queensland National Party resurrects the question of Medicare funding from time to time in a bid to distort the level of compensation that the Commonwealth is making to Queensland under Medicare. (2) and (3) The facts of the issue are that all States and Territories were treated equally in relation to compensation for the loss of revenue or increased costs associated with the introduction of Medicare. However, to ensure that Queenslanders received a greater return through Medicare benefits and hospital payments than Queenslanders paid under the levy, a special grant was included in the Medicare payments. The amount paid for the first 5 months of Medicare was $18m; $35m was paid in 1984-85 and in 1985-86 that $35m was increased by 7.2% to $37.5m. This amount will be maintained in real terms in 1986-87. Further, at the time the Medicare Hospital Agreements were signed, the Commonwealth agreed that to dispel any concern that the people of Queensland had regarding the level of funding to Queensland under Medicare, the Grants Commission was requested to assess whether or not the Medicare arrangements altered the health relativities in relation to Commonwealth payments. The 1985 Grants Commission Report identified an amount of $10m as necessary to restore Queensland's position in relation to health relativities for 1983-84 and 1984-85. The additional $10m was paid in 1985-86. The new funding arrangements agreed at the Premiers' Conference in June 1985 maintained the equity of health relativities. The Medicare grants are untied grants and are paid into the State's consolidated revenue. Queensland is free to allocate those funds in accordance with its own priorities. I am unaware if the additional grant funds have been directed to improving the Queensland public hospital system. However, I understand from an examination of the Queensland State Budget papers over recent years, that there has not been significant real increases in expenditure on public hospitals which would indicate that the extra $100 million paid to Queensland since the introduction of Medicare has not been directed at improving the State public hospital system. (Question No. 3902) Mr Wright asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: What control do the (a) Federal Government and (b) State Governments have over (i) the wholesale and (ii) the retail price of petrol and other petroleum products. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) maintains surveillance over wholesale prices charged by the oil companies for petrol, automotive distillate, aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel, and over the ex-refinery gate prices for liquefied petroleum gas. In accordance with the provisions of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983, the PSA sets maximum prices to be charged by oil companies for these products. The companies are free to charge lower prices if they wish. In addition to its surveillance of these products, the PSA also monitors the wholesale prices of other petroleum products under a voluntary arrangement with the oil industry. The PSA does not undertake surveillance of the retail prices of petroleum products. Western Australia is the only State which currently exercises control over petrol prices. It controls both wholesale and retail prices, although wholesale prices are set in line with decisions of the PSA. There are no State controls over the prices of other petroleum products. (Question No. 3910) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 May 1986: Which international conventions, treaties and agreements have been implemented by federal legislation since March 1979. Mr Hayden —I am informed that the following table sets out in the first column particulars of Acts enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament since March 1979 for the purpose of giving effect to, or of enabling effect to be given to, the international conventions, treaties and agreements set out in the second column. Short Title of the Act Title of Convention, Treaty or Agreement to which Act listed opposite relates Navigation Amendment Act 1979 ... Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 197? International Convention relating to the limitation of the liability of owners of sea-going ships, 1957 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 and Protocol of 1978 International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972 International Convention on tonnage Measurements of Ships, 1969 Lighthouse Amendment Act 1979 ... International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979 Patent Co-operation Treaty, 1970 Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Act 1980 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1979. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Swiss Federal Council for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income, 1980 and Protocol of 1980. Protocol of 1980 to the Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains, 1967. Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Act (No. 2) 1980 Convention between the Government of Australia and the Government of Canada for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1980. Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Act 1981 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1980. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Sweden for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1981. Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1981 Convention of the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, 1980 Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and Protocol of 1969 Protection of the Sea (Discharge of Oil from Ships) Act 1981 The amendments concerning the protection of the Great Barrier Reef of 1971 and the amendments concerning tank arrangements and limitation of tank size of 1971 to the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 as amended by the 1962 and 1969 amendments. Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution Casualties, 1969. Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil, 1973. Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Act 1981 The amendments concerning the protection of the Great Barrier Reef of 1971 and the amendments concerning tank arrangements and limitation of tank size of 1971 to the International Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954 as amended by the 1962 and 1969 amendments. Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 as amended by the Resolutions of 1978 and 1980. Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Act 1981 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to amend the Christmas Island Agreement, 1958 of 1981. Crimes (Currency) Act 1981... International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency, 1929 and Protocol of 1929. Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Act (No. 2) 1981 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1981. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (No. 2) 1982 Protocol of 1979 amending the International Convention relating to the limitation of the liability of owners of sea-going ships, 1957. 1981 Amendments to Annex 1 of the International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972. Christmas Island Agreement Amendment Act 1983 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to provide for the termination of the Christmas Island Agreement 1958-81, 1982. Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Act 1983 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified and added to by the Protocol of 1978. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified and added to by the Protocol of 1978. Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Act 1983 Convention between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1982. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India for the avoidance of double taxation of income derived from international air transport, 1983. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains, 1983. Convention between Australia and the Republic of Italy for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1982 and Protocol of 1982. Convention between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1982 and Protocol of 1982. Convention between Australia and the Kingdom of Norway for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and on capital, 1982 and Protocol of 1982. Family Law Amendment Act 1983... Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations, 1973. Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980. Sex Discrimination Act 1984... Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979. Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1984 Treaty between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea concerning sovereignty and maritime boundaries in the area between the two countries, including the area known as Torres Strait, and related matters, 1978. Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984... Treaty between Australia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea concerning sovereignty and maritime boundaries in the area between the two countries, including the area known as Torres Strait, and related matters, 1978. Patents Amendment Act 1984... Budapest treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro Organisms for the purposes of Patent Procedure, 1977 and Regulations annexed thereto. Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Act 1984 Protocol of 1984 amending the Agreement between Australia and the Kingdom of Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1977. Agreement between Australia and Malta for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, 1984. Marriage Amendment Act 1985... Chapter II of the Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages, 1978. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 1) 1985 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, 1972. 1984 Amendments to the Annex to the 1978 Protocol to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. (Question No. 3919) Mr Coleman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Human Rights Commission in the organisation of the ``Sunday in the Park'' fiesta in the ACT. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: The amount spent by the Human Rights Commission was $6533.64. (Question No. 3921) Mr Coleman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: Has the Human Rights Commission provided any grants or funding to non-government organisations other than those awarded under the Community Education Grants program; if so, (a) to which organisations, (b) for what projects and (c) for what amount in each case. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: Yes, the Human Rights Commission has provided grants as follows: 1. (a) To the Law School, University of New South Wales; (b) for partial sponsorship of the ``For Protection of Human Rights in Australia Conference'' 10-11 December 1985; (c) for the amount of $3000.00; 2. (a) to the National Youth Council of Australia (NYCA); (b) for the sponsorshop of disadvantaged youth to attend NYCA National Conference, Perth, December 1985; (c) for the amount of $5000.00; and 3. (a) to the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA); (b) for a contribution to produce a special Newsletter on racial issues; (c) for the amount of $1000.00. (Question No. 3922) Mr Coleman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 May 1986: What amount was granted to schools under the Small Grants Scheme for participation in the Teaching for Human Rights schools program conducted by the Human Rights Commission. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on the information provided by the Human Rights Commission, is as follows: Since the Teaching for Human Rights schools program began in January 1985 the Human Rights Commission has paid an amount of $126,000 to teachers and schools participating in the program. (Question No. 3931) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community 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 Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Since the Department of Community Services was created on 13 December 1984 to 30 June 1985, $969 331.60 was expended on the use of Commonwealth vehicles. The following table itemises the expenditure: Type of Service Expenditure $ 1. Client transport with driver ... 719 122.23 2. Commonwealth car with driver ... 125 449.58 3. Permanent hire of vehicle without driver ... 197 925.24 4. Temporary hire of vehicle without driver ... 26 834.55 Total ... 969 331.60 Items 1 and 2 include taxis and hire cars provided in lieu of Commonwealth vehicles. (Question No. 3933) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, 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 Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: $1 948 071 was spent in 1984-85 by organisations within my portfolio on Commonwealth vehicles (both self-drive and driver-provided). A breakdown of that cost is: Organisation Amount $ Department of the Treasury ... 24 143 Australian Taxation Office ... 1 619 559 Australian Bureau of Statistics... 291 305 Royal Australian Mint ... 3 251 Prices Surveillance Authority ... 9 813 (Question No. 3945) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Transport, 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 Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The amount spent by the Department of Transport was $647,080. As Minister for Transport I am responsible for two statutory authorities-the Australian National Railways Commission and the Australian Shipping Commission. I am also responsible for administration of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 which provides for the operation of the Inter-State Commission, an authority established by the Constitution. Australian National Railways Commission and Australian Shipping Commission both operate their own vehicle fleets. The amount spent by the Inter-State Commission was $14,252. The expenditure figures for the Department of Transport and the Inter-State Commission include the permanent and casual hire of Commonwealth vehicles from the Transport and Storage Division of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services as well as the hire of car-with-driver services. (Question No. 3950) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Territories, 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 usage of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85. Mr Scholes —The following answer to the honourable member's question has been prepared from Department of finance monthly statements and the relevant statutory authorities: $ Department of Territories... 1,952,292 Statutory Authorities National Capital Development Commission... 79,126 Parliament House Construction Authority... 27,101 ACT Health Authority... 383,215 Building and Construction Industry-Long Service Leave Board... 1,275 ACT Electricity Authority The ACT Electricity Authority, as an off-budget Government Business Enterprise, operates its own vehicle fleet. ACT Schools Authority Figures for the ACT Schools Authority's expenditure on Commonwealth vehicles have been included with the Minister for Education Answer No. 3937. The total cost of answering this question was $550. (Question No. 3953) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: What amount was spent by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under the Minister's control on the use of Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditure on Commonwealth vehicles in 1984-85 was: $ Department of Aboriginal Affairs... 700,494 Aboriginal Development Commission... 279,189 Aboriginal Hostels Limited... 190,205 Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies... 29,074 Aboriginal Land Commissioner... 9,983 1,208,945 (Question No. 3988) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: What progress was made at the IMF and World Bank meetings in April 1986 towards (a) reform of the international financial system and (b) coping with the massive overseas debts of some third world countries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information on these matters is contained in the Communique of the Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (the Interim Committee), released on 10 April 1986 and the Communique of the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Board of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries (the Development Committee), issued on 11 April 1986. A copy of these two communiques has been provided to the honourable member. Paragraphs 4 to 7 inclusive of the Interim Committee Communique report on the Committee's consideration of a number of issues related to the international monetary system. Paragraphs 12 to 17 inclusive of the Development Committee Communique and paragraph 8 of the Interim Committee Communique comment on the situation of low income countries with protracted balance of payments difficulties. The problems of the most heavily indebted middle-income countries are addressed in paragraphs 3 to 10 inclusive of the Development Committee Communique and paragraph 3 of the Interim Committee Communique. The Communique read as follows- DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433 Telephone: (202) 477 6424 April 11, 1986 PRESS COMMUNIQUE 1. The Development Committee held its twenty-eighth meeting in Washington, D.C. on April 10-11, 1986, under the chairmanship of His Excellency Ghulam Ishaq Khan. Mr A. W. Clausen, President of the World Bank, Mr J. de Larosiere, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, and Mr Fritz Fischer, Executive Secretary of the Development Committee, participated in the meeting. Observers from a number of international and regional organizations and Switzerland also attended. 2. The Committee heard a report from the IMF Managing Director on the Interim Committee discussions on the world economic outlook and on the debt situation and stategy and endorsed the Interim Committee's conclusion. 3. The Committee reviewed the progress that had been made in addressing the problems of the most heavily indebted middle-income countries in the period since its Seoul meeting and the announcement of U.S. Treasury Secretary Baker's initiative. In this context, the Committee reviewed the background paper on this subject prepared at its request by the world bank, and endorsed the general approach set out for achieving sustained growth in the heavily indebted countries. The Committee heard with great interest reports of progress made in recent months by a number of countries in designing such programs and urged all major parties-indebted countries, industrial countries, commercial banks, and international financial and development institutions-to redouble their efforts so that medium-term growth-oriented adjustment programs can be designed and implemented as soon as possible. 4. The Committee recognized that the problems of these countries were deep-seated and would not be resolved quickly as the outstanding debt burden on government finance and balance of payment hampers growth prospects and a return to creditworthiness. The Committee emphasized the need for a roll-back in protectionism. It agreed that a lasting solution for the debt problem requires not only sustained adjustment and growth in developing countries, but also industrial country policies which will promote a further decline in real interest rates, expansion in international trade, improvements in commodity prices, greater stability in exchange markets, and increased external capital flows. In this context the Committee urged industrial countries to redouble their efforts in removing these obstacles to a lasting solution to the debt problem. 5. The Committee stressed that even with substantial policy reforms in developing countries and satisfactory rates of non-inflationary growth in industrial countries, restoration of growth in developing countries requires large amounts of net flows of capital, including repatriation of flight capital. Success will depend essentially upon the creation of an environment which would help promote timely action by the commercial banks and by all sources of finance providing adequate amounts of resources. 6. In this context, the Committee emphasized the importance of export credit agencies (ECAs) as a major source of financing and endorsed the Interim Committee's conclusions on this topic. Members welcomed the World Bank's intention to work more closely with all parties concerned to encourage timely and adequate support by ECAs in countries undertaking adjustment for growth programs to help ensure their success. 7. The Committee also urged creditor governments to ensure that regulations and guidelines imposed by their bank supervisors do not impede financing arrangements that can provide increased commercial bank flows, consistent with prudential considerations, to countries implementing significant medium-term programs of adjustment and growth. The Committee agreed that new flows of international bank credit in such circumstances can help to improve the quality of outstanding credits. 8. The Committee also recognized the role of the private sector in development and the need for greater flows of foreign investment to developing countries. In this context, members noted that the Convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) has now been signed by 19 governments, including four industralized countries. The Committee encouraged other interested governments to sign and ratify the Convention so that it may enter into force as soon as possible. 9. The Committee re-emphasized the consensus reached in Seoul on the need for the enhanced participation of the World Bank and the IMF in the design, financing and monitoring of growth-oriented adjustment programs. The Committee agreed that this would help inspire greater confidence that the heavily indebted countries are taking appropriate steps to restore growth and creditworthiness. The Committee stressed that in furthering their collaboration, the Bank and the Fund should maintain their respective areas of competence and avoid cross-conditionality. 10. Consistent with the Bank's global commitment to development, growth and poverty alleviation, the Committee reaffirmed its strong support for a substantial expansion of the Bank's lending program. It noted that since the Committee's meeting in Seoul, Bank Management had increased projections of lending in FY1986-1988 to a range of $40-50 billion, and was now contemplating a lending level of up to $21.5 billion in FY1990. The Committee expressed its strong support for the steps taken by the Bank to assist the heavily indebted countries to develop credible growth-oriented programs. The increase in Bank net disbursements to these countries was welcomed as was the prospect that in 1986 adjustment-related lending to them will increase substantially. The Committee urged the Bank to take further steps to strengthen its ability to play a leading role in support of programs aimed at adjustment and growth as well as of investment projects throughout the world. 11. Ministers reiterated the understanding reached in Seoul that the Bank should be provided with the capacity to increase its quality lending and that the Bank should not be constrained by lack of capital or borrowing authority in meeting future demand. The Committee welcomed the additional efforts of the Bank in promoting growth-oriented adjustment and the associated increase in financial commitments it has undertaken in support of such programs. The Committee emphasized the essential role of the World Bank, together with the IMF and commercial banks, in supporting comprehensive adjustment programs. It noted that provided other participants continue to fulfill their obligations in the adjustment programs, Bank lending for FY1987 may possibly exceed the level of lending that could be sustained with the capital at present available to it. The Committee welcomed the forthcoming discussion in the Bank Board of several matters bearing on the calculation of future capital requirements, including the valuation of IBRD capital. Ministers agreed that the Bank's Executive Board should seek an early resolution of these issues so that an agreement on a General Capital Increase can be arrived at promptly. In this context, and in light of these encouraging developments, the Committee stressed the importance of continuing to monitor closely progress in meeting the Bank's capital requirements and the need to ensure adequate capital. The Ministers requested that the World Bank prepare a progress report for discussion at the next meeting on the Bank's lending program and on the continued adequacy of its capital. 12. Members reviewed the World Bank's most recent report, prepared at the Committee's request, on the continuing severe difficulties of Sub-Saharan Africa and agreed that concerted action is urgently needed to address the region's problems. The Committee reiterated its strong support for the Joint Program of Action endorsed at its September 1984 meeting. The Committee also requested that a study on the market prospects of raw materials be prepared for a future meeting of the Committee. 13. The Committee noted with satisfaction the growing commitment of African governments to policy reform, as illustrated by examples in the Bank's report of adjustment measures now being implemented. Some promising results are already evident. The Committee stressed that success of medium-term growth-oriented adjustment programs require increased external capital flows, particularly in view of continued weakness in commodity prices and heavy debt service obligations. Members noted the Bank's estimate of $2.5 billion in additional concessional flows that are needed annually, over the next five years, to help meet low-income Sub-Saharan Africa's financial needs. Members called upon industrial countries to exert their best efforts to close this gap by providing additional official development assistance, through both bilateral and multilateral channels, to countries in the region undertaking significant reform programs. Furthermore, most Ministers agreed that donor countries should not be net recipients of official capital flows from African countries undertaking adjustment programs. 14. Ministers also agreed on the need to enhance further the effectiveness of aid flows to Sub-Saharan Africa and noted the World Bank's suggestions for strengthening donor aid coordination. The Committee reaffirmed that the central responsibility for aid coordination lies with each recipient government. In this context, the Committee urged the Bank to take the leadership role in improving aid coordination, working closely with interested governments as well as with the UNDP, the OECD/DAC, the European Community and other concerned parties. The Committee asked the Bank to report back at the next meeting on progress achieved in all aspects of coordination, including progress in the establishment of improved monitoring mechanisms. 15. The Committee heard a progress report on current negotiations for the replenishment of IDA. Ministers emphasized the special importance of IDA to the success of development programs in poor countries throughout the world. Virtually all Ministers expressed the strong hope that an IDA-8 replenishment of $12 billion will be achieved. This would maintain in real terms the concessionary resources now available throughout IDA-7 and the Special Facility for Sub-Saharan Africa and enable IDA to continue its role in poverty alleviation and economic development and also to provide necessary support, in conjunction with the IMF, to IDA-eligible countries undertaking growth- oriented adjustment programs. Ministers urged donors to exert maximum efforts in the coming months to reach a consensus on outstanding issues related to the next replenishment, including fair burden-sharing and an equitable allocation of resources, and expressed the wish that negotiations be concluded before the next meeting of the Committee in September. 16. The Committee welcomed the recent decision taken by the IMF Executive Board that established the Structural Adjustment Facility (SAF) in the Fund which will provide assistance on concessional terms to low-income countries with protracted balance of payments problems in support of medium-term macroeconomic and structural adjustment programs. The Committee noted that the new Facility will require close coordination between the Fund and the World Bank to assist eligible members in the formulation of a comprehensive medium-term policy framework. The Committee expressed the hope that the SAF resources would be complemented by additional bilateral and multilateral concessional assistance in support of agreed programs. Ministers reaffirmed that such arrangements would not adversely affect the availability of concessional development finance for low-income countries not utilizing Trust Fund reflows. 17. The Committee recognized that concessional flows are of critical importance to the success of adjustment and growth programs in the poorest developing countries. In this context, the Committee welcomed further Bank reports following up on the conclusions of the Task Force on Concessional Flows. As part of the effort to encourage implementation of the Task Force Report's conclusions, including an increased flow of official development assistance, the Committee requested the World Bank to prepare a report for its next meeting on the volume of ODA flows forecast for the period 1986-90. 18. The Ministers took note of the discussion in the Interim Committee on the issues raised in the recent G-10 and G-24 Reports. The Ministers also recalled the commitment made by the Chairmen of the Interim and Development Committees at the Seoul meetings to communicate with each other with a view to seeing to what extent arrangements could be made for cooperation on matters pertaining to development. Taking note of the Chairman's intervention in the meeting of the Interim Committee, the Ministers requested him, after holding further consultations with the Chairman of the Interim Committee, to report to the next meeting of the Development Committee his views on the modalities of cooperative arrangements for improvements in the financial and monetary system's impact on growth and development. 19. The Committee was informed by the GATT Director General of the latest developments on international trade issues and the progress made by GATT's Preparatory Committee in defining the agenda for the proposed new round of trade negotiations. The Committee reiterated its call for all governments to resist protectionism and encouraged governments to launch the new round under GATT auspices at an early date with a view to further opening markets and strengthening the trading system. Ministers expressed the hope that Contracting Parties would take into account trade liberalization measures adopted in developing country adjustment and growth policies in the context of trade negotiations within the GATT framework. It invited the GATT Director General to continue to keep it informed about further developments. 20. The Committee expressed its profound appreciation to the retiring President of the World Bank, Mr A. W. Clausen, for his energetic support and encouragement of the work of the Committee, and for the highly significant contributions he has made during his five years in office to the cause of economic and social progress in the developing world. His imaginative and dedicated leadership of the Bank during a period of considerable stress in the global economy has, the Committee noted, positioned the institution well to build on the expanded role which has rightly been assigned to it. The Committee wished him well for the future. 21. The Committee agreed to meet again in Washington, D.C. on September 29, 1986. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND Secretary-Bank Room C-120 08 Press Release No. 86/10 For immediate release April 10, 1986 Communique of the Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund 1. The Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund held its twenty-sixth meeting in Washington, D.C., on April 9-10, 1986, under the chairmanship of Mr H. Onno Ruding, Minister of Finance of the Netherlands. Mr Jacques de Larosiere, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, participated in the meeting. The Chairman of the Development Committee, Mr Ghulam Ishaq Khan, took part in certain of the deliberations. The meeting was also attended by observers from a number of international and regional organizations and from Switzerland. 2. The Committee reviewed the World Economic Outlook. Attention was drawn to a number of the major developments in the economic setting since the Committee's last meeting, including the strengthened committment to reducing budgetary deficits in the United States, the further adjustment in the pattern of exchange rates among major currencies, the continued downward movement in international interest rates, continued progress in reducing inflation, and the sharp decline in oil prices. The decline in oil prices from 1985 to 1986 represents a transfer of income from oil exporting developing countries to the industrial world of the order of $60 billion. Committee members felt that these developments had generally improved the outlook for sustainable growth. However, it was noted that the financial position of oil exporting countries had been weakened, with consequences for many other developing countries. It was important that the opportunities offered by these price developments be fully seized in order to promote non inflationary growth. The current and prospective reduction in the U.S. fiscal deficit was welcomed. In respect of those countries where the economy is operating below capacity, and the balance of payments is in strong surplus and inflation is largely eliminated, it was noted that there might be room for more growth-oriented policies in the short term, while preserving the credibility of the authorities' medium-term policy stance. Committee members welcomed the decline in interest rates and hoped that further progress in reducing fiscal pressures and inflation would allow this process to continue, thereby helping capital formation and the growth of output and employment and alleviating the debt burden of developing countries. In the view of the Committee, structural policies aimed at improving the efficiency of resource allocation remained of central importance. The Committee took particular note of the fact that developing countries continue to face a number of serious problems. The exceptionally difficult economic conditions in low-income countries, especially in Africa, continue to be a matter of special concern. In 1985, world trade had been sluggish, commodity prices fell considerably, imports declined in real terms in many countries, and the growth of output slackened. Nevertheless, some progress was made by developing countries in coping with their economic problems. On the whole, and although there remain notable exceptions, the rate of inflation has been contained and a number of countries have adopted particularly bold anti-inflationary policies; current account deficits remain well below their peak figures of the earlier 1980s. Much remains to be accomplished, however, and the Committee considered it particularly important that effective domestic policies for promoting non-inflationary growth should be pursued. 3. The Committee welcomed the progress that is being achieved in strengthening the current debt strategy along the lines proposed by the United States at the last Annual Meetings. The strategy must continue to be tailored to individual cases and aim at promoting durable growth in debtor countries and restoring normal relations with creditors in the context of a growing world economy. While the Committee recognized that substantial progress had been made by a number of debtor countries despite difficult external circumstances, it noted that the basic debt ratios remained at difficult levels. It stressed the need for all debtor countries to follow sound macroeconomic and structural policies which are so important in rebuilding financial confidence and for creating a climate more conducive to encouraging domestic savings and productive investment as well as the repatriation of flight capital and direct investment flows. The Committee also emphasized the importance of sound policies in industrial countries for the successful implementation of the debt strategy. It was important for these countries to maintain open markets, liberalize trade, and pursue policies aimed at increasing growth, reducing exchange rate instability and, in particular, further lowering interest rates. It was essential to continue co-ordinated financial support, involving both official and private creditors, for debtors implementing sound economic policies, including those most affected by the recent substantial decline in world oil prices. In some cases, further concerted lending by commercial banks in support of economic adjustment efforts was needed in amounts and on terms appropriate to the circumstances and prospects of individual countries. This would, over time, improve the quality of banks' existing assets. Flexibility in rescheduling official debt was considered essential in support of sound adjustment programs. In addition, the Committee welcomed the move by official export credit agencies in industrial countries toward resuming or increasing cover, on a case-by-case basis, for countries whose debts have been rescheduled and which are undertaking the policy adjustments necessary to restore their creditworthiness. The Committee stressed the importance of this trend being carried further, but it noted that the resumption of export credit cover must not become a substitute for new funds from commercial banks where these are appropriate. The Committee reaffirmed the central role of the Fund in providing its members assistance and financing to develop growth-oriented adjustment programs and in serving as a financial catalyst, and noted the increased need for flexibility in the case-by-case application of the policy on enlarged access to Fund resources. The Committee also welcomed the increasingly valuable role being played by the World Bank in the strengthened debt strategy by fostering efficient resource use as well as by providing long-term financial assistance and underlined the importance of close collaboration between the Bank and the Fund in applying this strategy. 4. The Committee had a substantive exchange of views on a number of issues related to the international monetary system. These issues were examined in the reports put before the Committee by the Group of Ten and the Group of Twenty-Four at it last meeting in Seoul, as well as in a report by the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund on the discussions of these issues in the Executive Board since that time. The Committee's views on the exchange rate system, surveillance, and the role of the SDR are contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. 5. Concerning the exchange rate system, the Committee agreed that the flexibility with which the system had operated had enabled the world economy to adapt to a number of major disturbances; however, the variability of exchange rates and the longer-term misalignments that had emerged remained a source of concern. It was agreed that, if better exchange rate performance were to be achieved on a durable basis, it would be of the essence that economic policies be conducted in a sound and mutually consistent way and that exchange rate considerations should play their part in those policies. The Committee asked the Executive Board to consider further whether there are any modifications in the exchange rate system which would contribute to enhancing exchange rate stability and the mutual consistency of economic policies without sacrificing the essential flexibility of the system. 6. The Committee reconfirmed the key role that Fund surveillance needs to play in the functioning of the international monetary system. The Committee noted that several proposals presented by the Group of Ten and the Group of Twenty-Four to strengthen surveillance are being implemented. To improve the multilateral setting for surveillance, the Committee asked the Executive Board to consider ways in which its regular reviews of the world economic situation could be further adapted to improve the scope for discussing external imbalances, exchange rate developments, and policy interactions among members. An approach worth exploring further was the formulation of a set of objective indicators related to policy actions and economic performance, having regard to a medium-term framework. Such indicators might help to identify a need for discussion of countries' policies. The Committee noted that increased emphasis would be given in the World Economic Outlook to policy interactions among industrial countries in order to strengthen the basis for assessing the international repercussions of the policies and objectives of the major industrial countries, and also to help promote the further development of recent initiatives to enhance policy co-ordination among these countries. The Committee stressed the importance of taking into account the views of the whole Fund membership in this multilateral discussion. In addition, the Committee asked the Fund to consider further the ideas in the Group of Ten and the Group of Twenty-Four reports regarding the strengthening of the consultation process. 7. The Committee noted the progress made by the Executive Board in studying the functioning of the international reserve system and the role of the SDR in a system in which borrowed reserves play so prominent a part, but are not now readily available to a number of countries with limited access to financial markets. It considered that the SDR, which is an owned reserve asset, can play a useful role as a component of international reserves and as a unit of account. It also recognized the potential use of the SDR as a ``saftey net'' against unexpected contingencies. The Committee stressed the monetary character of the SDR which should not be a means of transferring resources and recommended that the Executive Board study possible improvements in the monetary characteristics of the SDR that would increase its attraction and usefulness as a component of monetary reserves. The Committee again discussed the question of SDR allocations and determined that, although most members favoured an allocation, the broad support needed for an allocation was lacking at this time. The Committee urged the Executive Board to continue its discussions on the role of the SDR in the present international monetary system and on SDR allocation in the light of proposals, aiming at the different possibilities of obtaining a more balanced and stable proportion of SDRs in members' reserves that have been put forward in that Board, and to report to the Committee at its next meeting on the progress in these discussions. 8. The Committee reiterated the key role of the Fund in assisting countries in designing adjustment policies and in providing balance of payments financing. In this context, the Committee welcomed the decisions taken by the Executive Board establishing the Structural Adjustment Facility (SAF) for providing assistance on concessional terms to low-income countries with protracted balance of payments problems in support of medium-term programs of macroeconomic and structural adjustment in order to foster growth and balance of payments viability. The new facility calls for close collaboration between the Fund and the World Bank with a view to assisting members in developing their own comprehensive medium-term policy frameworks as a basis for using SAF resources as well as to ensure the flow of additional external resources to these countries from the World Bank, other lending agencies, and donor countries. In furthering their collaboration, the Fund and the Bank should maintain their respective areas of responsibility, avoid cross-conditionality, and ensure that the policy advice given by the two institutions is consistent. 9. The Committee intends to give further consideration at its next meeting to the issues raised in the reports of the Group of Ten and the Group of Twenty-Four. That consideration will will be based on the work the Executive Board will carry out in the coming months on these issues, taking into account the guidance it has been given by the Committee. 10. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting in Washington, D.C. on September 28, 1986. INTERIM COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE April 9-10, 1986 Chairman: H. O. Ruding, Minister of Finance of Netherlands. Managing Director: J. de Larosiere. Members or Alternates: Mohammad ABALKHAIL, Minister of Finance and National Economy, Saudi Arabia; Abdul Malik AL HAMAR, Governor, United Arab Emirates Central Bank (Alternate for Hikmat M. Al-Azzawi, Governor, Central Bank of Iraq); Joe AMARA-BANGALI, Minister of Finance, Sierra Leone; James A. BAKER, III, Secretary of the Treasury, United States; Edouard BALLADUR, Minister of State for Economy, Finance and Privatization, France; Mark EYSKENS, Minister of Finance, Belgium; Erik ASBRINK, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of Finance, Sweden (Alternate for Kjell-Olof Feldt, Minister for Finance, Sweden); Dilson Domingos FUNARO, Minister of Finance, Brazil; Giovanni GORIA, Minister of the Treasury, Italy; Paul J. KEATING, Treasurer, Australia; Nigel LAWSON, Chancellor of the Exchequer, United Kingdom; LIU Hongru, Vice-Chairman of the Council and First Deputy Governor, People's Bank of China; Bader-Eddine NOUIOUA, Governor, Banque Centrale d'Algerie; PAY PAY wa Syakassighe, Governor, Banque du Zaire; W. F. DUISENBERG, President, De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. (Alternate for H. O. Ruding, Minister of Finance, Netherlands); Kamchorn SATHIRAKUL, Governor, Bank of Thailand; Jesus SILVA HERZOG, Secretary of Finance and Public Credit, Mexico; Vishwanath Pratap SINGH, Minister of Finance, India; Juan Vital SOURROUILLE, Minister of Economy, Argentina; Gerhard STOLTENBERG, Federal Minister of Finance, Germany; Satoshi SUMITA, Governor, The Bank of Japan (Alternate for Mr Noboru Takeshita, Minister of Finance, Japan); Michael H. WILSON, Minister of Finance, Canada. Observers: Horst Bockelmann, Economic Adviser and Head of the Monetary and Economic Department, BIS; A. W. Clausen, President, World Bank; Kenneth K. S. Dadzie, Secretary-General, UNCTAD; Arthur Dunkel, Director-General, GATT; Ali K. Hussain, International Monetary and Finance Analyst, OPEC; Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Chairman, Development Committee; Pierre Languetin, Chairman of the Governing Board, Swiss National Bank; Goran Ohlin, Assistant Secretary-General for Development Research and Policy Analysis, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, UN; Jean-Claude Paye, Secretary-General, OECD; Massimo Russo, Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, CEC. (Question No. 3993) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: How many jobs were created in each year from and including 1944-45 and in each of those years, what percentages did those jobs represent of the (a) total Australian population and (b) Australian workforce. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are no official statistics on the number of jobs created in Australia, as such. The closest approximation available from official sources would be figures obtained from a comparison, over time, of the total number of employed persons as estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from the labour force survey which it has conducted since 1966. A series of annual averages of these figures, including year-to-year changes, expressed as a percentage of (a) total Australian population and (b) estimated total labour force, is shown in Table 1. There are no comparable figures available for years prior to 1966. However, it is possible to derive an indication of trend from data available from the Censuses of Population and Housing conducted in 1947, 1954, 1961 and 1966. Relevant figures are shown in Table 2. To bring the census figures into closer relationship with the later (1966 onwards) survey figures, defence personnel have been excluded from the labour force figures in Table 2. A measure of the disparity still existing in the statistics (due largely to definitional differences between the two collections in respect of `employed persons', and in the collection methodologies used) can be gauged from the variation between the figures for 1966 in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EMPLOYED PERSONS (ANNUAL AVERAGE); ANNUAL CHANGE; ANNUAL CHANGE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MEAN AUSTRALIAN POPULATION; AND ANNUAL CHANGE AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LABOUR FORCE, 1966-1985 Year Employed persons ('000) Annual change ('000) Annual change as a percentage of mean Australian population Annual change as a percentage of total labour force 1966... 4,838.8 - - - 1967... 4,928.0 + 89.2 +0.77 +1.8 1968... 5,046.2 +118.2 +1.00 +2.3 1969... 5,187.6 +141.4 +1.18 +2.7 1970... 5,387.5 +199.9 +1.63 +3.6 1971... 5,516.7 +129.2 +1.03 +2.3 1972... 5,601.4 + 84.7 +0.66 +1.5 1973... 5,765.1 +163.7 +1.23 +2.8 1974... 5,891.2 +126.1 +0.93 +2.1 1975... 5,866.4 - 24.8 -0.18 -0.4 1976... 5,946.0 + 79.6 +0.57 +1.3 1977... 6,000.1 +54.1 + 0.39 +0.9 1978... 6,038.3 (a)...+ 38.2 +0.27 +0.6 1979... 6,110.6 + 72.3 +0.50 +1.1 1980... 6,284.3 +173.7 +1.20 +2.6 1981... 6,416.5 +132.2 +0.90 +1.9 1982... 6,414.9 - 1.6 -0.01 -0.2 1983... 6,300.4 -114.5 -0.75 -1.6 1984... 6,490.5 +190.1 +1.24 +2.7 1985... 6,710.4 (b)...+219.9 +1.41 +3.0 (a) Discontinuity in series. Prior to 1978, estimates are based on 1976 Population Census benchmarks. From 1978 onwards, they are based on 1981 Population Census benchmarks. (b) Definition of employed persons extended to include persons who worked without pay between one and 14 hours per week in a family business or on a farm (i.e. unpaid family helpers). Revised estimates not yet available for earlier periods. Note: For definition of `employed persons' and `labour force' see the latest issue of ``The Labour Force, Australia'' (ABS Catalogue No. 6203.0). Table 2 EMPLOYED PERSONS, LABOUR FORCE AND POPULATION ('000) Year Civilian employed persons Total labour force(a) Total population 1947(b)... 3,044.6 3,156.4 7,579.4 1954(b)... 3,591.5 3,655.3 8,986.5 1961... 4,008.5 (b)...4,181.1 (b)...10,548.3 1966... 4,721.4 4,799.2 11,599.5 Source: `Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, Part 1, Vol. VIII, Occupational Status of the People of Australia, Detailed Tables and Statistician's Report' for the respective census years. (a) Excludes enlisted defence personnel. (b) Excludes full-blood Aboriginals. (Question No. 4010) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) Does the procedure to claim refunds on departmental rail travel require (a) up to 6 signatures and (b) take up to 4 days; if so, does this encourage his departmental officers to travel by air at greater expense. (2) What is the annual (a) cost and (b) number of departmental (i) air fares and (ii) rail and car expenses. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is normal procedure in the Department of Transport for all modes of travel to be booked and paid direct to the enterprise providing the service. Direct payment by an officer for any mode of transport would only occur in urgent or unusual circumstances. Claims for reimbursements to employees, regardless of the nature of the expenditure for which reimbursement is sought, must be processed in accordance with the requirements of section 34 of the Audit Act. It is normal practice for refunds to departmental officers to take priority, however processing time is dependent upon volume of claims to be processed. (2) (a) (i) The cost of domestic departmental airfares was $1,566,791 of which $661,848 was expended on provision of transport for vessel crew changes in accordance with determinations covering seafarers in departmental vessels. (ii) The cost of departmental rail and car expenses in lieu of utilizing air travel was $61,925. (2) (b) (i) Number of departmental air fares 5395 of which 2067 related to provision of transport for vessel crew changes as in (2) (a) (i). (ii) Number of departmental rail and car expenses 314. These figures relate to departmental travel undertaken during 1984-85 financial year. (Question No. 4018) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) Was the Moree Boomerang Football Club provided with a bus and were its rugby league affiliation fees paid for by his Department. (2) How many aboriginal football clubs have received similar grants over the last 3 financial years. (3) Did the Aniwan Football Club receive a grant of $1,000 from his Department; if so, were these funds fully accounted for. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised that: (1) Moree Boomerangs Sporting Aboriginal Corporation received a grant from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of $38,000 in 1984 for purchase of a bus and for payment of affiliation fees. (2) Koorie United Junior Rugby League Football Club received a grant from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of $22,000 in 1984-85 for purchase of a bus; Zetland All Blacks Football Club received a grant from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of $24,800 in 1984-85 for purchase of a bus; No grants have been made by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to other football clubs for bus purchases. In addition to the grant to Moree Boomerangs for payment of affiliation fees, a small grant of $320 was approved for the Cabbage Tree Island Rugby Football Club for fees and registration. (3) Yes. The funds have not yet been fully acquitted and an investigation by the Australian Federal Police is proceeding. (Question No. 4048) Mr Milton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in Australian Society of May 1986 entitled `Lies, damned lies and mining statistics' which reveals a $13m anomaly in Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures for 1983-84 mining exploration expenditure. (2) Did an anomaly occur; if so, what steps were taken to (a) inform users of the ABS figures that the information was incorrect and (b) ensure that it does not occur again. (3) Why does ABS rely solely on mining companies for mining exploration expenditure figures. (4) Are there alternative information sources; if so, why were they not used. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) and (b) Yes. There was an error in the figures for the Northern Territory, and in late March 1986 recipients of the relevant statistical bulletin in the Territory, and principal interested government agencies elsewhere, were advised of the correct figure by telephone. A corrigendum was issued by the ABS on 16 April 1986 and mailed to all recipients of the annual mineral exploration statistical bulletin. Stringent procedures to safeguard against errors in the compilation of statistics are in operation in the ABS. The Statistician has taken additional steps to ensure the strict observance of these procedures. (3) and (4) There are no alternative information sources for mineral exploration data. (Question No. 4057) Mr Hodges asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 23 May 1986: Has the Government received an approach from (a) the ALP, (b) the ACTU or (c) any agency of these bodies for funds to establish a national weekly or periodical newspaper or journal since 10 April 1986; if so, will (i) funds be provided and (ii) to what extent. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b) and (c)-I am not aware of any such approach. (Question No. 4059) Mr Jull asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 May 1986: (1) At what stage is the Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigation of the alleged involvement of Telecom Queensland employees in ``Operation Big Brother''. (2) What general problems has the investigation revealed to date. (3) When will the investigation be finalised. (4) Who was in charge of the initial AFP investigation. (5) Was all information relating to the investigation passed to other AFP officers by the initial investigator. (6) Were either or both Telecom employees, named in an AFP telex, placed under surveillance; if not, why not. (7) What areas of alleged criminal activity involving the employees are the AFP now investigating. (8) Is there evidence of similar alleged criminal activity occurring in other States. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The alleged involvement of Telecom Queensland employees in Operation ``Big Brother'' is currently being investigated. Enquiries are continuing, with a number of persons having been interviewed. (2) General problems encountered in the investigation include the lack of specific allegations of any particular offences against Commonwealth law supported by any usable evidence. (3) The investigation will be finalised when all avenues of enquiry have been explored and any resulting charges preferred, or when the Regional Commander directs that no further enquiries are warranted. (4) Detective Superintendent J. Travers. (5) Yes. (6) I believe it is improper to provide answers to questions where the operations of law enforcement agencies could be prejudiced. (7) Currently under investigation are allegations made by Channel TVQ O Brisbane during the week commencing 17 March 1986 on their news program, including allegations of misuse by Telecom staff of Telecom equipment to intercept telephone calls and use the information to their own advantage, allegations of falsifying telephone accounts, obtaining subscriber details, obtaining Telecom property for private use and deactivating telephone-connected alarms. The AFP is also investigating the suspected theft and receiving of unlawfully obtained telephones, ``hands free'' monitors and conduit, the property of Telecom Australia. (8) I am advised that the AFP is not aware of specific or general allegations of similar criminal activity concerning Telecom occurring in other States. (Question No. 4075) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 May 1986: (1) Is Mr J. Wheeldon of Pymble, NSW, a member of an Advisory Committee of the Constitutional Commission; if so, (a) which Advisory Committee, (b) is he a former ALP Senator and a trustee of a fund established to assist with the legal expenses of Mr Justice Murphy and (c) what expertise and objectivity does he bring to the Commission. (2) Why was his appointment not announced by either the Constitutional Commission or the Attorney-General. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) The Executive Government Advisory Committee. (b) Mr Wheeldon is a former ALP Senator. I am not aware whether he occupies the other position referred to in the question. (c) Mr Wheeldon is a former Minister. He is presently Associate Editor of the ``Australian''. The other members of the Advisory Committees and the members of the Commission include 9 former Commonwealth and State Ministers of both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party. (2) Public announcements of the membership of the Commission and its Advisory Committees were made by the Attorney-General on 19 December 1985, and by the Commission on 29 January 1986 on the occasion of the inaugural meeting of the Commission. The appointments of not only Mr Wheeldon but also Ms R. Galbally and Ms S. Kenny to Advisory Committees of the Commission were not made until after the inaugural meeting of the Commission. Having regard to the fact that there had already been two announcements regarding the membership of the Commission, it was not thought necessary to make a further announcement of these additional appointments. (Question No. 4085) Mr Tickner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Has action been taken in relation to an alleged breach of the Trade Practices Act involving film distributors and independent exhibitors; if so, what action. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have no knowledge of any alleged breach of the Trade Practices Act involving film distributors and independent exhibitors, nor of any action being taken in respect of such a matter. I am informed that the Trade Practices Commission also has no knowledge of any such breaches of the Act or of any such action being taken. However the Trade Practices Act provides private rights of action and it may be that private legal proceedings, of which I am not aware, have been instituted in respect of such alleged conduct. (Question No. 4086) Mr Tickner asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a discussion paper prepared in March 1983 by the Clerk of the House of Representatives in response to the ALP paper ``Labor and the Quality of Government''; if so, did this discussion paper (a) conclude that there is a strong case for establishing a House of Representatives standing committee system to monitor key areas of government administration, (b) argue that such a committee system has worked successfully elsewhere, particularly in the UK House of Commons, (c) put forward detailed proposals for consideration and (d) propose that, at the establishment of each Parliament, finance and government operations standing committees be appointed in the areas of economic policy; employment, industry and trade; health and welfare; defence and external relations; education, science and the arts; national development; energy and the environment; legal and internal affairs. (2) Have such arguments been put forward for at least 17 years by the Department of the House of Representatives. (3) Was the current House of Commons Committee system established in 1979. (4) What action does the Government propose to (a) implement or (b) facilitate debate on the discussion paper. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a)-(d) At the request of the Government, the Clerk of the House submitted a memorandum to the Government on the operation of the House of Representatives committee system. The memorandum covered the matters suggested by the honourable member. (2) There have been a variety of proposals put over a number of years concerning the committee system, including from the Department of the House of Representatives. (3) I am advised that this is the case. (4) Several new committees have been established since 1983 and proposals for other committees are likely to come forward in the Budget sittings. Given the heavy premium on the time of the House, the Government does not contemplate initiating further changes which would be likely to add considerably to the heavy demands already made of honourable members. (Question No. 4098) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What progress has been made in 1986 in improving the (a) community and (b) shopping facilities of the Holsworthy Army establishment. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Army has recognised a need for community and shopping facilities at the Holsworthy Army establishment. My Department in conjunction with the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is currently investigating ways in which suitable community and shopping facilities can be developed in the area. With this in mind, advertisements seeking expressions of interest from prospective developers for the proposed facilities have been prepared and are to be placed in the major daily newspapers during the next two months. The replies will be assessed shortly thereafter. (Question No. 4102) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to recent allegations of malpractice by the Ciba-Geigy company involving hazardous chemicals. (2) What action has been taken to establish a system of effective national control over the use of hazardous chemicals. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I provided my views on these issues during Question Time in the House on 17 April 1986. A system of evaluation and regulation of pesticides exists through the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Agricultural Council and State health and agriculture authorities. This system has ensured that a single and uniform clearance mechanism has operated for some 20 years. Australia, because of its Commonwealth-State legislative arrangements, relies to a large extent on such voluntary arrangements between the Commonwealth and States. In this particular case an undertaking by Ciba-Geigy to reformulate a pesticide was not carried out and this was not picked up by the State regulatory authorities. As indicated in my response to the House on 17 April, I have initiated moves, with my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, to develop uniform national pesticide legislation to strengthen this system. The matter has been referred to the Australian Agricultural Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council in the first instance. Regarding other hazardous chemicals, the Government is currently giving consideration to legislative proposals for a chemicals notification and assessment scheme for industrial chemicals which would introduce controls over those chemicals not subject to existing notification and assessment procedures. (Question No. 4104) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Have permits been issued under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act during the years (a) 1985 and (b) 1986 to date; if so, (i) how many, (ii) to which organisations and individuals have permits been granted; (iii) in each case what was the name and nature of the product or (iv) what species of mammal was involved in each case. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Permits and authorities have been issued under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act since it commenced operation in May 1984. In 1985, 2509 permits and authorities were issued. In 1986 891 permits had been issued up until the end of May. Details of permits and authorities are periodically published in the General Gazette. These details include, for each specimen for each permit or authority, the transaction type (e.g. export, import, re-export), scientific name, common name, description, quantity, unit and date. Last year, these details were published in the following Gazettes: G29 of 23 July, G31 of 6 August, G43 of 29 October and G44 of 5 November. Information on 1986 material is expected to appear in the Gazette in the near future. (Question No. 4113) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) How many persons were invited to join the Constitutional Commission or one of its Advisory Committees. (2) What are the names of the persons who declined the invitations. (3) What reasons were given for declining the invitations. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A record was not kept of all the persons approached to accept appointment to the Constitutional Commission and its Advisory Committees. (2) and (3) To protect the confidentiality of the invitations and the personal privacy of those involved I do not propose to disclose the names of persons who declined appointment to the Commission or its Advisory Committees, or their reasons for declining appointment. (Question No. 4114) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Has his attention been drawn to the comments of members of the Advisory Committees of the Constitutional Commission that the experience of the past shows immense difficulties in the way of achieving constitutional reform and the record of constitutional change in Australia has been dismal. If so, is the expenditure of more than $4.5m on the Constitutional Commission justified. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I assume that the comments to which the honourable member refers were those he quoted out of context in the House of Representatives on 27 May 1986-Hansard page 4092. To put the comments in context, in responding to my invitation to accept appointment to Advisory Committees both members expressed enthusiasm for the work in which they are now participating. Professor Coper said, ``I am delighted to accept, and look forward to assisting in this way in the review of the Constitution . . .'' ``Both the Commission and the Advisory Committees appear to me to be particularly strong, and although the record of constitutional change in Australia has been pretty dismal to date, perhaps this time we have more reason to be optimistic.'' Mr Lindell said, ``May I indicate that I share your belief regarding the importance of the project and also the need to inform and educate the Australian people as to any proposals for change put forward by the Commission. The experience of the past shows the immense difficulties in the way of achieving constitutional reform. It is to be hoped that the Commission will be able to draw on the lessons of the past and utilise the opportunity presented by the celebration of the 1988 Bicentennial Year as the means by which it may help to achieve the necessary changes to Australia's Constitution''. It was because I shared the view that the record of constitutional change in Australia had been dismal and that experience of the past had demonstrated the difficulties of achieving reform via Constitutional Conventions that I recommend, and the Government approved, the establishment of the Constitutional Commission as a new initiative to improve that record. Attacks on the Commission's expenditure have given a distorted picture of the remuneration paid to Commission members. Sir Maurice Byers is probably Australia's most eminent constitutional counsel who would expect to command a daily fee substantially in excess of $2000. The fee negotiated with him was $750 per day. This compares very favourably with fees paid by the previous Government to senior counsel employed on a full-time basis of $1250 a day or higher. Sir Maurice is engaged on a part-time basis, i.e. he is paid only for the days he works for the Commission. Mr Gough Whitlam is not receiving any remuneration for his work on the Constitutional Commission at the moment. As Ambassador to UNESCO his Parliamentary Pension is only ``topped up'' to the salary of other Ambassadors. The position of National Art Gallery Chairman which Mr Whitlam will take up on return to Australia is, like the position on the Constitutional Commission, part-time only. The other Commissioners are Sir Rupert Hamer, former Liberal Premier of Victoria; Mr Justice Toohey of the Federal Court, who does not receive any additional remuneration for his work on the Commission; Professor Enid Campbell, who received no remuneration from the Constitutional Commission in 1985-86; and Professor Leslie Zines. All hold part-time positions. (Question No. 4126) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Will the Government give a commitment to release all proposals for constitutional reform proposed by the Constitutional Commission prior to the next election. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The date by which the terms of reference of the Constitutional Commision require it to report, namely, 30 June 1988, is later than the latest date by which the next federal election must be held. Consequently, no such commitment can be given in relation to the Commission's final report. However the Commission intends to publicise its provisional proposals, and its terms of reference require it to consult the public, in the course of its inquiry. A series of issues papers and discussion papers containing proposals will be published. The first of those have already been published. (Question No. 4131) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) Do nuclear-powered ships and submarines visiting Australian ports have containment facilities to prevent the escape of radioactive materials in the event of a power malfunction; if so, what. (2) Are nuclear-powered sources on vessels visiting Australian ports as safe as those at nuclear-powered stations; if not, why not. (3) In view of the recent disaster at Chernobyl, is he satisfied that the containment facilities on nuclear-powered vessels visiting Australian ports are adequate to prevent the release of radioactive materials during a power malfunction. (4) Will he take steps to ensure that nuclear-powered ships and submarines visiting Australian ports have adequate containment facilities; if not, why not. (5) What section of his Department is directly responsible for the monitoring of safety requirements laid down in the guidelines covering the visits of nuclear-powered vessels announced by the Attorney-General on 15 December 1983. (6) Are other Departments involved in ensuring that these safety requirements are complied with; if so, (a) which Departments and (b) what are their particular areas of responsibility. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. While specific design features of the reactors on US warships are classified, it can be stated that there are multiple barriers for containing the release of fission products. The safe containment of fission products, including in combat situations, is accorded the highest priority in the construction of these warships, as it is necessary for the crew to live next to the reactor at all times and to continue to function even if the ship sustains battle damage. (2) (3) and (4) The Australian Government believes that the particular operational and safety features of visiting nuclear powered warships (NPWs) make them much safer than nuclear power stations of the Chernobyl type. US naval reactors are different in design, power output, fuel integrity and standards of construction from the Soviet reactor in Chernobyl. All US naval reactors which are now in operation are of the pressurized water design, wherein the nuclear core is maintained in a total water environment. This design uses no graphite and therefore the reported problem at Chernobyl involving a graphite fire is physically impossible in a US naval reactor. The US naval reactors are also typically one tenth the size of the Chernobyl reactor, and unlike Chernobyl, do not normally operate at high rates of output. NPWs visit Australian ports only in accordance with strict environmental and safety regulations designed to protect the public in the unlikely event of a reactor accident. One of the conditions of entry for NPWs is that there must be a capability to remove the vessel to a remote safe location within 24 hours. The conditions also require the activation of an Australian radiation monitoring program during a NPW visit. This program has never revealed a radiation leak or a rise in the natural background radiation levels. (5) and (6) Responsibility for assessing and monitoring safety requirements associated with NPW visits rests with the Visiting Ship Panel (Nuclear). This panel is chaired by Defence and includes representatives from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), Natural Disasters Organisation, Royal Australian Navy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Australian Radiation Laboratory, all of which contribute expert advice and opinion. The AAEC is specifically responsible for radiation monitoring arrangements. The precise responsibilities of the other bodies during visits vary according to individual port safety arrangements, which are the responsibility of State or Territory Governments. (Question No. 4132) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the ``Australian'' of 1 January 1985 that Mr I. Cunliffe, then Secretary and Director of Research of the Australian Law Reform Commission, supported the free supply of heroin to drug addicts. (2) Was he aware of these reported remarks when Mr Cunliffe was subsequently appointed Secretary of the Australian Constitutional Commission; if so, did he approve that appointment. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My attention has been drawn to an article in the ``Australian'' of the date referred to reporting on views expressed by Mr Cunliffe. (2) The position of Secretary of the Consitutional Commission is a Senior Executive Service position in the Australian Public Service. Mr Cunliffe has been appointed to that position by the Public Service Board on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, following a selection process in accordance with the usual procedures for appointments to the Senior Executive Service. While, as I have indicated, I had no part in Mr Cunliffe's appointment, nothing raised by the honourable member in question, or in his other statements of which I am aware, gives me any cause to doubt Mr Cunliffe's suitability for his appointment. (Question No. 4133) Mr Hodges asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) What amount of money will be spent on the new phase of the ``Priority One'' program which began on 25 May 1986. (2) What is the estimated expenditure in this phase on radio advertising including (a) production and (b) on-air costs. (3) In respect each radio advertisement (a) how many times was it aired (b) what was its duration and (c) (i) on which stations, (ii) in which States and Territories and (iii) at what times was it shown. (4) What (a) is the cost of producing the pamphlet ``Priority One in Action'' and (b) the number of copies printed. (5) What new information is included in this latest publication, when compared with earlier published material on the program, that will benefit young people. (6) Did he state on 23 May 1986 that radio is the most effective medium for reaching young people; if so, why was the first phase of the ``Priority One'' program advertised extensively on television and in newspapers. (7) Is this the final phase of the program. (8) What funds (a) were spent on the first phase of the program (b) will be spent on the program in (i) 1985-86 and (ii) subsequent financial years. (9) What evidence does the Government have of the percentage of youth who are, or who are not, aware of the opportunities available to them. Mr Dawkins — Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $400,000 has been allocated for the new phase of the Priority One program which began on 25 May 1986. (2) $175,534.17 (3) The following list details the number of times the advertisement was aired by each radio station, by State/Territory. The radio advertisements are of a 30 second duration. The scheduling of advertisements is the responsibility of the program manager. NEW SOUTH WALES 2 DAY Sydney 90 2MMM Sydney 90 2SM Sydney 90 2AY Albury/Wodonga 40 2AD Armidale 40 2BS Bathurst 40 2BE Bega 40 2BH Broken Hill 40 2CC Canberra 40 2CS Coffs Harbour 40 2QN Deniliquin 40 2DU/PK Dubbo/Parkes 40 Radio 97 Gold Coast 40 2GO Gosford 40 2GN Goulburn 40 2GF Grafton 40 2RG Griffith 40 2NM Hunter Valley 40 2NZ Inverell 40 2LM Lismore 40 Radio 90 Lithgow 40 2MC Mid Coast 40 2VM Moree 40 2MG Mudgee 40 2NX Newcastle 40 2ST Nowra 40 2GZ Orange 40 2KA Penrith 40 2XL Snowy Mountains 40 2TMO Tamworth 40 2RE Taree 40 2WG/LF Wagga/Young 40 2WL Wollongong 40 VICTORIA 3EON FM Melbourne 90 3FOX FM Melbourne 90 3XY Melbourne 90 3BA Ballarat 40 3BO Bendigo 40 3CV Central Victoria 40 3CS Colac 40 3GL Geelong 40 3HA Hamilton 40 3WM Horsham 40 3MA Mildura 40 3TR Sale 40 3SR Shepparton 40 3SH Swan Hill 40 3NE Wangaratta 40 3YB Warrnambool 40 QUEENSLAND FM 104 Brisbane 90 4BK Brisbane 90 4AM Atherton 40 4BU Bundaberg 40 4CA/TO Cairns/Townsville 40 4CC Central Queensland 40 4VL Charleville 40 4GC Charters Towers 40 4GG Gold Coast 40 4WK Darling Downs 40 4HI/LG Emerald/Longreach 40 4GY Gympie 40 4KZ Innisfail 40 4SB Kingaroy 40 4MK Mackay 40 4MB Maryborough 40 4LM Mt Isa 40 4RO Rockhampton 40 4ZR Roma 40 4SS Sunshine Coast 40 4AK Toowoomba 40 4GR Toowoomba 40 4AY Townsville 40 SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5KA Adelaide 90 5SSA FM Adelaide 90 5SE Mt Gambier 40 5MU Murray Bridge 40 5AU Port Augusta 40 5CC Port Lincoln 40 5PI Port Pirie 40 5RM Renmark 40 WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6PM Perth 150 6VA/MD/WB/ BY/SE Albany/Merredin/Katanning/Bridgetown/Esperance 40 6TZ/NA/CI Bunbury/Narrogin/Collie 40 6AM/KG/GE/ NW/KA/LN Northam/Kalgoorlie/Geraldton/Port Hedland/Karatha/Carnarvon 40 TASMANIA 7HO Hobart 90 7HT Hobart 90 7BU/AD/SD Burnie/Devonport/Scottsdale 40 7LA Launceston 40 7QT Queenstown 40 NORTHERN TERRITORY 8HA Alice Springs 40 8DN Darwin 40 (4) 500,000 copies of the pamphlet were printed at a cost of $75,451.08 (including agency head hours and production costs and printing). (5) Priority One in action is designed to provide up to date information on Priority One and in particular to provide the information young people need to take advantage of the range of opportunities available to them under the Priority One initiatives. Earlier publications announced the initiation of the Priority One Young Australia Strategy and the National Youth Phone-in, and reported its outcomes. (6) I stated on 23 May 1986 that radio is the most effective medium for reaching young people. This is why we have used radio when addressing young people. There has been no paid advertising of Priority One on television. Television coverage of Priority One has been provided by the television stations as a community service. Of the newspaper advertising of Priority One, some was directed at the public at large rather than young people specifically and the remainder was an added effort to ensure that young people would know the telephone number to enable them to participate in the Priority One National Youth Phone-In. (7) This is the final phase of the ``Priority One'' program in 1985/86. (8) In 1985-86, including the $529,754 spent by the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism in marketing the Government's Strategy for Young People, a total of $2,529,754 was spent on the promotion of Priority One. The extension of the program is a matter for Budget consideration and will be announced as part of the 1986-87 Budget. (9) A range of reports have highlighted the need to better inform young people of opportunities available to them. The reports include: ``Youth and Work in Australia-A Comprehensive Policy Agenda'' (OECD); The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs reports commissioned by State and local Governments and Youth Affairs Council of Australia's nationwide consultation report ``Creating Tomorrow Today''. Additionally, the National Youth Phone-In provided evidence to suggest that young people are aware in general of the opportunities available to them but are not aware of the details of such opportunities. The new phase of the campaign is intended to address this situation and provide information as to where young people can obtain details of opportunities they may wish to pursue. (Question No. 4148) Mr McArthur asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) Were there private health fund offices in the Electoral Division of Corangamite before 1 February 1984; if so, (a) how many and (b) where were they. (2) Are there Medicare offices in the Electoral Division of Corangamite; if so (a) how many and (b) where are they. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes (a) Five; (b) Four offices were located in Colac and one in Apollo Bay. (2) Yes (a) One; (b) Colac. (Question Nos 4190-4199) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: Which recommendations of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on `Drug Problems in Australia' relating to tobacco which fall within the Minister's portfolio have not yet been implemented? The same question was directed to the following Ministers: 4190-Prime Minister 4191-Treasurer 4192-Minister representing the Minister for Finance 4193-Minister for Trade 4194-Minister for Primary Industry 4195-Minister for Transport 4196-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism 4198-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment 4199-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services Dr Blewett —As indicated above, the honourable member asked the identical question of a number of Ministers. With their concurrence, I provide the following reply on behalf of those Ministers: The recommendations contained in the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on `Drug Problems in Australia' were recommendations to a previous Government. The response in 1980 to that Report was a response of a previous Government. The Government has announced its own response to the drug problems in Australia-the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. The recommendations relating to tobacco contained in the 1977 Report are being considered in the context of the National Compaign. (Question No. 4208) Mr Andrew asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Was the Minister for Finance expressing Government policy when in answer to a question without notice (Senate Hansard, 2 June 1986, page 3144), he stated that if a farmer wants to gain exemption from fringe benefits tax he can do so by charging the market rental and increasing wages to cover the rental, and that there was no problem. (2) If the Minister's statement is not Government policy, what is the aim of the fringe benefits tax as applied to farmers. (3) If the Minister is expressing Government policy is it a fact that it is no problem for farmers. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Minister for Finance was quite correct in stating that a farmer would not be liable for fringe benefits tax for employer-provided accommodation if he charged employees the full market rental for that accommodation. It is also open to the farmer to increase employees' wages to cover the rental charged. (2) There is no conflict between the Minister's statement on the fringe benefits tax as it relates to farmers and Government policy. The Government set out to achieve an equitable and efficient tax system. This entails taxing the total remuneration packages of employees, including non-cash fringe benefits which had substantially escaped the tax net. The virtual non-taxation of this non-cash income had benefited some employees since lower level of total remuneration gave the same after-tax income to the farm employee as could be obtained from a higher remuneration package fully subject to tax. This system was clearly inequitable between employees with different levels of non-cash benefits, both within the rural sector and across a wider range of industries. After careful consideration the Government concluded that taxing non-cash fringe benefits at the employer level would be the most effective method of correcting this. In order to ensure that the non-cash remuneration of all employees is effectively taxed it is necessary to levy the tax on all employers, including those in the rural sector. While it is administratively much simpler to levy the tax on employers the Government does not necessarily intend that they should bear the total burden of the tax. With the introduction of this tax it is expected that some employers and employees may see advantage in replacing fringe benefits with cash payments. As such payments would bear income tax, this development would be consistent with the Government's objectives. Where necessary, the Government will consult with employers and the ACTU about possible adjustments to the wage fixing principles to provide for such `cashing-out' of benefits under appropriate conditions. In particular, it may be desirable to amend some rural awards which specifically address the provision of fringe benefits and the level of employee contributions. (3) The basic point is that the fringe benefits tax will effectively impose tax on forms of income which were previously not subject to taxation and so it is reasonable to expect that some adjustments will be made in practices which have benefited from this deficiency in the tax system. However, it must be remembered that in total the tax reform package will deliver substantial cuts in marginal income tax rates. The fringe benefits tax will have only a modest effect on the farming community while they will benefit from a number of other tax reform measures including the proposed income tax rate cuts. (Question No. 4215) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to British students travelling around Australia on unemployment benefits; if so, when. (2) Does the situation referred to in part (1) amount to fraud of the Australian social security system; if so, (a) what action has he taken to limit this fraud and (b) how much has this fraud cost for each year 1982 to 1986 to date. (3) Will he speak to his British counterpart about this abuse of the social security system. (4) Has he discussed the position with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; if not, why not; if he has had such discussions, what form did the discussion take and what was resolved. (5) Has he directed his Department to inform the editors of ``STOP PRESS'' of his, and his Department's attitude to the position; if not, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that British students admitted to Australia under the Working Holidaymakers Scheme may qualify for unemployment benefit, if they are available for and actively seeking employment while they are here. This situation has existed for some years. (2) The situation does not amount to fraud, provided of course that applicants are honest in their statements about their availability and search for work. These people have a legal entitlement to unemployment benefit because of the operation of the provisions of the Social Security Act and the reciprocal social security agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom, and because of the terms of the entry permits issued under the Working Holidaymakers Scheme which enable them to seek employment in Australia. It is, however, a matter of some concern that British working holidaymakers in taking unemployment benefits are acting outside the spirit and intentions of the Scheme. (3) I have written to the UK Minister of State for Social Security, the Hon. A. Newton, advising him that the Government intends to seek re-negotiation of the Australia/United Kingdom reciprocal social security agreement to remedy this situation. This matter will be discussed with officials from the UK Department of Health and Social Security in September this year. (4) I have been discussing this matter with my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for some time. Following discussions, the Government has decided to exclude UK holidaymakers from the payment of employment benefit. The proposed action outlined in my answer to (3) was a result of this decision. (5) The editor of the British students' newspaper ``STOP PRESS'' has been in contact with the Director of the Department's London office, and was advised of the conditions for payment of unemployment benefit in the context of the Working Holidaymakers' Scheme. (Question No. 4254) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Is he able to state which countries are host to US military bases or joint facilities. (2) Is he able to say what amount the US Government pays to each of the governments of these countries as rent for the continued presence of those bases or facilities. (3) What does the US pay to Australia as rent for the US joint facilities in Australia. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) This information is readily available in the publications ``The Military Balance 1985-86'' and ``NATO's Sixteen Nations'' of August 1985. (2) No. (3) The Australian Government receives no rent from the US in respect of the joint Defence facilities. The facilities are operated and managed by the two Governments as joint facilities under international agreements and the payment of rent by one of the parties would be inconsistent with these arrangements. While the arrangements for the use and occupation by the United States Navy of Commonwealth Land at North West Cape signed in 1967 included a provision for an annual rental of one peppercorn, this provision was removed when the Naval Station became a joint facility in 1974. To revert to the then Coalition Government's policy of charging rent for any of the joint facilities might undermine this Government's policy of maintaining Australia's full and equal participation in all aspects of the operation of the Joint Facilities, which is fundamental to protecting Australia's sovereignty and interests. (Question No. 4259) Mr Milton asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: Does the Japanese Government seek information from ASIO for clearance of Japan Foundation awardees. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It has been established practice of successive Australian Govenments to neither confirm nor deny the activities of ASIO. (Question No. 4260) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) How many passengers has Australian National Railways (ANR) carried on the (a) Indian Pacific, (b) Trans-Australia and (c) Alice Springs service in each of the last five financial years. (2) What has been the operating profit or loss of the ANR (a) Indian Pacific, (b) Trans-Australia and (c) Alice Springs service in each of the last five financial years. (3) What is the (a) percentage and (b) cost of ANR passengers carried annually who are (i) pensioners, (ii) military personnel or (iii) rail staff on leave who receive discounted fares. (4) Has a move to reroute the heavy loss-making Indian Pacific train via Adelaide so that it can attract extra passengers been frustrated for eight months by a dispute between two branches of the Australian Railways Union concerning who will man the train on the new sector; if so, what steps has he taken, or intends to take, to help resolve this industrial dispute. (5) What progress is being made to develop an integrated and co-ordinated transcontinental and/or interstate passenger rail network for Australia. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- Number of Passengers Carried* 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 (a) Indian Pacific ... 39,605 21,485 32,155 32,008 (b) Trans Australian ... 27,866 37,090 28,553 28,491 (c) The Ghan... 27,197 32,185 34,240 31,657 (d) The Alice... - - 5,101 8,351 * Figures for 1985/86 are not yet available. (2) The operating loss incurred by the Australian National Railways Commission (AN) on these services in 1984/85 was as follows: $ (a) Indian Pacific...8,422,000 (b) Trans Australian...5,492,000 (c) Ghan...3,357,000 The Alice...2,375,000 Figures for earlier years are not available in a form which gives a meaningful comparison with those of 1984/85, due to accounting system changes. (3) AN advises that: (i) the number of pensioners carried on these trains is not readily available. It would take considerable time and effort to extract the figures requested. (ii) figures on military personnel are not available. (iii) information on rail staff for 1984/85 is set out below: Railway Staff Travel Concessions 1984-85 Percentage of passenger journeys AN Revenue* forgone $ Indian Pacific ... 5.8 353,300 Trans Australian ... 11.5 462,500 Ghan ... 7.8 295,600 The Alice ... 3.7 58,200 * Estimates based on percentage of total passenger fare revenue for each service. (4) The first Indian Pacific to be re-routed via Adelaide left Sydney on 16 August 1986. Consultations were held between the relevant state rail systems and rail unions. (5) AN and the four state railways have agreed to establish a new organisation to manage the marketing and promotion of interstate passenger services on a national basis. An advertisement has been placed in the press for the position of Manager, Interstate Passenger Services. (Question No. 4272) Mr Price asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Was the construction of a child care centre at Mt Druitt Hospital a Community Employment Project (CEP); if so, what was its total cost. (2) What was the (a) Commonwealth, (b) State and (c) Mt Druitt Hospital contribution towards the funding of this project in (a) dollar and (b) percentage terms. (3) When was the building completed. (4) When was a management committee appointed for the centre. (5) When did the centre become operational. (6) Was a sign erected adjacent to the centre indicating that it was a CEP project. (7) Has the centre been officially opened; if not, when will it be opened. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. (1) No. The centre was built under the Wage Pause Program and the total cost is not known. There was, however, a CEP project approved to provide drainage, landscaping and fencing around the centre at a total cost of $87,864. (2) (a) The Commonwealth contributed $61,505 under the CEP, representing 70 per cent of the total cost; (b) The State Government contributed $26,369 towards the CEP project representing 30 per cent of the total cost; (c) Mt Druitt Hospital made no direct cash contribution but provided supervision to CEP project employees. (3) The date of completion of the building is not known. The CEP project was completed in January 1986. (4) and (5) February 1985. (6) No. (7) No. Mt Druitt Hospital is awaiting the completion of another CEP project, involving the extension of a car parking area which may be utilized by people visiting the child care centre, so that a combined opening can be arranged. (Question No. 4273) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Has the Mitchell Royal Commission into the Greek conspiracy social security fraud case recommended that compensation be paid; if so, how much did it recommend for each person involved. (2) Will the total compensation recommended be paid; if not, why not. (3) How much did the Royal Commission cost. (4) Will the Government release the Commission's report before a decision is made concerning the level of compensation payments; if not, why not. (5) What measures has he taken to prevent this compensation payment setting a precedence for other unsuccessful social security fraud cases. (6) Has this Commission and its associated press contributed to the scaling down of extensive and comprehensive measures to prevent and sanction fraud prevalent in the social security system; if so, to what extent. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, although it was not a Commission of Inquiry into any ``Greek conspiracy social security fraud case'', but into compensation arising from Social Security conspiracy prosecutions. The amount recommended for each person is detailed in Volume 2 of the Report of the Royal Commission. The Commission recommended that volume 2 not be published, at least until all claimants have decidced whether or not to accept the compensation offered. This recommendation has been accepted by the Government. (2) Yes. (3) My colleague, the Special Minister of State, informs me that, to date, the Commission of Inquiry has cost $1,628,112. It is expected that the cost will ultimately be only slightly higher than this figure. (4) Volume 1 of the Report was released on 10 June 1986. (5) The Government considers that no generally applicable precedent has been established by its commitment to pay compensation in the circumstances of this case. The need for the payment of compensation arose out of the way in which the case was conducted and the fact that there was no conspiracy involving the Greek Community. The present government, while maintaining its efforts to prevent and control fraud, will ensure that it launches prosecutions only where these are justified and where there is the necessary evidence to support them. (6) On the contrary, the Government is committed to ensuring that the incidence of successful fraudulent claims for social security benefits is reduced. (Question No. 4287) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Is he able to say whether the US Army will be tasking upgraded M113 armoured personnel carriers to perform the same role as the Bradley M2 infantry fighting vehicle. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised that the United States Army will continue to use the upgraded M-113 armoured personnel carrier in mechanized infantry divisions until the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle is made available to those units. The Bradley will replace the M-113 in infantry and scout roles in active component units. At the same time the M-113 will continue to perform a variety of functions. It will remain in the force as an engineer squad carrier, medical evacuation vehicle, command vehicle, ground surveillance radar team carrier, and maintenace contact team vehicle. For affordability reasons the M-113 will remain the infanty squad carrier and scout vehicle in most reserve component mechanised and armour battalions and cavalry squadrons. (Question No. 4289) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Is he able to say which OECD nations are in the process of reducing either their armoured corps or mechanized infantry forces. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Although there have been some organizational changes and variations in equipment tables of armoured and mechanized infantry forces of some of the OECD countries, I am advised that none of these countries is in the process of reducing these forces. (2) The force structure judgments of many OECD countries reflect, of course, quite different strategic circumstances to those of Australia. The NATO members, for instance, maintain armoured and mechanized forces to counter the superior numbers available to the Warsaw Pact countries. Japan's Self-Defence Force similarly takes account of Soviet Forces in Asia. Australia, on the other hand, faces no comparable armoured or mechanized threat. (Question No. 3355) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Health, 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 the air fare component identified separately. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Purpose of trip Designation Duration of trip Countries visited Air fare com- ponent Total cost $ $ Department of Health Visit a Number of Major IBM Installations and Manufacturers Development Centres Computer Systems Officer, Grade 5 27-Jun-84 to 12-Aug-84 NZ USA 3,359 7,500 Attend International Conference on Statistics in Health, Discussions on Medical Statistics with Professional Bodies Clerical Administrative, Class 9 28-Jun-84 to 19-Jul-84 UK 4,153 6,683 Recall to Duty to Visit the Atomic Energy Research Establihsment to Discuss the Treatment of Plutonium Contaminated Areas at Maralinga between 1959 and 1967 Director 4-Jul-84 to 6-Jul-84 UK Nil recalled to duty 204 Visit National Cancer Institute, and Food and Drug Administration, and Attend 9th International Congress on Pharmacology, and Satellite Symposia Medical Services Adviser 9-Jul-84 to 10-Aug-84 USA Canada UK 5,815 10,947 Attend Annual Summer Toxicology Forum, and Discuss Uniform Food Standards Policies and Codex Alimentarius Matters First Assistant Secretary 14-Jul-84 to 27-Jul-84 USA 4.410 5,060 (Costs met by host organisation) Attend 3rd International Conference on System Science in Health Care First Assistant Secretary 16-Jul-84 to 20-Jul-84 Germany Israel 5,463 8,846 Discuss the Development of Conditions for the Importation of Sheep Embryos into Australia, and the Importation of Salmon and Salmon Ova, and Inspect Pre-export Quarantine Premises and Horses for Export and Accompany Horses to Australia Veterinary Officer, Grade 3 17-Jul-84 to 7-Aug-84 Sweden Norway UK 5,000 6,780 (Costs met by import agent Attend 1984 International Conference on Population Medical Services Adviser 2-Aug-84 to 24-Aug-84 Mexico USA 4,410 5,510 (Costs met by Dept of Foreign Affairs) Attend Conference on Signal Processing Strategies for the Hearing Impaired, and Visit University Research Group Science 2 9-Aug-84 to 13-Aug-84 USA 4,410 4,610 (Costs met by World Rehabilitation Fund) Attend Annual Meeting of the International Association of Dental Research of the A and NZ Division, and Visit University Dental School Science 5 11-Aug-84 to 24-Aug-84 NZ 877 1,701 Attend Meeting on Dengue Vaccine, and Discuss Vaccines, Staff Training and Inspect Equipment Used in Testing Procedures Assistant Secretary 11-Aug-84 to 26-Aug-84 Singapore Malaysia Thailand 2,709 3,601 (Costs met by Dept Foreign Affairs) Undertake on-farm Isolation and Health Testing of Animals in Preparation for 6th Shipment to Australia Quarantine Assistant, Grade 4 11-Aug-84 to 15-Sept-84 USA 4,410 6,160 (Costs met by import agent) Supervise on-farm Testing of Cattle, and Visit Laboratories and Discuss with Government Veterinarians the 6th Shipment of Cattle from North America Veterinary Officer, Grade 3 13-Aug-84 to 30-Sep-84 USA Canada Mexico 5,000 11,821 (Costs met by import agent) Senior Executive Fellowship to Look at Problem of Excessive Servicing Principal Medical Officer, Class 3 13-Aug-84 to 15-Nov-84 USA Canada Europe 11,850 Includes spouse 27,112 Supervise the Disinsection and Cleaning of Aircraft and Transport Animals to Australia Veterinary Officer, Grade 2 13-Aug-84 to 18-Aug-84 Singapore 2,646 3,038 (Costs met by import agent) Attend Annual Meeting of the International Association of Dental Research of the A and NZ Division Assistant Director 18-Aug-84 to 24-Aug-84 NZ 877 1,207 Attend European Conference on Planning and Management of Health, Visit WHO, and Discussions in UK First Assistant Secretary 24-Aug-84 to 9-Sep-84 Netherlands France UK 8,960 11,719 Recall to Duty to Attend World Dental Congress, and Discuss with Ministry of Health Dental Adviser 24-Aug-84 to 10-Sep-84 Finland UK Nil recalled to duty 1,946 Recall to Duty to Attend International Standards Organisation Technical Committee 106 (Dentistry) Science 3 3-Sep-84 to 8-Sep-84 Sweden Nil recalled to duty 840 Attend WHO 35th Session of Western Pacific Regional Committee Principal Nutritionist 4-Sep-84 to 12-Sep-84 Fiji 589 1,197 Recall to Duty to Discuss WHO Fellowship with the WHO Western Pacific Regional Office Clerical Administrative, Class 6 6-Sep-84 Philippines Nil recalled to duty 73 Attend Meeting of Octoson Users Club, and a Symposium on Acoustic Properties of Biological Objects, and 29th Annual Convention of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Director 8-Sep-84 to 25-Sep-84 USSR Switzerland USA 4,499 5,349 (Costs met by host organisation) Attend 9th International Congress of Agricultural Medicine and Rural Health Medical Services Adviser 10-Sep-84 to 14-Sep-84 NZ 964 1,591 Attend 35th Session of the WHO Committee for the Western Pacific Assistant Secretary 3-Sep-84 to 13-Sep-84 Fiji 1,226 2,927 Attend Expert Committee on Safe Use of Pesticides, and Joint FAO/WHO and Meeting on Pesticide Residues, European Toxicology Forum Medical Services Adviser 11-Sep-84 to 3-Oct-84 Italy Switzerland 4,652 5,752 (Costs met by WHO) Recall to Duty to Attend a Meeting of the International Electrotechnical Commission on International Safety Standards for Electromedical Equipment, and Visit Medical Device Regulatory Establishments Science 4 17-Sep-84 to 27-Sep-84 UK Netherlands Nil recalled to duty 795 Recall to Duty to Attend XVI Annual Scientific Conference of ANZSOM Commonwealth Medical Officer 19-Sep-84 to 22-Sep-84 NZ Nil recalled to duty 289 Attend International Centre for Social Gerontology Conference, and Berlin Geriatric Society Annual Meeting, and Visit Geriatric Centres Medical Services Adviser 21-Sep-84 to 21-Oct-84 Italy UK Norway Denmark Netherlands France 6,107 11,122 Attend World Dental Congress to Present an Address Dental adviser 21-Sep-84 to 27-Sep-84 Yugoslavia 4,652 4,952 (Costs met by host organisation) Attend 4th International Symposium on Pertussis Science 5 22-Sep-84 to 30-Sep-84 Switzerland 4,402 5,272 Inspect Pre-embarkation Quarantine Facilties Prior to Export, and Accompany Animals on Flight Veterinary Officer 24-Sep-84 to 28-Nov-84 USA 4,410 15,001 (Costs met by import agent) Attend Committee Meeting on Assessment of Therapeutic Usefulness of Psychotropic Drugs, and Working Group on Education of Health Professionals in Prescription Delivery and Utilisation of Psychoactive Drugs First Assistant Secretary 27-Sep-84 to 21-Oct-84 Norway USSR 4,500 5,700 (Costs met by WHO) Inspect Pre-embarkation Quarantine Facilities Prior to Export, and Accompany Animals on Flight Quarantine Officer, Grade 4 28-Sep-84 to 26-Nov-84 USA 4,410 10,528 (Costs met by import agent) Visit Biomedical Libraries to Advise on Administration and Organisational Techniques, Including Networking and Data Base Management Principal Librarian 14-Oct-84 to 20-Oct-84 China Hong Kong 3,466 4,279 (Costs met by WHO) Attend Meeting of Program Advisory Committee, International Program on Chemical Safety Assistant Secretary, Level 1 1-Oct-84 to 5-Oct-84 Kenya 4,385 5,247 Senior Executive Fellowship to Study Ways of Providing, Co-ordinating, Financing and Monitoring Aged Care Services and Programs Assistant Secretary 5-Oct-84 to 27-Dec-84 UK Netherlands 9,412 Includes spouse 23,108 Recall to Duty to Attend an International Standards Organisation Technical Committee Director 8-Oct-84 to 12-Oct-84 Germany Nil recalled to duty 1,000 Attend Meetings of the Advisory Group to the WHO Collaborative Centre for International Drug Monitoring, and the Representatives of National Centres Contributing to the WHO Collaborative Program for International Drug Monitoring Medical Officer, Class 2 12-Oct-84 to 30-Oct-84 USA 4,821 6,378 Recall to Duty to Attend and Present Papers at an International Conference on Occupational Radiation Safety in Mining, and Organising Committee for OECD/NEA Radon Intercomparison Program Science 5 14-Oct-84 to 22-Oct-84 USA Canada Nil recalled to duty 549 Attend Meeting on Drug Policies and Management: Procurement and Financing of Essential Drugs, and discuss Changes in Pharmaceutical Drug Pricing Policy Assistant Secretary 15-Oct-84 to 26-Oct-84 Spain UK 586 6,574 (Costs met by WHO) Recall to Duty to Attend an International Conference on Occupational Radiation Safety in Mining Science 3 15-Oct-84 to 19-Oct-84 Canada Nil recalled to duty 736 Attend Meeting of the Council of International Organisations of Medical Science, and Visit Medical Research Organisations First Assistant Secretary 27-Oct-84 to 13-Nov-84 Greece Switzerland France UK 4,512 6,711 (Costs met by host organisation) Attend 1984 International MEDLARS Policy Advisory Group Meeting, and Visit Health Departments to study Their Approach to Systems Use and Storage Computer Systems Officer, Grade 5 2-Nov-84 to 23-Nov-84 USA Canada 4,670 7,258 Accompany Horses and Pigs to Cocos Island, and Discuss the Computerisation of the Import of Biologicals Veterinary Officer, Grade 2 4-Nov-84 to 13-Nov-84 USA Canada 4,410 5,591 (Costs met by import agent) Attend 70th Assembly of the Radiological Society of North America, and Discuss Pathology Accreditation, Medical Cyclotrons and Diagnostic in Ageing Assistant Secretary 9-Nov-84 to 3-Dec-84 USA 5,748 9,018 Attend FAO Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia on Animal Quarantine Station Management, and Investigate Future Import Programs Veterinary Officer, Grade 3 12-Nov-84 to 23-Dec-84 India Thailand 3,096 5,146 (Costs met by host organisation) Review and Compare Policies on the Quality and Safety of Therapeutic Devices, Drugs and Biologicals First Assistant Secretary 16-Nov-84 to 19-Dec-84 USA Canada UK 5,500 8,481 Consultation on Disinsecting Vessels and Aircrafts First Assistant Secretary 19-Nov-84 to 28-Nov-84 Switzerland 4,426 4,876 (Costs met by WHO) Attend Conference In Womens Interest: Controversies and Commonalities, WHO Meeting of the Special Program of Research in Human Reproduction Medical Services Adviser 24-Nov-84 to 11-Dec-84 Italy UK Switzerland 4,426 5,276 (Costs met by Dept Foreign Affairs and Host Organisation) Accompany Horses to Australia Veterinary Officer 1-Dec-84 to 7-Dec-84 Japan 3,466 3,766 (Costs met by Import Agent) Attend WHO Meeting of Directors of Health Research Councils on Analogous Bodies, and Joint Meeting of Heads of Health Research Councils of SE Asia and Western Pacific Regions First Assistant Secretary 3-Dec-84 to 8-Dec-84 Malaysia 2,646 2,896 (Costs met by WHO) Recall to Duty to Visit Laboratories concerned with the Development of International Dental Standards and Biomedical Materials Research Science 4 7-Jan-85 to 24-Jan-85 UK USA Nil recalled to duty 508 Supervise the Erection of an Acrylic Plant House and a Stainless Steel Screen House for a New Post-entry Plant Quarantine Station Technical Officer, Grade 2 10-Jan-85 to 21-Feb-85 India 2,513 7,063 (Costs met by Dept Foreign Affairs) Fact Finding Visit on Drug Abuse Secretary 17-Jan-85 to 8-Feb-85 USA UK Hong Kong 6,552 14,832 Accompany Minister for Health and Secretary on Fact Finding Visit on Drug Abuse First Assistant Secretary 17 Jan 85 to 8 Feb 85 USA UK Hong Kong 6,552 12,879 Supervise the Pre-embarkation Quarantine Procedures for the 7th Shipment of Animals to Australia Veterinary Officer, Grade 3 21 Jan 85 to 28 Feb 85 USA Canada 4,410 12,460 (Costs met by Import Agent) Supervise the Pre-embarkation Quarantine Procedures for the 7th Shipment of Animals to Australia Stock Inspector 21 Jan 85 to 28 Feb 85 USA Canada 4,410 12,460 (Costs met by Import Agent) Attend Codex Alimentarius Commission on Food for Special Diet- ary Uses Assistant Secretary 24 Jan 85 to 1 Feb 85 Germany 4,426 4,826 (Costs met by Dept Foreign Affairs) Supervise the Pre-embarkation Quarantine Procedures and Accompany Livestock to Australia, and Inspect Canning Factory for Import Veterinary Officer, Grade 4 31 Jan 85 to 23 Feb 85 UK Spain 4,426 7,376 (Costs met by Import Agent) Attend UN Narcotics Commission 31st Session First Assistant Secretary 11 Feb 85 to 22 Feb 85 Austria 4,426 4,976 (Costs met by Dept F.A.) Recall to Duty to Attend 11th Session of the UN Administrative Committee on Co-ordinations Sub-Committee on Nutrition Science 4 11 Feb 85 to 15 Feb 85 Kenya Nil recalled to duty 578 Attend Research Symposium on Cardio Vascular Ultrasonic Flowmetry, and Visit University of California to Ascertain the Measurement of Blood Flow Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Engineer, Grade 3 11 Feb 85 to 15 Feb 85 USA 4,410 4,610 (Costs met by The Lovelace Medical Foundation) Attend 12th Australasian Share Guide Conference Computer Systems Officer, Grade 3 16 Feb 85 to 21 Feb 85 NZ 804 941 Attend 12th Australasian Share Guide Conference Computer Systems Officer, Grade 3 16 Feb 85 to 21 Feb 85 NZ 804 941 Attend Conference on Drug Information, and Discuss Drug Regulation, Attend Meeting of the Medicines Control Council, and Discuss Medical Evacuations Medical Services Adviser 17 Feb 85 to 4 Mar 85 South Africa 3,636 4,386 (Costs met by Capetown University) Visit Dental Schools and Manufacturers to Promote the Use of Modern Materials Science 4 24 Feb 85 to 13 Mar 85 China 3,466 4,316 (Costs met by Dept Foreign Affairs) Supervise the Pre-embarkation Quarantine Testing and Procedures for Shipment of Cattle to Australia Veterinary Officer Grade 1 25 Feb 85 to 21 Apr 85 USA 4,410 7,160 (Costs met by Dept Primary Industry) Plant Quarantine Aid Project First Assistant Secretary 28 Feb 85 to 16 Mar 85 India 3,096 4,997 (Costs met by Dept Primary Industry) Senior Executive Services Fellowship to Study Health Services Financing and Medical Research Administration and Financing Arrangements Assistant Secretary 2 Mar 85 to 2 Jun 85 USA UK 4,906 24,170 Attend 3rd Session of the World Conference of Marking the End of the UN Decade for Women Medical Services Adviser 4-Mar-85 to 13-Mar-85 Austria 4,426 4,876 (Costs met by Dept Prime Minister and Cabinet) Attend Meeting to Plan International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authority Assistant Secretary 11-Mar-85 to 13-Mar-85 Philippines 2,646 2,746 (Costs met by WHO) Present a Paper at Conference of ANZ Societies of Cosmetic Chemists and Inspect Companies Exporting Therapeutic Goods to Australia Science 4 12-Mar-85 to 23-Mar-85 NZ 762 1,843 (Costs met by Host Organisation) Recall to Duty to Discuss the Development of the Imported Goods Inspection Scheme Clerical Administrative, Class 8 17-Mar-85 to 20-Mar-85 UK Nil recalled to duty 536 Assist with Pre-embarkation Quarantine Testing and Procedures for Shipment of Cattle to Australia Stock Inspector 18-Mar-85 to 16-Apr-85 USA 4,410 5,860 (Costs met by Dept Primary Industry) Attend Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues Medical Services Adviser 25-Mar-85 to 1-Apr-85 Netherlands 5,351 7,661 (Costs met by CODEX and Dept Foreign Affairs) Attend International Bureau of Weights and Measures Consultative Committee on Standards of Measurement of Ionising Radiation, attend Conference Radiology '85, and Visit the Radio Chemical Centre Science 3 12-Apr-85 to 2-May-85 France UK 4,716 6,058 Attend International Conference on AIDS First Assistant Secretary 14-Apr-85 to 17-Apr-85 USA 5,627 7,837 Recall to Duty to Attend 1st International Conference on Health Education in Nursing, Midwifery and Health and International Nurses Conference Assistant Secretary 21-Apr-85 to 21-Jun-85 UK Israel Nil recalled to duty 2,080 Attend Regional Forum on Pesticide Toxicology Medical Services Adviser 22-Apr-85 to 26-Apr-85 Philippines 2,646 2,846 (Costs met by WHO) Attend International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Assembly, Discussions with Health Authorities and Discuss Orderly Departure Program and Refugee Medical Issues Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer 25-Apr-85 to 14-Jun-85 France Switzerland UK Thailand Malaysia Includes spouse 11,050 19,131 Attend Conference on Women, Population and Development Medical Services Adviser 25-Apr-85 to 3-May-85 China Hong Kong 3,302 4,212 Attend Human Exposure Assessment Locations Consultation and Visit OECD, Chemicals Division Medical Officer, Class 3 26-Apr-85 to 10-May-85 Switzerland France 4,426 5,126 (Costs met by WHO) Attend International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Assembly, Discussions with Health Authorities, and Discuss Health Care and Education and the Medical Aspects of Migrant Programs Assistant Secretary 27-Apr-85 to 14-Jun-85 Franch Switzerland UK Kuwait Pakistan Bangladesh India 5,834 13,247 Recall to Duty to Visit Alcohol Research Group and Discuss the Use of Methadone in the Treatment of Opiate Dependence Medical Services Adviser 1-May-85 to 2-May-85 USA Nil recalled to duty 300 Recall to Duty to Visit Toxicology Laboratories to Discuss Australian Requirements Science 5 9-May-85 to 10-May-85 Switzerland UK Nil recalled to duty 300 Recall to Duty to Attend Association of Official Analytical Chemists' Infant Formula Conference Nutritionist 14-May-85 to 22-May-85 USA Nil recalled to duty 900 Attend Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology and the NZ FOODANZA '85 Convention Science 4 19-May-85 to 30-May-85 NZ 924 1,977 Attend Conference Climate for Change-New Developments in Food and Meeting of New Zealand Foods Standards Committee First Assistant Secretary 20-May-85 to 28-May-85 NZ 1,096 2,360 Attend WHO Meeting of Editors, Visit Medicines Divisions and Depts of Health and Social Security, and Visit Manufacturers re Issues Relating to Australia Medical Services Adviser 20-May-85 to 31-May-85 Spain UK Switzerland Italy 5,433 11,427 Visit WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Monitoring, and Attend Advisory Group Meeting Medical Officer, Class 3 1-Jun-85 to 19-Jun-85 Sweden 4,426 5,326 (Costs met by WHO) Attend Annual Health Maintenance Organisation Conference Clerical Administrative, Class 10 2-Jun-85 to 5-Jun-85 USA Nil addition to study tour 150 Recall to Duty to Attend 10th Public Relations World Congress Assistant Director 3-Jun-85 to 7-Jun-85 Holland Nil recalled to duty 959 Attend Regional Sub-committee on the Action Program on Essential Drugs Science 5 5-Jun-85 to 7-Jun-85 Philippines 2,646 2,683 (Costs met by WHO) Attend United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation and Discuss Current Condition of British Nuclear Test Sites in Australia and Radiation Measurement Standards Director 10-Jun-85 to 20-Jun-85 Austria U.K. 4,450 4,950 (Costs met by United Nations) Recall to Duty to Attend the 18th Quadrennial Congress of the International Council of Nursing, and 2nd International Conference of Nursing Care of the Aged Clerical Administrative, Class 8 16-Jun-85 to 25-Jun-85 Israel Nil recalled to duty 1,372 Finalise, Draft and Initiate Reciprocal Health Care Agreements First Assistant Secretary 27-Jun-85 to 3-Aug-85 Italy UK Greece Yugoslavia Ireland Spain 7,030 14,025 Finalise, Draft and Initiate Reciprocal Health Care Agreements Clerical Administrative, Class 10 27-Jun-85 to 3-Aug-85 Italy UK Greece Yugoslavia Ireland Spain 6,830 13,194 Escort a Seriously Ill Patient to the USA to Undergo Lifesaving Operations Medical Officer, Class 2 29-Jun-85 to 5-Jul-85 USA 5,757 6,421 School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine Assessment of Passenger Leg Rests for Qantas Physiotherapist, Grade 2 5 Jul 84 to 10 Jul 84 USA 4,410 4,660 (Costs met by Qantas) Accompany Students on a Field Excursion Research Medical Officer, Grade 3 22 Jul 84 to 14 Aug 84 PNG 480 1,280 Accompany Students on a Field Excursion Research Medical Officer, Class 2 22 Jul 84 to 14 Aug 84 PNG 480 1,280 Accompany Students on a Field Excursion Research Medical Officer, Class 1 22 Jul 84 to 14 Aug 84 PNG 480 1,280 Present Lectures on Hospital Acquired Infection Surveillance and Control Research Medical Officer, Class 1 25 Jul 84 to 12 Aug 84 NZ 762 1,662 (Costs met by host organisation) Convey Findings of NSW Govt. `Quit For Life' Campaign Research Medical Officer, Class 2 7 Aug 84 to 11 Sep 84 North America UK Europe 4,151 5,150 (Costs met by NSW Govt) Recall to Duty to Visit the Karolinska Institute, and Attend 21st International Congress on Occupational Health Medical Officer, Class 1 20 Aug 84 to 23 Sep 84 Sweden Ireland Nil recalled to duty 1,000 Recall to Duty to Attend International Congress of Entomology Lecturer 20 Aug 84 to 26 Aug 84 Germany Nil recalled to duty 999 Attend A and NZ Association for Medical Education Conference, and a Pre-conference Workshop Social Worker 21 Aug 84 to 28 Aug 84 NZ 830 1,170 Attend Joint Conference of the A and NZ Societies for Parasitology Science 1 26 Aug 84 to 31 Aug 84 NZ 1,120 1,365 Attend Joint Conference of the A and NZ Societies for Parasitology Technical Officer, Grade 1 26 Aug 84 to 31 Aug 84 NZ 1,120 1,365 Attend Annual Medical Conference of the PNG Medical Society Research Medical Officer, Class 2 31 Aug 84 to 2 Sep 84 PNG 498 1,218 Attend 21st International Congress on Occupational Health and Visit Institutions Providing Services Research Medical Officer, Class 2 31 Aug 84 to 22 Sep 84 Ireland UK 4,426 5,526 (Costs met by host organisation) Recall to Duty to Attend 21st International Occupational Health Conference and Associated Workshops on Repetition Injuries Physiotherapist, Grade 2 9 Sep 84 to 15 Sep 84 Ireland 149 803 (Costs met by host organisation) Attend Triennial Conference of the International Association on Agricultural Medicine and Rural Health, and Annual Conference of A&NZ Society of Occupational Medicine Director 9 Sep 84 to 22 Sep 84 NZ 704 2,224 Short Term Consultant to WHO on Surveillance and Control of Mosquito Vectors at International Airports Entomologist, Grade 3 10 Sep 84 to 11 Oct 84 Philippines Samoa Tonga 2,646 4,196 (Costs met by WHO) Attend Conference on Assessment of Mineral Fibres from Human Lungs, and Discuss with Health and Safety Executive and School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Lecturer 10-Sep-84 to 22-Sep-84 UK 4,426 5,026 (Costs met by host organisation) Attend the International Congress for Tropical Medicine and Malaria Research Medical Officer, Class 2 16-Sep-84 to 22-Sep-84 Canada 1,600 2,500 Attend A and NZ Society of Occupational Medicine Scientific Conference Research Medical Officer, Class 1 18-Sep-84 to 23-Sep-84 NZ 644 1,444 Recall to Duty to Attend Conference on the Place of Distribution Theory in Drug Abuse Control Policy Research Medical Officer, Level 1 1-Oct-84 to 25-Oct-84 USA Canada UK India 4,499 5,699 (Costs met by host organisation) Attend an Investigators Meeting for the World Health Organisation Collaborative Study of Neoplasia and Steroid Contraception Associate Professor 25-Oct-84 to 4-Nov-84 Switzerland 4,426 4,926 (Costs met by host organisation) Participate in a Workshop on Malaria Vector Species and Intra Specific Variations Associate Professor 27-Oct-84 to 4-Nov-84 Thailand 3,096 3,496 (Costs met by WHO) Study the Vectors of Bancroftian Filariasis Associate Professor 16-Nov-84 to 24-Dec-84 PNG 1,100 3,000 (Costs met by Govt of PNG) Undertake Research on Insecticidal Toxins Produced by Culicinomyces etc Science 3 30-Nov-84 to 31-May-85 USA Nil (Costs met by Officer) To Study Health Training and Health Service Functions in the Perspective of Major Health Problems Research Medical Officer, Class 2 2-Dec-84 to 3-Feb-85 Thailand Indonesia 3,096 6,246 (Costs met by WHO) Advise on the Cataloguing and Archival of Historical Medical Documents Research Medical Officer, Class 2 12-Dec-84 to 19-Dec-84 PNG 1,100 1,450 (Costs met by Jaubin Health Centre) Attend Symposium Formation of Mutagens During Cooking and Heat Processing of Foods Senior Lecturer 16-Dec-84 to 21-Dec-84 U.S.A. 4,410 6,046 (Host organisation met $4,900 of the total cost) Discuss Research on Schistosomiasis and Visit the Research Locality Lecturer 16-Feb-85 to 27-Feb-85 Philippines 2,646 3,196 (Costs met by host organisation) Assist in Analysis and Replanning of National Health System Associate Professor 25-Feb-85 to 11-Apr-85 Solomon Islands 1,100 3,350 (Costs met by Govt of Solomon Islands) Attend WHO/UNEP Meeting, Expert Panel on Health and Human Settlements Research Medical Officer, Class 1 15-Apr-85 to 26-Apr-85 USSR 4,500 5,050 (Costs met by WHO) Visit PNG to Work on Mosquito Vectors, and Develop a Teaching Module for Entomology Workers Associate Professor 20-Apr-85 to 5-Jun-85 PNG Malaysia 1,100 3,400 (Costs met by Govt of PNG) Negotiate Exchange of Information Between US National Trauma Data Bank and GIO Severe Head Injury Assessment Project Senior Lecturer 15-May-85 to 12-Jun-85 USA 4,410 5,810 (Costs met by Government Insurance Office) Attend Pacific Statistics Congress Associate Professor 19-May-85 to 25-May-85 NZ 382 887 Recall to Duty to Visit Laboratories Which are Working in Areas of Genetic Toxicology Science 2 19 June 1985 to 28 June 1985 Sweden France Italy Nil 860 (Recalled to Duty Costs met by Host Organisation) Attend Scientific Working Group on the Chemotherapy of Malaria Research Medical Officer, Class 3 1 June 1985 to 9 June 1985 Switzerland 4,426 4,826 (Costs met by WHO) Visit PNG to finalise Arrangements for Student MPH/DTAH Field Training Research Medical Officer, Level 2 16 June 1985 to 21 June 1985 PNG 784 1,505 Health Insurance Commission To Attend the Australasian Share Guide Conference (IBM Users Conference) 2-Level 1 1-Clerical Administrative, Class 11 3-Computer Systems Officers, Grade 5 4-Computer Systems Officers, Grade 4 1-Computer Systems Officer, Grade 3 17 Feb. 1985 to 20 Feb. 1985 NZ 6,011 15,110 Hold Discussions with Health Authorities and Private Insurance Organisations General Manager 25 May 1985 to 1 June 1985 NZ 1,136 2,632 Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Attend the Congress of Investigative Immunohaematologists. Attend the Congress of the International Society of Blood Transfusion and Visit Blood Bank and Immunology Centres Haematologist 22 June 1984 to 31 July 1984 Canada UK Netherlands West Germany Switzerland 4,414 8,448 Attend the Ninth International Congress of Pharmacology Research Pharmacologist 20 July 1984 to 23 Aug. 1984 Japan UK 6,352 10,333 Attend an International Blood Meeting, and Visit Relevant Laboratories Senior Research Biochemist 22 July 1984 to 18 Aug. 1984 West Germany Sweden UK 4,426 5,739 (Costs met by Host Organisation) Attend the XVI International Congress of the World Federation of Haemophilla. Attend the International Conference on A.I.D.S., and Attend the XX Congress of the International Society of Haematology Director Research & Development 21 Aug. 1984 to 11 Sept. 1984 USA South America 6,849 9,324 Attend a Meeting of A.I.D.S. at the Pasteur Institute and Visit Other Laboratories and Equipment Suppliers of A.I.D.S. Relevant Projects Senior Research Biochemist 30 Aug 84 to 12 Sept. 84 France UK 4,075 5,174 Attend the Fourth International Symposium of Pertussis, and Visit Laboratories Conducting Research on a Pertussis Vaccine Research Pharmacologist 21 Sept. 84 to 1 Oct. 84 Italy Switzerland 4,087 4,808 Attend Blood Research Meetings, and Visit Laboratories Conducting Research into Blood Director Research & Development 1 Oct. 84 to 9 Nov. 84 USA Hong Kong 5,174 7,931 Assure Availability of Supplies of HTLV-III Kits to Test A.I.D.S. Managing Director 4 Nov. 84 to 11 Nov. 84 USA Switzerland UK 6,375 8,037 Attend the Sixth International Conference of Virologists Senior Research Biochemist 17 Nov. 84 to 29 Nov. 84 Japan 2,718 4,365 Attend International Conference on A.I.D.S. at the Centre for Disease Control, Atlanta Senior Research Biochemist 24 Nov. 84 to 13 Dec. 84 USA 4,989 7,778 Accompany the Minister for Health to Discuss A.I.D.S. Issues Managing Director 27 Nov. 84 to 8 Dec. 84 USA 8,213 11,178 Assure Availability of HTLV-III Kits to Test for A.I.D.S. Managing Director 22 Jan. 85 to 3 Feb. 85 USA Canada 7,137 10,040 Attend Meetings of Blood Researchers, and Visit Laboratories Conducting Blood Research Director Research & Development 13 Apr. 85 to 29 Apr. 85 USA UK 4,797 8,238 Attend International Conference on A.I.D.S. at the Centre for Disease Control, Atlanta Research Biochemist 13 Apr. 85 to 4 May 85 USA 6,346 10,549 Attend a Venoms Consultancy Meeting Medical Officer 16 Apr. 85 to 26 Apr. 85 Maldive Islands 3,096 3,735 (Costs met by Host Organisation) Attend a Symposium at the Pasteur Institute on Epidemiology, and Visit Centres Researching Influenza Vaccine Medical Consultant 24 May 85 to 16 June 85 UK Belgium 5,364 9,903 Attend an Immunology Course Conducted by the American Association of Immunologists, and Visit Biotechnology Companies to Discuss EIA Reagents Senior Research Biochemist 11 June 85 to 29 June 85 USA 4,427 8,354 Note: Excludes details in respect of ACT Health Authority (which was transferred to the Territories portfolio in December 1985). Details will be included in the response to Question No. 3357. (Question No. 4341) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) How many Sri Lankan citizens were approved for migration to Australia in each of the years 1983 to 1986 to date; (2) How many were approved on the basis of (a) family reunion, (b) business migration, (c) refugee status, (d) humanitarian and (e) each other category in each of those years. (3) How many immigrants in each of those years could be classified as belonging to the (a) Tamil society of Sri Lanka, (b) Sinhalese society of Sri Lanka and (c) other sections of the Sri Lankan society. (4) How many applications for migration to Australia are waiting for processing at the Australian migration office in Colombo at the date of answering this question. Mr Hurford —I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) For the program years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, a total of 5,831 Sri Lankans worldwide were visaed for residence in Australia. The following table gives the breakdown by visa category. SRI LANKANS APPROVED AND ISSUED WITH VISAS (by Country of Birth of Principal Applicant) 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Family Migration... 1,369 1,415 1,673 Skilled Labour (a)... 194 181 226 Business Migration... 0 0 4 Independent... 5 1 0 Special Eligibility... 3 2 4 Humanitarian... 483 214 53 Total... 2,054 1,816 1,916 (a) Occupational Shares System and Employer Nominations. NB: Country of birth does not necessarily equate with country of citizenship or country of residence. Not all applicants who are approved and issued with visas travel to Australia. (3) In line with the Government's non-discriminatory immigration policy, no record is kept of ethnic, racial or religious backgrounds of persons applying for migration. (4) In Colombo, at the end of June 1986 (the most recent figures available), there were 368 applications which had been accepted as prima-facie eligible and were awaiting formal assessment. There were a further 356 cases which had been formally assessed and were awaiting a final decision. Most of the latter group are awaiting finalisation of health and character checks. (Question No. 1565) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 September 1985: Will he strengthen the provisions of section 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to place the obligation on the taxpayer, his accountant, bank and/or broker to assist in the location of required documents to ensure that tax investigation officers have powers similar to those provided under section 545 of the Companies Code and section 203 of the Customs Act. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government amended the Sales Tax Procedure Act 1934 with effect from 30 May 1985 to make it clear that the occupier of land or premises entered by an authorised taxation officer for the purposes of the sales tax law is required to provide that officer with all reasonable facilities and assistance to enable the officer to effectively perform his or her official duties. Consideration will be given to providing a similar requirement for the purposes of other laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation, including the Income Tax Assessment Act. (Question No. 1569) Mr Smith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984-85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case of (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payments for legal expenses. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am able to provide the following information in respect of expenditure for compensation and legal expenses in 1984-85. (2) (a) (i) The amount of compensation paid was $189,864. (ii) The amount paid for legal expenses was $4,287,851. (b) (i) Compensation paid generally related to cases where liability was admitted for compensable injury in the course of employment. (ii) Expenditure for legal expenses provided for the cost of searches, conveyancing, court and other fees incurred on behalf of Departments and Statutory Authorities by the Australian Government Solicitor in all States, the A.C.T. and the Northern Territory; Counsel's fees arising from interventions by the Attorney-General; and Counsel's fees for prosecutions under various Acts administered by the Attorney-General's Department. (3) Details of payments made to Counsel or legal firms during the 1984-85 financial year were supplied to Senate Estimates Committee E in 1985 and appear in the document ``Written Replies to Questions asked During Estimates Committee E Examination of Proposed Expenditure 1985-86'', dated October 1985. There is no central record in the Attorney-General's Department of other payments of the type comprehended by the question. It would be a massive task and in my view an unreasonable diversion of resources to search individual files held by the Central Office of the Department and by offices in each State and Territory to identify the name of each recipient. (Question No. 3172) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) What amount was provided by the Commonwealth for influenza research in each of the years 1980 to 1985. (2) Who were the recipients of the funding in each year. (3) What amount has the Commonwealth allocated for influenza research in 1986. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- $ 1980... 825,097 1981... 986,675 1982... 943,331 1983... 1,111,180 1984... 1,098,083 1985... 1,072,541 6,036,907 (2) (i) National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funded projects-details are in Table 1. (ii) C.S.I.R.O.(a) $ 1980... 1981... 1982... 1983... 1984... 1985... 190,000 210,000 225,000 140,000 115,000 125,000 1,005,000 Recipients were the Divisions of Molecular Biology and Protein Chemistry (iii) Australian National University-John Curtin School of Medical Research(b) $ 1980... 1981... 1982... 1983... 1984... 1985... 199,000 237,000 300,000 367,000 395,000 427,000 1,925,000 Recipients were the staff of the Department of Microbiology and the Influenza Virus Immunochemistry Laboratory, particularly Professor Gordon Ada and Dr Graeme Laver and associated staff (iv) Commonwealth Serum Laboratories(a) $ 1980... 357,250 1981... 426,888 1982... 357,909 1983... 342,687 1984... 357,190 1985... 311,576 2,153,500 (3)- $ NHMRC... CSIRO ... ANU... CSL ... 207,954 135,000 477,000 250,000 1,069,954 250,000 1,319,954 est. est. est. * (for purchase by CSIRO of computer for X-ray structural studies of influenza proteins) Footnote: a Fiscal year figures have been expressed in calendar years with permission of CSIRO and CSL. Discrepancy between total and total for Q1 PQ No. 2374 (Answer published in Hansard 11.2.86, p. 147) has occurred due to translation of the fiscal year figures to financial year figures. b Amount includes $199,000 for 1980; not included in Q1 PQ No. 2374 (Answer published in Hansard 11.2.86 p. 147). Table 1 NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NHMRC) INFLUENZA FUNDING 1980-1985 Recipient 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total Dr P. W. Gill, Westmead Hospital... 6,987 9,285 8,911 9,980 10,537 45,700 Dr G. A. Tannock, University of New- castle... 16,409 31,838 48,247 Dr R. Kearney, University of Sydney... 10,078 15,099 18,321 43,498 Associate Professor J. S. MacKenzie, University of W.A.... 40,508 65,360 16,897 23,959 25,848 172,572 Professor D. O. White, University of Melbourne... 39,152 100,155 106,168 245,475 Associate Professor R. D. Barry, University of Newcastle... 21,274 39,471 44,438 46,766 151,949 Dr R. E. Callard, University of Sydney 50,472 50,472 Dr A. W. Cripps, University of New- castle... 45,494 45,494 Total... 78,847 96,868 76,341 111,493 230,893 208,965 803,407 (Question No. 3203) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 February 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost to his Department in 1985-86 dollars of the progressive transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education in (a) 1985-86, (b) 1986-87, (c) 1987-88 and (d) annually after the transfer is complete. (2) Is he able to provide the estimated costs to each of the State Health and Education Departments. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The estimated costs (in current prices) to the Commonwealth Department of Health of the transfer of basic nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education are as follows: (a) 1985-86-$2.8m (to be carried over into 1986-87 pending States' acceptance of the terms of Commonwealth assistance) (b) 1986-87-$4.7m (c) 1987-88-$7.9m (d) Estimated costs on an annual basis for the remainder of the transfer period to 1993 are not available as a final transfer program has not yet been determined on a year by year basis. It is likely that the aggregate cost for the remainder of the transfer period will be of the order of $120m. Once the transfer is complete in 1993, basic nurse education will be funded on the same basis as the remainder of the advanced education sector, after appropriate Commonwealth/State financial adjustments are made. (2) The Commonwealth Government is not able to provide the estimated costs of the transfer to State Health and Education Departments. (Question No. 3337) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: What (a) was the stated purpose for 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 the airfare component identified separately. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Parliamentary Question No. 3337 of 13 March 1986 DETAILS OF OVERSEAS VISITS BY INDUSTRY TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCE 1984-85 Purpose Officer Class Duration Countries visited Total cost Airfare component Departmental Travel Steel Industry Plan-Tripartite Mission CL AD 11 6.7-3.8.84 USA, UK, Japan, Korea, China 10,408 5,976 Trade Mission-Iron & Steel Industry CL AD 11 12.7-3.8.84 China 7,627 3,827 Conference on Small Business Research SES 21.9-15.10.84 Switzerland, UK, USA 7,564 5,214 BIE Research into Chemicals and Plastics SES 25.9-20.10.84 Hong Kong, UK, Canada, USA 9,123 5,621 Australian/Korea Joint Trade Committee SES 8.10-15.10.84 Korea 3,924 2,994 International Small Business Congress SES 19.10-29.10.84 Netherlands, France, Britain 5,718 4,482 US Steel Negotiations... CL AD 11 26.11-9.12.84 USA 6,262 4,328 Seminar on new computer memory device. Visit companies to discuss civil offsets in Australia SES 29.1-9.2.85 USA 6,008 4,081 Accompany the Minister for Science. (Technology Discussions) SES 3.2-9.2.85 Indonesia, Malaysia 4,099 2,724 Visit Aerospace Industry Representatives CL AD 11 13.3-1.4.85 USA, Canada 9,638 5,558 Visit Aerospace Industry Representatives SES 16.3-15.4.85 USA, Canada, UK, France, West Germany, Italy 11,759 6,329 Discussions with US and Canadian Governments concerning the implementation of the 150% Taxation Deduction SES CL AD 11 22.3-1.4.85 22.3-1.4.85 USA, Canada USA, Canada 6,944 6,698 5,300 5,260 Study/Research in Materials Handling and Packaging SES 13.4-12.5.85 USA, UK, Netherlands, West Germany 12,959 5,347 Accompany Minister for Trade- Discussion on renewal of DC preference on steel SES 27.4-4.5.85 Hong Kong, Korea 5,146 3,686 Attend BIOTECH '85 Conference. Attend discussions on Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Issues SES 17.5-4.6.85 UK, France, Hungary, Singapore 9,740 5,225 Paris Airshow. Meet aerospace representatives CL AD 11 25.5-9.6.85 Italy, France, Switzerland, UK, Singapore 7,875 4,870 Foreign Affairs Conference Travel Accompany Minister for DITAC SEC 2.6-21.6.85 Hong Kong, China, Japan 13,076 8,764 Discussions on Technology and Structural Adjustments in Textile and Clothing Industries SES CL AD 11 3.6-20.6.85 3.6-20.6.85 UK, West Germany, USA Canada 9,698 8,809 5,998 5,219 Consult with EC Ministers. Aust/Japan Committee Meeting SES 7.6-21.6.85 UK Belgium, Japan 7,588 4,903 OECD Steel Committee Meeting SES 29.9-28.10.84 Canada, UK, China 9,820 7,144 OECD Meeting... SES 28.11-10.12.84 France, UK, Singapore 520 * OECD Steel Committee Meeting CL AD 11 19.1-29.1.85 UK, France 110 * OECD Industry Committee-56th Session SES 1.3-15.3.85 UK, Austria, France 680 * OECD Meeting ... CA 11 17.5-10.6.85 France, USA, Singapore 9,428 4,683 OECD Steel Committee Meeting SES 19.4-3.5.85 France, West Germany, Singapore 365 * OECD Meeting ... SES 20.5-1.6.85 France, Belgium, Singapore 1,850 * UNIDO IV Meeting ... CL AD 11 27.7-22.8.84 Austria * * UNIDO IV Meeting ... SES 26.7-1.9.84 Austria, UK, Thailand 5,307 5,307 UNIDO Industrial Board; OECD SES 10.5-18.6.85 Austria, UK, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Singapore 2,132 117* Regional Trade Committee Meeting Cl AD 11 6.7-14.7.84 Noumea, Nauru, Kiribati * * Accompany Minister for Defence Support SES 27.7-12.8.84 Europe, USA 7,953 5,557 ASEAN/Australian Forum SES 28.1-5.2.85 Malaysia, Singapore 230* * CITHSE, CHOGRM SES 7.9-2.10.84 Thailand, Malaysia, India, Indonesia 3,181 2,244 CER Officials Meeting CL AD 11 3.6-15.6.85 NZ, Fuji 738 168* Discussions with NZ Customs on Rules of Origin & SPARTACA CL AD 10 16.9-25.9.84 NZ 1,578 882 Meeting with NZ industry-Softwood production SES 25.9-30.9.84 NZ 1,257 937 Attend CER discussions with NZ Officials SES CL AD 11 CL AD 11 27.11-30.11.84 27.11-30.11.84 27.11-30.11.84 NZ NZ NZ 1,332 1,095 1,147 947 867 867 Discussions with NZ Officials on ANZCER apparel arrangements CL AD 11 9.2-17.2.85 NZ 1,995 890 Attend consultations with NZ officials on Multilateral Economic issues and counterpart discussions CL AD 11 5.3-9.3.85 NZ 1,202 804 Other Travel Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries-Japan CL AD 9 21.2-9.3.85 Japan **4,056 1,114 SES Fellowship ... SES 25.4-3.8.85 USA, UK, Singapore, Canada, Sweden, West Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Finland 25,442 6,401 Paris Airshow (Recall to duty) SES 1.6-4.6.85 France 390 - Visit UK Steel Industry (Recall to duty) CL AD 5 21.6-28.6.85 UK 1,245 - * Balance of costs associated with the trip paid by FA's. ** $2,056 of total provided by Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. Parliamentary Question 3337 of 13 March 1986 DETAILS OF OVERSEAS VISITS BY AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE 1984-85 Name Level Purpose Period Countries Fare TA $A $A G Boyd ... CL 8 Motor Vehicle Investigation 12.8-12.9.84 HK, Singapore 3,022 5,232 B. Hull ... CL 8 Motor Vehicle Investigation 12.8-12.9.84 HK, Singapore 2,896 5,162 J. McCormack ... AS HS Working Party 5, Joint NC/HSC3, HS Seminar 7.9-21.11.84 Belgium, UK, Italy, India 6,288 6,895 H. Bates ... FAS GATT Meetings 22.9-17.11.84 Europe, USA, Canada, Mauritius 7,106 9,343 N. Foldi ... CL 11 Attend 8th Session of Technical Industry Committee on Customs Valuation 25.9-12.10.84 UK, Belgium, Malaysia, Singapore 4,402 1,766 W. Lester ... CSO 4 Attend USE Conference 29.9-12.10.84 USA 3,416 2,106 C. Karlsen ... CSO 4 Attend Computer Working Party of CCC 5-27.10.84 UK, Belgium, USA 4,892 2,446 A. Gardiner ... CL 9 ACS/NZC Joint Liaison Visit 10.10-10.11.84 South Pacific 804 3,796 I. Foster ... CL 11 Conduct course on Drug Indentification and Concealment 24.11-9.12.84 Vanuatu 2,214 1,523 P. Lawler ... Ag AS Attend Chemist Conference, Joint Working Party No. 7, Harmonization Seminar 2.1-4.2.85 UK, Belgium, India 4,753 4,075 R. Woodrow ... CL 9 CCC Seminar-Brussels 13.1-5.2.85 UK, Belgium, France 4,402 2,415 A. Wilson ... AS Attend CCC Meeting of ADP Working Party 8.2-3.3.85 UK, Belgium, Singapore 4,482 2,465 J. Pritchard ... CL 11 Attend Conference on Export of Strategic Goods. Examine Passenger Processing. Attend CCC Enforcement Committee Meeting. 9.2-11.3.85 USA, UK, Belgium 2,479 3,394 N. Foldi ... CL 11 Technical Committee on Customs Valuation and CCC Meeting 26.2-18.3.85 UK, Belguim Singapore 4,402 2,649 J. Conlon ... AS Attend CCC Conference on Customs Enforcement 5-21.4.85 Japan, Korea, HK, Singapore 3,207 2,942 J. Hartley ... CL 11 Interim Harmonized System Committee 54th Nomenclature Committee 1.5-3.6.85 Uk, Belgium Singapore 4,535 3,665 C. Vassarotti ... AS Pacific Basic Customs Enforcement Seminar. Study computer based Intelligence systems 6-27.5.85 USA 4,581 4,254 B. Bissaker ... AS Investigate commercial transactions with Australian importer 19.5-7.6.85 China, HK 3,664 3,805 W. Fitzpatrick ... CL 9 Commerical Fraud Investigations 27.5-7.6.85 HK 3,282 2,297 N. Foldi ... CL 11 Customs Co-operation Council Meeting 4.6-20.6.85 UK, Belgium, Singapore 4,535 1,886 D. Hogg ... CL 9 Dumping (Normal Value) Reviews 14.6-9.7.85 HK, Korea, Japan 3,257 6,637 Foreign Affairs Conference Travel B. Wilkinson ... AS GATT Anti-dumping Subsidies Codes Meetings 18-30.4.85 Belguim, Switzerland, Singapore - 232 Visits to New Zealand and Papua New Guinea R. Martindale ... CL 9 Discuss NZ Bulk appropriations & program management with NZ Customs 19-29.9.84 NZ 1,002 1,218 J. Drury ... AS Discuss NZ Bulk appropriations & program management with NZ Customs 19-29.9.84 NZ 1,079 800 L. Alp ... CL 10 Study NZ Customs air and sea barrier operations 26.8-7.9.84 NZ 918 1,100 J. Gobwell ... CL 8 Discussions with NZ Customs on rules of origin and SPARTACA 16-25.9.84 NZ 882 479 B. Wilkinson ... AS Discussions with NZ Customs on rules of origin and SPARTACA 16-25.9.84 NZ 1,088 500 R. Woodrow ... CL 9 NZ Customs Management Training Program 22.9-11.10.84 NZ 882 1,089 E. Dixon ... Ag AS Disc. with Excise Section-NZ Customs 14-21.10.84 NZ 947 528 J. McDermott ... CL 8 Carry out preference investigations 21.10-16.11.84 NZ 804 2,548 G. Hearn ... COB 6 NZ Customs Department Management Skills Course 4-21.11.84 NZ 870 759 G. Cowan ... Cl 9 NZ/Australian Customs Intelligence Conf. 16-25.11.84 NZ 867 835 M. Johnson ... CL 8 NZ/Australian Customs Intelligence Conf. 16-27.11.84 NZ 870 609 B. Toohey ... CL 8 NZ/Australian Customs Intelligence Conf. 16-25.11.84 NZ 707 424 T. Mether ... CL 8 Preference inquiries in NZ 3-29.3.85 NZ 804 2,457 J. Tatnell ... CL 9 ANZCERTA Inquiries 8-20.4.85 NZ 1,036 1,264 J. Lambert ... AS CER Officials Meeting in NZ 3.6-7.6.85 NZ 952 386 P. Lawler ... Ag AS Annual Conference of NZ Tariff Officers 9.6-14.6.85 NZ 940 421 G. Northey ... CL 9 Annual Conference of NZ Tariff Officers 9.6-14.6.85 NZ 940 481 Other Visits W. Parker ... CL 8 Relief Posting-Tokyo 9.7-19.8.85 Japan 2,652 6,134 L. Roux ... CL 11 Long Term Posting-Tokyo 8.8.84- Japan 6,825 170 A. Pass ... CL 9 Long Term Posting-New York 25.9.84- USA 11,963 196 K. Stilling ... FAS Exchange Program-Ottawa 17.12.84- Canada 7,270 834 M. Henry ... CL 9 Long Term Posting-Brussels 27.12.84- Belgium 13,963 245 M. Bungey ... CL 9 Long Term Posting-New Zealand 7.1.85- NZ 402 - T. O'Connor ... CL 8 Long Term Posting-CCC, Brussels 19.4.85- Belgium 14,892 713 K. Beaman ... CL 11 Relief Posting-Hong Kong 30.6-30.8.85 HK 3,283 9,223 INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Parliamentary Question No. 3337 of 13 March 1986 (Overseas Travel by Officers)-House of Representatives, Mr D. M. Cameron Details of Overseas Travel for 1984-85 for I.A.C. Officers (a) Purpose (b) Classification of Officer (c) Duration of Travel (d) Countries visited (e) Estimated Costs (i) Total Cost (ii) Air Fare Discussions with New Zealand Industries Development Commission Chairman 26.11 to 29.11.84 New Zealand 1,619 1,252 Discussions and information gathering from overseas Governments and Industries relating to the Chemicals and Plastics Inquiry Commissioner and First Assistant Commissioner 20.9 to 24.10.84 Europe, United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America 24,154 13,292 Discussions and information gathering from Government and Industry related to the Apples and Pears Inquiry Commissioner (with Spouse) and Assistant Commissioner 22.1 to 31.1.85 New Zealand 4,862 3,498 Discussions and information gathering from overseas Governments and Industries relating to the Textiles Clothing and Footwear Inquiry Commissioner (with Spouse) and Assistant Commissioner 9.6 to 3.7.85 Canada, Europe, United Kingdom, Hong Kong 25,242 15,270 Meeting at World Bank on inventory and measurement of protection especially non tariff barriers to trade (part sponsorship by World Bank) Head of Office 16.7 to 25.7.84 United States of America 1,501 827 Discussions related to overseas research on non tariff barriers. Interviews for recruitment First Assistant Commissioner 31.1 to 8.3.85 United States of America, United Kingdom, Europe, Singapore 11,392 5,236 Visit US International Trade Commission regarding research sources and material for IAC Library. Attended American Library Association Conference Librarian 3.1 to 17.1.85 United States of America 7,262 4,335 Parliamentary Question No. 3337 of 13 March 1986 DETAILS OF OVERSEAS VISITS BY AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY AUTHORITY Purpose Officer Class Duration Countries visited Total cost Airfare component To have discussions with the management of Automotive Companies in Japan. To obtain an understanding of the Automotive industry in that country... Chairman Assoc. Member Member Member 14.6-30.6.85 14.6-30.6.85 14.6-30.6.85 14.6-30.6.85 Japan 34,136 15,936 (Question No. 3340) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Treasurer, 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 the air fare component identified separately. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of the Treasury-Overseas Travel 1984-85 (1) (a) Loan Negotiations; (b) Deputy Secretary, Level 6; and Chief Finance Officer, Grade 2 (Class 11); (c) 14 days; (d) Japan; (e) $11,414 (Airfares-$5,814). (2) (a) Senior Executive Fellowship; (b) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 and spouse; (c) 82 days; (d) USA, Canada, Europe and Asia; (e) $28,602 (Airfares-$13,240). (3) (a) Negotiations, accompany Prime Minister; (b) Deputy Secretary, Level 6; (c) 7 days; (d) Philippines; (e) $3,500 (Airfare-$2,825). (4) (a) IMF/IBRD Annual Meetings, Accompany Treasurer; (b) (i) Deputy Secretary, Level 6; (ii) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4; (iii) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4; (iv) Chief Finance Officer, Grade 2 (Class 11); (c) (i) 20 days; (ii) 18 days; (iii) 22 days; (iv) 15 days; (d) (i) USA; (ii) USA; (iii) USA, Netherlands; (iv) USA; (e) (i) $6,200 (Airfare-$4,600); (ii) $6,010 (Airfare-$4,600); (iii) $5,210 (Airfare-$4,400); (iv) $7,340 (Airfare-$5,000). (5) (a) Loan negotiations; (b) Assistant Secretary, Level 2; and Chief Finance Officer, Grade 2 (Class 11); (c) 10 days; (d) West Germany; (e) $11,150 (Airfares-$8,670). (6)* (a) OECD Meetings; (b) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4; (c) 8 days; (d) Paris; (e) $4,944 (Airfare-$4,514). (7) (a) IMF Seminar on External Debt Management; (b) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4; (c) 10 days; (d) USA; (e) Airfares $4,430 (Paid by IMF). (8)* (a) OECD Meeting; (b) Assistant Secretary, Level 2; (c) 5 days; (d) France; (e) $5,404 (Airfare-$4,513). (9) (a) Loan negotiations; (b) Chief Finance Officer, Grade 2; (c) 8 days; (d) Switzerland; (e) $5,047 (Airfare-$4,402). (10) (a) Consultations on Economic Issues; (b) Assistant Secretary, Level 2; (c) 4 days; (d) New Zealand; (e) $1,207 (Airfare-$947). (11)* (a) OECD Meetings and Consultations on Economic Issues; (b) Deputy Secretary, Level 6; (c) 23 days; (d) France, Switzerland, Federal Republic of Germany; (e) Airfare $4,792. (12) (a) Meetings of IMF, IBRD and ADB (b) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 (c) 22 days; (d) USA, Japan, Bangkok; (e) $10,540 (Airfare $6,450). (13) (a) Negotiate double tax agreement; (b) Chief Finance Officer, Grade 2 (Class 11); (c) 13 days; (d) Hong Kong, China; (e) $5,165 (Airfare-$3,485). (14) (a) Loan negotiations/ICM Conference; (b) Assistant Secretary, Level 2; (c) 13 days; (d) United Kingdom; (e) $5,586 (Airfare-$4,536). (15) (a) Senior Executive Fellowship; (b) First Assistant Secretary, Level 4 and spouse; (c) 90 days; (d) New Zealand, USA, United Kingdom, Japan and Hong Kong; (e) $33,115 (Airfares-$14,015). (16)* (a) OECD Meeting; (b) Deputy Secretary, Level 6; (c) 9 days; (d) France; (e) $5,180 (Airfare-$4,400). (17)* (a) OECD Meetings; (b) Assistant Secretary, Level 2; (c) 23 days; (d) France; (e) $6,305 (Airfare-$4,400). (18)* (a) OECD Meetings; (b) Assistant Secretary, Level 2; (c) 26 days; (d) France, Switzerland and United Kingdom; (e) $8,772 (Airfare-$4,792). (19) (a) NAIC Annual Meeting/Visit USA and Canadian Insurance Commissioners; (b) Insurance Commissioner and spouse; (c) 33 days; (d) USA, Canada; (e) $8,350 (Airfares-$11,475). * Travel costs paid by Foreign Affairs from Conference funds. Commonwealth Banking Corporation The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has provided the following response. `The information sought is not centrally/readily available and to obtain it from a large number of individual departments would involve an unreasonable allocation of resources. However, it can be said that all travel would have been undertaken by senior/middle level executives for the furtherance of the Bank's business or as a consequence of transfer of officers to and from overseas points of representation.' Prices Surveillance Authority Nil overseas travel undertaken. Australian Taxation Office The Australian Taxation Office has provided the following information- (1) (a) Pacific Association of Tax Administrators Conference; (b) Director Class 10, Complicance Branch, Melbourne; (c) 12 days; (d) United States of America; (e) $4,553.20 (Airfare $2,802.00). (2) (a) Commonwealth Association of Tax Administrators Conference; (b) Senior Assistant Commissioner, Interpretation and Appeals Directorate; (c) 12 days; (d) Western Samoa; (e) $3,198.37 (Airfare $2,244.60). (3) (a) Pacific Association of Tax Administrators Conference; (b) Comissioner of Taxation; (c) 11 days; (d) United States of America, Canada; (e) $6,880.81 (Airfare $5,325.60). (4) (a) Pacific Association of Tax Administrators Conference; (b) Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Directorate; (c) 17 days; (d) United States of America, Canada; (e) $7,415.79 (Airfare $4,798.40. (5) (a) Heads of Commonwealth Valuation Departments Conference; (b) Assistant Commissioner, Valuation Branch; (c) 15 days; (d) Hong Kong; (e) $1,879.50 (Airfare $330.00). Note: Above amounts are half of actual cost as trip was partly funded by The Northern Territory Department of Lands. (6) (a) Commonwealth Association of Tax Administrators Conference; (b) Senior Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Legislation Directorate; (c) 12 days; (d) Western Samoa; (e) $3,198.37 (Airfare $2,244.60). (7) (a) Conference held by Internal Revenue Service; (b) Executive Officer, Special Projects Branch; (c) 8 days; (d) New Zealand; (e) $1,278.63 (Airfare $804.20). (8) (a) Commonwealth Association of Tax Administrators Advanced Management Course and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development meeting; (b) Executive Officer, Management Directorate; (c) 85 days; (d) United Kingdom, Italy, France, Hong Kong; (e) $11,593.36 (Airfare $4,648.00). (9) (a) Discussions with the Internal Revenue Service; (b) Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Adelaide; (c) 26 days; (d) United States of America; (e) $18,634.09 (Airfare $12,995.00). (10) (a) Conference held by Internal Revenue Service; (b) Executive Officer, Policy and Legislation Directorate; (c) 8 days; (d) New Zealand; (e) $1,261.34 (Airfare $804.20). (11) (a) Double Tax Negotiations; (b) Second Commissioner of Taxation; (c) 13 days; (d) Hong Kong, China; (e) $10,943.48 (Airfare $8,876.00). (12) (a) Senior Executive Fellowship Study Tour; (b) Senior Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Directorate; (c) 94 days; (d) Italy, France, United Kingdom, West Germany, Canada, United States of America, Switzerland; (e) $30,970.36 (Airfare $10,084.00). (13) (a) Training Course with Internal Revenue Service; (b) Executive Officer, Security Branch; (c) 38 days; (d) United States of America; (e) $10,622.19 (Airfare $4,353.20). (14) (a) Pacific Association of Tax Administrators Conference; (b) First Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Directorate; (c) 11 days; (d) United States of America, Canada; (e) $6,276.99 (Airfare $4,798.40). (15) (a) Discussions with the Internal Revenue Service; (b) First Assistant Commmissioner, Management Directorate; (c) 24 days; (e) $11,401.97 (Airfare $6,160.00). (16) (a) Double Tax Negotiation; (b) Senior Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Legislation Directorate; (c) 13 days; (d) Hong Kong, China; (e) $5325.72 (Airfare $3525.00). (17) (a) Meeting of Study Group on Asian Tax and Research (SGATAR); (b) Executive Officer, Management Directorate; (c) 20 days; (d) South Korea, Hong Kong; (e) $4298.62 (Airfare $2945.00). RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA The Reserve Bank of Australia has provided the following details Main purpose (& Number) of Visits Countries Visited Air fares Other costs Total $ $ $ Study & Training courses and conferences 28 Canada, France, India, Italy, Japan, Nepal, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA 118,353 72,109 190,562 Visits to central banks and other financial organisations 17 Hong Kong, New Zealand, Soloman Is., Switzerland, Thailand, UK, USA 63,372 21,958 85,330 Visits to suppliers and manufacturers (note printing) 9 Belgium, Canada, France, West Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, UK, USA 42,805 24,628 67,433 Totals ... 54 224,530 118,695 343,225 AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS The Australian Bureau of Statistics has provided the following details (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (e) Purpose of trip Designation of officer Duration of trip Countries visited Total cost Airfare component To carry out a study on telephone interviewing techniques and to discuss matters of common interest with overseas statistical agencies Clerial Adminis- tration, Class 11 24.5.84- 11.7.84* USA, Canada, UK 10,875 4,832 * The bulk of this trip (24.5.84-30.6.84) was outside the reference year To attend the ESCAP Working Group of Statistical Experts as Australian delegate, Bangkok Senior Executive, Level 3 1.7.84- 7.7.84 Thailand 3,578 2,677 To attend the 10th Session of the FAO Asia and Pacific Commission on Agricultural Statistics, Jakarta, as Australian delegate Senior Executive, Level 1 24.7.84- 2.8.84 Indonesia 3,261 2,095 To visit FUJITSU, Japan, in connection with the upgrading of the ABS computing environment, and the Statistics Department of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore, to examine the FUJITSU computer installation Computer Systems Officer, Grade 4 14.9.84- 27.9.84 Japan, Singapore 5,746 2,901 To attend a conference on `Dissemination of Census Data' convened in Ottawa by Statistics Canada; visit the US Bureau of the Census, Washington; and consult with the Institute National de la Statistique et desEtudes Economiques, Paris Senior Executive, Level 1 30.9.84- 30.10.84 Canada, USA, France 11,057 5,200 To attend a meeting of the OECD Group of Financial Statisticians, Paris Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 11 13.10.84- 22.10.84 France 5,778 4,424 To attend the 19th Session of the EDP Working Party of the Conference of European Statisticians, Geneva; visit organisations with major computing installations in UK and USA: and visit FUJITSU, Japan Senior Executive, Level 3 8.2.85- 13.3.85 Switzerland UK, USA, Japan 16,795 10,212 To study management systems and techniques, and program budgeting (Senior Executive Fellowship) Senior Executive, Level 4 9.2.85- 13.5.85 Canada, USA, Sweden, UK, West Germany, Singapore 42,381 16,286 To attend seminar on `Measurement of Productivity and Technological Change', US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 9 29.3.85 5.5.85 USA 13,545 4,824 To attend symposium on `Small Area Estimation', Ottawa; and to attend discussion on `Population Survey Redesign', Washington Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 11 3.5.85- 9.6.85 Canada, USA 14,323 5,757 To attend discussions with the New Zealand Department of Statistics, Auckland, on computer-assisted coding for the New Zealand 1986 Census Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 11 4.5.85- 13.5.85 New Zealand 1,541 812 To attend discussions with the New Zealand Department of Statistics, Auckland, on computer-assisted coding for the New Zealand 1986 Census Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 9 6.5.85- 11.5.85 New Zealand 1,409 896 To present a paper to the Pacific Statistical Congress, Auckland Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 9 18.5.85- 24.5.85 New Zealand 1,279 930 To attend OECD special meeting of National Accounts Experts on Revision of the System of National Accounts, Paris; and to participate in discussions with Central Statistical Office, London Senior Executive, Level 1 24.5.85- 4.6.85 France, UK 8,121 5,821 To attend General Conference of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Florence Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 11 2.6.85- 13.6.85 Italy 6,825 3,976 To attend OECD Workshop on Science and Technology Measures in Higher Education, Paris Clerical Adminis- trative, Class 9 7.6.85- 19.6.85 France 6,960 4,536 (Question No. 3383) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 March 1986: (1) What assumptions and considerations underlie the estimated reductions in outlays for this portfolio for (a) 1986-87 and (b) 1987-88 as shown in the November 1985 Department of Finance report on the forward estimates of budget outlays and staffing. (2) Does his Department as reorganised in 1985 have a (a) corporate and (b) annual operation plan as at 9 March 1986. (3) What seminars, symposiums and courses have been run to improve the skills of those people remaining in the Department. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The forward budget estimates contained in the November 1985 Department of Finance report reflected the portfolio's expected funding requirements at that stage. The estimated reductions included downward adjustments with respect to anticipated expenditure under the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 and under the Export Expansion Grants Act 1978 a gradual wind-down of activity in the 1986-87 financial year associated with the America's Cup Defence to be held in February 1987 and a termination of arrangements concerning payment in relation to the liquidation of the Stock Financing Fund of the International Sugar Organisation. (2) The Department has adopted a corporate planning process which focuses on the dynamic nature of the trade environment with goals and objectives appropriate to that environment. The Department is also preparing to move into program budgeting in 1987-88. Activity to develop an operational plan commenced in 1984-85 but was deferred pending the outcome of the restructuring of the portfolio. (3) A program of seminars, symposiums and courses conducted in the period January to June 1986 to meet the development and training needs of staff remaining in the Department covered the following subject areas: Induction/Orientation, Occupational Health and Safety, Professional and Management Development. In addition a number of officers attended courses on Professional and Management Development run by external institutions. (Question No. 3419) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 March 1986: (1) How many research projects specifically related to literacy development and/or failure have been funded by the Government in each of the last 5 years. (2) What were the (a) names of recipients, (b) projects and (c) amounts of each grant. (3) Is literacy research grossly underfunded in view of its importance to the Australian community and economy. (4) Will funding be boosted in the 1986 research awards. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Five research projects which relate to literacy have been funded by the Commonwealth in the past 5 years. (2)- Name of recipient Project Amount of grant $ *Mr R. Cope, Mr A. Morris... Literacy and numeracy demands on school leavers 9,900 *Mr W. J. Lovegrove... Spatial information processing and specific reading disability 14,800 *Dr S. Schwartz... Information processing skills in reading 26,000 Dr A. Grant... Adult literacy needs and provision 15,000 Ms E. Fesl... Literacy and educational perceptions of three Aboriginal communities 18,400 * Funded through the Education Research and Development Committee. In addition much of the Commonwealth funding for curriculum development can be viewed as applied research on literacy: identification of the needs faced by education systems in relation to literacy; developing effective strategies for improving teaching practices in the field of literacy; assisting parents to become effective partners with teachers in developing their children's reading abilities. Several programs have been funded in curriculum development in 1984-85 and 1985-86. These are: Early Literacy Inservice Course The national Early Literacy Inservice Course was developed by the South Australian Education Department from a New Zealand original. The Commonwealth has actively supported the national dissemination and co-ordination of the ELIC Program through the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Curriculum Development Council. Expenditure in 1984-85 was $276,700 and in 1985-86, $86,000. In addition, the Commonwealth has funded State use of the Early Literacy Inservice Course through the Basic Learning in Primary Schools Program. Funding was $2,167,527 for the 1985 calendar year and approximately $800,000 has been approved in first quarter 1986. Basic Learning in Primary Schools A substantial range of projects in the general area of literacy and language have been funded by the Commonwealth through the BLIPS Program. Information provided by the States in 1985 indicates that approximately $1,300,000 was allocated to a range of programs. Interim figures for 1986 indicate that approximately $300,000 has already been requested for literacy-related programs. Curriculum Development Centre The Commonwealth has funded three further projects through the Centre in recent years: The Reading and Learning Program with A.C.T. Schools Authority and Canberra College of Advanced Education, received $35,000 in each of 1984-85 and 1985-86; Evaluation of the Reading Recovery Program, with Victorian Education Department received $35,720 in 1985-86. (3) No. Total Commonwealth expenditure on literacy related programs over the period 1984 to date exceeds $5 million. A considerable amount of Commonwealth funding has been administered through various programs under the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Acts towards applied research in literacy, within State programs. A great deal of research continues in State Education Departments on the assessment and improvement of literacy. Commonwealth funds are also provided under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act to the States for the operation of universities and colleges of advanced education and for specific programs in TAFE. From within the total funds available to universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE authorities they are able to undertake projects associated with literacy research. Priorities are established at the State and institutional level. (4) There are no current plans to increase the high priority the Government gives to literacy research; however the prime responsibility remains with the States which have been assisted by Commonwealth funding. (Question No. 3706) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether (a) there exists widespread community concern and dissent in the legal system about apparent disparities in punishment of convicted offenders, (b) the Reagan administration has recently secured passage of the US Comprehensive Crime Control Act 1984 and the establishment of the US Sentencing Commission in October 1985 and (c) sentencing commissions have been operating successfully in a number of US States for many years and have earned the support of the judiciary and the community. (2) Does Australia's federal system impose special needs for machinery to secure consistency in sentencing. (3) Is it a fact that the reluctance of appeal courts to intervene in discretionary decisions gives rise to a risk of necessary levels of sentencing disparity. (4) Is he able to say whether the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Harry Gibbs, intimated at a recent Criminal Law Congress that a sentencing commission was prima facie, a good idea. (5) Is it a fact that federal/State jealousies over criminal justice are the main obstacle to the introduction of rational sentencing reform. (6) Does he support in principle an Australian Sentencing Commission. (7) Will he raise with the State Attorneys-General the need to establish an Australian Sentencing Commission whose composition and functions take into account State concerns. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a), (2), (3), and (5). The Australian Law Reform Commission has under consideration a Reference on sentencing relating to Commonwealth offenders. An earlier interim report of the Commission initially canvassed the idea of a Sentencing Council. The Law Reform Commission is in the process of reviewing the Interim Report including, the establishment of a Sentencing Council. (1) (b) Yes, although I understand that the Sentencing Guidelines are yet to come into force. (1) (c) I understand that some States in the United States of America have adopted Sentencing Commissions. (4) I have been advised that at the Criminal Law Congress on 7 October 1985 the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in response to a question put to him indicated the desirability of achieving greater uniformity in sentencing procedures in Australia and would support measures taken towards this end. I am also advised that the Chief Justice expressed no views as to the role any sentencing commission may play in the actual sentencing process. (6) In principle I consider that the establishment of a Sentencing Commission or Council would be desirable. (7) No; not at this stage. If, however, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommends that a Sentencing Commission (or Council) be established I will raise this matter again with the State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General. (Question No. 3757) Mr Downer asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or Authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The details in respect of the engagement of either Mr P. Adams, Mr R. Cameron or known associated companies are set out in the following table. Year Company Amount Projects $ 1983-84 ... Australian National Opinion Polls (ANOP) 120,000.00 Research into Youth attitudes to Government Policies and Programs 35,000.00 Research into funding of schools 74,000.00 Research into Tasmanian awareness of Commonwealth offers of assistance 1984-85 ... Monahan Dayman Adams (NSW) Pty Ltd 1,003,078.25 641,458.31 1984 elections and referendums advertising 1984 pre-election enrolment advertising 33,553.06 Redistribution advertising 9,500.70 Publication in ethnic press of translated summaries of referendum YES and NO cases, as authorised by S.11 (4) (a) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 140.80 Provision of video tapes of material from previous advertising campaigns 1984-85 ... Monahan Dayman Adams (NSW) Pty Ltd 83,495.04 Research and production for radio and press advertising for a special information campaign on participation in education ANOP 20,500.00 Research into public awareness of 1984 Budget 1985-86 ... Monahan Dayman Adams (NSW) Pty Ltd 852.47 Provision of extra copies of ``Why Vote'' video for use in Aboriginal Electoral Information Service Program 467.50 Supply reprints of Aboriginal Electoral Information Service posters (Question No. 3760) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies or principles of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Department of Education (a) Amounts paid: (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-Nil (iii) 1985-86-$10,000 committed but contract not yet completed (b) Projects undertaken: (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-Nil (iii) 1985-86-Monahan Dayman Adams was contracted to provide conceptual design advice on publicity strategies for new student assistance schemes ACT Schools Authority (a) Amounts paid: (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-Nil (iii) 1985-86-$310 (b) Projects undertaken: (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-Nil (iii) 1985-86-Six 30-second segments on Radio 2CA on 7 October 1985 to advertise the ACT Schools Authority Music Festival. Commonwealth Schools Commission (a) Amounts paid: (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-A grant of $16,000 under the national allocation for the Participation and Equity Program was made on 19 December 1984. (To date a commitment to the payment of $2,000 has been made to meet the cost of professional fees for two consultants. To 30 June 1986 no payment had been made.) (iii) 1985-86-Nil (b) Projects undertaken: (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-To conduct interviews with Directors-General of Education and other persons, including members of program target groups, to formulate advice on: conducting action research into the awareness and perceptions of the Participation and Equity Program among members of the program's several target groups; using the results of such action research in developing messages and selecting appropriate media for communication with target groups; setting up `tracking studies' and other evaluatory procedures which would monitor the effectiveness of communications with these groups, and the effects of the program. (iii) 1985-86-Nil. (Question No. 3797) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 April 1986: (1) Is is a fact that (a) resolution of disputes which arise under the National Takeovers Code is not effectively or expeditiously carried out by the normal judicial process and (b) the parties to takeover litigation may have to wait for more than 6 months for a final resolution of a dispute by the High Court. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the literal approach to interpretation by the courts in a number of cases such as the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) v Industrial Equity Ltd and Gibbs v NCSC (The Pine Vale Case). (3) Has his attention been drawn to the statement by the Victorian Attorney-General which appeared in the Age on 11 April 1986 in which he calls for (a) improved regulations of financial markets amid the BHP-Bell legal imbroglio and (b) all concerned to work towards better regulation centred on simplified legislation, a clarified role for the NCSC and the consideration of a special tribunal to deal with those issues and some restriction on the role of courts in corporate matters. (4) Do the discretionary powers of the NCSC require that it be concerned with the substance rather than the form of transactions and with the spirit as with the letter of legislation; if so, how does this accord with the remarks of the Victorian Attorney-General. (5) Will he have urgent discussions with the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities with a view to setting up an expert of special tribunal to deal effectively and efficiently with all disputes arising under the Takeovers Code. (6) Is it a fact that, because of the lengthy delays involved, the final appellate court, or any appellate court, may find it impracticable to grant the relief sought by a plaintiff in takeover litigation even though the plaintiff's legal arguments are accepted. (7) Is he able to say whether any parties to takeover litigation have been forced to abandon appeals from single judge decisions because delays within the appellate court system make it difficult for an appellate court to unscramble a takeover satisfactorily. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (7) I am aware of the concern expressed about litigation being used as a delaying tactic to frustrate a takeover. This issue is addressed at some length in my Department's discussion paper entitled `Current Issues in Takeover and Merger Regulation in Australia' which I released on 25 June 1986. The question of appeal rights and other issues concerning the regulation of takeovers which are referred to by the honourable member raise a number of fundamental policy issues which are to be pursued at the next Ministerial Council meeting in September 1986. (Question No. 3809) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 17 April 1986: (1) Have any genetically altered organisms been released or escaped into the environment in Australia; if so, (a) where and (b) when have these occurred. (2) What was the nature of the releases and escapes. (3) What measures were necessary in each case to prevent the release being environmentally hazardous. (4) Is he able to say what safeguards exist in each State and Territory to prevent the escape of potentially hazardous genetically altered material. (5) Are institutions involved in genetic engineering required to maintain effective emergency plans for releases and escapes. (6) Are the institutions required to notify (a) the Commonwealth and (b) State authorities in these cases. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Strictly speaking, genetically altered organisms include all organisms whose genetic make-up has been changed either by purposeful manipulation and breeding, or by selection of a random change occurring in the natural environment. By this broad definition, most, if not all commercial crops, horticultural plants and livestock which are used in Australia today are examples of releases of genetically manipulated organisms. In industries where microorganisms are used to make useful products like ethanol, baker's yeast, antibiotics, organic acids and enzymes, the process organism has nearly always been changed, often by man-induced mutations, and these organisms too have been widely released into the environment. Only a few techniques for crossbreeding or genetic manipulation are explicitly regulated or monitored. For example, artificial insemination of farm animals is regulated in most Australian jurisdictions but plant breeding is not usually controlled. Of the more recently developed techniques of genetic manipulation, the recombinant DNA technique has been monitored nationally since 1981 by the Recombinant DNA Monitoring Committee (RDMC), which reports to me. With respect to recombinant DNA modified organisms, the RDMC has provided the following information in answer to the honourable member's question. ``This Committee sets out non-statutory safety guidelines and reviews work proposals submitted by organisations. As it is a non-statutory monitoring system the responsibility for ensuring that researchers and other employees maintain safety standards (including those specified in the RDMC's Guidelines) remains with the organisation performing the work. Each organisation establishes an institutional biosafety committee to provide this local supervision and to act as the point of contact for the RDMC. The RDMC is not required to monitor all work involving the recombinant DNA technique; just that involving recombinant molecules unlikely to occur in nature. Certain groups of microorganisms are known to exchange genetic information in nature (so called self-exchangers). These exchanges involve the same types of reactions at the molecular level as are carried out by scientists in the laboratory when they manipulate organisms by recombinant DNA techniques. When genetic manipulations are conducted in the laboratory between organisms known to exchange DNA in nature, the work is exempt from the RDMC's Guidelines. The RDMC has exempted other experimental systems on a case-by-case basis, when the exchange involved is judged to be non-hazardous. In cases which are exempt, the work is expected to be conducted according to established safe microbiological practices. (1) and (2) The RDMC is unaware of the accidental escape of any organism modified in the laboratory. The RDMC has given advice on two vaccine trials involving live modified organisms, one for use on a species of farm animal, and the other for humans. The vaccine organisms concerned were disabled and extremely unlikely to survive long either in the test subjects or in the environment. In both cases the appropriate State department was closely involved in supervising the trials. The animal trial commenced during 1985 and the RDMC gave its advice on the human trial earlier this year. Both projects involve commercially sensitive information, and so details cannot be given. It should also be noted that several experiments involving animals and inserted genetic material are currently underway. In each of these cases the Committee or its Scientific Sub-committee has considered this work to be contained, as the facilities in which the animals are housed minimise the possibility of accidental release. In addition, the Scientific Sub-committee is presently considering the types of experiments involving recombinant DNA modified organisms (whether migroorganisms, insects, animals or plants) which are suitable for teaching purposes in tertiary institutions. (3) To minimise hazard to the environment, the vaccine organisms were deliberately modified to ensure poor survival, and were tested to ensure that the modification was stably inherited and was not corrected after the administration to the test animals. The containment provided in the animal trials and the supervision by the appropriate State departments were also significant measures. (4), (5) and (6) There appears to be no legislation applying specifically to products made with organisms genetically manipulated by recombinant DNA methods, but there is a good deal of legislation which regulates particular end uses or products. This applies regardless of the methods used in their development. Any biological pesticides, for example, must be registered through the same mechanisms as chemical-based pesticides. Thus the legally-based safeguards which exist vary from field to field, but within any one field are generally the same irrespective of whether the use or product involves genetically altered organisms. The arrangements vary from State to State depending upon the nature of the legislation in each jurisdiction. Requirements to notify government authorities in the event of an escape would similarly vary between fields and jurisdictions. The RDMC has published Guidelines for recombinant DNA work of both small and large scale. Both sets of Guidelines seek to minimise the risk to escape, and the stringency of containment measures varies according to the potential hazard of the organism to be altered, as assessed by the RDMC. The Small Scale Guidelines specify several emergency measures which should be used following an accident or spill of culture. The Large Scale Guidelines explicitly require that emergency procedures be specified to handle safely any losses of culture material. The RDMC has also established an interim assessment procedure for experiments involving the planned release of modified organisms. In providing information to the RDMC, organisations are asked to specify the methods which will be used to monitor, control, or eliminate the organism from the site and the surrounding environment, should this become necessary. Organisations are also asked to advise of the regulatory agency which will authorise the release. For all work which falls within the scope of the RDMC's Guidelines, all organisations, whether research institutions, firms, or government agencies, are asked to submit proposals for review by the RDMC. It is a requirement of the Guidelines that accidents be reported to the RDMC. Only a couple of minor laboratory accidents have been reported since the RDMC was established in 1981.'' (Question No. 3820) Mr Conquest asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Is the Minister able to state why Dr Ramsey, Chairman of the Advanced Education Council, requested that submissions from Queensland's colleges of advanced education on ``proposals and priorities for the 1988-90 triennium'' be sent directly and separately to the Advanced Education Council. (2) Is established procedure that a single Queensland submission, approved by the Queensland State Cabinet, be sent. (3) Is it a fact that Dr Ramsey's request is in direct conflict with an Australian Education Council resolution made at its meeting in Broome, W.A., in 1985. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Following consideration of the report by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission on the structure of the Commission and arrangements for co-ordination and consultation with States and institutions, the Government decided to implement arrangements to improve the formal consultation process between the Commission and States and institutions. This included the requirement that in the triennial planning process both the States and individual institutions should present submissions to the Commission. Accordingly the Commission sought institutional submissions from colleges of advanced education and universities throughout Australia as part of the planning process for the 1988-90 triennium. This arrangement was discussed between the Commission and State representatives at their regular Consultative Meetings and was confirmed in letters to State authorities prior to the individual approaches to institutions. (2) and (3) Following a request from me, States will provide a single statement for the 1988-90 triennium conveying the State priorities for all three sectors in tertiary education. The Queensland Minister for Education, the Hon. Lin Powell, mla, advised me on 17 April 1986 that he would be responsible for transmitting the States's submission to the Commonwealth. Dr Ramsey's request on behalf of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, for institutional submissions is not in conflict with the arrangements agreed between Mr Powell and me. (Question No. 3821) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Are the Minister's Department and the proposed Australian Nuclear Sciences and Technology Organisation to be involved in food irradiation issues; if so, at what level. (2) Does the Government intend that the proposed Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation will have responsibility over State, corporate and individual users of radio isotopes, the use of isotopic techniques and nuclear radiation for medicine, science, industry, commerce and agriculture. (3) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the differences between the States with respect to the implementation of the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances 1982; if so, will the Government be legislating to overcome these differences and when. (4) If not, why not. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) is currently involved in studies into food irradiation techniques and the suitability of various food items for irradiation, and the AAEC's successor the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) is expected to continue research and development work in this area. ANSTO is also expected to continue the AAEC's contribution to Phase II of the Regional Project on Food Irradiation organised jointly by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation and sponsored by the Australian Government under the IAEA's Regional Co-operative Agreement. The Department of Resources and Energy is not involved in food irradiation issues. (2) No. This is a responsibility of State Governments. (3) and (4) The transport of radioactive substances by road and rail is the responsibility of the States and Territories within their areas of jurisdiction, accordingly, implementation of the Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances in respect of these forms of transport is a State matter. The differences to which the honourable member refers relate to definitional matters and are a consequence of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials on which the Transport Code is based were formulated by the IAEA on the basis of a single administering body and do not take account of a federal system of government. Hence, implementation by the States/Territories requires certain matters in the IAEA regulations to be defined. For example, the term ``competent authority'' as used in the IAEA Regulations needs to be defined in the case of each State or Territory. Another example is that while the IAEA Regulations limit exposure of transport and storage personnel to that permitted for members of the public but in special cases allow for arrangements to be made for such personnel to be classified as radiation workers, which would effectively raise their limit, the South Australian regulations do not allow for any such classification. I understand such differences do not affect the substance of the Code itself. It should be noted that following publication by the IAEA in 1985 of revised Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, a Committee of Commonwealth/State officials is currently considering the Australian Code with a view to its early revision. (Question No. 3828) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: When may I expect an answer to my question No. 3163 placed on notice on 12 February 1986. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to question 3163 appeared in Hansard dated 19 August 1986 on page 157. (Question No. 3835) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: Has the cost to revenue of tax deductibility of child care been estimated; if so, what is it. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The cost to revenue of allowing full tax deductibility for child care expenses incurred by taxpayers whose children are cared for to enable them to go out to work is estimated to be of the order of $150m in a full year. For the purposes of this estimate it has been assumed that all such expenditure in respect of children aged 12 years and under would qualify for deduction. If tax deductibility were to be limited to payments to registered child care centres, or allowed only in respect of children of pre-school age, the cost to revenue would be less. (Question No. 3849) Mr Hodges asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 May 1986: (1) How many studies has the Bureau of Industry Economics initiated to ascertain the effects on the manufacturing industry of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. (2) In the conduct of these studies, have outside consultants been engaged; if so, what are the names of the consultants and the amounts paid to them for their services. (3) If more than one study has been undertaken, why has this been necessary. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Two studies are being undertaken. The first study is designed to explore the effects of the devaluation on importers, import-using and import competing manufacturing firms. The second study is designed to assess the effects on exporters of manufactured goods. (2) In the conduct of the second study outside consultants have been engaged. They are Dr G. Lim and Mr J. Shannon of Melbourne University. Total consultancy fees will be $23,208 of which $5,000 has been paid. (3) Two separate studies were undertaken because the questions asked and the issues to be analysed in the two studies are different and the types of firms involved in importing and exporting are different. (Question No. 3861) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) When was the safety of Chrysler Valiant seat assemblies first drawn to his attention. (2) Did the Office of Road Safety, in June 1982, report on the tests of Chrysler Valiant seat assemblies witnessed on or about 3 May 1982, at the University of New South Wales. (3) Did the Office of Road Safety find that the test, which was in accordance with the requirements for the relevant Australian Design Rule (ADR 3), caused the seat assemblies to fail well below the requirements of that standard. (4) Do reports of tests carried out by the NSW Traffic Accident Research Unit support other research in this area in finding that the Valiant seat assemblies do not meet the requirements of ADR 3. (5) Was a request for information relevant to this issue made about April 1984 under the Freedom of Information Act; if so, did Mitsubishi Australia object to the release of any information on this issue. (6) If so, on what grounds and was this objection upheld. (7) Did Mitsubishi Australia continue to object to the release of information on this issue; if so, what are its objections. (8) Has any information on this issue been released under the Freedom of Information Act to date. (9) Did he or his Department commission Professor Joubert to investigate the possibility of a safety-related defect existing in the seat adjusters of the Chrysler Valiant vehicles; if so, has Professor Joubert reported. (10) If so, (a) has Professor Joubert, in his report, described some failures of Valiant seat slides tested as catastrophic and (b) why has he not tabled the report in Parliament. (11) Does he intend to table Professor Joubert's report; if not, why not. (12) Did he, on or around 19 September 1985, request Mitsubishi Australia to undertake a recall of affected vehicles to rectify the seat slide fault; if so, what was Mitsubishi Australia's (a) immediate and (b) later response. (13) Did the Australian Transport Advisory Council and the Australian Automobile Association both express serious concern over the lack of progress on the Valiant seat slide issue. (14) Has he made any progress in effecting a recall of the affected vehicles; if not, why not. (15) Does he propose to effect a recall; if so, how; if not why not. (16) Has he referred the question of the safety of the Valiant seat assemblies to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety; if not, why not. (17) What efforts has he or his Department made to inform the public of the possible risks involved in the operation of the affected vehicles; if there has been no effort to do this, why not and does he now intend to inform the public of the safety related defect and the accompanying risks; if not, why not. (18) Is he considering reviewing the Australian Design Rules and the Voluntary Recall Code so as to ensure that the present situation with regard to the Chrysler Valiant seat slides is not allowed to be repeated; if not, why not. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am advised that matters raised in the honourable member's question are relevant to issues currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court, and therefore subjudice in accordance with the conventions of the House. It would be inappropriate for me to respond at the present time in these circumstances. (Question No. 3948) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Health, 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. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Expenditure by the Department of Health for the use of Commonwealth vehicles for 1984-85 was $1,105,845. The expenditure was associated with the hire, repairs, maintenance and running expenses of self-drive vehicles; and hire of cars with drivers and taxis. In December 1984 the functions for the care of the aged and plant and animal quarantine were transferred to the Departments of Community Services and Primary Industry respectively. Included in the Departmental expenditure is an amount of $62,800 which relates to these functions from the date of transfer to 1 July 1985. The statutory authorities under the Health portfolio, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Health Insurance Commission do not use Commonwealth vehicles. The ACT Health Authority, which was part of my portfolio in 1984-85, was transferred in December 1985 to the Territories portfolio and figures in relation to the Authority will be included in the response to Question No. 3950. (Question No. 3951) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Communications, 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 Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based partly on advice from the statutory authorities within the Communications portfolio, is as follows: In the answer the expression ``Commonwealth vehicles'' refers to the use of vehicles which are registered in the name of the Commonwealth. Department of Communications $441,737 Australian Telecommunications Commission $92,728,000 Australian Postal Commission $8,600,000 The Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) nil Australian Broadcasting Corporation The ABC is unable to provide a total figure for all the vehicles under its control (i.e. those located at regional centres and at interstate and overseas offices) without a lengthy delay in providing an answer. However, for the financial year 1984/85, the ABC's central transport authority's fleet in New South Wales consisted of 199 vehicles and the total amount spent was $1,150,623. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal $87,925 Special Broadcasting Service $45,489 (Question No. 4022) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) Has Mr P. J. Bewley, a public servant, been denied his entitlement to superannuation on the basis of a medical condition which has not recurred for at least 5 years; if so, why? (2) Can the Superannuation Commissioner's appeal against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in favour of Mr Bewley be overriden by the fact that Mr Bewley has fulfilled the medical requirements? (3) How does the Government's decision to amend the Superannuation Act affect Mr Bewley's case? (4) Will the Government compensate Mr Bewley for any delay or failure to provide him with his superannuation entitlement. (5) Will the Government improve procedures for issuing of superannuation medical certificates. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. Mr Bewley is an officer of the Australian Public Service and a member of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. Benefits become payable under the Scheme on cessation of employment to which the Scheme relates. Where the member is retired on invalidity grounds or dies in service, the benefit otherwise payable is reduced where the retirement or death was caused by or related to a physical or mental condition or conditions specified in a benefit classification certificate; thus benefits are not affected if the occasion for their payment is unrelated to the specified conditions. The benefit classification certificate previously issued in relation to Mr Bewley was set aside by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. (2) The Commissioner's appeal against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision has been withdrawn following the passage of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 1986. (3) The effect of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision in Mr Bewley's favour is protected by sub-section 6 (2) of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 1986. (4) This question does not arise as a member of the Scheme is not entitled to a benefit payment until cessation of employment. (5) Further directions have been issued concerning pre-appointment medical examination of prospective employees. (Question No. 4034) Mr Chynoweth asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: (1) Has the importation of refined petroleum products contributed to Australia's adverse terms of trade; if so (a) to what extent and (b) at what cost. (2) Has Australia the facilities and capacity to refine the petroleum products it requires; if so, why are these products being imported. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On the basis of the most recently available data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (March quarter 1986) the importation of refined petroleum products has not contributed to Australia's adverse terms of trade; in that quarter the level of import prices of refined petroleum products was less, in relative terms, than the average price level of all exported goods. Indeed in only three of the previous fourteen quarters did the level of import prices for refined petroleum products exceed that for the export of all goods. (2) In volume terms alone, Australia has sufficient refining capacity to satisfy its demand for petroleum products. Nominal refining capacity in Australia is approximately 720,000 barrels a day while petroleum product consumption in Australia is presently around 580,000 barrels a day. Australia imports refined petroleum product primarily to supply the northern regions of Australia which are remote from Australia's major fuels refineries. The high cost of Australian coastal shipping, as well as logistical problems, makes it more economical to supply these regions through imports, sourced mainly from Singapore. Product is also imported into the southern States from time to time, to make up for refinery production lost during periods of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and to alleviate shortages caused by industrial or other problems. (Question No. 4038) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 May 1986: (1) Which companies and federal departments, other than Local Government and Administrative Services, are involved in the transport of radioactive material from Lucas Heights, N.S.W. (2) What (a) types of radioactive material are involved and (b) what are the (i) destinations of these consignments and (ii) mode of transport used. (3) What are the public health and environmental effects of technetium if it is released into the atmosphere. (4) What warning notices are required to be attached to containers of radioactive materials. (5) In view of the recent theft of radioactive material from Upper Ferntree Gully railway station, will he require improvements to the warning notices on containers of this material; if not, why not. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In addition to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the following organisations are involved in the routine transport of radioactive materials from Lucas Heights: Comet IPEC/Rex Overnight Jetspress Road Express Kwikasair North Queensland Express (NQX) Security Express Skyroad Express TNT Road Fast Tulip Transport Road (Moss Vale) Wards Overnighters & Express Ansett Australian Airlines British Airways Japan Air Lines Lufthansa Malaysian Airline System QANTAS Singapore Airlines TNT Air Victorian Railways Apart from the Department of Administrative Services, relevant federal authorities are the Departments of Transport and Aviation. (2) (a) Radioisotopes distributed by the AAEC are either in liquid or solid form. The bulk of the 600-odd consignments made each week are mainly for use in nuclear medicine and most products are based on the radionuclide technetium-99m. Another significant product line in terms of consignments is iodine-131. (b) The destinations of radioisotopes supplied by the AAEC range throughout Australia, including to over 50 hospitals and medical centres. Shipments are also made to New Zealand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and to a lesser extent other countries. They are transported primarily by road and air, with a limited number of consignments using rail transport at some stage. Very occasionally sea transport is used for large shipments of radioactive material. (3) Negligible public health and environmental effects would result if a typical AAEC consignment of technetium was released into the environment. (4) Labelling requirements for radioactive materials transported within Australia are consistent with those recommended in the Regulations for Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency. These labels show the radioactive warning trefoil, the word ``radioactive'', the name of the radionuclide being transported, the activity of the contents, the external radiation level, the class number of dangerous goods applying to radioactive materials, and the type of package design. In the case of radioisotopes dispatched from the AAEC, the packages also carry labels showing the name, address and telephone number of the consignor (the AAEC); the name and address of the consignee; and the action to be taken in the event of an accident. (5) In view of the existing labelling requirements detailed in (4), it is unlikely that additional warning notices would reduce the risk of theft. Security arrangements for transporting packages of radioactive materials by rail in Victoria are currently being re-examined. (Question No. 4082) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) How long does it take for material to be dispatched after an inquiry on the drug information line. (2) What will happen to the lists of inquirer names and addresses collected on the drug information line. (3) What security measures have been taken to protect the names and addresses of people who call the drug information line. (4) Have tests on the drug information line been undertaken to determine (a) waiting time for the operator to answer, (b) skill of the operator and (c) delivery time of information requested; if so; what were the results. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Information kits are dispatched by our agents in Melbourne generally within 24 hours of calls being received through the National Drug Information Line. (2) The names and addresses of all callers to the National Drug Information Line are destroyed immediately after dispatch of information to callers in accordance with contractual obligations. (3) See (2) above. (4) (a, b, c) Random tests have been made each week since the commencement of the National Drug Information Line. The results of the operation of the telephone line have been satisfactory. Delivery times for information kits cannot be monitored due to the destruction of names and addresses after dispatch of kits. The feedback we have received, however, indicates that delivery times are generally satisfactory. (Question No. 4091) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Further to the Minister's reply to my question number 2362 (Hansard, 29 November 1985, page 4267), what is the estimated operational life of the HIFAR reactor. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: There is nothing I can usefully add to my reply to question number 2362. (Question No. 4097) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: Have Australian military armaments products been exported to Sri Lanka in 1985 and 1986; if so (a) what products were exported and (b) is he able to state that these exports have not been used for the suppression of the Tamil people. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honour- able member's question is as follows: Australian military armament products to the value of $2445 have been exported to Sri Lanka in 1985 and 1986. The products were rifle attachments for firing blank ammunition. The products were of a non-offensive nature used for rifle training purposes and while they contribute in a small degree to the proficiency of the Sri Lankan armed forces they could not be used against the Tamil people. (Question No. 4173) Mr Tickner asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 3 June 1986: Will he consider the feasibility of requiring all Departments and government agencies to include, in their annual reports, a progress report on their responses to unfavourable Auditor-General's reports or reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Requirements relating to the annual reports of departments and government agencies are incorporated in guidelines tabled in the Parliament from time to time. These guidelines supplement any requirements contained in legislation. New guidelines on departmental annual reports have been prepared, following amendments to the Public Service Act passed in 1985, and they address the issue raised by the honourable member of responses to comments or criticisms of the Auditor-General or Parliamentary Committees. In accordance with requirements of the Public Service Act 1922, the revised guidelines have been submitted to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for approval before being tabled. The current guidelines on annual reports of statutory authorities were tabled in 1982 and contain no requirement in relation to reports of the Auditor-General or Parliamentary Committees. Consideration will be given to the inclusion of such a requirement when the guidelines are next revised. (Question No. 4211) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) Why was a sound advertising campaign initiated for Priority One. (2) Was the first campaign successful and cost effective; if so, how was this determined. (3) What will be the cost of the second campaign. (4) What advertising agency will prepare the advertisements. (5) Was the advertising contract put to tender; if so, which agencies were invited to tender and which agencies submitted tenders. (6) If the advertising contract was not tendered for, who was that course chosen. (7) On what basis was the advertising contract awarded and who made the recommendations. Mr Dawkins — Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There was only one campaign initiated for Priority One in 1985-86. This campaign provided for the dissemination of information on the elements of Priority One including a process to consult young Australians to obtain their comments and ideas both on Priority One and on their particular needs and problems generally. The final phase of this campaign which I announced on 23 May 1986 was aimed at providing information as to where young people can obtain details of opportunities they may wish to pursue. (2) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the campaign was not undertaken in 1985/86 as the campaign itself did not finish until late in June 1986. The extension of the program including evaluation is a matter for budget consideration and will be announced as part of the 1986-87 Budget. (3) $400,000 was allocated for the phase of the campaign which began on 25 May 1986. (4) Chandler Hambleton and Mier. (5), (6) and (7) This phase of the campaign was part of the campaign previously contracted to Chandler Hambleton and Mier and was not subjected to separate tender. The decision to recommend Chandler Hambleton and Mier for the total campaign was based on the favourable evaluation of this agency's credentials and previous satisfactory performance in government advertising. (Question No. 4255) Mr Langmore asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 4 June 1986: (1) What research and development on solar power is underway in Australia. (2) To what extent is solar power in use in Australia. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) A list of energy R & D projects, including those on solar energy, is given in the ``Compendium of Australian Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Projects'', No. 7, June 1986. The Commonwealth Government provides direct support for energy research, development and demonstration projects through the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program. A list of solar energy research projects was provided as part of my answer to Question on Notice No. 4063. (See page 95, House of Representatives Hansard 19 August 1986). (2) Solar energy is making a useful contribution to Australia's energy requirements through passive solar household design and domestic water heating. Solar water heaters are being used extensively throughout Australia, particularly in Western Australia where 21% of households have solar water heaters and the Northern Territory where the proportion is 37%. Solar energy is also playing a useful, though smaller, role in the area of photovoltaic cells. These are finding increasing use in remote locations for telecommunications, water pumping, navigational aids and some remote households. (Question No. 4282) Mr Carlton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: Is he able to say what are the balance of payments current account deficits as a percentage of GDP for (a) 1982 to 1985 inclusive, (b) 1982-83 to 1984-85 inclusive and (c) the March quarter 1983 to the March quarter 1986 inclusive for (i) Australia, (ii) the USA, (iii) the UK, (iv) West Germany, (v) Italy, (vi) France, (vii) Canada, (viii) New Zealand, (ix) Japan, (x) the OECD and (xi) the 7 major OECD trading partners of Australia. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The required information is contained in the following tables: Table 1 CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCES AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP(1): CALENDAR YEAR BASIS Australia United States United Kingdom Federal Republic of Germany Italy France Canada New Zealand Japan Total OECD Seven (2) Major OECD Trading Partners 1982... -5.1 -0.3 1.7 0.5 -1.6 -2.2 0.7 -6.8 0.6 -0.4 -0.2 1983... -3.7 -1.2 1.1 0.6 0.2 -0.9 0.4 -5.1 1.8 -0.3 -0.3 1984... -4.7 -2.8 0.3 1.0 -0.8 -0.2 0.6 -7.1 2.8 -0.8 -1.1 1985... -5.5 -3.0 0.8 2.1 -1.1 0.1 -0.6 -4.8 3.7 -0.7 -0.9 (1) GNP for the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada and Japan. (2) Comprises Japan, the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and France. Weighted according to GNP/GDP in each period. Source: OECD Economic Outlook No. 39, Table No. 50. Table 2 CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCES(1) AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP(2): AUSTRALIAN FISCAL YEAR BASIS(3) Australia United States United Kingdom Federal Republic of Germany Italy France Canada New(4) Zealand Japan Seven(5) Major OECD Trading Partners 1982-83... -4.0 -0.7 1.4 0.9 -0.7 -2.0 1.0 -5.1 1.2 -0.2 1983-84... -3.8 -2.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 -0.3 0.1 -2.8 2.2 -0.7 1984-85... -5.1 -2.9 0.3 1.6 -2.1 . . 0.5 -6.5 3.2 -1.0 (1) Current account data are not seasonally adjusted apart from the data for Japan and the United States. (2) See footnote (1) to Table 1. GNP/GDP data are not seasonally adjusted apart from the data for France, Italy, Japan and the United States. (3) Data for total OECD only available on calendar year basis as in Table 1. (4) New Zealand fiscal year (ends 31 March). (5) See footnote (2) to Table 1. . . Denotes negligible Source: National sources. Table 3 CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCES(1) AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP(2): QUARTERLY BASIS(3) Australia United States United Kingdom Federal Republic of Germany Italy France Canada Japan Six(4) Major OECD Trading Partners 1982 1... -6.2 . . 2.6 0.1 -4.6 -1.8 -0.1 0.5 -0.1 2... -6.3 0.2 1.2 0.3 -0.6 -2.5 1.1 0.9 0.2 3... -4.3 -0.6 1.6 0.5 0.3 -2.8 1.2 0.8 -0.2 4... -4.2 -0.8 2.9 1.1 -1.6 -1.7 1.2 0.7 -0.2 1983 1... -3.4 -0.3 2.1 1.6 -2.4 -3.4 0.3 1.2 . . 2... -4.2 -1.2 -0.1 0.5 0.8 -0.3 1.4 2.0 -0.2 3... -4.0 -1.7 1.1 0.1 2.2 -0.2 -0.3 2.0 -0.4 4... -3.4 -2.1 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 . . 2.0 -0.6 1984 1... -4.1 -2.0 1.2 1.0 -1.3 -1.4 0.2 2.3 -0.6 2... -4.3 -3.0 -0.2 . . -0.2 0.1 0.4 2.7 -1.1 3... -4.8 -3.0 -0.2 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.8 2.3 -1.1 4... -5.6 -3.3 -0.2 2.3 -2.7 0.4 1.1 3.6 -1.1 1985 1... -5.1 -2.5 -0.1 1.4 -3.5 -1.5 0.4 3.1 -1.0 2... -4.8 -2.8 1.8 1.9 -2.8 0.8 -0.2 3.9 -0.7 3... -5.8 -2.9 1.7 2.7 n.a. . . -1.4 3.6 n.a. 4... -6.6 -3.6 0.8 2.6 n.a. 0.9 -1.1 4.0 n.a. 1986 1... -5.6 -3.3 0.6 4.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.6 n.a. (1) Current account balances seasonally adjusted except for France and Italy. (2) See footnote (1) to Table 1. GNP/GDP seasonally adjusted. (3) See footnote (3) to Table 2. (4) Comprises Japan, the United States, United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and France. New Zealand has been excluded because quarterly GDP data are not available. Weighted according to GNP/GDP in each period. n.a. Denotes not available . . Denotes negligible Source: National sources (Question No. 4294) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Will the satellite transmission of the Special Broadcasting Service be regarded as a Satellite Program Service and be encoded; if so, will this prevent thousands of Australians from enjoying, or continuing to enjoy, this channel for the least cost. (2) Is the remote area ABC television service similarly encoded. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The SBS has leased a low power transponder for the distribution of its television programs to the SBS terrestrial transmitters for re-broadcasting to the public. This activity is similar to commercial Satellite Program Services. The policy on SPS is to protect regional stations from fortuitous reception of metropolitan commercial network signals. There is no similar requirement to protect regional stations from national ABC or SBS television signals. The requirement to encode SBS signals stems from the desire to not allow satellite services to be wrongly regarded by the public as being of low quality. The SBS is using a low power transponder, for distribution, and while the signal can be received reasonably well by domestic earth stations during clear sky conditions, there is degradation in the picture quality and sound when it is very cloudy or raining. During heavy rain, the low power signal may be lost altogether. By comparison, the more powerful ABC Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS) signal is specifically designed for direct to home reception and is affected to a much lesser extent. Another factor is that the SBS signal can only be received within the South East Zonal beam. To upgrade the signal to the standard for direct to home reception (ie HACBSS quality) and extend coverage throughout Australia would be a multi-million dollar undertaking. There are no proposals to upgrade the SBS signal in the present economic circumstances. It is not the Government's intention, however, to deny communities access to the SBS signal. If they wish, communities in the South East beam may establish authorised facilities for re-broadcasting the signal locally under the Self-help Broadcasting Reception Scheme. In that way residents in the community would be able to receive SBS programs using a standard television set. (2) No. The ABC's Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service (HACBSS) is intended for direct to home reception and is provided via four high power transponders into the four zones. (Question No. 4357) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) How much did the advertisement in the Daily News of 30 July 1986 for a Typist, Grade 1, in the Murwillumbah office of his Department cost. (2) How many applications were received in response to the advertisement. (3) Was this the usual form and size of advertisement for typists. (4) Was the local CES consulted for prospective applicants; if so, how many persons applied through the CES. (5) If not, why not. (6) Who authorised the advertisement. (7) Has the position advertised in the Daily News been filled. (8) What amount has the Department spent on advertising staff vacancies in each of the last 3 financial years. (9) What was (a) each position advertised and (b) the cost of each advertisement. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $115. (2) 33. (3) Yes. (4) & (5) The CES office at Murwillumbah was forwarded a copy of the advertisement. The CES does not record the number of applicants for each position. Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact the recruiting organisation directly. (6) Personnel Manager, State Headquarters, Sydney. (7) The advertisement was not for a specific existing vacancy but to attract a field of applicants who would undertake a typing test to enable an order of merit to be established for vacancies occurring over the next 6-12 months. (8) The cost of advertising staff vacancies in each of the last financial years is an follows: 1983-84-$117,017 1984-85-$130,865 1985-86-$161,868 (9) The information is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the considerable expenditure that would be required to ascertain it.