Friday, 28 November 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I draw the attention of honourable members to a display of emergency equipment and a description of emergency procedures for Parliament House which are now taking place in Senate committee room 3. Procedures have now been established to provide for the safety of all occupants of the building in the event of fire or other emergencies. These emergency procedures are supported by an organisation which includes a control room operating 24 hours a day, trained wardens, evacuation teams and first-aid officers. For these emergency procedures to work effectively, all occupants of Parliament House should be familiar with the emergency plans and equipment. I urge all honourable members and their staff to visit the display, which will be open until 4 p.m. today. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.03) —I move: That standing order 48A, adjournment of the House, as amended by sessional order, be suspended for this sitting. My understanding is that, if business proceeds as predicted in the other place, it will not be necessary for the House to sit any longer than is set down already, but just as a precaution we find this move necessary. I am hopeful that that evacuation team you talked about, Madam Speaker, can be used at about half past four to get us all out. Mr Reith —You would like to use it earlier, would you? Mr YOUNG —No, as a matter of fact I would be quite happy to stay here. I have never seen the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), looking so debonair. He has borrowed a suit from our Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden). Quite frankly, he is dressed more like a Lib than a National Party bloke. Anyhow, all honourable members will be pleased to know that we do not think this measure will be required. Nevertheless, as a precaution, and for the benefit of honourable members who want to deal with all the legislation, I have so moved. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(10.04) —I am indebted to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) for his comments on my sartorial elegance. I can assure him that any resemblance between me and members of the Liberal Party is only because I happen to be sitting with them, very temporarily, on this side of the House. We intend to be on the other side as soon as possible. Mr Howard —You have ruined a good friendship. Mr SINCLAIR —A very good friendship. Obviously there is within the motion that the Leader of the House has moved a sinister overtone. Behind that benign exterior and that bland Irish manner of his lies the inevitable consequence that this motion means yet again that we are hostage to Senate fortunes. Yesterday we had a motion that had us begging on bended knee for Senate approval to call before a parliamentary committee certain members of the Senate so that a committee of this place, pursuing a reference sent by you, Madam Speaker, might be able to conclude its deliberations. Today we find that, because the Senate undertaking properly in accordance with its procedures its scrutiny of the Government's legislation may not be ready to pass legislation over to us, we are all going to be kept back late this evening. We have had a number of discussions in this place about the tardiness of the Government in getting its program before us. There are a number of very serious matters that we believe the House should consider, and it would have been far more appropriate had the Leader of the House, exercising that customary parliamentary skill with which we have come to be familiar, instead of suggesting that we sit late tonight had said that the House should resume next Monday or Tuesday, or even Wednesday. That would have been far more appropriate, given the fact that there is quite a deal of legislation before the Senate and a number of very serious matters affecting the well-being of the people of Australia that we believe should be considered. In particular, the Minister needs to have in mind two circumstances. The first is that today is, of course, fringe benefits tax day. Mr Nehl —Shame! Mr SINCLAIR —This will have a consequence for ordinary Australians, as my colleague from Cowper has so vocally demonstrated, which is of great worry to them. In the hilarity of the end of session it is easy to forget that Australians face both a financial penalty for failing to lodge their returns under the fringe benefits tax legislation and a significant consequence in terms of the administrative responsibility that the legislation imposes upon them. They get no tax deduction if they require their financial advisers to prepare their returns. Therefore, 28 November 1986 is really the farewell Bob tax day in more ways than one. I am not sure whether `FBT' is quite as appropriate as `FPT' because it seems now that it is farewell Paul day rather than farewell Bob day. If there is to be a consequence of extending the sitting hours of this Parliament, it should be that we pass on to all taxpayers the munificence that obviously the taxman has given to the Treasurer (Mr Keating). If as a result of there being an obligation on those who have to fill in their fringe benefits tax-- Mr N.A. Brown —Can you put it off for a few years? Mr SINCLAIR —I thought we might put it off for a couple of years, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests. I believe that instead of just adjourning a little later, as it is now intended, we should resume next week to consider legislation I am sure the Leader of the House would be prepared to introduce which would give all taxpayers the same dispensation that obviously the Treasurer himself enjoys. In that climate, I say to the House that we do not accept that it is necessary for the House to sit late today. It would be far better if we resumed next week, when we would be only too happy once again to hear the Leader of the House and his colleagues give their answers to what seems to us all to be the very serious problems facing ordinary Australians as a result of the policies their Government is pursuing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the first in a package of four Bills that will give effect to the Government's decision to introduce a petroleum resource rent tax on profits from certain off-shore petroleum pro- jects. The proposed tax regime was announced in detail in June 1984, after extensive consultation with the industry and the States. Petroleum resources are, in their most basic sense, community property and the Government believes that the community as a whole should share in the potentially high returns from the exploitation of these scarce, non-renewable resources. At the same time it is recognised that participants in petroleum projects who do not earn high profits in relation to the amount invested and the risk involved, particularly when oil prices decline, should be able to operate secure in the know-ledge that excise and royalties which are based on production will not apply. The Government believes that a resource rent tax related to achieved profits is a more efficient and equitable secondary taxation regime than the excise and royalty system that it is to replace. I emphasise that the proposed tax replaces the existing system-it is not in addition to it. In contrast to production-based secondary tax regimes, the petroleum resource rent tax will be payable only in respect of projects earning a high rate of return on outlays. Particularly in light of the current volatility of world oil prices, the resource rent tax system thus offers considerable benefits to the petroleum industry. It strikes a reasonable balance between the objectives of satisfying the right of the community as a whole to share in the benefits of profitable off-shore petroleum projects, and of providing the participants with adequate returns for the risks they accept in undertaking off-shore exploration and development activities. The provisions of the Bill follow closely the proposal as announced in June 1984, while accommodating the retention lease system recently introduced in relation to off-shore petroleum exploration. I now turn to outline the more significant features of the tax. General Application The tax is to apply to a person's taxable profits from the recovery of petroleum in off-shore areas where the Commonwealth's Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 applies, other than in areas covered by production licences granted on or before 1 July 1984 and the permit areas from which those production licences were drawn. The tax will therefore not apply to the North West Shelf permit areas or Esso's and BHP's Bass Strait permit area-excise and royalty arrangements will continue to apply in those areas. As the petroleum resource rent tax is profit-based, rather than production-based, it will apply only where there is an excess of project-related receipts for a financial year over both project-related expenditure for the year and undeducted expenditure of previous years brought forward at a compound rate. This compounding of expenditure that remains undeducted at the end of a financial year will be determined according to when it was expended. Expenditure-which is generally exploration expenditure-undertaken more than five years before the coming into force of the first production licence in a permit area will attract compounding at a rate equal to the gross domestic product deflator rate-currently around 7 per cent. More recent expenditure in respect of the project will be carried forward at a rate equal to the prevailing long-term bond rate increased by 15 percentage points-currently this produces a rate of about 29 per cent. In broad terms, a petroleum project incorporates the production licence area, and such treatment and other facilities and operations outside that area as are integral to the production of marketable petroleum commodities such as stabilised crude oil, condensate and liquefied petroleum gas. As a practical matter, two or more projects will be treated as a single project for tax purposes where the Minister for Resources and Energy, having regard to relevant factors, considers that they should be so treated and issues a certificate to that effect. The boundaries of a petroleum project will not extend beyond the first point at which a marketable petroleum commodity is produced, that is, the project boundaries will not extend to `downstream activities' such as refineries and facilities for the transport of marketable products. Assessable Receipts Liability for petroleum resource rent tax is to be assessed on a cash flow basis, as distinct from the accruals basis that generally applies in determining income tax liability. Assessable receipts from the project will, therefore, be taken into account in the financial year in which they are received. Assessable project receipts will include amounts received from the sale of petroleum or of a marketable petroleum commodity. In the event that a marketable petroleum commodity is not sold at the point at which it is produced, the market value-or a fair and reasonable value of the commodity-at that point will be treated as an assessable receipt of the project. The need to attribute a value could arise, for example, in the case of an integrated producer who both extracts crude oil and refines it. Deductible Expenditure Expenditure of either a capital or a revenue nature which is directly related to a petroleum project-again reflecting the cash-flow basis of the tax-will be deductible in the year of payment against any assessable receipts for the year. Any excess of deductible expenditure, other than closing-down expenditure, over assessable receipts at the end of a year will be compounded forward for deduction against receipts in future years. Deductible expenditure comprises exploration expenditure, general project expenditure and closing-down expenditure, subject to the exclusion of certain specific items of expenditure. Exploration expenditure consists, broadly, of expenditure, other than excluded expenditure, in an exploration permit area that is directly related to exploration for petroleum and will include expenditure on the recovery of petroleum and the production of a marketable commodity prior to the coming into force of a production licence. Exploration expenditure includes related expenditure on storage and processing facilities and on employee amenities. Exploration expenditure will be deductible against assessable receipts of any project established within the exploration permit area. Where there are two or more projects in a permit area, exploration expenditure deductible in a particular year is to be set off against the project that relates to the production licence which first came into force, then against subsequent projects producing assessable receipts in that year. Special rules apply where a production licence from one permit area is combined with a production licence from another permit area to form a single project. I mentioned earlier that the provisions of this Bill take into account the recently introduced retention lease system. Retention leases are of considerable benefit to the industry. They allow title to be held over a promising discovery for a number of years without insisting on any major ongoing exploration or development program in the area. To prevent potentially significant revenue losses arising from compounding of deductible amounts, exploration expenditure related to a retention lease area will be able to be offset only against projects in that area. Exploration expenditure in the rest of the permit area will not be deductible against a retention lease project. That expenditure, if incurred more than five years before the coming into force of a production licence in the retention lease area, will attract compounding at the gross domestic product deflator rate. General project expenditure comprises expenditure in a production licence area, or combined production licence areas, on the establishment of a project and on recovering and producing a marketable petroleum commodity. It includes relevant expenditure on storage and processing facilities and employee amenities. Closing-down expenditure is made up of expenditure in closing down a petroleum project and specifically includes expenditure on environmental restoration of a project site. If, at the end of a project's life, there are insufficient assessable receipts for a year against which to offset closing-down expenditure for the year, a tax credit of 40 per cent of the excess expenditure is provided. Of course, closing-down credits in respect of a project will not be permitted to exceed the petroleum resource rent tax previously paid in respect of the project. Certain expenditure is specifically excluded from petroleum resource rent tax deductibility. Examples are interest payments and payments made under a cash bidding system. As petroleum resource rent tax is to be a deductible expense for income tax purposes, income tax payments are not to be deductible for resource rent tax purposes. Fringe benefits tax payments are also excluded. Instalments The practical operation of the Bill will require the payment of petroleum resource rent tax by instalments in any year in which a person's assessable receipts from a project exceed the deductible expenditure, including any compounded expenditure of previous years. Three instalments of tax will be payable-determined on the basis of assessable receipts and deductible expenditure in the instalment period and an appropriate proportion of compounded expenditure from previous years. The liability for tax assessed at the year's end will be reduced by earlier paid instalments for the year. The Bill also contains the usual machinery provisions of a tax law-dealing with such things as collection and recovery procedures-and provides objection and appeal rights for taxpayers dissatisfied with decisions under the proposed petroleum resource rent tax regime. Full details of the provisions of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable members. On the basis of current world oil prices, it is unlikely that any petroleum resource rent tax revenue will be received before the 1989-90 financial year. Due to the continuing fluctuations in world oil prices and the uncertainties inherent in predicting success in offshore petroleum exploration and subsequent production, the amount of revenue likely to be obtained in any year cannot be projected. I present the explanatory memorandum, and commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Assessment Bill I have just introduced provides the legislative framework for determining the offshore petroleum projects to be subject to petroleum resource rent tax, and the taxable profit of a participant in such a project. This Bill now before the House will formally impose and declare the rate of that tax as 40 per cent. The explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members with the previous Bill also explains the provisions of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose the interest charge payable under section 64 of the proposed Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1986, the Bill which I have just introduced. Honourable members will be aware that under section 55 of the Australian Constitution laws imposing taxation may deal only with the imposition of taxation and may not contain any extraneous matters. Because interest payable under section 64 of the Assessment Act might technically be regarded as a tax, this Bill is designed to ensure that constitutional requirements are met. Its provisions are also explained in the memorandum that has been circulated. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The new profit-based taxing regime for offshore petroleum projects is, in respect of those projects, to replace the existing production-based excise and royalty arrangements. This Bill will amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Act 1967 to effect that replacement. The Bill will also amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to provide income tax deductibility for petroleum resource rent tax paid other than by way of instalments. Conversely, refunds and certain credits of petroleum resource rent tax are to be made subject to income tax. Decisions under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 will assume greater importance for the Commonwealth with the introduction of petroleum resource rent tax. That Act is therefore being amended by this Bill to provide for decisions relating to the development of petroleum pools straddling production licence areas, including pools which straddle the outer boundary of the territorial sea, to be taken jointly by the Minister for Resources and Energy and the relevant State or Northern Territory Minister. The scope of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 is also being extended by the Bill, so that offences against that Act will cover schemes for the fraudulent evasion of petroleum resource rent tax in the same way as they deal with other taxes of the Commonwealth. Details of this Bill are also set out in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to another of the measures in the Government's tax reform package by introducing an instalment system for the payment of provisional tax, and contains several other measures. One of these gives effect to the decision of the Government announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 18 February 1986 to treat as assessable income certain realised foreign exchange gains of a capital nature and to allow corresponding income tax deductions for foreign exchange losses. The Bill also contains a related amendment to the capital gains and losses provisions of the income tax law to exclude from those provisions foreign exchange gains and losses under certain hedging contracts. It will also implement the decision announced on 7 April 1986 to treat short term redeemable preference shares as debt for income tax purposes. Finally, the Bill will exempt from tax the income of the British Phosphate Commissioners' Banaba Contingency Fund. I will now outline in greater detail the proposals dealt with in the Bill. Instalments of Provisional Tax This Bill will provide the legislative framework for the introduction from 1987-88 of a system for the payment of provisional tax by instalments. When the new system is fully implemented in 1988-89, taxpayers whose provisional tax for the previous year exceeds $2,000 will pay four instalments during the year in which the income is derived. The earliest due dates for the instalments will be 1 September, 1 December, 1 March and 1 June respectively. In the 1987-88 year, the earliest due date for the first instalment will be 1 December, when two quarterly instalments will be combined into one payment. The total amount of provisional tax paid by instalments in any year will generally equal the amount that would be payable under the current single payment system. By spreading the payment of provisional tax in this way, provisional taxpayers will be brought more into line with salary and wage earners, whose incomes are subject to pay as you earn tax deductions at source. There are, of course, significant economic and monetary policy advantages in spreading provisional tax payments. The large seasonal fluctuations in liquidity that have been an annual concomitant of the concentration of provisional tax payments from late March through the June quarter will be diminished, with beneficial effects on short term interest rates and the exchange rate. As a general rule, each of the first three quarterly instalments will be one-quarter of the provisional tax payable in respect of the previous year's income. The final instalment will be calculated as the balance required to make up the taxpayer's full liability for provisional tax for that year, calculated in the same way as at present. Where a taxpayer `self-assesses' his or her provisional tax by making an estimate of taxable income, rebates, et cetera for the current year, instalments will be based on the taxpayer's estimate. An estimate may be made for each instalment, regardless of whether estimates have also been made in respect of earlier instalments. To ensure that estimates are reasonably based, penalty tax for substantial underestimates will be payable at the rate of 20 per cent per annum for the period of the underestimate. Taxpayers-for example, some primary producers-who do not derive income evenly throughout the year will be catered for by an alternative two instalment scheme under which one-half of the year's provisional tax will be payable no earlier than 1 February and the balance no earlier than 1 June. To qualify for this, a taxpayer must satisfy the Commissioner of Taxation that more than three-quarters of his or her assessable income will be derived after 1 December. The legislation contains special measures to counter possible exploitation of the two instalment arrangement. As at present, provisional tax instalments paid in respect of the income of a year of income will be credited against the actual tax payable on assessment. Where a taxpayer is required to pay instalments in a year of income, any balance of tax payable on an assessment for the previous year will be due for payment no earlier than 1 February. Because full details are provided in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated, I need not dwell further on the proposed system. While the measure is revenue neutral in that it will not increase provisional tax collections, it is estimated that collections of $90m will be brought forward to 1987-88. Depending on interest rate assumptions, it is also estimated that annual expenditure savings of up to $100m will result from the need to issue fewer Treasury notes. Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses In February this year the Treasurer announced the Government's decision to allow income tax deductions for foreign exchange losses of a capital nature and to treat as assessable income corresponding foreign exchange gains realised after 18 February 1986 in respect of borrowings or loans contracted for after that date. Equivalent treatment was foreshadowed for gains and losses resulting from exchange rate effects between the date of acquisition or sale of assets contracted for after 18 February 1986 and the payment or receipt of the purchase money, the time delay in payment being equivalent to a loan. The proposed amendments will mean that exchange gains and losses on borrowings or loans of a capital nature will be treated in the same way as such gains or losses on borrowings or loans of a revenue nature. As with such gains or losses on borrowings of a revenue nature, the amendments will apply only where the borrowings are for the purpose of producing assessable income. There are clear economic advantages in treating all foreign exchange gains and losses in respect of borrowings and loans in the same way, given the economic similarity between interest payments and expected exchange rate effects over the period of a foreign currency-denominated debt contract. Consistent with this, foreign exchange losses incurred on a borrowing to finance a rental property investment are to be treated in the same way as interest payable on the loan for the purpose of the negative gearing provisions relating to rental property investments, and foreign exchange gains of this kind will be treated as rental property income. Exchange gains and losses under forward exchange contracts and other hedging contracts entered into to guard against exchange rate losses are to be treated as assessable income or allowable income tax deductions respectively in the same way as such gains and losses under the primary contract. For the purposes of the proposed measures, the contract date of each borrowing on or after 19 February 1986 under a drawdown facility contracted for before that date is to be treated as a borrowing under a contract made on the date of the drawdown. Corresponding treatment will be extended where a pre-19 February 1986 loan is rolled over, or extended, on or after that date. To avoid retrospective application, these measures are not to apply if the taxpayer was contractually bound before 19 February 1986 to make the drawdown, roll-over or extension. The Bill includes safeguards against use of these provisions for tax avoidance purposes. Capital Gains and Losses The Bill also proposes a complementary amendment to the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act relating to capital gains and capital losses. This will have the effect that those provisions will not apply to a capital gain made, or a capital loss incurred, under a hedging contract entered into to guard against currency rate fluctuations in relation to another contract, where any actual gains or losses from such fluctuations on that other contract would be outside the scope of the capital gains and losses provisions. The change will apply in respect of capital gains derived at any time after the commencement, on 20 September 1985, of the capital gains tax provisions. As regards capital losses it will apply only in respect of contracts entered into after today. This will ensure that taxpayers are not retrospectively denied a deduction for losses incurred under contracts already entered into. Short Term Share Based Financing Arrangements On 7 April 1986, the Treasurer announced that the income tax law would be amended to remove the tax advantages arising from the use of short term redeemable preference shares as a substitute for debt. The Bill will give effect to that decision. Under the existing income tax law, interest on debt finance is generally deductible to the payer and taxable to the recipient. Dividends are not deductible to a paying company, but the rebate allowable on intercorporate dividends makes them free of tax in the hands of the company receiving them. This different tax treatment of dividends and interest has given rise to a number of share based financing arrangements designed to attract the taxation treatment of equity for what essentially amounts to debt, with a consequential loss to the revenue. The amendments contained in this Bill will ensure that dividends paid on shares used in arrangements for the provision of finance for a period of two years or less will be no longer eligible for the intercorporate dividend rebate. Reflecting the mischief described in the Treasurer's announcement, these measures are not confined to redeemable shares strictly so-called, but will apply to any shares used in a short term financing arrangement where it can reasonably be concluded that the dividend paid is equivalent to the payment of interest on a loan. Dividends that are denied a rebate of tax by these amendments will be deductible to the paying company, subject to the same rules that govern the deduction of interest on borrowings. Trustees of corporate unit trusts and public trading trusts that are treated as companies for income tax purposes will also be subject to these new measures. The amendments will apply to dividends paid on relevant shares issued after 5 p.m. Australian eastern standard time on 7 April 1986. Safeguarding provisions will ensure that these amendments are not circumvented by the use of shares issued before the operative time in a short term financing arrangement entered into after that time. The revenue saving arising from these measures is indeterminate. The Banaba Contingency Fund The Bill will amend the income tax law to exempt from tax the income of the British Phosphate Commissioners' Banaba Contingency Fund. The Fund was established on 1 June 1981 to meet any future claims for compensation by former employees of the British Phosphate Commissioners in respect of phosphate mining operations on Banaba, formerly Ocean Island. Those operations ceased in 1980. Income of the British Phosphate Commissioners, as representatives of the Australian, New Zealand and United Kingdom governments, is exempt from tax under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and, if the commissioners were in a position to administer the Fund, income of the Fund would also be exempt. However, the affairs of the Commissioners are in the process of being wound up. The amendment proposed in this Bill will provide the exemption that would otherwise be available for the Contingency Fund. It will apply to income derived by the Fund from its inception on 1 June 1981. The cost of providing the exemption is estimated at $50,000 in a full year. A detailed explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(10.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Income Tax Amendment Bill will amend the Income Tax Act 1986 to formally impose provisional tax for the 1987-88 financial year. The amendment complements the proposed introduction of the instalment system for the payment of provisional tax, by the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 about which I have just spoken. It provides for the application of the instalment system in 1987-88. Details of this Bill are also set out in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Bill provides legislative support for a restructuring of the existing capital city based structure of stock exchanges by the establishment of a single national stock exchange. It also enhances investor protection by establishing a national guarantee fund which will provide no fault contract guarantees for investors on Australian exchanges and protection for those investors in respect of dealer insolvencies. I am introducing this Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. In accordance with the formal agreement under that scheme, the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities has approved introduction of the Bill into this Parliament. The measures I have just outlined will be achieved by amendment of the Securities Industry Act 1980. Consequential amendments will also be made to other co- operative scheme legislation. The impetus for change to the structure of the major Australian stock exchanges has come from the stock exchanges themselves. The Australian Associated Stock Exchanges formally requested legislative support for the change from the Ministerial Council in March 1986. Such support is required because of the significant logistic and timing difficulties inherent in separate schemes of arrangement in each State which would otherwise be necessary to facilitate the desired restructuring. It is worth noting briefly the sorts of developments in Australia which have prompted Australian stock exchanges to adopt a more national focus. One of the major developments in Australia and throughout the world's capital and securities markets has been the trend to internationalisation of securities markets. This has been stimulated by technological advances in communication, increasing sophistication of investors in the management of their financial risks and, of course, this Government's initiatives in abolishing exchange controls as part of its general policy of deregulating the financial system. Accordingly, Australian stock exchanges have been subject to greater competition from overseas exchanges. This development alone suggests that Australia's current fragmented State based stock exchange system is inappropriate. There is also increasing pressure from investors for a national clearing house and depository system to speed up transfer of securities and for the adoption of screen trading. These trends also serve to highlight the need for a more streamlined and integrated system for trading securities and raising capital in Australia. The associated establishment of a national guarantee fund to replace the existing separate fidelity funds of each of the State capital city exchanges will assist in maintaining investor confidence in Australian securities markets. The no fault contract guarantees will ensure that, where a party to a securities transaction does not complete his obligations, those obligations will be met by the National Guarantee Fund. This no fault system of contract guarantees contrasts with claims against existing fidelity funds under the provisions of Part IX of the Securities Industry Act 1980 where defalcation or fraudulent misuse of property is required to establish a claim. Direct access to the National Guarantee Fund for compensation in respect of a dealer insolvency also contrasts with existing fidelity fund provisions which only allow for compensation via formal Bankruptcy Act mechanisms. In addition to these investor protection measures, the establishment of the National Guarantee fund will enable funds to be made available for industry development purposes approved by the Ministerial Council. These funds will comprise the amount of the pooled assets not required for investor protection purposes and it is envisaged that one of the purposes for which such funds will be used is the establishment of a centralised clearing house and depository system. Contents of the Bill I now turn to the proposals in slightly more detail. Australian Stock Exchange Ltd Clause 5 of the Bill incorporates the Australian Stock Exchange Ltd, ASX, in the Australian Capital Territory as a body corporate limited by guarantee. The existing capital city exchanges will become wholly owned subsidiaries of ASX and their members will cease membership of their particular exchanges and become members of ASX. ASX will be responsible for all listing on main board markets while its subsidiaries will continue to be responsible for their second board, options and futures markets. The State subsidiaries will, however, exercise powers and perform a number of functions delegated to them by ASX. For example, they will, at least in the short term, operate the main board markets on behalf of ASX. Clause 5 also provides for the transfer of assets from existing capital city exchanges to ASX on these exchanges becoming subsidiaries. This reflects the transfer of main board listing and membership functions to ASX. National Guarantee Fund Clause 15 of the Bill establishes the National Guarantee Fund, which will provide investor protection in two ways. First, it will guarantee the performance of all reportable transactions in securities quoted on Australian stock exchanges. Claims against the Fund will be able to be made by a selling or buying dealer in respect of default by his counterpart dealer in the transaction and by clients in respect of default by the dealer who is selling or buying on their behalf. Secondly, the Fund will compensate investors for pecuniary and property loss as a result of the insolvency of a broker member of the Australian Stock Exchange. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will not have any financial impact on government revenue and expenditure. Sharemarket investors will benefit from the contract guarantee and insolvency provisions of the National Guarantee Fund. The capital and securities market is expected to become more efficient from the more co-ordinated, centralised Australian Stock Exchange approach. In addition, allocation of excess funds of the National Guarantee Fund to national development purposes approved by Ministerial Council should allow technological advances with resulting efficiencies. Conclusion This Bill assists the stock exchanges in their attempt to establish a more co-ordinated nationally oriented securities market and provides additional investor protection to maintain confidence in that market. I commend the Bill to the House. I also present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 Debate resumed from 16 October 1986, on motion by Mr Uren: That the House take note of the papers. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.47) —In my statement which I tabled with the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation on the Ranger uranium water management system on 16 October I said that uranium mining is a controversial issue, particularly if the mine is surrounded by a national park of World Heritage status. Media reports over recent years have alleged that the operations of Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd were defective and that the proposals of the company relating to water releases were not in the best interests of the environment. Naturally, the Committee appointed by this House to monitor environmental matters could not ignore the statements and headlines such as `Ranger crisis: Option to put Tailings into Creek', and `Atom Deluge threatens Park', and reports of numerous incidents relating to the tailings pipeline. Accordingly, the Committee agreed to undertake informal investigations into the environmental aspects relating to the water management at Ranger. The Committee decided to report on two issues and two issues only, namely, failures in the tailings pipeline and the Ranger's proposal to release water from its restricted release zone into the Magela Creek. Since the report was tabled the Committee has received comments from sections of the conservation movement criticising the manner in which we conducted our investigations. Of concern to the conservation movement was that the Committee did not consult widely enough, nor did it cover all the issues relating to Ranger's water management system. I believe the Committee was justified in concentrating on the two issues of pipeline failure and water release. The Committee's investigations were a direct result of public concern relating to these two issues. There were many other areas which were of concern to individual members of the Committee, such as worker health and safety, industrial relations, and other aspects of Ranger's operations, but it was agreed that the report should be restricted to these two aspects. It was important that our report be available before a decision was made relating to water release. This urgency precluded widespread consultation which may have occurred had the Committee conducted a formal inquiry. The Committee limited its discussions with the conservation movement to the Northern Territory Environment Centre. We had no reason to doubt the competence of this organisation to discuss with the Committee the two matters under consideration. Notwithstanding these comments, it appears from the correspondence received that if the Committee had consulted more widely its conclusions would have been no different. The Committee report was the result of informal discussions and inspections rather than the result of an extensive formal inquiry. The Committee has adopted this approach on a number of occasions in the past when resource and time constraints have made this method of operation necessary. We have never before been criticised. If the Committee were to conduct formal inquiries into each of the many environmental issues upon which we comment, limited member time and limited secretarial resources would make it difficult to table even one report each year. I do not propose to cover all the issues included in my statement of 16 October because there are other speakers who want to talk about the report. There are, however, a number of issues which I wish to highlight now. While it is apparent that the numerous and regular leakages from the tailings pipeline have had no adverse impact on Kakadu National Park these occurrences are reasons for concern. The Committee cannot accept that a company which is located within an area of such significant environmental value and which claims to be as efficient as the most regulated of any operation in the world should have allowed the number of incidents which have occurred. The Committee understands that the tailings pipeline has been replaced. Should these regular, accidental releases continue the Committee would support the cessation of operations until such time as the system was rectified. However, the Committee accepts the Supervising Scientist's assessment that there has been no discernible adverse impact from these incidents on the surrounding park or in the environment. Organisations have argued that Ranger has little regard for the environment and operates on a least cost basis. There are a number of examples which may support this view. During our inspections the Committee observed the state of the sulphur dump, exposed and decaying bags of chemicals at the water treatment plant, and the trial dry tailings plot unfenced with animal footprints in the tailings. The decision by mine management to import on to the site about one million cubic metres of water in excess of requirements during 1982 suggested a lack of concern about the longer term environmental consequences should rainfall return to normal in the following seasons. Ranger is developing a water management policy which will include releases of water to the Magela Creek. Such releases, Ranger argues, may be necessary in some years to enable the company to gain access to the mine pit at the end of the wet season. Such releases would not be regular occurrences and may not even occur once in 20 years. The company has emphasised that the releases would be of mildly contaminated water and not tailings dam water as some sections of the media have suggested and could be made only when the Magela was in flood in accordance with water release criteria developed by the Office of the Supervising Scientist. The Office of the Supervising Scientist holds the view that on technical grounds occasional controlled discharges of water to the Magela could be made in such a way that there would be virtually no damage to the environment, including no harm to people. On balance the Office of the Supervising Scientist believes that water released in the Magela should be accepted as one of the water disposal components of Ranger's water management system. This view is supported by the Northern Territory supervising authorities. On the other hand, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife advises that it is unaware of the environmental impact of direct release, but believes that there are still too many unknowns for assurances to be given that there will be no impact. The Northern Land Council argues that traditional owners believed that Ranger would operate on a no-release system, and failure to achieve this objective can result only in an unacceptable social impact. The Northern Land Council points to adverse biological reactions within the creek when water, which was less contaminated than that now under consideration, was released last year. The conservation movement supports the NLC's attitude. The Committee notes in its report that, in the development of a water management system, Ranger is required by its mining agreement to take account of the social effects of its operations. This indicates that the views of the traditional owners must be respected in developing this water management system. The Committee considered in great detail the question of release. Some members, including me, are not satisfied that there will be no adverse environmental impact. Neither the Northern Territory officials nor the Office of the Supervising Scientist were able to give 100 per cent assurance. As stated in the report, Ranger imported huge quantities of water on to the site and then experienced two seasons of unusually high rainfall. Despite these problems, Ranger was able to operate without water release, and the system is now in balance. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, commonly known as the Fox inquiry, believed that ideally the water management system should be based on non-release of contaminants and that this system be maintained until it is shown that releases of contaminated water have to be made. It is the Committee's view, irrespective of individual attitudes on the impact of the release of water on the Kakadu wetlands, that it has not been established that the release of water to the Magela needs to be made. Nothing in the findings of the Committee has led me to change my personal view that it was a disgracefully irresponsible decision of the Liberal-National Party Government to allow mining operations to commence in an area of such great environmental sensitivity as Kakadu. In this respect, it is most commendable that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) introduced into the House yesterday a Bill which will prevent exploration and mining on land proclaimed as the Kakadu National Park and which provides that no compensation is to be payable by the Commonwealth. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their initiative which is welcomed by conservation organisations around Australia. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.58) —This report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has a lot of sensitivity associated with it, particularly with regard to the Kakadu National Park. It is a report with which I am very glad to be associated because, being as sensitive as it has been and is, it is really gratifying-in fact, it is quite remarkable-to think that the Standing Committee comprising members from both sides of the House was able to bring forward a unanimous report. I mention that because it is something pleasant to say about it. I was disappointed that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) sought to make his speech a little political in his criticisms of former governments and their relationships with activities in that part of Australia. Even though the report was unanimous, as the honourable member for La Trobe has pointed out there were differences in relation to a number of aspects of the inquiry. As he pointed out, the Committee's investigation was made as a result of Press and conservationists' comments relating to the operations of Ranger. Whilst I would not argue against the right of conservationists to hold their views, there seemed to be a misunderstanding, and maybe even a deliberate attempt to influence the opinion of this Committee. These influences, I am afraid, were not based on fact. Quite a few emotional comments were made in the Press on a number of occasions in regard to these matters. The minor differences between Committee members related to the impact of the release of water from RP2. It is interesting because I find it very difficult to see how there can be any controversy over water that has been tested repeatedly and found to be quite adequate for drinking and even of a better quality than Adelaide's drinking water. I am not casting aspersions on the Adelaide water supply. The Office of the Supervising Scientist was set up in association with the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. To date, that Office has spent $25m of taxpayers' money to show almost conclusively, although it has not given a 100 per cent assurance, that there will be no ill effects from the discharge of RP2 water into Magela Creek. So $25m of taxpayers' money has been well spent. The most minute inquiries have been conducted into the various effects on the local ecosystems of the Magela Creek and other streams. No significant evidence has come forward to show how the natural system that operates will be affected by the discharge of this water. It is interesting that with the first rains the water that ran off the area where the very diluted RP2 water would be going was much more highly concentrated in terms of its chemical composition than anything that would be discharged, with permission, from the Ranger uranium mine. Also, as has been mentioned by the honourable member for La Trobe, it is interesting that the Ranger Uranium Mine Pty Ltd imported one million cubic metres of water to help it with its problems in that regard. This was followed by two seasons of heavy rainfall, but the mine was still able to operate without any water release. This is one of the major reasons why the Committee felt that it was unnecessary to come to any agreement with regard to allowing water from the RP2 pond to be discharged into Magela Creek. It was proposed that, if water were to be discharged from RP2 into the Magela, it would be discharged at the peak period of six or seven weeks in which great volumes of water flow into the creek. That would make it 100 per cent safe. I have mentioned those things in relation to this report, although many more could be mentioned. I think it ought to be said that the fact that the Ranger operation exists in the park has enabled the park to be opened up to tourists. We now have a sealed road to Kakadu-the Arnhem Highway. There is an excellent airstrip at Jabiru which, it could be argued, would not be there and the area would not have been opened up to the tourist industry if it had not been for the Ranger operation. Also it could be argued that, if it had not been for mining and the Fox inquiry, the park may not have been established to the point to which it has been. Many tourists, including many Australians, who have every right to be in that park and to enjoy its beauty, would be missing out on seeing this unique area. I think the Ranger operation demonstrates how conservation values and tightly controlled mining operations are compatible, although I would not support in any way any uncontrolled development in the region. Finally, I commend the report to the House. I also commend the Standing Committee's secretariat, under the leadership of Mr John Cummins, for the excellent assistance that it has given us, and I congratulate it on the speed with which the report was completed. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(11.05) —At the outset, on behalf of the Chairman and all members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I would like to thank the secretariat for the excellent work that it has done in helping us and assisting us to compile this report. Before I get on to the report itself I would like to mention to the nation exactly what Ranger is. I think this is most important. Many people do not realise that it is a company called Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and that Ranger is a subsidiary company. The directors are: Mr Morokoff, Mr Copeman, Mr Ito, Mr Mueller, Mr Bethwaite, Mr Hamer, Mr Lean and Sir Rupert Myers. One of the names to look at is Mr Copeman. If we read further in the company listing we learn of the history of Energy Resources of Australia. It was incorporated as a proprietary company in the Australian Capital Territory on 8 February 1980. It received public status on 11 July 1980. The company was formed to acquire all rights to the Ranger project which in 1969 was discovered to have a major uranium ore body. The company was a new flotation and is owned by Peko-Wallsend Ltd. The Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd owns 31.8 per cent, overseas equity participants own 24.2 per cent and the general public own 14.2 per cent. The main names to look at in the list of those who actually own this company are Mr Copeman and that particularly notorious company called Peko-Wallsend. I am quite certain that honourable members are aware that Peko-Wallsend was the company which owned Besco Batteries and which sacked over 300 people, giving them only 30 minutes notice. This is the sort of company that owns the Ranger uranium mine. It is a very aggressive company. It was also involved in the Robe River dispute where people were just dismissed and locked out, and it has taken a very high profile in the New Right in Australia. Mr Copeman has been very active in making certain that this company's views are well known. When we arrived at Ranger one of the first things I noticed as we went through the gate was a huge board listing all the injuries and accidents that had happened over the past month or so, and there was one for every day. I have worked in heavy industry and I know what it is like. A lot of accidents happen, but never before had I seen a safety record as bad as the record of that company. When we went to have a look around-it was not as if we went there as a surprise team or anything like that-I thought the company could have taken a little time to clean up the place and make it look as though it was a reasonably run sort of organisation. However, as the Chairman of the Committee has mentioned, a huge pile of sulphur was just spread all over the ground and the tractors had gone into it. Sulphur, which is used in the processing of uranium, was just spread everywhere. Other bags containing chemicals were just out in the open. The paper had worn off and these chemicals had run all over the ground. There were forty-four gallon drums which were all rusty and leaking, and plastic containers of ferric chloride were also just out in the open. Ferric chloride is a very highly corrosive acid. I used to make printed circuit boards and I used to use ferric chloride actually to remove the copper plating on the backs of these boards. It is very corrosive, but it was just lying around there. As has been mentioned, there had also been reports about pipeline breakages and spillages. Even though this particular company makes a profit of only $1m a week it had actually cut out a section where the pipe had broken and put back in the old, worn pipe. These sorts of practices are unbelievable. These sorts of things do not go on in heavy industry. But this company, in its quest for more money, more wealth-more greed-just wanted to use as little as possible in the way of supplies and material to ensure that it would make a profit for itself and its shareholders. Peko-Wallsend has a unique position in Australia. Ranger is the only large uranium mine which is allowed to exist in the tropics and that company should look after it. It is not looking after the land on which it has its lease. This is wrong. I have pointed out in a speech on the adjournment debate the various problems that I noticed in the short time that I was there. I do not know whether the company has taken any steps to counteract or repair these problems but I doubt that very much. I think all it is interested in is causing disruption within the Australian system and the Parliament by its recent aggressive actions. Honourable members would all be aware that Peko-Wallsend went into the Kakadu National Park and defied the Federal Government and the national park concept by exploring and bringing to a climax its right wing profit-motivated views to try to get more money and to try to open up this beautiful area of Australia so that it could get in there and ruin it. I am not completely against mining. I believe that mining has a very important place in Australia. But a lot of these assets in Kakadu do not have to be mined now. No doubt they will be mined in the future by some sort of machinery-let us say robots-which will dig underneath the ground and will not destroy the national park. I can see this happening, but now is not the time to do it. We should leave these minerals in the ground. They are an asset and they will not go away. People are so concerned about the mining of uranium and gold, et cetera. I have never known minerals such as gold really to come down in price. I think gold will always be expensive as it is getting rarer and rarer. We have a great asset there. It is money in the bank and, with inflation, it will go up all the time. People should look at these sorts of things and stop being so greedy. They should stop thinking of just today and think of the future, especially the future of our children who want to go and have a look at this beautiful area. I have been there several times. I am very fortunate as I have seen it, but I want my kids and their kids to see it in its pristine state, or as near to that state as possible. I would like to finish, as I do quite a bit, with a nice little poem from a book entitled `Kakadu Man' written by Bill Neidjie. I think he was recently in Canberra promoting this book. The poem which I have chosen is short and I think it explains the true feeling and empathy that Aboriginals have for the land. I only wish that white people had this same feeling and love for our country. The poem is entitled simply `Land'. It reads: We want goose, we want fish. Other men want money. Him can make million dollars, but only last one year. Next year him want another million. Forever and ever him make million dollars . . . him die. Million no good for us. We need this earth to live because . . . we'll be dead, we'll become earth. This ground and this earth . . . like brother and mother. Trees and eagle . . . you know eagle? He can listen. Eagle our brother, like dingo our brother. We like this earth to stay, because he was staying for ever and ever. We don't want to lose him. We say `Sacred, leave him.' Debate (on motion by Mr Cunningham) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes a continuation of the bounty assistance on Australian book production for the next three years until 30 June 1989. It replaces the current bounty legislation which is due to terminate on 31 December 1986. Bounties have been paid on certain Australian book production since 1969 in order to assist the Australian printing industry compete with overseas book printers. This particular industry is assisted by means of a bounty because, although not a signatory, the Government adheres to the spirit of the Florence Agreement, which precludes the imposition of tariffs on books containing educational, scientific or cultural material. The assistance arrangements for the next three years follow the Government's consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission's recommendations contained in its report No. 377 of 20 December 1985 on book production. In its report the IAC concluded that the sector of book production activity which is assisted receives a level of assistance comparable with that available to other assisted printing activity, but at a high level by comparison with assistance generally afforded other manufacturing activities. The Commission was of the view that assistance to book production should be provided in a manner which, as far as possible, allows the structure of the industry to respond to changes in market conditions, technology, and other factors, unencumbered by government direction. It said that the high level of assistance applying to most categories should be reduced. The main recommendations contained in the Commission's report were that: (1) Bounty on eligible books be reduced from 25 to 20 per cent of net selling price, that is, the selling price less the bounty; (2) Bounty on paper supplied free of charge by publishers to printers for the production of bountiable books be reduced from 20 to 16 2/3 per cent; (3) Bounty eligibility be extended to Australian directories, guides, street directories, road guides and the like and Customs duties for those books to which bounty is extended be at minimum rates; and (4) Customs duties on other books dutiable at 25 per cent be reduced to 20 per cent. The Government has accepted the basic thrust of the recommendations of the Commission. However, it has decided to defer the reduction in bounty rates until it has had time to consider the current wide ranging inquiry on the pulp, paper, paper products and printing industries being conducted by the IAC. The Commission's final report is due in February 1987. Book production is included within this inquiry as it is an integral part of the printing industry. It has, however, been decided to vary the bounty rate in accordance with the decision announced in the 1986-87 Budget to reduce bounties generally by 20 per cent. Clause 11 of the Bill therefore provides that under the new scheme eligible books are to be paid a bounty of 20 per cent of the printer's net selling price, that is, the selling price less the bounty. Further, in circumstances where publishers supply paper free of charge to printers for the production of bountiable books the bounty rate is to be 16 2/3 per cent of the publisher's material costs. The Government has also decided that bounty eligibility is to be extended to include Australian guides and directories. The exclusion of these goods from the previous bounty scheme has caused considerable administrative problems for the Australian Customs Service and confusion within the industry. Books published by the Australian Government Publishing Service and books required to be published or printed by State or Territory government printers after 1 January 1987 will no longer be eligible for bounty. This is for the reason that government publications are usually printed in Australia and are not subject to competition from overseas printers. In order to simplify the administration of the scheme clause 14 of the Bill provides that only one bounty claim per production run will be allowed. The claim can be lodged by either the publisher or the printer but a minimum value of $200 per title per production run will apply. It is worth mentioning that imported typesetting in any pre-printed plate form will not disqualify an otherwise eligible publication from bounty. Likewise, books using imported colour separations will continue to be eligible for bounty. The cost of any process carried out overseas is, however, to be excluded from bounty calculations. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that books which, if imported, would be classifiable to a tariff item on which Customs duty is payable will not be eligible for bounty. This is proposed to avoid the possibility of a locally produced book being assisted by both a bounty and a tariff. The Government has also decided that import duties on books currently dutiable at a general rate of 25 per cent will remain unchanged. Part IV of the Bill contains provisions which update the previous legislation to improve administrative effectiveness, in line with similar provisions recently introduced in other subsidy and bounty legislation. The Government is committed to maintaining a healthy and viable book industry in Australia. We believe that the Bill provides the necessary ingredients upon which the industry can build, and provides the industry with an appropriate level of assistance pending the outcome of the Government's decision on its wide ranging review of assistance for the whole paper and printing industries. Financial Impact Statement Bounty payments to the book printing industry totalled $18.8m in 1985-86. Bounty payments for the six months to June 1987 are expected to be $6.3m and in 1987-88 $12.7m. I commend the Bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum. Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(11.21) —This Bill proposes to extend the bounty on book production for the next three years from 1 January 1987 to 30 June 1989. The Government has reversed its earlier decision to reduce the bounty from 25 per cent to 16 per cent, a fall made up of a 20 per cent Budget cut and a 20 per cent reduction recommended earlier by the Industries Assistance Commission. Now only the Budget cut will be implemented, at least until the Industries Assistance Commission delivers its final report on the pulp, paper and printing industries, an inquiry which includes book production. The Budget decision to cut the bounty from 25 to 20 per cent of costs angered not only printing and publishing companies but also those keen to encourage cultural independence through Australian written and published books. As I said earlier, the recommendation came from the Industries Assistance Commission, but what has particularly angered local printers is that the book bounty cut would have been followed by another cut in all government bounties scheduled for 1 January 1987. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill, but we would like to make a few comments about the method whereby this Bill has had to be brought back to the House. We will be moving an amendment in Committee on the question of orderly development of the industry. Our main criticism relates to uncertainty. What business needs above all is an environment of certainty-certainty in government industry policies and certainty in taxation policies-and in general an economic framework that enables business to make decisions on investment. As we all know, Australia is way short of a proper level of private investment and, worse still, that private investment has been falling. It is private investment, with the jobs it creates and the wealth it provides to the community, that is the engine of economic growth. Although the Government has been saying for some time how well it has done in terms of providing jobs, I should just point out that there is the same number of unemployed people in Australia now as there was in March 1983. So private investment is falling and, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said yesterday, if Australia cannot get its economic act together, if it cannot create an environment in which private investment will start to rise, the country will stagnate and become an economic backwater. In those circumstances, what has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) done? With virtually one stroke of the pen, by the Budget decision, he has destroyed his credibility with business and made business uncertain. When business is uncertain, it does not invest. All bounties were reduced in the Budget by 20 per cent. It is incredible that the Minister, who is alleged to be one of the more sensible Ministers in the Government, would lend his name to that decision which has created so much uncertainty for business and has produced an environment in which it is difficult for business to plan appropriately. The book printing business has made a solid and strong effort to become competitive, and it has made the investments necessary to ensure that it can compete with imports. The industry has tried very hard. As I said earlier, it was angered by this so-called double whammy-the implementation of the IAC recommendation and the Budget cut. This Bill tries to twist and turn to get around the Budget decision by deferring the recommendations of the IAC report. As the Minister has said, the main recommendation was that the bounty on eligible books be reduced from 25 per cent to 20 per cent of net selling price-that is, the selling price less the bounty. This Bill seeks to extend that bounty by three years. By this wriggling and extending the bounty for three years the Government has got around the problem that it created for itself with its Budget decision. We condemn the Government for its double standards and its attempt to cover up its bad Budget decision with the device contained in the Bill. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(11.28) —I rise to speak on the Bounty (Books) Bill 1986 with a great deal of pleasure. I will disclose to the nation a little-known fact about my history. I have printers ink in my veins, and it goes back a long way. My maternal great-grandfather was one John Bedford Leno, who was a Chartist. He was a founder of the first printing guild in the United Kingdom. In the late 1800s he was a member of a guild which was the beginning of the first unions. He was also in the Chartist Movement, which applied for the right of women to vote and began many other great legislative moves in those days. He was one of the group that brought Garibaldi to London in the late 1800s. So my printing background goes back a long way. I have been a printer in my time, and years ago I used to sell offset printing equipment. I assure honourable members that I still have that ink in my veins. I wish to bring to the notice of the public some facts about the Australian printing industry, which this Bill affects greatly. It is most important that people be aware of these facts. Taken together the printing, publishing and allied industries constitute the fourth largest manufacturing industry in Australia. In the early 1980s it operated more than 2,500 establishments with some 76,000 employees. The annual growth rate of printing and publishing is about equal to the gross national product, and somewhat above the total non-agricultural product. The printing industry in Australia, as in most other countries, is highly skilled and is equally fragmented. That is good. I would hate to see it all controlled in a few hands. It consists of a large number of firms each producing only a small proportion of the total output. Fewer than 20 per cent of all printing companies produce some 80 per cent of the total production. With the advent of new technology, one can buy an Apple computer with the appropriate software program and a laser printer and set up one's own printing works. The dissemination of information and different views is important in these days of mass media. I am pleased that even though that particular side of the industry will not help printers, it will make certain that information is not just spread around by a few people. I would like to comment on what a book is. Often people take no notice of what they are looking at; they do not give books any thought. A book is a system of portable written or printed sheets held together and protected by a cover. The origin of the word `book' is derived from a Teutonic term meaning a charter or tablet. Books are a form of documentation whose earliest roots can be traced to the ancient civilisations of the Sumerians, Babylonians and Egyptians. The Sumerians used a series of wedge shaped characters imprinted in clay tablets. The clay tablets were baked, and the information contained on them was in a numerical sequence to indicate order. The papyrus reed was used by the ancient Egyptians, and in effect that method was used for many hundreds of years. The rise of alphabetic writing in around 1500 BC in Syria-Palestine and its consequent spread through Phoenician inscriptions added a more compact dimension to the documentation and record keeping contained on scrolls. The idea of a protective covering on books emerged with books that had wooden tablets attached at a hinge with leather thongs to protect the writing contained inside. Simple things are books, but they can form a great impression on people and they can do many things for many people. One of the reasons I am a member of this House at present is contained in the writings of William Shakespeare. A couple of lines in Hamlet triggered off something in me that made me move into the political arena. Those lines were written many hundreds of years ago, they were recorded in a book and to some extent they led me to my position today. I want to read to the House a few little quotes about books. Thomas Carlyle said that books are all `that mankind has done, thought, gained or been'; that `they are the chosen possession of men'. We could add `women' to that. The quotes continue: A book may be as great a thing as a battle. Further: Books are the food which develops the intellect, character and personality, for in all good literature there is truth, wisdom and imagination. These quotes are very important. Years ago I was a probation officer and I went into many houses. One of the things I noticed was that there were no books. I go into houses today and there are not many books. I am afraid that people are being conditioned just to watch television. That is not right. We should set aside a period just for reading, to absorb knowledge and get involved with what books are all about. This Bill assists our printing industry, and it assists the workers in the printing industry. It assists our industry to become more competitive in overseas markets, and I commend it to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(11.36) —I move: Clause 19, page 19, omit sub-clause (11). The Opposition proposes to attempt to amend the Bounty (Books) Bill by omitting sub-clause (11) from clause 19, which appears on page 19 of the Bill. That sub-clause presently reads: Where an applicant for registration under this section was not, on 1 January 1987, engaged in carrying out the printing of bountiable books at premises in Australia or in publishing bountiable books so printed, the Comptroller shall not register that person if the Minister has informed the Comptroller that the registration of that person will not permit the orderly development in Australia of the industry comprising the production of bountiable books. The Opposition seeks to omit that sub-clause because we believe that it represents an interference in people's freedom of choice to decide whether they should participate in that industry. Any orderly development clause simply is an excuse for more government interference and an excuse not to permit the market to determine the outcome. It is market forces that really give the best results for the consumers. No question of coercion is involved. That sub-clause is unnecessary. The type of action that is contemplated by the addition of that sub-clause always has unintended consequences. It is an infringement of people's right to compete. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(11.38) —The Government rejects the amendment. I have some sympathy for the general point made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). We are not a madly interventionist or regulatory government. But I think we have to recognise that the book industry is a bit of an anomaly. It is not exactly the same as, to take examples at random, the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Basically, in producing a certain volume of underpants, we can be pretty sure that in the course of a 12-month period we go through them-if honourable members will excuse the expression. But, in the case of an industry such as books, purely market considerations would lead us to say: `The only kind of books we are interested in are those that will be good sellers'. We would have a diminished industry and the books would have a smaller contribution to make to the Australian scene. Books are very hazardous business. I suppose any accountant would say to booksellers: `You would be very wise to stock up on Barbara Cartland and Harold Robbins and stick to them; stick to the proven selling lines', like the bookshops we have at airports-- Mr Beale —But the omission of the clause does not-- Mr BARRY JONES —Well, I know that the whole question of orderly marketing implies the sort of thing that the National Party of Australia might have put up under earlier regimes for marketing of primary products. I do not really see this matter in that way. I put it to the honourable member for Deakin-and I am sure he will recognise this-that the discretion will be exercised, as the word suggests, with discretion. It will not be done to push the industry around. It is really intended to assist. The view the Government takes is that, in this case, for the reasons that I have just advanced, there ought to be a discretion, on the understanding that any discretion exercised by the Minister will be used appropriately, but not all the time. The discretion does not exclude new entrants to an industry from receiving the bounty, nor does it unfairly entrench existing bounty recipients. Provided that new entrants are prepared to undertake the necessary commitment to the industry and meet the registration requirements, they will not be denied registration. We had some literary history from the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) earlier. It was going through my head as he was speaking that the standard Sanskrit dictionary, produced, I think, in 1816 by the Oxford University Press, has not exhausted its original print run. Accountants would have gone bananas at the investment that was put into it then. Nevertheless, we say that the publication has been worth while; a contribution to knowledge. The famous book by Copernicus that revealed the operation of the solar system was not exactly a best seller. We must recognise that, if we are to develop a strong book industry, a tremendous number of titles must come out. There has to be assistance and a degree of discretion. So, with infinite regret, we reject the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Beale's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C. Coleman, W. P. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Sinclair, I. McC. Drummond, P. H. Spender, J. M. Edwards, Harry Sullivan, K. J. Everingham, P. A. E. Watson, D. J. H. Fischer, Tim Webster, A. P. Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Halverson, R. G. Wilson, I. B. C. Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D, P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth. R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Smith, W. Lee, M. Dobie, J. D. M. Willis, R. Fisher, Peter Duncan, P. Shack, P. D. Price, L. R. S. McArthur, F. S. Jacobi, R. Lloyd,, B. Darling, E. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.50) —The report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation into the Ranger Uranium Water Management system was unanimous. I was concerned that the honourable member for Dunkley (Mr Chynoweth) made comments that were more of a political nature than about the report. I would like to deal with some of the honourable member's remarks. He regarded Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd as being greedy and shortsighted. In this day and age there needs to be a more realistic approach to environmental matters as well as to export earnings. The two must be kept in balanced perspective. I make these comments to try to give some balance to the perspective put upon this report by the member for Dunkley. Frankly, companies in Australia are established to make money-that is their purpose-so that Australia and Australian workers can benefit. I believe that Ranger has done a quite good job, given the circumstances which it has faced. I would remind the honourable member for Dunkley that the first point set out in the conclusion of the report says this about Ranger Uranium: During the inspections of the project area the company was open and forthright in its discussions and allowed access to all areas within the project area including those areas where the Committee may have reached conclusions critical of the company's operations. In other words, the company was very open to our going there and inspecting its operations and was quite prepared to sit down and talk with us. There was no notion that it did not want to talk to us, and therefore the comments by the honourable member for Dunkley were unwarranted. I would like to make a few other comments about the report. The environmental groups and the National Parks and Wildlife Service believe, without any good scientific evidence, that if water were released there would be concerns and changes in the environment. This raises the question of making decisions of this type in Australia at this stage. We are now in a scientific age, and if, as the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) has mentioned, the Government pays $25m to the Supervising Scientist and then virtually ignores what he is saying, I think we have very big problems with getting the right information on which to make decisions about the future of companies, mining and many other operations in this nation. We cannot go back to the era when we made decisions on emotions. If science is about one thing, it is about finding out to the best of mankind's ability what the facts are. This is what the Supervising Scientist said about the operations at Ranger Uranium: The Office of the Supervising Scientist view is that on technical grounds occasional controlled discharges of RRZ water to the Magela could be made in such a way that there would be virtually no damage to the environment including no harm to people. It went on to refer to other possibilities of handling the water problem at Ranger and said: However, such measures would be expensive and have associated with them their own environmental impact. On balance the OSS believes that water release to the Magela should be accepted as one of the water disposal components of long term best practice technology. That is the advice of the people in charge of gathering the facts. In these matters it is very important to have an open mind to the facts which are laid before committees. On those facts we should make these decisions. I wish to make a few comments about the pipeline breakdowns. People regard these breakdowns as great catastrophes, particularly when they read the reports in the media. I am concerned because this shows that many people in Australia have very little understanding of the complexities of big factories and industries in this country. In fact, it is not a simple operation to ensure that these factories or mining sites operate at 100 per cent efficiency every day of the year. Therefore, I believe that we should view breakdowns in this light. Let us remember that the pipeline breakdown did not put any material of any concern outside the zone. The Australian people need to know that the material did not go out into the national park at all. I conclude by saying that I believe it is important to keep up consultations with the people who live in the area and who are concerned about the possibility of damaging effects. No matter what we do in regard to mining operations in sensitive areas of Australia, we must keep in mind the interests of the Aboriginal people, particularly in this region. I believe that communication and continued discussions with Aboriginal people is a very important process. These people are concerned-and rightly so-about their environment because it is where they have lived for hundreds of years. If groups of people are to work together in this great nation of ours on these very delicate and sensitive matters, we should take account of the Aboriginal people's views. I would encourage the Ranger people to maintain contact with the Aboriginal people so that consultation continues in the future. I believe this report to be an honest assessment of the situation in Kakadu. It is not a report on which we should score political points. I believe that in future it will be regarded as a report which looked at the facts carefully and came down unanimously with a fair assessment of the situation at the time. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(11.58) —I rise to support the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and I wish to offer my congratulations to the secretariat for the excellent work it always does for us on this Committee. It is a great privilege to be a member of the Committee and to see so many of the beautiful parts of Australia. I must say that in preparing this report we saw something pretty horrific; nothing quite prepared me-even with my well known hostility to the uranium industry-for the shock of seeing this awful mining operation, surrounded by beautiful country. I am unashamedly hostile to the industry and with very good reason. There are so many unresolved problems which surround the whole nuclear industry and these problems are acknowledged by everyone. The nuclear industry is touted so often as clean, cheap, efficient and necessary and of course it is none of these. The complications and the acknowledged problems start with the mining of uranium. Ranger Uranium Mines Pty Ltd mines uranium under very strict conditions, but the problems cannot all be foreseen and the onus is on the company to make sufficient provision to cope with any problem that arises. In the uranium mining industry any problems that do arise can have pretty alarming consequences. Water management is one of the problems that Ranger must face and the company must make provision to cope with any problem arising there. The company's record is not very good. Paragraph 82 of the Committee's report says this: The Committee cannot accept that a Company which is located within an area of significant environmental value, claims to be as efficient as any operation in the world and claims to be one of the most regulated in the world, should have allowed the number of incidents to have occurred as have been reported in the annual reports of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. The Committee understands that the tailings pipeline has now been replaced. That was another matter of concern that was brought to our attention. The report goes on: Should these regular accidental releases continue the Committee would support the temporary cessation of operations until such time as the system was rectified. As I keep saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, the onus is on the company to make sure that all the problems are rectified. The Committee report adds: Notwithstanding these comments the Committee accepts the Supervising Scientist's assessment that there has been no discernible adverse impact on the environment from these occurrences. It is my view that irrespective of whether there may or may not be any impact, the idea of the Magela Creek being used as a drain for this industry is just abhorrent. The question we must ask is this: Should a water system in a national park be used for the disposal of waste water from an industrial site? I conclude by quoting from the people who are most affected by any release of water into the Magela Creek system-the Aboriginal people of the area. The November 1986 edition of Land Rights News, which arrived on all our desks yesterday, ran an article from which I shall quote. The article refers to a meeting earlier this year at which the Ranger mine people talked about the problem of an excess of contaminated water. The article states: The Ranger people told the landowners there was no problem with the water. The miners called a meeting with the Gagudju people and other groups associated with the Ranger mine. Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the Northern Land Council Chairman, said: Toby Gangale and other Gagudju people were meeting with Ranger mine people and others from the Office of the Supervising Scientist. The discussion was about the level of contamination of water from retention pond number two. The officials were saying that the water was fit for people to drink. Some of the water in question was in beakers being passed around the room. Toby raised the beaker to his lips. He was immediately told not to drink the water by the officials watching him with alarm. You can understand how Toby and other land owners out there in Kakadu are worried about this water problem . . . The problem is that no one can actually be sure on at exactly what level can water be regarded as contaminated . . . It's alright to declare that water is safe now. What if it is discovered later that it was not safe? The article continues: That's not good news for those people who do eat bush tucker, let alone for the general Magela environment anyhow. On behalf of those people who would be most affected, I must say that I sincerely hope that the recommendations of our Committee report hold good. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-As 1986 draws to a close, and as the Parliament prepares to conclude its deliberations for the year, I take this opportunity to review for the House the efforts made by the Government and the Australian community to advance the objectives of the International Year of Peace. It has been a year in which the Australian community has given vigorous and articulate expression to its desire to help build a more peaceful world. At the same time, 1986 has been a year in which Australians have been given greater grounds for hope than for many years that the threat of nuclear war will be significantly diminished. East-West Relations Before dealing with our national contribution to the IYP, let me say something about the international background to Australia's efforts. In a speech at the University of New England in September, I said that historic opportunities existed for the restoration of stability and realistic understanding between the super-powers. There was the prospect of less suspicion and tension than had been the case for a decade. Subsequently, the renewed intensity of negotiations on nuclear and space arms found dramatic expression at the meeting in Reykjavik between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. Naturally, there was disappointment in Australia and around the world at the failure in Reykjavik to reach final agreement on the truly breathtaking set of proposals which was discussed there. We should recognise, however, that during 1986 a fundamental transformation has occurred in the nature of the super-power dialogue on security issues. The United States and the Soviet Union have begun to cut through to the very essence of the profound differences that separate them in these negotiations. Significant in this regard was the successful outcome in Stockholm at the Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe. This, the first East-West accord in security matters in seven years, indicated a new determination to restore momentum to the process of arms control and disarmament after years of stalemate. Significantly, the Stockholm agreement also saw the acceptance for the first time by the Soviet Union and its allies of a system of mandatory on-site inspections to verify compliance with the information exchange provisions. Greater openness in such matters is essential if real progress is to be made in disarmament and arms control. The road ahead will not be easy. But I have no doubt that we are on the right road and I believe there are grounds to be optimistic that the super-powers are determined to stay on it. Australia has received regular and detailed briefings from the United States on progress in these matters and the Government has taken full advantage of numerous opportunities to inject our views at the highest levels on both sides on how progress might be further achieved. We will continue to urge progress with all the force we have. As I have frequently said, I do not exaggerate Australia's role and influence in these matters. But it is our firm conviction that we have the right and responsibility to be heard on issues of peace, arms control and disarmament. And we have been. Notwithstanding our differences with the United States on some issues of principle such as the strategic defence initiative, the very healthy state of our relationship has enabled us to maintain a close and productive dialogue with Washington. And, while not seeking to ignore the gulf in strategic orientation and ideological perception which separates us from the Soviet Union, we have restored sensible contact with Moscow, without which any Australian arms control and disarmament policy would be meaningless. I have written on several occasions to President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev this year, making clear the importance that the Australian Government attaches to continued compliance with the SALT II Treaty. I conveyed our view that the Soviet Union has a case to answer on specific compliance issues, but that Australia was no less concerned at the United States announcement in May that future decisions on the structure of its strategic forces would no longer be bound by SALT II limitations. We will continue to make our voice heard. In a variety of other ways, the Government has been very active in the pursuit of peace and disarmament in 1986. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty This year marks a historic moment for disarmament in the South Pacific. When the Senate passes the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill and related legislation currently before it, Australia will be in a position to ratify the Treaty of Rarotonga. Our ratification will be the eighth, and will bring the Treaty into force. Not only does the Treaty represent a major disarmament achievement, it also makes a positive contribution to regional security. The countries of the South Pacific Forum have built upon existing international treaties to make a new treaty that will help preserve the South Pacific as it is today-free from nuclear weapons stationed in the countries and territories of the region; free from nuclear waste dumping; and, with the tragic and we hope temporary, exception of French Polynesia, free from nuclear testing. All the countries of the region want to preserve these freedoms and that is the central purpose of the Treaty. In this context, the Government is very pleased that countries of the South Pacific, along with the United States and France, agreed in principle on 25 November to adopt the text of a Convention for the Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region-the SPREP Convention. The Convention complements the Treaty of Rarotonga's prohibition on radioactive waste dumping at sea in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The Treaty does not seek to undermine the favourable security environment which the South Pacific enjoys. It does not in any way conflict with Australia's defence arrangements, notably ANZUS. On the contrary, the Treaty of Rarotonga seeks to build on the factors that have created and sustained the security of the region to help ensure that the South Pacific, unlike other parts of the world, does not in the future become a theatre for nuclear confrontation. The protocols to the Treaty adopted in final form by the South Pacific Forum in August this year will be open for signature on 1 December. These provide for the United States, the United Kingdom and France to apply provisions of the Treaty to their South Pacific Territories and for the nuclear weapon states-the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and China-to undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against parties to the Treaty or to conduct nuclear testing in the South Pacific. It is the Government's strong hope that all the eligible states, which have major responsibility for international peace and security, will adhere to the protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga. The significance of the Bill before the Senate goes further than clearing the way for the entry into force of the Treaty of Rarotonga, important though that is. For, in passing the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill, Australia will become one of the first independent sovereign countries in the world to make a commitment by national legislation against the nuclear weapons option. The Bill commits this and future governments to prohibit the manufacture, acquisition and possession of nuclear explosive devices and the stationing and testing of such devices within Australia's territory. We take great pride in this stand. It is deeply regrettable that the Opposition in this House, and no doubt in the Senate, saw fit to oppose this historic declaration of principle. Comprehensive Test Ban During 1986, the Australian Government has continued to attach the highest priority in our multilateral disarmament diplomacy to the conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear test ban-CTB. Such a treaty would ban all kinds of nuclear tests in all environments by all countries for all time. It is a feasible and negotiable proposal whose implementation would be an important step towards preventing horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons. Earlier this month, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted on several resolutions dealing with nuclear testing. Two of these resolutions were sponsored by Australia and both received overwhelming support. The first was the Australia-New Zealand resolution on a comprehensive test ban which reaffirms the fundamental importance of such a treaty and sets out a program of action to achieve it. Five CTB resolutions were considered by the Committee this year. Australia's resolution, which has the best chances of contributing to a nuclear-free world, received 117 positive votes, the highest number of any of the five. The Australia-New Zealand resolution was co-sponsored by 26 countries, including Sweden, Canada and Japan. The United States and Britain, which had opposed our resolution in 1985, abstained this year. Only France voted against. This excellent result reflected the international community's acknowledgment of Australia's realistic approach and deep commitment to the early conclusion of a CTB treaty. The second Australian resolution considered this year calls on the nuclear testing states to make public each test and to provide certain data including the size of the test and the geology of the test site. This was a new initiative and the resolution received 107 positive votes. Only one country-France-opposed the resolution. Chemical Weapons The abolition of chemical weapons has long been a high priority objective of the Australian Government's arms control and disarmament policies. We have made special efforts during 1986 to facilitate progress on effective international measures against such abhorrent weapons. Australia is at the forefront of international action to this end. The Australian Government is committed to the early conclusion of a comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention which would ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons and provide for the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons and their production facilities. We have been prominent at both the diplomatic and technical levels in the negotiations on chemical weapons at the Conference on Dis- armament. During 1986 Australia chaired one of the Conference's three working groups on chemical weapons which made considerable progress. We have also actively supported and participated in investigations by the United Nations Secretary-General into reports of the use of chemical weapons. We have instituted controls on the export of particular chemicals which could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons. In addition, Australia convened consultations during 1986 with 18 Western countries-known as the `Australia Group'-which have adopted similar controls with a view to co-ordinating such measures internationally. These outstanding results in the cause of peace and disarmament were only made possible by the strong and sustained commitment of the Government to achieving real progress on arms control, a field in which little can be done without detailed expertise in the issues, international acceptance of the contribution we can make and the skills of sensitive diplomacy and negotiation. The Government, from the moment it came to office, set about establishing for the first time in Australia's history, the necessary credentials for successful work in the field of disarmament. The highest credit for our success belongs to my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden, whose skill, initiative and energy have won him worldwide respect and regard. I should also acknowledge the efforts of our officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and those of our Ambassador for Disarmament. Ideals of the International Year of Peace So far, I have talked about the international background to the International Year of Peace and the Government's own disarmament activities. In resolving to give its strong support to the United Nations' designation of 1986 as the International Year of Peace, the Government reaffirmed the high priority it has consistently placed on arms control and disarmament but, at the same time, agreed with the view of the United Nations that IYP activities should not be sponsored only at the level of national governments. Accordingly, the Government sought to encourage the wide range of individuals and community organisations in Australia who had set high value on the opportunities this year offered them to express their views and make their own contribution to the debate. The search for international peace habitually attracts close attention both from cynics and from utopians. Cynics say that military confrontation is inevitable and that no generation in history has been totally free from the threat of war. For their part, utopians are so eager for peace that they trust the panaceas of unilateral disarmament and isolationism, ignoring the unfortunate history of such policies. The view of this Government, however, is that to work for real peace is neither to ignore reality nor to neglect security. During the IYP, I have witnessed again and again the yearning for peace among people in Australia, especially our young people. I have heard their conviction that there are better alternatives to the threats under which we live and that there are better uses for human and material resources than the accumulation of weapons. We believe that the IYP has provided a timely opportunity for people throughout the world to find ways of achieving progress towards the peace we all seek. IYP Program The planning of the IYP program fell within the portfolio of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden, and, again, he deserves full credit for his determination that the noble idea behind the IYP was fully and appropriately celebrated in Australia. To assist him in planning and implementing the program the Minister for Foreign Affairs appointed Mrs Stella Cornelius, the prominent community activist, as IYP Director. He also established IYP committees both at the national level and in each of the States and Territories with members drawn from a broad range of community organisations. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to Mrs Cornelius's tireless and dedicated work for the objectives of the IYP and to the members of the various committees who gave so freely of their time and energy to make the program a success. I should also like to acknowledge the generous support given to the IYP by State governments. The Government approved a budget of $3.15m for the International Year of Peace program in Australia. These funds were divided on a roughly equal basis between three main components of the program: Information and advertising; a series of government projects; and, in recognition of the vital role of the community, $1,050,000 to support non-government projects. You, Madam Speaker, and all honourable members, will have heard and seen the International Year of Peace advertisements on radio and television. Those advertisements were designed to relate to peace in all its meanings, and to counter despair and apathy with the message that, while peace is not easy to achieve, it is not impossible and every attempt at progress is a `Step in the Right Direction'. The media campaign was complemented by the production and wide distribution of 20,000 peace kits containing detailed information on Australia's role and achievements in disarmament and arms control and suggestions as to ways in which local communities might participate in the program. In order to encourage better public understanding of the complexities of international arms control, the Government sponsored a number of projects, which included a series of public arms control and disarmament seminars in State capital cities and an international symposium on seismic verification, a vital technical precondition for a possible comprehensive test ban treaty. The Government International Year of Peace program was officially launched by the `Overture of Peace', a concert by over 2,000 New South Wales school students which was televised nationally in February. As an optimistic, joyful celebration of peace, it was a fitting beginning to the year. That event also symbolised the strong connection the Government saw between the International Year of Peace and the immediately preceding International Year of Youth. The enthusiasm and commitment of our young people for the goal of peace obvious at that occasion asserted itself again at His Holiness the Pope's peace rally in Sydney on Tuesday night. Just over a month ago I presented Australian Peace Awards to Australians who had made outstanding contributions to peace in many areas of activity. In establishing these awards during the IYP, the Government sought to give fitting recognition to both the quality and diversity of community achievements in work for a peaceful future. These same elements were also reflected to an overwhelming degree in the non-government IYP projects organised and carried out by individuals and community organisations in every part of the country. Many of these received financial support from the Federal Government. I am also aware of many more community projects which have been mounted quite independently of any government assistance. Non-government projects for the IYP have involved the churches, peace groups, academics, the Aboriginal community, artists, teachers, school students, welfare organisations, ethnic groups, women's organisations, the Returned Services League, service clubs, trade unions and many others. The projects have included conferences and seminars, theatrical performances and concerts, publications, videos, educational and research programs. They have taken place in every part of Australia, from the largest cities to the smallest rural towns. So impressive was this response to the IYP that the UN Secretary-General sent a personal message commending Australian community groups for their enthusiasm and commitment. Three UN secretariat officials who visited Australia to familiarise themselves with our IYP program were particularly impressed with its unique combination of government and non-government activities. It is clear from this great community response that the IYP has been an outstanding success in Australia. Not only have Australians become more aware of why they should care about international events around them but also they have demonstrated their strong concern to leave the world at peace for the benefit of future generations. What has been achieved this year is a firmer basis for continuing work for peace in the future both by the Government and by the Australian community as a whole. The heightened awareness of the issue and sense of responsibility for a world of peace which the IYP has generated will not end on 31 December 1986. I would like to address some concluding words to young Australians who, more than any of us, have made their concerns about peace felt this year and whose responsibility it will be in the future to shoulder the burden of securing peace. I have already mentioned that I spoke earlier this year to an audience at the University of New England in Armidale. Let me conclude now as I concluded then: Do not succumb to the paralysis of despair. It would be a tragedy if our young people, in particular, were to be so weighted down at the remote prospect of nuclear war as not to care adequately about their own self-development or to contribute to our society in a positive and energetic way. Seek to decode the often confusing language of arms control, its acronyms and its technical jargon. Do not allow the so-called experts to monopolise the debate. Inform yourselves fully about the difficult international issues involved. Effective arms control will only come about through incremental, careful and patiently negotiated steps. Do not become overwhelmed by pessimism at the sometimes glacial speed of progress in disarmament negotiations. Above all, do not fail to let the political leadership of this country, and of the international community, know of your desire for tangible progress towards a saner, safer world. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-The Opposition welcomes this statement from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I am also very pleased to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that the goals and objectives set out in the statement are ones with which the Opposition can fully identify. The goal and objective of having bipartisan support in the Australian community for international efforts to secure a lasting peace is something that ought to command the attention and the energy of members on both sides of the House. I join the Prime Minister in addressing a few remarks to the young people in our community and recognise, as he endeavoured to do, the genuine passion, to the point of understandable obsession, on the part of many of our young people to maintain a secure and lasting peace. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia recognise the profound yearning and desire of young Australians for peace. We associate ourselves with it, and we will identify ourselves with bona fide attempts to marshal the concern of young Australians for the cause of peace around the world. In doing that, we identify ourselves with a realistic approach to the cause of peace. We counsel against belief in simplistic slogans. We counsel against the unnecessary use of fear. We counsel against any kind of misplaced faith in the doctrine of unilateral disarmament. We remind the young, as we are all reminded by history, that the path of unilateralism invites only a false peace and a peace ultimately of totalitarianism. The history of the twentieth century is strewn with lessons to those who seek refuge in acts of unilateral disarmament. It is a welcome opportunity for this Parliament to say something about the issue of peace and about the International Year of Peace. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, as to the goals and the objectives of what the Prime Minister said, he can rest assured that there is a bipartisan spirit in this Parliament on the issue of peace. The matters on which my colleagues in the Liberal and National parties and I depart from the Government and from the Prime Minister are not matters that surround our bona fides on the peace issue; they do not in any way diminish our desire to have an effective peace around the world but, rather, they represent a judgment on our part that in some areas the Government has mistakenly identified itself with false paths to peace and has mistakenly seen refuge in arrangements, treaties and objectives that, rather than securing a more peaceful future, may make our future less secure and therefore less peaceful. I deal with three issues in that context. I deal, first of all, with the nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. We do not believe that the treaty giving effect to that is all that it has been painted to be by the Prime Minister. We do not believe that that arrangement has made that part of the world a more peaceful or more secure one. We believe the Government has an overoptimistic view of the benefits of the South Pacific nuclear free zone. We should remind ourselves that nuclear free zones do not protect us from the effects of nuclear war. That zone does not enhance security in that region. The zone does have the capacity to erode the potential and the capacity of the United States of America to match the growing Soviet presence in that part of the world. The treaty does dilute the responsibility on Australia to help maintain in that area an integrated resistance to the expansion of Soviet power. It implicitly denies the likelihood of a deteriorating international and regional environment. Given the circumstances that have unfolded in that region, we regard that as an overly optimistic approach. It restricts our ability to respond to what might be a radically altered strategic environment. We share the Government's continued opposition to the dumping of nuclear waste in the South Pacific and we strongly identify with the Government's opposition to nuclear testing in the region. The House will be aware that that was a policy zealously pursued by the Fraser Government during the seven years it was in office. The next area where we depart from the Government is, of course, on the question of the Reagan Administration's strategic defence initiative. The Prime Minister, during his speech, made an impassioned plea for an alternative to the present balance of terror around the world-a balance of terror which, incidentally, has kept the world from nuclear destruction over the last 40 years but, nonetheless, is the cause of the continued concern and sense of foreboding and insecurity on the part of so many of the young in our community. Honourable members on this side of the House see in the strategic defence initiative a highly moral purpose, as indeed the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who was praised only a few moments ago by the Prime Minister, once saw in it a highly moral purpose. As the Foreign Minister pointed out in 1985, it has the highly moral purpose of holding out the hope of a non-nuclear alternative to the existing balance of terror. I find it passing understanding that a government and a group of people, who I accept are bona fide committed to the cause of peace and genuinely want to find an alternative to the existing balance of terror, could adopt an attitude of opposition to the strategic defence initiative that is more belligerent, more hostile and more uncompromising than that of just about any other Western nation, particularly against the background of the Foreign Minister having once said that the Reagan Administration's proposal had a highly moral purpose. I think it has the highly moral purpose of providing a non-nuclear alternative to the existing balance of terror. Therefore, in this International Year of Peace, in identifying fully, as we do, with the goals that have been outlined by the Prime Minister, I just have to express on behalf of the Opposition our astonishment that the Government should so vigorously dissociate itself from an initiative which offers the only possible hope at present of providing a realistic alternative to the balance of terror. That is a fact. It passes comprehension that the Government should have a different point of view. I say in that context, deliberately and without any equivocation, that in my view, the great thing that emerged from the Reykjavik summit between President Reagan and Secretary-General Gorbachev is to be found in two areas. Firstly, it demonstrated what progress can be made on a basis of trust and good will between two super-powers. Even more importantly, as far as the defence and the security of the Western world are concerned, the utter determination of President Reagan not to bargain and trade away his strategic defence initiative is something that all of us in the West should applaud. He deserves the support and the applause of the Western world for having emerged from that summit with that attitude intact. The third area that I wish to comment on relates to the importance of the contribution we make to the Western alliance. Barring the achievement of an effective, verifiable agreement on nuclear disarmament, which must be the continuing goal of people of good will around the world, we need to maintain an effective Western alliance. Although the Government constantly repeats its commitment to the ANZUS Treaty and although the stance taken by the Government in relation to the New Zealand Government's behaviour concerning the ANZUS Treaty has the broad support of the Opposition, on this occasion it has to be said that the Government is taking an increasingly minimalist approach to our alliance with the United States of America. We have to remind ourselves of what the Government did about the MX missile. We have to remind ourselves of its hostile attitude towards the strategic defence initiative. We have to remind ourselves, as the Prime Minister did in his speech today, that, as far as disarmament is concerned, this Government takes an attitude of moral equivalence towards the United States and the Soviet Union. I want to say on behalf of the Opposition that we do not take an attitude of moral equivalence as far as those two countries are concerned and we will never take an attitude of moral equivalence to the United States and the Soviet Union. Mr Robert Brown —What do you mean by that? Mr HOWARD —I will tell the honourable member what I mean by that. The prime culprit for the level of international tension and aggressive action in the world today is still the Soviet Union. That is what I mean by that statement. How can the Prime Minister of this country wash his hands, Pontius Pilate-like, of any attempt to make a moral judgment about the conduct of the United States and the Soviet Union when four million Afghan refugees are in Pakistan, when hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops are in Afghanistan, and when we know of the aggressive conduct of the Soviet Union in relation to Afghanistan and the Soviet build-up in the South Pacific? How can the Prime Minister come into this House and deliver a serious speech on the cause of peace and pass absolutely no judgment at all on that? How can he behave as though the Australian Labor Party believes that, when it is all boiled down, the United States and the Soviet Union are equally to blame for peace being at threat and equally to blame for the level of international tension? That is an attitude that will never be embraced by the Liberal or National parties and it will never be embraced by the overwhelming majority of the Australian community. Finally, I would like to say something about the domestic activities associated with the International Year of Peace. The Prime Minister waxed very lyrical about all the things the Government has done. The largest expenditure under the International Year of Peace appears to have gone to the Government's favourite advertising agency. Some of these odd-ball grants that have been identified by the Opposition's Waste Watch Committee are prime examples of the view that the International Year of Peace has something to do with what I would call the cue card approach that the Prime Minister is increasingly taking to Australian politics. If he has a problem area one of his minders puts up a cue card which states: `Talk about peace. Talk about the environment. Talk about the young. Talk about families'. And so it goes on. When we go through some of these grants we find, for example, that Senator Vallentine got $1,500 for a conference called `Just Defence', which reviewed Australia's defence needs. Mr Hayden —Do you know that the Liberal Party applied for funding for a conference, too? Mr HOWARD —My colleagues will be saying something about the Liberal Party. The Foreign Minister interjects about the Liberal Party. When the Government had that opening conference, that spectacular gala occasion at the beginning of the year-it involved all the school children; it was meant to strike a bipartisan note; it was advertised and sponsored by the New South Wales Department of Education-why did it not invite representatives of the Opposition along? If the Foreign Minister is going to hold up himself and the Prime Minister as having taken a bipartisan approach to the International Year of Peace, he had better look at the correspondence that was exchanged between himself and me on that issue. That was nothing more than a blatant attempt to use the natural affection of Australians towards schoolchildren to promote the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The International Year of Peace has been littered with grants to all sorts of strange organisations, all of which have a particular view about the peace debate, a view that is not shared by the mainstream of the Australian community; and many of those examples have been demonstrated and brought out by my colleagues on the Waste Watch Committee. I conclude by saying again that there is bipartisan support for the goals and objectives set out in the Prime Minister's speech. We on this side of the House yield to nobody in our concern and our desire to match the aspirations, particularly of the young, for a more peaceful and a more secure world. We recognise the ever-present danger of nuclear war. We recognise, as all honourable members do, the horrendous consequences of that. We therefore share the Government's goals. We disagree with some of the Government's methods. We do not place benign, naive faith in nuclear free zones. We remember the lessons of history about flirting with unilateralism. We do not adopt an attitude of moral equivalence towards the United States and the Soviet Union. We believe that all Australians should remain profoundly in the debt of the United States for the moral and other leadership it has given to the Western world over the last 40 years. We on this side of the House will never be silent in the face of a Prime Minister who can talk for 20 minutes about the cause of peace and offer not one word of criticism of the imperialist expansion and anti-peace conduct of the Soviet Union since the end of the Second World War. It is only through recognising those realities that the true and lasting peace that all of us share as an objective can truly be maintained. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the House as a matter of courtesy that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) will be absent from Question Time today on Government business, and that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) will respond to any questions relating to either of those portfolios. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to his statement of 11 September 1984, in which he said: Among the most common tax offences are failure to furnish information to the Tax Commissioner and failure to file a return. Does the Treasurer's failure to file his 1985 tax return until November 1986 and his failure to lodge a 1986 return so far constitute offences under the tax legislation? Mr KEATING —Ruling No. IT2372 of the Australian Taxation Office says-- Mr Halverson —Have you been doing a bit of homework, Paul? Mr KEATING —No, it is all freely available stuff and I suggest that a lot more of those opposite have a look at it. The ruling states: Additional tax for late lodgment generally is not calculated where the assessment results in a credit or refund, or the taxpayer is non-taxable. Another ruling says: Where despite the issue of a final notice a person has not furnished a return, prosecution is generally the most appropriate means of obtaining lodgment. I received no final notice. Another passage states: It is essential that appropriate priorities be set for the selection . . . where it seems clear that a person has no residual tax liability . . . A further ruling states: Despite the power of the Commissioner to prosecute, without warning for failure to lodge returns, it is the general practice of the Taxation Office to issue a further notice, or final notice, under Section 162, demanding lodgment of a return within a specified time. Prosecution for failing to comply with the terms of Section 161 (by notice in the Commonwealth Gazette) is instituted only in situations where it is considered that immediate action is necessary to avert a threat to the revenue. They are the three rulings, and I have never received a final notice. It is clear that without a final notice, under the operation-- Mr Howard —Does this go to your principal place of residence? Mr KEATING —Does the honourable member want me to answer the question? Mr Howard —You are not giving a very satisfactory one. Mr KEATING —This is the first time I have heard from the Leader of the Opposition in two days. He did not even ask a question yesterday. Not having received a final notice, the likelihood of any penalty or offence is not likely to be broached. Mr FREE —Will the Minister for Defence advise the House of the current status of the proposals to establish an Army manoeuvre training area at Cobar in New South Wales? Mr BEAZLEY —The Chief of the General Staff, General Gration, has recommended that the proposal should not proceed. The Government has decided to accept that recommendation. General Gration's recommendation was based on a review by the Army of its training area requirements. This review has concluded that training priorities have changed since the Cobar proposal was first initiated. A recent review of Australia's defence capabilities by Paul Dibb has resulted in an emphasis on training in northern Australia, particularly on training for low level contingencies. That reduces, therefore, the Army's emphasis on mechanised training particularly at brigade level. Consideration is now being given in the short term to the relocation of the Second Cavalry Regiment from Sydney to northern Australia, in Darwin, and relocating a brigade from Sydney to northern Australia in the medium term. These considerations have obviously reduced the potential training value of the proposed Cobar manoeuvre area, and I have directed Army to examine the requirement for training areas in northern Australia. I have sent notification of this decision to the New South Wales Government, and affected land owners will be informed as soon as possible. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Treasurer: How many discussions personally or by telephone has he had with the Commissioner of Taxation, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation or any other senior officers of the Australian Taxation Office regarding his failure to lodge his 1985 tax return? When did those discussions take place? What was the substance of those discussions? Were those discussions preceded or followed by any personal correspondence between himself and the Taxation Office? Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, this is the first question I have been able to draw out of the Leader of the Opposition in about six sitting weeks. It is interesting to see that we have all these developments in the economy and never a question from him but, as soon as there is a bit of playing the man, up he gets. I have had two conversations; the ones I referred to in my statement last evening-that is, one with the Deputy Commissioner in about July and one with the Commissioner when he rang me only to let me know that inquiries had been made. Mr Howard —And the Deputy Commissioner rang you in July? Mr KEATING —No, I rang the Deputy. I have directed no correspondence towards him. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. In view of the fact that this week coincides with the thirtieth anniversary of the staging of the Olympic Games in Melbourne in 1956, can the Minister advise the House of the achievements of the Australian Institute of Sport during the past year and the likely impact of its programs on Australia's future international performances? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am glad that the honourable member for Perth, who of course is a very distinguished Australian sportsman, has asked this question because, as he says, this week we celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne. I suppose in some way the 1956 Olympic Games were an apotheosis for Australia; they were the first instance of Australia being recognised not just as an international power but as an international power in sport. In some ways the 1956 Games led to the golden era of Australian sport, the 1950s and 1960s, when Australia certainly overwhelmed the world in a whole variety of sports. I suppose it is fair to say that in the intervening period Australia's performance has slipped, not so much because of a lack of talent in Australia but just because of a lack in some ways of government support for the great sporting talent we have always had, in contrast with the enormous support given by other countries to their elite athletes. Fortunately, and to the great credit of a former member from the opposite side who did know something about sport, the Hon. Bob Ellicott-who, by the way, was last night honoured with life membership of the Institute of Sport-the Institute of Sport was formed. I can tell the House that we are now on the verge of another golden era in Australian sport. Let me just refer to performances in the last 12 months. The Australian hockey team, basically composed of scholarship holders at the Institute of Sport and of course including the honourable member for Perth, has won the world championship. The honourable member for Perth, the veteran of the team, was named the man of the series and obviously is the most distinguished hockey player in the world. It is significant that the AIS junior boys under-16 tennis team won the world championship in the last fortnight. So, Australia is well on the way back in tennis. Our women's water polo team in the last 12 months has won the world championship. The men's junior squash team from the Australian Institute of Sport has won the junior world championship. One of our female athletes in the squash unit has won the world individual women's championship. Our netball team from the Institute of Sport is the world champion team. In a whole variety of sports, we are once again exhibiting superiority on every international scene. To sum up, I guess it is fair to say that this Government, with its continued interest in sport, has managed to raise our international status and standing in sport to the extent that now Australians, emulating the performances of their elites, are now participating in sport in great numbers, which is the sort of thing that this Government has set out to do. On top of that, I think it should be noted that the Institute of Sport has a sports medicine and science group, the Sports Science and Medicine Centre, which is recognised as the best in the world. So, in answer to this question, Australia is once again on the threshold of greatness in world sport, simply because this Government, following the very tentative lead of one member of the previous Government, Mr Ellicott, has built the Institute of Sport into the best such institute in the world. I think this demonstrates very markedly how silly the Leader of the Opposition is if he continues with the line of the New Right that sport is something in which governments should not be involved. There is no support for him in the sporting organisations around Australia. In fact, he is a laughing stock. Mr SPENDER —I refer the Treasurer to the answer he gave to the question addressed to him by the honourable member for Mackellar. In view of the fact that the Treasurer has apparently received no final notice for his 1985 return, despite the fact that it was 15 months late; that he received no summons for that return; that he has apparently received no final notice for his 1986 return, even though he does not have it in yet; that he has received no summons for that return either; and that the total contact that he had with the Australian Taxation Office on these matters has been limited to two cosy chats, one with a Deputy Commissioner and one with the Commissioner of Taxation; I ask how he can say, as he said last night to the House: `I might add that in this matter I have been treated no differently from any other taxpayer'. Mr KEATING —No wonder the honourable member gave up the Bar and came to Parliament. If that is the best my friend can do by way of cross-examination he had best stay here; at least he will get his 42 grand a year, if nothing else. Mr Spender —Let us see whether you can answer the question. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member would keep quiet, he will. The honourable member for North Sydney will keep quiet. Mr KEATING —Obviously, in respect of 1986, no final notice would have been issued this close to the due date-- Mr Spender —The due date is 31 August. Mr KEATING —Right, that should be clear even to the honourable member. In respect of 1985, it is a matter for the Taxation Office. Mr Spender interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the Treasurer just wait a moment? I recognise that this is the last day of session and I realise that we have an issue before the House, but the honourable member for North Sydney will heed the Chair. The Standing Orders do not go out the window simply because we are breaking up today. The Chair has twice asked him to cease interjecting. I ask him now to heed the authority of the Chair. Mr KEATING —Madam Speaker, it is just that the Opposition thinks that on the last day of wonder this year it has discovered an issue; it has been unable to find one all the rest of the year. Let me just make this clear: It is up to the administration of the Taxation Office to determine when it issues a final notice, and it does so after reasonable reminders produce no return. The fact of the matter is that I have produced a return, which has since been filed. Mr GEAR —Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to recent public comments on the newly established Caucus Prices Task Force? Do these comments vindicate the Government's decision to establish the Prices Task Force? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. As Chairman of the Prices Task Force, he is now in the process of extending what has been a remarkably successful concept in his own electorate to dozens of localities all over Australia. By identifying the dearest and the cheapest supermarkets, these local price watch committees will be able to help the shoppers' dollar go further. There is no doubt, from the experience already obtained in the honourable member's own electorate, that this process will also promote greater competition amongst retailers. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations welcomed the Task Force in its October edition of the magazine Consumer Views, and we are very pleased to see that. Very significantly, against the scepticism and empty guffaws from honourable members opposite, I suggest that it is a matter of interest that the Australian Pensioners Association yesterday congratulated the Government for setting up the Prices Task Force. The Australian Pensioners Association will recommend to all its affiliated organisations throughout Australia that they give members of the Task Force full co-operation and involve themselves in its work. In other words, the only criticism which seems to have come from any part of this country against the imaginative concept and initiative of the honourable member who has asked this question is, of course, from the one predictable quarter; and that is from the Leader of the Opposition, who described the price watch committees as `window dressing' that `will achieve zilch'. Once again the Leader of the Opposition has exhibited his cynicism and his lack of commitment to keeping prices down. He supports a total wages freeze for about 18 months on the one hand, and then says to the people of Australia, with whom he is supposed to be concerned: `while I hold your wages down absolutely for 18 months, I will abandon the Prices Surveillance Authority and I will pour scorn and contempt on any attempt by the Government to involve the community in helping to keep prices down'. This is the man who is supposed to have some concern for the families of this country. I say publicly on behalf of the Government and, I believe, the people of this country that we thank the consumer organisations and the pensioner organisations for their sense of realism, their sense of commitment and their preparedness to be involved with this Government in doing what we can to ensure that price rises in this country are kept to an absolute minimum. Dr WATSON —I refer the Treasurer to the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation for 1985-86, in which the Commissioner notes that the number of detected taxpayers who had not lodged returns had fallen from 7,667 in 1984-85 to 3,908 in 1985-86. Is the Treasurer one of those 3,908 taxpayers? How many of these 3,908 taxpayers have been prosecuted? Mr Tim Fischer —Cheating Keating. Mr KEATING —I could not answer the question, because I do not know, but-- Mr Hawke —Madam Speaker, I ask that the honourable member withdraw that remark. Mr Tuckey —What, `cheating Keating'? Madam SPEAKER —I am sorry; I did not hear the remark. Mr Hawke —Well, it has just been repeated. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable gentlemen who made the remark will withdraw it. If the remark was offensive, I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr Tim Fischer —I made the remark: `Cheating Keating'; I withdraw. Mr KEATING —There are about 900,000 returns-- Mr Tuckey —How do you stand-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will heed the remarks I directed to the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr KEATING —There are about 900,000 non-agent returns lodged after the due date each year and the number of agent returns is probably of the same order, which would bring the number of returns lodged after the due date to probably about two million, or thereabouts. Obviously the Taxation Office has a procedure involving reminders and final notices. Of course, when a final notice arrives and is not responded to, a prosecution or some other summons ensues. Mr BILNEY —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to Press reports in this morning's media that the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs takes the view that the Australian diplomatic service is in need of a shake-up and does not do enough to `sell Australia'? Is this a fair comment on the Department of Foreign Affairs? Mr HAYDEN —The comment is totally unjustified, and the short answer is no. However, I think overall the comments-- Mr Everingham —You have lost your place. Mr HAYDEN —No; I trust that there is better to come. As I read the comments, I noticed a notable flair in the rhetorical style of the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. He referred to diplomats spending too much time eating cucumber sandwiches. All I can say is that if diplomats were eating cucumber sandwiches in his presence when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, he certainly would not have shouted. They tell me that in New York when he turned up for the General Assembly, usually for a month's stint, he would arrive with a $50 note and a pair of socks, and change neither. I understand that he was displaying a literary flair when he referred to the cucumber sandwiches. He is no doubt an aficionado of Oscar Wilde and The Importance of Being Earnest, and no one is less earnest in this House than he is in his capacity as shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. I might entertain members by recalling some of the script from The Importance of Being Earnest. Algernon was the person who discovered cucumber sandwiches: Good heavens, Lane, why are there no cucumber sandwiches? I ordered them specially. And Algernon, after being told that there were no cucumbers in the market, said: I am greatly distressed, Aunt Augusta, about there being no cucumbers, not even for ready money. He then went on to say-- Mr Porter —I would give up on the rest, if I were you! Madam SPEAKER —Order! Both sides of the House will come to order. Mr HAYDEN —I am something of a pro and I know when I am losing my audience! I was going on to talk about Algernon talking about people losing the colour of their hair suddenly, but instead I will go on quickly to observe something else. This has been an exhausting session for the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. He looks physically drained after a very hard year. Some 803 questions have been asked in this House, and he has forcefully riveted home to my responsibility to the House, and the necessity for accountability, by asking me three of those 803 questions in a whole year. The member for Kooyong, who is preparing to take over from the Leader of the Opposition, takes very seriously his role as shadow Minister. He remains well into the shadows. If I were the Leader of the Opposition I would watch someone who preserves his energy as conscientiously as does the member for Kooyong. I repeat that there is no justification for comment made by him. Mr Peacock —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr HAYDEN —It looks like I have an audience of one. Mr Peacock —Quite apart from the 500-odd questions on notice to the Minister, with which he struggled, perhaps I could help him on this matter in relation to-- Mr Gayler —What is the point of order? Mr Peacock —The point of order relates to the question that referred to the shake-up in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I might advise the Minister that I have received just today-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Peacock —Madam Speaker, you ought to hear me on this matter. Madam SPEAKER —I should not. You do not have a point of order. I advise the honourable member to resume his seat. If he wishes the call for a question, he will get it. Mr Peacock —I take a further point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Hawke —Andrew, where is the first one? Mr Peacock —The first one was ruled out. They are now mutually exclusive, as you two are. The further point of order relates to the fact that the Minister is referring to the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I have just received 11 highly classified-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member, with his experience, well knows that he does not have a point of order. I require him to resume his seat. Mr Peacock —This relates directly to the matters I raised with him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has been in this House too long to behave in that manner. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in conclusion. Mr HAYDEN —Yes, indeed. Might I say how extremely grateful I am to the member for Kooyong for having at least retrieved an audience of one for me. I was not speaking about questions on notice. I was speaking about his own work as distinct from questions on notice. Three questions without notice in the course of a full year: No wonder John Howard is enjoying this. Mr REITH —Did the Treasurer earn a profit of approximately $60,000 from the sale to a Mr Paul Kenny of his interest in a Paddington shop which had been purchased jointly with Kenny in 1981 for $231,000? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must ask questions of the Treasurer on those matters which are within the responsibility of his portfolio. Mr REITH —I certainly will, Madam Speaker. Mr Howard —Well, let him finish it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is not directing the House. It is for me to direct the honourable member. I do not need help. Mr REITH —Did this sale occur in the first six months of 1984? Was this transaction declared as a sale of property in the Treasurer's 1984 taxation return and the profit included as taxable income in the 1984 financial year? If not, why not? If the profit was included as income, how can the Treasurer claim he is a PAYE taxpayer and would expect a refund? If the profit had been declared, would not this have placed him in a high priority category for the issue of a demand and summons for the lodgment of his 1985 taxation return? Can the Treasurer explain why no demand and summons was issued for his 1985 return from the Taxation Office? Mr KEATING —This has nothing whatever to do with my ministerial portfolio responsibilities. Mr Tuckey —Of course it has. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will keep quiet. Mr KEATING —Whatever appropriate inclusions will go in my tax return of course would have been there, as appropriately they should. But this is John Howard's new Liberal Party, the return from the gutter. Having come through one year of economic turmoil and not having been able to lay a glove on the Government, all we have heard from you is breach of promises, civil aircraft, RAAF flights, travelling allowance and that sort of absurd question. Mr Tuckey —You and your breach of promise. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr KEATING —This is the sort of absurd question that has been approved by the Leader of the Opposition, Honest John, from his colleague up the back. Ms McHUGH —Will the Minister for Science explain to the House the international significance of artificial intelligence? What are the economic, social and employment implications of AI? Is Australia's participation in this area a case of too little, too late? Mr BARRY JONES —Artificial intelligence is the name applied to the development of expert systems in computing, which parallel in some limited respect the way the human brain works. It is known by the initials AI, although that has a different significance for members of the National Party. Computers right up to the powerful fourth generation computers rely essentially on linear processing-that is, in the same way that pocket calculators work. Essentially they are very fast number crunchers and data sorters, but essentially dumb machines which lack the capacity to do the things that are very easy for us, like handling natural language, recognising patterns, or identifying faces on a photograph or reading maps. The fifth generation computing involves the concept of parallel processing, as in the human brain, where diversities of bits of data are pro- cessed simultaneously, adding to knowledge and providing capacity to make judgments. More than half our mental capacity is taken up in sorting out sensory data and in servicing our language capacity. All those things in parallel processing are second nature to us in driving, shopping or carrying out our ordinary activities. Mr Hawke —More for some than for others. Mr BARRY JONES —As the Prime Minister points out, more for some than for others. We can distinguish, almost without thinking, between large objects which appear small because of distance and small objects which appear large because of proximity. To give two obvious examples: It would be of tremendous benefit to users if computers could respond to instructions in plain language, either written or spoken, or if we had pocket machines which could provide simultaneous translation in foreign languages. The nations which develop these machines first will have access to an enormous-almost an incalculable-market. We are already using AI in Australia in medical diagnostics. The Garvan Institute of Medical Research at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney has devised one of only four medical expert systems in regular use world wide. This expert system gathers the pathology results of endocrinology tests and makes a diagnosis on the basis of programmed knowledge of thyroid problems. After two years in use the system is claimed to be 99.8 per cent accurate in its conclusions. In Melbourne last week the first Australian AI conference was held and was regarded as a great success. This is very important because for the first time we are starting to get political and public recognition of just how big AI could be. A number of our universities, technical institutions, the CSIRO and various departments, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Bureau of Meteorology, are now deeply involved in artificial intelligence. My Department has just published a handbook of research and researchers in artificial intelligence in Australia which I commend to honourable members. Unless we give a high priority to this vital area-I do not just mean government but the private sector as well-we will miss out very seriously. Mr SINCLAIR —The Treasurer will be aware that today is 28 November, the last scheduled day when the first returns under the fringe benefits tax are due to be lodged with the Commissioner of Taxation. Would the Treasurer advise the House what extension of time will be available to small business people and others who, through oversight, fail to lodge their returns on time? Mr KEATING —That question should properly be addressed to the Commissioner of Taxation. I remind the House that the Commissioner has, on a couple of occasions, extended the time for the convenience of taxpayers, particularly for taxpayers who he believes may have difficulty in ascertaining what their returns should be. The clear point is that taxpayers are aware that their returns must be filed by 28 November and I am sure that most will do so. To the extent that that is not done because this is a new tax, I certainly believe that there will be some leniency on the part of the Commissioner in the way in which the new tax is administered. The Australian Taxation Office, in the administration of what is a very large area affecting more than six million people, quite sensibly operates with a certain amount of sense and aplomb. I have no doubt that this will be the case particularly for the fringe benefits tax, as it was with the withholding tax a couple of years earlier. Mr GRIFFITHS —I refer the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services to representations I have made about the Williamstown Rifle Range in Victoria. Will the Minister advise the House of the Government's intentions in relation to that range? Mr UREN —I recognise the work the honourable member has done and the representations he has made in regard to the Williamstown Rifle Range. I also acknowledge his work on the Maribyrnong River. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that this week I have signed papers for the sale of the Williamstown Rifle Range site. I stress that this task first began when I was Minister 14 years ago. The then young honourable member for Gellibrand, now the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and I tried to get the Williamstown Rifle Range land from the Department of Defence. After extensive studies of the environmental and social implications of development of the site and consultations with both the State and local government, and with the co-operation of the Minister for Defence, I am pleased to say that this week we have been able to authorise the sale of the site on the open market, subject to a number of conditions. These conditions are: First, that the purchaser undertake the sale of 10 per cent of the residential lots to the Victorian Ministry of Housing at cost price; secondly, that the purchaser undertake to preserve, for open space and for recreation and conservation purposes, those areas recommended by the October 1986 report of the Williamstown Rifle Range Working Group; and thirdly, that the purchaser maintain the existing small tenancies held by fishing clubs on the coastal section of the property. The decision to place this land on the open market will open up beaches on the western side of Melbourne for the first time. By opening up this area not only is this Government making sure that the western part of Melbourne becomes a gentler place for people to live but also, through the work done by the honourable member for Maribyrnong to encourage beautifying the Maribyrnong River and Kororoit Creek, it is ensuring that the whole area will be greatly enhanced. I also add a comment about the Anzac Rifle Range at Long Bay, Sydney. This morning the Government decided to allow the Bicentenary Rifle Shoot to proceed at the Anzac Rifle Range in Sydney. I will make a more detailed statement on the sale of that site at a later time. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and I preface it by reminding him of the statement made by the Special Minister of State, who said: Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia. Is the Prime Minister asking the Parliament and the Australian people to accept that the Treasurer has set an example to the Australian people in relation to his responsibilities under the laws that he is sworn to administer? Mr HAWKE —Let us get this question in proper perspective. Failure by an ordinary PAYE taxpayer to lodge an income tax return is a fault, but it is not one of immense consequence. It is a fault exhibited by a large number of Australians every year. Although it cannot be commended or condoned, it is not a question on which any one of us would bring into question the honesty, integrity or bona fides of any of our fellow Australians. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —Now we press the hollow laughter button. In other words, the hollow laughter means that the Opposition accepts the contrary. They believe that the non-lodgment of a form on time would call into question the honesty, integrity and bona fides of any Australian who did this. Those opposite know that that is an absurdity. They do not believe it. I make the point that this Government has set the highest standards for its Ministers in both their ministerial and personal behaviour. In that regard it stands in stark contrast to the scandal ridden nature of the Government which preceded us and which slid out of office in March 1983 in its scandal ridden state. It is a measure of the personal quality of the Treasurer that he admitted this in the House last night and expressed regret at the oversight in his personal affairs. He has done that. When he raised this matter with me on Tuesday of this week he again expressed that regret and indicated that he would rectify the situation immediately. At no point has the Treasurer indicated other than that this was a mistake and one which he regrets. There is all the difference in the world between a Minister, in this case the Treasurer, making a mistake of this kind, readily admitting it and immediately rectifying it and some suggestion that a question of propriety is involved. By any standard or criterion one would wish to apply to this matter there is no question of ministerial propriety involved. There is no question of a pecuniary or any other gain involved. The Treasurer will be subject to the same penalties for this oversight as is any other taxpayer. It is in the hands of the Commissioner of Taxation as to what is done. The Treasurer will not be treated by the Australian Taxation Office any differently should there be a decision that a penalty should be applied. There has been no attempt to withhold information or to dodge the matter. There is no standard upon which a question can be raised of propriety or misbehaviour by the Treasurer. On those standards he has my full confidence. Mr HOLLIS —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the African National Congress was formed only 11 years after the Federation of Australia, 8 January 1987 being the seventy-fifth anniversary of the formation of the ANC? Is the Minister also aware that the ANC still seeks a peaceful solution to the struggle to end apartheid and that for 50 years the ANC campaigned non-violently for that in the face of continuing overwhelming violence by the South African regime? Finally, will the Government allow visits to Australia in 1987 by ANC representatives so that they can put their case to the people of Australia, especially to the National Party? Mr HAYDEN —The Government has a concern over developments in South Africa which reflects our abhorrence of apartheid. That concern is widely shared by the Australian community, including the former Prime Minister of the Liberal-Country Party Government before this Government came to office. He at least had some moral conviction and moral commitment to fellow people. Since 1983 a program has been in place whereby prominent opponents of apartheid have visited Australia. The Reverend Allan Boesak and Bishop Desmond Tutu have been two such visitors. I understand that by private arrangement Bishop Tutu will come to Australia to the electorate of the honourable member for Ballarat in the early new year. I wish to record that I am pleased to announce that an invitation has been extended to the President of the ANC to visit Australia in the first half of 1987. Mr Oliver Tambo has accepted. Arrangements are in hand to finalise the timing and program of the visit. I sincerely trust that honourable members from both sides of the House will take the opportunity of meeting and talking with Mr Oliver Tambo to get a more balanced appreciation of the absolute wickedness of apartheid. In particular, I recommend this exposure to members of the Opposition. The Clerk-I have received the following notice from the Leader of the Opposition for the next sitting: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to maintain proper standards of conduct and responsibility within his Government and calls on the Prime Minister to apply the same standards of tax compliance against his Treasurer as he expects of all other taxpayers. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition painfully moving his motion forthwith. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.46) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to maintain proper standards of conduct and responsibility within his Government and calls on the Prime Minister to apply the same standards of tax compliance against his Treasurer as he expects of all other taxpayers. In moving this motion of censure, which is the most serious form of parliamentary attack that can be made on a government, I commence my remarks to the House by saying that if there were any doubt in anybody's mind that this motion of censure was necessary it was totally removed when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in that extraordinary answer that he gave a few moments ago said that a failure to lodge an income tax return was of no particular consequence and it was not a matter of serious significance. If ever there was an invitation from the highest political authority in this country to think that disrespect and contempt for the Australian taxation system is now the order of the day under the Hawke Government it came out of the mouth of the Prime Minister. It came out of the mouth of a man who, in company with his Treasurer (Mr Keating), has strutted this country. He has heaped abuse on any man or woman who has dared to criticise his so-called taxation reforms. He and the Treasurer have elevated to a veritable art form the art of smearing, slandering and traducing the reputation, normally under parliamentary privilege, of any citizen who presumes to disagree with them on tax or any other issue. This motion above everything else is about the standards of the Government. This motion is about the ministerial standards required by the Prime Minister of the Ministers in his Government. This motion is also about the deplorable and reprehensible double standards of the Treasurer, because if ever a man in public office has earned himself the reputation of having double standards it is the Treasurer. He thinks that he can run the Australian Taxation Office the way he runs the right wing of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party-anything goes as long as you have the numbers. A lot of people in this country and in electorates represented by the Labor Party are fast running out of tolerance with the man who has earned himself the title of the most arrogant Treasurer, the most arrogant Minister, that this country has ever seen. Ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental failure-- Mr Hawke —What is this `ladies and gentlemen'? Mr HOWARD —There are ladies and gentlemen in this House but the Prime Minister is not one of them. The fundamental fact about this whole issue is the supreme arrogance of a man who has sworn to administer the taxation laws of this country but who regards it as so unimportant to comply with those very laws that for 15 long months he failed to lodge a taxation return. Then he had the unbelievable gall to come into this Parliament, as he did last night-and the Prime Minister has the unbelievable gall to support him-and say: `Oh, I am very sorry, it was an oversight'. He is asking the Australian public to accept that he had an oversight that lasted for 15 months. For 15 months he kept having an oversight about the failure to lodge his return. The reality is that the present Treasurer of this country believes that he is above the ordinary laws of this country. That is why we say he ought to be sacked. The Prime Minister ought to dismiss him because he regards himself as being above the ordinary laws of this country. I can say to him, and I can say it on behalf of people all around the country, whether they vote Labor or Liberal-honourable members should have heard the talk-back radio programs of Sydney, Melbourne and all around the country this morning-that there is absolute fury that the highest taxing, most abusive, most arrogant, most self-righteous Treasurer that this country has ever seen should have the unbelievable contempt for the people who elected him to imagine that he could thumb his nose at the very standards he has rammed down the throats of the Australian community. That is the crime in political terms of this man, this man who has moralised and sermonised and hectored his way around the Australian community over the last 3 1/2 years, the man who has never shrunk from using parliamentary privilege to destroy the reputations of Australian citizens, the man who has elevated abuse, in slandering, to an art form. That is the political crime of the Treasurer. The political crime of the Prime Minister-he is the man who is ultimately accountable for the actions of his Government, the man who sets the standards, or fails to set the standards, for his Government-is that he has observed the worst standards of ministerial propriety of any Prime Minister this country has seen. It can be said that if what has happened to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young)-- Mr Young —A very good Minister. Mr HOWARD —and the Treasurer had happened under Menzies or Fraser they would have all been sacked. In respect of Labor Prime Ministers, if it had happened under Chifley or Whitlam they also would have been sacked. Apparently under this Prime Minister it is the old adage: `Anything goes as long as you think you have the hide to bluff your way through it'. I have news for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: The Australian community will not tolerate double standards. There is one great strand that runs through the Australian character, and that is a sense of equality and of egalitarianism. We have been preached and moralised to by the Prime Minister about fairness in the taxation system. We have all been lectured and we have all been exhorted to make the Australian taxation system fairer. I ask you, Madam Speaker: What is fair about a taxation system that requires of ordinary people that they lodge their taxation returns by 31 August 1985 but allows the Treasurer to go 10 months without getting a final notice and without getting a summons? All he gets after 10 months is a cosy call from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, and after 15 months he gets a cosy call from the Commissioner of Taxation. Why did he get it from the Commissioner of Taxation? He got it because the dogs were barking around this building that it was all about to come out. Are we invited to believe that quite coincidentally at the beginning of this week the Commissioner of Taxation rang up and said: `Paul, it is Trevor here. You had better get that return in. It really has been overdue a bit too long and you can't really ask us to cop that any longer. You know you are occasionally like everybody else'. What is the Treasurer's miserable defence? He said: `I was too busy to put it in'. I say to the Treasurer that there are thousands of small businessmen around Australia at present who are too busy to fill in the Treasurer's lousy fringe benefits tax forms. If over the next few months there is massive non-compliance-and it is not something I encourage-the person who will be blamed for it will not be Bob Ansett but Paul Keating. If ever a person has failed that fundamental test that was put by the Special Minister of State, who said `Nothing is more important than the way in which these people who are called Ministers behave themselves and set an example to other people in Australia', it is this man. What has this man-a man who has sworn to administer the taxation laws of Australia and to administer fairness and justice in those laws, who has ranted and raved at all of us about fairness and justice-done to the spirit of voluntary compliance with the taxation laws of this country? We all know that a tax system cannot be run with any hope of achieving integrity unless there is a spirit of voluntary compliance. All tax administrators know that if we rely totally and exclusively on intimidation and penalties we can never have enough bureaucrats to make that work. We need respect, and we need voluntary compliance. Today, in this Parliament, that respect and that voluntary compliance have been dealt a body blow by the Prime Minister because he got up at Question Time and gave a pathetic excuse, an excuse that will be thrown back at him every day on the campaign trail between now and the next election when he raises the issue of tax avoidance. I am more than ever delighted that the Prime Minister wants to campaign for the next election on the issue of taxation. I could not be more delighted because I will remind him on every day of that campaign trail that on 28 November he announced to the Australian people that it was no longer a matter of great significance if people failed to lodge their taxation returns. So pathetic, so bumbling was his defence of the Treasurer that he made that quite extraordinary statement. By that statement he has demonstrated a contempt for the observance of the laws of this country that he, above everybody else, is sworn to uphold. That is why I say to the House that the standards of ministerial propriety under this Government are deplorable and pathetically low. I heard as I talked earlier an interjection from the Special Minister of State. We all know where he stands on questions of ministerial propriety. We are very high minded when in opposition but when we get into government we can not only mess up Customs declarations but also run off at the mouth and endanger national security in a car park after we have had a long lunch. So the Special Minister of State is no authority on ministerial behaviour. Despite the finding of a royal commission, despite the clearest possible finding of Mr Justice Hope that the Special Minister of State behaved in a way that endangered national security, the Prime Minister turned his back on his responsibilities and said to the rest of Australia: `I don't care what my Ministers do. I'm not going to impose any kind of discipline'. All I can say is that previous Labor Prime Ministers from Curtin to Whitlam would have been absolutely ashamed of his failure to impose decent standards. The last 24 hours have been quite extraordinary. We are invited by the Prime Minister to believe that we know all about this because of this spontaneous honesty of the Treasurer. The Prime Minister said that the Treasurer said to him in a quite straightforward manner: `Look, I haven't filed my return, but I'm going to put it in tomorrow'. The Prime Minister said: `Good'. Is it good that he is finally going to file it, or is it good that he had not filed it over the last 15 months? I ask the Prime Minister and the House, as the Australian people will ask the Prime Minister and the Treasurer: If the Treasurer was so spontaneously honest, so straightforward, so frank and so candid, why did he not tell the Prime Minister a month ago that he had not filed his tax return? Why did he not tell him two months ago? Why did he not tell him six months ago? Why did he not tell him 12 months ago? The reality is that, if the dogs had not started to bark around this building, that 1985 tax return would still be outstanding in 12 months. For the Treasurer or the Prime Minister to try to pretend to anybody that this is an act of spontaneous confession, being good for the soul, on the part of the Treasurer is to insult the intelligence and the common sense of the Australian public. This failure by the Treasurer, this offence under the Income Tax Assessment Act, this contempt for the administration of the laws that he is sworn to administer, this monumental double standard, this thumbing of the nose at the high standards that a Minister in his position ought to establish is not, of course, the first disgrace of the Treasurer. It is not the first time he has exhibited monumental double standards. Remember the infamous travel allowance? One of the explanations why the Treasurer did not get the final notice may be that it was posted to his principal place of residence in Sydney. Maybe that is why he did not get the final notice. Well, Paul, why don't you go up there and clear the letter-box? You might find the final notice, and you might find a bluey from the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation there as well. As my colleague the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) reminded the House, 3,800 people failed to lodge their tax returns for 1985-86. I can assure the Treasurer and the Parliament that any of those 3,800 people who got a final notice or a summons or have been harassed or enjoined by the Australian Taxation Office to file their returns will be hammering on his door and the doors of his colleagues demanding to know why he has had special treatment. They will be knocking loudest on the doors of all his mates who are sitting in those marginal seats. His mate Punch in Barton will have quite a number banging on his door in Hurstville. He will want to know why the darling of the New South Wales Right, the man who is supposed to be the great saviour of the right wing of the Labor Party in New South Wales, has not only exhibited such monumental political double standards but also displayed such monumental arrogance. I thought the Labor Party was born and dedicated to serve the aspirations of average Australians. I thought it was interested in fairness. I thought it had contempt for people who abused the privilege of office. I cannot think of something which is more characteristic of somebody who is abusing the privilege of office than somebody who thinks that he can get away with not filing a tax return for 15 months. I go back to that, Madam Speaker. It was not just a momentary oversight. If he had been a couple of days late in 1985, he could explain that as an oversight. For 15 months he was in such a state of arrogance and indifference to the idea that the ordinary laws of this country could apply to him that he really did not think it was important enough for him to file his return. What that arrogance has done to his capacity to administer his job and what that arrogance has done to his credibility in the eyes of the Australian community is absolutely monumental. He has no hope ever again of persuading the ordinary taxpayer of this country that he is running a fair system. Every time he gets up in this Parliament and every time he stands on a platform around Australia and says that he has brought decency back into the taxation system, people will remember this. Every time he talks about a rort and every time he talks about the ramping of the system, they will remember the great Keating double standard. They will remember `one law for the rest of you mugs out there and another law for me'. That is the measure. In good old New South Wales right wing Labor tradition he will say: `We have the numbers. We have the white cars', complete with New South Wales number plates and tinted glass in his case. I reckon he ought to get a double thickness of that tinted glass after this because he will be so much more unpopular as a consequence of this. The real tragedy is the damage that has been done to the respect that ordinary Australians have for the taxation laws of this country. That damage has been done by the Treasurer's arrogance, double standard and insensitive capacity to smear and hurl innuendo at the reputations of decent, honest Australians. Above everything else, the man who today has even king hit the Treasurer in arrogance and double standards is the Prime Minister because out of his arrogant mouth came those words that will haunt him from now until the election-the greatest invitation to a burgeoning of the cash economy that has ever been uttered in Australia-that failure to file an income tax return is not an act of great significance. That is what he said. That is what the Prime Minister said. On behalf of the outraged taxpayers of Australia, we say that the Treasurer ought to go and that the Prime Minister ought to have the guts to sack him and to impose some decent standards on the Australian Ministry. Madam SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Carlton —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak, Madam Speaker. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before the Prime Minister speaks, I remind honourable members that the Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence, so I expect the same right to be extended to the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.07) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has just made a speech, the quality of which may be tested by the fact that he began with and ended with a blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. In regard to the action of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), I said it was a fault; I said it was not one of immense consequence. Those were my words. Because the Leader of the Opposition knows that that was a correct statement, he could not found his motion of censure on the words which I used. At the outset, the quality and the sincerity of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition are to be judged by the fact that he deliberately chose not to base his motion on the words that I used because he knows that if he had attempted to do so on those words he would have been laughed out of court. He will be, at any rate, but he will be judged by the fact that he sought to censure the Prime Minister of this country and deliberately based his motion on words other than the words that I used. He is out of court from the beginning. He is out of court, secondly, on the fact that his motion is scarred and characterised by the most blatant hypocrisy because, in the course of his pathetic speech, he referred to the fact that he would compare the standards of propriety of this Government with those of its predecessors. In the course of doing that, he had the temerity to refer to the findings of a royal commission during the office of this Government. All right, Madam Speaker, if he is to introduce the question of comparative standards of propriety, let us remind ourselves at the outset of what happened under the Fraser Government. The language of the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry in relation to the standards of behaviour of a Minister of that Government was such that it was commonly acknowledged around this country that any Prime Minister in those circumstances would have had no alternative, if he were to follow the standards of normal propriety of behaviour, but to dismiss that Minister immediately. Such was the strength of the language of the royal commissioner appointed by the Fraser Government into the behaviour of the Minister concerned. But no, those opposite ignored, repudiated, the language, the findings, the decisions, the observations, of the royal commissioner. Worse than that, not only were they content with ignoring that language but they attempted virtually to bring into question the integrity of the royal commissioner himself. This Leader of the Opposition brings his baseless motion, his dishonest motion. It is dishonest in the sense, let me say, that he based it on language that I did not use. If one is going to attempt to censure the Prime Minister one should at least have the honesty to use the language that the Prime Minister used. The weakness of the case of the Leader of the Opposition is that he recognised that he could not base it on the language I used and so quite deliberately put other words into my mouth. We do not need any other basis on which to test the integrity, character and quality of the attack launched by the Leader of the Opposition. If he ever reaches a point where he can honestly state what is said and what is done, there is just the beginning of a chance that those in this place and outside this place might begin to listen to what he has to say. It should come as no surprise, as indeed it does not, that he has no capacity to put the case based on an honest premise. This so-called man of principle, having been drubbed by the Australian electorate for the abandonment of any pretence of principle and having now been politically paralysed for months by his lack of leadership over any serious issue facing this country, has learned nothing from that process. He stood on his so-called principles and he lost. He played politics and he lost. Now he seeks to play the man, and he will lose again. This is simply a motion born of fear. It has no other string, no other source. It is a motion born of fear. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he simply cannot match the Treasurer in this place. He has not got the guts, the courage, the wit or the wisdom to attempt to match the Treasurer on a matter of substance. As I say that of the Leader of the Opposition, what about the person who sits in the chair opposite now and who is going to second the motion? Have we ever seen such a pathetic performer, one so incapable of beginning to match the Treasurer in debate on matters of substance? They cannot do it, so in this position of abject incompetence and total fear they attempt to play the man. They will lose again. As I said, both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer simply are afraid to take on this outstanding Treasurer on matters properly within his portfolio; they never take him on. What is a characteristic of this place as far as the Treasurer is concerned? It is the consistent and continual lack of courage on the part of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer ever to begin to take him on because they know that, in terms of command of his portfolio and in terms of his competence, they get smashed into oblivion on the occasions when they have remotely begun to try to take him on. We have reached the stage in fact where, because of their fear of the man, they have lost the stomach for the fight on matters of policy and substance. They not only lack that courage, but also hide their policies. They will not bring them out; they are afraid to bring them into the sun. It is on that basis, a basis which is a factual exposition of what has been happening in this place, that they now seek to attack the man. It is a measure of their desperation and it is a measure of the personal quality of the Leader of the Opposition. It is the final straw that these men of straw seek to clutch at. Let us examine the straw. The Treasurer has failed to lodge his tax return by the due date. That is a fact. As I have said, and I repeat, I will use the language again that I used in answer to a question, not the language that the Leader of the Opposition quite improperly and deliberately attributed to me. What I said was a factual statement of the position, that is, that for an ordinary pay as you earn taxpayer this would not be a matter of immense consequence. I will repeat that statement not only in this place but also outside. If the Leader of the Opposition says that he will use this on the campaign trail, there are two things wrong with that: Firstly, he will not be the Leader of the Opposition on the campaign trail so he will not have the opportunity of using it. I say that simply because I believe that that is what the Opposition will do, but as I believe it I will each day and night pray that I am wrong because I hope that he is still there leading those opposite. It happens to be the case that the people of Australia on whose behalf he purports to come into this place and speak have expressed their judgment about him and are continuing to show, like at least half the people behind him, that they do not trust him, that they reckon he is a sham and that they reckon he is a fraud. Look at the polls. He is assuming proportions such as those of the previous member for Bruce. He is a joke out in the electorate and because he is a joke he comes in here trying to play the man. I repeat what I said before: The fact is that the Treasurer failed to lodge his return. That is a fault which he has honestly, openly and without qualification conceded. That is beyond dispute. I repeat: The fact that he failed to lodge the return is not of itself a matter of immense consequence. It would be if indeed he was trying to advantage himself, but the fact is that the fault has been one which has cost him money. The situation, as I understand it and as the Treasurer understands it, is that he will be entitled to a refund, so it cannot be said that the fault, of which he is certainly guilty, of not lodging his return is one that has been engaged in either deliberately or by oversight to financially advantage himself. To the extent that it is a fault-and it is-the financial sufferer will be the Treasurer himself. But if we listened to this Leader of the Opposition, would we have believed that? No, because at the very beginning he attempted to equate the action of the Treasurer with those activities in this community which I and the Treasurer have previously condemned and which we will go on condemning, that is, the activities of avoidance and evasion which added up to billions of dollars and which cost the ordinary decent people of this country, for whom he hypocritically claims to speak now-these ordinary decent people who the Leader of the Opposition said are going to be knocking on the doors in Bankstown and in the electorate of Barton. These are the ordinary people that the Leader of the Opposition robbed-that is what happened-because he allowed the tax avoiders, the tax evaders, to get away with billions of dollars. Because he allowed the privileged few to get away with billions of dollars, it is these people in the electorate of Barton, the ordinary people of Australia, who have suffered, not because of any oversight but because deliberately, as their own royal commissioner said, those opposite allowed the tax avoidance and evasion industry to become the fastest growing industry in this country. It is a measure of the hypocrisy, the indecency, of the Leader of the Opposition that he would seek to equate that behaviour, which did indeed rob and hurt the people of this country, with the fault of the Treasurer in not lodging his return. If the Leader of the Opposition believes that he can sell that pup to the Australian electorate, it is yet another indication of his intelligence and the insult he gives to the intelligence of the Australian electorate. The electorate will not buy that attempt to equate that behaviour which he condoned with the oversight, the fault, of the Treasurer in this case. There is no question, therefore, of ministerial propriety. There is no question of financial gain. The Treasurer is indeed the financial loser as a result of his own fault in this case. That of itself, I suggest, dismisses immediately any proposition that there is impropriety on his part. There is not. The Leader of the Opposition demands the resignation of the Treasurer of this country. The Leader of the Opposition is the one who ought to be thinking about the security of his office and his position because it is well known that half his own members are just waiting for the moment to throw him out of his office. I believe that will happen. It will happen because those behind him share the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the electorate. It is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the electorate that he is a man of no principle, no substance; a man completely of expediency. It is that expediency, that lack of principle, out of which is born this pathetic motion which I and the Government reject with contempt. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(3.22) —Madam Speaker: Whenever he has the alternative of the high road of principle or the low road of expediency, like an unerring missile he always chooses that low road of expediency. These words were used by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the steps of Parliament House this morning about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), and this afternoon he said that the Leader of the Opposition could not match the record of the Treasurer, Mr Keating. We are proud that the Leader of the Opposition does not match the record of the Treasurer. We are proud that the Leader of the Opposition is able to fill in a travel allowance claim successfully and properly, and we are proud that for five years he was Treasurer of this country and did not fail to put in a tax return. The manner in which this Government responds to responsible criticism is to heap abuse on those criticising. The Prime Minister used exactly the same tactic this afternoon that he and the Treasurer have used in every debate and every Question Time in this House. The words `miserable, pathetic Opposition' have been used now for 3 1/2 years, and the Government has hoped for a very long period that those words would continue to be repeated by the ladies and gentlemen of the media. For a time they were, but it is no longer possible to come into this House merely to heap abuse. It is no longer possible for the Prime Minister to come into this House and say against all the evidence, that the Opposition does not take the great economic issues to the Government. The Hansard record proves that when the Prime Minister says the Opposition is not taking the Government on in economic matters, he is-I cannot use a certain word-committing an untruth. He is telling the people of Australia something which is untrue according to the Hansard record. Every debate is there. Every major issue on economic matters has been taken up by this Opposition with the Prime Minister and with the Treasurer. One of the reasons why the Treasurer is in real trouble with the Australian electorate is that he has treated all those serious debates with arrogance and contempt. This Treasurer would not even provide briefings from the Australian Taxation Office to the Opposition until we raised this matter in the Parliament. He has treated us and the Australian people with arrogance and contempt and he treats his own people with such arrogance and contempt that there are no more than six government members in the House to support him. The Government had difficulty in getting people in to listen to the Prime Minister. It was sending out special warnings and ringing people in their offices. They had to be brought into the chamber to support the empty speech of the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition had five years of the heavy responsibility of the office of Treasurer and he conducted himself with dignity, with propriety and with effectiveness. Despite all the nonsense and all the rubbish that those opposite talk about tax evasion and rorting and so on, the present Leader of the Opposition did more to stop the schemes, stop the tax nonsense, than any other Treasurer in Australia's history. That is the fact of the matter, and it is on the record and it is in the books. It does not matter what the Government says day after day to the contrary, the record is there; it cannot be denied. The heart of this matter is what happens to a Treasurer versus what happens to an ordinary citizen. I asked my colleagues this morning what happens to ordinary citizens who do not lodge their tax returns. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) brought to my attention the case of a constituent of his who had the following experience: The constituent on 21 April 1986 received a summons from the Australian Taxation Office for lodgment of his 1984-85 income tax return for which he had gained an extension until 28 February 1986. So he got an extension until 28 February 1986 for the same return-for last year-that the Treasurer did not put in. On 21 April he got a summons. No final notice was issued to his home address. The next day this constituent sent a copy of his return to the Taxation Office. Mr Jull —Did he get a phone call? Mr CARLTON —No phone call was received. On 15 May-this is what happens to the ordinary citizen-the Magistrates Court fined him $200 plus costs and gave him seven days to make payment, otherwise 24 days in gaol. This taxpayer might have claimed that in fact he was doing the Tax Office a favour because it owed him money. He might have claimed that, but he did not. He was caught by the ordinary law. Indeed the Tax Office did owe him money. The taxpayer was entitled to a refund from the Tax Office of $1,381.66. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer seriously believe that they will get away, in Bankstown and Brunswick, with the rubbish they bring into this House, just let them go out there and repeat what the Prime Minister said in this House today. He claimed that we had misrepresented what he said. He said: Madam Speaker, failure to lodge a tax return for an ordinary PAYE taxpayer is a fault. But it is not one of immense consequence. Madam Speaker, it is a fault exhibited by a large number of Australians every year. Although it cannot be commended, nor can it be condoned, it is not Madam Speaker a question on which any one of us would bring into question the honesty, the integrity or the bona fides of any of our fellow Australians. There out the door, Madam Speaker, goes $8 billion in the cash economy. It makes a total nonsense of the statement made by the Treasurer when amending the Income Tax Assessment Act. On 11 September he made the following statement: The Hawke Government is committed to stamping out tax evasion . . . Among the most common tax offences are failure to furnish information to the Tax Commissioner and failure to file a return. We have been debating in this House for weeks the identity card, the police state that these people opposite are trying to bring in. We have had a report from the Standing Committee on Expenditure which says that the office that the Treasurer has been administering for 3 1/2 years is a shambles. He has made dozens and dozens of statements about the need for ordinary people to do the right thing. He has made these statements day after day. But today he gets blown out of the water by his own Prime Minister. Why did he get blown out of the water? It was because the Prime Minister does not have the guts to stand up for the principles of decency and ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister has two faces. Both of them are red today. He is the high man of principle, who stands up on public occasions and preaches like a preacher. Then he comes into this House ranting and raving, speaking absolute rubbish and trying to put cases which are not sustained by the facts. The Prime Minister, at the national Tax Summit, said: It is not just the problem of a huge revenue loss. He is talking about people who do not put in their tax returns. He continues: The Paper shows how, as a direct and almost inevitable result of the operation of the present system, tax avoidance is becoming endemic and threatens to become entrenched almost as part of a way of life for a significant part of our great nation. These are the words of the Prime Minister: That is something even more serious than the loss of revenue involved, because it goes to a loss in our national character, a loss in the quality and standard of our national life. If the quality and standard of our national life are held in the repository of the Treasurer opposite and the Prime Minister, they have gone for a burton. There is absolutely no way in which ordinary taxpayers and young people paying tax for the first time can have any sense of confidence in the words of the Prime Minister when they know that they have a Treasurer who not only has failed to put in two successive tax returns, but also cannot even put down the correct address of his principal place of residence on his travel allowance form. I know that the Treasurer will object to my raising this matter again, but it really has to be raised again, because this new incident just brings up all those old questions. There was never a satisfactory explanation for the travel allowance question. The Government brazened it out. The Treasurer had a house in Sydney which was unoccupied and which could not be occupied because it was being renovated; he was living in Canberra with his family; he admitted it; everybody knew it. The rules say that one is able to claim travel allowance when one comes here to Canberra and leaves one's principal place of residence. One has to make a declaration to that effect. The Treasurer made a declaration to say that his principal place of residence was in Sydney when it was not, and he claimed in that one year $17,000 tax free for that particular allowance, and that was allowed by the Commissioner of Taxation. This was never satisfactorily explained. We asked question after question. The Prime Minister came in here and said that black was white; the Treasurer came in and said that black was white. He brazened it out. The matter has not been satisfactorily answered, and our research evidence shows that most Australians really worried about that; most Australians lost confidence in the Treasurer after that. This matter shows us that people were right to lose confidence, because there is new evidence. We have been told that the winners in this whole matter are the vast body of taxpayers, because the Treasurer is owed money by the Tax Commissioner. Nobody else in Australia is entitled to say that he or she is owed money by the taxman or that he or she owes money to the taxman until the return has been put in and the assessment received. Nobody else is entitled to have this special licence, and in this particular case we must ask some questions. Taxpayers failing to lodge 1985 returns would have been issued final notices on or about 20 November 1985. Was the Treasurer issued with a final notice about 20 November 1985? Apparently not. Presumably failing taxpayers then receive further notices. Where was the further notice? Presumably, failing taxpayers then are prosecuted in the courts, like the constituent of the honourable member for Dawson. That is what happens to them, probably regardless of whether lodgment has taken place by then anyway, as in the case of the constituent of the honourable member for Dawson. Taxpayers lodging late in 1985 or paying late for 1985 receive final notices demanding 1986 lodgment by 31 October 1986. In other words, the Tax Office is very tough on those people who have a bad record. Mr Keating —Tell us whether yours is in. Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer is implying that I have not complied with the tax law. I always have and I hope I always will. Let us nail that. How did the Treasurer obtain exemption from all these procedures? These are the procedures we have from the Tax Office. We know what procedures ordinary people have to go through and we know that the Treasurer did not have to comply with these procedures. At the heart of all this is the question of double standards and the question of decency. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer have displayed either. They ought to be censured, but they will not be censured mainly here; they will be censured from now until kingdom come out there in Brunswick and Bankstown, where the ordinary people have to comply with the law, and where the ordinary people will not put up with this humbug. They will sweep them out of office at the next election. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.38) —The terms of the motion moved by the Opposition are about the responsibilities of the Prime Minister in this matter. The motion talks about the failure of the Prime Minister to maintain proper standards of conduct and responsibility within his Government. Well, the first and most obvious issue is that there is no question of ministerial responsibility at issue. The question here does not relate to any conduct of my ministerial responsibility. It is a private responsibility, and hence, because there is no ministerial responsibility, there can be no such responsibility on the Prime Minister-which honourable members opposite well understand. The issue here is a private responsibility which I have to the Commissioner of Taxation and it is not an issue of ministerial responsibility. Hence the Prime Minister's proper prerogative as the Prime Minister with the leadership of the Government and the concern about the ministerial proprieties of colleague Ministers is not at issue, because this is not a ministerial propriety issue. This does not go to the conduct of my ministerial responsibilities. It is about a private responsibility I have under the Income Tax Assessment Act, like every other taxpayer, to the Tax Commissioner. This, of course, is the fatal flaw in the argument of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He referred to the man charged with the administering the tax Act. I am not the man charged with administering the tax Act; it is the Commissioner of Taxation. One would have thought that after five years as Treasurer he would have understood that basic point that the person administering the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, as amended, is the Commissioner of Taxation by a statute of this Parliament. So that is where this motion fails. This is just a piece of cheap politics which has been brought on to attempt to embarrass the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's responsibilities in this matter are abundantly clear, and even though it is a private responsibility of mine, I made it quite clear-- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Cowper will heed the Chair. All honourable members on my left will hear the Treasurer in silence, as the other speakers have been heard. Mr KEATING —I made it clear to the Prime Minister that this issue had arisen that I had not filed a return, and that I had done so. He said `Good, that is as it should be'. That is the limit of his responsibility in this matter. But I make it quite clear that last night in the Parliament I told the House in unequivocal and unambiguous terms that I had not filed the returns for 1985 and 1986, and that I had filed the 1985 return earlier this week and would be filing the 1986 return. The moment it became an issue in the Parliament I raised it here in a quite unambiguous way. I said then, and I repeat, that I regret having not filed the return. There is no excuse for me. The return should have been filed. I do not walk away from that whatsoever. But the fact is that I did make a mistake but, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, my mistake did not cost half a million people their jobs. My mistake did not retard the economy for 20 years. My mistake did not induce a massive domestic recession, unlike his mistake which almost destroyed the fabric of the Australian economy. And he sits up here as a failed Treasurer asking, as he did absurdly this morning, for my resignation over something that is of course entirely a private matter between me and the Tax Commissioner. One issue has been overlooked in all this. I was asked in Question Time by the Opposition about the possibility of a civil offence under the Income Tax Assessment Act, but there has been no mention of the criminal offence of stealing letters in the mail, and no explanation by the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Treasurer of how they became the beneficiaries of this theft. They should state quite unequivocally where they got the copy of this letter, how they came by it, so that we can establish how this criminal offence against the Post and Telegraph Act took place. It is all very well to talk about a possible offence under the Income Tax Assessment Act, but the Opposition is not talking about a criminal offence- Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Treasurer might tell us why the letter ever had to be written. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The member for O'Connor was not called. If he interjects once more or takes the microphone without being called by the Chair, I will name him. Mr KEATING —Let us hear from Opposition members about their role in the receipt of this letter and what they think about criminal offences under the Post and Telegraph Act, because intercepting a piece of correspondence between the Tax Commissioner and a taxpayer is a very serious matter. It is not a copy from the Tax Office because the Tax Office duplicates do not carry the masterhead. This is a copy of the letter supposedly directed to me. Of course, had I received the letter, had it not been stolen, both returns would have been filed earlier. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Opposition members are all guffawing, but let us hear from them how they came by this stolen document. Let us hear about the Opposition's role, if any, in this criminal offence against the Post and Telegraph Act. Let the lawyer with the silk handkerchief in his pocket over there tell us about criminal offences under that Act, let old unctuous over there, the shadow Treasurer, tell us how he came by this letter, and let the Leader of the Opposition tell us how he came by this letter. Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker-and the Treasurer might sit down please, under the Standing Orders, standing order 99. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I wish the honourable member for O'Connor would be as aware of some of the other Standing Orders, like the ones that require him to heed the Chair when the Chair speaks to him. What is the point of order? Mr Tuckey —The reference to `old unctuous over there' was clearly insulting and should be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. The honourable member for Mackellar did not take offence at the wording. Mr KEATING —I make this point about the stolen letter, but I also make it clear that I would be very interested to know from the honourable member for Mackellar whether his 1986 tax return has been filed. Mr Carlton —It will be in in time. Mr KEATING —It is not in yet? You mean that you have not filed your 1986 return? You mean you have got up and put this on me and you have not filed your 1986 return? Mr Carlton —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Treasurer cannot accuse me of an offence under the tax Act when it is certainly not committed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, that is scandalous behaviour. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I cannot hear a word. The honourable member does not have a point of order on that. The Treasurer, to my understanding, asked you whether you had filed your 1986 return, and you replied that you had not. Mr Carlton —He is suggesting that I am not complying with the law in not having done so, when I have an extension through my tax agent, as many honest taxpayers do. I have always put in my returns on time. I will not have this from this man. Mr KEATING —Perhaps the Opposition front bench will tell us where their 1986 returns are, if they are so good at advising everyone on how to be unctuous. What about putting down the dates of when their 1986 returns have been put in. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members for Bendigo and Maribyrnong will stop shouting across the chamber. It is very difficult to hear. Mr KEATING —We heard from the Leader of the Opposition about me, about my travelling allowance, about the suntanned windows and about the white car. These are the snide remarks thrown around by the Leader of the Opposition. But I will never get to the stage of wanting to lead the nation standing in front of the mirror every morning clipping the eyebrows here and clipping the eyebrows there with Janette and the kids: It is like `Spot the eyebrow'. You talk about arrogance and smugness, travelling allowances, ministerial cars; you have been into breaches of promise, and you have been into everything-and you stand up here talking about propriety. Mr Sinclair —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I suggest that the remarks just made by the Treasurer were quite contrary to our Standing Orders. They were about the personality of the former Treasurer. This motion is not about the personality of the former Treasurer and present Leader of the Opposition, and I ask that those marks be withdrawn. Mr KEATING —I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the Leader of the National Party that if that one point was out of order, most of the behaviour in the last five minutes on both sides of the House has also been outside the Standing Orders. I suggest that all members of the House should control themselves and that we hear the rest of this debate in silence. Mr KEATING —This is the last day of the session. This Government has done everything possible to produce a better tax system, a fairer tax system and a more decent tax system by the eradication of fringe benefits, of entertainment expenses and of capital gains. All have been opposed by the Opposition. The Australia Card has been opposed by the Opposition. The only thing the Opposition ever did as a government was to wipe out the criminal evasion schemes after five years of their flourishing. Even yesterday's report of the Commissioner of Taxation showed that $52m was lost in revenue under the schemes which operated throughout the Leader of the Opposition's period as Treasurer. Yet he is now trying to demean my work and the Government's work in making the tax system decent, all on the basis that I did not get a tax return in on time. That will not deflect me from supporting a decent tax system, from making the tax system better, and from arguing to Australians that they are entitled to an honest tax system, that they are not entitled to be ripped off by the con merchants and the criminal evasion and avoidance schemes, fringe benefits, non-cash benefits, capital gains and the rest. The Leader of the Opposition stands here with no credibility on taxation. He should not think that whether I have furnished a return on time or not matters in this respect, because what matters is the principles of taxation law which the public well and truly understands. Here we are at the end of a long session, having seen Australia go through a trading crisis in April, emerging from one of the most difficult periods in economic history, yet the Opposition has not laid a glove on the Government once. The Government has knocked the Opposition off like blowflies over the course of the parliamentary year. Opposition members have been so easy to deflect. With all of those issues the Opposition has not made one solid point. The Government is now laying down a big Budget, putting the tax changes into effect and seeing the economy turn. Yet there was not one question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday on the issue of the national accounts. The House rises today but now the Opposition thinks that it has found an issue-in the last hour of the last session for this year. We have been through a massive economic change and an economic crisis earlier in the year. Yet what are Opposition members on about? My tax return! Also we find that the person who is charging me has not put his own tax return in for 1986. That is where we stand. We have also had all those distortions about the travelling allowance. These miserable, deceitful distortions have been repeated day in and day out about my travelling allowance. Yet the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who sits beside the Leader of the Opposition on the front bench, draws the same allowance even though he lives in this city and has his children at school here. The right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has also done this and so has everyone else; yet we have had this unprincipled, indecent attack from the Leader of the Opposition on this matter because he has never been able to get on to the big issues-the economy, the Australia Card, capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax or even putting through the Bills that tidy up the criminal evasion schemes. These Bills were defeated three times in the Senate in 1983 and 1984. There is $52m outstanding and the Commissioner of Taxation cannot collect it because he does not have the legislative power. Whom do we thank for that? The Leader of the Opposition! He has thrown all this personal abuse at me and it has gone on now for a couple of years. First of all I was supposed to be tied up with the Nugan Hand bank; then we had the breach of promise stuff from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey); then we had the VIP flights, then the travelling allowances and now my taxation return. Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand on fiscal policy? Where does he stand on wages policy? If one asks anyone in Parliament where John Howard stands in Australian politics, nobody now knows the answer-not on fiscal policy, not on wages policy, not on taxation. We will hear all his policies two hours before the next election. That is how the Leader of the Opposition leads the Liberal Party of Australia. In the last few minutes of the last hour of the last day of the last year of economic turmoil he displays irrelevance. Let me conclude by saying that I regret having not filed my income tax return. My future tax returns will not be overdue. All taxpayers should file their returns on time and there can be no excuses-that must be said. But that does not cover the deceitful approach of the Opposition for standing against every decent piece of taxation law that this Government has tried to introduce and every decent piece of economic policy that it has pursued. No amount of personal attacks on me will ever confuse the Parliament about that fact. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 66 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C. Coleman, W. P. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Everingham, P. A. E. Spender, J. M. Fischer, Tim Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A. Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D, P. Keating, P. J. Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J. Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth. R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Smith, W. Lee, M. Dobie, J. D. M. Willis, R. Fisher, Peter Duncan, P. Shack, P. D. Price, L. R. S. McArthur, F. S. Jacobi, R. Lloyd, B. Darling, E. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Madam SPEAKER For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Joint House Department for the year 1985-86. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922 I present the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs for 1985-86. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I table details of special purpose flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 July 1985 to 30 June 1986, incorporating two appendices amending two reports previously tabled. Motion (Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members I present documents relating to the involvement of the United Nations Children's Fund in sport aid and the race against time, together with the text of a statement relating to the document. In tabling the document I make the observation that the House really owes Robert Nestdale, the National Director of UNICEF, and all those people who ran in the race against time, including the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and his family and various other members, a great debt for the half a million dollars that was raised in Australia. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 63H of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report of the National Exhibition Centre Trust for 1985-86. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, I present the following Australian Capital Territory annual reports for 1985-86: Consumer Affairs Council; Consumer Affairs Bureau; Administration of the Credit Ordinance; and Administration of the Sale of Motor Vehicles Ordinance Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee relating to patents, innovation and competition in Australia, together with the Government's response to the report. This report was circulated in August 1984 and limited copies are available from the Bills and Papers Office. I seek leave to make a very brief statement. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —The Government has now concluded its consideration of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee's report reviewing the patent system entitled `Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia'. IPAC made 46 recommendations with a view to making the patent system work more favourably in the interests of Australia and Australians. It took a very long time because of the complexity of the interest groups to be consulted and accommodated. A major thrust of the report is to increase the usefulness of patents as a means of fostering innovation in Australia and, through the international patent system, of developing export markets. The two-tier requirement of novelty proposed for standard and petty patents is an example of a measure aimed particularly at meeting the needs of Australian industry of all sizes. The report also contains proposals for reducing any anti-competitive effects of patents and for improvements on a variety of administrative matters ranging from examination of patent applications to enforcing patents in the courts. On the issue of the duration of patents, IPAC recommended that the present 16-year patent term be retained but that extensions of terms be abolished. The Government approves this proposal in principle. For pharmaceutical, agricultural and veterinary chemicals, the effective patent life is eroded by regulatory delays in obtaining marketing approval. The industries concerned are seeking compensatory extension of the patent term. The Government will be considering this aspect further. Most of IPAC's recommendations are accepted wholly or with some qualification. A more detailed discussion appears in the Government's response to the report. I intend to introduce legislation, where necessary, to implement the response at the earliest opportunity. The emphasis in the report is on the possible; it is constructive rather than revolutionary. I believe that most users and practitioners of the patent system will welcome the changes proposed to be given effect, and that the community generally will benefit from them. I thank the Committee, particularly its Chairman, John Stonier, for the effort and vision which went into the preparation of the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a transcript of the first national prayer breakfast for Australia held on Monday, 15 September 1986 at 8 a.m. and to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The first national prayer breakfast was held on Monday 15 September 1986. It was organised by the members of the House of Representatives and senators of the Australian Parliamentary Christian Fellowship group assisted by some dedicated volunteers as an occasion when senators and members could join their colleagues from the various State Parliaments and leaders from all walks of Australian life and from overseas in the worship of Almighty God and in sharing fellowship and prayer. It was attended by 374 people and is said to be the largest gathering ever in the Parliamentary Dining Room. The breakfast was chaired by Senator Michael Tate. The principal speaker was the Hon. Kim Beazley, AO, formerly the member for Fremantle in this House from 1945 to 1977 and Minister for Education from 1972 to 1975. I take this opportunity to thank Madam Speaker and the President of the Senate for their assistance in making available the facilities of Parliament House to enable this significant event to take place. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CARLTON —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CARLTON —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the censure debate tried to suggest that I had not complied with the taxation Act with regard to the filing of my personal taxation return. The fact is that my accountant, as is common practice under the law governing the relationships between the Australian Taxation Office and authorised tax agents, has an extension for lodgment of my return until 31 December 1986. He will lodge my return in accordance with the law. All my previous tax returns have been lodged in accordance with the law-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is now debating the matter. The honourable member can say where he was misrepresented and not argue the matter. I hope that he will do so succinctly. Mr CARLTON —I have only a few more words. All my previous tax returns have been lodged in accordance with the law since I entered the work force 30 years ago. This procedure is open to everybody, including the Treasurer. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodges,Mr Shack and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. 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 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 Dr Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the following residents of Australia respectfully sheweth: That we Australian young people wish to grow up without the threat of nuclear war hanging over us, now and in the future. President Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars) which will have weapons systems in outer space, represents a new and most serious danger to the whole world. It will step up the arms race and greatly increase the risk of nuclear conflict at a time when the reduction of armaments is the most important thing for all of us. We believe that the `Star Wars' project will waste billions of dollars on the unnecessary militarisation of outer space which could be better used for the peaceful exploration of outer space and for the solution of humanity's pressing problems on earth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House condemn the `Star Wars' plans and take every action to ensure Australia is not associated in any way. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Ms McHugh,Mr Staples and Mr Tickner. 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 Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to Irradiate Food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should- (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; and (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the 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 business 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. 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: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. 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: 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. 5. We also feel it is morally wrong for one person to be forced to pay the taxes for another. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: 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 Shipton. 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: We are concerned that the decisions to be taken by Government with regard to the footwear industry in which we work may not recognise the continuation of a form and level of assistance which will maintain the security of our employment. Your petitioners therefore pray that: Every consideration and support will be given to this matter so that we are able to maintain our employment in this industry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson and Mr Reith. 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 sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker and Mr Reith. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: By drastically cutting E.S.L. funding, you have disadvantaged thousands of Australian children. Not only will students with limited English face gross educational inequality, but the entire Australian community will feel the wider effect-through the resultant inability of some of its citizens to contribute effectively to Australian society. On behalf of the children who will be directly affected, and the Australian community generally, we call on you to restore full funding for the general support element of the Commonwealth E.S.L. program. by Mr Moore and Mr White. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We the undersigned small business people and supporters wish to draw attention to and protest against recent tax changes and the horrific administrative burdens which will be placed upon small businesses by these changes. We request that Fringe Benefits Tax; Capital Gains Tax; Dividend Imputation; Negative gearing; Foreign tax credits; & Substantiation legislation be immediately repealed. We also request that the proposed legislation yet to be tabled in Parliament in respect of self assessment be discontinued. To make up the shortfall in revenue as a result of these requests, the promised personal tax cuts should be deferred until such time as they can be funded by pruning government expenditure. Unless the above action is taken immediately the private sector of the economy will contract and Australia will be further down the road to becoming a banana republic. Any your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That we wish to express our deep concern at- 1. the ABC Management's decision to originate evening programmes from the Eastern States to the detriment of regional programmes; and 2. the absence of a West Australian representative on the ABC Board. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government give the highest priority to- 1. the retention of regional evening programmes in West Australia; and 2. the return of a West Australian to the ABC Board. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. 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 electors of Australia respectfully showeth- (a) that the escalation of terrorism in Sri Lanka has brought the spectre of international terrorism closer to Australian shores; (b) that this terrorism is exercised by political separatists seeking to establish a racist state in Sri Lanka based on the detested doctrine of racial separation and apartheid; (c) that the victims of these terrorists are for the most part peaceful citizens of Sri Lanka, but have also included many foreigners including Australian citizens; (d) that these terrorists are provided with sanctuary and assistance (including the provision of military bases and logistic support) by India; and (e) that the agents of the separatists have for a long time engaged in a campaign of misinformation in Australia seeking to justify their terrorism as a legitimate response to alleged discrimination of an ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, which is a claim completely without foundation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia: (1) condemn the terrorist campaign now waged in Sri Lanka for the purpose of the establishment of a separate racist state in that country; (2) call upon the Indian government, as a fellow member of the Commonwealth, to desist from giving support to international terrorists operating in Sri Lanka; and (3) call upon the agents of Sri Lankan separatism in Australia to cease transporting an internal Sri Lankan problem into Australia and creating dissension amongst Australian citizens of Sri Lankan origin. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners have grave concern about recent changes in the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of 1966 which deny basic rights which have been a cornerstone of the English and Australian law for over seven hundred years. We are speaking of the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the right of an individual to defend himself against his accusers. This concern has come to light during recent extradition proceedings against Messrs Hempel and Etheredge in Western Australia. We are concerned that because judicial protection of these basic rights has been excluded from the Act refugees, migrants, Australian overseas travellers, and visitors are at risk when they have been to (or come from) countries where the norms and practices of human rights and civil liberties are below traditionally accepted Australian standards. We, the undersigned petitioners, therefore urge the Government to re-examine the Extradition (Foreign States) Act (as amended in 1985), and amend the current Act so that the rights of the accused are once again judicially protected in Australia. In addition, we urge the Government to refrain from entering into any further extradition treaties or proceedings under the current Act until the process of re-examination and amendment of the Act has occurred. 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 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, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations; 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their remuneration 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the intention of the Hawke Government to unionise independent contractors, sub-contractors, the self-employed, partnerships, sole traders and family businesses will: Remove the freedom of independent small business to: (a) set their own prices (b) work their own hours (c) control their own businesses (d) negotiate their own contracts; and will create impossible working conditions which will include the payment of: (a) union superannuation (b) compensation (c) payroll tax (d) annual leave loadings (e) public holiday loadings (f) PAYE tax deductions (g) limited incomes (h) inflexible awards and conditions; and (i) fixed hours of work. We the undersigned call upon the Government to restore incentive and opportunity to the Australian economy and to abandon these coercive measures. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: Your petitioners call for Government intervention to provide economic justice for families and humbly pray that whatever action possible be taken to provide some price control in the following areas, which most directly affect the family budget: food and other essential items petrol rent and bond levels And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners who are citizens or residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students as specified in the Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge would force certain students (eg. Part-time, mature age and full-time students who are from lower income families and who are just above the cutoff level to receive Tertiary Education Assistance) to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such puts an end to the principle of free education for all; That the Administration Charge could stop some prospective students from entering higher education and as a result deny them the opportunity of acquiring an award; That the Administration Charge is an additional tax that will be a burden for students greatly; We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Howe. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at Warrnambool Institute Student Union, in the Federal electorate of Wannon respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-87 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-87, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth. That the area of Missionary Bay and Zoe Bay (boundaries as defined in GBRMPA zoning plan 1985), the Hinchinbrook Fish Habitat Reserve No. 9 and National Parks Nos. 6145 and 727 be zoned as Marine National Park `A' zone. 1. We feel the area is vital to recreational fishing and tourism. 2. We consider the areas as important breeding nursery and fish species caught by recreational fishermen. The humble petitioners therefore pray that the area of Missionary Bay and Zoe Bay, the Hinchinbrook Fish Habitat Reserve No. 9 and National Parks Nos. 6145 and 727 be zoned as Marine National Park A Zone. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. 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 sheweth that whereas: Australia until recently had no reported infestation of Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN), a potato disease that can reduce crop yields by 70% in a short space of time, an outbreak of PCN in Western Australia has heightened concerns within the Central Highlands potato growing industry that PCN infestations in the region would have disastrous effects on the regional economy and the livelihoods of many families, the further introduction of PCN to Australia must be avoided thus requiring that the most effective quarantine measures be applied. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Cease the importation of fresh potatoes for any purposes because of the threat of introducing PCN; 2. Review as necessary arrangements with New Zealand under the Closer Economic Relations agreement; 3. Allow the importation only of processed potatoes, provided the processing takes place outside Australia, as processing destroys PCN; 4. As a further safeguard, place a ban on the importation of secondhand farm machinery because of the danger of inadvertently introducing PCN on machinery which has been in contact with PCN infested soil. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until 6 August this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The 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 Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Cowper 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 Nehl. 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 the 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 the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. 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: By cutting E.S.L. funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring E.S.L. and Multicultural education funding. 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 of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament make legislative changes to improve the quality of Television in Australia, and thus improve the nurturing home environment of Australia's children, by implementing the following: (1) Amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, section 6 (2) (a) to read: The Corporation shall COMPLY WITH- (2) Amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, section 6 (2) (a) (ii) to read: The STANDARDS to be observed in respect of the broadcasting and televising of programmes, and the HOURS during which programmes may be televised, as approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in respect of broadcasting and television services. (3) Amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2) so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining the Television Standards and screening hours, SHALL CONSULT THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE. (4) Amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 118 (1), to read: The Corporation, a licensee, the Special Broadcasting Service, or Cable Licensee, shall not broadcast or televise matter which is blasphemous, indecent or obscene. (5) Draft the coming legislation for the Special Broadcasting Service in a way which ensures compliance with the Television Standards and approved screening hours as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. (6) Draft the eventual Cable Television legislation in a way which ensures compliance with the Television Standards and approved screening hours as set out by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Because to hold that obscenity laws and Television Standards and hours are applicable to some televisers, but inapplicable to others, is to reverse the entire history and reasoning of law. Because to hold that nothing shall be deemed to affect the criminal and civic liability of some stations, while the criminal and civic liability of other stations is upheld by law, is to deny the entire public mandate of accountability to the people whom you, and they, are chartered to serve. by Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia 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 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 unnecessarily 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. 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 of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W., or any site within Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights or within Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: Take the action necessary to create an Australian republic on or before 1st January 1988. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. We your petitioners, humbly showeth: That the wildlife species, in this case-the kangaroo, have a right to exist and flourish independently of human needs. For this reason alone we should not regard the kangaroo as a human resource nor contemplate commercial exploitation simply because more offspring are born each generation than can hope to survive. Permissible cropping rates are unknown and the means of enforcing controls or protective legislation is completely ineffective and inadequate due to the widespread nature of the industry. All Australians have a responsibility to our already declining wildlife. We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will: 1. Ban the exports of products made from kangaroos. 2. Take action to see that State Governments prohibit the commercial killing of kangaroos. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned who are staff of the ABC and the SBS respectfully showeth that: The proposed legislation to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS, together with certain existing provisions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (as amended), would have the effect of removing the present Staff Elected Director of the ABC from office before the end of his elected term, and of barring him from standing for re-election. This offends basic democratic principle. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government will remedy this situation by either, continuing the current Staff Elected Director in office until the normal expiration of his term on 15 December 1987 or, making such amendments as are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1986, to enable the current Staff Elected Director to contest an early election after amalgamation, whilst preventing him from seeking a further term immediately following the one for which the early election is held. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to reverse recent decisions which deny Secondary Allowances to Year 11 students under the age of 16 years and make such allowances directly payable to students on attaining the age of 16. This request is made on the basis that: (i) Education Benefits as part of income support benefits generally are a Commonwealth responsibility under the constitution. (ii) It is the right of parents with children in Year 11 in Western Australia to receive the same benefits as parents with children at the equivalent stage of their education in other parts of Australia irrespective of their age. (iii) This decision by the Commonwealth Government will impact most unfairly on the capacity of low income families in Western Australia to keep their children at school in Years 11 and 12. (iv) Direct payment of the allowance to 16 year olds will make it easier for young people to leave home and bring more pressure on State Authorities to find alternative accommodation for them at the community and taxpayers' expense. 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 Blanchard. 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: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business, anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable taxation deductions; that the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned residents of the Hunter Valley respectfully showeth: That potentially nuclear-armed ships have entered Newcastle Harbour. That Newcastle is unprepared to deal with possible disasters arising from this situation. That we abhor being put at risk in this way. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia: Take sufficient steps to prevent the entry of any potentially nuclear-armed or powered warships in Newcastle Harbour. 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 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 petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. 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 petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in 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 to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade 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 electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth: 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 therefore 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. 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 affect the infirm and elderly and that it will cause further unnecessary economic hardship and suffering among all people who are currently dependant 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 unequitable 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be sacrosanct from change''. 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 Queensland respectfully showeth that: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. 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 Shire of Caboolture 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 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. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the 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 Sutherland Shire respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The growing sense of outrage and frustration in the community over the excessive size and unfair manner of administration of the tax burden imposed by the Hawke Government. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 263rd report of the Committee, relating to aspects of defence equipment support, and I ask leave of the house to table a short statement in connection with the report. In doing so I thank my colleagues on the sectional Committee, the Secretary and the members of the secretariat, particularly Mr David Worthy, the project officer, whose work on this report is exemplary. Leave granted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``appointed member'', lines 9 and 10, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `appointed member' means the President or the Human Rights Commissioner;''. No. 2-Page 4, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``discrimination'', sub-paragraph (b) (ii), lines 7 to 9, leave out the sub-paragraph, insert the following sub-paragraph: ``(ii) has been declared by the regulations to constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act,''. No. 3-Page 4, sub-clause 3 (1), definition of ``discrimination'', lines 10 and 11, leave out ``but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job;'', insert ``but does not include any distinction, exclusion or preference: (c) in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements of the job; or (d) in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, being a distinction, exclusion or preference made in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or that creed;''. No. 4-Pages 7 and 8, clause 8, line 35 (page 7) to line 34 (page 8), leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Constitution of Commission ``8. (1) The Commission shall consist of- (a) a President; (b) a Human Rights Commissioner; (c) the Race Discrimination Commissioner; and (d) the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. ``(2) The President and the Human Rights Commissioner shall be appointed by the Governor-General. ``(3) The President shall be appointed as a part-time member. ``(4) The Human Rights Commissioner shall be a legally qualified person appointed as a full-time member. ``(5) The affairs of the Commission shall, in accordance with the decisions and subject to the directions of the Commission, be administered by the Human Rights Commissioner. ``(6) The functions of the Commission under paragraphs 11 (1) (f) and 31 (1) (b) and the functions of the Commission under paragraphs 11 (l) (p) and 31 (l) (k), to the extent that they relate to the performance of the first-mentioned functions, shall be performed by the Human Rights Commissioner, and a reference in this Act to the Commission or to a member of the Commission shall, in relation to the performance of any of those functions, be read as a reference to the Human Rights Commissioner. ``(7) The performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of the Commission is not affected by reason only of a vacancy in the office of President, Human Rights Commissioner, Race Discrimination Commissioner or Sex Discrimination Commissioner. ``(8) In this section, `legally qualified person' means a person who- (a) is or has been a Judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or a person who has the same designation and status as a Judge of a court created by the Parliament; or (b) is enrolled as a barrister or solicitor, as a barrister and solicitor, or as a legal practitioner, of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.''. No. 5-Page 10, paragraph 11 (1) (k), line 11, before ``when requested by the Minister'', insert ``on its own initiative or''. No. 6-Page 13, sub-clause 17 (1), lines 17 to 19, leave out: ``The Minister may, if the Minister considers it desirable, establish an advisory committee or advisory committees, and an advisory committee so established shall perform such of the following functions as the Minister directs:'', insert: ``The Minister shall establish at least one advisory committee, and may, if the Minister considers it desirable, establish 2 or more advisory committees, to perform such of the following functions as the Minister directs:''. No. 7-Pages 13 and 14, clause 19, line 35 (page 13) to line 12 (page 14), leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: Delegation ``19. (1) The Commission may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing under its common seal, delegate to a member of the Commission, a member of the staff of the Commission or another person or body of persons all or any of the powers conferred on the Commission under this Act, other than this power of delegation. ``(2) A member may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by the member, delegate to- (a) a member of the staff of the Commission; or (b) any other person or body of persons, approved by the Commission, all or any of the powers exercisable by the member under this Act, other than this power of delegation. ``(3) A power delegated by the Commission under sub-section (1) or by a member under sub-section (2), when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised by the Commission or by the member, as the case may be. ``(4) A delegation under this section by the Commission or by a member does not prevent the exercise of a power by the Commission or by the member, as the case may be. ``(5) Subject to any provision in the instrument of delegation, a person to whom a power of the Commission has been delegated under sub-section (1) may, for the purposes of the exercise of that power, exercise any power conferred on a member of the Commission by this Act. ``(6) In sub-section (1), `power' does not include a power conferred on the Commission by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. ``(7) In this section, unless the contrary intention appears, `member' means a member of the Commission.''. No. 8-Page 17, clause 23, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(3) Without limiting the generality of the expression `reasonable excuse' in this section, it is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that it is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to furnish information, produce a document or answer a question when required to do so under this Act, that the information, the production of the document or the answer to a question might tend to incriminate that person.''. No. 9-Page 19, sub-clause 24 (3), lines 13 to 18, leave out all words after paragraph (c). No. 10-Page 19, sub-clause 24 (5), lines 26 to 30, leave out the sub-clause. No. 11-Page 19, sub-clause 26 (1), line 40, leave out ``insult,''. No. 12-Page 24, sub-clause 31 (2), lines 7 to 10, leave out the sub-clause. No. 13-Pages 27 and 28, clause 36, line 2 (page 27) to line 2 (page 28), leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Acting President and Human Rights Commissioner ``36. (1) If the Human Rights Commission is available, the Human Rights Commissioner shall act as President- (a) during a vacancy in the office of President, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period when the President is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the functions of the office of President. ``(2) The Minister may appoint a person to act as President- (a) during a vacancy in the office of President, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the President is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the functions of the office of President. but- (c) a person so appointed shall not act as President during any period while the Human Rights Commissioner is available so to act; and (d) a person appointed to act during a vacancy shall not continue so to act for more than 12 months. ``(3) The Minister may appoint a person to act as Human Rights Commissioner- (a) during a vacancy in the office of Human Rights Commissioner, whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Human Rights Commissioner is absent from duty or from Australia or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the functions of the office of Human Rights Commissioner. but a person appointed to act during a vacancy shall not continue so to act for more than 12 months. ``(4) An appointment of a person under sub-section (2) or (3) may be expressed to have effect only in such circumstances as are specified in the instrument of appointment. ``(5) The Minister may- (a) determine the terms and conditions of appointment, including remuneration and allowances, of a person acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner pursuant to an appointment under sub-section (2) or (3); and (b) terminate such an appointment at any time. ``(6) Where a person is acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner in circumstances referred to in paragraph (2) (b) or(3) (b) and the office of President or Human Rights Commissioner, as the case may be, becomes vacant while that person is so acting, then, subject to sub-sections (1) and (4), that person may continue so to act until the Minister otherwise directs, the vacancy is filled or a period of 12 months from the day on which the vacancy occurred expires, whichever first happens. ``(7) The appointment of a person to act as President or Human Rights Commissioner under sub-section (2) or (3) ceases to have effect if the person resigns the appointment by writing signed by the person and delivered to the Minister. ``(8) While a person is acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner, the person may exercise all the powers, and shall perform all the functions, of the President or Human Rights Commissioner, as the case may be. ``(9) At any time when a person who is not a member of the Commission is acting as President or Human Rights Commissioner, the person shall be deemed to be a member of the Commission for the purposes of sections 21, 22, 23, 24 and 26 (including those sections as applied by section 33) and sections 42, 48 and 49. ``(10) The validity of anything done by or in relation to a person purporting to act under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question on the ground that- (a) the occasion for the person's appointment had not arisen; (b) there is a defect or irregularity in connection with the person's appointment; (c) the person's appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion for the person to act had not arisen or had ceased.''. No. 14-Page 28, sub-clause 37 (1), line 5, leave out ``5 years'', insert ``7 years''. No. 15-Page 29, sub-clause 43 (2), line 36, leave out ``President'', insert ``Human Rights Commissioner''. No. 16-Page 30, sub-clause 44 (5), lines 11 and 12, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ``(5) If the President is not present at a meeting of the Commission- (a) if the Human Rights Commissioner is present, the Human Rights Commissioner shall preside at the meeting; or (b) in any other case, the members present shall elect one of their number to preside at this meeting.''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.18) —This legislation was passed by the House of Representatives in 1985. Several amendments were passed by the Senate. They were either moved or accepted by the Government in the Senate. Most of these are of a procedural or consequential nature, but there are some of substance. The first relates to the bringing of procedures under the Racial Discrimination Act into line with those of the Sex Discrimination Act so that a person who has been discriminated against on the basis of race can get a determination to that effect. At present, a person who has been discriminated against on the ground of his or her race or ethnic origin can only get a certificate which is not enforceable. This is an anomaly and the Government has moved to correct it. Another amendment relates to the legislation in respect of the Sex Discrimination Act. That Act included a provision that discrimination did not include a distinction which was based on the inherent requirements of a particular job or position. An amendment was moved which is sufficiently broad to meet the concerns of any religious, educational or charitable institution. The proposed Commission is a new structure. It will have as members a part time President, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Racial Discrimination Commissioner. I think it meets the requirements of having in place some legislation that deals with our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is significant that tomorrow is the international day for the recognition of human rights in the United Nations and it is appropriate, despite the many difficulties that have been experienced in getting legislation through the Senate, that we have an opportunity to accept the amendments now proposed. I urge honourable members to support them. I move: That the amendments be agreed to. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.20) —I shall be brief since the House is about to adjourn. I think there are more members outside the chamber than there are inside it. Mr Young —We still have the quality. Mr SPENDER —The quality is here; the Minister is quite right. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has pointed out, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill was originally passed through this House in late 1985. One year later it is back here. At that time it was part of the Bill of Rights package. We opposed the entire package for the reasons which we stated here then and which we stated throughout the country. What happened? The Government withdrew the Bill of Rights legislation. Reasons were sought to be advanced as to why the Government withdrew the Bill of Rights legislation, but it withdrew it for one very simple reason: The Bill was unpopular, it was rejected throughout the Australian community and that rejection was made manifest everywhere. I went around this country addressing public meetings in all the States and the Northern Territory. The reaction against the erosion, as the public rightly saw it, of our rights and liberties under what was proposed was strong. For that reason and no other reason, the Government pulled back. It pulled back simply because it had an electoral liability. When this Government is faced with electoral liabilities, as it will be faced with one in the case of the identity card, its capacity for compromise and capitulation is truly remarkable. The original Human Rights Commission was established under the Fraser Government. That Government was wise enough to set up that Commission with a five-year sunset clause which by now would have just about come into effect. We will have a replacement commission. Let me make it quite plain that on this side of the chamber we entirely and consistently support the cause of human rights in this country, but we have a different view as to the way in which to go about things. I should have thought that this Government would have learnt that the establishment of a commission with wide-ranging powers to make value judgments as to what some of the very general statements of principle in the various international covenants mean is not something that suits this country and is not a way of going about things that reflects our values. Let me remind the House of one or two aspects of the way in which the existing Commission has worked. We can hope for no better from what will take over its work. In the first place, when it found that its activities were criticised by the then shadow Attorney-General what did it do? It excluded him from its premises. That illustrates a very peculiar approach to questions of human rights since one of the human rights that we are meant to uphold is that to criticise and to suffer criticism. Next, it was asked by this Government to do a number of reviews on legislation. It did a review, review No. 14 for the Attorney-General, of the Queensland electricity supply and related industrial laws. One of the changes made in Queensland was to the effect that, where a person is a member of a trade union, that person, under the change made to the laws of Queensland, could resign at any time at all rather than having to give notice. Most of us would think that was perfectly fine because we are dealing with voluntary associations and, if members of a voluntary association wish to quit such an association, they should be able to do so immediately. This is what was said by the Commission and it illustrates the ideological bias of the body and the great dangers of vesting these wide-ranging powers to make value judgments in a commission such as the one that was set up and such as the one that is to be set up. Referring to the Queensland law, report No. 14, at page 13, states: It repeals the existing section 48 of the Principal Act and substitutes a new section 48 which allows for resignation from a union by a union member to be immediately effective on the member so notifying the union in writing. This provision overrides any union rule which provides to the contrary. What is wrong with that? The report continues: The Commission considers that such a provision could lead to an erosion of the financial position of unions, damage union solidarity and make unions less able to work for and protect the interests of workers generally. It is understood that most union rules provide a minimum period of notice of resignation partly to ensure the financial stability of the union- and what has that to do with the rights of members, one might ask- and partly to prevent members resigning in a huff over a particular decision made at a particular time by a union with which they may not for the moment agree. In other words, Australians are too damned stupid to be able to make their own decisions as to whether they want to be in or out of a particular union run by a particular group. One other reference to its work is a publication entitled Teaching for Human Rights which was put out under the banner of the Human Rights Commission. In regard to what it calls the `capitalist world'-and this publication was to go to schools-it states: There has been mass assassination, too, by more covert and indirect means. The construction of a capitalist world economy, predicated upon dishonesty and greed, has slaughtered uncounted millions the world over through the exploitation and misdevelopment of global resources. The United States and other erstwhile free market democracies have much to answer in this regard. That kind of ideologically loaded teaching is not the kind of teaching we need in our schools. That kind of propaganda is not the kind of role that this Commission should have. We therefore oppose the legislation. In doing so, let me conclude by saying this: We in this country have nothing for which to apologise when it comes to the protection of human rights. Our record is not perfect, but it is one of the best records-and consistently one of the best records-in the world. That is how it will be so long as we have a democratic process in this country. But this kind of Commission will not add to our rights and is the wrong road to go down for the protection of the kind of rights that most people in this country believe in, and certainly that most members on both sides of the House believe in. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.27) —I make the point that we do not agree with what has been said by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), although we appreciate his legitimacy in saying it. I make the point that the Human Rights Commission that he is talking about was set up by the Fraser Government. Mr Spender —I said that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He accepts that. I understand that there can always be improvement. This proposal is for a new commission. I would expect it to have a lot of work to do, not only in the areas that we usually talk about, regarding sex or race, but also in the areas of the disabled and the problems of the child. Many matters are coming before the Commission at present which require some facility to have the opportunity to investigate them. I think the honourable gentleman would agreed with me that a number of people have problems that need investigation and conciliation. The Commission, to that extent, has been carrying out worthwhile work. To some extent, some of the comments made by the honourable gentleman, I fully understand and appreciate, would cause concern. I hope they are not repeated by the new Commission. But it is important that Australia implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by having some statutory base so that these obligations can at least be investigated and reported upon. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 4, paragraph 12 (a), line 31, leave out ``and''. No. 2-Page 4, paragraph 12 (b), lines 32 and 33, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: ``(b) by omitting from sub-section (1) the definition of `Human Rights Commission' and substituting the following definition: ` ``Federal Court'' means the Federal Court of Australia;'; and (c) by inserting after the definition of `member' in sub-section (1) the following definition: ` ``registered organisation'' means an organisation registered pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904;'.''. No. 3-Pages 5 and 6, clauses 14 to 20, line 1 (page 5) to line 4 (page 6), leave out the clauses, insert the following clauses: Land, housing and other accommodation ``14. Section 12 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following sub-section: `(3) Nothing in this section renders unlawful an act in relation to accommodation in a dwelling-house or flat, being accommodation shared or to be shared, in whole or in part, with the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or with a relative of either of those persons.'. Employment ``15. Section 15 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end the following sub-section: `(5) Nothing in this section renders unlawful an act in relation to employment, or an application for employment, in a dwelling-house or flat occupied by the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or by a relative of either of those persons.'. Advertisements ``16. Section 16 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end `or an act that would, but for sub-section 12 (3) or 15 (5), be unlawful by reason of section 12 or 15, as the case may be'. ``17. Part III of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Part is substituted: `PART III-INQUIRIES AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS `Division 1-Preliminary Race Discrimination Commissioner `19. For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Race Discrimination Commissioner. Functions of Commission `20. (1) The following functions are hereby conferred on the Commission: (a) to inquire into alleged infringements of Part II, and endeavour by conciliation to effect settlements of the matters alleged to constitute those infringements; (b) to promote an understanding and acceptance of, and compliance with, this Act; (c) to develop, conduct and foster research and educational programs and other programs for the purpose of- (i) combating racial discrimination and prejudices that lead to racial discrimination; (ii) promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial and ethnic groups; and (iii) propagating the purposes and principles of the Convention; (d) to prepare, and to publish in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate, guidelines for the avoidance of infringements of Part II; (e) where the Commission considers it appropriate to do so, with the leave of the court hearing the proceedings and subject to any conditions imposed by the court, to intervene in proceedings that involve racial discrimination issues; (f) to inquire into, and make determinations on, matters referred to it by the Minister or the Commissioner. `(2) The Commissioner shall not participate in any inquiry held by the Commission under Division 3 or attend any meeting of the Commission, be present during any deliberation of the Commission, or take part in any decision of the Commission, in connection with such an inquiry. Function of Commissioner `21. The function of the Commission under paragraph 20 (1) (a) shall be performed by the Commissioner on behalf of the Commission. Complaints `22. (1) A complaint in writing alleging that a person has done an act that is unlawful by virtue of a provision of Part II may be lodged with the Commission by- (a) a person aggrieved by the act, on that person's own behalf or on behalf of that person and another person or other persons aggrieved by the act; (b) 2 or more persons aggrieved by the act, on their own behalf or on behalf of themselves and another person or other persons aggrieved by the act; (c) a person or persons included in a class of persons aggrieved by the act, on behalf of the persons included in that class of persons; or (d) a trade union of which a person or persons, or persons included in a class of persons, aggrieved by the act is a member or are members, on behalf of that person, those persons or persons included in that class of persons, as the case may be. `(2) In this section, ``trade union'' means- (a) an organisation of employees that is a registered organisation; (b) a trade union within the meaning of any State Act or law of a Territory; or (c) any other similar body. Commissioner deemed to be a complainant `23. Where- (a) the Commissioner has referred to the Commission a matter that came before the Commissioner otherwise than as the result of the making of a complaint to the Commission; or (b) the Minister has referred a matter to the Commission under section 25, then, for the purposes of any inquiry into the matter by the Commission, this Act has effect as if- (c) the matter had been the subject of a complaint; (d) the reference to the complainant in section 25F were a reference to the Commissioner; and (e) a reference to the respondent were a reference to the person who is, or each of the persons who are, alleged to have done the act to which the matter relates. `Division 2-Inquiries by Commissioner Inquiries by Commissioner `24. (1) Where- (a) a complaint relating to an alleged unlawful act is made to the Commission under section 22; or (b) it appears to the Commission that a person has done an act that is unlawful by virtue of a provision of Part II, the Commission shall notify the Commissioner accordingly and the Commissioner shall, subject to sub-section (2), inquire into the act and endeavour, by conciliation, to effect a settlement of the matter to which the act relates. `(2) The Commissioner may decide not to inquire into an act, or, if the Commissioner has commenced to inquire into an act, decide not to continue to inquire into the act, if- (a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the act is not unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II; (b) the Commissioner is of the opinion that the person aggrieved by the act does not desire, or none of the persons aggrieved by the act desires, that the inquiry be made or continued; (c) in a case where a complaint has been made to the Commission in relation to the act, a period of more than 12 months has elapsed since the act was done; or (d) in a case where a complaint has been made to the Commission in relation to the act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. `(3) Where the Commissioner decides not to inquire into, or not to continue to inquire into, an act in respect of which a complaint was made to the Commission, the Commissioner shall give notice in writing to the complainant or each of the complainants of that decision, of the reasons for that decision and of the rights of the complainant or each of the complainants under sub-section (4). `(4) Where the Commissioner has given a complainant a notice under sub-section (3), the complainant may, within 21 days after receipt of the notice, by notice in writing served on the Commissioner, require the Commissioner to refer the complaint to the Commission. `(5) On receipt of a notice under sub-section (4), the Commissioner shall refer the complaint to the Commission together with a report relating to any inquiries made by the Commissioner into the complaint. `(6) The Commissioner may, for the purposes of this Act, obtain information from such persons, and make such inquiries, as the Commissioner thinks fit. Application for interim determination under section 25Y `24a. (1) The Commissioner, at any time after a complaint is lodged and before the Commissioner declines to entertain the complaint, resolves the complaint by conciliation or refers the matter to which the complaint relates to the Commission under sub-section 24E (1), may apply to the Commission for the making of an interim determination under section 25Y or for the variation or revocation of any such determination. `(2) In relation to a matter arising under paragraph 24 (1) (b), the Commissioner may apply to the Commission for the making of an interim determination under section 25Y, or for the variation or revocation of any such determination, at any time. Power to obtain information and documents `24B. (1) Where the Commissioner has reason to believe that a person is capable of furnishing information (in this sub-section referred to as ``relevant information'') or producing documents (in this sub-section referred to as ``relevant documents'') relevant to an inquiry under this Division, the Commissioner may, by notice in writing served on the person, require the person, at such place, and within such period or on such date and at such time, as are specified in the notice- (a) to furnish to the Commissioner, by writing signed by the person or, in the case of a body corporate, by an officer of the body corporate, such relevant information (if any) as is specified in the notice; and (b) to produce to the Commissioner such relevant documents (if any) as are specified in the notice. `(2) Where documents are produced to the Commissioner in accordance with a requirement under sub-section (1), the Commissioner- (a) may take possession of, and may make copies of, or take extracts from, the documents; (b) may retain possession of the documents for such period as is necessary for the purposes of the inquiry to which the documents relate; and (c) during that period shall permit a person who would be entitled to inspect any one or more of the documents if they were not in the possession of the Commissioner to inspect at all reasonable times such of the documents as that person would be so entitled to inspect. Directions to persons to attend compulsory conference `24C. (1) For the purpose of inquiring into an act, and endeavouring to settle the matter to which the act relates, in accordance with section 24, the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, direct the persons referred to in sub-section (2) of this section to attend, at a time and place specified in the notice, a conference presided over by the Commissioner or a person appointed by the Commissioner. `(2) Directions under sub-section (1) to attend a conference in relation to an act shall be given to- (a) where a complaint was made to the Commission in relation to that act-the complainant, or all the complainants, as the case requires; (b) the person who is alleged to have done the act; and (c) any other person who, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is likely to be able to provide information relevant to the inquiry or whose presence at the conference is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, likely to be conducive to the settlement of the matter to which the act relates. `(3) A person who has been given a direction under sub-section (1) to attend a conference is entitled to be paid by the Commonwealth a reasonable sum for the person's attendance at the conference. `(4) The Commissioner may, in a notice given to a person under sub-section (1), require the person to produce such documents at the conference as are specified in the notice. Compulsory conference `24D. (1) The person presiding at a conference held under this Division may require a person attending the conference to produce a document. `(2) A conference under this Division shall be held in private and, subject to this Act, shall be conducted in such manner as the person presiding at the conference thinks fit. `(3) Subject to sub-section (4), a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, that is directed under section 24c to attend a conference shall be deemed to attend if an officer or employee of that body attends on behalf of that body. `(4) Except with the consent of the person presiding at a conference under this Division- (a) a natural person is not entitled to be represented at the conference by another person; and (b) a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, is not entitled to be represented at the conference by a person other than an officer or employee of that body. Reference of matters to the Commission `24E. (1) Where the Commissioner- (a) is of the opinion that a matter cannot be settled by conciliation; (b) has endeavoured to settle a matter by conciliation but has not been successful; or (c) is of the opinion that the nature of a matter is such that it should be referred to the Commission, the Commissioner shall refer the matter to the Commission together with a report relating to any inquiries made by the Commissioner into the matter. `(2) A report for the purposes of sub-section (1) shall not set out or describe anything said or done in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Division (including anything said or done at a conference held under this Division). `(3) Evidence of anything said or done in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Division (including anything said or done at a conference held under this Division) is not admissible in subsequent proceedings under this Part relating to the matter. `Division 3-Inquiries by Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Minister may appoint persons to participate in inquiries `24F. (1) The Minister may appoint a person to participate, in accordance with this section, in the performance of the functions of the Commission. `(2) The Minister may, under sub-section (1), appoint such number of persons as the Minister considers necessary for the purposes of this section. `(3) A person who holds an appointment under sub-section (1) may, at the request of the President, participate in the holding of an inquiry under this Division as if the person were a member of the Commission and, for the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to the inquiry, the person shall be deemed to be a member of the Commission. `(4) A person appointed under sub-section (1)- (a) holds the appointment for such period, not exceeding 5 years, as is specified in the instrument of the person's appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment; and (b) may resign the appointment by writing signed by the person and delivered to the Minister. `(5) The Minister may- (a) determine the terms and conditions of appointment, including remuneration, of a person appointed under sub-section (1); and (b) at any time terminate such an appointment. `(6) The Minister may, for the purpose of appointing under sub-section (1) a person who is the holder of a judicial office of a State, enter into such arrangement with the appropriate Minister of the State as is necessary to secure that person's services. `(7) An arrangement under sub-section (6) may provide for the Commonwealth to reimburse a State with respect to the services of the person to whom the arrangement relates. `(8) The appointment under sub-section (1) of the holder of a judicial office, or service by the holder of a judicial office pursuant to such an appointment, does not affect the person's tenure of that judicial office or the person's rank, title, status, precedence, salary, annual or other allowances or other rights or privileges as the holder of that judicial office and, for all purposes, the person's service pursuant to such an appointment shall be taken to be service as the holder of that judicial office. `(9) Unless the contrary intention appears, in this section- ``judicial office'' means- (a) an office of Judge of a court created by the Parliament; or (b) an office the holder of which has, by virtue of holding that office, the same status as a Judge of a court created by the Parliament; ``State'' includes the Northern Territory. Reference of matter to the Commission by the Minister `25. The Minister may refer any matter to the Commission for inquiry as a complaint under this Part. Inquiries into complaints `25a. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), the Commission shall hold an inquiry into each complaint or matter referred to it under sub-section 24 (5) or 24e (1) or section 25. `(2) The Commission shall not hold, or shall discontinue, an inquiry into a complaint or matter referred to it- (a) in the case of a complaint or matter referred to it under sub-section 24 (5) or 24e (1)-if the complainant notifies the Commission that the complainant does not wish the inquiry to be held or to continue; or (b) in the case of a matter referred to it under section 25-if the Minister notifies the Commission that the Minister does not wish the inquiry to be held or to continue. Exercise of inquiry powers by Commission `25b. (1) Subject to sub-section 20 (2), the powers of the Commission to hold inquiries under this Act may, if the President so directs, be exercised by a single member of the Commission who is a legally qualified person, or by 2 or more members of the Commission, at least one of whom is a legally qualified person. `(2) Where the power of the Commission to hold an inquiry is being exercised by 2 or more members of the Commission- (a) if only one of those members is a legally qualified person-that member shall preside; or (b) if 2 or more of those members are legally qualified persons- (i) if one of those persons is the President-the President shall preside; or (ii) in any other case-those members shall elect one of those persons to preside. `(3) In this section, ``legally qualified person'' means a person who- (a) is or has been a Judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or a person who has the same designation and status as a Judge of a court created by the Parliament; or (b) is enrolled as a barrister or solicitor, as a barrister and solicitor, or as a legal practitioner, of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. Single inquiry in relation to several complaints `25c. Where the Commission is of the opinion that 2 or more complaints arise out of the same or substantially the same circumstances or subject-matter, it may hold a single inquiry in relation to those complaints. Joinder of parties by the Commission `25d. Where, before the holding of an inquiry, or at any stage during the holding of an inquiry, the Commission is of the opinion that a person ought to be joined as a party to the inquiry, it may, by notice in writing given to that person, join that person as a party to the inquiry. Notice of inquiry and rigs of parties at inquiry `25e. (1) The Commission- (a) shall give a party to an inquiry, other than a person to whom the Commission grants leave to appear as a party to the inquiry, such notice in such manner as the Commission determines of the time and place at which it intends to hold the inquiry; and (b) shall give each party to an inquiry reasonable opportunity to call or give evidence, examine or cross-examine witnesses and make submissions to the Commission. `(2) If a party to an inquiry to whom notice has been given under paragraph (1) (a) fails to attend at the time and place specified for the inquiry, the Commission may hold the inquiry in the absence of that party. Parties to an inquiry `25f. The parties to an inquiry shall be the complainant, the respondent, any person joined by the Commission as a party to the inquiry and any person to whom the Commission grants leave to appear as a party to the inquiry. Right of appearance and to representation `25g. (1) A party to an inquiry- (a) shall appear personally or, where the party is a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, by an officer, employee or agent of the body; and (b) may- (i) if the Commission has made arrangements under sub-section 25k (1) for counsel to appear at the inquiry to assist the Commission; or (ii) in any other case-with the leave of the Commission, be represented by a solicitor or counsel or an agent. `(2) A person, other than a solicitor or counsel, is not entitled to demand or receive any fee or reward for representing a party to an inquiry. Inquiries may be held in private `25h. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), an inquiry shall be held in public. `(2) The Commission may, of its own motion or on the application of a party to the inquiry, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, direct that an inquiry, or a part of an inquiry, be held in private. Commission may prohibit publication of evidence, &c. `25j. (1) The Commission may direct that- (a) any evidence given before it; (b) the contents of any document produced to the Commission; or (c) any information that might enable a person who has appeared before the Commission to be identified, shall not be published, or shall not be published except in such manner, and to such persons, as the Commission specifies. `(2) Nothing in this section shall be taken to derogate from the Commission's powers under section 25h. Counsel assisting the Commission `25k. (1) The Commission may make arrangements for counsel to appear at an inquiry to assist the Commission. `(2) Counsel assisting the Commission at an inquiry pursuant to arrangements made under sub-section (1) shall, in relation to that inquiry, be subject to the control and direction of the Commission. Determination of representative complaints `25l. At an inquiry held in respect of a complaint that appears to the Commission to be a representative complaint, the Commission shall determine, as a preliminary matter, whether that complaint should be dealt with as a representative complaint. Matters to be considered in determination of representative complaints `25m. (1) The Commission shall not deal with a complaint as a representative complaint unless it is satisfied that the complaint was made on behalf of persons other than the complainant in good faith. `(2) In considering whether a complaint was made on behalf of persons other than the complainant in good faith, the Commission shall satisfy itself- (a) that- (i) the complainant is a member of a class of persons, the members of which class have been affected, or may reasonably be likely to be affected, by the conduct of the respondent; (ii) the complainant has in fact been affected by the conduct of the respondent; (iii) the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable; (iv) there are questions of law or fact common to all members of the class; (v) the claims of the complainant are typical of the claims of the class; (vi) multiple complaints would be likely to produce varying determinations that could have incompatible or inconsistent results for the individual members of the class; and (vii) the respondent has acted on grounds apparently applying to the class as a whole, thereby making relief appropriate for the class as a whole; or (b) that, notwithstanding that the requirements of paragraph (a) have not been satisfied, the justice of the case demands that the matter be dealt with and a remedy provided by means of a representative complaint. Amendment of representative complaints `25n. (1) Where the Commission is satisfied that a complaint could be dealt with as a representative complaint if the class of persons on whose behalf that complaint is lodged is increased, reduced or otherwise altered, the Commission may amend the complaint so that the complaint can be dealt with as a representative complaint. `(2) Where the Commission is satisfied that a complaint has been wrongly made as a representative complaint, the Commission may amend the complaint by removing the names of the persons or the description of the class of persons on whose behalf the complaint was lodged so that the complaint can be dealt with as a complaint other than a representative complaint. Ordinary complaints not precluded by representative complaints `25p. Nothing in this Part prevents a person from lodging a complaint, other than a representative complaint, under section 22, notwithstanding that the conduct in respect of which the complaint is lodged is also the conduct in respect of which a representative complaint has been lodged. Resolution of complaint by conciliation `25q. The Commission- (a) may endeavour, by all such means as to it seem reasonable, to resolve a complaint the subject of an inquiry by conciliation; and (b) shall take all such steps as to it seem reasonable to effect an amicable settlement of a complaint the subject of an inquiry and for this purpose may adjourn an inquiry at any stage to enable the parties to negotiate with a view to settlement of the complaint by amicable arrangements. Evidence and findings in other proceedings `25r. In the course of an inquiry, the Commission may, in its discretion- (a) receive in evidence the transcript of evidence in any proceedings before a court or tribunal and draw any conclusions of fact from that transcript that it considers proper; (b) adopt any findings, decision or judgment of a court or tribunal that may be relevant to the inquiry; and (c) receive in evidence any report of the Commissioner if a copy of that report has been made available to every other party to the inquiry. Powers of Commission to take evidence `25s. (1) The Commission may take evidence on oath or affirmation and for that purpose a member of the Commission may administer an oath or affirmation. `(2) A member of the Commission may summon a person to appear before the Commission to give evidence and to produce such documents (if any) as are referred to in the summons. `(3) A person to whom an inquiry under this Part relates or who is a party to proceedings before the Commission may call witnesses. `(4) A person appearing as a witness before the Commission may be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. Fees for witnesses `25t. (1) A person summoned to appear before the Commission is entitled to be paid, in respect of the person's attendance, fees, and allowances for expenses, fixed by or in accordance with the regulations. `(2) Subject to sub-section (3), the fees and allowances shall be paid- (a) in a case where the person was summoned at the request of a person other than the Commonwealth-by the person who made the request; or (b) in any other case-by the Commonwealth. `(3) The Commission may, in its discretion, order that the fees and allowances payable to a person summoned as mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) shall be paid, in whole or in part, by the Commonwealth. Retention and copying of documents `25u. The Commission may retain for a reasonable period and may make copies of, or of part of, any documents produced to the Commission in the course of an inquiry or proceedings. Application of rules of evidence, &c. `25v. (1) For the purposes of an inquiry, the Commission- (a) is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit; (b) shall conduct the inquiry with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition, as the requirements of this Act and a proper consideration of the matters before the Commission permit; and (c) may give directions relating to procedure that, in its opinion, will enable costs or delay to be reduced and will help to achieve a prompt hearing of the matters at issue between the parties. `(2) The member conducting, or presiding at, an inquiry shall determine any question relating to the admissibility of evidence and any other question of law or procedure. Consideration of exceptions and exemptions `25w. In determining whether an act is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II, the Commission is not required to have regard to any exception or exemption provided for in that Part unless there is evidence before the Commission that the exception or exemption is or may be applicable in relation to that act. Commission may dismiss frivolous, &c., complaints `25x. Where, at any stage of an inquiry, the Commission is satisfied that a complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance or relates to an act that is not unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II, it may dismiss the complaint. Making of interim determination `25y. (1) The Commission, or, where the President is of the opinion that it is expedient that the President alone should perform the functions of the Commission under this section, the President, may, on the application of the Commissioner under section 24a or on the application of a party to an inquiry at any time after the lodgement of the complaint into which that inquiry is held, make an interim determination of such a nature as would, if it were binding and conclusive upon the parties, preserve- (a) the status quo between the parties to the complaint; or (b) the rights of the parties to the complaint, pending completion of the matter the subject of the complaint. `(2) An interim determination under sub-section (1) is not binding or conclusive between any of the parties to the determination. Determination or other decision of the Commission `25z. (1) After holding an inquiry, the Commission may- (a) dismiss the complaint the subject of the inquiry; or (b) find the complaint substantiated and make a determination, which may include any one or more of the following: (i) a declaration that the respondent has engaged in conduct rendered unlawful by this Act and should not repeat or continue such unlawful conduct; (ii) a declaration that the respondent should perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant; (iii) a declaration that the respondent should employ or re-employ the complainant; (iv) except where the complaint was dealt with as a representative complaint-a declaration that the respondent should pay to the complainant damages by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by reason of the conduct of the respondent; (v) a declaration that the respondent should promote the complainant; (vi) a declaration that the termination of a contract or agreement should be varied to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant; (vii) a declaration that it would be inappropriate for any further action to be taken in the matter. `(2) A determination of the Commission under sub-section (1) is not binding or conclusive between any of the parties to the determination. `(3) The Commission may, in the making of a determination under sub-section (1), state any findings of fact upon which the determination is based. `(4) The damage referred to in paragraph (1) (b) includes injury to the complainant's feelings or humiliation suffered by the complainant. Proceedings in Federal Court `25za. (1) The Commission or complainant may institute a proceeding in the Federal Court for an order to enforce a determination made pursuant to sub-section 25y (1) or 25z (1). `(2) Where the Federal Court is satisfied that the respondent has engaged in conduct or committed an act that is unlawful under this Act, the Federal Court may make such orders (including a declaration of right) as the Federal Court thinks fit. `(3) Orders made by the Federal Court under sub-section (2) may give effect to a determination of the Commission. Assistance in proceedings before Commission `25zb. (1) Where- (a) a person has made a complaint in respect of which the Commission has held an inquiry under section 25a and the Commission has found the complaint to be substantiated; or (b) a person has done or is alleged to have done an act in respect of which an inquiry has been held by the Commission under section 25a and the Commission dismisses the complaint the subject of the inquiry, the Commission may, in its discretion, recommend to the Attorney-General that assistance be given to the person in respect of expenses incurred by the person in connection with the inquiry. `(2) Where a recommendation is made by the Commission under sub-section (1) in relation to a person, the Attorney-General may authorise the provision by the Commonwealth to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General determines, of such financial assistance in respect of expenses incurred by the person in connection with the inquiry as the Attorney-General determines. Assistance in proceedings before Federal Court `25zc. (1) A person who- (a) has instituted or proposes to institute a proceeding before the Federal Court under section 25za; or (b) has done or is alleged to have done an act in respect of which a proceeding has been instituted in the Federal Court under section 25za, may apply to the Attorney-General for the provision of assistance under this section in respect of the proceeding. `(2) Where an application is made by a person under sub-section (1) and the Attorney-General is satisfied that it would involve hardship to that person to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application be granted, the Attorney-General may authorise the provision by the Commonwealth to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General determines, of such legal or financial assistance in respect of the proceedings as the Attorney-General determines.'.''. No. 4-Page 6, paragraph 21 (a), lines 7 to 10, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: ``(a) by omitting from sub-section (1) `insult,' and `sections 21 and 22 of'; (aa) by inserting after sub-section (1) the following penalty: `Penalty for an offence against sub-section (1): (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000.'; (ab) by omitting from paragraph (2) (g) `section 22' and substituting `section 24c'; and''. No. 5-Page 6, after clause 21, insert the following new clause: ``21a. After section 27 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted in Part IV: Failure to attend conference `27a. A person who has been given a direction under sub-section 24c (1) to attend a conference shall not, without reasonable excuse- (a) fail to attend as required by the direction; or (b) fail to attend and report from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the person presiding at the conference. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. Failure to furnish information, &c. `27b. A person shall not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail- (a) to furnish information; or (b) to produce a document, when so required pursuant to section 24b, 24c or 24d. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. Offences in relation to Commission `27c. (1) A person served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear before the Commission as a witness shall not, without reasonable excuse- (a) fail to attend as required by the summons; or (b) fail to appear and report from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the Commission. `(2) A person appearing before the Commission as a witness at an inquiry shall not, without reasonable excuse- (a) refuse or fail to be sworn or make an affirmation; (b) refuse or fail to answer a question that is required by the member presiding at the inquiry to be answered; or (c) refuse or fail to produce a document that was required to be produced by a summons under this Act served on that person as prescribed. `(3) A person shall not- (a) interrupt an inquiry or proceedings of the Commission; (b) use insulting language towards a member of the Commission when the member is exercising any powers or performing any functions as a member; (c) make a publication in contravention of any direction given under section 25j; (d) create a disturbance or take part in creating or continuing a disturbance in or near a place where the Commission is meeting or holding an inquiry; or (e) do any other act or thing that would, if the Commission were a court of record, constitute a contempt of that court. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$1,000; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$5,000. Self-incrimination `27d. (1) It is not a reasonable excuse for the purposes of section 27b for a person to refuse or fail to furnish information or produce a document that the furnishing of the information or the production of the document might incriminate the person, but evidence of the furnishing of the information or the production of the document is not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceeding before a court, other than a proceeding for an offence under section 27e. `(2) Without limiting the generality of the expression ``reasonable excuse'' in section 27c, it is hereby declared for the removal of doubt that it is a reasonable excuse for the purposes of that section for a person to refuse or fail to answer a question put to the person at an inquiry, or to refuse to produce a document, that the answer to the question or the production of the document might incriminate the person. False or misleading information `27E. A person shall not furnish information or make a statement to the Commission, to the Commissioner or to any other person exercising powers or performing functions under this Act, knowing that the information or statement is false or misleading in a material particular. Penalty: (a) in the case of a natural person-$2,500 or imprisonment for 3 months, or both; or (b) in the case of a body corporate-$10,000. Non-disclosure of private information `27F. (1) A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not, either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of a duty under or in connection with this Act or in the performance or exercise of such a function or power- (a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first-mentioned person by reason of that person's office or employment under or for the purpose of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised; (b) make use of any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a); or (c) produce to any person a document relating to the affairs of another person furnished for the purposes of this Act. Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for 1 year, or both. `(2) A person who is, or has at any time been, the Commissioner, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff assisting the Commission or is, or has at any time been, authorised to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or the Commissioner or any function or power on behalf of the Commission or the Commissioner, being a function or power conferred on the Commission or on the Commissioner under this Act, shall not be required- (a) to divulge or communicate to a court any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first-mentioned person by reason of that person's office or employment under or for the purposes of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised; or (b) to produce in a court a document relating to the affairs of another person of which the first-mentioned person has custody, or to which that person has access, by reason of that person's office or employment under or for the purposes of this Act or by reason of that person being or having been so authorised, except where it is necessary to do so for the purposes of this Act. `(3) Nothing in this section prohibits a person from- (a) making a record of information that is, or is included in a class of information that is, required or permitted by an Act to be recorded, if the record is made for the purposes of or pursuant to that Act; (b) divulging or communicating information, or producing a document, to any person in accordance with an arrangement in force under section 16 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; or (c) divulging or communicating information, or producing a document, that is, or is included in a class of information that is or class of documents that are, required or permitted by an Act to be divulged, communicated or produced, as the case may be, if the information is divulged or communicated, or the document is produced, for the purposes of or pursuant to that Act. `(4) Nothing in sub-section (2) prevents a person from being required, for the purposes of or pursuant to an Act, to divulge or communicate information, or to produce a document, that is, or is included in a class of information that is or class of documents that are, required or permitted by that Act to be divulged, communicated or produced. `(5) In this section- ``court'' includes any tribunal, authority or person having power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions; ``produce'' includes permit access to.'.''. No. 6-Page 6, clause 24, proposed sub-section 30 (1), line 31, leave out ``5 years'', insert ``7 years''. No. 7-Page 7, after clause 29, insert the following new clause: Repeal of section 45 ``29A. Section 45 of the Principal Act is repealed.''. No. 8-Page 11, clause 42, lines 23 to 39, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Exercise of inquiry powers by Commission ``42. Section 60 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following sub-sections: `(1) Subject to sub-section 48 (3), the powers of the Commission to hold inquiries under this Act may, if the President so directs, be exercised by a single member of the Commission who is a legally qualified person, or by 2 or more members of the Commission at least one of whom is a legally qualified person. `(2) Where the power of the Commission to hold an inquiry is being exercised by 2 or more members of the Commission- (a) if only one of those members is a legally qualified person-that member shall preside; or (b) if 2 or more of those members are legally qualified persons- (i) if one of those persons is the President-the President shall preside; or (ii) in any other case-those members shall elect one of those persons to preside.'.''. No. 9-Page 12, after clause 44, insert the following new clause: Terms and conditions of appointment ``44a. (1) Section 97 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) `5 years' and substituting `7 years'. ``(2) The amendment made by sub-section (1) does not affect the appointment, or the term of office, of the person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, held office as the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.''. No. 10-Page 15, Schedule, proposed amendments of paragraph 22 (4) (b), sub-section 24 (1) and sub-paragraph 25 (b) (i), leave out the proposed amendments. No. 11-Page 16, Schedule, proposed amendment of sub-section 45 (2), leave out the proposed amendment. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That the amendments be agreed to. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 1, line 5, after ``Cheques'', insert ``and Payment Orders''. No. 2-Page 1, clause 2, lines 6 and 7, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Commencement ``2. This Act shall come into operation on such day as is, or on such respective days as are, fixed by Proclamation.''. No. 3-Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), after definition of ``bearer'', insert the following definitions: `` `building society' has the same meaning as in the Financial Corporations Act 1974; `credit union' has the same meaning as in the Financial Corporations Act 1974;''. No. 4-Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), after definition of ``drawee bank'', insert the following definition: `` `financial institution' means a bank or a non-bank financial institution;''. No. 5-Page 2, sub-clause 3 (1), after definition of ``issue'', insert the following definition: `` `non-bank financial institution' means- (a) a building society or credit union that is a registered corporation within the meaning of the Financial Corporations Act 1974; and (b) any other registered corporation within the meaning of that Act, being a registered corporation prescribed, or included in a class of registered corporations prescribed, for the purposes of this definition;''. No. 6-Page 3, sub-clause 6 (2), line 24, after ``90 to 95 (inclusive)'', insert ``, 96A, 96B, 96d''. No. 7-Page 4, sub-clause 13 (2), line 33, leave out ``drawee bank'', insert ``bank on which the instrument containing the order is drawn''. No. 8-Page 4, sub-clause 13 (2), line 34, leave out ``containing the order''. No. 9-Page 5, sub-clause 15 (4), lines 29 to 31, leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause: ``(4) Where an instrument contains- (a) an order to pay a specified sum; and (b) an order to pay not more than a specified sum, the instrument shall be taken to require payment of the lesser of the sums so specified.''. No. 10-Page 18, sub-clause 62 (1), line 28, leave out ``bank'', insert ``financial institution''. No. 11-Page 20, sub-clause 65 (1), line 29, after ``place'' (last occurring), insert ``in relation to cheques''. No. 12-Page 20, paragraph 65 (2) (a), lines 31 to 35, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) one or more of the following, namely: (i) the cheques in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 62 (1); (ii) the cheques in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 62 (6); (iii) the cheques in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 62 (9);''. No. 13-Page 23, sub-clause 68 (2), line 27, leave out ``bank'' (last occurring), insert ``financial institution''. No. 14-Page 23, paragraph 68 (3) (d), line 38, leave out ``bank'' (first occurring), insert ``financial institution''. No. 15-Page 23, sub-clause 68 (3), line 39, leave out ``bank'' (last occurring), insert ``financial institution''. No. 16-Page 23, sub-clause 68 (3), line 40, leave out ``bank'', insert ``financial institution''. No. 17-Page 24, sub-clause 68 (4), lines 4 and 5, leave out ``relevant bank'' (thrice occurring), insert ``relevant financial institution''. No. 18-Page 29, clause 87, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clause: ``(2) The reference in sub-section (1) to the drawer of a cheque does not include a reference to a drawer of a cheque who is also the drawee bank.''. No. 19-Page 32, after clause 96, insert the following new Parts: ``PART VIA-SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO NON-BANK FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ``Division 1-Presentment and collection of cheques by non-bank financial institutions Non-bank financial institution to ensure cheques presented promptly ``96A. (1) Subject to section 59, where the holder of a cheque lodges the cheque with a non-bank financial institution for collection for the holder, the non-bank financial institution shall ensure that the cheque is duly presented for payment on its behalf as soon as is reasonably practicable and, if the non-bank financial institution fails to do so, it is liable to the holder for any loss that the holder thereby suffers. ``(2) Where the drawee bank makes a request under sub-section 62 (5) in relation to the cheque, the cheque shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed not to have been duly presented for payment unless, and until, the request is complied with. ``(3) In determining, for the purposes of sub-section (1), whether the non-bank financial institution failed to ensure that the cheque was duly presented for payment on its behalf as soon as was reasonably practicable, regard shall be had to- (a) the fact that the instrument is a cheque and that it is reasonable to expect a cheque to be presented for payment promptly; (b) the means that were available to it for having the cheque duly presented on its behalf; (c) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (d) the usage of financial institutions in relation to the presentment of cheques; (e) in a case where a request under sub-section 62 (5) was made in relation to the cheque-the following matters, namely: (i) the making of the request; (ii) the nature of the request; (iii) whether or not the bank to which the request was made had actual possession of the cheque; (iv) whether or not the request was complied with; (v) if the request was complied with-the time within which the request was complied with and the means by which the request was complied with; (vi) the means that were available for complying with the request; (vii) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (viii) the usage of financial institutions in relation to requests under sub-section 62 (5); and (f) any other facts of the particular case, including- (i) the nature of the cheque and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the date of the cheque (if any) and the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque; and (ii) whether any delay in presenting the cheque was- (A) caused by circumstances beyond the control of the non-bank financial institution; and (B) not imputable to default, misconduct or negligence on the part of the non-bank financial institution. Protection of non-bank financial institution collecting cheque for customer ``96B. (1) Where- (a) a non-bank financial institution, in good faith and without negligence- (i) receives payment of a cheque for a customer; or (ii) receives payment of a cheque and, before or after receiving payment, credits a customer's account with the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque; and (b) the customer has no title, or has a defective title, to the cheque, the non-bank financial institution does not incur any liability to the true owner by reason only of having received payment of the cheque. ``(2) Where- (a) a non-bank financial institution- (i) receives payment of a cheque for a customer; or (ii) receives payment of a cheque and, before or after receiving payment, credits a customer's account with the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque; (b) the cheque is a cheque drawn payable to order that has not been transferred by negotiation; and (c) the name specified in the cheque as the name of the payee- (i) is the same as the name of the customer; (ii) is the same as a business name or trade name of the customer; or (iii) is so similar to the name of the customer, or a business name or trade name of the customer, that it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the non-bank financial institution to have assumed that the customer was the person intended by the drawer to be the payee, the non-bank financial institution shall not be treated, for the purposes of sub-section (1), as having been negligent by reason only of its failure to concern itself with the absence of, or irregularity in, an indorsement of the cheque by the customer. Rights of non-bank financial institution collecting order cheque not indorsed by payee ``96C. Where- (a) the payee of a cheque payable to order, without indorsing the cheque, lodges the cheque with a non-bank financial institution for collection for the payee; and (b) the non-bank financial institution gives value for, or has a lien on, the cheque, the non-bank financial institution has such rights (if any) as it would have had if, before the lodgment of the cheque with it, the payee had indorsed the cheque in blank. ``Division 2-Agency cheques Agency cheques ``96d. (1) Where- (a) the drawer of a cheque is a non-bank financial institution; and (b) the cheque was, at a time when it was wanting in a material particular necessary for it to be, on its face, a complete cheque, delivered by the non-bank financial institution to a customer pursuant to an agreement under which the customer was authorised to fill up the cheque, then, unless the cheque is signed by the customer- (c) the customer is not liable on the cheque; and (d) the customer's account with the non-bank financial institution may not be debited with the sum ordered to be paid by the cheque. ``(2) If the cheque is signed by the customer, then- (a) as regards the holder or an indorser, the following provisions apply, namely: (i) the non-bank financial institution shall be taken- (a) not to have drawn the cheque; and (b) not to have signed the cheque; (ii) the customer shall be taken- (a) to have drawn the cheque; and (b) to have signed the cheque as drawer; and (b) as regards the customer, the non-bank financial institution shall be taken to have the same duties and liabilities, and the same rights, in relation to the cheque as it would have had if- (i) the customer had drawn the cheque; (ii) the cheque were addressed by the customer to the non-bank financial institution; (iii) the cheque were drawn against the customer's account with the non-bank financial institution; (iv) the non-bank financial institution were a bank; (v) in a case where the drawee bank pays the cheque to a person-the non-bank financial institution had paid the cheque to the person; and (vi) in a case where the drawee bank dis- honours the cheque-the non-bank financial institution had dishonoured the cheque. ``PART VIb-PAYMENT ORDERS ``Division 1-General Payment order defined ``96e. (1) A payment order is an unconditional order in writing that- (a) is addressed by a person to another person (being a non-bank financial institution); (b) is signed by the person giving it; (c) requires the non-bank financial institution to pay on demand a sum certain in money; and (d) clearly bears the words `payment order' on the front of the instrument. ``(2) An instrument that does not comply with sub-section (1), or that orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a payment order. Form of payment orders ``96f. In determining whether an instrument is a payment order, sections 11 to 15 (inclusive) and sub-section 16 (3) apply as if- (a) references in those provisions to a bank were references to a non-bank financial institution; and (b) the reference in sub-section 16 (3) to a cheque were a reference to a payment order. Application of the rules of the common law ``96g. (1) The rules of the common law (including the law merchant) that apply in relation to cheques apply, mutatis mutandis, in relation to payment orders. ``(2) For the purposes of the application of the rules of the common law in relation to payment orders, a member of a building society or credit union shall be taken to be a customer of the building society or credit union, as the case may be. Application of Act to payment orders ``96h. (1) This Act (other than sections 10 to 15 (inclusive), sub-section 16 (3) and sections 61 to 68 (inclusive), 96a to 96d (inclusive), 101 and 102) applies, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule, in relation to payment orders as if- (a) references (other than in this Part and the Schedule) to a cheque were references to a payment order; and (b) references (other than in the definitions of `bank' and `financial institution' in sub-section 3 (1), this Part and the Schedule) to a bank were references to a non-bank financial institution. ``(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1), sub-section 7 (4) and section 18 apply in relation to an instrument that is signed, but otherwise wanting in a material particular necessary for the instrument to be, on its face, a complete payment order, as if references in those provisions to a cheque were references to a payment order. ``(3) For the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to payment orders in accordance with sub-section (1), a member of a building society or credit union shall be taken to be a customer of the building society or credit union, as the case may be. ``Division 2-Presentment of payment orders Due presentment of payment order defined ``96i. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), a payment order is duly presented for payment if a demand for payment of the payment order is made, in accordance with section 96j or 96k, on the drawee non-bank financial institution by or on behalf of the holder. ``(2) Where a demand for payment of a payment order is made before the date of the payment order arrives, the payment order shall not, by reason of the demand, be taken to have been duly presented for payment. Presentment of payment order by financial institution ``96j. (1) A financial institution (in this section referred to as the `collecting financial institution') may, on behalf of a customer, another financial institution or otherwise, present a payment order for payment by making a demand for payment of the payment order on the drawee non-bank financial institution at- (a) the proper place in relation to the payment order; or (b) a place that is a designated place in relation to the payment order for the purposes of this sub-section, at a reasonable hour on a day on which the drawee non-bank financial institution is open for business at the place at which the demand is made. ``(2) The demand may be made by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution or by any other means. ``(3) Where the payment order is not exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution, the demand shall- (a) identify the payment order with reasonable certainty; and (b) be in a form that is intelligible to, or readily decipherable by, the drawee non-bank financial institution. ``(4) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (3), the demand shall, for the purposes of that sub-section, be taken to identify the payment order with reasonable certainty if- (a) the sum ordered to be paid by the payment order; (b) the payment order number; (c) the account against which the payment order is drawn; and (d) the proper place in relation to the payment order, are specified in the demand or are readily ascertainable by the drawee non-bank financial institution from the demand. ``(5) Where the payment order is not exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution, the drawee non-bank financial institution- (a) may request the collecting financial institution to furnish specified further particulars in relation to the payment order to it; or (b) may, whether or not a request has been made by virtue of paragraph (a), request the collecting financial institution to exhibit the payment order, or a copy of the payment order of a specified kind, to it. ``(6) The request may be made to the collecting financial institution at a place that is a designated place in relation to the payment order for the purposes of this sub-section, by any means, at a reasonable hour on a day on which the collecting financial institution is open for business at the place at which the request is made. ``(7) The request shall- (a) identify the payment order with reasonable certainty; and (b) be in a form that is intelligible to, or readily decipherable by, the collecting financial institution. ``(8) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (7), the request shall, for the purposes of that sub-section, be taken to identify the payment order with reasonable certainty if- (a) the sum ordered to be paid by the payment order; (b) the payment order number; (c) the account against which the payment order is drawn; and (d) the proper place in relation to the payment order, are specified in the request or are readily ascertainable by the collecting financial institution from the request. ``(9) Where the drawee non-bank financial institution makes a request in relation to the payment order, the collecting financial institution may- (a) furnish the further particulars; or (b) exhibit the payment order or a copy of the payment order of the specified kind, as the case requires, to the drawee non-bank financial institution at- (c) the proper place in relation to the payment order; or (d) a place that is a designated place in relation to the payment order for the purposes of this sub-section, at a reasonable hour on a day on which the drawee non-bank financial institution is open for business at the place at which the particulars are furnished, or the payment order or copy exhibited, as the case may be. ``(10) Where the drawee non-bank financial institution makes a request by virtue of paragraph (5) (a) in relation to the payment order, the further particulars may be furnished to the drawee non-bank financial institution by any means. ``(11) In furnishing the further particulars, the collecting financial institution shall- (a) identify the request with reasonable certainty; and (b) provide the further particulars, in a form that is intelligible to, or readily decipherable by, the drawee non-bank financial institution. ``(12) Where a payment order is presented for payment otherwise than by exhibiting it to the drawee non-bank financial institution, nothing in this section shall be taken to relieve the drawee non-bank financial institution from any liability to which the drawee non-bank financial institution would have been subject in relation to the payment order if it had been presented by being exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution. Presentation by person other than financial institution ``96k. A person other than a financial institution may present a payment order for payment by exhibiting the payment order, in person, to the drawee non-bank financial institution at the proper place in relation to the payment order at a reasonable hour on a day on which the drawee non-bank financial institution is open for business at the place at which the payment order is exhibited. Proper place ``96l. The proper place in relation to a payment order is- (a) in a case where there is specified in the payment order a place of business of the drawee non-bank financial institution-that place; or (b) in any other case-the place of business of the branch of the drawee non-bank financial institution at which the account on which the payment order is drawn is maintained. Designated places ``96m. (1) A financial institution may, by notice in the prescribed form published in the Gazette, specify a place as a designated place in relation to payment orders for the purposes of this Act. ``(2) The notice shall specify- (a) one or more of the following, namely: (i) the payment orders in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 96j (1); (ii) the payment orders in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 96j (6); (iii) the payment orders in relation to which the place is to be a designated place for the purpose of sub-section 96j (9); (b) the days on which, and the hours during which, the financial institution will be open for business at the place; and (c) the means by which communications may be made to the financial institution at the place. ``(3) The notice has effect on and from the day on which the notice is published in the Gazette or such later day as is specified in the notice. Deposit financial institution to present payment orders promptly ``96n. (1) Subject to section 59, where the holder of a payment order lodges the payment order with a financial institution (in this section referred to as the `deposit financial institution') for collection for the holder, the deposit financial institution shall duly present the payment order for payment itself, or ensure that the payment order is duly presented for payment on its behalf, as soon as is reasonably practicable and, if the deposit financial institution fails to do so, it is liable to the holder for any loss that the holder thereby suffers. ``(2) Where the drawee non-bank financial institution makes a request under sub-section 96j (5) in relation to the payment order, the payment order shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed not to have been duly presented for payment unless, and until, the request is complied with. ``(3) In determining, for the purposes of sub-section (1), whether the deposit financial institution failed to duly present the payment order for payment itself, or to ensure that the payment order was duly presented for payment on its behalf, as soon as was reasonably practicable, regard shall be had to- (a) the fact that the instrument is a payment order and that it is reasonable to expect a payment order to be presented for payment promptly; (b) the means that were available to it for duly presenting the payment order itself and the means that were available to it for having the payment order duly presented on its behalf; (c) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (d) the usage of financial institutions in relation to the presentment of payment orders; (e) in a case where a request under sub-section 96j (5) was made in relation to the payment order-the following matters, namely: (i) the making of the request; (ii) the nature of the request; (iii) whether the request was made to the deposit financial institution or to another financial institution acting on its behalf in relation to the presentment of the payment order; (iv) if the request was made to another financial institution acting on its behalf in relation to the presentment of the payment order-whether or not the other financial institution had actual possession of the payment order; (v) whether or not the request was complied with; (vi) if the request was complied with-the time within which the request was complied with and the means by which the request was complied with; (vii) the means that were available for complying with the request; (viii) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (ix) the usage of financial institutions in relation to requests under sub-section 96j (5); and (f) any other facts of the particular case, including- (i) the nature of the payment order and, in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the date of the payment order (if any) and the sum ordered to be paid by the payment order; and (ii) whether any delay in presenting the payment order was- (a) caused by circumstances beyond the control of the deposit financial institution; and (b) not imputable to default, misconduct or negligence on the part of the deposit financial institution. Drawee non-bank financial institution to pay or dishonour payment orders promptly ``96p. (1) Where a payment order is duly presented for payment, the drawee non-bank financial institution shall either pay or dishonour the payment order as soon as is reasonably practicable and, if the drawee non-bank financial institution fails to do so, then, unless it has become aware of a defect in the holder's title or that the holder has no title to the payment order, the drawee non-bank financial institution- (a) may not dishonour the payment order; and (b) is liable to pay the payment order to the holder. ``(2) In determining, for the purposes of sub-section (1), whether the drawee non-bank financial institution failed to pay or dishonour the payment order as soon as was reasonably practicable, regard shall be had to- (a) the fact that the instrument is a payment order and that it is reasonable to expect a payment order that has been duly presented for payment to be either paid or dishonoured promptly; (b) the means by which, and the place at which, the payment order was presented; (c) the means that were available to it for paying or dishonouring the payment order; (d) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (e) the usage of non-bank financial institutions in relation to the payment and dishonour of payment orders; (f) in a case where a request under sub-section 96j (5) was made by it in relation to the payment order-the following matters, namely: (i) the making of the request; (ii) the nature of the request; (iii) the time within which the request was made; (iv) the means by which the request was made; (v) the means that were available to it for making the request; (vi) the relative speed, reliability and cost of those means; (vii) whether or not the request was complied with; (viii) if the request was complied with-the time within which the request was complied with; (ix) if the request was a request to furnish further particulars and the request was complied with-the nature of the particulars furnished to it; (x) the usage of non-bank financial institutions in relation to the making of requests under sub-section 96j (5); and (g) any other facts of the particular case, including- (i) the nature of the payment order; and (ii) whether any delay in paying or dishonouring the payment order was- (a) caused by circumstances beyond the control of the drawee non-bank financial institution; and (b) not imputable to default, misconduct or negligence on the part of the drawee non-bank financial institution. How paid payment orders to be dealt with ``96q. (1) Where- (a) a payment order is duly presented for payment by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution; and (b) the drawee non-bank financial institution pays the payment order, the drawee non-bank financial institution has, as against the person who presented the payment order, the right to possession of the payment order. ``(2) Where- (a) a payment order is duly presented for payment by a financial institution (in this sub-section referred to as the `collecting financial institution') otherwise than by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution; (b) the payment order is exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution pursuant to a request under sub-section 96j (5); and (c) the drawee non-bank financial institution pays the payment order, the drawee non-bank financial institution has, as against the collecting financial institution and any financial institution on whose behalf the collecting financial institution duly presented the payment order, the right to possession of the payment order. ``(3) Where- (a) a payment order is duly presented for payment by a financial institution (in this sub-section and sub-section (4) referred to as the `collecting financial institution') otherwise than by exhibiting the payment order to the drawee non-bank financial institution; (b) the payment order is not exhibited to the drawee non-bank financial institution pursuant to a request under sub-section 96j (5); (c) the drawee non-bank financial institution pays the payment order; and (d) the payment order is in the actual possession of the collecting financial institution or another financial institution on whose behalf the collecting financial institution duly presented the payment order, the collecting financial institution or other financial institution, as the case requires (in sub-section (4) referred to as the `relevant financial institution'), shall- (e) subject to sub-section (4), retain the payment order, on behalf of the drawee non-bank financial institution, for such period as is prescribed; and (f) at the expiration of that period, deal with the payment order in accordance with the regulations. ``(4) The drawee non-bank financial institution may, at any time while the payment order is being retained by the relevant financial institution in accordance with sub-section (3), request the relevant financial institution to deliver up the payment order to it, and the relevant financial institution shall forthwith comply with the request. ``(5) Nothing in sub-section (3) shall be taken to affect a right that a person has, as against the drawee non-bank financial institution, to possession of the payment order. ``(6) Where a payment order is paid otherwise than by the drawee non-bank financial institution, the person paying the payment order has, as against the person paid, the right to possession of the payment order.''. No. 20-Page 36, after clause 103, add the following new Schedule: SCHEDULE Sub-section 96h (1) MODIFICATIONS OF ACT IN RELATION TO PAYMENT ORDERS Sub-section 5 (1)- (a) Omit ``sections 10 to 15 (inclusive)'', substitute ``sections 11 to 15 (inclusive)''. (b) Omit ``sub-sections 60 (1) and 62 (12)'', substitute ``sub-section 60 (1)''. (c) Omit ``and sections 88 to 91 (inclusive)'', substitute ``, sections 88 to 91 (inclusive) and 96d to 96f (inclusive) and sub-section 96j (12)''. (d) Omit ``a bank cheque or bank draft'', substitute ``a payment order drawn by a non-bank financial institution on itself or on another branch of the non-bank financial institution''. Sub-section 5 (2)- Omit ``a bank cheque or bank draft drawn by it'', substitute ``a payment order drawn by the non-bank financial institution on itself or on another branch of the non-bank financial institution''. Sub-section 6 (2)- (a) Omit ``7 to 16 (inclusive)'', substitute ``7 to 9 (inclusive), 11 to 16 (inclusive)''. (b) Omit ``61, 62, 64 to 67 (inclusive)''. (c) Insert ``96e to 96g (inclusive), 96i, 96j, 96l to 96p (inclusive),'' after ``96d,''. Section 54- Omit ``bank'' (last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Paragraph 60 (3) (b)- Omit ``banks'', substitute ``financial institutions''. Section 92- Omit ``bank'' (second occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Sub-section 93 (1)- Omit ``bank'' (second and last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Paragraphs 93 (2) (c) and (d)- Omit ``a bank'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``a financial institution''. Paragraph 94 (1) (a)- Omit ``bank'' (last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Paragraph 94 (2) (a)- Omit ``bank'' (last occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Heading to Division 2 of Part VI- Omit ``bank'', substitute ``financial institution''. Section 95- Omit ``bank'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Section 96- Omit ``bank'' (wherever occurring), substitute ``financial institution''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.30) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. These amendments to the Cheques Bill 1985 will enable customers of non-bank financial institutions to issue a new instrument, to be called a payment order, which will be similar to a cheque except that it will be drawn on a customer's account with a non-bank; transfer liability on so-called agency cheques from non-banks to their customers and protect non-bank customers who use these agency cheques; extend the protection afforded banks collecting cheques to non-banks performing that function and impose a duty on non-banks to ensure prompt presentment of cheques lodged with them for collection on behalf of their customers; and clarify some provisions presently contained in the Cheques Bill. The overall effect of the amendments will be to place non-banks and their customers, whether using agency cheques or payment orders, in a similar position to banks and their customers who use `ordinary' cheques. It is expected that the legislation will come into operation on 1 July next year. Amendments to the Commonwealth Bank Accounts Debits Tax Administration Act 1982 will be required to be in place by then to ensure that payment orders are treated in the same manner as cheques for taxation purposes. This legislation is expected to be introduced early next year. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.32) —I think it should be said that the amendments to the Cheques Bill are very largely the product of the work of Senator Hamer, and his work should be recognised. I think it is also worth while pointing out that there may be some technical problems with the way in which the legislation is drafted. It has been suggested to me by some representatives of the banks that deferral of proclamation dates might be useful for the purpose of looking at any technical problems. I hope that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will look at that matter so that, if there are technical problems, they can be sorted out as quickly as possible since this is not the sort of Bill over which one should engage in any kind of disputation as it is essentially non-controversial. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill 1986. Science and Industry Research Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-As we begin this last item on the parliamentary program for 1986 it is appropriate, I believe, to record the first. I refer, of course, to your election, Madam Speaker, to the Speakership of this House, which members on both sides of the House would agree was one of the more important events not only of this year but of the history of this House. We remember it now at the end of the year with a great deal of pride. I would like on behalf of the Government to thank all those who have served this House through what by any standard has been a long and arduous year. I wish them personally, and their families, a particularly happy and restful Christmas. I mention particularly in this regard the Whips and their staff-on our side, Joan McKain especially-and the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, John Engledow. I also wish a merry Christmas to and thank our friends who sit above us in the Press Gallery. I know there are not too many of them there now but I know that they are listening and dwelling on every word that I say. Once again during this year they have been prepared to suffer the hardships of Kakadu National Park, the non-members bar and even my bowling in order to keep the Australian public accurately informed of political events. Madam Speaker, I conclude by extending to you and all members, from both sides of the House, best wishes from me and from the Government for Christmas and the new year. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Madam Speaker, I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in thanking you and Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been the odd exchange. I think one of your other firsts this year was the suspension of a Leader of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —No, that was not me. Mr HOWARD —Oh no, it was not. Madam SPEAKER —I got the Leader of the National Party. Mr HOWARD —I thank all the officers of the Parliament, the Opposition staff and particularly Noel Hicks and Ewen Cameron for the work that they have done. I also thank the media for their persistent interest in the goings on here and elsewhere. I join the Prime Minister in wishing members on both sides of the House a very happy and enjoyable Christmas. I wish all honourable members good health and happiness, some of them good political fortune and some not so good political fortune. I wish all honourable members good luck and I hope they all have a very nice time with their families over Christmas. That is important to all of us. Madam SPEAKER —I thank both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for their kind remarks. I particularly thank the Deputy Speaker for his loyalty and assistance during the year. I thank also the Clerk and his staff, the Parliamentary Librarian and his staff, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and his staff and the Secretary to the Joint House Department and his staff. As usual, their dedication has been demonstrated in what has been a particularly busy year. I extend the seasons greetings to them all. I hope they enjoy a well earned rest and come back ready to meet the undoubted challenges of next year. I wish all honourable members and their families a peaceful Christmas and a happy new year. If honourable members want to give me a new year present they will lift their standard of behaviour and debate for 1987. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I move: That this House authorises the broadcasting and re-broadcasting on Australian radio and television stations of a sound record of excerpts of its proceedings during 1987, subject to the conditions determined for this purpose by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. I believe the decision made previously has been to the advantage of the Australian public and I think we should continue with the system. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.38) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 17 February 1987, unless otherwise called together by Madam Speaker or, in the event of Madam Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. It is customary for the Leader of the House on the final day of the session to say to the seven or eight honourable members who are still here-and to send copies of the Hansard to those who are missing-how much we have enjoyed the year. I am sure that people who were listening to the broadcast of proceedings a little earlier in the day thought that we were enemies on opposite sides of the House, but as Billy McMahon once told Clyde Cameron: `You always hurt the ones you love'. We know that John Howard and others have a deep affection for those on this side of the House, and of course that affection is reciprocated. It is our intention and our wish that we should remain in our respective positions for some years to come. I also thank the Clerks for the work they have done and for the advice and guidance they have given through the year in order to facilitate the smooth running of the Parliament. If the Parliament does not run smoothly, Madam Speaker, it is not your fault or the fault of the Clerks; nor is it the fault of the Hansard people, who do an outstanding job. We should always place on record at this time of the year our appreciation of what they do. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, it was an historic occasion when you, Madam Speaker, were elected to your position. One had only to look at your family, particularly your children, when they were assembled at the time you celebrated your election to see the pride they had watching you rise to the great position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. There are a lot of other people to thank, including those who work for us in the dining rooms. We are not always the most generous of guests because we work extremely hard and we work very long hours, and we are not always in the good humour that I maintain. Some members can be objectionable and I would like to apologise for them. I just say to the people in the dining rooms how much we do appreciate how well they look after us. I thank all staff members including my own personal staff, particularly a person who has served as my principal secretary for the last couple of years, Dr John Loy, who will shortly return to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, where he came from. I cannot express enough my gratitude for the work he has done and the way in which he has been able to co-ordinate all the people who work in my office and who have been of great assistance. I say a very sincere thank you to the right honourable member for New England and Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) and the Whips. Obviously there must be discussion between us to see that the business goes through the House. I know that Ewen Cameron and the bushman's friend, Ben Humphreys, get on very well and make sure everything goes smoothly, as do the right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Port Adelaide so that we are able to conduct the business we are called together for. While speaking of the Government Whip, I was invited to his daughter's wedding tomorrow and unfortunately I cannot be there; I have to go and speak for the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch). But to Brenda and Aaron, the Parliament wishes you all the best. We hope that you have a nice life together and that you are able to come down here to see your famous father at work in the Parliament. To everybody else who perhaps we have not been able to mention individually, I say that we do appreciate the work they do for us. I do not believe the Australian public has a full appreciation of the hours that are put in by the parliamentarians in the national Parliament, the travelling that we do and the pressures that are placed upon us and our families. It is a great privilege to represent people in the Parliament but it does bring with it some burdens and great responsibilities. We are very tough on each other in the Australian political scene, and that sort of thing can make life difficult as well. On behalf of the Government, I do say to all those concerned with the Parliament: Thank you very much, we hope that you have a nice Christmas, that you keep watching the tax cuts when they come in next week and that you keep voting Labor. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business)(4.44) —In opening, I should say that the stamina of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) amazes me. I am told that he was in great form at about 8 o'clock this morning, having been in even better form a couple of hours earlier. On behalf of my colleagues in the National Party of Australia and others on this side of the House, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and I share in the general wishes of good will that have been extended by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the House. As the Leader of the House noted, perhaps many honourable members are more notable by their absence than there presence at this time. It has been, to say the least, an interesting session and I think your guidance over the affairs of this somewhat unruly chamber at times, Madam Speaker, and that of your Deputy and indeed all those responsible for our guidance, have been such that we appreciate your services and now wish you well during the well earned respite for which you are about to depart. Of course, there are many in this chamber and around it to whom we owe a debt. There is little doubt that thanks should go to the Clerks, the Hansard writers, the people in the Parliamentary dining rooms, the people in the Joint House Department and, perhaps above all those whom I particularly wanted to mention, John May and his staff. This afternoon they have done a sterling job. There is no doubt that without their assistance many of those who have departed this place may well have had to put up a tent on the lawns of Parliament House. Madam SPEAKER —Some of us still might. Mr SINCLAIR —Madam Speaker, I share your concern. That is one of the problems about the transport arrangements. John May, together with Paul and Brian, have done a tremendous job. We owe them a debt and I would like to compliment them. One other whose name has not been mentioned is John Engledow. Mr Hawke —I mentioned him. Mr SINCLAIR —I beg your pardon, Prime Minister. The Parliamentary Liaison Officer is somebody on whom we can all rely. His is a difficult task. He works, of course, in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I think we also owe him a debt of gratitude. Each of the three former speakers mentioned our staffs. Without doubt they are the core of everything that is done in this place and to them I would certainly also like to extend my thanks. Beyond that there are many of our families, both male and female, to whom we also owe a debt. Parliamentarians have an extraordinary life. It is not easy to be at home with them and do all those normal things that one might do. To hear that the Government Whip's daughter is to be married tomorrow illustrates one of the difficulties-how hard it is for us to spend time with them before those events. As all honourable members of this House would, I wish her and her future husband well. I think that we might also extend our thanks to our respective spouses for the jobs they have done and for our long-suffering families, many of whom I think suffer far more than we do for the occasions when we perhaps launch into each other on matters that they take very much to heart. Madam Speaker, to you and to all I extend my wishes for a very happy Christmas. Let us hope that 1987 sees some recovery in a national economy that for many, sadly, is going to lead to this Christmas being nowhere as promising as it otherwise might be. Madam SPEAKER —Could I just thank my personal staff. I left them out. Without them, I do not think I would have got through the year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.48) —I move: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the termination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. I hope that everybody comes back fit and well, particularly our old friend from Hawker, Ralph Jacobi. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.48 p.m., until Tuesday, 17 February 1987, at 2 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 November 1986: Defence Act-Determinations-1986- No. 75-Overseas Rental and Utilities Allowances and other allowances. No. 76-Overseas Living Out Allowance and Supplementary Living Allowance. No. 77-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance and other allowances. No. 78-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 79-Salary of Permanent Force Members and Allowances of the Vice Chief of the Defence Force. No. 89-Temporary Rental Allowance. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3965) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) What is the federal Government's policy on the training of nurses in colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology rather than through hospital based education programs. (2) What federal funding has been made available to Queensland for nurse education in each year since 1975-76. (3) How many student nurses are presently involved in institute or CAE training programs in Queensland and what part has the federal Government played in this transition from hospital based education courses. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government strongly supports the States' initiatives to transfer basic nurse education from hospitals to the advanced education sector and has offered financial assistance to the States to help achieve the transfer by 1994. Specifically, the Government announced in the recent Budget that it would provide $7.7 million in 1986-87 to the States and the Territories for this purpose. As part of the Commonwealth's commitment, eligibility for student allowances has been extended to students undertaking nursing courses in colleges of advanced education. The transfer is either well underway or planned for commencement by 1988 in all States and Territories with the exception of Queensland. agreements formalising the transfer arrangements have already been signed with South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. The Commonwealth expects that significant benefits will result from the transfer, including a more flexible nursing workforce, wider employment opportunities and enhanced status for nurses and increased education and vocation opportunities especially for women. (2) and (3) The Queensland Government's refusal of the Commonwealth's offer to assist in the transfer is particularly disappointing given the response from other States and the Territories, and the rapid progress being made in implementation of the transfer. In 1986, the second year of the transfer program Commonwealth assistance is available in respect of up to 2700 basic nurse education places in colleges of advanced education. New South Wales...1270 Victoria...725 Queensland...- South Australia...166 Western Australia...450 Tasmania...due to commence in 1988 Northern Territory...due to commence in 1987 Australian Capital Territory...62 In addition, 1300 places are available in colleges as part of a fully Commonwealth-funded pilot program in basic nurse education. These include 142 students enrolled in 1986 in the Queensland Institute of Technology's basic nurse education course. Details of funding in respect of these courses are not available as Commonwealth tertiary education grants are made available on the basis of a lump sum for each institution, with the allocation of grants for particular courses being a matter for the institutions themselves. (Question No. 4109) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: (1) How does the Government plan to increase coastal surveillance as part of the ``Drug Offensive''. (2) How many times has the $17m grant been announced for Australian Federal Police computer facilities and extra staff. (3) What amount of the $100m for the ``Drug Offensive'' will come from the Commonwealth Government. (4) Have any Government ``Drug Offensive'' funds been allocated (a) previously or (b) to existing programs. (5) What portion of the $100m is extra funds for new initiatives and programs. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Special Minister of State has provided the following answers to parts (1) and (2) of the question: (1) A number of measures have been taken to strengthen the co-ordination of the civil coastal surveillance program including closer co-operation between the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service and the development of national uniform pleasure craft identification to assist in aerial surveillance. These measures, together with intelligence gathering and overseas liaison postings, will continue to allow the civil coastal surveillance program to play its appropriate role in the Government's drugs campaign. (2) In his Policy Speech on 13 November 1984, the Prime Minister announced the Government's commitment to spend, during its second term, $7 million on upgrading the computer capacity of the Australian Federal Police and $10 million in recruiting an even stronger force. The commitment has since been referred to in the Parliament and elsewhere in appropriate contexts. (3) The ``Drug Offensive'' is the name given to that part of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NCADA) which is directed to information/media activities. The $100m NCADA campaign comprises the following Commonwealth/State allocations: Commonwealth States/ Territories $ $ 1985-86... 20,000,000 11,846,450 1986-87... 21,447,000 12,816,000 1987-88(a)... 21,447,000 12,816,000 62,894,000 (b)...37,478,450 Note: (a) To be indexed in 1987-88. (b) Includes funding for ``The Drug Offensive'' estimated at $15m over the first three years of NCADA. (4) No. (5) All NCADA funds are to be applied to new or expanded initiatives in the area of drug abuse treatment, rehabilitation or education. (Question No. 4345) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Who received payment for assistance and research from the ABC for the program ``Nazis in Australia''. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: In addition to payment to ABC staff involved in the research and production of the radio series `Nazis in Australia', othes engaged to provide assistance and research were: Mr John Loftus-co-researcher and on-air contributor Mr Pierre Vicary-researcher (Question No. 4624) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What processes does his Department use to review the overseas payment of pensions and other benefits. (2) What officers of his Department have been involved in these reviews. (3) What is the (a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) total costs incurred by these reviews in corresponding costs in 1986-87. (4) Which counties have been visited by review officers and what benefits are paid to residents of these countries. (5) What have been the results of the reviews. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Entitlement reviews of pensions and benefits paid to persons living overseas are conducted by mail. Details sought from pensioners in overseas reviews are similar to those sought in reviews in Australia. Local factors such as general increases in government pensions in a particular country may influence the timing of a review overseas. (2) About 45 officers are involved nationally in the administration of pensions paid overseas, including the conduct of reviews. (3) Officers do not travel overseas to conduct these reviews. No separate costs are maintained for the conduct of these reviews. (4) No countries have been visited for the purpose of conducting reviews. Statistics on pensions and benefits paid to pensioners who are residents of other countries may be found in the Annual Report of my Department. (5) No specific review statistics are maintained. The aim of any pension review is to ensure that pensioners are receiving their correct entitlements. (Question No. 4650) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1986: Did the ABC co-fund a poll of West Bank opinion with a pro-PLO newspaper for the Four Corners program The Palestinians of 8 September 1986; if so, what was the ABC's contribution to the cost of the poll. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based upon information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: The ABC was an equal partner with the New York newspaper Newsday and the Palestinian newspaper Al-Fajr in Funding a public opinion poll of Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza. The results of the poll were used on ABC News and Current Affairs programs but the poll was mainly conducted for a ``Four Corners'' program on the Palestinians broadcast on 8 September. The ABC's contribution to the cost of the Poll was $US2100. (Question No. 4725) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) Is the ABC considering ceasing the broadcast of the ``Country Hour'' and other rural programs. (2) Are these programs important to people living in rural Australia, providing an excellent means for country people to obtain vital information. (3) Will he give an assurance that these programs will not be terminated or cut back. Mr Duffy —The following answer to the honourable member's question has been based on information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) Changes to ABC Radio will have a minimal effect on key rural programs. ``The Country Hour'' and regional Breakfast Sessions will remain largely unchanged. (2) Yes, the ABC recognises the importance of its rural programs in conveying vital information to primary producers and country people. (3) The honourable member would be aware that the ABC is established as an independent statutory authority with complete responsibility for its own operations and programming decisions. Accordingly it would be inappropriate for me to provide any assurances in relation to the planning of ABC programming services. (Question No. 4841) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) Why did the A.C.T. Health Authority advertise in The Canberra Times on 11 October 1986 for 4 clerical staff for the Nursing Home Management Section when the Authority is substantially reducing its nursing home management role through the sale of Allambee Nursing Home. (2) How can the additional expenditure on salaries in these circumstances be justified. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The advertisement in The Canberra Times gave incorrect information about the scope of responsibility and location for the 4 positions concerned. The positions are in fact located in the Nursing Homes and Services Branch of the ACT Health Authority's Community Health Services Division. The Branch, in addition to managing the Authority's nursing home program, is also responsible for the operations of the Community Nursing Service and for the professional nursing aspects of the Authority's Alcohol and Drug and Mental Health Services. The advertised positions control all administrative, education and research activities for the Branch. The positions are temporary, but, unfortunately, the advertisements did not reflect this. They will be reviewed early in 1987 because the sale of Allambee Nursing Home and the outcome of the National Case on Nursing Structures will have a bearing on the need for permanent staffing and the category and classification of the positions. (2) Additional expenditure on salaries is not involved. The positions have been filled on a temporary basis since March 1986 when the Community Health Services Division was established. The positions were advertised to regularise an existing situation. (Question No. 4846) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) Does the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation annual report for 1985 state that one of the Corporation's functions is to promote the export from Australia of apples and pears and that one of its most important functions is the promotion of apples and pears on the domestic market. (2) Do the statistics shown in the report indicate that over the period 1976 to 1985 (a) production of both apples and pears has shown virtually no growth, (b) exports of apples have shown a serious decline and (c) exports of pears have remained almost static. (3) Does the report show that over the period 1979-80 to 1983-84 the number of (a) apple bearing trees has been in steady decline and (b) pear bearing trees has been virtually unchanged. (4) Do these trends indicate that the domestic per capita consumption of both apples and pears has declined over the 10 years to 1985. (5) Was $1,114,636 and $123,517 spent in 1985 by the Corporation on promotion in Australia and overseas, respectively. (6) What has been the expenditure on promotion in each year since 1976 in (a) Australia and (b) overseas. (7) Do trends in the production, export and domestic consumption of apples and pears indicate that a careful reappraisal of the Corporation's publicity and promotion strategies is necessary. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) The 1985 Annual Report of the Corporation shows that the production of apples and pears has varied significantly each year during the period 1976 to 1985. Production of apples has varied from a low of 14.2 million boxes in 1978 to a high of 19.3 million boxes in 1985. Pear production fell to 5.8 million boxes in 1977 but totalled 7.6 million boxes in 1985. Apple and pear production will vary significantly from year to year due to seasonal conditions and the biennial nature of the crop; (b) exports of apples have shown a significant decline in the last 10 years; (c) pear exports between 1976 and 1985 have varied considerably from year to year. (3) (a) Yes; (b) yes. (4) Per capita consumption data supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the past five years for applies indicates a variable consumption pattern from a high of 17.3 kg per head in 1980 to a low of 14.0 kg in 1982. Pear consumption over the same period has generally increased to a high of 4.6 kg per head in 1985. (5) Yes. (6) The following table details the expenditure by the Corporation on publicity and promotion for each year since 1976. PUBLICITY AND PROMOTION Australia Overseas $ $ Year ended 30 June 1976 ... 55,696 87,839 1 July 1976 to 31 December 1977 ... 240,853 75,983 Year ended 31 December 1978 ... 142,951 90,987 Year ended 31 December 1979 ... 371,302 117,216 Year ended 31 December 1980 ... 274,898 126,177 Year ended 31 December 1981 ... 466,324 119,846 Year ended 31 December 1982 ... 406,091 71,814 Year ended 31 December 1983 ... 465,292 100,739 Year ended 31 December 1984 ... 522,292 152,603 Year ended 31 December 1985 ... 1,114,636 126,517 (7) The Corporation, in consultation with the industry, has taken, and is taking, steps to improve overall market performance. This includes a continuing reappraisal of its publicity and promotion strategies. (Question No. 1239)) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Young —I have provided an answer to the honourable member's question. The information which has been collated for the honourable member is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. A copy of the reply is filed in the Table Office of the House of Representatives where it may be read or a copy of it obtained. (Question No. 4336) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What funds have been allocated for community training projects in each State and Territory. (2) What projects have been funded in Queensland. (3) What is the (a) funds allocation, (b) number of people who will be employed and (c) description of each of the Queensland projects. (4) How many projects are located in the Electoral Division of Fadden and how many people will be employed on each project. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The 1986-87 allocation of Community Training Program (CTP) funds is provided in the following table: State/Territory Grants Allowances for participants Total $ $ $ New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory ... 3,126,000 1,966,000 5,092,000 Victoria ... 2,101,000 1,450,000 3,551,000 Queensland ... 796,000 669,000 1,465,000 South Australia ... 1,093,000 520,000 1,613,000 Western Australia ... 1,204,000 930,000 2,134,000 Tasmania ... 826,000 579,000 1,405,000 Northern Territory ... 101,000 39,000 140,000 Totals ... 9,247,000 6,153,000 15,400,000 The CTP was introduced in 1985-86. The program absorbed a number of community projects funded under previous programs. The current number of CTP projects in Queensland (9), is similar to the number in South Australia (8) and Western Australia (9). The above figures do not include Volunteer Youth Projects (VYP) which were funded as part of the CTP in 1985-86 but now form part of the Community Volunteer Program announced in the 1986-87 budget. There are currently 5 VYP located in Queensland. Under CTP, funds for new projects have generally been allocated on the basis of the distribution of population, and within that criterion, the suitability of projects. Under the programs subsumed by CTP, funds were allocated on a national basis according to the suitability of projects. The differences in allocations to Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia reflect, in the main, the influence of these pre-existing commitments. (2) and (3) Details of funds allocated in 1986-87, numbers to be assisted and a description of each of the current CTP projects in Queensland are set out below. National Association for Training the Disabled in Office Work (NADOW)-provides training in office skills and supported job placements to people with disabilities such as quadraplegia, epilepsy and congenital deformities: Grant allocation: $163,950 Trainee estimate: 58 Redcliffe Welfare Council (Work Skills Training Program)-will provide vocational skills training in areas such as clerical and office procedures, retail work, stores and horticulture to long-term unemployed young people. The program will also include life skills development: Grant allocation: $100,800 Trainee estimate: 45 Kedron Lodge Youth Support Service (Work Training and Living Skills Program)-will train homeless and disadvantaged youth in work skills through participation in a wood-workshop enterprise. Personal and life skills will also be included: Grant allocation: $47,400 Trainee estimate: 40 Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association, Wynnum Branch (Youth JOB)-will provide vocational and job-search skills to long-term unemployed and particularly disadvantaged young people: Grant allocation: $32,500 Trainee estimate: 100 Ipswich City Council/Moreton Shire Council-will provide personal skills development, job-search and vocational training to people over 45 who have been unemployed for over 2 years: Grant allocation: $100,000 Trainee estimate: 115 Rockhampton Youth Service (Jobsearch)-will provide training in vocational skills, job-search and life skills to long-term unemployed young people and other disadvantaged people: Grant allocation: $100,000 Trainee estimate: 80 Wheelchair and Disabled Association of Australia-will provide vocational training and life skills development for people with disabilities and long-term unemployed mature-aged people: Grant allocation: $78,650 Trainee estimate: 60 Salvation Army (Employment 2000, Queensland)-will provide vocational training to disadvantaged unemployed young people in areas such as clerical work, wood and metalwork, sewing and catering. Vocational and life skills will be developed: Grant allocation: $110,200 Trainee estimate: 75 Windsor Uniting Church and Basics, Research, Education, Action, Development (BREAD) (Communicare Home Handyman Service)-will provide training in basic woodwork and building skills to long-term unemployed young people. Life skills will also be developed: Grant allocation: $55,100 Trainee estimate: 32 (Note: Projects are funded on a calendar year basis. Applications for the 1987 grant year have not been submitted at this time. Accordingly, the amount of the grant allocation for 1986-87 for each project is an estimate. An additional $7,400 has been allocated for project staff training purposes.) (4) There are no CTP projects located in the Electorate Division of Fadden; however, one VYP is located at Logan City. Under VYP, community organisations and local government authorities receive Commonwealth funding to operate referral services to place unemployed young people in voluntary community service activities. The Logan City VYP was established in February 1986 and placed 56 young people in voluntary activities in 1985-86. (Question No. 4351) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Has he received a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council entitled ``Government Purchasing and Offsets Policies in Industrial Innovation''; if so, what action has been taken in response to the report. (2) Has specific action been taken to implement each of the recommendations; if so, what action. (3) If not, why not. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On 22 October 1984 I referred the report to my colleagues, the then Ministers for Administrative Services, Industry and Commerce, Trade, Communications, Science and Technology, Finance and Defence Support with a request that it be given consideration in the development of policies within their portfolios. Since then considerable activity has taken place in the development of industry policy and account has been taken of the broad thrust of the recommendations, to the extent practicable, in relevant policy activity. (2) Of the fourteen recommendations in the report, eight have been implemented substantially, four remain under consideration pending the examination by the Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements (the Inglis Committee), and two have been rejected, viz Nos. 7 and 13. (3) In regard to Recommendation No. 7 payment by the Commonwealth is generally already consistent with accepted commercial practice with respect to business dealings with the public sector. The use of bank guarantees is covered in the Commonwealth Purchasing Manual and the standard conditions of tender and contract. Securities for advance or progress payments in the form of bank guarantees, letters of credit, or bonds are accepted by the Commonwealth. In regard to Recommendation No. 13, although the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is required to collect statistics on Commonwealth purchasing, it has not attempted to maintain an information base on ownership of contractors because to do so would be adminstratively difficult, be expensive to maintain, and not be cost effective. (Question No. 4358) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What changes is he planning to make to the London office of his Department. (2) Is he planning to close the office. (3) Is he satisfied with the office's enforcement of the regulations for pensions paid overseas. (4) How many staff are employed in the office and what are their classifications. (5) In respect of each classification, how many are (a) Australian and (b) foreigners. (6) What is the travel budget for the office. (7) What (a) were the travel costs of the office for each of the last three financial years, (b) centres were visited and when and (c) was the purpose of each trip. (8) How many staff have approval for travel. (9) How many of these are Australian and what positions do they hold. (10) How often does the office send officers to (a) Greece (b) Italy and (c) Yugoslavia to check pension matters. (11) What is the level of fraud in respect of pensions paid overseas. (12) Did any pensioners receiving a pension overseas come forward under the amnesty. (13) Were overseas pensioners informed of the amnesty; if so, how were they informed and how much did it cost. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A decision has recently been taken to recall two Australia-based officers from London. The feasibility of running the London office with locally engaged staff under the supervision of the Department of Foreign Affairs in London is being examined. (2) See (1) above. (3) Yes. (4) and (5) As at 29 August 1986, there were 13 staff working in the London office of the Department of Social Security of whom 2 were Australia-based (AB) and 11 were overseas employees (OE). Details are as follows: 1 Director, Clerical Administrative, Class 10 AB, Australian. 1 Assistant Director, Clerical Administrative, Class 6, AB, Australian. 2 Senior Administrative Officers, OE, both non-Australian. 3 Chief Clerical Officers, OE, all non-Australian. 3 Senior Clerical Officers, OE, 2 Australian and 1 non-Australian. 1 Stenographer-Secretary Grade 2, OE, Australian. (6) $45,000. (7) (a) 1983-84 2,128.63 ($A3,413) 1984-85 2,784.71 ($A4,370) 1985-86 4,044.90 ($A8,440) These amounts include the cost of fares, accommodation and travelling allowance. (b) and (c)- Centre visited Date Purpose France ... June 1986 To consult embassy staff on social security matters and the Regional Medical Director about specialist medical examinations of DSS pensioners. Greece ... Nov. 83 To consult embassy officials on social security matters. To finalise arrangements for medical examinations of invalid pensioners. Interviews with DSS pensioners. Consultation with officials of the Australian Greek Pensioners Association. Italy ... Mar. 84 To participate in discussions leading to the Australia/Italy reciprocal agreement on Social Security. Consultation with embassy staff on social security matters including the Regional Medical Director on medical examinations of DSS pensioners. Birmingham UK ... Mar. 84 To study a trial project for the introduction of micro-computers to UK Department of Health and Social Security local offices. Greece ... July 84 Consultation with embassy staff on social security matters. To discuss aspects of the Greek social security system with Greek officials. To interview DSS pensioners. Austria ... Sept. 84 To participate in a meeting of the International Social Security Association. Newcastle-upon Tyne UK ... Sept. 84 To discuss aspects of the Department of Health and Social Security operations in Newcastle Central Office with DHSS officials. France ... Apr. 85 To address general meeting of Department of Foreign Affairs Administrative Officers Association on Social Security matters. Sweden and Norway ... July 85 To participate with Commissioner for Employees' Compensation in discussions on compensation and related social security matters with Swedish and Norwegian officials. Cardiff UK ... Sept. 85 To discuss aspects of fraud prosecution by the Department of Health and Social Security Yugoslavia and Greece ... Nov. 85 To consult embassy officials on social security matters and interview DSS pensioners. West Germany ... Dec. 85 To participate in discussions with West German officials related to possible future negotiations for a reciprocal agreement on social security. Austria ... Mar. 86 To discuss with Austrian Confederation of Social Insurance institutes details of the Austrian social insurance system. France ... June 86 To attend meeting of OECD working party on social policy. (8) and (9) The Director had authority to approve travel for the Australia-based officers. Approval for travel by overseas employees is given by the Department of Foreign Affairs. (10) See (4). (11) There are no known instances of fraud involving social security clients serviced by the London office. Overpayments which arise as a result of failure by overseas clients to advise changes of circumstances are recovered in the normal way. (12) Specific information of this nature was not collected during the Amnesty and consequently is not available. (13) The department's London office was fully advised of the Amnesty guidelines and procedures. Apart from this, no special publicity arrangements concerning the Amnesty were made for pensioners residing overseas. (Question No. 4445) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) What is the cost, including postage, of producing the newsletter `Government in Focus' distributed by the national media liaison service. (2) What is the frequency of publication. (3) What is the circulation of the newsletter. (4) What criteria determine inclusion on its mailing list. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The latest available figures are for the July 1986 issue which cost, $12,788.78, including postage. (2) `Government in Focus' is published monthly. (3) 34,000. (4) The circulation list for `Government in Focus' was compiled by a commercial mailing house using mailing lists for various business and community groups, Federal Government departmental mailing lists, media organisations, names and addresses supplied by Members of Parliament as well as individuals and organisations who asked to be included on the mailing list. (Question No. 4451) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) In each of the years 1982-83 to 1985-86 what percentage of the workforce was employed in (a) the Commonwealth public sector, (b) the State Government sector, (c) the local government sector and (d) the private sector. (2) What percentage of the jobs created by the Government since coming to office was created in each of these sectors in each of these years. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The composition of employment by government and private sector is only available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) quarterly Survey of Employment and Earnings (Cat. No. 6248.0) which was introduced in the September quarter 1983. The survey obtains information from employers on the number of wage and salary earners employed each month. The employed wage and salary earners series excludes self-employed persons, members of the Australian permanent defence force, employees based outside Australia, private households employing staff, and enterprises engaged in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. The following table shows, where available, the proportion of employment by sector. Data are not available for 1982-83. PROPORTION OF WAGE AND SALARY EARNERS BY SECTOR, AUSTRALIA, 1983-84 TO 1985-86 Sector Year 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 (i) % % % (a) Commonwealth government (ii) ... 8.2 8.1 7.9 (b) State government ... 21.2 20.8 20.5 (c) Local government ... 2.9 2.9 2.8 (d) Private ... 67.7 68.2 68.8 Total ... 100.0 100.0 100.0 (i) Commonwealth government employment includes temporary Population Census employees (40,700 persons) for the June quarter 1986. By excluding these temporary employees from the Commonwealth government sector, the proportion of Commonwealth government wage and salary earners declines by 0.05 per cent). (ii) Commonwealth government employees include persons employed in government departments, agencies and authorities created by or reporting to the Commonwealth Parliament. Those bodies run jointly by Commonwealth and State governments are classified as belonging to the Commonwealth government sector. (2) At the June quarter 1986 (latest data available), 1,749,200 (includes 40,700 temporary Population Census employees) wage and salary earners were employed in the public sector and 3,852,300 in the private sector. Between the September quarter 1983 (earliest data available) and the June quarter 1986 the number of wage and salary earners employed in the public sector increased by 110,900 (6.8 per cent) while the number of private sector wage and salary earners increased by 414,600 (12.1 per cent). The following table shows for 1984-85 and 1985-86 the share by sector of the increase in the number of employed wage and salary earners compared with the previous year. Since the series only commenced in September 1983, this information is not available for 1982-83 and 1983-84. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY SECTOR, AUSTRALIA 1984-85 TO 1985-86 Sector Year 1984-85 1985-86 (i) % % (a) Commonwealth government ... 5.7 4.0 (b) State government ... 10.3 11.5 (c) Local government ... 3.1 0.9 (d) Private ... 80.9 83.6 Total ... 100.0 100.0 (i) Commonwealth government employment includes temporary Population Census employees (40,700 persons) for the June quarter 1986. By excluding these temporary employees from the Commonwealth government sector, the employment growth by sector would be Commonwealth government (2.6 per cent), State government (11.7 per cent), local government (0.9 per cent) and private (84.8 per cent). (Question No. 4497) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Has consideration been given to a follow-up purchasing policy for government departments where preference is given to firms which have developed products under the old Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme or under the new Grants for Industry Research and Development Scheme; if not, will he give consideration to such a policy. (2) Will he consider the development of an assistance scheme (by way of grants, ``soft'' loans or increased taxation relief) for companies to establish production facilities following a research and development project, so that continuity of support to innovative and export-orientated firms can be provided at a critical stage of their development. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Government purchasing of technology-intensive products is being examined by the Inglis Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements. The issues raised by the honourable member will no doubt be considered by the Committee and will be looked at by the Government when it receives the Committee's report. (2) A number of initiatives have greatly improved the financial environment for innovative and export-orientated high technology firms in Australia. The Government has introduced the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development expenditure. It has complemented this intitiative with the Grants for Industry Research and Development (GIRD) Scheme. These two measures help innovative companies to the end of the R&D stage. Several Government initiatives provide support beyond this stage. The Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) is now able to provide more finance for industry through an increase in its capital and gearing ratio. Its charter has been amended so as to give greater emphasis to the high technology areas of manufacturing industry. The Government's deregulation of the financial market has improved the range and quality of financial services offered to manufacturing industry and stimulated Australia's traditionally conservative financial sector into greater risk taking. The Management and Investment Companies (MIC) Program is designed to attract support for the start-up and early growth of Australian based enterprises which generally have the potential to grow rapidly into substantial businesses. Such companies would be export oriented and would use innovative technology. Under the program a 100% taxation deduction is available to investors in licensed MICs in the year of subscription. The MICs use investors' funds to invest in eligible enterprises as defined in the MIC Act and certified by the MIC Licensing Board. Among non-Government initiatives in the financial sector has been the establishment on Australian Stock Exchanges of the Second Boards. The requirements for listing on Second Boards make it easier to raise capital for new ventures. The successful listing on the main boards of Australian Stock Exchanges of new high technology companies also indicate that there is considerable willingness to invest in high technology ventures. The Government considers that at this point there is no need to consider further terms of assistance. (Question No. 4540) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) Did he say that Mr Peter Sawyer's book Dole Bludging-A Taxpayer's Guide has some merit but does not go far enough; if so what did he mean. (2) If not, what public comments has he made about the book. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) If the honourable member is referring to my comments on the ``Willesee'' show of 20 June 1986, they were as follows: I've had a good look at the book and let me say I don't reject the book in its entirety. I think that anyone that goes to the trouble of writing a couple of hundred pages about the social security system, particularly someone that has had experience in a regional office of the Department, their views ought to be taken seriously by me as Minister and by the Department. But it is, I think, disturbing that the book has had so much attention given the fact that there are quite fundamental errors. (Question No. 4599) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) What estimated number of people will receive unemployment benefits for more than (a) 1 week, (b) 2 weeks, (c) 3 weeks, (d) 6 weeks and (e) 12 weeks in 1986-87. (2) What International Labour Organisation and UN conventions would prohibit the introduction of a compulsory work for the dole scheme in Australia. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Estimates of outlays on unemployment benefits in 1986-87 are based on an estimated average of 595,000 unemployment beneficiaries over the year (see Budget Paper (No. 1), page 152). Estimates of the durations for which these beneficiaries will be paid are not available. My Department does, however, collect data on durations for which beneficiaries at a given date had been receiving benefit up to that date. The following table summarises the information from the latest survey (23 May 1986) by those duration categories closest to those nominated by the honourable member. Duration of Benefit Number of Recipients Over 1 week ... 544,598 Over 3 weeks ... 514,948 Over 7 weeks ... 462,872 Over 13 weeks ... 401,157 (2) Australia is a party to 3 international treaties which prohibit the use of compulsory labour and which impinge on the introduction of a compulsory ``work for the dole'' scheme in Australia: International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 29, Forced Labour, 1930; ILO Convention No. 105, Abolition of Forced Labour, 1957; and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. These instruments specifically prohibit the use of labour which is exacted from persons under threat of penalty and for which these persons have not voluntarily offered themselves. A penalty need not be in the form of penal sanctions but might take the form of a loss of rights or privileges. The introduction of a universal scheme which made receipt of unemployment benefits conditional upon performance of unpaid work may contravene one or more of these Instruments. However, the question of whether a particular scheme would or would not contravene them, taken together, would depend on the precise nature and conditions of the scheme. (Question No. 4600) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: Is the Constitutional Commission now examining the need for a Bill of Rights to be incorporated in the Constitution; if so, (a) when will that examination be completed and (b) has the Government considered such a proposal. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Constitutional Commission has an Advisory Committee on Individual and Democratic Rights under the Constitution, which is examining what guarantees and protections of individual rights, if any, should be included in the Constitution. (a) Under its terms of reference, the Constitutional Commission is to report by 30 June 1988. The Commission has asked each of its Advisory Committees to report to it by the end of April 1987. (b) The Government is awaiting the report of the Commission before giving detailed consideration to any change to the Constitution. (Question No. 4639) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Did funding of the Warwick Education Centre cease as a result of a decision taken in the 1986-87 Budget; if so, is the decision expected to save $15,000. (2) Is the Centre to be closed; if so, (a) was it a departmental or a Budget decision, (b) why disadvantage persons living in the country and (c) will the Minister reverse the decision. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Funding of the Warwick Education Centre under the Commonwealth Education Centres Program is schedule to cease from the end of December 1986. This was a Budget decision and will save some $15,000 in 1987. The Centre will continue to operate in 1987, drawing on income from other sources including a special Commonwealth grant of $13,500 for the development of professional skills of teachers in one, two or three teacher schools in the southern Darling Downs region. (Question No. 4641) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Did the Government announce in the 1984-85 Budget its intention to restructure support for the aged, young disabled and families in need of home care services by the creation of a Home and Community Care Program (HACC). (2) Did that program allow for new types of services in addition to existing programs covered by the four pieces of legislation to be incorporated in HACC; if so, what types of new services are contemplated. (3) What additional new service types (a) were introduced in (i) 1984-85 and (ii) 1985-86 and (b) are expected to be introduced in 1986-87. (4) When were the States and Territories formally advised of the Government's intention to introduce HACC. (5) On what date were the States and Territories invited to participate in negotiations to develop HACC. (6) Have negotiations with the States and Territories been completed. (7) Have all States and Territories now concluded agreements with the Commonwealth on the HACC; if not, what States and Territories have not concluded agreements and why. (8) Will the inability of one or more States or Territories to conclude an agreement with the Commonwealth prevent the HACC from reaching and maintaining an efficient and effective level of operation. (9) Were ``above base'' funds of $10 million allocated by the Commonwealth to the States and Territories for 1984-85 and were all such funds spent in that year. (10) On what programs was the allocation spent in (a) each State and Territory, and (b) each year. (11) If the allocation was not fully expended, was it due to (a) the States and Territories failing to meet the three pre-conditions specified by the Commonwealth; if so, what conditions were not met, and by what States and Territories or (b) other reasons; if so, what reasons. (12) Were unspent funds from the allocation rolled over into 1985-86; if so, were these additional to the $25 million allocated by the Commonwealth for 1985-86. (13) Was the total allocation for 1985-86 fully spent, if so, (a) on what programs, by State and Territory was the allocation spent. (14) If the 1985-86 allocation was not fully expended, was it due to (a) the States and Territories failing to meet the three pre-conditions specified by the Commonwealth, if so, what conditions were not met, and by which States and Territories or (b) other reasons, if so, what reasons. (15) Were unspent funds from the allocation rolled over into 1986-87; were these additional to the allocation by the Commonwealth for 1986. (16) What expenditure was occurred against each of the 11 sub-programs indicated in the Minister's second reading speech on the Home and Community Care Bill 1985 in (a) 1984-85 and (b) 1985-86. (17) Have guidelines been prepared for each of the 11 sub-programs; have those guidelines been made available to organisations. (18) If the guidelines have not been made available why not, and when is it expected that this will take place. (19) What is the estimated total expenditure of 1986-87 for each State and Territory by existing and new service types by Commonwealth funding. (20) Has the Minister indicated that total Commonwealth and State expenditure for the year 1984-85 to 1986-87 is estimated at $564.8 million. (21) Does the assistance formulae provide for funds in 1987-88 and beyond the basis of a 20 per cent increase in money terms over the previous level by the Commonwealth, matched by the same percentage in the States. (22) What evidence does the Minister have that the care of Australia's disabled is so inadequate that it warrants a 20 per cent per annum increase in funding for every year that the agreements are in force. (23) When does the Minister expect that HACC will meet the needs of the frail aged and disabled. (24) When will a national database to enable effective monitoring of the Program be fully operational. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Service types eligible for funding under the Home and Community Care (HACC) Program include: (a) home help or personal care (or both); (b) home maintenance or modification (or both); (c) food; (d) community respite care; (e) transport; (f) community paramedical services; (g) community nursing; (h) assessment or referral (or both); (i) education or training for service providers and users (or both); (j) information; (k) co-ordination; (l) such other service as is agreed upon by the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister. (3) Some of the new services types introduced since the Program's inception are respite care, transport services, education programs and co-ordination. The types of services to be funded are jointly agreed by Commonwealth and State/Territory Ministers each year after consultation with community groups. These service types have been and will be developed as priorities and funds allow. (4) On 22 August 1984, by letter. (5) On 22 August 1984, by letter. (6) Yes. (7) Yes. (8) Not applicable. (9) None of the $10 million available in 1984-85 was spent in that year. The States were reluctant to commit and spend these funds in the lead up to signing Agreements. Accordingly, the Agreements provided that the funds unspent in 1984-85 could be rolled-over into 1985-86. The earliest State signed an Agreement in September 1985 and the last State signed in April 1986, well into the 1985-86 financial year. (10) 1984-85-nil spent. 1985-86-The reconciliation of expenditure by States in 1985-86 is not yet complete. However, it is estimated that the unmatched funds were spent as follows: HACC 1985-86 Unmatched Commonwealth expenditure by State by service type $'000 Service Type NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Total Home Help/Personal Care ... 3,487 360 240 241 128 1 37 4,494 Home Maintenance/Modification ... 130 . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Food Services ... . . . . 9 173 . . 1 46 229 Respite Care ... 1,492 810 180 266 47 71 19 2,885 Transport ... 43 . . 233 95 75 . . . . 446 Paramedical Services ... 148 . . . . 9 . . . . 157 Community Nursing ... . . 350 322 . . . . . . . . 672 Assessment and Referral ... 439 . . 116 81 . . 14 23 673 Education and Training ... 6 207 31 3 . . . . 247 Information ... 7 . . . . 14 . . . . 21 Co-ordination ... . . . . . . 5 . . 17 22 Total ... 3,487 2,625 1,607 860 887 281 87 142 9,976 (11) (a) No. (b) Full expenditure was not achieved in South Australia and the ACT largely because of the time frame between commitment dates and when expenditure had to be achieved. (12) Yes. Yes. (13) The total HACC Appropriation for 1985-86 was $117.451m (including the ACT). Actual expenditure was $100.845m, the following is the estimated split between service types: HACC 1985-86 COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE BY STATE BY SERVICE TYPE $'000 Service type NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Total Home Help/Personal Care ... 20,716 11,824 3,617 1,875 2,662 1,477 140 216 42,527 Home Maintenance/Modification ... . . 130 . . . . . . . . 7 . . 137 Food Services ... 2,414 2,914 1,069 776 1,052 333 32 80 8,670 Respite Care ... 1,185 3,491 1,789 538 662 47 93 19 7,824 Transport ... . . 43 . . 233 95 75 9 . . 455 Paramedical Services ... . . 740 . . 1,586 . . 47 . . . . 2,373 Community Nursing ... 7,262 10,543 5,722 3,342 6,520 1,342 . . . . 34,731 Assessment and Referral ... . . 440 . . 116 81 . . 46 23 706 Education and Training ... . . 6 207 . . 31 3 . . . . 247 Information ... . . 8 . . . . . . 14 . . . . 22 Co-ordination ... 874 1,421 181 325 314 5 10 23 3,153 TOTAL ... 32,451 31,560 12,585 8,791 11,417 3,343 337 361 100,845 (14) (a) No. (b) Full expenditure was not achieved due to the time taken in submitting claims, short time frames between commitment dates and when expenditure had to be achieved, and the time taken to develop State/Territory plans for the expansion of the Program. (15) Yes. Yes. (16) As the Agreement did not come into effect until 1985-86 the 11 service types shown in the Agreement and indicated in the Minister's Second Reading Speech did not apply until 1985-86. Question 13 provides the estimated split for 1985-86. (17) No. No. (18) No, because narrowly focussed sub program guidelines may hinder the development of integrated services providing one or more of the service types listed above. (b) The document `The Home and Community Care Program, Commonwealth priorities for service development' sets out a checklist for reviewing service. This requires joint development by the Commonwealth and States to provide more detailed guidance to service providers. (19) Estimated expenditure for 1986-87 is $131.94. It is not possible at this stage to estimate expenditure by service types. The notional allocation of this between States is: $m New South Wales ... 44.074 Victoria ... 39.194 Queensland ... 16.904 Western Australia ... 14.406 South Australia ... 11.770 Tasmania ... 3.760 Northern Territory ... 0.676 Australian Capital Territory ... 1.156 This notional allocation is subject to change, depending on the actual expenditures of States. States have the capacity to roll-over into 1987-88 any unspent 2:1 new Commonwealth money and some States will avail themselves of this provision. (20) I am not able to identify the source of the figure quoted in the member's question. However, the expenditure figure is estimated at $579m for the three financial years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87. (21) The HACC Agreement provides that the Commonwealth will increase its contribution to the Program in 1987-88 by up to 20 per cent over its expenditure in 1986-87 providing that the State/Territory agrees to increase its contribution by the same percentage. In future years the Commonwealth and States/Territories must increase their contributions to the Program by 20 per cent each year unless otherwise jointly agreed. (22) There is substantial evidence of a significant deficit in community care services for aged and disabled people including: studies conducted by the Australian National University and the Department of Social Security (in conjunction with the Australian Council of the Ageing) indicate that fewer than 8 per cent of aged people with a moderate or severe disability have access to a formal community care service; over the next 20 years it is estimated that the 65 years old and over population will increase by 44 per cent; `In a Home or at Home: Accommodation and Home Care for the Aged' the report from the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure 1982 and the more recent report of the Nursing Homes and Hostels Review highlight the historical imbalance of funding for residential care against support for the aged and disabled to live with dignity in the community. In addition, the annual 20 per cent increase in funds available for the HACC program must provide for cost increases in existing services as well as expansion in service provision. Realgrowth will therefore be somewhat less than 20 per cent. (23) It is intended that the Program, based as it will be on needs assessment, will go some considerable way in enabling many people in its target group to avoid premature or unnecessary admission to long term institutional care at less cost to the larger community and with greater quality of life gains to the individual. (24) A national information collection system is expected to be operational by late 1987. (Question No. 4687) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What was the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office and the Department of Housing and Construction. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him, (b) the Australian Survey Office or (c) the Department of Housing and Construction; if so, what are they. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) (i) 1984-85, 182.4 hours; (ii) 1985-86, 150.0 hours; (iii) 1986 to date, 113.0 hours. (b) (i) 1984-85, $12,052; (ii) 1985-86, $22,768; (iii) 1986 to date, $12,219. (2) (a) No. (b) No-The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its surveying services. (c) No-The Department of Housing and Construction is responsible for the staffing and funding of its drafting services. (Question No. 4727) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) How many Ministers use the Commonwealth Offices at 4 Treasury Place, Melbourne, on a regular basis. (2) What arrangements have been made for airconditioning the offices. (3) Which Ministers asked for the offices to be airconditioned. (4) Were other Ministers consulted; if so, which ones and with what result. (5) When did fitting out of the airconditioning take place. (6) How many personnel and working days were involved. (7) What was the cost of the work. (8) What equipment was installed and what was its country of origin. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Six. (2) All ministerial suites were air-conditioned under the 1985-86 Civil Works Program. (3) The Hon. Michael Duffy, Minister for Communications; The Hon. Clyde Holding, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; Senator, the Hon. John Button, Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. (4) No. (5) Over the period February 1986 to September 1986. (6) Eight personnel; One hundred and fifty four working days. (7) $235,000. (8) `Temperzone' reverse cycle heat pump units of New Zealand origin. (Question No. 4735) Mr Burr asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: (1) Is AMC Search Limited a subsidiary company of the Australian Maritime College. (2) Does the company use the equipment of the college to provide a commercial consultancy for research in maritime and design problems. (3) Does the company reimburse the college for use of the equipment. (4) Is the Minister aware of similar companies operating in Australia without access to federally funded equipment. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) AMC Search Limited is a company limited by guarantee and as such has no share holders. The Australian Maritime College Council appoints the Members and Directors of the Company and therefore under the provisions of paragraph 7(1)(a)(i) of the Companies Act 1981 the Company becomes a subsidiary of the College. (2) The Company does use the equipment of the College to provide a commercial consultancy for research in maritime and maritime related design problems. (3) The Company pays the College commercial rates for the hire of its equipment and the profits of the Company are donated to the College. The cost of the use of the equipment is met by the Company and is not charged against the College operating budget. (4) I am not aware of any companies associated with tertiary education institutions in Australia and undertaking maritime consultancy and research which do not have access to federally funded equipment. (Question No. 4743) Mr Everingham asked the Minister for Local Government and Admininstrative Services, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: Has the Government paid the removal costs of furniture or personal effects to or from (a) 14 Narambi Street, Narrabundah or (b) 6 Tennyson Crescent, Forrest, ACT, since March 1983. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department does not keep its records for Commonwealth-arranged removals on an address basis. Files are maintained by the surname of the person being moved and there are some 8000 removals in or to the ACT arranged each year. It is not practicable to examine those 25,000 files in order to answer the question fully. However, my Department advises me of its knowledge that the address at (b) was formerly that of Sir Peter Lawler. Following Sir Peter's appointment as Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See, his furniture and personal effects were removed in July 1983, at Commonwealth expense, to overseas and to store in Canberra. (Question No. 4744) Mr Burr asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 October 1986: Will he take action to have a Standing Committee on Science and Technology appointed. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government supports the establishment of a Committee along the lines of proposals for a Standing Committee on Science and Technology. The Government is currently examining the Committee structure as a whole to ensure it reflects current issues and will consider the establishment of such a committee during this process. (Question No. 4748) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: How many (a) youth and (b) adults were unemployed and seeking full-time work on 1 October each year since 1980 in local government areas wholly or partly within the Electoral Division of Hume. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The only data available on unemployment by age for the Electoral Division of Hume are CES statistics. The following table provides information on unemployed person awaiting placement (looking for full-time work) registered with Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service (OCES) which service areas wholly or partly within the Electoral Division of Hume. Approximately 95 per cent of the population serviced by the Wagga Wagga OCES, 80 per cent of the population serviced by the Tumut Branch Office of the CES, 40 per cent of the population serviced by the Young OCES, 23 per cent of the population serviced by the Cowra OCES and 11 per cent of the population serviced by the Goulburn OCES reside in the Hume Electorate. Prior to 1983, the Young OCES statistical counts were amalgamated with those from the Cowra OCES, and the Tumut Branch was included in the Wagga Wagga OCES statistical counts. No data are available for September 1981 and 1982. UNEMPLOYED PERSONS AWAITING PLACEMENT BY CES OFFICE BY AGE GROUP AT END SEPTEMBER 1980. Under 21 years 21 years and over Total OCES Wagga Wagga ... 1,143 1,427 2,570 OCES Goulburn ... 594 806 1,400 OCES Cowra ... 526 687 1,213 UNEMPLOYED PERSONS AWAITING PLACEMENT BY CES OFFICE BY AGE GROUP FROM END SEPTEMBER 1983 TO END SEPTEMBER 1986. OCES 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 years and over Total Wagga Wagga Sept. 1983 ... 1,031 1,058 1,789 3,878 Sept. 1984 ... 992 973 1,822 3,787 Sept. 1985 ... 939 989 1,959 3,887 Sept. 1986 ... 905 1,043 2,171 4,119 Tumut Branch Sept. 1983 ... 284 257 524 1,065 Sept. 1984 ... 299 202 393 894 Sept. 1985 ... 202 196 408 806 Sept. 1986 ... 225 192 419 836 Young Sept. 1983 ... 156 137 309 602 Sept. 1984 ... 162 173 426 761 Sept. 1985 ... 131 116 357 604 Sept. 1986 ... 185 159 421 765 Cowra Sept. 1983 ... 352 349 742 1,443 Sept. 1984 ... 260 188 508 956 Sept. 1985 ... 187 196 538 921 Sept. 1986 ... 211 193 605 1,009 Goulburn Sept. 1983 ... 709 697 1,411 2,817 Sept. 1984 ... 614 500 1,133 2,247 Sept. 1985 ... 478 254 1,208 1,940 Sept. 1986 ... 503 446 1,335 2,284 (Question No. 4750) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) On how many occasions and in relation to which airports has the Commonwealth provided in the last 10 years more than 50% of the cost of land side development as part of the agreement to transfer an airport under the Airport Local Ownership Program. (2) What was the extent of the additional Commonwealth contribution (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a proportion of the total cost of the land side development. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 11 occasions and in relation to the following aerodromes: Broken Hill; Cairns; Coffs Harbour; Cloncurry; Devonport; Goondiwindi; Kingscote; Maryborough; Port Hedland; Tamworth; West Sale. (2) The extent of the additional Commonwealth contribution in monetary terms and as a proportion of the total cost of land side development at each airport is: Aerodrome Commonwealth contribution in excess of 50% of land side development cost ($'000) Proportion of total land side cost (%) Broken Hill ... 415 26 Cairns ... 2,351 18 Coffs Harbour ... 764 33 Cloncurury ... 112 50 Devonport ... 305 20 Goondiwindi ... 32 50 Kingscote ... 33 7 Maryborough ... 22 50 Port Hedland ... 106 50 Tamworth ... 602 50 West Sale ... 33 17 (Question No. 4751) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: How many unemployed persons have been absorbed by the public sector under the Government's job creation program. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For the purpose of answering this question the public sector has been defined as Commonwealth, State and local government sponsors. Public sector placements of unemployed persons in jobs created under the Community Employment Program from its inception on 1 August 1983 to 29 October 1986 total 93,111. (Question No. 4761) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports that 32 civilians were killed in northern Nicaragua on 3 July 1986 by a land mine planted by the anti-government Contras; if so, is he able to state whether (a) such an incident occurred and (b) the incident was reported in any Australian daily newspaper or any metropolitan radio or television news or current affairs program. (2) Has he or his Department any information concerning (a) other specific incidents in the last 3 years in which the Contras have been accused of killing or injuring civilians and (b) Australian media coverage of such incidents. (3) What is the Australian Government's attitude to the Reagan Administration's (a) support for the Contras and (b) rejection of the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the Court's decision on 27 June 1986 in favour of Nicaragua. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. On 3 July 1986 an anti-tank mine exploded under a civilian passenger vehicle carrying 33 people 60 kilometres from the town of San Jose de Bocay in the northern province of Jinotega. 32 People, including 12 children, were killed. Sandinista authorities claimed that the mine had been planted by the Contras and that similar mines had been used in other parts of the country. (b) I am not aware of the incident being reported by the Australian media. (2) (a) There have been numerous incidents over the past three years in which the Contras have been accused of killing or injuring civilians, including: On 25 May 1986, on the same road where the above incident occurred, an anti-tank mine killed nine health workers, including a Spanish paramedic, Ambrosio Mogarron. One woman was killed and seven other passengers wounded when Contras machine-gunned the ferry ``Rio Escondido'' on its route between Rama and Bluefields on 3 July 1986. On 11 May 1986, Contras entered a house in the village of La Santos in the province of Chontales and shot and killed a woman and her 10 year old son and wounded three other children. On 16 February 1986 five civilians (four women and a Swiss man) were killed when Contras attacked the vehicle in which they were travelling near Somotillo in northern Nicaragua. Thirteen other civilians were wounded. On 28 July 1986, three European technicians and two Nicaraguans were killed when their vehicle was machine-gunned by Contras near Zompopera. Twenty four civilians were killed when Contras ambushed a truck carrying coffee workers in northern Nueva Segovia province on 5 December 1985. (b) I am not aware of the details of Australian media coverage of these incidents. (3) (a) In a public statement on 2 July 1986 I said that the vote in the United States House of Representatives on 25 June to approve US$100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan Contras would do nothing to promote a peaceful settlement of Central America's problems and would escalate tensions in the region. I also said that the aid was not likely to encourage the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua to improve political freedoms, or to negotiate with the Contras. (b) The United States withdrawal from the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ is a matter of regret to the Australian Government. As the principle judicial organ of the United Nations, the ICJ is of central importance to the international regime of law and justice, playing a role not only as an arbiter of disputes between states but also as a body widely recognised as competent to clarify and develop the principles of international law. Unfortunately, fewer than one third of the nations in the world have accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction (for example, neither the Soviet Union nor any of its Eastern Bloc allies have done so). The Australian Government will continue to encourage acceptance by all countries of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court as a demonstration of commitment to the rule of law and an expression of confidence in the Court itself. As the United States had undertaken to give six months' notice of its withdrawal, it was still subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in the case brought against it by Nicaragua. While the United States may not agree with the approach taken by the Court in that case, the Court's decision cannot be regarded as capricious or as divorced from established international law. It is fundamental to the rule of law in the international community that the ICJ should be respected and that parties to a case should abide by their obligation to comply with the decision of the Court. (Question No. 4764) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: (1) How many Nomad aircraft were manufactured by the Government Aircraft Factory. (2) What was the total cost of the project, including promotion overseas. (3) How many aircraft were sold and how much income was received from their sale. (4) How many aircraft remain unsold. (5) Where are the unsold aircraft located and what is their sale price. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 170. (2) $193.8m, including promotion overseas. (3) 147 aircraft have been sold realising $90.9m. (4) 23 aircraft remain unsold of which only 18 are available for sale, comprising 12 N22 models and 6 N24 models. 5 aircraft were used for demonstration and development purposes. (5) The aircraft remaining for sale are located at Oaklands (NSW). My predecessor's ministerially approved sale price is $930,100 for N22 models and $1,250,000 for N24 models. (Question No. 4806) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: Did his Department advise aircraft operators in Victoria to use private airworthiness surveyors due to a shortage in Victoria of departmental surveyors; if so, why is it necessary to employ departmental surveyors if the private sector can adequately fill this role. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The primary role of Airworthiness Surveyors in the Department of Aviation is to monitor the aviation industry, to ensure compliance with the safety requirements specified in Air Navigation Regulations and Air Navigation Orders, as they relate to the airworthiness of civil aircraft. There are no private individuals in the aviation industry who perform a comparable regulatory function. There are, however, Engineering Consultants in the industry who are authorised by my Department to approve such servicing functions as the design of modifications and repairs to aircraft. A circular letter was despatched by the Victoria/Tasmania Region of my Department on 8 September 1986 to some 150 organisations within those States, advising that due to a number of sudden resignations by Airworthiness Surveyors, delays could be expected in the processing of work, pending recruitment of suitable replacements. This letter also advised that incoming work would be processed in accordance with a priority rating, based on its relevance to the continuing safety of aircraft operations. The opportunity was also taken to remind these organisations of the existence of Engineering Consultants who are available to perform work of a non-regulatory nature. (Question No. 4815) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) How many persons were in receipt of (a) unemployment and (b) supporting parents benefits at some time in each financial year since 1980-81. (2) What was the (a) average monthly number each year and (b) number at the end of each year of persons in receipt of (a) unemployment and (b) supporting parents benefits. (3) How many (a) convictions occurred and (b) persons were convicted in each year in relation to (i) unemployment and (ii) supporting parents benefit fraud. (4) What was the (a) total and (b) average monthly amount paid in each year in respect of (i) unemployment and (ii) supporting parents benefits. (5) What was the (a) total and (b) average monthly amount of overpayments each year in respect of (i) unemployment and (ii) supporting parents benefits. (6) What was the total sum involved in successful prosecutions for (a) unemployment and (b) supporting parents benefit fraud or abuse in each year. (7) Does his Department have a lower limit or cut-off point with regard to decisions about whether to prosecute for unemployment and supporting parents benefits fruad; if so, what is that point. (8) Does his Department have any estimate for each year of the total cost of fraud concerning (a) unemployment and (b) supporting parents benefits where prosecutions were not made. (9) How many departmental employees were involved in full time duties pursuing fruad or abuse of (a) unemployment and (b) supporting parents benefits and what was the value of their salaries or wages in each year. (10) How many additional staff were involved as part of their duties in pursuing fraud or abuse of (a) unemployment and (b) supporting parents benefits and what was the value of their salaries or wages in each year. (11) What was the total value each year of (a) salaries and wages, (b) administrative, (c) computer and (d) legal costs incurred in the pursuit of (i) unemployment and (ii) supporting parents benefit fraud. (12) Does his Department retain the Benefit Control Units set up under the Fraser Government; if so, what are the details of staff numbers and running costs for such units for each financial year since 1980-81. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Table 1-shows the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit and supporting parents benefit at some time in each financial year since 1980/81: Table 1: PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORTING PARENTS BENEFIT, AUSTRALIA 1980-81 TO 1985-86. Year ended 30 June Unemployment benefit Supporting parents benefit 1981 ... 1,093,700 *...142,035 1982 ... 1,148,100 *...177,640 1983 ... 1,505,987 202,698 1984 ... 1,610,990 223,529 1985 ... 1,444,987 236,309 1986 ... 1,373,199 256,185 * Estimated These figures have been derived by adding to the number of beneficiaries at the beginning of each year the number of new benefits granted during the year. Some of these numbers would relate to beneficiaries appearing on benefit more than once during the year. While it is not possible to measure precisely the extent of the duplication, the proportion of unemployment bene- ficiaries current at a given time during 1985-86 who had multiple benefit episodes (unemployment, sickness or special) during the preceding 12 months was about 24 per cent. Statistics showing the number of benefit episodes for supporting parents are not available. (2) (a) Table 2 (i) shows the average monthly numbers of unemployment beneficiaries for the period 1980-81 to 1985-86. Average monthly figures for supporting parent beneficiaries are not available since statistics of supporting parent beneficiaries are compiled on a four-weekly basis for the end of the period. The four-weekly series are shown in table 2 (ii). Table 2 (i): UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFICIARIES CURRENT-AUSTRALIA MONTHLY AVERAGES 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 July ... 310,193 314,418 399,078 634,298 580,349 554,942 571,792 August ... 303,848 318,855 414,694 624,823 574,153 544,663 573,760 September ... 294,552 309,184 437,632 614,755 567,682 536,362 569,139 October ... 288,840 301,523 457,164 602,454 557,610 524,952 November ... 283,879 289,278 480,841 591,767 551,174 519,410 December ... 295,615 299,626 533,297 611,738 566,565 537,427 January ... 326,497 320,553 596,763 654,950 613,950 587,578 February ... 347,665 367,775 630,236 669,279 637,779 610,189 March ... 330,479 358,859 625,104 636,378 609,666 585,106 April ... 318,964 356,210 626,689 611,173 587,617 570,263 May ... 313,154 369,435 630,029 596,368 573,846 571,042 June ... 313,191 377,748 633,625 586,097 562,266 568,716 Table 2 (ii): SUPPORTING PARENT BENEFICIARIES-AUSTRALIA 4 WEEKLY STATISTICS Females Males Persons 1980-81 1.8.80 ... 67,633 3,889 71,522 29.8.80 ... 68,509 3,912 72,421 26.9.80 ... 69,404 3,949 73,353 24.10.80 ... 76,761 4,012 80,773 21.11.80 ... 86,299 4,268 90,567 19.12.80 ... 89,346 4,465 93,811 16.1.81 ... 91,452 4,513 95,965 13.2.81 ... 93,893 4,627 98,520 13.3.81 ... 96,365 4,729 101,094 10.4.81 ... 98,304 4,853 103,157 8.5.81 ... 99,540 4,913 104,453 5.6.81 ... 100,798 4,958 105,756 30.6.81 ... 101,583 5,048 106,631 1981-82 31.7.81 ... 102,961 5,138 108,099 28.8.81 ... 104,237 5,229 109,466 25.9.81 ... 105,584 5,323 110,907 23.10.81 ... 106,914 5,409 112,323 20.11.81 ... 108,330 5,469 113,799 18.12.81 ... 109,443 5,520 114,963 15.1.82 ... 110,812 5,582 116,394 12.2.82 ... 112,294 5,647 117,941 12.3.82 ... 113,976 5,675 119,651 9.4.82 ... 115,190 5,726 120,916 7.5.82 ... 116,398 5,819 122,217 4.6.82 ... 117,494 5,884 123,378 30.6.82 ... 118,019 5,923 123,942 1982-83 30.7.82 ... 118,849 6,046 124,895 27.8.82 ... 119,269 6,162 125,431 24.9.82 ... 119,857 6,265 126,122 22.10.82 ... 120,705 6,430 127,135 19.11.82 ... 121,713 6,616 128,329 17.12.82 ... 122,909 6,787 129,696 14.1.83 ... 124,129 6,955 131,084 11.2.83 ... 125,393 7,115 132,508 11.3.83 ... 126,905 7,235 134,140 8.4.83 ... 128,380 7,436 135,816 6.5.83 ... 129,615 7,576 137,191 3.6.83 ... 131,216 7,762 138,978 30.6.83 ... 132,358 7,870 140,228 1983-84 29.7.83 ... 133,401 7,990 141,391 26.8.83 ... 134,469 8,111 142,580 23.9.83 ... 135,286 8,207 143,493 21.10.83 ... 136,515 8,374 144,889 18.11.83 ... 137,717 8,440 146,157 16.12.83 ... 139,014 8,622 147,636 13.1.84 ... 139,875 8,721 148,596 10.2.84 ... 140,992 8,749 149,741 9.3.84 ... 141,929 8,729 150,658 6.4.84 ... 142,481 8,794 151,275 4.5.84 ... 142,965 8,788 151,753 1.6.84 ... 144,080 8,882 152,962 29.6.84 ... 144,680 8,909 153,589 1984-85 27.7.84 ... 144,959 8,911 153,870 24.8.84 ... 145,274 8,974 154,248 21.9.84 ... 146,180 9,069 155,249 19.10.84 ... n.a. n.a. 155,931 16.11.84 ... 147,950 9,201 157,151 14.12.84 ... 149,725 9,350 159,075 11.1.85 ... n.a. n.a. 160,442 5.2.85 ... n.a. n.a. 162,222 8.3.85 ... 154,375 9,513 163,888 5.4.85 ... 155,367 9,526 164,893 3.5.85 ... 156,709 9,631 166,340 31.5.85 ... 157,735 9,690 167,425 28.6.85 ... 158,281 9,736 168,017 1985-86 26.7.85 ... 159,030 9,726 168,756 23.8.85 ... 159,703 9,705 169,408 20.9.85 ... 160,384 9,743 170,127 18.10.85 ... 161,045 9,797 170,842 15.11.85 ... 161,620 9,798 171,418 13.12.85 ... 163,138 9,844 172,982 10.1.86 ... 164,085 9,917 174,002 7.2.86 ... 165,094 9,953 175,047 7.3.86 ... 165,615 9,985 175,600 4.4.86 ... 166,271 9,990 176,261 2.5.86 ... 166,505 10,059 176,564 30.5.86 ... 166,869 10,070 176,939 27.6.86 ... 166,660 10,070 176,730 (2) (b) The number of persons in receipt of unemployment and supporting parents benefit at the end of each year is shown in Table 3: Table 3: NUMBER OF PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND SUPPORTING PARENTS BENEFIT AT THE END OF EACH YEAR AUSTRALIA. 1980-81 to 1985-86. Year Ended 30 June Unemployment beneficiaries Supporting females Parent males Beneficiaries total 1981 ... 314,500 e...101,583 5,048 106,631 1982 ... 390,664 118,019 5,923 123,942 1983 ... 635,002 132,358 7,870 140,228 1984 ... 584,506 144,680 8,909 153,589 1985 ... 561,400 158,281 9,736 168,017 1986 ... 569,761 166,660 10,070 176,730 Estimated (3) (a) The number of cases for which convictions were obtained is set out below in the categories of unemployment benefit and supporting parents benefit for each of the years nominated. Statistics do not distinguish between convictions and persons convicted. (i) UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT Number of cases for which conviction obtained 1980-81 ... 1,222 1981-82 ... 1,140 1982-83 ... 1,007 1983-84 ... 1,240 1984-85 ... 1,514 1985-86 ... 1,494 (ii) SUPPORTING PARENT BENEFIT Number of cases for which conviction obtained 1980-81 ... 146 1981-82 ... 217 1982-83 ... 227 1983-84 ... 277 1984-85 ... 324 1985-86 ... 325 (4) (a) Total expenditures for Unemployment Benefits and Supporting Parents' Benefits for 1980-81-1985-86 were as follows: Unemployment Benefits $'000 1980-81 ... 995,748 1981-82 ... 1,224,343 1982-83 ... 2,248,980 1983-84 ... 2,912,314 1984-85 ... 2,981,118 1985-86 ... 3,122,120 Supporting Parents Benefits $'000 1980-81 ... 412,399 1981-82 ... 605,864 1982-83 ... 727,735 1983-84 ... 889,595 1984-85 ... 1,066,199 1985-86 ... 1,237,959 (b) The average monthly payments for Unemployment Benefits and Supporting Parents for 1980-81-1985-86 were as follows: Unemployment Benefits $'000 1980-81 ... 82,979 1981-82 ... 102,028 1982-83 ... 187,415 1983-84 ... 242,693 1984-85 ... 248,427 1985-86 ... 260,177 Supporting Parents Benefits $'000 1980-81 ... 34,367 1981-82 ... 50,489 1982-83 ... 60,645 1983-84 ... 74,133 1984-85 ... 88,850 1985-86 ... 103,163 (5) (a) and (b) Set out below are the total yearly and average monthly amounts of overpayment debited and credited (ie reduction in amount outstanding) in the respective categories for each of the years nominated. (i) UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT Amount debited Total Monthly average Amount credited Total Monthly average $m $m $m $m 1980-81 ... 8.22 0.68 6.53 0.54 1981-82 ... 9.50 0.79 6.82 0.57 1982-83 ... 17.09 1.42 9.83 0.82 1983-84 ... 27.02 2.25 16.18 1.35 1984-85 ... 26.60 2.22 18.58 1.59 1985-86 ... 32.45 2.70 25.78 2.15 (ii) SUPPORTING PARENTS BENEFIT Amount debited Total Monthly average Amount credited Total Monthly average $m $m $m $m 1980-81 ... 3.59 0.30 1.32 0.11 1981-82 ... 4.96 0.41 1.84 0.15 1982-83 ... 8.52 0.71 2.80 0.23 1983-84 ... 11.51 0.96 4.02 0.33 1984-85 ... 10.78 0.90 5.28 0.44 1985-86 ... 15.62 1.30 7.73 0.64 (6) (a) and (b) The statistics on prosecutions maintained by my department include details of amounts involved in the cases prosecuted but these are not divided into successful and unsuccessful prosecutions. An estimate of such amounts can be obtained by multiplying the number of successful prosecutions by the average amount of overpayment per case prosecuted. The relevant details are set out below. UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT Number of cases for which conviction obtained Average amount per case prosecuted $ 1980-81 ... 1,222 1,125 1981-82 ... 1,140 1,483 1982-83 ... 1,007 1,613 1983-84 ... 1,240 1,910 1984-85 ... 1,514 2,541 1985-86 ... 1,494 3,709 SUPPORTING PARENTS BENEFIT Number of cases for which conviction obtained Average amount per case prosecuted $ 1980-81 ... 146 3,310 1981-82 ... 217 4,609 1982-83 ... 227 4,944 1983-84 ... 277 5,778 1984-85 ... 324 6,828 1985-86 ... 325 7,876 (7) No. (8) (a) and (b) No. (9) (a) and (b) Staff engaged full time on the detection and prosecution of fraudulent cases work in Benefits Control Sections. Staffing for these areas during the years in question is set out below. It is not possible to separate the figures between work on unemployment benefit cases, work on supporting parent benefit cases and work on any other type of payment. $m 1980-81 ... 114 1.84 1981-82 ... 130 2.50 1982-83 ... 213 4.44 1983-84 ... 219 4.91 1984-85 ... 228 5.60 1985-86 ... 237 6.13 (10) (a) and (b) The Department of Social Security has 215 regional offices located in cities, suburbs and country districts around Australia. Staff in these offices would handle some aspect of fraud work from time to time but other than for field officers it is not possible to estimate the extent of such involvement. Field officers visit clients and either provide information to them or collect information from them about their current circumstances. A significant part of a field officer's duties over a 12 month period is concerned with cases of incorrect payment and a proportion of this relates to fraud. The number and salary costs of field officers for the years in question are set out below. Figures for field officers in Benefits Control areas are included in the answer to Question 9. Number Salaries $m 1980-81 ... 375 4.85 1981-82 ... 386 5.94 1982-83 ... 424 7.07 1983-84 ... 513 9.20 1984-85 ... 574 11.28 1985-86 ... 559 11.56 (11) (a) to (d) It is not possible to specify salary, administrative, computer and legal costs associated with the combat of fraud. (12) Yes. See answer to Question 9 for details of staffing numbers and salary for each of the years nominated; it is not possible to identify separately other costs applicable to the Benefits Control areas. (Question No. 4835) Mr Hodges asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 October 1986: (1) What were the details of (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions launched by the Trade Practices Commission in each year since 1980 against manufacturers falsely claiming their product was made in Australia, including details of any fines imposed. (2) Has the Government at any time requested the Commission to make more detailed investigations into this area of fraud. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commission has since 1980 taken to Court three cases involving misrepresentation of the place of origin. The Commission was successful in each of the prosecutions before the Court. Details of the cases are- on 24 October 1984 Gary Lai Pty Ltd was fined $5000 for having supplied bed linen manufactured in Hong Kong which had been repackaged and labelled `Skilfully made in Australia' (Barton v Gary Lai Pty Ltd (1984) ATPR 40-495); on 19 February 1985 Croner Trading Pty Ltd was fined $31,500 for removing `Made in Korea' tags from toy koalas and kangaroos and attaching swing tags which included the statement `Proudly made in Australia' (Barton v Croner Trading Pty Ltd (1985) ATPR 40-525); and on 19 June 1986 Wes Lofts (Australia) Pty Ltd was fined $6000 for having falsely represented that rolls of masking tape which had been cut to size in Australia, rewound on retail-sized spools and repacked were `Made in Australia'; the tape had in fact been imported in large rolls from the United States (Korczynski v Wes Lofts (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) ATPR 40-643). The Commission has also sought and obtained undertakings from other firms not to label or advertise goods in a way likely to mislead consumers as to the place of origin of their products. Thus: shoes labelled `Made in Australia' but only made up here by gluing together imported soles and uppers were relabelled as `imported components assembled in Australia'; the packaging of cosmetic accessories made in Asian countries and sold under the brand name, `Esprit de France' was marked to indicate the true country of origin; and the manufacturer of a toy labelled `Proudly Australian Made' agreed to make it known that the main component of the toy was imported. (2) Apart from the direct enforcement activity noted above, the Commission has also been active promoting compliance by other means. In conjunction with the launch of the `Buy Australia' campaign, the Commission issued a leaflet in September 1986 entitled `The Trade Practices Act and labelling the origin of goods'. This leaflet contains information to assist businesses to meet the requirements of the Act when labelling their goods with their place of origin and to avoid potential labelling problems. The Commission was also involved in the formulation of criteria for the use of `Australian Made' logo, to ensure that its use complies with the policy of the Act. The Government is confident that the Commission will continue to secure compliance with the Act. For these reasons the Government has not thought it necessary to request the Commission to undertake more detailed investigations. (Question No. 4845) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 October: (1) Is he able to confirm the reported arrests in Czechoslovakia of 8 leading members of the Jazz Section of the Prague branch of the Musicians' Union, including the chairman, Mr Karel Srp. (2) Is he able to say whether the Jazz Section is also an independent publisher and distributor of Czechoslovakian and foreign literature, and an independent organiser of art exhibitions. (3) Is he able to say whether the Jazz Section has 7000 members. (4) Is he able to say what charges have been laid against the arrested leaders of the Jazz Section. (5) Have representations been made to the government of Czechoslovakia in support of the cultural freedom of the Jazz Section; if so, what is the nature of those representations. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) According to information available to my Department, seven leading members of the Jazz Section of the Prague Branch of the Musician's Union, including the Chairman Mr Karel Srp, are under arrest. An eighth member may have been arrested, but was subsequently released. (2) As a section of the official Musician's Union the Jazz Section is not strictly ``independent'' but it has arranged publication and distribution of music and literature and independently organised art exhibitions. (3) I have no precise information on membership but our Embassy in Warsaw reports it to be slightly fewer than 7000. (4) The exact nature of the charges is not clear, but appear to be ``operating an illegal enterprise'' and/or ``illegal commercial activities''. (5) As far as is known by our Embassy only the United States has made representations in respect of the Jazz Section. There are indications that other Governments may do so. The Australian Embassy in Warsaw has been asked to monitor the situation relating to the Jazz Section and to convey to the Czechoslovak authorities Australia's concern about any human rights infringements. (Question No. 4847) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to page 197 of volume 1 of the IAC Report No. 386 on the textile, clothing and footwear industries where an estimate is given on how much more consumers paid for textile, clothing and footwear purchases in 1982-83 than they would have paid had there been no barrier assistance. (2) Is the Minister able to provide a corresponding estimate for 1986-87; if not, is the Minister able to say whether the figure for 1986-87 would be more or less than the 1982-83 estimate. (3) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to page 198 of the report which states that under the IAC's preferred option up to 3 jobs could be created elsewhere in the economy for each job lost in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. (4) Does the Minister have evidence to substantiate this claim; if so, can the Minister provide it. (5) If the Commission's conclusion cannot be substantiated, what is the Minister's estimation of the number of jobs that could be created elsewhere in the economy for each job lost in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) No. The information required to produce an estimate of the additional payments made by consumers for domestically produced and imported goods during 1986-87 as a result of barrier assistance will not be available until some time after the end of this financial year. At present, 1982-83 is the most recent year for which the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) has published estimates of these additional consumer payments. However, the IAC will shortly be publishing estimates of assistance to manufacturing (including the additional consumer payments) for 1983-84 and 1984-85. Due to the increased level of local production in recent years and the effects of inflation, estimates of additional consumer payments in 1983-84 and 1984-85 are expected to exceed those published for earlier years. (3) Yes. (4) The statement in the IAC's Report No. 386, Page 198, reflects the Commission's judgement about the possible extent of job creation. The IAC used the ORANI model of the Australian economy to examine two different wage scenarios and their effect. The IAC's Report, Vol 3, Appendix W, Table 5.1, Page W-83, substantiates the results of these sensitivity tests. Use of models such as ORANI provides an econometric framework to examine responses to assistance changes. (5) Not applicable, see (3) and (4) above. (Question No. 4856) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the discussion paper of the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) dealing with plain English in legislation and bureaucratic forms; if so, is the present drafting style adopted in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia criticised in that paper. (2) Has Commonwealth legislation dealing with business regulation and taxation been criticised recently by lawyers, the business community and State Attorneys-General for being drafted in an unnecessarily convoluted, repetitious and cumbersome style; if so, does legislation of that type impose unnecessary costs on the business community and is difficult for Members of Parliament to understand. (3) Is he able to say whether the VLRC intends to attach a plain English version of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act to its final report. (4) What steps will he take to improve the drafting of Commonwealth legislation in light of the findings of the VLRC. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The present drafting style adopted in Victoria and elsewhere in Australia is criticised in that paper. (2) Lawyers, members of the business community and the Attorney-General for Victoria have criticised Commonwealth drafting on the grounds that the style is unnecessarily complex. So far as I am aware, the other State Attorneys-General have not criticised Commonwealth drafting. If legislation is drafted in a style that is unnecessarily convoluted, repetitious and cumbersome, it imposes unnecessary costs on the business community and is difficult for Members of the Parliament to understand. However, much legislation is necessarily complex. An Act cannot be less complex than the policy it gives effect to, because it must state, as precisely as possible, the intention of the Parliament. The Supreme Court of Victoria recently considered an Act drafted in the style approved by the Attorney-General for Victoria. The Court criticised the drafting of the Act, on the grounds that precision had been sacrificed in the interests of simplicity. The Court said that, if legislation does not make Parliament's intention clear, much time is taken up in the courts, costs and delays are increased and injustice may follow (R v O'Connor, October 1986, not yet reported). (3) The Attorney-General for Victoria has stated that the VLRC intends to attach a plain English version of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act to its final report. I have seen preliminary drafts of two sections. Although shorter and simpler than the Commonwealth equivalents, the drafts were legally defective in a number of respects. (4) I am satisfied that Commonwealth drafting style is of a high standard. However, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel recognises that there is room for improvement. The Office has recently started its own program of simplifying its style. Some practices adopted by the Commonwealth in the past have resulted in unduly complex language. The Office has been reviewing these practices, and in December 1986 it will begin a series of measures to simplify its style. The proposed style will not be a radical change. It will be a leaner, clearer version of the existing Commonwealth style. (Question No. 4858) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) How many staff are employed by the Australian Tourist Commission in Sydney. (2) How many of these staff receive an overseas allowance and for what reasons. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nine. (2) Nil. (Question No. 4866) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Does the Commonwealth Government have a role in the investigation of false motor vehicle accident claims; if not, why does it not have a co-ordinating role. (2) If the Government does have a role in fraud of this kind, what part did it have in the car claims racket known as ``Operation Windfall''. (3) Is there a reluctance on the part of the Government to launch a major clean-up for fear of a repeat of the situation which developed in the Greek social security conspiracy case. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has advised that false motor vehicle accident claims relate to offences which are contained in State or Territory legislation, not that of the Commonwealth. Within the Australian Capital Territory, the AFP is responsible for investigating fraudulent claims of this nature under the laws of the Territory. The AFP has further advised me that ``Operation Windfall'' is not an investigation being undertaken by that Force. (Question No. 4867) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 November 1986. (1) On what basis does his Department pay the benefits entitlement of one person to a third party. (2) How many people in each benefit category are affected by this practice. (3) Is this practice widely used in Aboriginal communities; if so, (a) which communities, (b) how many individuals are involved and (c) what is the total value of the payments. (4) Has this practice been adopted by any religious or charitable groups or organisations; if so, what organisations (b) how many people are involved and (c) what is the total value of the payments. (5) When did this practice commence. (6) What procedures are used to monitor the effectiveness, efficiency and integrity of this particular payment system. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Sub-section 135TC (2) of the Social Security Act permits a pension, benefit or allowance payable to a person under the Social Security Act to be paid to another person on behalf of the first mentioned person. Payment to a third party is usually made at the request of the pensioner or beneficiary. It may also occur where the pensioner or beneficiary is incapable of handling his/her own affairs. Payment of additional benefit payable for a spouse or children may be made to the spouse where it is shown that the beneficiary is not using the benefit for the maintenance of his/her dependants. (2) Statistics are kept nationally on group cheque payments of pensions to institutions, payments to sheltered workshops and pension payments to individuals. The numbers of individuals covered by such payments as at September 1986 are as follows: Age Pension...49,709 Invalid Pension...22,148 Sheltered Employment Allowance...9,986 Widow's Pension......593 Supporting Parent's Benefit...101 Rehabilitation Allowance...50 Comparable statistics for unemployment, sickness and special benefits are not available. As indicated in my answer to Question No. 4731 national statistics are not available on payments to institutions through the direct credit method. (3) No. (4) Some nursing homes and other institutions conducted by religious or charitable groups use this provision. In view of the large number of organisations involved (see answer to Question No. 4731) I am not prepared to authorise the considerable commitment of resources needed to provide an answer to this question. (5) A provision similar to Sub-section 135TC (2) was included in the Invalid and Old Age Pension Act of 1908 and the Social Services Consolidation Act of 1947. (6) See answer to Question No. 4731. This payment system is also subject to normal audit procedures and other departmental review mechanisms of administrative arrangements. (Question No. 4870) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) When and for what reasons did the Government decide to conduct a review of Commonwealth employees' compensation. (2) When did the review begin and when will it report. (3) What are the guidelines or terms of reference of the review. (4) Who is conducting the review. (5) What are the itemised costs of the review. (6) How many compensation payments have been made in each year since 1982 and, for each year, what were the (a) cost and (b) reasons for payment. (7) In each year since 1982 (a) how many appeals were made over decisions of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and (b) how many appeals were successful in respect of (i) each state and territory, (ii) each department and authority and (iii) each reason for a claim. (8) Has abuse of the compensation system been detected; if so, what has been the extent of this abuse in each year since 1982. (9) If no abuse has been detected, why is a review necessary. (10) Have any recommendations been received from the review; if so, what action has been taken. (11) Is any further action planned, and when will it occur. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) On 10 June this year the Government decided to conduct a review of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Scheme. The Government decided the review should place greater emphasis on occupational health and safety than does the present system. A review team was set up comprising officers from my department as well as the Department of Finance, the Public Service Board and the Office of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. Its guidelines are to produce a system which reduces the human and financial costs of work-related injury and disease through safety and accident prevention, effective rehabilitation and prompt delivery of adequate compensation. The review is expected to report early in 1987 and the Government will then decide on future action. (5) An actuarial consultant has been employed at a cost of $100,000. Salaries and other administrative costs for officers engaged on the Review fall within normal departmental appropriations and cannot be readily identified. (6) See the schedule at Attachment A. (7) (a) 1982-83 298; 1983-84 386; 1984-85 185; 1985-86 229. (b) See the schedule at Attachment B. (8) and (9) Statistics which might indicate if there are exaggerated claims are not kept. See also answer to parts (1) to (4) (10) No. (11) See (1) to (4) above. COMPENSATION PAYMENTS ACCORDING TO SECTIONS OF THE ACT 1982-83 Cases $'000 1983-84 Cases $'000 1984-85 Cases $'000 1985-86 Cases $'000 Artificial Aids (s.28)... 253 26 231 27 216 69 200 42 Medical Expenses (s.37)... 42,598 16,731 43,165 18,358 48,858 21,921 55,088 29,197 For Specified Losses (s.39)... 1,619 5,741 1,708 5,900 1,355 5,780 1,587 7,347 For Loss of Capacity to Engage in Sexual Intercourse (s.40)... 6 84 7 100 2 43 1 22 For Facial Disfigurement (s.41)... 2 18 4 37 2 14 1 11 For Loss of Taste or Smell (s.42)... 3 7 - - - - 4 14 Death, lump sum and weekly payments for dependants of deceased employees (s.43)... 464 4,263 464 5,080 460 3,877 437 3,186 Funeral Expenses (s.44)... 91 75 99 95 87 81 56 52 For Total Incapacity (s.45)... 36,380 70,296 38,748 88,387 43,596 121,117 47,318 158,926 Redemptions of section 46... 460 1,782 546 2,319 881 2,540 1,707 4,753 Attendance Allowance (s.48)... 93 83 126 117 528 414 2,000 2,010 Payments by Payment of Lump Sum (s.49)... 21 1,070 12 329 15 396 28 1,426 Recurrent Payments after Payment of Lump Sum (s.50)... 63 489 73 682 72 594 78 848 100,665 121,431 156,846 207,845 NOTE: An additional $2,863 was spent in 1984-85 for vocational training. - Nil AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Back Injury... 6 1 Death... 1 3 Vision defect... 1 Tenosynovitis... 1 Fracture (R) leg... 1 Bruised head, shoulder and wrist... 1 Leg Pains... 1 Injury... 1 Sub-Total... 12 3 1 1 1983/4 Injuries ... 1 Knee injury ... 2 Nervous Condition ... 1 Back Shoulder Injury ... 1 1 1 1 Death ... 1 1 1 Neck Injury ... 1 Left side hernia ... 1 Disc, back, hernia depression and hypertension ... 1 Coronary occlusion ... 1 Sub-Total ... 8 4 1 1 1 1984/5 Back Injury/Pains ... 4 1 Chest Infect Pleurisy and Anxiety ... 1 Knee Ligament Injury ... 1 1 Heart Attack ... 1 Injuries ... 1 Tinnitus and Hearing Loss ... 1 Left Side Hernia ... 1 Sub-Total ... 7 4 1 1985/6 Personal Injuries ... 1 Bronchitis and Asthma ... 1 Spinal Injury ... 1 Sub-Total ... 2 1 Total ... 29 11 2 1 2 2 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Back and Leg, Psychological Reaction ... 1 Neck Pain ... 1 Myocardial Infarction ... 1 Hearing Loss ... 1 Heart Attack ... 1 Stroke ... 1 Cuts to Hands, Bruised Knee and Nose ... 1 Neck Injury ... 1 Back Injury ... 1 Mental Disorder ... 1 Motor Accident Injuries ... 1 Bruised Leg, Elbow, Hip ... 1 Injured Right Knee ... 1 Dislocated Knees ... 1 Neck and Shoulder Muscles ... 1 Deafness ... 1 1 Tumour (R) Hand aches both wrists ... 1 Hearing Loss ... 1 Fractures Lumbar Vertebra ... 1 Skin Cancer ... 1 Rheumatic Cardites ... 1 Toe, Foot, Spine Injuries ... 1 Disc Lesion ... 1 Spine Injuries ... 1 Sub-total ... 2 9 8 1 2 2 1 1983/4 Industrial Deafness ... 1 Industrial Deafness ... 1 Vertebra and Disc Injury ... 1 Loss of Leg, Vascular ... 1 Diabetes ... 1 Injuries Sustained 28.7.83 ... 1 Chronic Peritonitis ... 1 Strained Left Knee ... 1 Stomach Ulcers ... 1 Myocardial Infarction ... 1 Injury Sustained 24.6.83 ... 1 Tenosynovitis ... 1 Hearing and Tinnitus ... 1 Multiple Injuries ... 1 Hearing Loss ... 1 Arthritis (R) Ankle ... 1 Tendons (R) Arm ... 1 Injury (L) Elbow ... 1 Hearing Impairment ... 1 Neck, Shoulder Muscles ... 1 Deafness ... 1 Fractured Spine ... 1 Back Injury ... 1 Death ... 1 Back Injury ... 1 Back Injury ... 1 Back Injury ... 1 Osteoarthritis ... 1 Pain in (R) Leg, Buttock, Side 1 Hearing Loss ... 1 Strained Back ... 1 Sub-total ... 1 10 10 5 3 1 1 1984/5 Myocardial Infarction ... 1 Lung Disorder ... 1 Low Back Pains ... 1 Scheuermans Disease ... 1 Fractures Nose, Contusions, wounds to lips ... 1 Sprain of Thumb and Finger ... 1 Hearing Loss ... 1 Continuous Pain In Lower Back 1 Back Injury ... 1 Neck Degeneration ... 1 Deafness ... 1 Sub-total ... 1 3 5 1 1 1985/86 Deaf ... 1 Left Lower Abdomen ... 1 Back Injury ... 1 Hearing Loss ... 1 Back Pains ... 1 Spinal Injury ... 1 Burnt Eyes ... 1 Sub-total ... 2 3 2 TOTAL ... 4 24 26 8 6 4 1 1 AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION Year Condition/claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Hypertension, Anxiety State... 1 Knee, Leg, Head, Neck Injury... 1 Nervous Reaction... 1 Ankles, Leg, Knee and Hip Injury... 1 Collapsed Lung... 1 Sub-total... 2 3 1983/4 Torn Leg Muscle... 1 Back Injury... 1 Sub-total... 1 1 1984/85 Shock and Frac., Tibia, Jarred Left Shoulder (1) Upper Chest... 1 Sprained Leg In Right Ankle... 1 Myocardial Infarction... 1 Slipped Disc... 1 Sub-total... 3 1 1985/86 Severe Back Injury... 1 Severe Back Injury... 1 Sub-total... 2 TOTAL... 6 5 2 AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS Year Condition/claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/83 Fracture Vertebral (R) Wrist and (R) Shoulder... 1 Leg and Back Injury and (R) Sciatica... 1 Hearing Loss... 1 Hearing Loss... 1 Sub-total... 4 1983/84 Heart Attack... 1 Back Injury... 1 Sub-total... 2 1984/85 Pain in (R) Shoulder... 1 Coronary Arteriosclerosis, Myocardial Infarction... 1 Hearing Loss... 1 Sub-total... 3 1985/86 Strained Back... 1 Sub-total... 1 TOTAL... 10 AGENCY: COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION Year Condition/claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/83 Back Injury... 1 Arthritis... 1 Hypertension... 1 Fractured Spine... 1 Neck and Pinched Nerve... 1 1983/84 Anxiety Depression State... 1 Nervous Anxiety... 1 1984/85 Nervous Anxiety, Gall Stones, Stomach Complaints and Chest Pains... 1 Nervous Anxiety, Insomnia and Nervous Dyspepsia... 1 TOTAL... 7 2 AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE Year Condition/claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/83 Existing Back Injury... 1 Strained Back and Shoulder... 1 Pains Arms and Wrists... 1 1983/84 Damage to Thumbs and Wrists of Both Hands... 1 1984/85 Back Injury... 1 1985/86 Tenosynovitis... 1 TOTAL... 5 1 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Year Condition/claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/83 Tinnitus... 1 1983/84 Back, Wrist... 1 Heart Attack ... 1 1984/85 Stress due to working conditions... 1 TOTAL... 2 2 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION/TRANSPORT Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Back Injury... 1 Lumbar Spondylitis... 1 Shoulder Injury... 1 Tenosynovitis both wrists... 1 Osteoarthritis left knee... 1 1983/4 Back Injury... 1 Back Strain... 1 Total... 3 4 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Bilateral Carpal Tunnel... 1 1983/4 Back and Neck... 1 Bruised Back... 1 Total... 1 1 1 AGENCY: CSIRO Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Back Injury... 1 1983/4 Lumbar Strain... 1 Right Knee Cap... 1 Total... 1 1 1 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Hypertension and atherosclerosis... 1 Staph Aureus infection... 1 Total... 1 1 AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Cerebral Haemorrhage... 1 1983/4 Head Injury and Injured Neck... 1 Total... 1 1 AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1982/3 Lower Bank Injury... 1 1983/4 Cervical disc degeneration... 1 1984/5 Injuries sustained from MVA... 1 Total... 3 AGENCY: AVIATION Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1984/5 Cold Urticaria... 1 Tenosynovitis... 1 Total... 2 AGENCY: COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1984/5 Hyper/parathryoid calcemia and duodenal ulcer... 1 Bruised left ribs and loin... 1 Total... 2 AGENCY: CCAE Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Collapse and loss of consciousness... 1 Total... 1 AGENCY: SPECIAL MINISTER OF STATE Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Sprained Back... 1 1984/5 Injury to lower back, left knee... 1 Total... 2 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Sore neck, back... 1 1985/6 Allergic conjunctivitis... 1 Total... 1 1 AGENCY: AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Aggravation of underlying asthma ... 1 Total ... 1 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Aggravation of head, back & neck injury ... 1 Total ... 1 AGENCY: ATTORNEY-GENERALS DEPARTMENT Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Unknown infection of digestive tract resulting in ulcers ... 1 1984/5 Carpal Tunnel Syndrome ... 1 Total ... 2 AGENCY: ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1985/6 Injury to neck ... 1 Total ... 1 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1983/4 Broken Scaphoid bone ... 1 Total ... 1 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRY Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1985/6 Bruised Chest ... 1 Total ... 1 AGENCY: SNOWY MOUNTAINS ELECTRICITY COMMISSION Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1984/5 Injury to left knee ... 1 Total ... 1 AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES Year Condition/Claim A.C.T. N.S.W. Vic. Qld. S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. 1984/5 Right Knee Injury ... 1 1985/6 Back & Spine Injury ... 1 Total ... 2 (Question No. 4871) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 November 1986: (1) What sum of overpaid funds was waived by his Department under the social security benefits and pensions amnesty. (2) What amounts covered by the amnesty were overpaid in each year for each benefit and pension in each State and Territory. (3) How many cases of overpayments waived by the amnesty were the subject of police investigations in respect of each State and Territory and for each benefit and pension. (4) Of the cases referred to in part (3), (a) were the clients aware of the police investigation of the overpayment and (b) in how many cases had the decision to lay charges been made and, in these cases, how many clients had not been informed in writing of the decision. (5) What was the (a) average and (b) individual time taken between when the decision to lay charges was made and when the client was informed in writing of that decision in the cases referred to in part (4) (b). (6) How many instances of overpayments subsequently waived by the amnesty were brought to his Department's notice by informers other than the recipient of the benefits in respect of each State and Territory and for each benefit and pension. (7) How many clients were not informed in writing of the (a) overpayments made to them and (b) basis of his Department's knowledge of the overpayment made to them in respect of the cases referred to in part (6). (8) What was the (a) average and (b) individual time taken from when his Department received advice of an overpayment by an informer other than the recipient of the benefit, and when the client was informed of the overpayment. (9) Has his Department initiated any research study into the awareness of the amnesty among its clients; if so, (a) who undertook the study and (b) what are the itemised details of its cost. (10) How many clients who unsuccessfully sought to take advantage of the amnesty have appealed against the refusal to waive the overpayment, and of these (a) what benefit or pension is involved, (b) in which State or Territory does the appellant reside, (c) to what stage has the appeal progressed and (d) what individual sums of money are involved. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1 and 2) Where a claimant satisfied the provisions of the Amnesty Legislation there was no debt due to the Commonwealth. Therefore, it was not necessary to calculate or waive amounts received by clients in excess of their entitlements. (3 to 8) This information was not collected during the Amnesty and consequently is not available. (9) No. (10) Appeals specifically relating to the Amnesty are not separately identifiable in the Appeals system. Specific information about this type of case is, therefore, not available. (Question No. 4928) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 November 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions in his annual report for 1985-86 has reported that many serious cases of welfare fraud are not being referred to him because they have not been investigated. (2) Is it also a fact that a large group of welfare fraud cases are not investigated, either by his Department or the Australian Federal Police, and this state of affairs undermines the deterrent value of prosecutions; if so, (a) how many cases of welfare fraud remain uninvestigated and (b) what is the estimated loss to revenue. (3) Why has this state of affairs been allowed to continue since March 1983. (4) How will the introduction of the identity card affect the incidence of welfare fraud when so many cases are not investigated. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The report has been tabled in the Parliament. (2) The Department of Social Security's Manual of Instructions requires all cases of misrepresentation to be investigated and insofar as my Department is concerned I have no reason to believe that this requirement is not being followed. Where instances of serious misrepresentation and/or complex investigation arise requiring the expertise of the Australian Federal Police these cases are referred for their attention. Details of cases not yet investigated by the Australian Federal Police should be sought from that agency. (3) See (2). (4) The introduction of the Australia Card arrangements will enhance my Department's ability to detect instances of welfare fraud and I would expect them to be investigated in accordance with normal procedures. (Question No. 4944) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: (1) When will the age pension of Mrs D. O'Donnell of Long Street, Strathfield, NSW, which was stopped in early July 1986, be restored. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The confidentiality provisions of the Social Security Act do not allow me to provide specific details about an individual. I shall write to the honourable member providing an answer to the question. (Question No. 4960) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: Did his Department state in its annual report for 1985-86 that (a) there were financial guarantees in the Government's self-government legislation, (b) the legislation was rejected by the Senate and (c) the Government's proposed compromise `mixed' electoral system is similar to that successfully operating in West Germany; if so, are these statements correct. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Annual Report of the Department of Territories does not make the first and second claims above. It does make the third claim, but not incorrectly. Specifically: (1) The Report does not state that there were financial guarantees in the legislation to establish the proposed ACT Council. The reference in the Report, under the heading ``Financial Arrangements'' on page 29, is that: ``The legislation provided for financial arrangements to ensure the new Administration's fiscal control over the considerable range of responsibilities to be transferred. The Commonwealth also undertook to enter into detailed negotiations on financial matters with the incoming body and provided specific financial guarantees, to ensure the smooth and orderly transfer of responsibility.'' (emphasis added). (2) The Report records at page 28 that the ACT Council Bill 1986 was introduced into the Senate on 16 April 1986 (Senate Hansard of 16 April 1986, pages 1736-1739). Amendments were tabled by the Government in the House of Representatives on 3 June 1986 and were incorporated in the Senate Hansard on the same date. The Report does not state that the Bill was rejected in the Senate. In three places (the Secretary's letter of transmittal and pages 28 and 29) it states that the Bill ``had not passed the Senate''. That is still the fact. (3) The Report states at page 29 that the electoral system proposed by the Government, that is a mixed electoral system with ten members elected from single member electorates and nine members elected from the ACT at large, is ``similar to that successfully operating in West Germany''. At both Federal and State (Lander) levels in the Federal Republic of Germany, there are mixed electoral systems, in which some representatives are elected directly and some by proportional representation. Mr Kerin —On 17 November 1986 (Hansard, page 3195), the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) asked the Prime Minister a question, without notice, concerning imports of frozen concentrated orange juice from Brazil. Further to the Prime Minister's answer, the following additional information is provided: The Government does recognise that the Australian citrus industry is experiencing considerable problems because of the impact on local processing fruit prices of low priced imports of frozen concentrated orange juice from Brazil. The industry itself recognises that it must re-orient its activities more towards producing for the fresh market it it is to be put into a stronger economic position. Some relief for the industry should be provided as a result of the preliminary finding by the Australian Customs Service that dumping of Brazilian frozen concentrated orange juice has been occurring and has caused material injury to the Australian industry. The Australian Customs Service has recently released details concerning the minimum free on board export price level at which it considers imports will not cause injury to the local orange growing industry. The minimum price determined is $A1,640 per metric tonne of concentrate, unpacked at the port of shipment. The effect of the provisional anti-dumping measures is not meaningless. It has raised the price of imported orange juice concentrate by approximately 30%. While not all of this price rise may flow through to growers because of the current high stocks held by Australian processors, the growing industry should receive some relief during the current orange harvest. The dumping investigation is continuing and a final decision on the anti-dumping measures is expected in mid March next year. In response to the current problems being faced by citrus growers because of low priced imports, the Industries Assistance Commission, as part of its long term inquiry into the fruit and fruit produce industries, was asked by the Government to look into the question of temporary assistance for the orange growing industry. The Industries Assistance Commission has recently submitted its report recommending no change be made in the existing and scheduled tariff on orange juice and frozen orange juice concentrate and that citrus growers be encouraged to take advantage of the adjustment, measures available under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. The Government is carefully considering the Commission's report and other information available and will announce a decision on appropriate measures as soon as practicable. (Question No. 3520) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Did he bring to the attention of relevant officials during his last visit to the Soviet Union the Australian Labor Party Resolution taken at the 36th National Conference in Canberra in 1984 concerning Afghanistan; if not, why not? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In my luncheon address in Moscow on 29 May 1984, hosted by the then Foreign Minister of the USSR, Mr A. A. Gromyko, I made clear to Mr Gromyko and before the wide range of assembled guests Australia's opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I said: `You have spoken out strongly against what you consider to be unjustified action by the West. We in our turn have opposed many of your actions. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a case in point'. (Question No. 3959) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) When may I expect answers to my questions Nos. 1884, 1886 and 2406. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Answers to the honourable member's questions were provided on the dates shown below: Question 1884-17 November 1986 Question 1886-19 September 1986 Question 2406-28 May 1986. (Question No. 3998) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: Has a serious morale problem been identified in (a) his Department and (b) the Australian Trade Commission; if so, what is the nature of the problem and what steps are being taken to counteract it. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The re-organisation of the former Department of Trade into two separate structures-the Department of Trade and the Australian Trade Commission-has been facilitated by a variety of measures including staff participation in corporate planning, improved communications and the setting of clear objectives. (Question No. 4001) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) How many (a) General Managers (b) Managers, does the Australian Trade Commission employ. (2) What percentage of (a) General Managers (b) Managers, are public servants or on secondment from the Public Service. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As at 20 May: (a) 6 and (b) 28. At that time three General Manager positions were filled. The remaining positions were pending finalisation of recruitment action. (2) Employees of the Australian Trade Commission are employed under the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 and are covered by the mobility provisions of Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922. Of the permanently filled positions the following represents the percentage occupied by officers who were appointed from the Public Service or are on secondment from the Public Service; (a) 66% (b) 70%. (Question No. 4002) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: Is it proposed to change the name of Trade Commissioners to Trade Representatives; if so, will they have diplomatic ranking and passports. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. Appointees under the Trade Representatives Act are primarily engaged in trade policy activities or general agricultural matters and carry the designation of Trade Representative. Appointees under the Australian Trade Commission Act are primarily engaged in export marketing and related activities and carry the designation of Trade Commissioner. (Question No. 4003) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) What Trade Commission posts have (a) opened, (b) closed down since March 1983. (2) What plans are there to (a) establish new Trade Commission offices and (b) separate existing Trade Commission offices from Embassies. (3) What will it cost to (a) establish these new posts and (b) separate existing Trade Commission offices from Embassies. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During the period between March 1983 and the establishment of the Australian Trade Commission in January 1986, a Post in Shanghai has been opened and the Johannesburg Post closed. (2) (a and b) Pursuant to the powers vested in the Australian Trade Commission under its Act and in the exercise of its commercial judgment, the Australian Trade Commission seeks to focus its resources in geographical regions with the greatest market potential for Australian exporters. In that context, Austrade is currently reviewing the disposition of its overseas resources with a view to achieving their most effective allocation. As publically announced recently, Austrade has concluded a review of its operations in the Middle East and Western Europe. Arising from that review was a decision to open a new Trade Commissioner Post in Dubai and expand the scale of its Post to Riyadh. Australia-based staff from the former Posts at Kuwait, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain are being redeployed to new Posts and other regions where there is a greater potential to increase exports of manufactures and services. In the future, Austrade's operations in the Arabian Gulf region will be centred upon Riyadh but with local support being provided by the existing Post at Jeddah and the newly opened Post at Dubai. The three Posts will be linked by modern data processing equipment to ensure that Australian exporters are provided with an efficient service that is of a scale compatible with the current market prospects in the area. Austrade will be appointing a Trade Commissioner for the Eastern Mediterranean who will service Israel, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus. Competent marketing staff will, where necessary, be engaged locally to work to that Trade Commissioner; current activities of locally engaged staff in Tel Aviv and Athens will be maintained. In consequence, the former Trade Commissioner in Tel Aviv has not been replaced. In Western Europe, Austrade's Posts at London and Paris will be strengthened and the Bonn Post transferred to Frankfurt. Frankfurt and Paris will have a greater area of responsibility than previously and along with London will be linked by data processing equipment to Posts such as Stockholm, The Hague, Brussels and Madrid which, it is intended, will in due course be managed by locally engaged marketing experts rather than Australia-based Trade Commissioners. The nature of Austrade's representation in Italy is under consideration with Austrade. These changes will result in a strengthening of market research and a better operational focus within both the Middle East and Western Europe. A similar review is currently being made of Austrade's resources in the Americas. I anticipate that the Managing Director of Austrade will shortly announce the results of that review. (3) (a and b) The Commission is satisfied that the changes outlined above represent a more cost effective deployment of resources than previously existed and comply with its legislative responsibility to provide its services as efficiently and economically as possible. (Question No. 4005) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) What unexpected problems have occurred with Austrade since it commenced operations. (2) Does Austrade have sufficient staff; if not, how many will be required. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have not discerned any problems arising out of the establishment of Austrade that I would define as unexpected. (2) Within generally applicable government controls on staffing resource levels, the level of staffing for the Commission is, in the view of the Government, sufficient to enable the Commission to discharge its functions and duties. (Question No. 4025) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 May 1986: (1) What is the current staff ceiling of the Australian Trade Commission (ATC) and how many people does it employ. (2) How many ATC employees are (a) public ser-vants and (b) were previously employed by his Department. (3) How many trade commissioners are employed by (a) his Department and (b) the ATC and on what basis are they divided. (4) How many trade commissioners are (a) public servants or on secondment from the public service and (b) employed on contract. (5) What guidelines exist for (a) his Department and (b) the ATC covering the employment of public service and contract trade commissioners. (6) What is the (a) identity of and (b) employment commencement date of trade commissioners who are (i) non-public servants and (ii) public servants or secondees from the public service. (7) How many (a) public service and (b) contract trade commissioners were employed in the trade commissioner service at 31 March in each year since 1983. (8) What is the percentage of (a) public service and (b) contract trade commissioners employed since March 1983. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The average staffing level limit for the Australian Trade Commission for the period to the 30 June 1986 was 1,327. The actual staff employed at 30 June was 1,334. (2) (a) and (b) Employees of the Australian Trade Commission are employed under the Australian Trade Commission Act. 644 of the Commission's current employees were previously employed under the Public Service Act within the Department of Trade. (3) With the formation of the Australian Trade Commission, those Trade Commissioners appointed under the former Trade Commissioners Act whose primary responsibilities were associated with marketing were transferred to the Australian Trade Commission. The Department retained responsibility for those appointees who were primarily engaged in trade policy activities or general agricultural matters and they are employed under the Trade Representatives Act 1985. As at 20 May 1986, there were 137 Trade Commissioners and 19 Trade Representatives. (4) (a) and (b) In accordance with the provisions of the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985 137 Trade Commissioners were deemed to be employed by the Australian Trade Commission. Of these 77 were from the Public Service and 60 are employed on term appointments. All appointees under the Trade Representatives Act had, as at 20 May 1986, public service status. (5) (a) Appointees under the Trade Representatives Act are subject to terms and conditions set down by the Public Service Board. (b) Under transitional legislation all staff employed by the Commission, including Trade Commissioners, continue to receive the conditions of employment which they received prior to their transfer to the Commission. These conditions will continue to apply until the determination of an agreed terms and conditions package. (6) (i) The identity and employment commencement dates of Trade Commissioners in this category employed as at 20 May 1986, were as follows: Name Date of Initial Appointment ALLGROVE, John Michael ... 15.2.62 ALPARSLAN, Jay ... 9.2.84 ARMBRUSTER, Philip Alban ... 22.4.83 BAILEY, Paul Raymond ... 22.4.83 BALDOCK, Lionel Trevor ... 4.3.85 BELL, Ian Edward ... 22.4.83 BERG, Victor Nicholas ... 4.2.85 BERGMAN, Peter Ward ... 10.3.71 BERINGER, Graham Lindsay ... 15.12.69 BRADDOCK, Peter ... 8.3.82 BUTLER, John ... 23.1.67 CHEN, Bing Ren Ching ... 29.10.84 COMBE, Harvey David Mathew ... 31.8.85 CRONIN, Terence Norrie ... 21.1.63 DAY, Ronald Mark ... 16.7.84 DILLON, Edmond Brian ... 7.1.63 DODDS, Gregory Ronald ... 30.9.85 FORBES, Patrick Oliver ... 12.1.70 GARRAN, John Richard ... 2.9.68 GRAVES, John Brian ... 23.1.67 HADLOW, Robert Frank ... 1.5.79 HAIN, Barry James ... 14.9.69 HENNEBRY, John ... 2.9.85 HODGKINSON, Ian Neville ... 25.6.81 HOGG, Anthony Kenneth ... 10.11.75 HOOK, Colin Edward ... 25.1.71 HUNDERTMARK, Bruce ... 1.2.85 JAMES, Roger Keith ... 3.9.80 JENNINGS, Robert Edward ... 23.1.67 JONES, Roy Geoffrey ... 30.6.84 JURISICH, Mark Andrew ... 21.1.85 KARAS, Alexander ... 3.5.76 KENT, Pamela Grant ... 14.7.80 LIGHTFOOT, John Edward ... 6.3.72 LORD, Alan Ross ... 11. 3.82 McCABE, William Terence ... 1.9.69 McCAFFREY, John Paul ... 13.5.74 McFARLANE, John Norman ... 29.2.68 MINNIS, David Charles ... 16.9.85 MYERS, Paul Maldon ... 22.4.83 O'BRIEN, Francis John ... 22.1.79 PALMER, Michael Stephenson ... 11.3.82 PEATEY, Phillip Vaughan ... 4.11.85 REED, Warren Thomas ... 11.8.85 RICE, Arthur Graham ... 23.1.67 RICHARD, David John ... 5.4.71 ROWELL, Brian Richard ... 1.6.71 SCOTT, Jonathan de Ravin ... 11.3.82 SCOTT, William Leslie ... 23.1.67 SKINNER, John Norman ... 3.2.64 SMITH, Ian Alfred ... 3.8.84 WALSH, Francis Thomas ... 21.6.68 WALSH, Martin ... 9.8.85 WALTON, Thomas Edward ... 23.1.67 WATKINS, Gerald Herbert ... 15.1.62 WATNEY, Julian Bagley ... 8.2.82 WESTWOOD, Harry Vincent ... 22.4.83 WHITE, Morris John ... 10.3.71 WIGLEY, Prudence Shaw ... 22.4.83 WILLIAMS, Colin Leonard ... 27.1.70 6 (ii) The identity and employment commencement dates of Trades Commissioners in this category employed as at 20 May 1986, were as follows: Name Date of Appointment to the Public Service Date of initial appointment as trade Commissioner ABRAHAMS, Michael John... 1.3.72 1.1.75 BADENOCH, Kenneth Harry... 12.1.70 1.1.71 BARRATT, Paul Hunter... 28.6.66 10.6.85 BAYLISS, Julie Margaret... 12.3.76 1.1.77 BAYLISS, Roger John... 21.8.72 1.1.73 BIRSS, John David... 16.3.66 23.7.79 BOLDUAN, Ray Cedric... 25.1.54 25.11.66 BOWMAN, Christopher Reginald... 2.4.73 1.1.74 BRANDON, Phillip Norman... 15.9.79 16.1.80 BUCKLEY, David... 28.1.75 25.6.81 CHEY, Jocelyn Valerie... 5.2.73 30.11.84 CONDUIT, Bruce... 13.2.56 11.3.64 DAVIDSON, Christopher Ralph... 15.4.71 1.1.72 DEACON, Peter Frank... 1.4.75 1.1.76 DONOGHUE, Cecily Anne... 28.1.75 25.6.81 DOWNIE, Peter Christopher... 14.5.70 26.7.84 DOWNEY, Lloyd Alexander... 15.4.71 1.1.72 DULFER-HYAMS, Robin Keverall... 15.5.72 1.1.73 FLETCHER, Richard... 10.2.64 8.7.65 FRANK, Peter Andrew... 12.3.76 1.1.77 GRAY, Geoffrey Roy... 22.4.71 1.1.72 GREENWELL, Richard Anthony... 12.5.75 6.11.80 HARGREAVES, Graeme Anthony... 10.2.64 8.7.65 HARRIS, Loftus Wright... 12.3.76 1.1.77 HEMPHILL, John Henry... 6.3.72 9.3.72 HESS, Donald James... 8.11.79 16.1.80 HIGGS, Barbara Christine... 28.1.69 26.6.75 HILL, Geoffrey Malcolm... 2.8.62 1.1.57 HOMER, Andrew John... 14.7.80 30.1.81 HUNT, Terrence William... 15.6.54 10.2.67 JACKSON, Alan... 5.1.67 9.3.70 JAMIESON, Charles Ernest... 31.5.71 1.1.72 JOHNSON, Michael... 17.9.70 22.5.81 KING, Desmond Colin... 30.11.70 25.6.81 KNOX, Michael James... 30.1.79 16.1.80 LAURIE, Joseph Jeffrey... 25.5.78 11.3.82 LEDWIDGE, Francis Anthony... 29.4.71 1.1.72 LINDENMAYER, Bruce David... 25.2.52 26.1.83 LISNERS, Karl Klaus... 24.1.66 26.6.75 LYNCH, Gerald John... 19.5.69 9.7.82 McGRATH, Michael Shane... 1.4.75 1.1.76 McHUGH, Graham Albert... 7.1.63 13.7.64 McKENZIE, Colin Craig... 3.9.62 16.12.66 McMANUS, Dermot Aloysius... 27.4.70 27.11.80 MARCUSSON, Peter... 3.4.50 6.3.80 MAYER, Anton Henry... 12.3.76 1.1.77 MEEHAN, William B... 22.3.65 4.7.79 MESSERVY, Collin John... 21.4.75 1.1.76 MOREHOUSE, Hugh Roderick... 21.4.75 1.1.76 NEWTON, Michael Charles... 7.3.75 1.1.76 NICHOLLIS, Bruce Harold... 21.3.72 1.1.73 O'DONOVAN, Robert John... 9.3.73 1.1.74 OLAH, Alexander Zolton... 24.3.71 1.1.72 PAXTON, David William... 26.10.70 19.4.84 REDDAWAY, John Harold... 3.4.74 1.1.75 RIVE, Juergen Peter... 2.1.70 1.1.71 SCOTT, Graham Howard... 3.4.74 24.10.74 SHANAHAN, Brian William... 25.6.54 13.7.64 SHEPARD, Christopher Robert... 4.1.60 15.4.81 SIBREE, Phillip Gordon... 6.2.70 1.1.73 SMILES, Scott Michael... 7.4.75 1.1.76 SMIT, Nicolaas Jacob... 23.3.72 1.1.73 SORENSEN, Peter Roy... 17.5.74 1.1.75 SPANELLIS, Nick... 21.1.70 29.7.85 STOKES, John William... 19.3.64 21.12.81 TAIT, John Russell... 12.5.70 19.7.71 TINNEY, William John... 15.3.67 12.3.70 TITCOMBE, Kim Fiona... 2.7.80 30.1.81 TJOENG, Michael Jungen... 14.7.80 30.1.81 TROFIMOVS, Juris Stefan... 15.1.73 10.3.75 UNGER, Frank Viktor... 27.1.76 29.6.83 WALLACE, Bruce Eskdale... 14.2.77 16.1.80 WARD, Christopher John... 21.4.75 1.1.76 WILSON, Richard... 28.11.66 28.8.69 WING, Ian Geoffrey... 17.9.79 16.1.80 WRIGHT, Robert Denis... 2.2.65 26.1.70 ZARIFEH, Ghassan Tawfik... 17.6.68 30.3.83 6 (iii) The identity and appointment dates of Trade Representatives, as at 20 May, 1986 were as follows: Name Date of Appointment to the Public Service Date of Current Appointment as Trade Representative CASSIDY, Frances Mary... 13.2.62 22.4.83 DUTHIE, Lindsay Percival... 5.2.51 6.3.86 FORSYTH, Ian Kenneth... 15.1.68 14.9.84 GASTIN, Denis Gerard... 3.4.70 4.2.86 GOSS, Terence Hamilton... 1.6.61 29.6.83 GREY, Peter Charles... 29.4.68 31.10.85 HAWES, David Charles... 9.3.67 20.12.82 HEARN, Simon Eric... 30.4.71 16.7.84 HELY, Anthony John... 23.10.67 27.6.84 HILL, Colin Douglas... 17.12.70 21.10.85 LOWDAY, Philip Charles... 10.4.72 19.1.84 McCARTER, Mary... 22.5.78 9.8.85 OXLEY, Alan Robert... 4.5.70 1.7.85 REEVES, George Wheately... 27.3.67 31.1.86 ROBERTSON, Patrick Charles... 13.5.64 11.11.82 RYAN, Michael Joseph... 9.8.67 7.12.85 SAVAGE, Eric Noel... 1.2.77 11.11.83 SPARKES, Philip John... 16.4.70 7.2.85 WOOD, Gregory Samuel Robert... 31.1.67 1.10.85 (7) The number of (a) Public Servants and (b) Contract Trade Commissioners employed at the periods specified are: 31 March 1983 - 117 Public Servants 44 Contract Trade Commissioners 31 March 1984 - Public Servants 53 Contract Trade Commissioners 31 March 1985 - 91 Public Servants 63 Contract Trade Commissioners 31 March 1986 - See the answer to 4 (a) and (b) above.* (8) (a) The percentage of Public Servants employed in the Trade Commissioner Service at the dates shown was as follows: 31 March 1983 - 72.67 31 March 1984 - 67.1 31 March 1985 - 59.1 31 March 1986 - see the answer to 4 (a) and (b) above.* All Trade Representatives as at 31 March 1986 had Public Service Status. (b) The percentage of Contract Trade Commissioners employed in the Trade Commissioner Service at the dates shown was as follows: 31 March 1983 - 27.33 31 March 1984 - 32.9 31 March 1985 - 40.9 31 March 1986 - see the answer to 4 (a) and (b) above.* * By virtue of the provisions the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985 the Trade Commissioners Act 1933 was amended and has become the Trade Representatives Act 1933. From 6 January 1986 persons employed under the Trade Commissioners Act 1933 have been deemed to be employed by the Australian Trade Commission. Therefore the Trade Commissioner Service as an autonomous unit has been subsumed into the wider activities of the Commission and there is now no distinction made between employees. However, as the title of Trade Commissioner is understood and accepted by the Commission's clients, it will continue to be used by managerial staff while on posting overseas. (Question No. 4107) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 27 May 1986: What action has been taken to implement the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs report's recommendations on the effects of asbestos mining on the Baryulgil community. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As the honourable member will be aware, a response to the Standing Committee's report ``The Effects of Asbestos Mining on the Baryulgil Community'' was tabled in this House on 25 November 1986. I regret the delay in answering the honourable member's question, but the development of a Government response to the report required substantial consultations with the NSW State Government. (Question No. 4277) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Did he ask Sir Peter Abeles to nominate someone for the position of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan; if so, when. (2) When was Sir Peter Abeles' nomination received and who received it. (3) Is he able to say whether Senator Prandini asked Sir Peter Abeles to ask him to give the position of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan to Mr Emanuel Klein. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I do not believe that confidential discussions held between a Minister and members of the business community should be revealed in this way and I therefore do not propose to answer this question. (2) See (1) above. (3) No. (Question No. 4314) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Has Mr E. Klein ever nominated any persons to any joint working group or committeee of his Department; if so (a) what were their names and (b) were they appointed; if not, why not. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Dr Klein was one of a number of people consulted before I invited business persons to participate in the first meeting of the Australia/Italy Joint Working Group on Economic Co-operation: (a) The people invited to attend the first meeting were: Sir Peter Abeles, Managing Director and Deputy Chairman, Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. Sir Tristan Antico, Chairman, Pioneer Concrete Pty Ltd. Mr G. Emanuel, Executive Officer, Emanual Group of Companies. Mr G. Green, Manager, Fibresteel Division, Australian Wire Industries Pty Ltd. Mr I. Grigg, Executive Director, Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries. Mr M. Lombardo, Managing Director, Seafeast Sales Pty Ltd. Mr V. Moratelli, Managing Director, Sabemo Pty Ltd. Mr P. Rizzo, General Manager, ANZ Banking Group Ltd. Mr J. Smith, Executive Director, Federation of Automotive Products Manufaturers. Mr C. Valmorbida, Managing Director, Conga Amalgamated Pty Ltd. Mr J. Wilcox, Chairman, Joint Coal Board. Ms C. Zampatti, Executive Director, Carla Zampatti (NSW) Pty Ltd. (b) No appointments were made to the Joint Working Group and no costs of participants were met by the Commonwealth. Of the above, all but Sir Tristan Antico and Mr M. Lombardo participated in the Joint Working Group meeting. Sir Tristan was represented by Mr D. Quirk and Mr J. Gray. (Question No. 4315) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: Has he taken an interest in the appointment as a consultant to the Western Australian office of his Department of a person known to him personally; if so, (a) what was his involvement, (b) who was the person, (c) what stage was reached in the appointment, (d) was the person made a conditional offer and (e) why did the appointment not proceed. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The question is so elliptical that neither I nor my Department nor Austrade can fathom what it is about. If the question is phrased in more specific terms I will provide an appropriate answer. (Question No. 4407) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: 1. Is he able to say (a) what are the aims of the Massachusetts-based Nautilus Institute (b) whether the Institute is formally linked to any university or similar academic institution and (c) how many research staff work for the Institute 2. Is he able to identify any source of funding for the Institute. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. (a) The Nautilus Research Organisation, according to its own bylaws, is a non-profit research and educational organisation incorporated in the State of California, although it has an address in Leverett, Massachusetts. Its stated aims are to undertake high quality research and to conduct educational activities on problems of environmental quality and of import for future generations. It claims to be a non-partisan organisation, does not undertake any political activity and is forbidden from lobbying Congress. (b) Nautilus claims to be a wholly independent entity with no formal links to any university or academic institution. (c) Nautilus says that it has three principal researchers who are supported by office staff and, from time to time, additional research staff on a project basis. 2. According to Nautilus the financial support it receives comes from private American donors, grants from foundations, church support and the sale of research publications. Its revenue is reported each year to the State of California and to the United States Internal Revenue Service as required by American Law. (Question No. 4473) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) What quantity of brandy in litres of alcohol has been imported to Australia from New Zealand in each month since January 1986. (2) What was the annual production of brandy in New Zealand from New Zealand grapes in 1985-86. (3) Is Article 14 of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement relevant to imports of brandy from New Zealand. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There were no recorded imports into Australia of brandy from New Zealand for the months January to May 1986. ABS statistics record that in the month of June 1986, 1,134 litres of alcohol of brandy were imported into Australia from New Zealand. (2) There is no production of brandy in New Zealand. I am advised that the above mentioned imports consists of brandy sourced from France and bottled in New Zealand. (3) The brandy imported from New Zealand to date in 1986 did not qualify for preferential treatment under the CER Trade Agreement as it did not meet the rules of orgin requirements. Accordingly Article 14 of the Agreement is not relevant to these imports. (Question No. 4546) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What restrictions apply to the number of vessels fishing inside Australian east coast waters and, in particular, of the NSW coast. (2) Which foreign countries have vessels fishing in these waters. (3) Are there restrictions on the number of Australian vessels permitted to operate in domestic east coast waters, especially off the NSW coast. (4) What limits apply to the length of lines permitted for (a) foreign vessels and (b) Australian vessels. (5) What charges are levied on foreign fishing vessels. (6) How many licences does (a) a foreign vessel and (b) an Australian vessel require. (7) How many foreign vessels are presently licensed to fish in Australian waters off the NSW coast, and what restrictions apply to the area within Australian waters that may be fished. (8) What measures are taken by government authorities to ensure that the rules and restrictions applied to foreign vessels are observed by those vessels. (9) With which government agencies, federal or state, does responsibility lie for the regulation and policing of Australian vessels in Australian waters off the NSW coast. Mr Kerin —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (1), (2) (3) and (7) The number of Australian fishing vessels and any operational restrictions applying to fishing within the territorial sea are the responsibilities of the respective State/Territory Governments. Beyond that the Commonwealth is generally responsible for fishing activity, out to the limit of the 200 nautical mile Australian fishing zone (AFZ). There are approximately 4700 and 3500 boats licenced to operate off Queensland and New South Wales respectively. Of these about 3100 are also licenced to fish in Commonwealth waters. At present there are restrictions on the issue of new Commowealth fishing licences for operations in developed fisheries. In addition to Australian fishing boats, Japanese tuna longline vessels are permitted to operate in specified AFZ waters, including some waters adjacent to the east coast. There are no other foreign fishing boats permitted to operate in those waters. The Japanese boats fish under the terms and conditions of annually negotiated access agreements and under the current agreement up to 290 are permitted to fish in the AFZ. The agreement specifies the areas of operation but generally those foreign boats are permitted to operate off the east coast of mailand Australia north of Latitude 34 degrees south. The Japanese longline fleet is also permitted to operate in AFZ waters around Tasmania. No foreign fishing is permitted within territorial seas and Japanese boats may not operate within approximately 50 nautical miles of the NSW coast during January to March (from Sydney to Coffs Harbour). As noted above up to 290 Japanese vessels may be licensed but in 1985/86 only 265 Japanese boats applied to be and were so licensed. Of those, only 154 operated in the AFZ. The foreign vessels are licensed to operate in the areas specified in access agreements and there are no areas allocated to particular boats. In respect of Japanese fishing in waters adjacent to NSW some 80-100 vessels operate during the peak of the season. Japanese vessels, like all foreign vessels which operate in the AFZ (ie. from the Republic of Korea and Taiwan), are required to adhere to a range of reporting requirements designed to safeguard the interests of the Australian fishing industry and to protect the marine resources of the Zone. They are also required to place Australian observers aboard as requested. Foreign fishing vessels operating in the AFZ are subject to Australian law but there are no additional constraints on their operations beyond those specified in the agreements. The usual reason for operational restrictions is either to protect fish stocks or to prevent instances of gear conflict (ie cases in which foreign fishing interferes with domestic operations). The tunas which constitute the target species of the east coast longlines are classified as ``highly migratory species'' which are taken not only in the AFZ but throughout the region. In the case of southern bluefin tuna, restrictions on access in the AFZ have been imposed because of scientific concern about depletion of the stocks. The exclusion of Japanese long- liners from most AFZ waters south of latitude 34 degrees south and the implementation of global catch quotas reflects our concern at the heavy fishing effort applied to that species. We have always consulted with State/Territory Governments and industry organisations prior to and during access negotiations and, since the proclamation of the AFZ in 1979, areas available to foreign fleets have been progressively reduced as the Australian fishing industry has expanded its range of operations. With respect to the Australian fishing fleets the two main fisheries off the east coast-the East Coast Trawl Fishery and the South Eastern Trawl Fishery-are both subject to management plans with approximately 180 boats permitted to operate in the South Eastern Trawl fishery and some 1200 in the East Coast Trawl Fishery. (4) There are currently no limits applying to the lengths of lines which may be used by Australian or Japanese vessels operating off the NSW coast. In respect of Australian vessels, while there are at present no restriction on line length, management arrangements for the east coast yellowfin/bigeye longline fishery are under consideration. While the East Coast Tuna Management Advisory Committee has yet to make its recommendations I would expect that gear restrictions (such as the maximum line length) will be an option examined. (5) Foreign fishing in the AFZ may be classified as either bilateral or joint venture. All foreign fishing vessels are liable to pay an access fee, a vessel fee of $35/metre overall and a master fisherman's licence fee of $20. In some cases, such as that of Japanese longline operations under the bilateral agreement, the vessel and master fisherman's licence fees are subsumed in the total fee paid. Joint ventures, that is, fishing operations which involve Australian and foreign partners, may provide wider benefits to the Australian community and under the Fisheries Act the Minister for Primary Industry is empowered to waive all or part of the access fee. Access fees are usually based on a negotiated percentage of the landed value of the catch in the major market. In 1985/86 the access fee paid by Japan was $2.25 million; in 1986/87, $3.15 million. (6) Under the Commonwealth Fisheries Act, 1952 Australian and foreign fishing boats required a Commowealth Fishing Boat Licence and the person in charge of a fishing vessel, operating in Commonwealth waters, must hold a Master Fisherman's Licence. Boats operating within State waters may be required to hold State fishing licences and marine authorities may require boat operators to hold other licences which are not related directly to fishing activities. (8) Foreign fisherman who operate in the AFZ do so subject to their compliance with a range of reporting requirements involving logbooks, positions/catch reporting etc. Means of ensuring that foreign vessels adhere to specified conditions include primary surveillance by RAN and RAAF vehicles as well as secondary surveillance by Australian fishing vessels, merchant ships, commercial aircraft etc. I have already referred to observers aboard foreign fishing vessels. (9) The New South Wales Department of Agriculture is responsible for administration of the regulations in respect of the fishing operations of Australian vessels in the territorial sea while the Australian Fisheries Service of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry assumes that the responsibility for fishing operations in proclaimed waters beyond the territorial sea and out to the limit of the AFZ. Other authorities may cover the non fisheries-specific aspects such as navigation (Commonwealth Department of Transport) and survey and safety requirements (State Marine Boards, etc). (Question No. 4581) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: What (a) expenditure was incurred in marketing Australian products abroad and (b) has been the change in expenditure in real terms in each instance of the (i) Australian Wheat Board, (ii) Australian WoolCorporation and (iii) Australian Dairy Corporation in each of the years 1980-81 to 1985-86. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Overseas marketing expenditure incurred by the statutory marketing boards concerned with wool, wheat and dairy products is as follows- Year Australian Wheat Board Australian Wool Corporation Australian Dairy Corporation $Am $Am $Am 1979-80... 6.8 45.5 1.1 1980-81... 9.9 52.1 1.1 1981-82... 11.0 56.5 0.6 1982-83... 13.8 61.2 0.7 1983-84... 15.5 75.4 0.7 1984-85... 19.8 76.3 1.0 1985-86... 29.1 101.2 1.4 Notes: 1. The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) has derived from its published annual financial statements estimates of expenditure, including salary costs, directed to its export marketing function. The large increase in costs between 1984/85 and 1985/86 is due primarily to the commencement of silo construction projects in Egypt directly related to the marketing of Australia's wheat in that country. 2. The Australian Dairy Corporation advises that the variation between 1980-81 and 1981-82 was caused by a significant reduction in promotion activity in Japan, resulting from a decline in the level of milk production in Australia and a consequent fall in the volume of cheese available for export to Japan. Apparent real expenditure incurred for overseas marketing by these statutory marketing authorities has been calculated by inflating actual expenditure using the weighted average consumer price index (CPI) for all major capital cities, with a base of 1985-86=100. The results are as follows- Year CPI* Australian Wheat Board Australian Wool Corporation Australian Dairy Corporation $Am $Am $Am 1979-80... 61.47 11.1 74.0 1.8 1980-81... 67.25 14.7 77.5 1.6 1981-82... 74.24 14.9 76.1 0.8 1982-83... 82.78 16.7 73.9 0.8 1983-84... 88.50 17.5 85.2 0.8 1984-85... 92.27 21.4 82.7 1.1 1985-86... 100.0 29.1 101.2 1.4 (b) Changes in apparent expenditure in real terms (1985/86 values) incurred for overseas marketing by these statutory marketing authorities were thus as follows- Year Australian Wheat Board Australian Wool Corporation Australian Dairy Corporation $Am $Am $Am 1980-81... +3.6 +3.5 -0.2 1981-82... +0.2 -1.4 -0.8 1982-83... +1.8 -2.2 0.0 1983-84... +0.8 +11.3 0.0 1984-85... +4.0 -2.5 +0.3 1985-86... +7.7 +18.5 +0.3 It should be noted that the above data do not provide an accurate indication of changes in real marketing efforts overseas as other factors, including exchange rate variations and different rates of cost increases in overseas countries, affect Australian dollar expenditure and promotion effort in overseas markets. * Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics; Consumer Price Index Catalogue No. 6401.0. (Question No. 4607) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the nuclear power station at Ignalina in Soviet Lithuania is of a similar design to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. (2) Is he able to say whether studies by the Swedish State Power Board show safety margins at the Ignalina facility to be smaller than those in operation at the Chernobyl plant at the time of the nuclear disaster; if so, what representations has the Government made through the International Atomic Energy Agency to rectify the situation in light of the Government's comments following the Chernobyl disaster. (3) If no representations have been made, why not and will they now be made. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The nuclear reactors at the Ignalina Power Station are of a type designated RBMK-1500. The type is a development of the RBMK-1000 reactor which was involved in the accident at Chernobyl. Appendix 1 of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's report on the Chernobyl accident, ``The Chernobyl Nuclear Accident and Its Consequences'', tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 24 September 1986, contains background on the Ignalina Power Station. (2) and (3) An internal report by the Swedish State Power Board has suggested that the safety margins against a melt-down at Ignalina are probably very small, and that the design, as with other RBMK type reactors, would not meet Swedish safety requirements. The report has no official status, and is of a tentative nature, relying on the few technical details publicly available. It is understood that the State Power Board has not been able to obtain sufficient information from the Soviet Union to be able to verify the report's assumptions and modelling. Given the speculative and tentative nature of the report, it would be inappropriate for the Australian Government to make representations to the Soviet Union at this stage. It is in the first instance for Sweden to decide on possible follow-up action. Australia took an active role in international action in the wake of the Chernobyl accident to encourage additional action on nuclear safety. At an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting of experts to review the Chernobyl accident held in Vienna on 25-29 August, the Soviet Union tabled a detailed report on the accident sequence, the reasons for it and its consequences, and demonstrated a readiness to answer additional detailed questions on the accident. The Government hopes that the Soviet Union, and other countries operating nuclear facilities, will maintain and extend the provision of safety-related information on nuclear facilities to assist in the overall development of an improved nuclear safety regime. (Question No. 4682) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) Is he able to say what amount of Brazilian orange juice concentrate is to be imported by NZ as part of a barter contract to purchase NZ dairy products. (2) What is the present NZ tariff/quota level for citrus (a) juice and (b) fruit from (i) Australia, under the Closer Economic Relations (CER) Agreement and (ii) the rest of the world. (3) Does the NZ importation of Brazilian juice breach or threaten to breach the CER Agreement. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of press reports that the New Zealand Dairy Board has arranged a barter deal involving the exchange of Brazilian frozen orange juice concentrate for skim milk powder. I have no further details of the arrangements. (2) (a) (i) Citrus juice from Australia enters New Zealand tariff free and licence exempt. (a) (ii) Citrus juice from other sources enters New Zealand at a tariff rate varying from 20% to 28.5% depending on the kind of fruit, size of container and whether or not sugar has been added. Import licence is made available on application for all citrus juice, except lime in small containers imported from sources other than Australia. Citrus juice in bulk containers and all lime juice is licence exempt. (b) Citrus fruit is not subject to tariff or licensing whether imported from Australia or other sources. (3) No. The CER Agreement contains no provisions restricting either Member State's ability to import from third countries. (Question No. 4714) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: What action has been taken to acquire lands at Archer River on Cape York Peninsula subsequent to the decision of the High Court in Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The High Court Case of Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen arose from a proposal by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission to purchase the Archer River Pastoral Lease for the Winychanham group resident at Aurukun and elsewhere in Queensland. The purchase required consent under the Lands Act (Qld), which was not forthcoming. The High Court held that section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1979 (Cth) was within Commonwealth Constitutional power, and referred to the Queensland Supreme Court the issue of whether the decision of the Queensland Government to refuse to consent to the purchase was invalid as contrary to section 9 of the Commonwealth Act The Queensland Government then declared the Archer River Pastoral Lease land to be a National Park and action in the Supreme Court therefore did not proceed. The Aboriginal Development Commission has not received any further request from the Winychanham group to purchase land on its behalf. (Question No. 4765) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 15 October 1986: (1) What procedures are being used to obtain details of the dual running of the Government's cost recovery scheme for the general aviation sector. (2) How many additional (a) full-time, (b) part-time or (c) casual staff have been employed to record aircraft movements as part of this accounting system. (3) Where have any additional staff been based. (4) What has been the cost of employing any additional staff and is the cost to be attributed to the aviation industry for the purposes of cost recovery. (5) If the cost of employing additional staff is not to be attributed to the aviation industry for cost recovery purposes, how is it accounted for. (6) What are the projections for additional staff levels as a result of the monitoring and administration of the Government's cost recovery scheme. (7) Will any additional staff continue to be employed after the 12 months of dual running of the system; if not, how is the system to be staffed. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At the request of the general aviation industry, the Government agreed to defer introduction of separate airport and airway landing charges to general aviation. Under arrangements agreed with general aviation industry associations, all general aviation operators are to receive trial bills during 1986-87. The trial bills show charges that would have been payable under the new separate airport and airways landing charges system. They are intended to provide information to enable the Government, in consultation with the industry, to develop appropriate charging arrangements for general aviation from 1 July 1987. (2), (3), (6) and (7) There have been no additional staff employed for dual running over and above the staff required to operate the new separate airport and airway landing charges system. International and domestic airlines and other aircraft predominantly used in regular public transport operations have been charged under the new system from 1 July 1986. Information to generate actual bills to airlines and trial bills to general aviation is gathered as part of the one exercise. It is not possible to separately identify the costs of collecting and processing data for general aviation operations. Accordingly all staffing and costs figures set out below relate to the full cost of operating the landing charges system for both airlines and general aviation. Staff employed by the Department for separate charges data-capture purposes are listed by location in the table below. Also shown is the total number of hours per week at each location involved in the data transcription function. These staff were engaged in accordance with the provisions for temporary employment under Section 82 of the Public Service Act. STAFF EMPLOYED FOR DATA CAPTURE Location No. staff hours per week (total) Albury... 1 6 Bankstown... 1 14 Camden... 1 4 Canberra... 2 18 Coffs Harbour... 1 18 Cooma... 1 3 Dubbo... 1 30 Lord Howe Island... 1 1.5 Norfolk Island... 1 1 Tamworth... 1 5 Wagga... 1 14 Sydney... 7 120 Avalon... 1 6 Devonport... 1 5 Essendon... 1 12 Hobart... 1 6 Launceston... 1 15 Moorabbin... 1 13 Mildura... 1 6 Melbourne... 2 38 Wynyard... 1 5 Derby... 1 25 Kalgoorlie... 1 14 Kununurra... 1 30 Perth... 1 36 Adelaide... 1 29 Alice Springs... 1 9 Ceduna... 1 1.5 Darwin... 1 17.5 Gove... 1 7 Leigh Creek... 1 1.75 Mt Gambier... 1 2.75 Brisbane... 1 23 Bundaberg... 1 4 Cairns... 1 7.25 Coolangatta... 1 5 Longreach... 1 2.25 Mackay... 1 4.75 Maroochydore... 1 3 Mt Isa... 1 5.75 Rockhampton... 1 8.5 Townsville... 1 16.25 Total 593.75 1. At the following locations additional work has been absorbed by existing staff with no increase in hours: Tennant Creek Karratha Broken Hill Meekathara Cocos Is Port Hedland Geraldton Charleville 2. Hours for existing staff at Carnarvon have been increased by 7 hours per week. (4) and (5) As previously indicated no staff are employed solely for dual running. Costs of employing all staff for data capture and other administrative duties associated with the separate charges system are attributable to the aviation industry. Set out below are estimates of the cost of the previous charging arrangements and the new separate charges system. Previous charging system Landing charges System $m $m (July 1986 prices) Salaries ... 0.56 0.67* Contract Services ... - 0.31 Other Costs ... 0.30 0.06 On Costs ... 0.30 0.17 Total ... 0.89 1.21 * Incorporates on-costs for casual labour. In considering the above costings it is important to bear in mind that, in the light of certain criticisms by the Auditor-General of the lack of effective audit controls under the previous system it would not have been possible to retain the previous system. The new landing charges system was developed on the basis of advice from independent financial consultants. All costs are to be absorbed within the Department's 2 per cent expenditure reduction target for 1986-87. Moreover, it is confidently expected that the developments in train in modernising the airways system will provide the scope for substantial savings in the more labour intensive components of the new charging system. Ultimately, the new system could well be significantly cheaper to run than the old. (Question No. 4774) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) Which overseas Trade Commissioner posts is Austrade considering closing down besides 3 posts in the Middle East. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer the honourable member to my response to parts 2(a) and (b) of Question on Notice No. 4003. (Question No. 4776) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) Why was the candidate interviewed in Frankfurt for the position of Senior Trade Commissioner, Milan, not appointed following the withdrawal of Dr Klein's application. (2) When and for what reason was it decided not to appoint the candidate interviewed in Frankfurt. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I am advised by the Australian Trade Commission that the decision not to proceed with an appointment to Milan stemmed from a decision to review, as part of an exercise covering Western Europe, the whole of the Commission's operations in Italy. (Question No. 4777) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1986: (1) How many inquiries has the Australian Trade Commission received regarding admission to the Bond Corporation's proposed private university on the Gold Coast. (2) From which countries did these inquiries originate. (3) What is Australia's estimate of the (a) projected overseas Market for this type of institution, (b) amount of income such a university would bring into Australia and (c) effect on our invisibles deficit. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Trade Commission has not received any specific inquiries regarding admission to the proposed private university. When the matter was first reported in the press a few general inquiries were received but officers of the Commission were unable to add anything to what had been reported on the subject. (2) Due to the general nature of the inquiries no records were kept as to their number and origin. (3) In the absence of precise information regarding the courses which might be offered, the acceptability overseas of the degrees to be conferred, the cost of the various courses and the cost of residential accommodation if any, it is not possible to provide the estimates sought in the question. (Question No. 4828) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: Are there nuclear research reactors, similar to the HIFAR nuclear reactor of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, operating in other parts of the world; if so, for each reactor (a) where is it located, (b) under whose control is it, (c) how far is it from the closest residential area and (d) when was it commissioned. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In addition to HIFAR, there are 4 other DIDO class research reactors. The information sought for each of these reactors is set out below: (a) (b) (c) Location Operator Date of initial criticality* DIDO Harwell, United Kingdom UK Atomic Energy Authority November 1956 Pluto Harwell, United Kingdom UK Atomic Energy Authority November 1957 FRJ-2 Julich, Federal Republic of Germany Kernforschung- sanlage (KFA) November 1962 DR-3 Riso, Denmark Riso National Laboratory January 1960 * HIFAR first went critical in January 1958. (c) There are no land restrictions around the three overseas sites. These research reactors are in rural or semi-rural areas used for dairy and crop production but also having the significant population densities characteristic of Europe. In 1981, 360 people resided within 1.6 km of the DIDO and Pluto reactors, 6 500 within 4.8 km and 50 000 within 9.6 km. Oxford (population 125 000) is 20 km away from the reactors. For FRJ-2, Julich (population 13 000) is 5 km away, Aachen (250 000) 25 km and Cologne (1 million) 40 km. For DR-3, Roskilde (population 50 000) is 5 km away and central Copenhagen (1.2 million) 30 km. (Question No. 4830) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 1986: Did his Department tender advice that Australia should not honour its obligations to the Tin Rescue Plan (Tinco); if so why? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Foreign Affairs was certainly involved in the examination by officials of the TINCO Plan. However, it is not appropriate for me to reveal advice tendered by officials to ministers. As you will be aware the Government's position was that Australia should accept the Tinco proposal and, subject to all other parties signifying similar acceptance, contribute Australia's share of funds needed to implement the proposal. (Question No. 4850) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 October 1986: (1) What assurances has he given the leaders of (a) the pig industry and (b) veterinary organisations that the Canadian Government will be asked to conduct trials on the presence of transmissible gastroenteritis in its pigmeat exports. (2) Will there be no changes made to present importation arrangements for uncanned Canadian pigmeat imports until it is proven beyond any doubt that these imports will be totally free of transmissible gastroenteritis. (3) Does transmissible gastroenteritis pose a danger to human health. (4) Is there evidence of transmissible gastroenteritis in nations other than Canada and USA. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In answer to representations I have received from the pig industry and veterinary organisations, and following a meeting with their representatives, I advised both the Australian Pork Producers Federation and the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) that I had asked the Canadian agricultural authorities to undertake transmission trials to establish whether transmissible gastroenteritis could be present in the meat of slaughter age pigs in Canada. The Canadian Minister for Agriculture has since advised me that they see no value in such trials as they would, in their view, be time consuming, expensive and unlikely to add to current knowledge of the disease. (2) In considering the latest advice from Canada, and following discussions with industry, the AVA and scientific staff from the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) I have asked my Department, in conjunction with industry and AAHL, to consider the feasibility and desirability of organising transmission trials at AAHL. If no agreed experimental protocol, which would advance the knowledge of transmission of TGE and assist in decision making, can be developed, I will decide on the importation on the basis of available evidence. (3) No-my advice is that TGE does not pose a risk to human health. (4) TGE is endemic in many major pig producing countries including most of Europe and Asia, Mexico and some South American countries in addition to the USA and Canada. (Question No. 4863) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: (1) Have consultations with the apple and pear, canned fruit and dried fruits industries regarding the proposed Horticultural Marketing Corporation been concluded; if not, when are the discussions likely to conclude. (2) Has any decision been taken to abolish the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation (ADFC). (3) Has he received representations opposing abolition of the ADFC; if so, what action has been taken on the representations. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In its April 1986 Economic and Rural Policy Statement, the Government announced that the relationship between the proposed Horticultural Marketing Corporation and the three existing marketing authorities responsible for apples and pears, canned deciduous fruits and dried vine fruits would be resolved in consultation with the industries involved. In September 1986, the Department of Primary Industry published a discussion paper entitled New Commercial Structure for the Horticultural Industries outlining ways in which the proposal for establishing the Horticultural Marketing Corporation and related institutions may be implemented and the horticultural industries were invited to comment on the paper's contents. Since then, consultations with many industries have taken place and are continuing. In particular, representations have been made either to the Department or to me by organisations within the apple and pear, canned fruit and dried fruit industries. It is expected that the initial round of consultations between my Department and industry organisations will be concluded soon. These consultations have centred on the main principles governing the establishment of the proposed institutions. I hope soon to be in a position to make a statement on the proposals, taking into account all the views presented by the industries in the consultations. (2) and (3) There has been no decision taken to abolish the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation (ADFC). The main industry organisation has presented arguments that the ADFC should continue as a separate entity. As mentioned above, consultations with the industry are continuing on whether or not dried fruits should come within the responsibility of the proposed Horticultural Marketing Corporation. As soon as possible after the conclusion of the current round of industry consultations, I will give a considered response to the representations made by the organisations within the dried fruits industry. (Question No. 4881) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether allegations have been made in the South Australian Parliament over the misuse of funds by the Pitjantjatjara Council; if so, is his Department investigating the allegations. (2) What action is being taken to ensure that funds allocated to the Council are accounted for adequately. (3) What has been the outcome of his Department's investigations of Council's finances. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Allegations of this nature were made in the South Australian Parliament on 5 November 1986. (2) Officers of the Department have examined the claims and found no evidence to warrant further investigation. (3) The Pitjantjatjara Council is subject to the normal accountability requirements relating to all Aboriginal organisations as outlined in the Departments ``Conditions of Grants'' publication. (Question No. 4887) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Did discussions take place between officers of his Department and Qantas on the most appropriate content and presentation of the drug warning film prior to its production; if not, were there any discussions prior to the formal request for Qantas to screen the film. (2) What is the present position with respect to the film. (3) Will the film be shown on flights other than those operated by Qantas; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Discussions with Qantas were initiated over one year ago, involving the Government's Advertising Service, my department and the advertising agency which was to produce the film, and included two special presentations to Qantas' Manager of Inflight Entertainment. An independent market research evaluation of the video was prepared specifically to assess the impact on in-flight audiences and this evaluation was conveyed to Qantas. These consultations culminated in a letter from my department to Qantas' Manager of Inflight Entertainment, which advised him of my approval of the film and enclosed the script. Qantas replied raising only details of timing and payments. It was reasonable to understand from this exchange of correspondence that Qantas had no difficulty with the film content; the film was made. The specific dates of these events were: 30 October 1985-first contact with Qantas 18 February 1986-presentation to Qantas 7 March 1986-presentation to Qantas 18 March 1986-market research report passed to Qantas 22 April 1986-formal letter to Qantas 26 May 1986-Qantas reply 30 May 1986-film made My department was, therefore, surprised to be informed at a meeting on 11 September 1986 that Qantas then found the film unacceptable. (2) The film, which is suitable for showing as a community service, not only for in-flight screening to airline passengers on flights out of Australia, but also for showing domestically on television and in cinemas, was launched at a press conference on 14 October by Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health, and myself. There has been a gratifying response from television stations throughout Australia to the screening of the film in community service timeslots and the Greater Union Cinema chain is showing it in four States and the A.C.T. (3) Officers of my department and the Government's Advertising Service have asked MAS, Garuda, Philippines Airways, Singapore Airlines and Thai International if they wish to screen the film on a non-commercial charge basis. Resident Australian missions in those countries have been briefed so that they can discuss this approach with local authorities. Cathay Pacific Airways have been approached on the same basis. I might mention also that the Canadian and Malaysian administrations have shown interest in using the film for their own drug warning campaigns. (Question No. 4891) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Was wiring for the new radar system for Adelaide airport designed by officers of his Department based in Canberra. (2) Did this wiring subsequently need to be replaced because of its inadequacy. (3) Were new tenders called for the replacement of the wiring; if so, how much did the replacement of the wiring cost. (4) What was the delay between (a) when the wiring was found to be inadequate and when it was decided to call for tenders to replace it and (b) when it was decided to call for tenders and the completion of the work. (5) When was the orginal approval given for a new radar system to be installed at the airport and when will the new system be fully operational. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) Original approval for the new radar system to be installed at Adelaide was given by the Minister for Transport in the context of the 1978-79 Technical Capital Works Programme of the Department of Transport. The system will become operational on 18 December 1986. (Question No. 4892) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Have any light poles been wrongly positioned at Perth's new international terminal; if so, how has this situation arisen. (2) Will his Department rectify the situation; if so, what will be the cost of relocating the poles. (3) If his Department will not rectify the situation, why not. (4) What action has been taken to ensure that this does not happen again. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I am advised that, due to briefing misunderstanding, poles were located some metres from the posi- tions originally intended. Unfortunately the error was not detected until the poles had been erected. Four of the six poles have been assessed as likely to cause some obstruction to vehicles servicing aircraft. They will now be relocated at the ends of the aerobridges. (2) Yes. The estimated cost of relocating the four poles is $56,000. (3) See answer to Question (2). (4) There have been extensive discussions between my Department and the Department of Housing and Construction on this matter. I am satisfied that these discussions will prevent similar occurrences in the future. (Question No. 4894) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: Will the 12 month period of ``parallel'' accounting for air navigation charges incurred by general aviation for cost recovery purposes commence from the time of (a) his announcement of that policy or (b) the issuing of the first invoice; if not, from when will it commence. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: As indicated in my press release of 20 March 1986, dual running of the existing fixed annual air navigation charges arrangements for general aviation and the new separate airport and airway landing charges system commenced from 1 July 1986. The first trial accounts issued under the new system covered flights undertaken during the months of July, August and September 1986. (Question No. 4915) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Age on 31 October 1986 entitled ``Soviets' guilty secrets are the key to SDI deadlock''. (2) Is he able to say whether (a) the USSR has been experimenting with anti-satellite satellites since the late 1960s, commencing just as the US was abandoning its own early attempts in this direction, (b) the USSR persevered in a long series of tests with ``killersat'' satellites and (c) by the early 1980s the USSR had developed an operational, although limited, system. (3) Is he able to say whether the USSR holds an advantage in ``Star Wars'' technology in that it possesses the world's only operational anti-ballistic missile defence system around Moscow. (4) Is he able to say whether (a) the USSR is now expanding and improving this anti-ballistic missile system and equipping it with high-acceleration interceptor missiles, (b) construction of the Krasnoyarsk ballistic missile tracking station (i) is being accelerated and (ii) will violate the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty and (c) this system may be capable of locating and destroying low-orbiting satellites as well as some incoming missiles. (5) Is he able to say whether the USSR has already built 2 large ground-based lasers that can hit low-orbiting satellites. (6) Is it a fact that in (a) 1982 the then Soviet military chief of staff, Marshal Ogakov, indicated that the USSR was trying to create arms for space, citing a rapid advance in electronics and development of weapons based on new physical principles, (b) May 1985 the Soviet Defence Minister, Marshal Sokolov, admitted that Soviet scientists were trying to perfect early-warning reconnaissance, communication and navigation systems in space, (c) 1985 General Chervov admitted that experimental lasers existed and (d) 1972 the then De- fence Ministers, Marshal Grechko, told the USSR Presidium that the anti-ballistic missile pact places no limitations on the conducting of research and experimental work directed towards solving the problem of defending the country from nuclear missile strikes. (7) Is he able to say whether the Soviet laser program (a) is much larger than the American program and (b) involves more than 10,000 scientists and engineers at a cost of $1 billion (US) per year. (8) Does sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence exist to suggest that the USSR has taken its ``Star Wars'' initiative further than the laboratory research to which it insists on confining the US. (9) What approaches has the Government made to the (a) US and (b) USSR in relation to constraining the development of space weapons systems. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) Yes, although the Government understands that the United States had two ground-based direct intercept anti-satellite systems in operational or semi-operational status at Pacific island locations until the mid 1970s. The Government further understands that these two systems were also in part a response to United States concerns in the late 1960s that the Soviet Union was developing a fractional orbital bombardment system (FOBS); (b) Yes. (c) According to the official United States publication Soviet Strategic Defence Programs, published in October 1985, the United States considers that the Soviet Union's co-orbital anti-satellite system became operational in the early 1970s. (3) There is no dispute that the Soviet Union possesses the world's only operational anti-ballistic missile defence system, centred on Moscow. This system is permitted by the ABM Treaty and, as required by the Treaty, it is fixed and ground-based. It is not the Government's impression that the existence of this system means that the Soviet Union holds an advantage in ``Star Wars'' technology. ``Star Wars'' concentrates on advanced technologies such as directed energy devices like lasers and kinetic energy systems of sufficient accuracy to allow a conventional warhead or no warhead at all. The existing Soviet system continues to employ ground based missiles with nuclear warheads, as did the system which the United States discarded in the mid 1970s. (4) (a) The Soviet Union does not normally make such information available but according to Soviet Strategic Defence Programs, (pp. 7-8) the Soviet Union has been upgrading the Moscow anti-ballistic missile system since 1980 with new radars, an improved version of the existing long-range exo-atmospheric interceptor missile and a new short-range, high acceleration interceptor missile. The total number of launchers for interceptor missiles has been increased from 64 to 100, the maximum number permitted under the ABM Treaty. (b) (i) the Government is not in a position to say whether construction of the Krasnoryarsk radar has been accelerated. (ii) the Government has stated that it believes the Soviet Union has a case to answer in respect of United States allegations that the Krasnoryarsk radar violates the ABM Treaty. It has urged the Soviet Union to demonstrate compliance with that Treaty. (c) The Government understands that any system capable of locating and destroying incoming missiles could also destroy any satellites that come within its range. (5) The Soviet Union does not normally make such information available but according to Soviet Strategic Defence Programs (p. 16) the Soviet Union has ground-based lasers that could possibly damage some sensors on US satellites. (6) (a) It would be more accurate to say that General Ogarkov advocated the development, among other things, of credible ballistic missile defences and anti-satellite weapons and implied that the Soviet Union was working on such systems. (b) Yes. (c) No record of this particular quotation has been found but lasers, both experimental and operational have been in existence in all industrially advanced countries for many years. They have widespread civilian as well as military uses. (d) Yes. (7) (a) The Government is not in a position to compare the size of the laser programs in the United States and the Soviet Union. According to Soviet Strategic Defence Programs (p. 12) the Soviet research program into advanced technologies for defence against ballistic missiles represents a ``far greater investment of plant space, capital and manpower'' than is the case with Strategic Defence Initiative. Clearly this comparison includes but is not confined to laser programs. (b) The Soviet Union does not normally make such information available but the Government is aware of US estimates that the Soviet Union's laser program involves over 10,000 scientists and engineers and if conducted in the US, would cost roughly US$1 billion per year (Soviet Strategic Defence Programs, pp. 12-13). (8) It is difficult to give a definitive answer for at least three reasons (i) the secrecy which surrounds Soviet activity in this field; (ii) the vagueness to date of the Soviet proposals as to what activity it seeks to have confined to laboratories and what it understands in this context by the word ``laboratory''; and (iii) the fact that the ABM Treaty allows work on ballistic missile defences-including work on systems based on new physical principles-to be taken further than the lab- oratory provided the systems are fixed and ground-based. (9) The Government does not endorse the SDI or what it considers to be a comparable program in the USSR. The Government has taken this position because it saw grave risk that the vigorous pursuit of strategic defences at the present juncture would inhibit the conclusion of new agreements to reduce the offensive nuclear forces and lead to the competive development and deployment of weapon systems for use in space. The Government is strongly opposed to the extension of the arms race into outer space. Apart from expressing these views publicly and directly to both the United States and the Soviet Union, the Government has urged them to reach an accommodation on these matters before irrevisible steps are taken. The Government has urged full and demonstrable compliance with the ABM Treaty and, has suggested, an extended period of non-withdrawal from the Treaty and negotiations to bring up-to-date the understandings on what activities can be pursued under the Treaty. The Government takes some encouragement from the fact that these propositions now form part of the agenda of the negotiations between the US and the USSR. (Question No. 4941) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: What emoluments were paid to each member of the Australian Wool Corporation during 1985-86? Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: $'000 Chairman ... 83 Deputy Chairman ... 17 Government member ... - Other members (7) ... 81 TOTAL ... 181 Total membership is 10. In addition, the Chairman is paid an expenses allowance of $3967.00. The emoluments, and expenses allowance of the full-time Chairman, are paid in accordance with determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. (Question No. 4980) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) What is the approximate annual gross expenditure by farm producers on agricultural chemicals. (2) What proportion of cash costs does agricultural chemicals represent for the industry, (a) wheat industry, (b) all grains industries, including wheat, (c) cotton industry, (d) fruitgrowing industries and (e) all primary industries. (3) What tariffs were applicable to imported chemicals used on-farm as at 1 January 1986 and what revenue was being raised from these tariffs. (4) What tariff levels will apply as at 1 January 1987 and what revenue is this expected to raise. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It was recently estimated in the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) report on `The Chemicals and Plastics Industries', 30 May 1986, that around 70 per cent of agricultural chemicals are sold to the rural sector, suggesting a market with a value of about $220m in 1983/84. (2) In 1983/84, expenditure on agricultural and veterinary chemicals made up almost 5 per cent of total farm cash costs on average, with wheat about 6.5% and horticulture (including fruitgrowing) about 6.7%. (See Table A14.5 prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE) and included in the IAC report at page 420). In addition BAE survey data indicate expenditure on agricultural chemicals within the cotton industry in 1983/84 at 16.6% of total farm costs. (3) The general rate of tariffs which applied to imports of finished chemicals and primary chemicals (used in further processing), which appear under several tariff items, ranges between 0 to 30 per cent. Revenue figures for tariffs raised on imported chemicals used on farms are not available. The classification of tariff items tends to be compound specific rather than end use descriptive and as agriculture chemicals comprise a number of chemical compounds, listed under separate tariff codes, calculations of revenue would require considerable resources. (4) On 1 January 1987 tariff levels will be the same as currently applies. However, the Minister for the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce announced on 30 October 1986 that a reduction in tariff rates to a level of 15% or below, would be phased in over a three to five year period from 1 February 1987. Some tariff levels currently below 15% will be increased to either 10 or 15% to eliminate certain anomalies. The changes which have been announced are expected to reduce the overall level of tariffs on imported agricultural chemicals by some $2-4 million. (Question No. 4982) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: (1) Has he taken any action in 1986 which would affect the continued operation of the Gwydir Property Aboriginal Corporation (GPAC). (2) Has the GPAC complied with all instructions made to it by the Registrar of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act over the last 4 years. (3) Is he critical of any aspect of the GPAC's administration; if so, what is the criticism. (4) What steps did he take to discuss any criticism with representatives of the GPAC. (5) Has the Central Northern Area office of his Department received requests for assistance from the GPAC during 1986; if so, what action has been taken on these requests. (6) Has his Department sought to ensure that the GPAC enjoys maximum autonomy in the administration of its affairs. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No, and as a result an investigation under section 68 of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 was undertaken by the Registrar in 1984. (3) The Registrar concluded from his investigation that the affairs of the Corporation had not been conducted in a satisfactory manner. (4) The findings of the Registrar were referred to members of the Committee of the Corporation and suitable remedial arrangements are being put in place. (5) No. (6) Yes. (Question No. 3005) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heri- tage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has he taken to encourage the recipients of Commonwealth funding for the performing arts to perform Australian work. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Access to Australian works in the performing arts is an important element in the development of our cultural identity. I strongly support initiatives taken by the Australia Council to encourage their production and performance, details of which are outlined below. Music Board The Board pursues the Australian content objective in all styles of music. Support for Australian performances commences with assistance for Australian composers which has increased from $136,000 in 1983 to $423,000 in 1985. At the same time, the Board increased support to the Australian Music Centre, which has the task of promoting Australian composers. In 1986 the Centre received grants totalling $278,515. In performance, the Board gives emphasis to supporting groups which specialise in the performance of contemporary works, especially Australian works. In addition, the Board encourages all other applicants to include a proportion of Australian content appropriate to their activities and it has informed the music community that the size of grants is affected by the level of Australian content. In community music, the Board supports a composer in residence in the community program. It has also funded musicians in residence programs, for instance in folk music, in which song writing skills are passed into a community and encouragement is given to express local concerns through song. In accordance with the Board's Australian content objective, The Australian Opera has begun a consistent and continuing program of performance of Australian works, and it presented two full small scale works in 1985, plus a national opera ``workshop'' to test out new works (planned now to be offered annually). In 1986 it has presented the full main-stage production of Voss. The company has also commissioned a new music theatre work for 1987. Theatre Board As its main policy objective, the Board supports theatre arts which relate to the Australian experience. A major example of this policy is the Board's support of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust's Australian Content Program which has been funded since 1982 and in 1985-86 it received $214,000 for a program which facilitated performances of several Australian productions, both in Australia and overseas. Community Arts Board This Board also provides support and encouragement for the performance of Australian work in the area of community theatre and music projects. Examples of recent such projects are the residency by the Theatre South company in the Southern NSW town of Eden, to develop a play relating to themes about the area; and the touring theatre program by Mainstreet through rural South Australia. Aboriginal Arts Board This Board encourages the performance of the best professional work to emerge in theatre, dance and music among Aboriginal people. The Board supports traditional dance and music through grants for ceremonial activities and community festivals in tribal areas. Non-traditional/contemporary performing arts activities are supported through: assistance to the Aboriginal and Islander Skills Development Scheme to conduct a national dance training school; grants for theatre script development, workshops and production activities; and funding for Aboriginal country music festivals. Liaison with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation In addition, the Australia Council has worked with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to develop a policy statement on the arts. This policy statement gives priority to, amongst other things, encouraging Australian composers and musicians through presentation in performance, competitions and orchestra workshops. National Institute of Dramatic Art Another organisation within my portfolio concerned with the performing arts-the National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA)-encourages the performance of Australian works. NIDA conducts a part-time course for playwrights and at the end of each year plays emanating from this course are performed by the students. NIDA has also commissioned two new Australian plays for 1987 and 1988 and graduating actors performed in a production of ``Golden Age'' by Louis Nowra, a major Australian play, in August 1986. (Question No. 3016) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What Commonwealth and State programs exist to encourage the purchase and/or commissioning of works of art as part of public building programs. (2) What sums were spent by the Commonwealth during 1984-85 on the acquisition or commissioning of works of art for (a) new and (b) existing Commonwealth buildings. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth encourages the purchase and/or commissioning of works of art for public buildings in a number of ways. Artbank, a program administered by the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, promotes the development and appreciation of Australian art by the acquisition of art works by Australian artists. The works of art acquired are made available to clients by rental for display in locations accessible to the public, such as Government offices and private business throughout Australia and Australian overseas posts. In 1984-85 a total of 438 new works were acquired by Artbank for a sum of $319,000. 90% of the total 3,456 piece Artbank collection was on hire at the end of 1984-85 and the rental income generated for the year was $275,000. In 1984-85 Artbank spent $33,850 on the purchase of artworks requested by client Government departments for display in new Commonwealth buildings. The Department of Housing and Construction may make provision for works of art in new Commonwealth buildings to a maximum of 0.5% of project cost subject to agreement by the client and approval by the Government. There is close consultation with Artbank in the case of portable works of art and with the Australia Council in the case of fixed works. The National Capital Development Commission makes provision for works of art in appropriate public buildings and places as part of the integrated development of Canberra. Such works are located in areas where they will be accessible to a maximum audience across the community. In consultation with the Australia Council and the Department of Housing and Construction, the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment is reviewing current arrangements with a view to encouraging greater use of art works in public buildings. The Commonwealth does not have details of possible State Government programs to encourage the purchase and/or commissioning of works of art as part of public building programs. (2) My Department has sought advice from all other portfolios on the sums spent by the Commonwealth during 1984-85 on the acquisition or commissioning of works of art for Commonwealth buildings: (a) in 1984-85 approximately $1,113,000 was spent by the Commission on the aquisition or commissioning of works of art for new Commonwealth buildings; and (b) in 1984-85 approximately $129,875 was spent on works of art for existing Commonwealth buildings. (Question No. 3017) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Which new arts complexes or institutions built or whose construction has been approved since March 1983 were funded partially or totally with Commonwealth funds. (2) What was the sum from the Commonwealth in each case. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question in as follows: (1) and (2) The following table specifies the arts complexes and institutions built or whose construction has been approved since March 1983. The Australian Film, Television and Radio School was established in 1973 and the National Institute of Dramatic Art was established in 1958. They are not new institutions but they have new buildings under construction. The table also specifies the sums allocated by the Commonwealth to each project, and the actual expenditure to 30 June 1986. NATIONAL WORKS Arts Complex or Institution Estimated Cost- Commonwealth Commonwealth Expenditure to 30 June 1986 $ $ Australian Film, Television and Radio School ... 16,530,000 (December 1985 prices) 2,269,000 National Institute of Dramatic Art ... 7,064,000 (June 1986 prices) 3,816,000 COMMONWEALTH-STATE BICENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIVE PROGRAM Arts Complex or Institution Estimated- Commonwealth Commitment- (1985-86 prices) Commonwealth Expenditure to 30 June 1986 $ $ Parramatta Cultural Centre ... 3,385,000 551,338 Australian Ballet Centre ... 2,504,000 1,300,000 Ballarat Art Gallery ... 351,000 50,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre, Rockhampton ... 443,000 100,000 COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM Arts Complex Commonwealth Commitment Commonwealth Expenditure to 20 October 1986 $ $ Perth City Ballet Amphitheatre ... 487,740 487,740 (Question No. 3197) Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 14 February 1986: What are the (a) names of, (b) addresses of and (c) amounts granted to successful applicants in NSW for grants from the Theatre Board of the Australia Council since March 1983. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b) and (c) The Australia Council has provided me with the following details on the names and addresses of, and amounts granted to, successful applicants in NSW for grants from its Theatre Board from 1 March 1983 to 30 June 1986 inclusive: Names and Addresses of Successful Applicants Amounts Granted $ March 1983-June 1983 Australian Association for Dance in Education, c/- 42 Anglo Street, Chatswood, NSW 2607 ... 1,500 Isabelle Anderson, 15 Newan Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 ... 3,500 Australian-Turkish Peoples Playhouse, 56a Cleveland Street, Chippendale, NSW 2008 ... 5,000 Errol Bray, 88 Carlton Parade, Carlton, NSW 2218 ... 700 Eleanor Brickhill, 1/10 Penkivil Street, Bondi, NSW 2026 ... 3,000 Wendy Butterworth, 48 Lakeview Court, Forster, NSW 2428 ... 3,000 The Castanet Club, 62 Perkins Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 12,000 Beth Child, 1/66 Cook Road, Centennial Park, NSW 2021 ... 3,200 Jan Cornall, 4/153 Hastings Parade, North Bondi, NSW 2026 ... 4,450 Michael Creighton and Michael Balson, 106-108 George Street, The Rocks, NSW 2000 ... 3,300 Dance Exchange, PO Box Q392, Queen Victoria Building, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 4 983 Death Defying Theatre, PO Box 357, Edgecliff, NSW 2027 ... 2,100 Russell Dumas and Dancers, 16-18 O'Connell Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 ... 20,000 Amanda Field, 49 Carlisle Street, Leichhardt, NSW 2040 ... 7,000 Freewheels Theatre in Education Company, cnr Union Street and Parkway Avenue, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 5,400 Griffin Theatre Company Limited, 10 Nimrod Street, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 4,500 Jan Hubrechsen, 21 Ferndale Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 ... 2,621 Caroline Jones, 2/51 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSW 2061 ... 14,000 Kinetic Energy Dance Co., PO Box M65, Newtown South, NSW 2042 ... 1,600 Peter Kingston, 1 Ivy Lane, Chippendale, NSW 2008 ... 7,000 Edie Kurzer, 2/24 New Beach Road, Rushcutters Bay, NSW 2027 ... 2,000 Caroline Lung, Jon Rose and Kris Rose, 8 Darghan Street, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 4,000 Peter McRae, PO Box 452, Broadway, NSW 2007 ... 2,000 The Performance Space, PO Box 419, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012 ... 10,500 Sidetrack Theatre, 9/142 Addison Road, Marrickville, NSW 2204 ... 4,358 Stockyard Co-operative, 19 Orchard Road, Chatswood, NSW 2067 ... 14,850 Suspense, 37 Westborne Street, Petersham, NSW 2049 ... 5,000 Sydneysiders, not available ... 3,000 Tony Twigg and Wendy Boerema, 22/381 Darlinghurst Road, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010 ... 3,000 Elizabeth Turner, PO Box 382, Mittagong, NSW 2575 ... 924 July 1983-June 1984 Aboriginal Islander Skills, Development Scheme, PO Box 4, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 52,600 All Out Ensemble, 13 Hampden Street, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 7,500 Art Unit, 84-86 Henderson Road, Alexandria, NSW 2015 ... 5,000 Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 287,589 Australian Theatre for Young People, 38 William Henry Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007 ... 15,000 Alan Becher, 1/43 Johnston Street, Annandale, NSW 2038 ... 7,000 Eleanor Brickhill, 1/10 Penkivil Street, Bondi, NSW 2026 ... 2,000 Katherine Brisbane, 87 Jersey Road, Woollahra, NSW 2025 ... 1,000 Central Western Regional Theatre Company, 32 Miriyan Drive, Kelso, NSW 2795 ... 4,000 Classical & Contemporary Dance Company, 1a Mt Pleasant Avenue, Mona, Vale, NSW 2103 ... 26,340 Jan Cornall, 9/125 Brighton Boulevard, Bondi, NSW 2026 ... 9,450 Dance Exchange, PO Box Q392, Queen Victoria Building, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 107,708 Dance Network, 21 Ferndale Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 ... 6,550 D'Arc Swan/Hanzup Puppets, c/- 106 George Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 15,700 Death Defying Theatre, PO Box 357, Edgecliff, NSW 2027 ... 14,450 Kerry Dwyer, 147 Salisbury Road, Camperdown, NSW 2050 ... 18,000 Ensemble Productions Pty Limited, 36 Bourke Street, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011 ... 80,690 Entr'acte Theatre, PO Box A607, Sydney South, NSW 2000 ... 60,000 Mr Jose Farinas, 6 Flora Street, Erskineville, NSW 2043 ... 4,525 Amanda Field, 49 Carlisle Street, Leichhardt, NSW 2040 ... 7,000 Freewheels Theatre-In-Education Company, NCAE Art School, Union Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 52,400 Griffin Theatre Company Limited, 10 Nimrod Street, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 51,799 Neil Grigg, 390 Moore Park Road, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 7,000 Grotesqui's Monkey Choir, 456 Abercrombie Street, Darlington, NSW 2008 ... 8,400 Gabriel Heredia, 121 Jersey Road, Woollahra, NSW 2025 ... 3,000 Jan Hubrechsen, 12 Hereford Street, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 11,436 Hunter Valley Theatre Company, 377 Hunter Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 128,000 George Hutchinson, 4 Ninth Avenue, Loftus, NSW 2232 ... 600 Shona Innes, 5 Short Street, Leichhardt, NSW 2040 ... 2,000 International Theatre Institute, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 2,000 Jennifer Irwin, 1/65a Elizabeth Bay Road, Elizabeth Bay, NSW 2011 ... 3,000 Caroline Jones, 5/100 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, NSW 2061 ... 7,000 Kinetic Energy Dance Company, 2nd Floor Rear, 97 Liverpool Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 19,250 Peter Kingston, 1 Ivy Lane, Chippendale, NSW 2008 ... 7,000 Bogdan Koca, 6/6 Ormond Street, Bondi, NSW 2026 ... 11,243 Laberinto Arte Flamenco Limited, 64 Oxford Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 ... 18,552 La Trope, 6 Flora Street, Erskineville, NSW 2043 ... 12,594 Peter McRae, PO Box 452, Broadway, NSW 2007 ... 4,000 Margaret Walker Dance Centre, 11/44 Collins Street, Annandale, NSW 2038 ... 15,000 Marian Street Theatre, 2 Marian Street, Killara, NSW 2071 ... 70,125 Marionette Theatre of Australia, 106 George Street, The Rocks, NSW 2000 ... 155,000 Peter Matthews, 4/12 Dudley Street, Coogee Beach, NSW 2031 ... 14,000 Metro Television Limited, Paddington Town Hall, PO Box 299, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 1,000 Patrick Mitchell & Richard Lawrence, 95 Marion Street, Enmore, NSW 2042 ... 4,000 Murray River Performing Group Limited, 602 Olive Street, Albury, NSW 2640 ... 47,418 New England Theatre Group, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 ... 55,986 Derek Nicholson, c/o Theatre Workshop, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 ... 16,100 Nimrod Theatre Company Limited, 500 Elizabeth Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 ... 347,000 NSW Theatre of the Deaf, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 66,250 One Extra Dance Company, PO Box 988, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010 ... 96,000 Performance Space, PO Box 419, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012 ... 20,000 Q Theatre Group, PO Box 10, Penrith, NSW 2750 ... 195,650 Quest Films, 343 Sailors Bay Road, Northbridge, NSW 2063 ... 6,000 Riverina Theatre Company, PO Box 344, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650 ... 37,000 Philip Rolfe, 106 George Street, The Rocks, NSW 2000 ... 2,000 Stephanie St Clair, 8/59 Gelderthorpe Avenue, Randwick, NSW 2031 ... 2,000 Shopfront Theatre for Young People, 88 Carlton Parade, Carlton, NSW 2218 ... 10,000 Sidetrack Theatre Company, 142 Addison Road, Marrickville, NSW 2204 ... 96,925 Spring Awakening, 84 Fern Street, Randwick, NSW 2031 ... 15,000 Cheryl Stock, 3/173 Bridge Road, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 14,000 Suspense, 37 Westborne Street, Petersham, NSW 2049 ... 11,444 Sydney Committee Limited, PO Box Q44, Queen Victoria Building, York Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 8,303 Sydney Dance Company, 36 Bourke Street, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011 ... 383,000 Sydney Theatre Company Limited, 3rd Floor, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 413,662 Meryl Tankard, Shepherd & Newman Building, Hargreave Lane, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010 ... 15,000 Toe Truck Theatre Limited, 38 William Henry Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007 ... 123,000 Theatre Company Off Broadway Limited, PO Box 279, Broadway, NSW 2007 ... 20,000 Theatre South Company Limited, PO Box 1144, Wollongong, NSW 2500 ... 43,500 Theatre Studio-21, 6/6 Ormond Street, Bondi, NSW 2026 ... 12,800 The Core, 49 Belmore Street, Rozelle, NSW 2039 ... 20,000 Tony Twigg and Wendy Boerema, 16/39 Roslyn Gardens, Elizabeth Bay, NSW 2011 ... 3,000 James Waites, 26 Charles Street, Enmore, NSW 2042 ... 2,000 Red Weather, 93 Belmont Road, Mosman, NSW 2088 ... 16,175 Willoughby Municipal Council, PO Box 57, Chatswood, NSW 2067 ... 2,860 Nici Wood, 24 North Avenue, Leichhardt, NSW 2040 ... 7,000 July 1984-June 1985 Aboriginal Islander Skills Development Scheme, PO Box 4, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 39,333 All Out Ensemble, 13 Hampden Street, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 47,500 Aspect Art and Literature, PO Box 273, NSW 2106 ... 3,000 Australian Centre of the ITI, PO Box 137, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 20,000 Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 230,000 Australian National Playwright Conference, 153 Dowling Street, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 40,000 Australian Theatre for Young People, 3rd Floor, 82-96 Myrtle Street, Chippendale, NSW 2008 ... 2,000 Alan Becher, 1/43 Johnston Street, Annandale, NSW 2038 ... 7,000 Black and Blue Pty Limited, 20th Floor, 500 Oxford Street, Bondi Junction, NSW 2022 ... 25,000 Brickhill/Chenery/Lung/St Clair, 2/52 Bishop Avenue, Randwick, NSW 2031 ... 8,000 Brett Cabot, Maclean Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 17,000 Campbelltown City Council, PO Box 57, Campbelltown, NSW 2560 ... 8,000 Castanets Limited, PO Box 93, The Junction, NSW 2291 ... 10,000 Company B Limited, Belvoir Street Theatre, 25 Belvoir Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 ... 40,000 Contemporary Dance Company, Address not available ... 300 Dance Exchange, PO Box Q392, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 150,410 Kate Davy, 126 Louisa Road, Birchgrove, NSW 2041 ... 7,000 Death Defying Theatre, PO Box 357, Edgecliff, NSW 2027 ... 45,300 Entr'acte Theatre, PO Box A607, Sydney South, NSW 2000 ... 58,250 Amanda Field, 25 Station Street, Petersham, NSW 2049 ... 7,000 Filef Cultural Committee, 423 Parramatta Road, Leichhardt, NSW 2040 ... 26,000 Nicholas Flanagan, 222 Johnston Street, Annandale, NSW 2038 ... 5,000 Freewheels Theatre in Education Company, Cnr Union Street and Parkway Avenue Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 70,650 Funny Stories, C/- A Steel & Associates, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2010 ... 15,000 The Gap, 350 Riley Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 ... 6,400 Griffin Theatre Company Limited, 10 Nimrod Street, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 54,315 Grotesqui's Monkey Choir, 39 Forbes Street, Newtown, NSW 2043 ... 5,565 Joan Grounds, 175a Union Street, Erskineville, NSW 2043 ... 4,699 Hessian Records, 500 Oxford Street, Bondi Junction, NSW 2022 ... 3,640 Hunter Valley Theatre Company, 377 Hunter Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 72,000 Shona Innes, 3/4 Merchant Street, Stanmore, NSW 2084 ... 3,000 Kinetic Energy Dance Company, 2... Floor Rear, 97 Liverpool Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 11,000 Labour Council of New South Wales, 377-383 Sussex Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 9,697 Christine Mahoney, 34 Napier Street, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 2,000 Margaret Walker Dance Centre, 10 Dlim Place, Chippendale, NSW 2008 ... 20,000 Marian Street Theatre, 2 Marian Street, Killara, NSW 2071 ... 54,315 Marionette Theatre of Australia, 106 George Street, The Rocks, NSW 2000 ... 174,000 Murray River Performing Group, 602 Olive Street, Albury, NSW 2640 ... 75,000 New England Theatre Group, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350 ... 45,000 Aarne Neeme, 7/20 Plumer Road, Rose Bay, NSW 2029 ... 2,000 Nimrod Theatre Group, PO Box 93, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012 ... 183,500 One Extra Company, PO Box 988, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010 ... 165,000 Performance Space, PO Box 419, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012 ... 40,300 Quest Films, 343 Sailors Bay Road, Northbridge, NSW 2063 ... 5,000 Q Theatre Group Pty Limited, GPO Box 10, Penrith, NSW 2750 ... 208,548 Diana Reyes, 1/170 New South Head Road, Edgecliff, NSW 2027 ... 3,000 Riverina Theatre Company, PO Box 344, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650 ... 50,000 Maria Salbacu, 50 Turton Avenue South, Belmore, NSW 2192 ... 6,000 Self Raising Theatre, PO Box 889, Bathurst NSW 2795 ... 4,400 Shopfront Theatre For Young People, 88 Carlton Parade, Carlton, NSW 2218 ... 360 Sidetrack Theatre Company Limited, 142 Addison Road, Marrickville, NSW 2204 ... 177,500 Sydney Dance Company, PO Box KX303, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 419,768 Sydney Puppet Theatre, 8 Coogee Street, Randwick, NSW 2031 ... 10,000 Sydney Theatre Company Limited, PO Box 178, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 409,000 Meryl Tankard, 500 Oxford Street, Bondi Junction, NSW 2022 ... 7,000 Thalia Theatre Company, 9/6a Greenknowe Avenue, Elizabeth Bay, NSW 2011 ... 15,000 Theatre Company Off Broadway Limited, PO Box 279, Broadway, NSW 2007 ... 25,000 Theatre of the Deaf, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 65,000 Theatre South Company Limited, PO Box 1144, Wollongong, NSW 2500 ... 80,320 Theatre Workshop, University of Sydney, NSW 2006 ... 8,398 Toe Truck Theatre, 38 William Henry Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007 ... 132,600 2 Til 5 Theatre Co-op, 7 Park Road, Garden Suburb, NSW 2289 ... 15,000 Understudies Pty Limited, 6-8 Sir J Young Crescent, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011 ... 1,340 Antonia Vargas, 1/170 New South Head Road, Edgecliff, NSW 2027 ... 3,000 David Walters, 2A York Place, Rozelle, NSW 2039 ... 7,000 Ian Watson, C/- N.I.D.A. PO Box 1, Kensington, NSW 2033 ... 6,000 Way Theatre, 11/44 Collins Street, Annandale, NSW 2038 ... 4,000 Women's Writers Workshops, 30/34 Crambrook Avenue, Rose Bay, NSW 2029 ... 10,000 Workers Cultural Action Committee, Newcastle Trades Hall Council, Union Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 7,166 July 1985-June 1986 Aboriginal Islander Skills Development Scheme, PO Box 4, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 24,400 Affirmative Action for Women in the Visual Arts, Arts Workers Union, PO Box A509, South Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 1,000 All Out Ensemble, 13 Hampden Street, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 5,000 Australian Centre of the ITI, PO Box 137, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 24,750 Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 214,000 Australian National Playwrights Centre, PO Box 627, Broadway, NSW 2007 ... 42,800 Australian Theatre for Young People, 106 George Street, The Rocks, NSW 2000 ... 10,000 Belvoir Street Theatre, 25 Belvoir Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 ... 14,000 The Bombshells, 16 Kentville Avenue, Annandale, NSW 2038 ... 10,400 Botany Multicultural Resource Centre, Shop 90, Eastlakes Shopping Centre, Eastlakes, NSW 2018 ... 2,680 Broken Tales, 3/153 Hastings Parade, Bondi, NSW 2026 ... 15,980 Graeme Brosnan, 9 Lodge Street, Forest Lodge, NSW 2037 ... 10,000 Brett Cabot, 37 Caroline Street, Chippendale, NSW 2008 ... 720 Dean Carey, 182 Botany Street, Kingsford, NSW 2032 ... 4,000 The Castanets Limited, PO Box 953, Bondi Junction, NSW 2022 ... 25,000 Nancy Caruana, 43 Railway Parade, Lakemba, NSW 2195 ... 8,000 Stephen Champion, 1/140 Beach Street, Coogee, NSW 2034 ... 4,000 Beth Child, 1/66 Cook Road, Centennial Park, NSW 2021 ... 3,200 Claymore Neighbourhood Centre, Cnr Gould and Dobell Roads, Claymore, NSW 2559 ... 8,000 Company B Limited, Belvoir Street Theatre, 25 Belvoir Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 ... 100,000 Crafts Council of Australia, 100 George Street, The Rocks, NSW 2000 ... 5,000 Currency Press Pty Limited, PO Box 452, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 5,967 Dance Exchange, PO Box Q392, Queen Victoria Building, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 122,750 Death Defying Theatre, PO Box 518, Paddington, NSW 2021 ... 57,800 Mary Duchesne, 3 Wonga Street, Enfield, NSW 2136 ... 5,000 Entr'acte Theatre, PO Box A607, Sydney South, NSW 2000 ... 90,000 Even Orchestra, 3 Egan Place, Woolloomooloo, NSW 2011 ... 11,120 Exnox Pty Limited, 7/6 Cliff Street, Milsons Point, NSW 2061 ... 2,050 Fairfield City Council, PO Box 21, Fairfield, NSW 2165 ... 3,000 Filef Theatre Committee, 423 Parramatta Road, Leichhardt, NSW 2040 ... 10,250 Freewheels Theatre-in-Education Company, PO Box 317, The Junction, NSW 2291 ... 90,367 Ben Gabriel, 28 Bent Street, Greenwich, NSW 2065 ... 2,000 Anne Grieg, 22 Moore Road, Harbord, NSW 2096 ... 750 Griffin Theatre Company Limited, 10 Nimrod Street, Kings Cross, NSW 2011 ... 59,800 Grotesqui's Monkey Choir, 39 Forbes Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 ... 23,164 Alex Harding, 16 Ryder Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010 ... 3,000 Hellenic Art Theatre of Australia, 8 Colette Place, East Killara, NSW 2071 ... 12,000 Hunter Valley Theatre Company, 377 Hunter Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 77,100 Rami Ibrahim, 10/150 Forbes Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 5,000 Desmond James, 105 Mowbray Road, Willoughby, NSW 2008 ... 8,000 Chris Johnson, 21A Fitzroy Street, Newtown, NSW 2042 ... 1,218 Nigel Kellaway, 263 Glebe Point Road, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 14,000 Labyrinth Theatre, 24 Henry Street, Lewisham, NSW 2049 ... 3,135 Dianna Laska-Moore, 21 Rosebank Crescent, Hurstville, NSW 2220 ... 2,500 Henry Laska, 21 Rosebank Crescent, Hurstville, NSW 2220 ... 2,500 Legs on the Wall Performance Cafe, Hut 24, 142 Addison Road, Marrickville, NSW 2204 ... 6,000 Lorna Lesley, 15/7 St Neots Avenue, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 3,000 Gary Lester, 34 Cecil Street, Ashfield, NSW 2131 ... 14,000 Live Exchange, Hut 11, 142 Addison Road, Marrickville, NSW 2204 ... 2,000 Margaret Walker Folk Dance Centre Incorporated, 240 Burwood Road, Burwood, NSW 2134 ... 30,000 Marian Street Theatre, 2 Marian Street, Killara, NSW 2071 ... 73,200 Marionette Theatre of Australia, 106 George Street, The Rocks, NSW 2000 ... 151,125 Francis Millane, 192 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra, NSW 2035 ... 2,200 Mike Mullins, 38A City Road, Chippendale, NSW 2008 ... 26,000 Murray River Performing Group Limited, 609 Hovell Street, Albury, NSW 2640 ... 82,500 New England Theatre Company, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351 ... 55,000 Nimrod Theatre Company Limited, PO Box 553, Broadway, NSW 2007 ... 163,500 Nomads Theatre Company Limited, PO Box 733, Lismore, NSW 2480 ... 12,720 The One Extra Company Limited, PO Box 988, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010 ... 160,500 Pact Cooperative Limited, The Corn Exchange, 173 Sussex Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 ... 15,000 William Pepper, 6 Ferry Road, Glebe, NSW 2037 ... 5,000 Performance Space, PO Box 419, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012 ... 77,000 Lynette Pierse, 22 Abbotford Street, Kensington, NSW 2033 ... 3,865 Graham Pitts, 18 Alfred Street, East Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 1,150 Q Theatre Group Pty Limited, PO Box 10, Penrith, NSW 2750 ... 221,100 Stephen Ripley, 33 Norfolk Street, Mount Druitt, NSW 2770 ... 4,500 Riverina Theatre Company, PO Box 344, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650 ... 105,500 Self Raising Theatre, PO Box 889, Bathurst, NSW 2795 ... 14,614 Shopfront Theatre for Young People, 88 Carlton Parade, Carlton, NSW 2218 ... 7,500 Sidetrack Theatre Company Limited, 9/142 Addison Road, Marrickville, NSW 2204 ... 185,000 Spectacle Theatre Company Limited, 2 O'Briens Lane, East Sydney, NSW 2010 ... 12,134 Stephanie St Clair, 8/59 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick, NSW 2031 ... 8,000 Sydney Dance Company, PO Box 5, Millers Point, NSW 2001 ... 419,716 Sydney Theatre Company Limited, PO Box 777, Millers Point, NSW 2000 ... 387,400 Sydney Turkish Workers Association, 10 Carlton Street, Granville, NSW 2142 ... 2,000 Taniec Polish Dance Company, 16 Laycock Street, Bexley, NSW 2207 ... 14,500 Thalia Theatre Company, 9/13a Green- knowe Avenue, Elizabeth Bay, NSW 2011 ... 30,000 Theatre of the Deaf, Australian Elizabethan Trust, 153 Dowling Street, Potts Point, NSW 2011 ... 69,600 Theatre South Company Limited, PO Box 1144, Wollongong, NSW 2500 ... 63,024 Toe Truck Theatre Limited, 38 William Henry Street, Ultimo, NSW 2007 ... 160,000 2 Til 5 Community Theatre Co-op., 7 Park Road, Garden Suburb, NSW 2289 ... 24,000 Bronwyn Vaughan, C/- 24 Flora Street, Erskinville, NSW 2043 ... 11,250 Linden Wilkinson, 57 Malton Road, Beecroft, NSW 2219 ... 2,382 Workers Cultural Action Committee, Newcastle Trades Hall Council, Union Street, Newcastle, NSW 2300 ... 4,508 (Question No. 3285) Mr McVeigh asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether residents of Queensland pay State taxes on (a) liquor, (b) petroleum and (c) tobacco. (2) Is it a fact that (a) Australian Bureau of Statistics' Government financial estimates, (b) Commonwealth Grants Commission reports and (c) State budget papers indicate that residents of (i) Victoria, (ii) N.S.W., (iii) South Australia and (iv) Western Australia pay more tax per year than residents of Queensland. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. Queensland levies a tax on retailers of liquor of 8 per cent of the value of their purchases in the previous financial year. Wholesale spirit merchants pay a licence fee of $400 plus 12 per cent of the value of liquor sold to unlicensed persons in the previous financial year (8 per cent on liquor sold to holders of a booth permit). The levy on sales by registered brewers to unlicensed persons is 12 per cent of the value of sales in the previous financial year (8 per cent on liquor sold to holders of a booth permit). There is a flat fee of $20 for a bottler's licence. (1) (b) and (c) Queensland does not levy taxes on retailers/wholesalers of petroleum or tobacco. (2) (a), (b) and (c) On the basis of the latest information, taxation receipts per capita are lower than in the other States referred to, although non-tax receipts, for example from rail freight receipts, are generally higher in Queensland than in the other States. (Question No. 3359) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, 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 Cohen —I have provided an answer to the honourable member's question. The information which has been collated for the honourable member is too lengthy to be published in Hansard. A copy of the reply is filed in the Table Office of the House of Representatives where it may be read or a copy of it obtained. (Question No. 3824) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Has the Government abandoned the concept of a statutory environmental contaminants authority; if so, why. (2) Will the Environmental Contamination and Co-ordination Division in his Department be involved in the National Health and Medical Research Council inquiry into allegedly hazardous agricultural chemicals. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An Environment Contaminants and Coordination Division has been established within the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment. This Division is developing and implementing, in conjunction with other Commonwealth and State government agencies, the range of functions which are envisaged in the Federal Platform of the Australian Labor Party for an Environmental Contaminants Authority. It is not considered appropriate to establish at this stage a statutory authority to perform these functions. (2) I am unaware of an inquiry by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) into allegedly hazardous agricultural chemicals. However, I am advised that the NH & MRC, which advises the Minister for Health, reviews potential hazards of agricultural chemicals as new information becomes available. The current review of organochlorine pesticides is an example of this process. My Department has recently taken on the role of environmental assessment of agricultural chemicals notified under the national clearance system operated by the Australian Agricultural Council. (Question No. 4572) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) When are states who are party to the World Heritage Convention due to pay their contributions to the World Heritage Fund. (2) Did the 1985 and 1986 Budget appropriation permit Australia to pay its contributions to the Fund by the due dates. (3) When did Australia pay its contributions to the Fund over the last 5 years. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At the 9th Session of the World Heritage Convention (2-6 December 1985), the World Heritage Committee considered that more active measures should be taken to ensure that contributions to the World Heritage Fund be made by State Parties on a more regular basis than in the past in order to allow it to plan its activities more effectively. Accordingly the Director-General wrote to all State Parties to the World Heritage Convention on 20 and 24 March 1986, inviting them to pay their contributions to the World Heritage Fund, at as early a date as possible in each calendar year. In the case of Australia's contribution, Unesco requested that it be paid in two instalments during the biennium with each instalment representing the contribution for the respective calendar year. (2) The 1985-86 Budget appropriation was sufficient to enable payment of the 1985 contributions. The 1986-87 Budget appropriation had to be supplemented to enable payment of the 1986 contribution. It should be noted, however that even with the requirement for additional funds the 1986 contribution was paid at approximately the same time of year as the 1984 and 1985 contributions. (3) The Australian contribution to the World Heritage Fund over the last five years was paid on the following dates. 1982 Contribution-December 1982 1983 Contribution-8 December 1983 1984 Contribution-4 September 1984 1985 Contribution-6 September 1985 1986 Contribution-12 September 1986 (Question No. 4585) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: For what projects was direct government financial assistance through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau provided to (a) Appropriate Technology and Community Environment, (b) Australia-Asia Worker Links Inc., (c) the Australian Conservation Foundation, (d) the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, (e) the Australian Council of Churches, (f) the Australian Council of Social Service Inc., (g) the Australian Council of Trade Unions, (h) the Australian Teachers Federation, (i) the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, (j) the Committee in Solidarity with Central America and the Caribbean, (k) Community Aid Abroad, (l) the Union of Australian Women National Committee and (m) the Women and Development Network of Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Over the last two financial years (1984/85 and 1985/86), government assistance has been provided through the Australian Development Assistance Bureau to support the following non-government organisation (NGO) projects: (a) APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Project Country Subsidy $ Bread Ovens for East Africa... Kenya 1,780 TOTAL 1,780 (b) AUSTRALIA-ASIA WORKERS LINK INC. Trade Union Development Education... Australia 9,500 TOTAL 9,500 (c) AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION No funds have been provided to this organisation (e) AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF CHURCHES Training for Black South Africans... Australia 61,000 Lubricants for Heavy Machinery... Cambodia 30,000 (GRANT) Nam Tau Marine Development Project... China 3,452 Irrigation and Drinking Water... China 45,000 EOC/DICAD Afforestation Program... Ethiopia 75,000 Agricultural Rehabilitation-Eritrea... Ethiopia 90,000 Educational and Vocational Training for Advasei and Tribal Women... India 13,500 Integrated Community Development... Indonesia 70,000 Development of Villagers' Economy... Indonesia 24,750 Community Health Workers' Training... Jordan 50,625 Thanh Tri Hospital... Vietnam 50,000 Bio-Gas Energy Promotion... Botswana 20,000 Education and Health Cooperative... Brazil 2,800 Five Hostel Centres for Students... Burma 9,100 Basic Tools and Equipment... Cambodia 12,000 Popular Supply and Consumer Centres... Chile 7,300 Nam Tau Marine Development Project... China 36,548 Community and Development Centre... Egypt 4,200 Gau Methodist Training Centre... Fiji 5,100 Integrated Community Development... Indonesia 60,000 Community Health Worker Training... Jordan 56,250 Community Health Worker Training... Lebanon 35,237 Brick Kiln Workers... Pakistan 70,665 Pacific Mobile TV Unit... S.P. Region 6,000 Health Centre at Nyamugo... Zaire 2,800 Long and Short Term Water Development... Zimbabwe 46,750 SUB-TOTAL 888,077 Food Aid Wheat, flour, high protein biscuits, whole milk powder... Eritrea/Tigray SUB-TOTAL 364,608 GRAND TOTAL 1,252,685 (f) AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICES INC. No funds have been provided to this organisation. (g) AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS Trade Union Leader's visit to Australia... Africa 3,552 Training for Black South African Trade Unionists... Australia 30,138 TOTAL 33,690 (h) AUSTRALIAN TEACHERS FEDERATION Training in Community Program for Indonesian Women Teachers... Indonesia 8,000 Teacher Trade Union Training Seminar... Kiribati 4,700 TOTAL 12,700 (i) CATHOLIC COMMISSION FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE No funds have been provided to this organisation. (j) COMMITTEE IN SOLIDARITY WITH CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Primary School, Masaya... Nicaragua 4,040 TOTAL 4,040 (k) COMMUNITY AID ABROAD Cooperative Fishing Project... Bangladesh 510 Ophthalmological Training for Eritrean Doctor in Australia... Eritrea 18,800 India Rural Development Program... India 53,800 Indian Rural Development Program... India 132,000 Tribal Village Social Forestry Programme... India 8,250 Harijan Village Development Scheme... India 27,422 Agricultural Development for Lambani Villagers... India 7,854 Village Development for Chenchu Tribe... India 3,806 Income Generating Activities for Urban and Rural Poor... Indonesia 6,077 Networking and Documenting of Pacific Womens Resources... New Caledonia 7,500 Film on Developmental Projects and Strategy in Nicaragua... Nicaragua 1,515 Establishing Audio-Visual Network... Philippines 1,375 Pacific Development... South Pacific 6,000 Communications Project Consumer Education, Kegalle... Sri Lanka 427 Akuretiya Estate Labourers Program... Sri Lanka 268 Development Communication Centre... Sri Lanka 2,963 Shifting Cultivators Project... Sri Lanka 2,528 Women's Mat Weaving... Sri Lanka 1,079 Sri Lankan Rural Development Support Program... Sri Lanka 6,443 Wehilihini Collective Farm Project... Sri Lanka 11,493 Community Development for 35 Villages... Sri Lanka 3,803 Small Farners Development Project, Dambulla... Sri Lanka 2,690 Pahala-Uva Community Development... Sri Lanka 13,158 Village Credit Societies Extension... Sri Lanka 8,914 Gammedagama Community Development... Sri Lanka 2,842 Consumer Protection and Cultivation Support... Sri Lanka 3,176 Training of Thai Volunteers for Work with NGOs... Thailand 7,673 Study Tour of Canadian Food Bank... Australia 4,100 Small Irrigation Pump Repair... Cambodia 30,000 Shallow Wells/Health Program Tigray... Ethiopia 21,500 India Rural Development Programme... India 133,813 Lambada Village Development... India 27,794 Amangal Harijan Village Projects... India 21,624 Chenchu Tribal Development, Achampet... India 17,622 Harijan Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Co-operatives... India 2,695 Sarada Education Programme... India 15,000 Navaspur Lambaba Village Development... India 14,554 Davao City Enterprises... Philippines 5,000 Mananalasi-Kami Water Project... Philippines 1,815 South Pacific Village Tools... S.P. Region 1,200 Collective Self-Help for Small Tea Planters... Sri Lanka 646 Plantation Workers Support... Sri Lanka 2,600 Panakawa Vocational Training Centre... Sri Lanka 6,325 Janapada Development Program... Sri Lanka 11,000 Rural Development Credit Programme... Sri Lanka 3,158 Talgahadeniya Village Development Outreach Programme... Sri Lanka 4,132 Centre for Human Development Kegalle... Sri Lanka 3,428 Small Farmers Development Phase II... Sri Lanka 13,735 Village Credit Society Extension... Sri Lanka 3,089 Education Development... Thailand 10,770 Community Action Program Thanh Hoa Apiculture Project... Vietnam 18,000 Education Development for Community Action... Thailand 12,435 Dissemination and Promotion of Primary Health Care... Thailand 8,326 Primary Health Care and Village Development... Thailand 3,229 Land Reform in Rural Thailand... Thailand 4,470 Health Education through Community Development... Thailand 1,901 Strengthening Thai NGOs... Thailand 3,948 Support for Culture/Community Analysis for Rural Development... Thailand 4,361 Support of Volunteer Workers for Community PHC... Thailand 1,977 Community Training & Conscientisation... Thailand 3,646 Inter-Island Cooperative Trading Vessel... Vanuatu 15,675 Motor Cycle for Rural Primary Health Centre... Zimbabwe 2,391 Safe Drinking Water-Zimbabwe... Zimbabwe 1,210 Boreholes and Pumps... Zimbabwe 1,100 Kanak Agricultural Training Program... New Caledonia 82,376 SUBTOTAL 935,387 Bilaterally Funded NGO Projects Development worker: Dr J Cliff... Mozambique 90,600 Development worker: Dr J Stuckey... Mozambique 52,500 Rehabilitation and Rural Development Project-Inhambane (in conjunction with Overseas Service Bureau and Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign)... Mozambique 552,600 Sanaag Primary Health Care Project... Somalia 673,500 Shepherd Support Scheme, Karnataka... India 34,500 SUBTOTAL 1,403,700 Women in Development Fund Projects Women's Literacy Training Program... Bangladesh/India 22,000 Mother and Child Health Care Feasibility Study... Indonesia/Philippines/Thailand 45,000 SUBTOTAL 67,000 Food Aid Wheat, flour, high protein biscuits, whole milk powder... Eritrea/Tigray 729,216 Durum wheat... Somalia 454,999 SUBTOTAL 1,184,215 GRAND TOTAL 3,590,302 (1) UNION OF AUSTRALIAN WOMEN No funds have been provided to this organisation (m) WOMEN AND DEVELOPMENT NETWORK OF AUSTRALIA Women's Clubs Poultry Project... Honduras 1,300 Kalayaan Women Writers... Philippines 3,700 Support Services for Asian and Pacific Women... South Pacific 12,500 Atolls Workshop... South Pacific 5,640 Women's Media Training Program... Thailand 2,200 SUBTOTAL 25,340 Bilaterally Funded NGO Projects Village Water and Sanitation Project... Tonga SUBTOTAL 120,000 Women in Development Fund Projects Research on Efforts to Promote Women in Development Issues... Australia SUBTOTAL 1,353 GRAND TOTAL 146,693 With reference to the Honourable Member's question about the (d) Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), this organisation's major role is that of the co-ordinating body for Australian NGOs which provide development assistance. ADAB provides ACFOA with an annual grant which is used for administrative purposes. Last financial year, this grant was $245,000 and in 1984-85, $230,000 was provided. $245,000 has been provided this financial year. ACFOA does not conduct any overseas aid projects itself. (Question No. 4596) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 2587 (Hansard 9 April 1986, page 1945) on unspent Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program allocations, have each of the States now spent the amounts referred to in the answer, in each of the categories; if not, (a) what amount is still outstanding and (b) will that amount be spent in the category for which it was originally allocated. (2) What criteria enable money to be transferred between categories and States, as indicated in the earlier answer. (3) What is the position with the 1985-86 allocations? Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Expenditure above or below an annual allocation is not necessarily adjusted in the succeeding year. The 1985-86 Federal Budget provided for States to expend $20 million in excess of expected revenue receipts to redress some of the variation between State and category revenue shares and actual expenditure in earlier years. While differences may occur between allocations and expenditures in any given financial year total expenditure over the life of the program is expected to accord with total category revenue shares as provided for under the legislation. (2) States are advised each year of the total payments to be made under the program and of their nominal category allocations. State category allocations are based on shares of estimated revenue and may include adjustment to redress some of the past variation between revenue shares and actual expenditure in earlier years. Allocations to categories and States are indicative only and can be varied. States have within any year the flexibility to achieve their overall expenditure targets by varying category expenditure levels. It is also possible to increase payments to higher spending States if others under expend their allocations. (3) Details of 1985-86 underpayments relative to nominal allocations: National Roads Urban Arterial Roads Rural Arterial Roads Local Roads $m $m $m $m New South Wales ... . . . . . . 2.5 Victoria ... 0.9 . . 1.4 . . Queensland ... . . . . . . 0.9 Western Australia ... . . . . 0.6 0.5 South Australia ... 1.3 . . 0.3 0.9 Tasmania ... 1.6 0.7 2.2 . . Northern Territory ... . . 0.4 . . 1.0 Even though the above unexpended allocations were utilised within other categories and/or States in 1985-86, it should be emphasised that total expenditure by each State over the life of the program is expected to accord with the total category revenue shares provided for under the legislation. (Question No. 4604) Mr Sinclair asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) What action has been taken on Special Report No. 2 by the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the Industrial Sugar Mills case involving the Department of Defence. (2) Is it a fact that the Government cannot accept the revenue implications of agreeing to the recommended payment of compensation; if so, why. (3) Have the revenue implications been calculated; if so, what is the calculated amount and on what basis has it been made. (4) Have there been other incidents similar to the ISM case; if so, what were the (a) contracts (b) amounts involved. (5) Has he noted paragraph 26 of the Ombudsman's report. (6) Are there particular classes of administrative deficiencies for which redress should not be available; if so, what are they. (7) If not, why does the Government refuse to accept the Ombudsman's recommendation. (8) What action has been taken to ensure that the act of obvious negligence to which the Ombudsman referred in the ISM case is not repeated. (9) On what basis did the Deputy Crown Solicitor advise that the Commonwealth bears no legal liability in this case. Mr Hawke —The answer to the right honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Action on Special Reports to Parliament made by the Ombudsman under section 17 of the Ombudsman Act is a matter for the Parliament and not the Executive. I note that on 22 August 1986, the Senate referred both the Ombudsman's Special Reports to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for consideration. (2) As I stated in my letter of 19 December 1985 to the Acting Ombudsman, (reproduced at Attachment 3 to the Ombudsman's Special Report No. 2), the Commonwealth cannot responsibly accept additional standards of liability which do not fall upon the Australian commercial community in general; and that it is not unreasonable to suggest that if compensation were paid in this case, there would be created a general expectation that the Commonwealth is prepared to compensate in similar cases. (3) No. (4) I understand that the Department of Finance is aware of a number of similar instances. It is not necessarily the case that all such instances are reported either to that Department or to my own Department or to the Ombudsman. (5) Yes. (6) The redress available for administrative deficiencies subject to the Ombudsman Act is clearly spelt out in the Act. Under that Act, such redress includes investigations of complaints, reports and recommendations to departments or authorities under section 15; the furnishing of information to the Prime Minister with regard to such reports under section 16; and the forwarding of such reports to the Parliament under section 17. Action taken on Ombudsman recommendations or reports will depend on the facts and surrounding circumstances of each case. (7) The reasons are spelt out in my letter of 19 December 1985 to the Acting Ombudsman (see Attachment 3 to Special Report No. 2). (8) I understand that the Department of Defence has taken steps to ensure that a situation similar to what occurred in the ISM case does not arise in the future. I am advised that an instruction has been issued in that Department to ensure that comparative statements of tendered prices and other information are double-checked against original tender documents. (9) I understand that in relation to the particular aspects of the matter put to the Deputy Crown Solicitor, the basis of his advice was that, as no contract had ever been formed, no liability in contract had arisen. Moreover, I understand that in relation to those same aspects the Deputy Crown Solicitor did not consider that Commonwealth liability in negligence arose because of: an absence of duty of care in normal commercial tendering situations; an uncertainty of the extent of liability for negligence in the exercise of statutory powers; the unlikelihood of recovery for economic loss where no physical damage arises; and the absence of compensable damage suffered by ISM. (Question No. 4697) Ms McHugh asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 25 September 1986: (1) What are the (a) number of person hours involved in and (b) cost of outside contract surveying and drafting services used by his Department and instrumentalities responsible to him in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86 and (iii) 1986 to date, including work contracted out to the Australian Survey Office. (2) Are there any instances where surveying or drafting requirements have not been satisfied due to limitations on the resources of (a) his Department or instrumentalities responsible to him or (b) the Australian Survey Office. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Drafting work is an integral part of the Design of Capital Works, the Asset Management Program and the Fit Out of Leased Premises; this work is executed partly by in-house staff and partly by contract personnel and consultants. Under existing administrative arrangements the Australian Survey Office provides specialist services to the Department of Housing and Construction at my Department's request. The Department of Housing and Construction does not `contract out' this work to the Australian Survey Office, nor under current administrative arrangements is it charged by the Australian Survey Office for the professional services provided. The estimated number of person-hours and cost of contract surveying and drafting services used by agencies in the Housing and Construction portfolio, excluding work undertaken by the Australian Survey Office, are as follows: In my Department: (i) (ii) (iii) 1 (a) 420,000 500,000 100,000 (b) $6.72m $9.25m $1.90m For the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation: (i) (ii) (iii) 1 (a) 87 1,457 494 (b) $1,566 $38,512 $23,250 2 (a) No. (b) The Australian Survey Office is responsible for the staffing and funding of its surveying services and I am therefore unable to comment on whether or not it has been able to respond to all requests for surveying services because of resource limitations. (Question No. 4851) Mr Tuckey asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 11 November 1986: Did you receive a letter from the Shire of Kent in Nyabing, WA, dated 2 December 1985, and was a reply not forwarded until 9 September 1986; if so, what was the reason for the delay in responding. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 6 December 1985 I received a letter (dated 2 December 1985) concerning a taxation matter from the Acting Shire Clerk, Shire of Kent in Nyabing, WA. My Department acknowledged the letter on 16 December 1985 and referred it for the Treasurer's attention, who has since provided a reply. (Question No. 4954) Mr Braithwaite asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 November 1986: Did he state, on 12 August 1986, that the Commonwealth would offer redeployment to as many of the staff of the Australian Council for Inter-government Relations (ACIR) as possible; if so, is it a fact that (a) not one single member of ACIR's staff has been offered redeployment by the Commonwealth and (b) these persons are all now unemployed. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In a letter of 12 August 1986 to the Premiers, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations I noted that the Commonwealth would offer redeployment to as many of the staff of ACIR as possible but that the need for some compulsory retirements might arise. In the event, legal and practical constraints limited the scope for direct assistance by the Commonwealth regarding permanent or ongoing temporary employment. Only one staff member was eligible for redeployment but elected not to exercise that right. His right of re-entry arose out of former employment in the Australian Public Service (APS). Under the relevant Public Service determination other staff could only be employed through selection for APS positions publicly advertised. The Public Service Board (PSB) held discussions with staff of ACIR to provide assistance in identifying and pursuing available APS positions, and has continued to provide such assistance. The PSB also extended the closing date for Assistant Research Officer positions to enable ACIR staff to apply. At the winding-up of ACIR all staff took advantage of the redundancy package approved by ACIR. Since then I am aware that at least one former staff member has obtained other employment. (Question No. 4879) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) Was the work undertaken by Chandler Hambleton Mier for the youth support program ``Priority One'' and his Address to the Nation confidential and urgent; if so, why. (2) Who wrote his Address to the Nation which was presented on 18 August 1985. Mr Kerin — Acting Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As outlined in Mr Brown's response to Question 2410 on 19 February 1986 (Hansard, page 1031) the initial task was to write and produce the Prime Minister's address to the nation once the parameters of the Government's ``Priority One'' policy had been determined. Important pieces of work, such as Prime Ministers' speeches to the Nation, are always treated as confidential. (2) I refer the honourable member to the answers to both Question 2410 (details above) and Question 1821 on 25 November 1985 (Hansard, page 3649). (Question No. 4971) Mr Nehl asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 November 1986: (1) Did the number of invalid pensions granted in 1985-86 increase from 259,162 to 273,814. (2) How many invalid pensions were granted in each State and Territory (a) prior to and (b) during 1985-86. (3) Did the number of spouse carer pensions for the spouse carers of invalid pensioners increase from 75,855 to 83,212 in 1985-86. (4) How many spouse carer pensions were granted in each State and Territory (a) prior to and (b) during 1985-86. (5) How many invalid pensions granted in each State and Territory in 1985-86 were granted on grounds other than an 85 per cent permanent medical disability. (6) How many spouse carer pensions granted in each State and Territory in 1985-86 were granted to the spouse carers of invalid pensioners with other than an 85 per cent permanent medical disability. (7) Upon what grounds, other than an 85 per cent permanent medical disability, will his Department grant an invalid pension. (8) How many invalid pensions were granted in each State and Territory in 1985-86 for less than an 85 per cent permanent medical disability. (9) How many spouse carer pensions were granted in each State and Territory in 1985-86 to the spouse carers of invalid pensioners with less than an 85 per cent permanent medical disability. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The number of invalid pensions granted (including transfers from other pensions) in 1985-86 was 47,095. The corresponding figure for 1984-85 was 49,495. The numbers of persons being paid invalid pension at 30 June 1985 and 30 June 1986 were 259,162 and 273,810 respectively. (2) The following table shows the numbers of persons being paid invalid pension at these two dates by State and Territory; the numbers of grants during the years ended 30 June 1985 and 30 June 1986 are shown in brackets. INVALID PENSIONERS State/Territory Number at 30 June 1985 Number at 30 June 1986 NSW ... 88,063 (16,604) 93,257 (16,022) Vic. ... 72,277 (13,935) 75,954 (12,977) Qld ... 36,977 ( 6,388) 39,144 ( 6,519) SA ... 26,834 ( 4,932) 28,184 ( 4,690) WA ... 23,889 ( 5,601) 25,769 ( 4,997) Tas. ... 7,614 ( 1,303) 7,835 ( 1,160) NT ... 1,805 ( 402) 1,979 ( 431) ACT ... 1,703 ( 330) 1,688 ( 299) Aust. ... 259,162 (49,495) 273,810 (47,095) (3) The figures quoted by the honourable member refer to the numbers of persons married to or caring for an invalid pensioner and receiving a wife's or spouse carer's/carer's pension. (4) The following table shows the number of recipients of wife's and spouse carer's/carer's pension by State/Territory at 30 June 1985 and 30 June 1986; the bracketed figures refer to the number of such pensions granted during the years ended 30 June 1985 and 30 June 1986. INVALID PENSIONERS' WIVES, SPOUSE CARERS AND CARERS (i) State/Territory Number at 30 June 1985 Number at 30 June 1986 NSW ... 24,439 ( 6,891) 27,238 ( 7,133) Vic. ... 22,751 ( 6,596) 24,609 ( 6,148) Qld ... 9,534 ( 2,716) 10,616 ( 2,901) SA ... 8,870 ( 2,472) 9,533 ( 2,291) WA ... 7,213 ( 2,540) 8,017 ( 2,287) Tas. ... 2,206 ( 593) 2,351 ( 566) NT ... 369 ( 105) 393 ( 106) ACT ... 473 ( 125) 455 ( 116) Aust. ... 75,855 (22,038) 83,212 (21,548) (i) Carer's pension absorbed spouse carer's pension in November 1985. The figures in the above table include the following State/Territory distribution of spouse carer pensioners at 30 June 1985 and carer pensioners at 30 June 1986; the bracketed figures refer to the number of such pensions granted during the years ended 30 June 1985 and 30 June 1986. INVALID PENSIONERS' CARERS AND SPOUSE CARERS State/Territory Number of Spouse Carer Pensioners at 30 June 1985 Number of Carer Pensioners at 30 June 1986 NSW ... 708 ( 406) 1,066 ( 579) Vic. ... 582 ( 347) 863 ( 463) Qld ... 279 ( 168) 413 ( 232) SA ... 254 ( 162) 324 ( 150) WA ... 172 ( 118) 251 ( 145) Tas. ... 75 ( 38) 101 ( 44) NT ... 8 ( 3) 16 ( 9) ACT ... 7 ( 6) 11 ( 10) Aust. ... 2,085 (1,248) 3,045 (1,632) (5) to (9) Invalid pensions are payable only to persons who are permanently incapacitated for work to the extent of at least 85 per cent or are permanently blind. (Question No. 4983) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: Does a Selstay scheme, under which an aged person sells his or her home for less than its full value and then leases back the property rent-free for life, disadvantage an applicant for a pension when the assets of the person are being assessed. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is understood that there are various Selstay sale plans. These involve the arranged sale of the home at an agreed value to a private individual. The vendor receives a proportion of the sale price at the time of sale, a right to accommodation in the home for life or such shorter period as he or she wishes and payment of the balance of the sale price when vacant possession occurs. Rent is payable to the landlord throughout the period of residence. On the information available, the scheme appears to involve selling the home, an asset which is exempt for pension purposes, for a consideration which includes the right to continue to occupy it for life. The security of tenure inherent in that right means that the pensioner would continue to qualify under the assets test as a home owner and accordingly the value of the right to occupy the home would be disregarded. Regard would be had to the deposit received if retained in the form of an assessable asset and a value would be placed on the outstanding debt. (Question No. 4698) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 7 October 1986: (1) What is the current level of European Community (EC) subsidy applied to major cheese lines exported to Australia. (2) What were the corresponding subsidy levels in September 1985. (3) Has there been any reduction of these subsidies since June 1986. (4) What steps has the Government taken to seek a reduction of these subsidy payments by the EC. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The European Community subsidy level applying to certain cheeses exported to Australia in September 1986 and in September 1985 are as follows: Cheese Type September 1986 ECU/100kg September 1985 ECU/100kg Blue Vein... 25.78 25.78 Cheddar... 90.52 32.37 Edam/Gouda/Havarti... 77.39 32.61 Colby/Monterey... 77.43 31.93 Territorials... 77.43 31.93 Other... 77.39 32.61 (3) No. (4) Following a countervailing case brought by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference against EC cheese imports the European Community gave an undertaking (which was accepted by the Australian Government in November 1983) to reduce export refunds on certain cheeses initially by an amount corresponding to the Australian stabilisation levy on cheddar type cheeses. It also stated its objective of ensuring that the prices of these cheeses would not disturb the Australian market. On 16 May 1986 the European Community increased export subsidies on certain cheeses for shipment to Australia by up to 180%. This action was taken by the EC Commission after EC traders had complained that their share of the Australian market was being eroded as a result of the depreciation of the Australian dollar and the fact that export refunds had not been adjusted for a considerable time. The Australian Government sought formal consultations with the EC Commission on the issue under the provisions of the 1983 Undertaking. These were held in Brussels between Australian and EC Commission officials on 14 and 17 July and 6 and 7 October 1986. The matter was discussed during the Australia EC Ministerial meetings held in Canberra on 10 to 12 November 1986. (Question No. 4683) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost to his Department of the fringe benefits tax. (2) What fringe benefits are provided by his Department and which officers of his Department receive them. (3) How is the value of each of these fringe benefits calculated for tax purposes. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An amount of $434,000 was provided in the budget estimates for payments in the 1986-87 financial year. This estimate is being reviewed in the light of the changes recently announced by the Treasurer and ruling issued by the Australian Taxation Office on the interpretation of the relevant legislation. (2) The Department is liable under the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation for the following benefits: (a) Housing provided to lightkeepers, staff located in designated remote localities and staff occupying residences on Departmental property in capital cities for functional or operational purposes. (b) Use of Commonwealth motor vehicles for private purposes at remote localities and garaging of vehicles at private residences by very senior officers or in other circumstances where suitable garaging facilities are not available at the office location. (c) That portion of the cost of official entertainment/hospitality that can be attributed to Departmental officers. Official entertainment/hospitality is mainly undertaken by very senior officers in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of Finance under the Audit Act 1901, contained in Finance Guidelines 13/1 to 13/14 and Finance Directions 13/1 and 13/2 of the Finance Manual. (d) Those costs met by the Department for telephones in private residences of certain Departmental officers who usually, by reason of their functional responsibility, are required to provide specialist advice to the Minister or Executive, or who are nominated by the Department as out-of-hours contact points. (e) Return air travel on an annual basis to the nearest capital city for lightkeepers (and their families) and other employees in designated remote localities. (f) Education assistance provided to lightkeepers' dependents. (g) Cost of providing spouse-accompanied travel for officers of the Senior Executive Service (SES). SES officers who travel domestically on a regular basis are allowed one spouse-accompanied trip per year. In addition under certain circumstances SES officers can become eligible for spouse-accompanied travel overseas. (h) Other minor benefits including tropical clothing allowance for officers located in designated tropical areas and overseas equipment allowance for officers travelling or located overseas for specific periods. (3) The value of the fringe benefits for assessing the tax liability will be calculated in accordance with the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation and rulings of the Australian Taxation office on the interpretation of the legislation.