Wednesday, 9 December 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.02) —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent at this sitting- (1) the interruption of business required by sessional order 101a occurring at approximately 12.30 p.m., and (2) questions without notice being called on at 2.15 p.m. This variation will facilitate the attendance of honourable members at the luncheon for the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.03) —I move: (1) That paragraph (9) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material be omitted and the following paragraph be substituted: ``(9) That the committee report by 28 April 1988.''. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence. This motion extends the period during which the Committee can report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Extradition Bill 1987 concurrently with the Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to say that, at the time of the second reading speech when the explanatory memorandum was presented, there was a paragraph in clause 7 that should not have been there. It should have been at the end of what is now page 25, which is clause 22. In order to avoid any confusion, a replacement explanatory memorandum has been prepared and is available for honourable members. I present the replacement explanatory memorandum to correct that error. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.04) —The principal function of the Extradition Bill 1987 we are debating today is to consolidate in streamlined format two existing Acts which separately deal with extradition to Commonwealth and foreign countries. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech says that this legislation is the result of an undertaking that he gave to the Parliament in November 1985 to make an exhaustive review of Australia's extradition laws. He, of course, conveniently omits to mention that the Stewart Royal Commission report, released as far back as February 1983, identified a requirement for these laws and our extradition system generally to be improved. Indeed, a common criticism of the current legislation is that it is so disjointed, mainly as a consequence of piecemeal amendments, that it is almost unintelligible to anyone without legal qualifications. Whilst the current Bill, happily, puts an end to this problem, nevertheless it has taken nearly five years for this Government, since the Stewart report was handed down, to take the necessary action. The new Act will apply to matters which already constitute extraditable offences under the existing legislation, regardless of whether the offence occurred before or after the commencement of the new Act. Transitional provisions are contained in the Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 to preserve existing extradition proceedings. I think it would be useful at this point to give a brief outline of the salient features of this legislation, with the emphasis on changes to the current legislation. The Bill introduces several new principals. Clause 5 attempts to clarify for the first time definitional problems arising out of a prohibition on the extradition of persons for political offences. It does so by excluding from that expression crimes recognised in multilateral treaties as being extremely serious; for example, hijacking, safety of aircraft, genocide, torture, the taking of hostages and the protection of internationally protected persons. This provision goes some way towards meeting that problem. Under clause 15 restrictions are placed on the granting of bail. First, the magistrate is not permitted to remand a person on bail unless there are special circumstances and, second, there is a prohibition on bail shopping-that is, on the making of a fresh bail application to another magistrate where the initial application has been refused. The effect of clause 15 is to create a presumption against the granting of bail. It reflects concern about the number of millionaire drug runners who have absconded in recent years. Apparently, one Austrian gladly gave us his home, and he, of course, could afford to. Mainly, these were foreigners on the run with no permanent ties with Australia. The loss of these criminals has also given rise to concern on the part of some countries about Australia's ability to fulfil its extradition obligations. Clause 18 carries on the provision introduced in 1985 which makes it possible for a person to consent to surrender rather than go through the rigours of extradition proceedings. Apparently, experience over the last couple of years has been favourable. Clause 20 builds on the consent concept by allowing the fugitive to consent to be tried for offences for which extradition cannot normally be granted-usually because the sentence is below the minumum required for an extraditable offence. This will enable the person to return and face all outstanding offences for which he or she has been extradited and thereby have the slate wiped clean. In the future, formal review and appeal measures will be confined to proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, and thence to the High Court of Australia. Access will be denied to the administrative review mechanisms under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act so as to preclude dual review processes which have become common practice in recent years. However, it should be remembered that applications by way of prerogative writ to the High Court in its original jurisdiction are preserved under the Constitution and are therefore an additional review mechanism. Clauses 24 and 25 make provision for temporary surrender so as to allow a person serving a sentence in Australia to stand trial in another country on the basis that the person will be returned to Australia after trial to complete his term of imprisonment. If, at the end of his Australian sentence, the other country still seeks the offender, the Attorney-General may consent thereto. In addition, extradition will be prohibited unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the person will not be subjected to torture. This reflects Australia's accession to the international convention against torture. The long-standing prohibition on extradition for military offences is retained and specifically recognised. The coalition sees merit in all of these initiatives, and therefore supports them. Another novel and welcome addition to Australia's extradition laws is the facility in clause 45 that will allow Australia to refuse to extradite its nationals where the requesting country adopts a similar approach in relation to its own nationals. In such cases this Bill thus creates jurisdiction in Australia which will allow Australian authorities to put the person on trial for a similar Australian offence and any sentence imposed would be served in this country. Professor Ivan Shearer from the Faculty of Law of the University of New South Wales, who I think has been an occasional consultant to the Attorney-General's Department and who is an acknowledged international expert on extradition law, regards this provision as `innovative', to use his word. He said-I paraphrase him-`Save for the very limited Crimes Overseas Act, the Australian Parliament has not previously sought to establish jurisdiction over crimes committed by Australian citizens abroad where no connection with Australia is otherwise established'. Professor Shearer, of course, was writing prior to the introduction of the War Crimes Amendment Bill which is now before the Parliament. That Bill envisages the trial in Australia of persons who committed war crimes during World War II in overseas countries and who now reside in this country and have acquired Australian citizenship or permanent resident status. Professor Shearer went on to say: The reason for this is that countries of the common law tradition, inherited from England, base criminal jurisdiction primarily on a territorial connection; this basis was historically determined by the feudal, and later the Royal, foundations of criminal justice and by the advent of the jury system, the justification for which was that a person should be presented and tried only by his or her peers, i.e. neighbours who reflected both local knowledge and the conscience of the community whose peace was affected. Countries of the civil law tradition, by contrast, descending from Roman law, see criminal jurisdiction in essentially personal, not terri- torial, terms: it was one's allegiance to, and right of protection by, the ruler that gave that ruler the power to punish a citizen for crime wherever committed. This explains not only why civil law countries (we are speaking here of the whole of Europe and Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia) can prosecute their citizens in their home states for crimes committed in Australia, but also why there is a settled tradition in civil law countries (in some enshrined in their constitutions or basic laws) that they will not surrender a citizen for trial in a foreign country. There is no such principle in English law or in countries such as Australia whose laws are based on that tradition. This fundamental difference in the basis of criminal jurisdiction between the two major legal traditions of the world has presented a continuing problem in the negotiation of extradition treaties by the United Kingdom (applying to Australia up to 1939) and later by Australia. . . I quote all that because I think it picks up one of the central principles. As Professor Shearer points out, the concept of trying nationals in lieu of extradition reflects the approach adopted in civil law countries. However, the Bill contains an element of retrospectivity in that while extending Australian jurisdiction to cover crimes committed overseas, it applies to crimes that occurred prior to the commencement of the legislation. Nonetheless, this drawback, if it is such, is clearly offset by the obvious benefit for Australian citizens. I am not aware of any principle or policy objections to retrospective provisions which provide benefits. That aspect, therefore, raises no difficulties. The argument in favour of the proposal is twofold: firstly, it removes any possible concern about whether an Australian would receive justice in a foreign land, and it gives weight to those concerns and, secondly, in the event of conviction, family ties and support are maintained. It thus has a sort of humanitarian aspect to it which gives general support to the concept. It should be noted that the power to order trial in Australia is discretionary and arises only after an extradition case has been made out. It therefore provides a useful alternative to extradition. Before departing from clause 44 there are two other matters which I wish to raise briefly. One is that Professor Shearer has formed the view that the Bill will allow prosecutions in Australia only when, as a result of the person sought being an Australian citizen, the Attorney-General refuses an extradition request using his discretionary powers. He says that under some treaties a person could, under this Bill, commit an offence in one of those countries, return to Australia and not be subject to extradition and not be triable under proposed section 45. It is a nice interpretation point, using the proper definition of the word nice, and I suggest that the Attorney-General's Department could usefully look at this issue to see whether there is a loophole that requires closing. I look forward to what the Attorney-General will say about that in his summation of the second reading debate. The second matter is one of more practical consideration. This is a new initiative. It is something that has not been done before in Australia. There will obviously be procedural and cost implications, and it will be important, particularly in the first one or two cases, that those who are responsible for the prosecutions do their homework very thoroughly. I am sure that that will obviate any possibilities of difficulties. The Bill, in part III, makes special simplified arrangements governing relations with New Zealand. In essence, it continues the backing of warrants procedure, which is the basis of existing extradition arrangements between Australia and New Zealand, and among Australian States under other legislation. These arrangements reflect the long and close association between our two countries and our mutual respect for each other's legal systems. Clause 50 specifically spells out for the first time that a solicitor-client relationship exists between Australian officers and officers of the requesting country in relation to communications about relevant proceedings. This will remove an area of doubt and contention and, I understand, particularly in regard to freedom of information implications. I turn now to aspects of the Bill about which the coalition has concern, and in respect of which I foreshadow that we shall be proposing amendments in the committee stage. The first relates to evidence to establish the extradition case. Clause 19 provides that a request for extradition need be supported only by specified documents. Normally, the documentation would consist of a duly authenticated warrant and authenticated statements specifying the alleged offence and penalty as well as the alleged conduct constituting the offence. However, in some cases, mainly Commonwealth countries, there is an additional treaty obligation requiring that a prima facie case be established as to the commission of the alleged offence. The prima facie test is the rule applied by lower courts in common law countries as to whether the prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the accused being put on trial before a jury. This, in effect, means that we have different standards for determining whether to surrender fugitives depending on whether the request is received from a common law or civil law country. This is, quite frankly, most undesirable. The emphasis is all wrong. Under the Bill, as it is presently worded, we impose a higher standard of proof on requests for extradition from Commonwealth countries with common law systems in which we are more likely to have confidence than we do on civil law countries, whose legal systems are in many cases difficult to comprehend and in all cases substantially different from our own. To put it another way, the Bill places a premium on civil law countries and penalises common law countries. Quite frankly, this is not the way to go. The procedure whereby the liability for extradition is decided on the papers in effect repeats existing procedures which were first introduced in 1985, at a time-the Trimbole case is an example-when there was a genuine public concern, quite properly, about the need to tighten and toughen up our extradition arrangements. Prior to 1985, there was a requirement for all requesting countries to establish a prima facie case. However, the difficulties of civil law countries in meeting this test, which is foreign to their own legal systems, led to the introduction of the new documentary processes. The coalition's decision to support the 1985 Act, which included the proposal to abolish the prima facie rule for non-Commonwealth countries, was taken at short notice. The Bill for the Act was rushed through the House and we had only a few days to debate it, which is too common an occurrence. The fact is that the prima facie rule has been part of our extradition law since 1843. In view of that, we believe that it should be re-enshrined by this Bill. Let me take some support from what Professor Shearer has said. He stated: The better solution is to retain the prima facie case requirement for all extradition and to make provision for dispensation from certain technical rules of evidence that presently complicate the proceedings from the point of view of the civil law countries. In other words, that is the answer to what I know the Attorney-General is going to say to us. Professor Shearer goes on to say: Canada is presently considering such changes to its laws, having rejected the solution proposed in the present Bill to abolish the prima facie case requirement altogether. We should do the same. I think that is very good advice. We believe that it is advice that this Parliament should take up. The amendment which we will introduce will reapply the prima facie test as a general rule but will set out special procedures to make it possible for civil law countries to meet that test. In regard to the provision of a copy of the supporting documentation, I want to say that by custom copies of supporting documents are provided to the person whose return is sought in advance of the actual extradition hearing. We believe that as a matter of natural justice there should be a statutory requirement to provide this documentation. We are hoping that there will be an amendment to that end, whether it is from this side or from the other side of the House. Another point raised by Professor Shearer relates to review material. He says: Clause 21(6)(d) requires higher courts reviewing a magistrate's extradition determination to `have regard only to the material that was before the magistrate.' This would prevent a court from considering new material, such as possibly evidence of political considerations. There seems no reason for such a restriction. The paragraph should be amended to add the words `unless the court otherwise orders'. The Opposition agrees with this suggestion. It is one of the amendments that will be moved at the committee stage. At this point I want to raise several provisions which the coalition will not be seeking to amend but which we believe are still worthy of consideration by this Parliament. The specific prohibition on adducing evidence of innocence was introduced in 1985. It is arguable that such a prohibition already existed at common law. In any event, the prohibition is in keeping with the common law principle that extraditions are not trials to determine innocence or guilt. This principle has been cited with authority in a number of British, Canadian and United States cases. To do otherwise would defeat the whole purpose of extradition arrangements, which is to facilitate the return of accused persons so that they can be tried in the country where the offence was committed. Australia has a firm policy not to enter into extradition arrangements with countries which do not have a judicial system that can justly try the issues. Regulations to give effect to extradition arrangements are, of course, disallowable by the Senate. The issue has surfaced recently in Australia in the Orionia case in which two persons are attempting, inter alia, to have an extradition request from Israel determined on its merits. The decision of the magistrate to reject defence evidence has been the subject of parallel appeals through the courts up to the High Court of Australia and the administrative review mechanisms. So far all appeals have been unsuccessful. In my view, our proposed amendment to reapply the prima facie test will go a long way to overcoming concerns in this area. Of course, there never has been, nor should there be, a restriction on evidence that can be introduced, and which must be admitted by the magistrate, on technical issues covered by the legislation. Examples are: evidence on the question of identity, that a specified offence is a political offence, that other requirements of the legislation have not been complied with, et cetera. Clause 19 sets out the matters about which a magistrate must be satisfied before a person is eligible to be extradited. Under sub-clause 19 (2), a specific onus is placed on a person whose extradition is sought to satisfy the magistrate `that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is an extradition objection' in relation to the alleged extradition offence. Clause 7 provides that an extradition objection arises, inter alia, where the alleged offence is a political offence or where the person's surrender is actually sought for the purpose of a prosecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinions. By placing the onus on the accused to establish the existence of an extradition objection, the Bill merely attempts to codify the existing common law rule that a person seeking to claim the benefit of an exemption is required to adduce evidence of the existence of the relevant circumstances. This common law rule was confirmed by the High Court in the case of Commonwealth of Australia v. Reily. The Opposition has carefully examined the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on this proposal. For these reasons, we do not share the Committee's concerns. Professor Shearer has also criticised the Bill because it does not include provisions for a general power in the courts to refuse extradition where it would be unjust, oppressive or incompatible with humanitarian considerations. This power is with the Attorney-General only. Professor Shearer takes the view that statutory power should also be with the courts, even though it is included in some of our treaties. Again I suggest that this is something that the Department could usefully look at and I will be interested to hear the Attorney-General's response. On the question of the death penalty, the Extradition Bill before us today is intended to modernise Australia's extradition laws and thereby improve our ability to deal with fugitive offenders. However, the legislation introduces a new provision, paragraph 22 (3) (c), that will prevent the Attorney-General consenting to an extradition application where the death penalty can be imposed for any offence for which extradition has been requested unless Australia receives an undertaking from the requesting country that either the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out if extradition is granted. This provision could severely restrict Aus- tralia's ability to extradite the worst type of criminals to countries that impose the death penalty. Normally countries only impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes, such as murder and some terrorist activities. Not all governments have the capacity to override court orders, but even in countries where the power to commute the death penalty exists there may be sound reasons for a government not being able or wanting to give Australia an undertaking to do so. For example, the extradition requests might relate to a terrorist incident resulting in the deaths of many people, perhaps hundreds of people. A common terrorist tactic is to place bombs on planes or in crowded places such as airports, train stations, et cetera. In such cases not only would Australia not be able to extradite the terrorists for punishment, but we would also have no jurisdiction to put them on trial in this country except in the unlikely event that the terrorists were Australian nationals. The Government has really got itself into a pickle on this one. On another level, a number of American States have reintroduced the death penalty and the trend in this direction is increasing yearly in the face of the escalating number of crimes of vio-lence, especially murder and rape. It is by no means certain that such jurisdiction would be prepared to do a deal with Australia. The ultimate result could well be that fugitive murderers from America and elsewhere come out to Australia and get off scot-free. It is unrealistic to allow this provision to proceed without a review of it. I encourage the Attorney-General to do so. It is not unrealistic to contemplate that Australia's famous tourist resorts may soon replace Spain's Costa Del Sol as the favourite safe haven for major international criminals. I took the opportunity last weekend to raise this issue publicly, partly to bring the issue to the attention of the wider community, but also to give the Government an opportunity to prepare its position in advance of this debate. To my surprise, the Attorney-General's office came up with an instant response. However, I can only hope that the reply was not correctly reported. In short, the reported reply was to this effect, and I quote the Melbourne Age: If someone was wanted for a serious crime overseas, he would simply be refused entry, or, if already in Australia, prosecuted for falsifying his visa application. Although this would be a relatively minor charge compared with blowing up an aircraft, the terrorist would not be able to get off scot-free. This response would be laughable if the topic were not so serious. Surely the Attorney-Gene-ral's staff are aware by now that terrorists and big time criminals are able to roam the world at will using forged passports and secret bank accounts. Have they not yet got around to reading the plethora of royal commission reports which abound with stories about jet set criminals? The Government's response is to say that a slap over the wrist for some of these murderers is good enough. It is not good enough. The Attorney-General will just have to go back to the drawing board on this matter. It is an absolutely ludicrous proposition. The reality is that with the way in which this legislation is drafted Australia could well find itself stuck with these undesirables if other countries are not prepared to do a deal on the death penalty. What a lovely way for those countries to rid themselves of such a problem. We need only to look at the Cuban example to see the horrendous consequences that might ensue. So far as the coalition is concerned, our real concern should be as to the sort of justice system that prevails in the requesting country. The proposal on the death penalty may sound fine but, of course, it is completely unnecessary because the Government already has a very wide residual discretion and, as we have now pointed out, it raises a potential problem of very considerable proportions. In conclusion, the Opposition regards this legislation as an important measure and it has our general support. We will move several amendments, the most important of which seeks to reintroduce the prima facie evidence rule. This requires a review of legislation passed in 1985; we are aware of that. We think we should now face up to the ramifications of that. Unfortunately, in 1985 that legislation was rushed through the Parliament and this fundamental issue was basically not addressed. In proposing the amendment we have had the benefit of advice from an eminent Australian expert on extradition law-a professional whose advice has been relied upon by the Government itself on previous occasions. We put it forward in a constructive spirit and, as I have said, I look forward to the Government's response in particular to that matter. In regard to the two other amendments, we have had discussions with the Government and, again, we can debate those matters in the committee stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr LAVARCH(Fisher)(10.32) —Extradition laws in abstraction I suppose are hardly the sort of matter which really inspires the imagin-ation of the public. However, over recent years, through media emphasis on figures such as Barton and Trimbole, Australia's extradition legislation has been brought into the public eye and it has been closely scrutinised. The slippery pursuit of figures such as Trimbole by Australian authorities through the complex maze of international law and politics has resulted in a tightening up of our own extradition mechanisms manifested in the enactment and amendment of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. The Extradition Bill and the Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill which are now before the House will further amend and consolidate these two Acts. Those amendments will provide additional safeguards against extradition from Australia, clarify the position on evidentiary requirements, and restrict the political offence exception to exclude certain crimes. As I regard the last mentioned amendment as probably the most significant, I will address that issue first. As the House is fully aware, terrorism is an ever-increasing concern for all countries. We need only to cast our minds back to recent terrorist activity in the sabotage of a Korean Airlines flight and the Irish Republican Army attack to understand the grave measures that must be taken in order to protect the lives of innocent people. It is for this reason that I put my full support behind the amendment to the definition of `political offence' in clause 5 of the Extradition Bill, that being the interpretation clause. The exception itself originates in the Imperial Act of 1870, when it was considered necessary to protect various groups who were fighting against governments hostile to the British Empire. Over the years the definition of what actually constitutes an offence of a political character has been reappraised by the courts in the wake of the increase in violent activity by diverse political interest groups. The problem which we now need to address is how to deal with those terrorists whose crimes are of such a reprehensible nature that they cannot be afforded the protection of the political exception rule to extradition and take refuge in other countries. This Bill, therefore, addresses the problem by drawing a distinction between serious types of offences and the motivation of offenders. It does this by excluding certain crimes which have been recognised by the international community in multilateral conventions, to which Australia is a party, as being of sufficient gravity to warrant exclusion from the political exception rule. These conventions relate to the safety of aircraft in civil aviation, the taking of hostages, genocide, torture, and the safety of internationally protected persons. The Bill provides scope for further regulations to be enacted for crimes that may be recognised in the future by subsequent treaties to which Australia becomes a party. Therefore, in essence the Bill is a statutory testimony to Australia's ardent condemnation of violent terrorist activity and the harbouring of such persons on the grounds of ideological motivation. Whilst the Bill takes a firm approach to matters involving terrorism and the use of violence, it also introduces important new safeguards for those persons for whom extradition from Australia is sought. The first safeguard is the military offence exception which, although acknowledged by Australia in recently negotiated treaties, has never actually been expressly stated in statute. A military offence is one that relates exclusively to military law, such as insub-ordination or desertion. They are not offences that are covered by the ordinary criminal law. Under the new safeguard, a person will not be able to be extradited if the charge faced is purely under military law. Secondly, the torture exception protects a person from being extradited when there is a possibility that he might be subjected to torture. Under the convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, to which hopefully Australia will soon become a party, a person is not to be extradited unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the person will not be subjected to torture. The third safeguard precludes extradition to countries where the death penalty can be imposed for the offence for which the extradition is granted. The eligible person is to be surrendered for extradition only when the Attorney-General is satisfied that, where an offence is punishable by death, the extraditing country gives an assurance that the person will not be tried for the offence or, if tried, that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if it is imposed on the person, that it will not be carried out. In addition, the extraditing country must provide an assurance that the person will be dealt with only for the offence for which he is surrendered, lesser offences or an offence to which the Attorney-General consents. I understand the points being raised by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), in this regard. Of course, it is a dilemma because some countries impose the death penalty for certain types of offences. As the shadow Attorney-General points out, often the offences would be of a type for which extradition is sought, that is, very serious offences, such as murder or terrorism. However, I believe it is correct for the Australian Government to take a strong stand and not to accede to a request for extradition where the death penalty is a possibility. I do not believe that the murder of an individual can be justified by any crime. I appreciate that other people may have a different view on that stand, but I am happy that the Attorney-General will have the power in the Act not to allow extradition unless he can be satisfied that arrangements can be put into place whereby the person must be dealt with by appropriate punishment, but I do not believe that the death penalty is ever an appropriate punishment. The final matter I wish to address is the clarification of the 1985 amendment which gives effect to the common law principle that extradition proceedings are not trials to determine guilt or innocence. The 1985 amendment provided that a person was not entitled to produce evidence to negate an allegation that the person actually had committed an act or omission in respect of which the surrender of the person was requested. The provision gave effect to the common law principle that extradition proceedings are not trials to determine guilt or innocence. The 1985 amendment overturns this presumption of innocence in some sense and this Bill seeks to clarify the position, at least as far as Commonwealth countries are concerned, in respect of evidence required for the surrender of a fugitive. It also unifies throughout Australia the position and the test to be applied in the first instance, at least, by a magistrate's court. Of course, this is important where co-offenders are arrested in different States. I suppose there is some possibility that different magistrates in different States, faced with the same evidence, could come to different conclusions. That could happen, but at least if uniform tests applied in all the Australian courts that hear extradition proceedings the possibility of different results would be eliminated. Therefore, I believe that the provisions should have the support of the House. I have addressed what I believe to be some of the main points of this Bill. It is an extensive piece of legislation. To a large degree, it codifies the law of extradition in this country, and as such it is to be commended because, as the shadow Minister quite rightly pointed out, the existing legislation had been amended to the extent that it was extremely difficult to work through, even, I imagine, for many legal practitioners. The bringing together of those laws into one piece of legislation will make things easier for both solicitors and, I suppose more importantly, the courts and the fugitives who will be tried under this legislation. Generally, I welcome the support for this legislation that was indicated by the Opposition. I believe that the legislation will enhance Australia's position in this difficult field, and I commend same to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(10.42) —I welcome the opportunity to debate the Extradition Bill 1987 and the Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987. I would like to take this opportunity to outline briefly the purpose of the Extradition Bill 1987, and I will then direct my attention to one aspect of that Bill which I believe really requires further consideration by the Government and the Parliament. I am glad to have the opportunity to be able to address the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on this matter, as this is a very serious question. The Extradition Bill consolidates Australia's extradition laws by combining the operations of the former Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. Of course, that process involves the elimination of unnecessary duplication, the removal of inconsistencies and the remedying of proven deficiencies, and it follows an exhaustive review. The explanatory memorandum states that Bill has a number of specific purposes: provides that persons accused or convicted of terrorist type offences shall not be entitled to the benefit of the political offence exception to extradition; permits prosecution in Australia, in lieu of extradition, in circumstances where an Australian citizen would be eligible to be extradited to a country which will not extradite its nationals to Australia but which prosecutes its nationals for offences in respect of which Australia requests extradition; provides that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in Australia for an offence against a law in force in Australia may be temporarily surrendered to another country to stand trial there for an extradition offence then returned to Australia to complete his or her sentence here and ultimately be re-surrendered to serve any sentence imposed as a result of that overseas trial; permits, with the consent of the person sought, extradition for offences which could not normally be the subject of extradition because the sentence which may be passed in respect of them is not sufficiently severe. ensures that extradition cannot be granted for military offences which are not also offences against the ordinary criminal law. In terms of that broad outline, the Opposition has no objection to this legislation. In fact, there have been changes in recent years in relation to extradition which I suppose this Bill is now codifying. But when the changes are clearly spelled out and are understood, they give rise for concern. I guess that I have been remiss to the extent that I, as a member of the Opposition, previously allowed to go unchallenged certain provisions dealing with the question of prima facie evidence of the commission of an offence overseas being adduced here in Australia before we surrender our citizens. After reading clause 19 of the Bill, which deals with the determination of eligibility for surrender, I became very cognisant of what we had done in the recent past. This is one of the reasons that the Opposition will be proposing an amendment to clause 19 which deals with the provision of prima facie evidence of guilt being submitted here before people are in fact surrendered. I recognise-and the Attorney may well answer this point-that there are certain procedural steps that might be taken. There is a capacity for people to apply administratively in certain circumstances if they think that there was inadequate evidence of guilt. Perhaps an Attorney might be persuaded to act, but I do not think Australians ought to be put at risk of being surrendered to an overseas country for a trial without prima facie evidence of guilt and that question being reviewable only in a sense here administratively. I believe that our Attorneys are conscientious but, in accordance with the rule of law that I believe ought to apply, Australian citizens ought not be put on trial, and incur the expense of a trial, overseas without being able to obtain the same sorts of elementary rights that they have in relation to serious offences here in Australia. Generally speaking, here in Australia if one is to be put on trial for a serious offence one has to be brought before a magistrate and there has to be a preliminary hearing at which the Crown adduces prima facie evidence of guilt. Clause 19 (1) talks about a person being on remand under section 15 of the Act; the Attorney-General giving notice; application being made to a magistrate by or on behalf of the person or the extradition country concerned for proceedings to be conducted; and the magistrate considering whether the person and the extradition country have had reasonable time in which to prepare for the conduct of proceedings. The clause states: . . . the magistrate shall conduct proceedings to determine whether the person is eligible for surrender in relation to the extradition offence or extradition offences for which surrender of the person is sought by the extradition country. It sets out the circumstances in which the magistrate may conduct an inquiry. Clause (2) sets out the basis upon which that inquiry is to be considered. It states: For the purposes of subsection (1), the person is only eligible for surrender in relation to an extradition offence for which surrender of the person is sought by the extradition country if: (a) the supporting documents in relation to the offence have been produced to the magistrate; That is not prima facie evidence. A person merely has to produce supporting documents. Clause (2) continues: (b) where this Act applies in relation to the extradition country subject to any limitations, conditions, exceptions or qualifications that require the production to the magistrate of any other documents-those documents have been produced to the magistrate; (c) the magistrate is satisfied that, if the conduct of the person constituting the offence in relation to the extradition country, or equivalent conduct, had taken place in the part of Australia where the proceedings are being conducted and at the time at which the extradition request in relation to the person was received, that conduct or that equivalent conduct would have constituted an extradition offence in relation to that part of Australia; and (d) the person does not satisfy the magistrate that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is an extradition objection in relation to the offence. Clause (3) defines what are `supporting documents'. The term `supporting documents' means a duly authenticated warrant issued by the extradition country; it is not prima facie evidence. Clause (3) (b) states: . . . if the offence is an offence of which the person has been convicted-such duly authenticated documents as provide evidence of: (i) the conviction; (ii) the sentence imposed or the intention to impose a sentence; and (iii) the extent to which a sentence imposed has not been carried out . . . I find it extraordinary that in my case, for instance, although I might not have even been overseas somebody might produce a warrant issued from another country in relation to an offence that might be said to have taken place. I cannot challenge at that point whether or not I had even been overseas at that time. I could be put to the expense of a trial in another jurisdiction and all that that involves in a judicial system that hopefully might be the same as ours. The case might be before a jury that would be empanelled abroad. I might be put on trial-even though I may not even have been there in that country-because somebody produces supporting documents. I might be naive, but I would have thought that our courts ought to be able to look at the fundamental question as to whether or not I was overseas at the relevant time, whether or not there was some substantial case for me to answer in the terms that we understand it here in our own courts before we commit people to trial. This can happen to any Australian citizen. We are not talking about people from abroad who might be in Australia who are trying to hide, although it may well apply to such people. We are talking about any Australian citizen for whom extradition is sought. A foreign court might want to deal with an alleged offence that may have been dealt with in our courts. I am not alone in my concern about this. The shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), has spoken at length from documents provided to the Opposition by some people with some experience in this area. I speak particularly of Professor Shearer of the University of New South Wales who wrote a very helpful document on this matter. He reveals the basis upon which this situation has arisen. He makes it clear that in his view the situation of Australian citizens under the Bill is significant in relation to evidence of guilt and that the Bill is most unsatisfactory and requires closer scrutiny. He puts the position that I understand existed until 1985 and, I must say, until I read this Bill, thought still operated in Australia. He states: Until 1985 all foreign countries were required under the Act, as it was then worded, and under the relevant treaties, to present evidence of the facts alleged against the fugitive. This evidence was reviewed by the Australian magistrate who had to consider, under the tests applied within the magistrate's normal jurisdiction, whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant placing the person on trial, in other words a prima facie case. The same rule applied to extradition requests from Commonwealth countries (except for New Zealand, which under the simplified procedures retained in the present Bill is treated for extradition purposes rather like a State of Australia). The requirement that prima facie evidence of guilt be produced against an accused fugitive has been a feature of extradition laws in this country, and other parts of the Commonwealth, since 1843. Its clear purpose- he puts it much more nicely than I have been able to put it to date- has been to ensure that persons were not in danger of being sent thousands of miles to another country for trial, perhaps in strange conditions, for an alleged crime merely on the bare allegation of a foreign government. A review of the evidence also indirectly re-inforced the other protections of the rights of the fugitive given by extradition law, such as the prohibition against extradition for politically motivated offences, since such circumstances might not emerge without a full review of the case. We recognise that there are certain circumstances such as political matters that are not going to be involved. I am not concerned about political matters because while people might be sought for political reasons, if a government is determined to obtain an Australian citizen in Australia and to put him on trial overseas in another jurisdiction, if it is prepared to go so far as to knock up a case against such an Australian citizen, I do not think it would do so in what might appear to be an obviously politically motivated area. It could well do so in another area altogether. Professor Shearer continued: The prima facie case requirement was removed from the Extradition (Foreign States) Act (but not from the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act), in 1985. It remained a requirement thereafter only if the relevant treaty specified the production of such evidence. I acknowledge that there are certain circumstances in which prima facie evidence is required, but it is interesting that in the Commonwealth countries that have the same legal tradition as our country and are more likely to apply the same principles of justice the prima facie evidence test will operate. However when we are dealing with a country that operates under a different legal system, that may not have the same consciousness of principles of justice that we see as being important, we have allowed the question to go merely to the production of documents, as I read earlier from clause 19. Professor Shearer continued: A number of new treaties, or amendments to existing treaties, have been concluded since 1985 to remove the evidentiary requirement. He continued-and this ought to be clearly understood: This is an overreaction to the problems of extradition procedure and represents a threat, in particular, to the rights of Australian citizens charged with offences abroad. I think he was making the point, which I would make, that we were so anxious to obtain extradition of some people who had left Australia that we were prepared to give away important rights in relation to the protection of other Australian citizens in regard to offences which may or may not have been committed abroad, but about which allegations have been raised that they have been committed abroad, warrants have been issued, and so on. We have given away such rights that Australian citizens might have been able to rely upon in the expectation that we might be able to get back the Trimboles of this world-although in that case, no longer of this world. I think people will appreciate the analogy I am making. We were anxious to negotiate these treaties; therefore, we gave away some of the protection that we would have ordinarily seen as being important to all Australians. Professor Shearer continued: The justification given for such a precipitate shift in Australia's legislative and treaty practice of extradition away from the common law tradition to the civil law tradition is that those countries experience difficulty in satisfying the prima facie evidence requirement. The civil law's inquisitorial approach to criminal procedure is said to be unsuited to the production of evidence in a form suited to the courts of Australia which follow the accusatorial style of procedure. In short, our system of justice is found inconvenient by those countries. He made the following point-and I would make it also: Mere convenience should not, however, be the determining factor. It is surely absurd that Australians under the present Bill can be sent back to Britain or Canada only on the production of a prima facie case, to the satisfaction of an Australian magistrate, but can be sent to Germany or Japan, without any evidence of guilt at all having to be produced. All that is required under the present Bill in such cases are the documents describing but not evidencing the offences set out in clause 19. This point is altogether disguised in the Bill and would not be apparent to even a careful reader. Interestingly, it was apparent to me and it was one of the reasons that this matter was raised in our own counsels and further pursued. He continued: But the truth is that it is intended to make regulations under the Act that will preserve the prima facie case requirement in relation to Commonwealth countries, in order to maintain reciprocity under the London Scheme of 1966 . . . but that regulations made under the newer treaties with foreign countries will contain no such evidentiary requirement. It is wrong that such a fundamental aspect of extradition should not be addressed in the body of the Bill itself but is relegated to the regulation-making power. Moreover it must be remembered that under the present Bill the Attorney-General has the sole discretion to decide whether the extradition of an Australian citizen should be refused or allowed. This aspect of the extradition process is not reviewable by any court or tribunal. In other words, whatever confidence I have in the Attorney may not be the confidence that one might have in whoever replaces him from this side or his own side in the future. He or she may not have the same careful regard for the principles of justice. Should an extradition in a case involving myself or any other member of parliament or any other Australian citizen be left unreviewable, to be decided administratively? In such a case a person, simply on the basis of an accusation or a warrant, could be put to trial even if he was not overseas at the relevant time, and that matter is not able to be reviewed. Professor Shearer was very helpful. He offered this view: The better solution is to retain the prima facie case requirement for all extradition and to make provision for dispensation from certain evidentiary rules of evidence that presently complicate the proceedings from point of view of the civil law countries. He says that appropriate changes should be devised in the way in which Canada, in looking at the same question, has been considering such changes. The Opposition is proposing an amendment-the honourable member for Flinders has proposed it-to clause 19. I urge the Government to look very seriously at the proposed sub-clauses and to indicate, if it cannot accept the amendment at this time, that before the matter is finally disposed of by the Senate, appropriate amendments will be made to ensure that this simple protection is available to all Australian citizens. Extradition is not a matter which should be seen as relevant only to those people who are visiting Australia and who might try to find refuge here. It is something that is relevant to all Australian citizens, all permanent residents. They could be faced with a situation in which they are put to trial, in much the same way as they could be faced with a trial at any time in Australia, and they would expect to have the protection of our courts. Unfortunately, this Bill denies them that protection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.02) —It was with some surprise that I found myself on the speakers list for the debate on the Extradition Bill 1987. It is a tribute to the big heart of our Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), because he knows that I have some strong qualms about this legislation. The Bill, in general, can only be supported, but there are a few things that need some consideration. I notice that purely military offences are not extraditable. This, of course, means that only offences such as desertion or insubordination would be covered. It certainly would not cover military offences involving violence or criminal dealings by members of the armed forces. I also notice that we do not extradite to countries where the Attorney is not convinced that torture will not be applied or where torture is regularly used. One can only commend this. Of course, how one determines this is a little more difficult to work out. But, in general, who could complain? The death penalty raises some interesting questions, because there is no doubt that most countries apply the death penalty for the more heinous crimes, the worst sort of offences. Superficially, it would appear that we will protect people who commit the more serious offences but offer no protection to those who commit offences of a lesser nature. In reality, of course, the fears expressed by the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), are unfounded because people who got into Australia after committing such crimes would only have done so by lying. The powers under the Migration Act allow those people to be deported. They can be deported completely independently of any extradition proceedings. So the reality is that that would not occur. So to my mind it seems to be irrelevant and should not be in the Bill for that reason. It seems a little incongruous that we are prepared to pontificate upon this point, based on our abhorrence of the death penalty, yet we are prepared to throw out of the window the need for a prima facie case to be established, which is fundamental to our law and basic to our culture. I would say this deficiency is a far greater affront to our culture than the consideration that some other countries impose the death penalty. I do not think the safeguards in the Bill go anywhere near far enough and I think we should be looking at two other points. Firstly, the Attorney should take into consideration whether legal aid is available. Very often people are extradited to countries where they will be in a foreign jurisdiction without legal aid available to them. With the best will in the world they will not get a fair trial and it is absurd to suggest that they will. Another amendment to the Bill I would like to see is one which the Attorney-General told me he does not have the power to make. I do not hold his view because it is my view that our Attorney-General is omnipotent. The Attorney told me he does not have the power to grant bail to someone for whom extradition is sought. I think this is outrageous and it is also silly. It is very expensive for this country and it greatly offends the civil liberties of the person involved. I think the determining factor should be whether the person is likely to try to escape or avoid custody. Where the Attorney-General can be convinced that would not be the case bail should be granted while litigation is in process. I raise that because of the Orionia affair, in which two American citizens sought by Israel have been in gaol for something like 16 months now. I have been told, `It is really their own fault. They keep using the process of our law to avoid deportation'. I think they are entitled to do that. They are obviously very scared of being extradited to Israel, where they will have no legal aid and will be in a foreign jurisdiction where, I believe, they have great cause to believe that justice will not be available to them. This is a very important area. I think the absence in clause 11 (5) (b) of a requirement that a prima facie case be established stems largely from the Trimbole case and the embarrassment the Government found itself in when we were unable to extradite Trimbole from Ireland. I do not believe that the Government should have felt any embarrassment at all; if there was any embarrassment due it was due entirely to the incompetence of the previous Government that had years and years to keep these treaties up to date but never attempted to do so. The embarrassment certainly was not the embarrassment of this Government. I believe we threw the baby out with the bath water in not requiring this level of substantiation. Harking back to the Orionia case, the documents presented by the Israeli Government were all self-serving; they were not evidence and there is no way they could be construed as evidence. There was a warrant for the arrest of these people but the warrant was issued after they had left Israel and it was never delivered. The other evidence was of a similar nature. There were statements from people who were purporting to be company directors. In short, it was a very messy civil litigation for which there should have been no extradition process. The Attorney-General has told me that he believes it was a civil litigation. The Israeli Government chose to make it criminal and we have simply gone along with it. That is simply not good enough and to me there is clear evidence there of a great injustice. I have had extensive talks with the Attorney's departmental officers and I was singularly unimpressed with their attitude to this whole thing. I might also say that I was very unimpressed with the enthusiasm, the alacrity, with which the Commonwealth police chose to act on the request of the Israeli Government. Just a small delay would have seen these people revictualled in Australia on their way to Vanuatu and it would not have been a problem of ours. It is one which I do not believe Australia necessarily should have been involved with. I find myself with grave disquiet about that case. It makes me very cynical when I hear people talk about civil liberties and human rights when I know the lack of thought and lack of consideration that were given in this case. It was a civil case and at no stage were these people in default with money. When they left Israel in fact they were paid up 12 months in advance. It may very well be that 12 months down the track they intended to default, but the fact is they had not defaulted and no crime had been committed at that stage. I think the whole Orionia affair reflects no credit on this country and it is an episode of which I am particularly ashamed. We have this unseemly spectacle wherein these people will have been in custody for probably two years by the time the extradition process winds its way to completion. They will then be extradited to Israel, face a court in which they will not be able to afford legal aid, in an environment where they probably will not even understand the proceedings of the court, and will probably find themselves in gaol for another three or four years. But then I suppose one can excuse this on the grounds that they are only Americans! I find myself often concerned that Australia is tending to go down the American road of litigation. We are tending to become a nation of litigants and this is, I think, because lawyers basically are like the environmentalists: they are never satisfied. The more they are given, the more they want. They have an inordinate ability to complicate things and to be able to extract, for their own benefit, reimbursement for these complications. I think the Attorney-General has done a great job in simplifying the wording of this Bill. We have to give serious consideration to sub-clause 11 (5) (b). Uncontroverted evidence is a very difficult area. I do not see that one is predetermining a trial by examining documents to determine whether they are evidence. If documents are not evidence, they have nothing to do with the case and they should not even be considered. I believe that common law is a good system by and large and nothing to be ashamed of. I do not feel that we need to lower our standards to accommodate any inconveniences that may appear for those nations that operate under civil law. Mr Reith —I hope you support our amendment on the prima facie ground. Mr CAMPBELL —I must say that I am very taken with the honourable member's amendment: I think it does need serious consideration. It puts me in a dilemma which obviously will test my mettle. However, I would have felt much better about it if the Opposition had ever taken an interest in this particular case, which it clearly did not do. It did not do so because the whole thing was just too inconvenient for it at the time. I conclude with these remarks: the honourable member for Flinders would very well fit my definition of a lawyer. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.15) —I rise to take part in this debate because of concerns about this legislation somewhat similar to those expressed by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). As a lawyer, I share his non-lawyer concern that people sought to be taken to other countries for trial in other countries should be sent abroad only if our high standards of justice and the enforcement of the law are complied with. As has been pointed out by my colleagues on this side of the House, the difficulty that we find in the present circumstances has arisen because there is a fundamental difference in approach between the common law, on which our legal system is based, and the civil law, upon which the laws of many other countries are based. They are two great systems, but they approach the solution of legal problems in a quite different way. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, the common law based its enforcement of the criminal law on a territorial basis, and said that if someone committed a crime within the territory or the realm, he would be tried within the realm, and if he escaped from the realm, the authorities would seek to bring him back to the country. It was on this basis that the early history of extradition treaties and arrangements was developed. However, in the civil law system, the approach is that if one of the country's citizens is in breach of a law, whether within the realm or elsewhere in the world, he is in breach of the law of the realm and will be prosecuted when he comes back within the jurisdiction, or the authorities will seek to extradite him in certain circumstances, and certainly will seek to extradite him in relation to offences that were committed within the territory. But those countries will never allow their citizens to be extradited to another country in which they have committed an offence. So here we are, faced with a situation where we adopt the view that if an Australian citizen commits or is alleged to have committed a crime overseas, we will, under our approach to the law, allow that Australian citizen to be extradited to be dealt with in the country in which the offence was committed, a country from which he may have fled and returned back here. But if a person from a civil law country such as France, Italy, Spain, or many other countries, commits a crime in Australia, flees Australia and goes back to France, for example, under the application of the civil law, the French authorities will never surrender that French citizen for trial in Australia. Whether they then try that French citizen because the crime committed in Australia is deemed to be a crime in French law, is a matter for the discretions that apply within their legal system. The other principle that we have always tended to apply is one that says we will treat in our law everyone in the same way. In the light of that conflict between the civil law countries and the common law countries, we have to question that, for if we do not, we downgrade the significance of Australian citizenship for we give less protection to Australians than other countries give to their citizens. In making these remarks, no one, I least of all, would suggest that someone who has been in breach of the criminal law should get away with it. My concern is that there are cases where people are alleged to have committed crimes they have not committed. We have a legal system that tests that question. In a trial within our own country on serious crime, the prosecuting authorities have to establish a prima facie case. The question at issue here is whether people who are regarded as fugitives by some other country, and who are found and arrested in Australia, should be returned to the requesting country simply on the basis of some documents that describe the alleged offence. It might be all right for someone from a civil law country to be sent back on the basis of the documents of record. We may be prepared to accept that under certain circumstances and say that we will vary our approach to the law by saying that, insofar as the law of Australia is concerned, it will apply universally, but where it relates to offences committed in other countries by citizens of that country, we will allow that country's law to apply, subject to concerns of a more serious nature that are addressed in this legislation. In those cases we may be prepared to vary our approach to Australian laws, but we should not vary that approach in relation to Australia's citizens, whether born here or with citizenship conferred upon them. They should get the protection of Australia's legal system. Therefore, I strongly support the amendments to be moved by my colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). I would hope that this sort of issue is one on which the members of this Parliament can be truly members of Parliament and I view it as a matter of important legal consequences affecting Australian citizens and others. Having heard the honourable member for Kalgoorlie speak as he did, I would hope that he will have the courage to go to his parliamentary leaders and ask whether, on a matter such as this, he could be freed from the normal Caucus view-he and others of his colleagues. I think that there would be some who would have the sort of concerns that we on this side of the House are expressing in this regard. I do not believe that we should surrender Australian citizens who are alleged to have committed crimes in other countries unless sufficient evidence is presented before Australian courts to satisfy the normal prima facie requirement, subject perhaps to some watering down of that requirement, insofar as the evidentiary rules are concerned. I can understand how it might be difficult for some other countries to satisfy common law evidentiary requirements. Therefore, while giving those people the protection of the prima facie principle, the evidentiary watering down would not significantly lessen the protection that the prima facie rule test applies. The only other way to go would be for us to adopt the civil law approach, and that would be to say that, so far as we are concerned, where Australian citizens commit an offence anywhere else in the world, we will try them here and bring evidence from the countries in which they committed that offence. That could be argued, and a strong case could be made for it. We could give to Australian citizens the right of the protection of Australian laws and if they breach the law of this country or laws of other countries, we should perhaps consider giving Australia's courts that jurisdiction that is now to be conferred, by section 45 of this Bill, in all cases. This Bill goes part of the way. It says that, under certain circumstances, we will give Australian citizens the right to be tried in this country in respect of offences committed overseas. That is to be made available only on a discretionary basis. I imagine that great pressure will be brought to bear on the Australian Government and the Australian Attorney-General to grant extradition because it will be argued that it will be very expensive to conduct the trial in Australia and very difficult to bring witnesses from around the world. In my view to say that the clause 45 provision should be made available only at the discretion of the Attorney-General is not a sufficient protection of Australian citizens when that clause is coupled with our departure from the requirement of the prima facie case test before we will allow an Australian citizen to be extradited overseas. I must say that I have a somewhat lesser concern for those people I would perceive as fugitive, that is, citizens of other countries who seek entry to Australia because they think that by being in Australia they will avoid the rigours of the law of the country in which they committed the crime. In most cases, it is the law of the country of their own citizenship. If they are citizens of another country and would not be subject to the acts to which I have referred, such as torture and certain other penalties, I think that they should be extradited to their own country. I would not have nearly as much concern if such people were extradited under the evidentiary provisions of their country, merely on the record. In this legislation the difficulty is to find a means of meshing the quite contradictory principles of two great systems of law. Given the extensive spread of the civil law system and the great protection that countries with such a system give to their citizens, I am alarmed to think that we might be continuing to downgrade the value and the protection afforded Australian citi-zenship because the Government is not prepared to give serious consideration to the Opposition's request that we reinstate in our extradition requirements the establishment of a prima facie case before an Australian citizen is extradited to any country. As the honourable member for Flinders pointed out, that is a requirement in regard to certain treaty arrangements with Commonwealth countries. Therefore, why should it not be a mandatory requirement in the case of extradition requests to other countries around the world? As I have already said, it is a matter of interest that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie should have spoken so forcefully in relation to a particular case because, as he reads the evidence, it is a matter of some concern as to whether a foreign country has trumped up some charges relating to people now held under extradition warrants in this country. He has salved his conscience by saying that, because some members on this side of the House have not taken the same personal interest in the case that he has, this is a justification for allowing similar cases to occur, perhaps next year, the year after or some time further in the future. He does not have the political courage to put his vote where his mouth is and vote for the reintroduction in this legislation of the prima facie requirement. However, if he cannot apply that to all cases where extradition orders are required, I would urge him to vote for its reintroduction particularly in the case of all Australian citizens who are alleged to have committed crimes in other countries. I do not believe that putting that requirement back into the legislation would mean any lessening of the enforcement of the proper legal procedures against people who have, in fact, committed crimes. By putting it back into the legislation it would certainly protect those Australian citizens who, through some circumstance or another, find themselves confronted by what can be described only as an ill-prepared allegation or a trumped up charge. What the Government is proposing to do in the Bill now before the House is to put Australian citizens at risk of being extradited to countries, whose legal systems they would not understand, on the basis of charges which lack any substance whatsoever. Therefore, I urge the Government and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to reconsider this position and to take the action necessary to ensure that the important amendment moved by the honourable member for Flinders is incorporated in the Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.30) —in reply-Basically, the main objection raised in this debate on the Extradition Bill and the Extradition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill seems to relate to the fact that in this country we have apparently almost unilaterally abandoned the prima facie requirement relating to extradition. I want to set the record straight. Firstly, it is recognised that we have been able to enter into a number of treaties which we were not able to enter into before because we would not agree to adopt what the European countries wanted. I refer to those countries whom we recognise as having a fair system of justice. Those countries did not want to be put to the trouble and difficulty of having to produce sworn evidence, as the British have always insisted. Those countries wanted us to accept that when the government of any one of them made a statement as to the nature and details of the offence that would be accepted. We agreed with that. The problem the British have faced is that they have never been able to get extradition treaties with European countries. We can understand the position of the British who, on the basis of common law, insisted that there be sworn evidence. Let me make the further point that the prima facie case was never on the basis that the evidence would be subject to any test or cross-examination. It merely had to be sworn before a judge or something of that kind. Therefore, while the British were in the position of applying that sort of standard, none of the European countries actually would comply with it. Therefore, there was no chance of any person entering Britain from Europe being extradited back. The British would not accept anybody else's standard. Mr Wilson —Why don't you limit the change? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I ask the honourable member to bear with me. I was at a conference of Commonwealth Ministers in Harare. All of them-except the British-said that it was about time that they abandoned the outmoded British standard. I will mention also that the Canadians might have had second thoughts. We are actually in a position now of having bilateral arrangements with all Commonwealth countries because now we do not have the requirement of sworn evidence as against a statement by the relevant government as to the nature of the offence and its particulars. Therefore, if the Government were to accept the suggestion that it has done something wrong-I submit that it has not-we would place in jeopardy all the treaties we have with European countries. The requirement of sworn evidence is not now the standard. I understand that the British themselves are about to change their own rules. Mr Reith —Yes, but not with everybody. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman has quite effectively said `not with everybody'. We do not have treaties with everybody. We could get into a nice argument about a matter that was raised here by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). I respect the views of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. I do not deviate from that. However, his point is that even though we have a treaty with a country we do not need to respect the laws of that country. He is entitled to take that view. However, it puts us in all sorts of difficulties as to whether we should have a treaty in the first place, if that is the position. If we apply the same standard, why would we have a treaty with any of these countries? In fact we do not have treaties with the Eastern bloc countries because we do not recognise their systems of justice. Going back to the conference at Harare, at which there were representatives of 40-odd countries sitting around the table, quite frankly, the only one out was the United Kingdom. That was on the basis that at that stage it could not see any reason why it should change its standard. But it had to acknowledge that there is not a lot of difference between a reputable country-a country with which one has a treaty, a country which one acknowledges has principles of justice-on the one hand saying, `We want a citizen returned to us', and giving a statement about the citizen's conduct, the particulars of the offence and the fact that it is a crime within that country's criminal code, and on the other hand saying, `In addition, we want some sworn evidence'. In other words, we are not going to accept what the country says; we are going to accept some form of sworn evidence which the country is not accustomed to getting and which in fact in many cases has no procedures to obtain. If honourable members opposite say, `That is the British standard we inherited; we used to be part of the British Empire and therefore we are going to stick with that', we will have no treaties. The position in Australia is that when a magistrate has the matter before him, he has to be satisfied that the request from a country is a legitimate request, it is in order and it meets the requirements of our standard; that is, that it is a country with which we have a treaty. In accordance with the treaty we look at the requests of a country, particularly from the point of view of the identity of a person. The person concerned can give evidence to the effect that the wrong person is involved and that should satisfy the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who seemed to be concerned that he might be subject to extradition. I do not know why he thinks that. Mr Reith —It is a worry. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a worry for him, but it is not a worry for me. If it is a question of mistaken identity, that evidence certainly can be submitted and the other questions can be dealt with on the basis of the nature of the offence. It is acknowledged that a person cannot give evidence of innocence because we have no facilities to try each case in Australia. That would be quite ridiculous. Mr Reith —I said that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member did say that. I am not saying that everything he said was wrong. The point that I am making is that extradition is an interesting aspect of a legal procedure where another country has requested that a citizen, usually of that country, be returned to it. We make the point in the Extradition Bill 1987, which all honourable members have applauded, that our citizens do not have to be returned. I assume that under the old system the British were prepared to return their citizens if they were obviously satisfied in terms of what they deemed to be the standard of proof. They have never had to face up to this undertaking because there was never an actual chance of anybody making a request to the satisfaction of the British system. But now that there is some comity through international treaties and arrangements under which certain countries recognise each other-for example, the free world-a country is expected to abide by those standards because it accepts the principles and standards of justice that those countries apply. Opposition members cannot come into this chamber now and suddenly say, `I made a dreadful mistake. I was rushed into this in 1985 because obviously I had not read the Bill properly. I now want to say that all that was wrong'. Mr Wilson —It was. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman says that it is wrong. If it is wrong, the British are now apparently going to go down the wrong road. What are Opposition members trying to do in respect of alleged sworn evidence being tested by cross-examination? What is the basic difference between a government submitting evidence and those opposite saying, `Well, it is really not in the right form. I want it sworn before a judge or something.'? There is no question of carrying out a trial or testing the evidence by cross-examination. We are talking about witnesses who are not here and never have been here. They were never available under the British system either. Are we to try and make an assessment of the evidence on mere paperwork following a request from a government? I point out to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie-he does not necessarily accept what I am saying-that there was a request from a government. Married to that request was a court order made by a judge saying that this was to be the position, that a certain vessel was not to be removed. In other words, it was not just done because somebody thought that these people were Christians and, therefore, ought to be dealt with in a certain way. That is the problem we are facing. Again, in fairness to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, I admire his application to this task. It is a bit unfair to say that these people are in gaol because we cannot let them out. They were not in gaol until such time as they were found to be subject to extradition. Since then-quite legitimately from their point of view but, nevertheless, because of the nature of the proceedings and the number of them-they have been going to, and are still entitled to go to, every court in Australia. I will not say any more because the matter is still sub judice. That is the reason for having an extradition order being made. The law is that a person is not able to get bail. In fact, in many cases-it does not apply to these people-we do not find people after bail has been granted in the first instance. We just had a recent example in Melbourne where a judge legitimately granted bail and the person concerned, who is the subject of an extradition application, is no longer around. I suppose it is a normal human reaction to say, `Why should I stay if I can leave?'. And that is what people do. But it does create a sense of embarrassment for us when we lose the citizen of a country which has produced evidence and with which we have a treaty. Mr Reith —I agree with you; I said so. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member is right again because he is agreeing with me. Mr Reith —That is twice. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, that is two shots for the honourable member today. Mr Reith —Two out of two. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is two out of two. I think that all honourable members basically understand the problems of nations and the difficulties of dealing with alleged criminal behaviour. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) said to me, `Look, you are really going to encourage every bandit in the world to come here and because they are liable to the death penalty you will not be able to get rid of them'. That is not really the situation. In most cases-I am reminded of the Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act-people who commit crimes, such as hijacking, are dealt with in Australia. They are punished here. That is the position and that is the obligation under Article 4 of that Act, which states: Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction. . . In other words, there is an obligation to deal with such a person. That is the position here. I acknowledge the fact that a country may say, `Look, if you extradite our citizen, we will carry out the death penalty'. I am barred from saying that I cannot extradite that person. But I would not be anxious to extradite a person when our own laws do not agree with the death penalty. For example, there have been cases such as this in respect of California. One finds as a matter of course that all these countries, because of their sense of justice, are prepared to say, `Look, we will give you an undertaking that the person will be dealt with, but the death penalty will not be carried out'. We accept that. We are not having any troubles with this situation. Mr Reith —Well, why tie your hands? Why introduce it if you are not having any troubles? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are not really tying our hands. I will make another point for the honourable member for Flinders. He probably will not agree with me, so that will make the score two out of three. The honourable member seems to be suggesting that because of what is involved with extradition, there is no such thing as deportation. I am not going to go into the argument-- Mr Reith —You cannot have de facto extradition. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We cannot have it in the principles of the High Court. That is the other factor. We then come to what the High Court would say-and there are decisions on this-in respect of whether a person is entitled to resist deportation for other reasons. It has got nothing to do with extradition; it has got everything to do with deportation. Deportation is not negated by this issue and the honourable member for Flinders has got to understand that. Under the law of our land, there are other principles that would prevent deportation. The honourable member wants to conveniently confine his argument by saying `This is a great opportunity. They are all going to read this particular section and they will all be galloping over here and the Attorney-General will not be able to get rid of them'. I do not think that is the position at all. I might not be able to extradite them if the country says that it is going to kill them when they come back. If that is the issue-- Mr Reith —They are not going to say they are going to kill them because they have not tried them yet and we are satisfied with their justice system. So that statement is not worth anything. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Unfortunately, the honourable member has used his 20 minutes. If he will only give me another seven minutes to finish, I will be able to say that, whilst I do not agree with him, countries always, because of their systems of justice, give a fair assessment as to what they will do. These countries do not say that they will kill these people; they do say that they will try them. They say, `We will not carry out the death penalty', and we accept the position. It still leaves us with the other position where those citizens could be deported anyway and they certainly would not be subject to extradition. But it does not mean that they will stay here forever simply because somebody wants to extradite them. We have said to these other countries that we cannot do this because they will not give us an undertaking. This brings into play another set of principles in the Migration Act. I am certainly giving clear cut decisions to the whole Australian nation. I do not think it is the opinion of the Australian nation that people should be subject to the death penalty. Of course, we acknowledge that if our citizens are caught overseas we can do little about it. But when people are here we do not apply the death penalty; we adopt a position, which I think reflects public opinion in Australia, where we do not send them back for execution. Mr Wilson —You are mixing up foreign systems and the Australian system. You are not separating the issue. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am separating the issue that the Opposition will not separate. A country with which we have had treaties is prepared to be flexible about this difficult matter. It does not mean that people go unpunished. The Opposition is so inflexible that it is demanding-the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) said this in his own statement-that we go back to the old British system of prima facie evidence which would negate half of our treaties. That would mean that we would get nobody back here. That is how silly it is. It is legitimate for honourable members opposite to say that, when I came into this portfolio, we were bereft of treaties and we had criminals all over the place in Europe. When the Opposition was in government it did nothing about it. That is the indictment of the Opposition when it was in government. The Opposition has to accept that I am now having to grapple with this situation and I am trying to negotiate treaties with those countries that we recognise have a fair judicial system. But there is that barrier to extradition in that those countries are not entitled to carry out the death penalty. In the few minutes left to me I will deal with the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Flinders to amend clause 19. The amendment provides for people to be given copies of all documents at the time that they are arrested. I accept the principle of the amendment but I am advised that the amendment should be moved to clause 16 and I am prepared to move the same amendment to that clause. As a matter of fact, people who are arrested are given copies of all the documents now. We are merely putting in place in the Act something that already happens. When we look at this whole argument about the problems that we are facing we see that they are not as alleged by the Opposition. I acknowledge the matters that have been mentioned, but the whole gamut of the debate has been on what is called the prima facie case. Normally in proceedings in this country, a prima facie case relates to the committal stage when people are given a chance to talk about whether there is a prima facie case, having heard witnesses for the prosecution, people having been subjected to cross-examination and the magistrate then being satisfied on the probabilities that there is a case to answer. The prima facie rule had never been used in extradition cases. Mr Wilson —Why not have one approach for Australian citizens and another approach for foreigners? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are dealing here with the extradition of citizens from other countries. Mr Wilson —No, we are not; we are talking about extradition of our own. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, we are. We have said that, from our point of view, we will not extradite our citizens-- Mr Wilson —You will not extradite our citizens? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Unless other countries will allow the extradition of their citizens and, in most cases, they do not do that. We are prepared to try those people here for offences alleged to have been committed overseas. That is what this legislation states. So we do not have the problem that the honourable member thinks we have. The problem we have, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, is where somebody else's citizens who are here are the subject of extradition. It is a slight distinction but, nevertheless, it is a very major one. I am trying to say to the Opposition that the amendment it has foreshadowed in respect of making copies of documents available is in order. The Opposition foreshadowed another amendment, to clause 21 in the following terms: Clause 21, page 18, line 24, at the end of paragraph (d) add `unless the court otherwise orders'. We cannot agree with that amendment because the court is limited as it is dealing with material that is before the magistrate. If we look at clause 21 we see that it deals with a review of magistrates' orders. The Opposition is talking about an appeal to a court. We see that clause 21 states: . . . appeals to the High Court against an order made on that appeal; the following provisions have effect: (d) the court to which the application or appeal is made shall have regard only to the material that was before the magistrate; If the Opposition were to add `unless the court otherwise orders' it would mean that the court would have to look at some other matter that was not before the magistrate. In extradition cases we are dealing with matters that are limited in the sense of what can be put before the magistrate. We cannot go back and deal with the other issue-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16 (Notice by Attorney-General). Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.50) —I move: Clause 16, page 13, lines 11-13, omit subclause (3), substitute the following subclause: ``(3) As soon as practicable after the person is remanded under section 15 or the notice is issued, whichever is the later: (a) a copy of the notice; and (b) copies of the documents referred to in paragraph 19 (2) (a) and, if applicable, paragraph 19 (2) (b); shall be given to the person.''. I acknowledge that this is the same amendment that is proposed by the Opposition, which I accept. The only difference is that this amendment is to clause 16, as opposed to the Opposition's proposal to amend clause 19. These documents are already being given to people now and we are merely putting into statute form something that already operates in practice. Mr REITH(Flinders)(11.51) —I thank the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for acceeding to our proposal on this matter. It is a sensible proposal. I endorse the remarks that he has made and I thank him for his co-operation in this matter. Amendment agreed to. Clause 16, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 17 and 18-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 19 (Determination of eligibility for surrender). Mr REITH(Flinders)(11.53) —I move: (1) Clause 19, page 16, after subclause (4) insert the following subclauses: ``(4A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in the case of all extradition applications the magistrate shall determine whether the evidence produced by or on behalf of the extradition country satisfies the prima facie evidence test. ``(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A), a reference to the prima facie evidence test being satisfied has the same meaning as in paragraph 11 (5) (b). ``(4C) In determining whether evidence satisfies the prima facie evidence test, the magistrate shall receive any evidence produced by or on behalf of the extradition country that would be admissible in criminal or extradition proceedings before the courts of the extradition country. ``(4D) For the purposes of subsection (4C), evidence may be admissible if it is provided by or on behalf of the extradition country in duly authenticated form.''. This amendment relates to the matter of the prima facie rule. I must say that I am very sorry that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) is not in the chamber as we had quite a discussion about the prima facie rule not so long ago. I wish to make a few comments in regard to some of the points made by the Attorney-General. The prima facie test is whether evidence adduced by the prosecutor, if uncontroverted, would be sufficient to put a person on trial. It is a screening test. We are not putting up a proposal that we have a trial in Australia and we then have a trial in the requesting country. That would simply defeat the purpose of extradition. We say that there ought to be a screening test. In fact, in regard to clause 45, as a result of the Government's proposal there is now an inconsistency and lack of symmetry, because the Government says that if somebody is sent overseas as a result of an extradition request, the prima facie rule is not needed and it will not operate, but if clause 45 is to operate and a trial is conducted in Australia, then in that situation the person has the benefit of the application of the prima facie rule. What is good in one case is not good in the other. It is an anomaly and I am surprised that we cannot seem to battle our way through it and to come up with a satisfactory response to this problem. The Attorney-General kept talking about sworn evidence, but that is not a requirement under clause 19. The fact is that the Opposition says that there ought to be a screening process. The prima facie rule as we propose it would bring some consistency to the Government's legislation which we have before us today. The rationale for the decision taken hastily in 1985 was that we had to abolish the prima facie rule because the European and civil law countries had problems with the hearsay rule. I have heard the Attorney-General mention that fact on numerous occasions, and he said it again today. Our amendment brings the prima facie rule back into operation. The prima facie case may be proved on affidavit evidence. We do not suggest that witnesses should be flown to Australia to be available in such a hearing before a magistrate but, rather, we simply say that we recognise the problems that have arisen and, in putting back the prima facie rule as contained in our amendment, we meet those problems. It is not a question of abrogating treaties. The reality is that, as I think the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said, in 1985 this Parliament took a decision that it should not have taken. This amendment very neatly meets the difficulties which gave rise to the 1985 proposal and, at the same time, it meets our requirements that the Australian system of justice should not fall into line willy-nilly because some of the civil law countries have had some difficulties in the past in the sense that they were not prepared or were not able to meet our evidentiary rules. Let us recognise that fact. I believe that the form of words contained in this amendment is innovative and constructive. I hope that, if the Government does not accept them today, in the weeks ahead the Attorney-General will have an opportunity to look further at it. We understand the problem that the Government has and that is why we have drafted the amendment in this manner. I think it is a solution. We have received very good advice on this matter from somebody who has provided advice to the Department in the past, so it is not advice that anybody can just cast to one side. I express the hope that the Government will look at our proposal in a constructive sort of way and I commend the amendment to the committee. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(11.59) —I have great difficulty with clause 19 and, from experience, I oppose it. I believe that the Opposition is somewhat confused. I believe also that clause 19 is particularly dangerous in respect of citizens other than Australian citizens. Any person in this country should be entitled to the same level of protection as is afforded to Australian citizens, and I do not agree with honourable members opposite who have put a case that there is something sacrosanct about being an Australian citizen. If a system of justice is to be of any value, those standards must be applied universally and to all people. On that basis, foreigners in this country should have the exact same entitlements. In respect of the case to which the Attorney-General has already referred, the Orionia case, the fact is that in those circumstances the Israelis asked for an extradition. When I objected on the ground of insufficient evidence, the Israelis then provided evidence to cover the grounds that I raised. When I raised a further objection, back came some more evidence. Every time evidence was received, it was self-serving evidence which would not have stood the test in court. The Attorney-General said that a court order was signed by an Israeli judge and that is true, but it was signed after the event. I do not see how a court order restraining a vessel from sailing but which was issued after the vessel had sailed can have any validity at all and it is beyond my comprehension how this can be the case. I am aware also that a parallel of this concern is the case of an Australian citizen, Barry White, who I think was very unjustly treated by the Israelis. When I took this matter up with the Department of Foreign Affairs and said that in the matter the international law of the sea should have applied, the Department agreed with me, but it said that the international law is not recognised by the Israelis and that they were a law unto themselves. I very seriously question whether we should have an extradition treaty with a country which adopts these standards. I think that, in the general sense, what the Attorney-General is saying is right, but if people's liberties are allowed to be eroded at the corners, the whole system is threatened. Quite clearly, in this case there is a risk of injustice which has not been addressed simply because we have adopted this broad brush approach to these matters. I do not believe that is good enough. I am unable to support clause 19 as it stands and, therefore, I am afraid that I am bound to support the Opposition's amendment. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(12.02) —I was inte-rested to hear what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) said because, if one is logical about the approach of equality before the law in Australia, when we come to clause 45 in a moment, one should say that that section, which gives jurisdiction to Australian courts to try Australian citizens for offences committed overseas, changes the balance and that that section should not give those Australian citizens that special protection that is referred to of allowing the Attorney-General to have those citizens tried in Australia. In the context of the debate on this clause, I will refer to something that the Attorney-General said in the second reading debate and I will ask him: Has he approved the extradition of any Australian citizens and, if he has, has he approved their extradition to countries that would not allow the extradition of their citizens to Australia in similar circumstances? Mr Lionel Bowen —Are you asking me personally? Mr WILSON —I am asking whether that has ever been done over the past five years. Mr Lionel Bowen —I will answer in a minute. Mr WILSON —I thank the Attorney-General for saying that he will do that, because I cannot help wondering, in the light of his earlier res-ponse in respect of the more general debate relating to the prima facie rule, which is linked into the question as to how it affects Australian citizens, whether in the case of clause 45 there should be an obligation for the trial in Australia of Australian citizens who have committed of-fences in countries which would not themselves extradite their own citizens to Australia in circumstances where the crime was of a similar nature, rather than leaving this matter to the Attorney-General's discretion. If the Government were to do that, it would alleviate some of my concern. If a country would not extradite its citizens to Australia, Australia should never extradite its citizens to that country; we should offer them trial in Australia. The question of the prima facie rule in regard to Australian citizens would be satisfied in a different way. At present, that clause leaves the situation open and discretionary, and I wonder whether amendments should be moved to appropriate clauses, such as clauses 22 or 45, to take away the existing discretion and provide that the only countries to which Australia will extradite Australian citizens will be those which will agree to reciprocity of arrangements in respect of their citizens, otherwise we would be putting Australian citizens at a relative disadvantage because we would not be making it mandatory that clause 45 be applied to others. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.07) —I have limited time in which to deal with three matters. In answer to my colleague from Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), I make the point that there is an order by the court in Beersheba-and I know there is a contest about it-following a decision by Mr Justice Gilardi who determined the ownership of a certain vessel. The charge is one of theft and stealing, not disobeying a court injunction. We face the problem that there is what we call prima facie evidence of the highest calibre in terms of the court having not only determined what had happened but also ownership. I know that that is in dispute, but the fact is that that is of some significance when the Government of Israel asks for these citizens to be sent back when they are not Australian citizens. This takes up the matters raised by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson); if those people were Australian citizens, because the Israeli nation does not extradite its citizens, we would be able to deal with these people here on that basis with a discretion. That is what we are talking about. If we were not able to obtain the evidence that is required to satisfy our laws in prosecution, I have a discretion not to do that. If we could not get the evidence and we could not get the witnesses, we would not do it. That is the reason for the discretion. The other matter to which I refer-from what the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) said, it is most important, and I hope that what I am about to say will mean that he will not pursue his amendment-is that at present the Criminal Justice Bill is before the United Kingdom Parliament. It removes the requirement that foreign countries provide prima facie evidence in support of extradition requests. The United Kingdom has abandoned that principle. We do not want to go back to what the United Kingdom will abandon. I trust, having said that, that that will be the answer. That was obviously to be the position following the Harare conference. The British were one out. I acknowledge that the Canadians are thinking of doing something, but they are the only ones who are thinking along those lines, and legislation before the British Parliament will remove the requirement, the reason being that the British have not been able to negotiate any extradition treaties with Europe. No European country has been able to extradite anyone from Britain for more than 40 years, and so there is a complete impasse. We all know that, with modern criminal activity, it is important to talk about not only extradition of people but also forfeiture of assets. We must have the ability to recognise that, if there is a conviction in one country, assets can be forfeited because of that conviction. The Swiss in particular are entering into treaties with Australia on that very basis. It helps us no end, because a number of Australian criminals have been prepared to put their assets into Swiss bank accounts. We can say, `If we get a conviction, the Swiss will be able to do something about it'. Therefore, the world is working in unison in dealing with criminal conduct. May I say, with some sense of modesty, that since I have held this portfolio Australia has signed, or is about to sign, about 20 extradition treaties, with a further 16 being subject to negotiation. There is an enormous gap in our position when we consider the likes of the people we have had to get back from countries in Europe, and when we look at the assets we are confiscating. It is a very simple solution to a modern problem which arises because of the rapidity of travel on aircraft. People who are usually pretty sharp at evading the law do not stay in one place for long enough so that they can be dealt with. Therefore, we are chasing many people at the same time, as are other countries. The problem with the Opposition's amendment-even if we agreed with it, which we do not-is that proposed clause 19 (4c) would require proof of the evidentiary laws of the requesting country in the Australian courts. Every time a court sought to adduce evidence, there would have to be strict proof of the foreign law relating to that evidence. The proposal would result in extreme costs and cumbersome procedures which would be of no real assistance to the fugitive. I make the point: If we have a request from the country concerned and if we are prepared to trust that country's legal system, I believe we ought to be prepared to trust that country's government's request when it not only makes a request but also gives a statement of the nature of the offence and some details of it. In other words, we must know whether a crime has been committed and, if so, what are the particulars. For that reason, we could not accept the amendment. The Opposition ought to rethink the situation. Honourable members opposite are asking me to rethink it, and I ask them to rethink it now in view of the fact that before the British Parliament is a Bill that will do the very thing we are doing here. I have no doubt that, if that is the situation, the Canadians will also rethink the situation. It is a waste of time if there is no comity in relation to uniform procedures for extradition of nationals from countries. I appreciate the concept put forward by the Opposition. Honourable members feel that there is a gap and that a mistake has been made, but I assure them that that is not the case. When I was in Harare arguing the position with the Commonwealth countries, I learnt that every one of them, except Britain and now perhaps Canada, was prepared to enter into bilateral arrangements. We were taking comfort from the fact that, although we did not have treaties with one another, we had the Commonwealth arrangement, and therefore a treaty was not necessary. If we were obliged to apply the old British standard of prima facie rule, it would be better to get away from that and negotiate bilateral arrangements with all Commonwealth countries. We could do that tomorrow. I believe that the simplest approach, which I proposed in Harare, is that Commonwealth countries agree to a standard that will apply to all of them. I believe it is coming to that now if the British give in. Britain was the only country that could not see its way clear at that time. If that is the position, there is no purpose in this amendment. It gives no greater protection to the fugitive. Really, it is a bit insulting to the country with which Australia has a treaty to suggest that, because that country has made a request, that is not good enough and we want to talk about sworn evidence. Further, under the proposed amendments, that sworn evidence will have to be tested by our magistrates as to whether it would be admissible as evidence in Australia. Never at any stage have we had the benefit of people giving evidence in the normal prima facie sense; there has merely been a requirement by the British that there be sworn evidence before certain people before that evidence is admitted. That facility was not available in the civil law countries; that was not the way they did it. Therefore, there was a complete gap and nothing was done for 40 years. The British have been on their own, and that is a delightful way to be, but the desired situation in relation to extradition was not achieved. Having said that, the Government could not now go back on something which we have been quite convinced was the only way we would ever be able to negotiate extradition treaties. We would be throwing them right out because we would be putting tests in there as to what sort of evidence we think ought to be admitted. I ask the House to bear in mind that the concept has gone away from the strict proof and credibility of witnesses. It would basically be in forms and procedure as to whether there was some sworn evidence before a judge. I make the point strongly that I do not think it in any way lessens the requirement that there be a statement from a government with which we have a treaty that an offence allegedly has been committed. We accept the principles of the treaty that if the person is sent back to that country they will be dealt with in accordance with the principles of justice which we think are fair and reasonable. We do not have treaties with countries that do not have such a system. I am delighted to see that the British, after all this time, have recognised the position. It is very clear, now that we are in the international world, that we have this particular ability to negotiate treaties. We do it on the basis that a government is democratic and has a judicial system that allows prosecution but requires strict proof of guilt. That is the normal thing. The honourable member for Sturt asked me whether there was anybody who had ever been sent back to a country by way of extradition. I was involved with one case. It involved an alleged Australian citizen who had obtained nationality but who held dual nationality. He left this country and had gone back to the country where he was born. He, therefore, had a nationality that that country recognised. In other words, it did not recognise the Australian nationality which he had obtained some years before. He basically lived in that country for a long time after obtaining Australian nationality. He lived in Australia for only a short time. For some reason he was always able to renew his passport which shows that we are not always as good as we should be in terms of applying the law. He was not here but he kept renewing his passport in the other country where he was living with his family. He was employed there. The charge was that he had misappropriated a substantial sum of money from his employer. He flew over here rapidly and so he was sent back on the basis that he was not prepared to accept Australian nationality. He was living and working in that country and just renewing a passport. There was only one case in which that happened. We did not think there was an injustice in that position. That is the only case of which I am aware. For the reasons I have mentioned I am not prepared to accept the amendment. Mr REITH(Flinders)(12.18) —I want to pick up some of the points that the Attorney-General has made on this matter. Obviously, I am not surprised that he will not consent to our amendment. I appreciate the history of this matter. Our suggestion for a review, a rethink, is still well based and well founded. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), you, Mr Deputy Chairman, and I have put up today a very substantial case which has been well prepared. The Attorney talks about what the British have done. I have not seen the Bill of which he speaks. He tells me that it is a Bill, so obviously it has not gone through. Mr Lionel Bowen —It is there. Mr REITH —He says that it is there. I am not aware of it. I was told that the British entered into an agreement, treaty or protocol-or whatever it was-with some of its European neighbours and by doing so abandoned, as I understand it, the prima facie rule. Of interest is the fact that we would not similarly accede to that treaty or protocol for the reason that we were not happy with some of the other signatories. It is no good just saying that if the Brits did it it is okay. I understand that the Attorney is looking for some uniformity in these things. I understand that but I do not think that the argument per se carries-- Mr Lionel Bowen —It is your argument. Mr REITH —No. Our argument was not spec- ifically what do the Brits do or not do; it was that we have had 140-odd years of common law tradition and we should not just throw it out the window as we did in 1985 without having a decent debate about it. If the Attorney wants to criticise us for coming back a second time to rehash it, we are prepared to accept that criticism. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said that the legislation was rushed through and that it is an indictment on everybody in the Parliament that these things happen. But that is not to say that in the end we should not sit down to debate it properly. That is what we are doing today. The Attorney can throw criticisms at us but I do not accept them. There is a lot of talk about consistency-do what they do and do what they say-but the reality is, as I pointed out a moment ago, that clause 45 provides that those people, for whom jurisdiction is created in Australia and for whom there can be a trial, get the benefit of our system with the prima facie rule and all, but if we are sending somebody overseas they do not get it. I want the Attorney to explain to me how it is that he reconciles that inconsistency. I just cannot see it. As to whether it is insulting to some of these foreign countries it is just not a question of whether it is an insult or whether it is not. The question is: What are the standards of justice that we believe ought to apply in Australia? That is what the issue is about. So the red herring about insulting people is irrelevant. The Attorney talked about the matter of sworn evidence. The reality is that under clause 19 there is no question of any evidence-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Yes, there is. Mr REITH —No. What we need is a warrant and a description of the offence. That is it, and off people will go willy nilly. All we say is that there ought to be a screening test because that is the Australian way of doing things. Because of difficulties, which we acknowledge and which we have met in this amendment, why should we effectively lower and change our standards? It is a reasonable proposition. I hope that the Attorney is not so wedded to the decision that was rushed through in 1985 that he is not prepared to stop and think about it. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(12.23) —I thank the Attorney-General for responding to that question. In a way his answer raises as many, if not more, problems than it solves. In the case the Attorney instanced, the facts as described by him, on the surface, clearly warrant the sort of decision that was taken. But it raises a problem for the many dual citizens that we have in this country. In the case in point there was a question mark over the Australian citizenship either because of the way it was gained or because of its reality because there was not a long period of time establishing links with Australia. There are many dual citizens of Australia and of other countries who have their permanent homes here in Australia but who have largely lost connection with those other countries except for the fact that they were their country of birth. That perhaps is a matter for another debate. It relates to a view I have expressed in this chamber before about how we should try to negotiate more sensible arrangements with countries that today do not recognise that their citizens have gained Australian citizenship. We recognise their continuing links with the countries of their birth. In relation to clause 19, I strongly support the proposal of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). I would like to think that when we come to clause 22 the Attorney will give his apparent commitment-I do not know how he will handle in future dual citizenship cases-to the question of a discretion which is different from the one he described in his response to me about whether the trial goes ahead. That depends on whether there is evidence that can be adduced in Australia to enable the trial to be effectively proceeded with. There is another discretion-that is, whether the Australian citizen will be extradited. I would like to see that discretion taken away. At present clause 22 reads: For the purposes of sub-section (2), the eligible person is only to be surrendered in relation to a qualifying extradition offence if . . . There are several provisos., I think an additional proviso should be included in the following terms: `If the Attorney-General is satisfied that the country requesting the extradition of an Australian citizen would in similar circumstances permit the extradition to Australia of its citizens'. It would then be quite clear that if an Australian commits an offence in another country, has returned to Australia and is apprehended in Australia, that Australian citizen will be dealt with for that offence under Australian law and have the protections under Australian law of all the prima facie requirements, not as to whether that person is sent overseas to a hostile legal environment but as to whether the case proceeds ultimately to trial. I know that that is moving closer to the civil law situation, but I do not believe that we should surrender Australian citizens to countries which are not prepared to surrender their citizens in similar circumstances. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.27) —In the few minutes remaining before the debate is interrupted, I will answer the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson). We will not surrender our citizens to countries that will not surrender theirs. Such a matter is the subject of a treaty, and the discretion lies in that treaty. It is not done, so there is no problem about that matter. That is the whole point of being able to say that if an offence has been committed, we can deal with that offence rather than face the issue that the honourable member is worried about-that we might be subject to an extradition request and that we could not make one against the citizens of that country. It will be done on an equal basis. The other point is that if the Opposition were to apply the test that it now wants to apply in clause 19-it wants the magistrate here to be satisfied as to the prima facie evidence, and also that the evidence be admissible in Australia-it would negate the treaties that we already have and which accept this point. This is different from what the Opposition is demanding. With the greatest respect, why should we abandon what the common law position was and what the British have always been able to insist on? I tell honourable members opposite-I think without contradiction-that Britain has failed in terms of being able to get extraditions. That is why it is altering its law. But the Opposition still wants something included, other than what we can negotiate with other countries for which we have the greatest of respect and whose principles of justice we accept. There will not be some outrageous request whereby, for some ulterior motive, somebody will be asked to come back to another country to be dealt with. We would not have a treaty with that sort of country; that is the position. We accept the fact that when the country makes a request, it does so on the basis of pretty good sworn evidence. It is not much good our standing here today, saying, `All they will do is send in a bit of paper'. It will not come from a person; it will come from the nation itself with which we have the treaty. There will be a statement of the offence that applies in the other country, and particulars of the offence. The Opposition says, `We still want to test whether that statement was properly sworn on an affidavit before a judge and whether it is the sort of evidence that will be admitted here'. One will never be able to go to the trial situation. The issue is a request to return a citizen of the other country-not of ours-to be dealt with in accordance with that country's law in respect of something that allegedly happened in that country. It is a mere accident that the person happens to be here. Usually the person is on the run. Not one Opposition member has put up one case of a request for extradition that did not have that sort of bona fide aspect to it. For those reasons, and because my time has almost expired, I want to assure honourable members that if there were any suggestion of injustice we would certainly look into it. But not one Opposition member has mentioned any. Now the British are abandoning their old position, which was outmoded and irrelevant, and which prevented anything being done by way of extradition. I invite honourable members opposite to have a look at what the British are adopting and see whether it is not what we are now doing. Mr Reith —Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek your indulgence to say that normally the Opposition would have sought a division on this matter, but in view of the fact that a state function is being held in this building, we will not do so. This should not be interpreted as any weakening of our resolve on this significant issue. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Ruddock) -Order! It being 12.30 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101a, I shall report progress. The Deputy Chairman having reported accordingly- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The House may, at a later hour this day, again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Sitting suspended from 12.31 to 2.15 p.m. Mr N.A. Brown —I remind the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories of his statement to this House on 17 November that he did not know whether the Attorney-General had made a decision on whether compensation was payable to Bob Rogers and Co. arising out of the contract for the theatre in the Australian pavilion at World Expo 88. Since the Minister made that statement to the House has he had an opportunity to examine his files and papers? Has he now discovered-without telling the House what the advice was-first, that his departmental officers in fact gave him the Attorney-General's advice not once but twice; and, secondly, that he received minutes from his Department on two occasions incorporating that advice, both the preliminary oral advice and the subsequent written advice, and that on both occasions he noted that he had received and read the advice? Why did the Minister tell the House on 17 November that he did not know what the advice was when he knew perfectly well what it was and always has known and in fact he had been given extensive minutes from his Department covering that same advice? Mr JOHN BROWN —I have been pretty careful about what I have said on this matter and I do not intend to expand too much on it. The matter is the subject of discussion between Mr Rogers's solicitors and the Australian Government's solicitors. I intend to say no more on the matter. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have in the gallery this afternoon the Rt. Hon. Paias Wingti, MP, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, and the Hon. Akoka Doi, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Papua New Guinea. On behalf of the House, I extend to our visitors a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr SIMMONS —Can the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy advise the House of the extent of so-called deregulation of coal export controls? Has there been a deterioration in prices as a result of this so-called deregulation? What would be the likely effects on the Australian coal industry if all export controls were to be abolished? Mr KERIN —As we all know, the honourable member takes a lot of interest in the coal industry, particularly in the western district of New South Wales. He at least got a better reception in Lithgow yesterday than Mr Greiner, the Leader of the New South Wales Opposition. If deregulation is a reference to the relaxation of export controls on coal announced in September 1986, it needs to be emphasised that the decision did not involve the removal of controls. The former Minister for Trade, my colleague who is now the Minister for Education, Employment and Training, Mr Dawkins, used the export control powers late last year and again early this year to reject a number of settlements judged to be contrary to the national interest. In recent months the Government has refused to approve a number of settlements which had the potential to contribute to further erosion in prices. While export controls can be effective in curtailing unjustified undercutting of prices by competing Australian suppliers and the creation of new low price markers, the general level of prices in our export markets is determined by international supply and demand. If one looks at the industry's recent export performance over the past 12 months and tries to discern the underlying effects of the relaxation of export controls, one finds that this reveals a situation very much as anticipated at the time that the Government was considering its decision. Frankly, it is too early to assess the long term impact of the decision, although it is important that we recognise that there is a risk that excessive resort to the controls could damage Australia's deserved reputation as a reliable source of supply. The international market-place cannot be manipulated, especially in a buyer's market with so much excess capacity and intense competition, and it would be counterproductive for Australia to seek prices above the market. It would result only in lost tonnages and lost jobs. The latest market indicators, honourable members will be pleased to know, show that immediate price prospects are improving. Prices have already risen a little in the American and European markets, and most of our competitors are having to ask for higher prices to cover significant cost increases. The fact is that our industry cannot be squeezed any further, and the implications of this squeeze are becoming clear to our own customers. I was able to reinforce that in Japan last month, having already indicated the determination to underscore the importance to Australia of a viable coal industry, and having let it be known that scrutiny of applications for export permits in accordance with the guidelines accepted by the Australian Coal Consultative Council has been intensified, as has the monitoring of shipments under approved permits. This is not bluff or bluster. The industry and our customers understand it, and many of them have welcomed it, and they understand it in Japan as well. Where there is a situation, as there is in the electorate of the honourable member for Calare, in the western district of New South Wales, where there have been concessions by the work force, where there is high investment in mines and the mines are highly productive, and where the risk of closure leads to sterilisation of coal reserves, people understand the need for the Government to take the national interest into account. I should also note, in concluding, that the Government has no intention of reverting to the old system of prior approval of price parameters. Equally, it has no intention of abolishing controls altogether, as suggested by the Leader of the National Party of Australia lately. As noted, the present system of controls, given adequate resources, can be effective in overriding settlements likely to set harmful precedents for ongoing negotiations and can, in the meantime, give the degree of price protection so desperately needed to ensure the viability of the industry. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support. Why has the Government agreed to particular emergency telephone numbers being removed from the inside front cover of the current issue of telephone books? Is it a fact that life-saving telephone numbers of such organisations as Lifeline and the Salvation Army centre-- Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my right should cease interjecting. Mr HOWARD —Government members may think that this is facetious. A lot of people regard this as relatively more important than many of the questions asked by Government members. I repeat: is it a fact that life-saving telephone numbers of organisations such as Lifeline and the Salvation Army suicide prevention centre have been removed from a prominent position in the inside cover, yet numbers like that of the Environmental Protection Authority remain in a prominent position? Will the Minister do something to rescind this decision and ensure that Telecom Australia returns those life crisis numbers to an appropriately prominent position in Australia's telephone directories? Mr DUNCAN —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I certainly do not see it as a joke, although I am surprised that he chose to use this subject for his opening question in Question Time, given the fact that the information could have readily been obtained from my office at any time. However, I would like to tell him that Telecom decided to remove all personal emergency information from the inner front cover of telephone directories and place it on a dedicated page in the front section of the directories. This was necessary because of the fact that there was a proliferation of such services, particularly in the larger cities, with the 000 emergency service consequently losing its appropriate prominence. I think that all honourable members ought to recognise the fact that the 000 number is the most important emergency number and that it should continue to have the appropriate prominence. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the Minister. Mr DUNCAN —The 000 emergency number would normally be sought for obtaining access in critical cases to the three main emergency services, namely, the police, the fire brigade and the ambulance service. Everybody understands that. Telecom Australia's decision was first implemented with the 1987 issue of the Melbourne White Pages telephone directory. Later editions of the directories also will have general services telephone numbers removed from the inside front cover, similar to the recent issue of the Hobart telephone book, the inside front cover of which features a prominent directional banner to the personal emergency services page. Crisis services have been highlighted in the personal emergency services page. All personal emergency organisations will be given details of the changes prior to directory publications. I think that Telecom has acted in a fair and responsible manner in this particular matter. Everybody knows that the crucial number that people need to know is the 000 number. Anybody looking for emergency services can immediately ring that number. Any act taken by Telecom to reduce the priority given to the 000 number would not have been a sensible action. I think that Telecom acted appropriately in the circumstances. Mr BILNEY —I am not asking a question about the telephone directory but about the recent conclusion of the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement between the United States of America and the Soviet Union which, I am sure, every member of this House will welcome. I ask the Prime Minister: Can he inform the House about verification arrangements for the INF treaty signed in Washington just last night? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course the Government welcomes the agreement reached on intermediate-range nuclear forces. As we know, it is unique in that it provides for the elimination of a complete class of nuclear weapons. It is crucial to the prospects for future arms control agreements that this agreement can be fully and effectively verified so that the compliance of the two sides and their good faith can be unambiguously demonstrated to each other. In this regard I feel the deepest satisfaction at the role Australia will play in helping to verify Soviet compliance with the terms of the agreement through the operations of the joint defence facilities in Australia. As I stated in the Parliament on 6 June 1984, these facilities contribute to verification of arms limitation arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union and are also able to provide information about missile launches. As the INF agreement allows the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to destroy some of the missiles covered by the agreement by launching them and also prohibits the Soviets from using those launches for developmental or testing purposes, the ability of the United States to monitor this activity, including through the joint defence facilities in Australia, will be fundamental to the successful implementation and continuing operation of the agreement. The process of verifying the INF agreement, including the important verification function of the joint facilities in Australia, will provide invaluable experience in relation to verification of a Strategic Arms Reduction Talks agreement. The Government certainly urges both the United States and the Soviet Union to build on the precedent established by the INF treaty arrangements in their other areas of arms control negotiations, especially in respect of strategic nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. Mr HOWARD —The Opposition shares the remarks of the Prime Minister in welcoming the intermediate-range nuclear forces agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. It goes without saying that the importance of the joint facilities in that context has never been under dispute on our side. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations: Is it a fact that an application for severance pay in the building industry, which will directly affect the new Parliament House project, is today being considered by Commissioner Baird of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? In view of the fact that the Commission has agreed to convene a Full Bench to consider the push for a $20 a week severance payment in the building industry, a claim which Mr Justice Ludeke has said cannot be justified by the current wage fixing principles, is the Government concerned that Commissioner Baird may deal with a claim which could have serious implications for the industry as a whole in advance of consideration of the issue by the Full Bench of the Commission? Is the Government represented before Commissioner Baird? Will it be represented at the Full Bench hearing when it is held to argue against any severance pay arrangement which conflicts with the wage guidelines the Government itself supports? Mr WILLIS —Yes, it is a fact that there is a case for severance pay in relation to Parliament House before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at present. As honourable members may recall, that matter was the subject of a considerable industrial dispute in 1984 which shut the project down for 13 weeks. In the resolution of that dispute the severance pay issue was held over as a reserve matter. As the project is coming towards its conclusion and many building workers are beginning to be laid off from the project in the near future, the matter of severance pay has resurfaced. As a result, an application has been taken to the Commission and, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, that case is being heard at present. This matter has to be seen separately from the issue of severance pay for the building industry generally, which has been the subject of a claim by the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia and other building unions for a general severance pay scheme to apply in the building industry. The Government has made its position quite clear in respect of that; any severance pay scheme would have to be a genuine severance pay scheme and not just payment to workers, whether they were genuinely redundant or not, and it would have to be approved by the Commission. I understand the case for general severance pay in the building industry is likely to be taken to the Commission some time in the not too distant future, but by that time it will be too late for many workers on the Parliament House site because many of them are beginning to be laid off already. The case for Parliament House severance pay is being pursued by the unions in relation to that site only on a basis which is very different from the original proposal for the industry as a whole. It overcomes many of the concerns which the Government expressed about the original proposal particularly providing redundancy pay to workers who, by any normal understanding of language, were not redundant but were leaving the job voluntarily or retiring from the industry, or whatever. Many of those deficiencies have been overcome in the claim which has been made for Parliament House which is, indeed, a claim for genuinely redundant workers. The nature of the building industry is a little different from many other industries. Redundancy pay has to be seen as being a little different from that which would apply to industry generally through the termination, change and redundancy decision of the Commission which has a universal application for those industries which seek to apply it. It is not likely to apply in the building industry. What will apply to the building industry is something which is appropriate to the concerns of that industry. I am quite sure the Commission will not approve the application that has been made for workers on the Parliament House site unless it believes it is for genuine redundancy pay and that it is an appropriate decision to be made. I am quite confident that Commissioner Baird will make the appropriate decision on the evidence before him. Mr LINDSAY —I ask the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to inform the House whether the Government has made a decision on the Budget proposal concerning defence service home loans. If so, can he provide details of that decision. Mr Donald Cameron —This shouldn't have happened in the first place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will not interject. Mr HUMPHREYS —I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his question. I am able to inform the House of the Government's decision in relation to the defence service home loans scheme. Today being the Prime Minister's birthday, this will be his Christmas present to the veterans community and defence personnel in Australia. Mr Donald Cameron —What about-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will not interject. Perhaps he did not hear me the first time. Mr HUMPHREYS —Following the Government's undertaking to consult the Returned Services League (RSL) and other interested bodies before making changes to the defence service home scheme, a review group was set up under the chairmanship of Mr John Uhrig, AO, a prominent businessman. The review group included representatives of the RSL and relevant government departments and agencies, including the Australian defence forces and the Defence Service Homes Corporation. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the review group and has decided that the $25,000 concessional interest rate loan will continue to be available to all eligible applicants, initially under the existing defence service homes scheme. The private sector will be invited to take over the provision of such loans on a basis that will retain the concessional arrangements, including insurance and other ancillary benefits, substantially in their present form. The Budget proposal that future assistance be provided by way of a $10,000 cash grant will not proceed. No further applications for grants will be accepted. Those who have lodged an application for a grant or have converted a pre-Budget loan application to a grant application will be able to convert their applications to ones for loans of up to $25,000. All those who have lodged grant applications will be contacted by the Defence Service Homes Corporation with further details. In addition, the Government has decided that future defence service home loans will be available over a repayment term of up to 25 years and will be fully portable from home to home. This will particularly assist eligible serving personnel into home ownership, whereas previous arrangements encouraged them to delay home purchases until after they had terminated their service. I know that this is hurting honourable members opposite but it is a great decision and it is one which should be accepted by all members of this Parliament. Those with an existing defence service home loan will not be able to pconvert their loan to fully portable loans. Those who are presently waiting for settlement on a defence service home loan will have the option of a loan under existing arrangements or a fully portable loan. Mr White —Why don't you make a statement? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will cease interjecting. Mr HUMPHREYS —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr Donald Cameron —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. You have been threatening members on this side of the House, understandably so, but if Ministers make statements instead of using Question Time-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. The Chair has not been threatening honourable members. The Chair has been reminding honourable members that they-- Mr Howard —The Chair has been favouring the Government. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will keep out of this. The Chair has been reminding members of the Opposition that, while they may consistently disagree with what is being said, they are outside the Standing Orders if they continue to interject. I point out that that applies to the Leader of the Opposition as well as to everyone else. Mr Howard —I didn't say a thing. Madam SPEAKER —No; I am just pointing it out. Mr Sinclair —Point it out to Ben Humphreys. Madam SPEAKER —I remind the Leader of the National Party of Australia that the Minister is quite within the Standing Orders. Mr HUMPHREYS —The decision to retain the-- Mr Burr —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I refer you to standing order 144, paragraph (b), which states that questions seeking the announcement of government policy are not allowed. I question whether the Minister is now announcing a Government policy or in fact-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will continue with what he has to say. He is answering a question and he is quite in order in answering it. The Minister will continue. Mr HUMPHREYS —I might point out to honourable members that I was asked by the honourable member for Herbert whether I could explain the decision. I know that it is hurting the members of the Opposition. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will just get on and answer the question. Mr HUMPHREYS —As I was saying, the decision to retain the concessional loan rather than to proceed with the cash grant proposal follows widespread representations to the Government in favour of the retention of the loan arrangements. In addition to substantially retaining the benefits under the existing scheme, new arrangements-and all honourable members should be interested in this-will eliminate the formal 10 month waiting period; will enable access to additional finance at first mortgage interest rates without additional fees and charges; and will enable people to move without the loss of their loans. This confirms the Budget announcement that the private sector will be invited to make offers for the purchase of the portfolio of existing defence service housing loans together with the insurance portfolio. Mr TIM FISCHER —My question is directed also to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it a fact that, arising out of the Minister's announcement today, the reality is that the 32-year maximum term of a loan has been reduced to 25 years? Is it a fact that the reality is that the Budget decision to offer a grant alternative has been completely abolished? Is it a fact that, in real terms, no progress has been made towards the privatisation of the scheme and the Defence Service Homes Corporation as announced by the Treasurer back in May 1985? Given all these facts and the fact that, during the Christmas period, thousands of servicemen will review their options with regard to their service, will the Government accept responsibility for the additional resignations which may now occur, particularly given the Government's attitude to defence service homes and to the Voyager litigation? Mr HUMPHREYS —I know that the decision has hurt the Opposition, but it is absolute nonsense to think that this Government is not helping the veterans community of this nation. My Government has done more for all the veterans than did the Opposition in all the time that it was in government. The last Budget allocated an amount of $4.3 billion, but honourable members opposite were going to decrease the allocation by $8 billion. They were not going to give the veterans anything and it is absolute nonsense for them to get up and say that this Government is not helping the veterans. Mr SNOWDON —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Has the World Heritage Committee now considered the Federal Government's nomination of Uluru National Park for the World Heritage List, thus adding that unique part of Australia to that prestigious list? Mr Sinclair —He could not answer the question yesterday. Mr JOHN BROWN —The suggestion that I could not answer the question yesterday is probably not correct, but I am pleased to tell the House that last night in Paris the World Heritage Committee approved the inscription of Uluru-Ayers Rock-Mount Olga National Park on the World Heritage List. That approval occurred, despite the best efforts of the responsible Northern Territory Minister, uninvited and unwanted, who spent many tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in Paris trying to influence this body of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation not to admit the Uluru National Park to the World Heritage List. I am sure that most Australians with any compassion and any feeling for this country would share my view-and that might well leave out all those characters opposite, but then again they have been known as environmental vandals and people with very little feeling for the heritage of Australia, so that does not surprise me. The nomination, of course, was suggested by the traditional owners, for whom many features of the national park hold special significance. Indeed, the Rock itself and all the other features of the park are treasured by all Australians, but particularly by the traditional Aboriginal owners. The listing will not interfere with the rights of traditional owners or visitors; in fact, it honours the area and gives a special responsibility to manage the area in co-operation with the traditional owners in a fitting and proper manner. I might make the observation in passing, as I did yesterday, that the responsibility for this area is the responsibility of this Australian Government and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, not the responsibility, fortunately, of the Northern Territory Government. The World Heritage Committee commended the initiatives taken by the Australian Government in its administration of the park through the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I note that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is sitting in the House today, and I am sure he is delighted about that. The World Heritage Committee also praised the way in which the traditional owners were involved in the planning, decision-making and administration of the national park, and I guess that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs must also feel great satisfaction about that. He was very much part of it. Of course, that great tradition has been carried on by his successor. The Committee also made special mention of the efforts to reintroduce species which had formerly lived in the park but which had died out since European settlement. The Committee encouraged Australia to persist with such a program. Those species-for the elucidation of you vandals on the other side-included the rufous hare-wallaby, the burrowing bethong, the brushtail possum, the bilby, and the ghost bat-and I do not know the Latin for those generic descriptions. The Committee also expressed the hope that a larger area of central Australia might eventually be considered for addition to the listed property, and that is something which this Government, of course, would support. I should add that stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park is also being considered for inscription on the World Heritage List and, despite the fact that the Northern Territory Government is working as hard as it can to prevent that with a campaign of misinformation and mischief, I am pretty sure that eventually our efforts to have stage 2 included will reap rewards. I think that all honourable members of the House should be pleased that this unique part of Australia, this very fragile environment of the Uluru National Park, has been recognised by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee as fit for inscription and I hope that it will not be too long before stage 2 is included. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to prudential statement No. 15 released by the Reserve Bank of Australia on 29 January this year in which the Reserve Bank: . . . asked each bank to give it prior notification of the bank's intention to enter into an exceptionally large exposure to an individual client or group of related clients. It has indicated that in such cases a bank should be able to show that the proposed exposure would not result in it undertaking an excessive risk. I ask the Treasurer whether the Reserve Bank was notified prior to 20 October of the reported large exposures of some Australian banks which had advanced unsecured loans to certain companies currently experiencing difficulties. Has the Treasurer been involved in discussions with his Department and the Reserve Bank concerning the exposure of certain banks to these clients following the stock market collapse? Mr KEATING —The answer is broadly yes. Given that we have seen in the last few years fairly substantial takeovers within Australian commerce, and the size of the fundings, this could under some circumstances impact upon the shareholders' funds of the institutions concerned. The Reserve Bank has asked the institutions covering its field of operation to advise it of such arrangements. Having said that, there is still sitting behind any special requests by the Reserve Bank the formal prudential structure and asset ratios which are observed by the Australian banks. It is possible for a bank still to observe that ratio but lend against a particular transaction more than one might prudently do against the shareholders' funds and expose the shareholders' funds to any shift in the fortunes of a particular corporation. The bank generally keeps an intelligent interest in all these issues. In the wake of the stock market crash it asked the major banks to let it know what financing arrangements the corporations may seek to put into place and what exposure that would have on banks' shareholders' funds and prudential ratios, et cetera. As far as I know, that is still in place and the banks are willingly letting the Governor and his staff know what those particular transactions are. I add that the Government regards it as being very important in the wake of the stock market crash to keep the financial system liquid and to provide the right climate and the time for some of these large holdings to be rationalised. That has been taking place. We see reports of that in the papers daily. Mr Beale —What does `rationalised' mean? Mr KEATING —The honourable member ought to know what `rationalised' means. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the honourable member for Deakin that no supplementary questions are allowed. Mr KEATING —If the honourable member does not know what that means now he is in more trouble than I thought he was. Mr Beale —He has ducked away. Mr KEATING —Well, I think I will leave it at that. Mr CHARLES —Is the Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs aware of allegations made in today's Melbourne Press that community youth support scheme (CYSS) offices have been shut down without notice, and suggestions by some project officers that such actions were taken without justification? Is there any truth in these allegations? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. There is no truth in the allegations. What is true is that, as honourable members will be aware, on 31 October 1987 I indicated to all honourable members that we were approving funding for some 332 CYSS projects throughout Australia. That included funding for a new project in Reservoir. It also involved the closure of three projects at Mount Druitt in New South Wales, Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory and Moranbah in Queensland. The funding of some 18 projects that were going through serious operational difficulties was continued until 30 November 1987. There was to be a reassessment of their commitment and capacity to perform at an acceptable standard in accordance with CYSS guidelines. Following the reassessment of these 18 projects, I approved continued funding of 12 projects until 31 October 1988 because I was satisfied that they indicated the intention to comply with the guidelines and accept responsibility for the training of the young unemployed. I approved three months funding only for three projects: Parramatta in New South Wales, Alamein in Victoria and Chigwell in Tasmania. Although they indicated a willingness to comply, they needed more time to implement their changes. In the case of Collingwood, Elwood and Gympie, I discontinued funding because it was perfectly clear from their record that there was an inability to comply with CYSS guidelines. Very simply, the Government wants to make it perfectly clear that there needs to be a commitment and a responsibility from all CYSS projects to undertake and be responsible for retraining and assistance to young unemployed people to enable them to enter the labour market. Some CYSS projects believe that they are at liberty to determine their own course and pursue courses which clearly have no impact in getting young unemployed people into the labour market. It is no fun for me as Minister to close a CYSS project, particularly in an electorate such as Melbourne, and even more particularly in an electorate such as Melbourne Ports, but it is important that it be understood that CYSS projects have a heavy responsibility and an important role to play as the Government continues its employment and training programs. They should be able to discharge their responsibility. Many projects that are doing exceptionally well need additional funding. We will not allow a situation to continue whereby some CYSS projects which are receiving quite considerable sums of money are not capable and willing to discharge their obligations. In that situation, unfortunately, I am prepared to indicate that I will terminate those projects. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer. At the outset, I remind the Treasurer that he has still not replied to a question of mine of 27 October relating to the substantial net borrowings of public financial enterprises. However, I refer the Treasurer to his answer to my question of 26 October concerning the extent to which the Commonwealth Government is acting as an implicit guarantor for the loans to Rothwells Ltd, backed by the Western Australian Government. On that occasion he said: The position is that the Commonwealth has made it clear to the trading banks that it will provide liquidity if needs be where a trading bank encounters difficulty with a client and where the fundamentals of the client are such and where support by that bank is such that the difficulties can be overcome. Given the extent of the commitments of State government banks and insurance corporations in assembling rescue packages for some entrepreneurs, has the Treasurer now had any discussions concerning those organisations' ability to absorb any losses, should the rescue packages fail? Mr KEATING —This question about an implicit Commonwealth guarantee could be put in relation to every decision made by every State government in any period. Of course, in that case it is, therefore, absurd. The position which I have adopted in reply to similar questions is that it is up to the States to make judgments about their own affairs, including their own business affairs. The responsibility for those decisions rests with the State government, and it is accountable to the public of that State. There is no question about absorbing losses. Whether the allusion to today's report about the change in the value of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd scrip in the hands of the State Government Insurance Corporation of Western Australia-- Mr Tuckey —It only lost $33m. Mr KEATING —The value might go up next week, and it would gain again. So what is the point? The values of all share portfolios move, and it is a matter for the judgment of the institution as to where it wishes to place its capital-in equities, government financial instruments, or whatever. Mr WRIGHT —I refer the Minister for Community Services and Health to concerns expressed by consultant physicians and some patient groups about the changes made to the fee schedule in the May economic statement. Can the Minister advise the House of the outcome of discussions with the consultant physicians and what action the Government intends to take to resolve these concerns? Dr BLEWETT —As I have indicated to the House on prior occasions, over the last few months there have been extensive consultations between representatives of my Department and the Australian Association of Consultant Physicians. These discussions culminated last week in a meeting between me, representatives of the Australian Association of Consultant Physicians, the Royal Australian College of Physicians and the Australian Medical Association (AMA). At that meeting certain principles were recognised. The first was that consultant physicians have an ongoing management role for certain patients with certain serious, acute or chronic complex conditions. The second was that ongoing consultations for patients with chronic illnesses are not necessarily easier nor less demanding in time. The third was that consultations following the initial consultation will at times be of lesser complexity than the usual follow-up consultations and that this should be reflected in the medical benefits schedule. The final one was that consultant physicians should maintain an ongoing dialogue with the Department of Community Services and Health to address issues of concern to physicians, to patients and to the Government. I am hopeful that the revised arrangements arising from that meeting can be implemented before Christmas but the timing will be subject to the completion of necessary legal and administrative processes. The new arrangements will remove item 118 from the schedule and introduce a new fee structure for consultant physicians based on an initial consultation, a conventional consultation and a minor follow-up consultation. The Australian Association of Consultant Physicians will encourage physicians to charge a minor consultation fee where appropriate and the Royal Australian College of Physicians has undertaken to support in principle the introduction of the new fee structure. In addition, there will be continuing discussions between the profession and my Department regarding procedures for referral of patients to consultant physicians. These discussions will necessarily involve both the AMA and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Discussion will also cover particular areas of concern to the Government in respect of consultant physician practice, particular concerns by the physicians themselves about the valuation of consultations and the monitoring of the new fee structure on consultant physician practice. Under the revised arrangements the rebate for the new minor consultation item will be the same as for item 118 that it replaces. Within this structure I believe that the budgetary objectives of the Government and the professional concerns of the consultant physicians have been met in a way that ensures that patients should not be faced with excessive out-of-pocket costs. Mr WHITE —I refer the Attorney-General to the scathing comments of Mr Justice O'Bryan of the Victorian Supreme Court when he criticised the Government for hiding behind the statute of limitations in its defence against claims by HMAS Voyager survivors. In particular, I refer the Attorney-General to Mr Justice O'Bryan's statement: `This ruling is most unfortunate and reflects poorly upon the conduct of the defendant'. This relates to 100 Voyager survivors, in case Government members are interested. I ask the Attorney-General: Why has the Government used this defence when it has previously stated that it would not do so? Has the Government not already admitted liability in this matter? Why is natural justice in the courts being denied to these claimants? Does the Government realise that these Voyager claimants, and all Defence Force personnel, put their lives at risk for the nation? Does the Government understand the implications of this decision? In the name of common justice, will the Minister undertake to have this decision reversed? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Leaving out the dramatics, let me make very clear that justice has always been applied in respect of the Voyager case. The honourable gentleman would be the first to admit that the accident happened 23 years ago. There happens to be a legal principle that if one delays making a claim one can place the defendant at a disadvantage. Mr Spender —Yes, but that has never been the suggestion. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It ought to be recognised that a number of people were injured and a number of people died, and that was back in February 1964. Mr Spender —All the facts are known. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The facts are known and, of course, compensation was awarded to a large number of people at that time. It is also fact that-- Mr Spender —But there were a number of cases-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. The honourable member knows he is out of order. Mr Howard —That is very unfair. Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting also. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is worth while listening to my answer without the interjections. There were 292 claims settled at that time. The honourable gentleman might ask himself the question: Why is it that all of a sudden after 23 years we are now faced with some 100 claims for psychiatric disorders? The honourable gentleman might also ask: How is it that all of a sudden 100 people have decided to make claims? The issue relates to legal principles that now apply. No claim has ever been rejected on the basis of merit but, as Opposition members know, the statute of limitations has been applied by all previous Attorneys-General in all cases. In these sorts of cases we are entitled to plead the issue. Obviously, it hurts the Opposition to have to face up to the fact because it can be a good political gimmick to get on to the tragedy of 1964 and ask the Government, `Why aren't you doing something now?'. We in turn could say to the Opposition, `Why didn't you do something then?'. That should be the issue. Let us cut out all this nonsense. Also, the Opposition ought to acknowledge that these people are not denied the normal Commonwealth employees compensation. Apparently the Opposition forgets that but it is still their entitlement. The Opposition does not recognise that their claim is on the basis of negligence. It is all very well for a justice of the Victorian Supreme Court to say now that there is some problem. This same issue was also discussed earlier before Master Brett when he gave leave to amend the defence and it was also upheld by the Full Court of Victoria, which made no castigations of the Government in this issue. It is about time that the Opposition looked at the issue. If the 100 people who have now decided to make a claim could convince that court that there is merit in their claim we could then talk about setting aside the statute of limitations. One would expect that a claim would be made within a reasonable period. The Opposition must look at the fact that after 23 years all of a sudden 100 claims are made. Is it not a fact-I will put this right to the honourable gentleman-that a firm of lawyers in Melbourne decided that it might be an opportunity to ginger up a bit of business? I make it very clear: nobody denies justice to servicemen. They are entitled to make their claim in the terms of workers compensation or Commonwealth employees compensation. Many of them have been in many other occupations since they left the Navy; they have not been in the Navy all that time. If one has a look at their records one will see that they have been in an infinite number of occupations where they well might have suffered the disability of a psychiatric disturbance. Our position is certainly not without precedent. My predecessors, from Barwick down anyway, have always said that the statute of limitations should apply where the defendant would be placed at a disadvantage-in fact did not have any evidence to refute what had been said because of the lapse of time, witnesses having died and the whole set of circumstances having changed. It is all very well to say that we must not take that view on the Voyager incident. We all know that was a tragic incident. We all know, though, that a number of people were compensated. The question I ask is: Why did it take these people 23 years to make a claim on the basis of a psychiatric problem, not a physical injury? On that basis we have to deal with this issue in accordance with precedent because otherwise-- Mr Peacock —You admitted liability. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We did not admit liability. That is not the point. There was no case. It went to the Department. It did not come to the Government. On that basis, it is interesting to know that when the Department apparently made an admission of liability, all of a sudden, after 23 years, 100 further claims are made. Were they made on the basis of merit or on the basis of the precedent that an easy way to get a bit of money was to make a claim? That is the point. I want to make it clear that those who suffered injury are entitled to compensation. This is not a claim for compensation. This is a claim for damages. That is the distinction. Mr Spender —Ha, ha! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman may laugh-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Just ignore the interventions. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is why there was a lapse of 23 years, because they would have been compensated before this in the normal employees compensation field, which is still open to them. There is no statute of limitations applying there. It is simply because some intelligent lawyer decided that there was a good chance of running a few cases. Not only that, but I have correspondence from people saying, `Look, isn't this a bit unusual, Mr Attorney-General? My neighbour, who was formerly in the Navy, was working very hard recently. Suddenly, he got a letter from a solicitor suggesting that he stop work and make a claim because there is a chance of getting some money'. That is the issue, and these are the problems. Those claims can always be dealt with on the basis of workers' compensation but, from the point of view of damage from a breach of care, we are entitled to plead the statute of limitations. Barwick pleaded it, Bowen pleaded it, Snedden pleaded it, Durack pleaded it: so why is the Opposition suddenly saying that we should make a special exception because it was the Voyager disaster, and only in the Voyager disaster will we not plead the statute of limitations? That statute has been pleaded right across the board, irrespective of government, for the simple reason that, because there has been a gap of 23 years, the defendant cannot find the evidence and cannot refute the issue. Mr Sinclair —But why are war crimes different? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the right honourable gentleman wanted to debate the war crimes issue, he should have done it when the Bill concerning them was before the House. We want to know why, after 23 years, there is a rash of claims from virtually one source. People saw the solicitor saying on television what a dramatic thing it is to think that the Government is being so heartless and has refused this claim. What a coincidence it is that, after 23 years, 100 people suddenly decide to make a claim. Mr LAMB —My question is addressed to the Leader of the House. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government's program will be finished by tomorrow evening? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. A lot of members on both sides of the House have been asking me whether our program will be completed tomorrow. This has been a very interesting year. We obviously would have been finishing Parliament a little earlier but for the disruption caused by the Opposition in the middle part of the year when it continually challenged us to an election. It was not our view that the election should have been held in mid-year. We thought that we should run the full term. However, the Opposition was disrupting matters and challenging us every day here in Parliament. Finally, the Prime Minister succumbed. I advised him against it, but he did so, and that has disrupted the program. It has presented us with other problems, because the Labor Government members now take up two-thirds of the seats. We have never experienced that previously. There have been lots of other changes. We actually have a member for Wentworth who stays awake during Question Time and, by the look of the benches usually occupied by the National Party of Australia, that Party thinks that the program is finished already. Certainly, the Agent-General has gone. We look forward to the judgment that will be made by the Leader of the Opposition when he announces his shadow Ministry. They are all on trial and there will be changes. I notice that some people are trying to keep their places by saying a lot, and others by saying nothing. If the honourable member for Bass continues his way up the ladder by saying nothing, he could finish up as Leader of the Opposition. He has made more progress than Marcel Marceau. The honourable member for Menzies has had a good session. He has been pulled in by the Opposition on a number of occasions when it has required somebody who has a little bit of fluency and skill in debating, so he might be attracted back into the membership of the shadow Ministry. The honourable member for Goldstein does not seem to be attracting that much support. We have finished the year without Joh, in spite of all the promises that he was going to come down and lead the nation. Joh is back on the farm and now we are waiting for rolling Stone. He will take Tom's seat and come down and take Ian's position as Leader of the National Party. Then he will put forward his views that we should live in the world of John Stones. It would be an interesting world to live in. But I assure honourable members who have made their arrangements to go to pensioner parties, high school speeches, farming their electorates, back-slapping and shaking hands, that we shall be finishing tomorrow night. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 91 of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984, I present a report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, for the information of the House, I present the Commonwealth Schools Commission report on the national policy for the education of girls in Australian schools, together with a supplementary report of the same title on the Commonwealth's contribution. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, I present a report on child migrant education for 1986-87. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, for the information of the House, I present a policy discussion paper on higher education. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, I present the annual reports of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation for 1986-87. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the Law Reform Commission's report on service and execution of process. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922 and section 16a of the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970, I present the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department incorporating the annual report of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for 1986-87. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, for the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Administrative Review Council on the constitution of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, I present the National Companies and Securities Commission Annual report and financial statements, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Family Law Council for 1986-87. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 93 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, I present the 1986-87 annual report on the operation of the Act. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and section 3b of the Tax Administration Act 1953 and corresponding provisions of the general taxing statute of Australia, I present taxation statistics 1984-85, volume 2. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —Madam Speaker, pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The report also contains a report on the operation of the adult migrant education program as required by the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 and a return which is required by section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1984. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) —Pursuant to the terms of clause 21 of the agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland relating to adjustment assistance to sugar cane growers, I present the annual report on adjustment assistance to sugar cane growers for 1986-87. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —Pursuant to sub-section 17 (4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, I present the annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission for 1986-87. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Meteorology Policy Committee for 1986. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act 1973 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School, together with the Auditor- General's report for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Tourist Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Film Commission, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Children's Television Foundation incorporating ACTF Productions Ltd for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, I present the annual report of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australia Council, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) —Pursuant to section 33 (4) of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Policy Co-ordination Unit for 1986-87 of the Department of Community Services and Health. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1986-87. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Trade Negotiations and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the former Department of Trade for 1986-87. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Resources) —For the information of honourable members, I present the resolutions of the seventeenth meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council, held in Melbourne on 23 October 1987. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business) —Pursuant to sub-section 17 (2) of the Customs Administration Act 1985, I present the annual report of the Australian Customs Service for 1986-87. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business) —Pursuant to section 27 of the Automotive Industry Authority Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Automotive Industry Authority for 1986-87. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Manufacturing Council for 1986-87. Mr DUNCAN(Makin-Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, I present the annual report of the Independent Air Fares Committee for 1986-87. Mrs KELLY(Canberra-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, I present the annual report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority for 1986-87. Mr PRICE(Chifley) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House to correct a statement I made in a speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The honourable member may proceed. Mr PRICE —In speaking on the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Amendment Bill I inadvertently suggested that a poultry farmer, Mr Tebbitt, who is a rebel poultry farmer, had sold his quota prior to becoming a rebel farmer. It has been drawn to my attention that that statement is incorrect and that, in fact, it was a poultry farmer by the name of Peek from Marsden Park. I seek to inform the House and make that correction. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To The Honourable The Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And, your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr John Brown,Mr Cobb,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Halverson,Mr Hicks,Mr Langmore,Mr MacKellar,Mr Ian Robinson and Mrs Sullivan. To The Honourable The Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food, irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Beale,Mr Tim Fischer,Mr Jenkins,Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, being appalled that the Government has set NO penalty for the possession of child pornography, and has set NO penalty for importing unclassified child pornography, do ask that Parliament urgently legislate to: Make the importation of child pornography, and the possession of child pornography, and all tapes and goods banned by Customs, to be a criminal offence, with deterrent penalties, and Close the Customs barriers to pornography in the A.C.T., in respect of X-rated videos, (and ER) and END the shameful Canberra trade, and the Mafia Connections. Because 98 per cent of Australians in other States have banned X-rated videos. Because the trade is still flourishing, and it's availability escalates sexual crime. Because importers of child pornography face only a fine for lying. Because child pornography pedlars are safe if they cross a border, and cannot be extradited for a summary offence. Because anyone can have these tapes in their possession for private use. Because the Government does not intervene in that. 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,Mr Ronald Edwards,Mr Rocher and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Cowan and Mr Porter. To the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in the 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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Lyne Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-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 taxpayer's money and a significant infringement on civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens shows that: An ID Card numbering system for all Australians would give future governments tremendous power to collect sensitive information and use it against us. Criminal elements could benefit by forging cards and documents needed to obtain them, or by illegally accessing the data in the system. The dangers are much greater than with current systems such as Medicare, as the Australia Card number could link so many different confidential records. The cost to government and private enterprise of implementing the ID Card would be enormous, outweighing any gains. Tax cheats can be stopped more effectively by better checks in the present system. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will reject the Australia Card Bill. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the proposal; Is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud, and to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud, Will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private matter, Will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the tax payer, and Cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representative in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Webster. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth: 1. The proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians. 2. Therefore your petitioners request a national referendum on the Australia Card bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office at Gymea Bay be closed. The Post Office serves a community need and we should be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect registered letters and parcels, cash Pension cheques and transact banking. Many of us are Pensioners and the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. The nearest Post Office is 2.3 kms away with no convenient transport. We maintain that the purpose of the Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer, and that they should not be closed merely to save money or help Australia Post make a profit. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Gymea Bay Post Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. This petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly support the establishment of a Social Security office in the Adelaide Hills area. We believe the establishment of such an office will provide a much needed service to residents in the Adelaide Hills, many of whom do not have access to STA transport and find it extremely difficult and costly to meet the requirements of lodging the Continuation of Unemployment Benefit Forms in person. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, take every possible step to ensure that this service is provided. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned express concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kerr. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effected in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The $6.00 per week fee imposed on Government preschool parents is inequitable. We feel the fee will cause genuine hardship to many families of young children and it ignores the contribution that parents make financially to preschools at the moment. It will affect the enrolment of children at preschool next year, with a likely outcome being the closure of some ACT preschools. It will also affect the voluntary financial commitment parents already make to preschools, without which they could not function on a day to day basis. We believe that preschools are very cost effective in respect to their multi faceted role in educational, social, health, emotional and physical development. We envisage the long term effects of the fee to be a reduction in the quality and frequency of preschooling with the preschool sector degenerating into a user pays system for those who can afford it. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take action to have the imposed compulsory fee abolished. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. We consider that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. We therefore ask the House to take action to prevent the implementation of this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose plans by Telecom Australia to close many of the Telecom Business Offices (TBO's) and replace them with a reduced service to be co-located with the District Customer Services Office. We believe the public should be able to make telephone bill payments, applications for new services, selection of telephones and complaints, in person at a convenient and easily accessible location. Telecom Business Offices provide this service, and therefore it is wrong that their contribution and performance will only be assessed on their sales revenue. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: instruct the management of Telecom Australia to immediately cease all action to close any Telecom Business Offices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. The Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth concern: About the evil caused by the fact that X-rated videos with their depiction of unnatural sex and often horrible violence, are allowed to circulate around Australia from Canberra. And Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that such circulation be prevented. The laws regarding obscenity in the media should also be revived and enforced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Identity Card to be called the Australia Card, and a National Identification Numbering System, is not in keeping with the established rights, privileges and customs of the Australian people. It is, therefore, the will and desire of the said petitioners that the proposed legislation be neither introduced in its original form, nor amended in any way, but totally withdrawn. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of certain Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government by persisting with the Australia Card Bill has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'' which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureaucracy of 2000 public servants within the HIC [Health Insurance Commission], with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia'' (report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the House without regard for party should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation not to televise the Jack High Bowling Tournament in 1988 is cause for distress to the 500,000 bowlers and many non bowlers who, for years, have enjoyed this interesting programme on television. 2. The unilateral decision was taken after verbal assurances had been given that the 1988 event would be televised. This action is deplored and we feel should be reversed by the parliament in the interests of your many constituents. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action nor permit any action to be taken to make any change without the approval of the Australian people by referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families, because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively sheweth that they are totally opposed to any change in the present Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change in any way the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Industrial Relations Bill will increase industrial disputation, bankrupt companies, and give the union movement total and absolute power over the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's Industrial Relations Bill to save Australia from the actions of militant unions and give our economy a chance of recovering. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth: 1. That there is widespread concern expressed at the proposed presentation of a Bill to provide for the introduction of a National system of identification of citizens. 2. There is genuine apprehension that information gathered as a consequence of such a system may be accessed improperly or unlawfully, jeopardising rights of privacy and creating opportunity for fraudulent practices. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will not proceed with the Bill at this time and provide for a moratorium on the issue for a period of twelve months so allowing for further consideration and wide public debate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania showeth: That the Government ensure that the `Armed Forces Food Science Establishment' in Scottsdale, Tasmania be maintained due to its strategic significance in providing specialist food products and food science research to the Australian Defence Forces. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. Petitions received. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on the rice industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for the Government to take immediate policy action to reduce the vulnerability of Australia in light of our huge foreign debt. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.30) —This matter of public importance has the succinct remark that the Australian economy is, by any yardstick, in bad shape. One ought not to believe the myth that is peddled by the Hawke-Keating Government that because we are primarily a raw commodity producer our predicament can be blamed on other countries-it cannot. It is time to face the facts. The vulnerability of our economy is due largely to our huge and growing debt burden. Mr Cadman —The Treasurer is not even here! Mr PEACOCK —No. The person who is significantly responsible for the situation we face is not even here today. The huge Budget deficits brought down by this current Treasurer in 1983-84 swallowed our domestic savings and forced us as a nation to borrow overseas. Our net foreign debt has virtually quadrupled from 1983 to 1987. Australia's net foreign debt now stands at over 30 per cent of our gross domestic product; that is, in net terms, about $5,000 for each Australian resident. Dare I mention that for honourable members in this chamber alone that amounts to about $750,000? How does that make them feel? Many Australians who are listening to this debate are in an infinitely worse position to cope with this than honourable members of this chamber, other than a few who are fast and loose with their money on the other side of this House. It was during this period that our AAA international credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history-a great legacy for the nation. We continue to run huge current account deficits, adding about $1m to our debt every month. The balance of payments figures for October show that the deficit on goods and services was almost $2 billion for the first four months of 1987-88. In other words, Australia continues to borrow just to pay the interest on our debt. This great nation is borrowing more and more each month simply to pay the interest on our debt. According to the latest statistics, these interest payments amount to nearly 23 per cent of our export income. Clearly that is an unsustainable state of affairs. Moreover, it is not as if it is our only problem. We have been plagued in recent years under this Government by large Budget deficits-both Commonwealth and State; high rates of wage and price inflation; high unemployment-particularly youth unemployment which is continuing steady at in excess of 20 per cent; abysmal productivity; and poor investment performance. The underlying basis of our economy remains undeniably very weak indeed. Yet this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) maintains that the economy is on track. On track to where? Buenos Aires, bananaland or Argentina? The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in the Senate told us where it was on track to-to Argentina. Those opposite sit there smugly not worrying about the sufferings of ordinary Australians or on what they are compiling for this nation month after month. The past policies of the Government to date have just not equipped us to cope well with the current external pressures. We were arguing before, during and after the Budget that was brought down this year, well in advance of the stock market collapse, that the Government was placing this nation in the most vulnerable position and that unless it forced the pace of adjustment in the face of those external difficulties it was sailing far too close to the margin in case anything happened internationally. We were talking particularly about any drop in terms of trade. However, since then we have had the massive drop on the stock market. We made these calls well before the collapse on world stock markets. So clearly there is even more pressing need for tougher policies. The Government's complacency is now drifting beyond simply that complacency that flows from the arrogance that pervades this Government. It is drifting into negligence-outright breaches of duty of care by this Government to the Australian people. The Government's refusal to take the necessary steps to force the pace of adjustment is imposing huge social costs, largely in terms of additional debt and forgone opportunities for work and investment, costs that are largely borne by ordinary Australians, costs that could be avoided if the Government had the courage to act now. The postponement of expenditure cuts only adds to the uncertainty faced by all Australians and unquestionably threatens investor confidence further. Moreover, as I think is being increasingly comprehended, the uncertain economic environment tends to breed financial instability. Indeed, recent reports in the Press concerning large unsecured loans from the banks to some of Australia's leading `entrepreneurs' call into question the effectiveness of the Reserve Bank's prudential supervision of the banking system. It does seem that the Reserve Bank has been concerned about this for some time. On 29 January this year the Reserve Bank issued a Press release-Prudential Statement No. 15-which concerned the prudential supervision of Australian banks' large exposures. The Press release states: The Reserve Bank has now asked each bank to give it prior notification of the bank's intention to enter into an exceptionally large exposure to an individual client or group of related clients. It has indicated that in such cases a bank should be able to show that the proposed exposure would not result in it undertaking an excessive risk. What has been going on? Clearly, before the stock market collapse, some entrepreneurial companies had large amounts outstanding, essentially to finance the purchase of shares. Not only the trading banks, but also a number of State banks-the people's banks-now face the risk of default on interest and principal payments. I ask: Why are State banks, the so-called people's banks, lending large amounts of money on an unsecured basis to entrepreneurial companies for the purchase of shares? No one criticises the purchase of shares. We encourage it. But we do ask the question: Why have the people's banks been lending significant amounts of money on an unsecured basis for the purchase of such shares? If there is money to be made in our community equally there is money to be lost. I think there are two issues here. One is the prudential supervision of the banking system itself. Serious questions have to be asked about the effectiveness of the Reserve Bank in ensuring that the risk exposure of banks is not unduly high. The second issue concerns the role of State banks and State government insurance companies. A very notable element and player in this has been a group under the Labor flag in Western Australia. This group has been financing some of these entrepreneurs. More important is the role of these State government organisations in the event that these entrepreneurs, and I will use the rather colourful term of Dr Morgan, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, `hit the fence . . . and if they do so, whether they exit in an orderly-for example, via mergers-or disorderly fashion'. This whole question has been touched on by officers in the Treasury and there are other colourful expressions for `hitting the fence'. As I said, in Western Australia we have already seen the State Government Insurance Corporation purchase substantial assets. How was this financed? Was it a consortium of State banks or other government organisations? The public has to be made aware that there is effectively-despite what the Treasurer says here-an implicit government guarantee applying to the loans of these enterprises. I have asked questions in the House of the Treasurer before today concerning the extent of the implicit guarantee provided to State government financial authorities. I have had no satisfactory answers. And I did not get any today. Australian taxpayers have a right to know the extent to which Labor governments are supporting, with either explicit or implicit guarantees, these rescue packages. The question can be put in this way: is the Treasurer more willing for the Government to support imprudential lending than he is to bite the bullet on government expenditure and wages policy? Reductions in the size of government would release resources from the non-tradable public sector to the tradable goods sector, helping to improve the current account deficit. The position is not as the Government would say. Far from driving the economy through the floor, cuts in government expenditure would pave the way for a reduction in taxes and in government borrowing. Incentive would be improved and, of course, investment would be stimulated. If the adverse effects of the stock market collapse are to be minimised, we have reiterated, the Government has to act and act quickly. The main reasons why the Government refuses to take early action are not economic, as some outside may suspect. The reasons, as is known by all in this Parliament and not just by honourable members on this side of the House, are bluntly political: the pending New South Wales election and the Government's attempt to prop up its mate, Unsworth. As a secondary factor, if it can slip into 1988 it can make cuts off the Forward Estimates, the wish list, rather than what it should have done-had the mini-Budget now and cut into actual programs. Seeking a cosy relationship with the trade union leadership is an additional element. The Government's lack of political courage is further evidenced by its inability to push through on notions such as privatisation. The Hawke Government's third term was to be the term that was marked by the foray on microeconomic policy. The first one adduced was privatisation, and it hit the wall. Already the confusion on either ideological or economic grounds is pronounced. The key should be deregulating the commercial environment and then privatising government enterprises to ensure that resources are used most efficiently. This is not even being addressed by the Government. There is the real danger that the Government, in an effort to maximise revenue rather than efficiency, will sell off part or all of some enterprises without deregulating the industry. Of course, that merely transforms a government monopoly into a private monopoly. In terms of improving the infrastructure of the Australian economy-transport and communications-under this great aegis of microeconomic reform, hardly anything is achieved. The Government's apparent failure to recognise this and to act on it makes one wonder about the strength of its commitment to microeconomic reform. Indeed, I was not intending to raise the question of the labour market but, just in passing, what does the Government do? It bows to pressure from trade union leaders to support a flat $6.50 per week wage increase in the current national wage case. Mr Beale —Plus the 4 per cent training allowance. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed. What an incentive that is for employers to take on apprentices and younger workers. The trade union leadership appears to be more interested in keeping those already in work happy rather than in freeing up the labour market so that more jobs are available. The reality is that, under the corporatism of this Government, it is too petrified to take on the trade union movement which is an essential part of its government edifice. On top of this, the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions apparently are in cahoots to bring about an amalgamation of the trade unions to further the corporatism which is pervading the Australian economy. On that topic, we need to deregulate industrial relations, to expose both product and labour markets to competition and to force the pace of adjustment on our external debt so that we can better weather the storm. But we raise this matter of public importance in the dying stages of this session to remind the Government of what happens every month when the figures come out and its response is, `They are not too bad, you know'. It defies logic that each month the Government adds nearly $1 billion to this nation's debt and so ratchets up the problems of the Australian economy, turning a blind eye to the essential solutions which ought to have been faced and which have been proffered by the Opposition throughout this session. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(3.45) —It is interesting to listen to the changing nuances and the changing emphasis of members of the Opposition week to week in their analysis of Australia's position in the world economy and Australian public policy. Since the stock market collapse there have been several distinct changes in the Opposition's position on public policy. Of course, it has abandoned several of its former lines. No longer are members of the Opposition saying that the stock market crash is--(Quorum formed) I say to those opposite that they can call as many quorums as they like and use any other measures to try to hide their policy indifference, but it will hide nothing. In the 20 minutes in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) spoke not one constructive policy option was put forward by him on this matter of public importance. Supposedly this Government has left this country vulnerable to huge foreign debt. Supposedly this Government is doing nothing. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, having raised the matter of public importance, did not come forward once in that 20 minutes with a constructive proposal. It is interesting to see how the rhetoric of honourable members opposite is changing. Previously they were saying that the stock market crash was not an overseas induced problem but the fault of this Government. But, of course, after several polls in the Business Review Weekly, in the Business Week and in other substantial publications, which reflect that the Australian business community knows that it is an overseas induced problem and recognises that the Government is doing something about it, suddenly the Opposition has dropped that line. Previously, of course, it was accusing the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of lecturing Ronald Reagan and having no substance for doing so. But now the United States of America markets have pummelled the American dollar and, of course, the price of gold has risen, indicating that the world has passed judgment on the United States Administration, just as our Government did several months ago. Having seen the Hawke-Keating position vindicated once again, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has dropped that line also. Of course, some months ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a great hue and cry about running the line in relation to the pace of adjustment-that Australia had to pick up the pace of adjustment-but today that line was also absent. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has dropped that line also, because the truth of it is that in post-stock market crash terms he is not sure what he should advocate. But at least I will give him this, he has more respectability than the Leader of the Opposition in that he is not prepared to stick his neck out. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. A quorum not being present and the bells having been rung- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! A quorum not being present, the Chair will be resumed in 10 minutes. Sitting suspended from 3.53 to 4.03 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —A quorum is present. The matter of public importance submitted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will now resume. Mr Fife —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: on what basis is the House now being resumed? It is only a few minutes since you left the chair. The Government was not able to maintain a quorum and keep the House sitting. On what basis is the House now resuming? Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Government Whip might wonder where the Government was. The point of order raised by the honourable member for Hume is not valid. A quorum was not present in the House. The Chair indicated that the chair would be resumed when a quorum was present. Mr Sinclair —After 10 minutes; it was after five. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I said 10 minutes; the bells rang after five minutes. The Leader of the National Party of Australia might recall that I indicated that the chair would be resumed in 10 minutes. It is normal on the requiring of a summons to honourable members to the House that the bells are rung for five minutes. A quorum now being present, the honourable member for Barton may proceed. Mr PUNCH —It is a very great pity that honourable members opposite do not put as much effort into their policy making as they put into disrupting the procedures of this House. The salient point about the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), this afternoon is surely that, to give effect to the Opposition's deliberate talking-down of the Australian economy and its underlying pessimism, one of two things must happen: there must be, first, a major world recession or, secondly, a major fall in our commodity prices for Australia's vulnerability-as honourable members opposite put it-to result in very great material damage to the Australian economy. Let me deal with the first point. First, the pre-crash condition of the international economy was stronger than had been anticipated. The United States had a growth rate of one per cent in real terms in the September quarter, and the Japanese industrial production to September had increased by 5 per cent. It is important to note, in relation to the point of view of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that inventories are at a very low ebb around the world and, in respect of raw materials especially, that will maintain major commodity prices. Furthermore, before the crash there was an easing of monetary policy in the nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and, while the West Germans especially have printed money, which presents a major problem in terms of inflation, that is not a new phenomenon. Therefore, the Australian policy response is quite appropriate-to wait and see. All of this is reflected in the OECD forecast of a reduction in the world growth rate from 2.75 per cent to 2.25 per cent-in other words, not depression, not the recession that honourable members opposite keep talking about with the world as we know it ending, but rather presenting no substantial reason for a major policy U-turn as honourable members opposite have implied. The second point, of course, relates to commodity prices. The Commodity Research Bureau's futures price index reached a level of 237 points last week, the highest for a year. It is complemented by the positive signs on commodity prices of the State Bank of Victoria. The declining American dollar, it is important to note, will boost producer returns together with the underlying buoyant world economy. The Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, in today's Australian Financial Review, also gives merit to this. All these factors are in addition to an underlying optimism that we can quite rightly feel about the shape of the Australian economy. Indeed, the pre-crash condition of the Australian economy was much better than we had previously thought. That can be measured in terms of the current account deficit for year on year, the increase in exports by 12 per cent as opposed to only a 0.1 per cent increase in imports and, of course, a number of other major indices prior to the crash painted a much brighter picture for the Australian economy, and I refer to retail sales, private dwelling approvals and the average weekly earnings pattern that has evolved under this Government, giving confidence to the Australian business sector. It must be said that the aim of this Government's policies has been to pursue the direction of resources away from private consumption to the export sector and import replacement. We as a Government are seeking to reduce Australia's dependence on commodity exports and, of course, we are pursuing structural change over time. Those honourable members opposite, by contrast, seem to imply that policy by cliche can produce results overnight; yet they come into this House without one substantial proposal to alter Australia's current position. It is important to note that the international situation in terms of commodity prices and world economic health, with sober but realistic assessments for world growth in the ensuing year, are all set against the background of substantial policy results by this Government. Those substantial policy results have reduced the Budget deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product from 3.1 per cent under the now Leader of the Opposition to zero in the last Budget, reducing the Government's call on funds by reducing the public sector borrowing requirement from 3.4 per cent of gross domestic product to 1.8 per cent, increasing the share of national income going to profits and reducing the share to the wage and salary sector. Of course, the restructuring of the tax regime and, in particular, full dividend imputation are the kinds of policies that the business community has to look forward to in the year ahead. The accord continues to maintain a wage and salary equilibrium in the economy. Real labour costs have been reduced and the lowest level of disputation is being maintained at a sustained level that the Australian economy has not seen since World War II. While there is no reason for anyone in this House to be an unbridled optimist about the Australian economy in the year ahead in an uncertain world economy, there is, nevertheless, substantial reason for those opposite not to continue to deliberately talk down the economy and not to continue to deliberately berate the Australian Government's policies at home and abroad. It seems that those opposite have spent much of today saying nothing in the time allotted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and have been more intent on pursuing disruption in this House. Dr HEWSON(Wentworth)(4.11) —It is indicative of the contempt in which this Government is to be held at present that, in this matter of considerable public importance in the current economic circumstances in Australia, it puts in not a second stringer but a third stringer to answer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). We are dealing today with a fundamentally important economic problem, the magnitude of our economic debt and the constraint that that debt places on our economic performance. I am fascinated, and indeed appalled, at the way the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other Ministers in this Government go around the country trying to make things look much better than they are, trying to paint the picture that things are going to be fine; in simple terms, trying to hold the situation together until we can get through to the New South Wales election which the Government hopes the Australian Labor Party will win in the early part of next year. In these terms, the key economic question, in the way this Government poses it, is whether the Treasurer will be able to hold things together until that time. How can the Government be complacent about our debt levels in the current economic circumstances? I am absolutely staggered that people on the other side of the House can look at a debt level of $100 billion and accept it so complacently. We have a debt problem of a very significant order of magnitude and one that has quadrupled since the early 1980s. From 1983 to 1987 the level of our international debt has quadrupled. We now pay $1 in $4 of our exports just to service the interest payments on those debts; and $1 in every $3 to meet the contractual principal repayments and interest on that debt. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, we are borrowing additional money day by day, month by month, simply to meet the interest payments on those debts. It is something of the order of $1,000m per month. How is it that this Government is so complacent? How is it that the Government can be so irresponsible and so negligent in its attitude to what is a very serious and difficult set of economic circumstances? In the few minutes I have available I will emphasise the magnitude of the task that is before us as far as our international debts are concerned. Whatever these people say, whatever time they try to buy, the seriousness of our debt problem will ultimately come home to roost in a very significant way for this Government and this Treasurer in the next few years. I refer honourable members to a study that was done by the Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) in October 1986. It looked at the circumstances under which our debt might stabilise. The Treasurer refers quite often with fondness to this study as being indicative of the fact that our debt problem is coming to an end. That study suggests that to stabilise our external debt, relative to our gross domestic product (GDP), there must be a sufficient surplus in our trade balance to offset any positive contribution to foreign debt accumulation from the servicing cost of the current debt. That study estimated, for example, that it would take a trade surplus, as distinct from a trade deficit, which we presently have, of about 0.7 per cent of GDP in order to stabilise our debt at about 400 per cent by the early 1990s. To give some perspective, if we look back to the 1960s and 1970s it is interesting to see that our balance of trade averaged a deficit of about 0.3 per cent of GDP and it is currently about 0.7 per cent relative to GDP. Those orders of magnitude suggest that we have a very long way to go in order to create the circumstances that EPAC would have us believe would be necessary to stabilise our international debts. But, in fact, it is worse than that. If we look at the EPAC study and the assumptions under which it was done, we see that it made three key assumptions. It firstly assumed that our growth rate would have to be about 3 per cent per annum in real terms; secondly, we would have to maintain the real interest rates-then about 4 1/2 per cent; and, thirdly, we would have to maintain a constant real exchange rate. None of those three conditions is likely to apply to any significant extent in the years to come. They were not applying at the time of the last Budget and they certainly are not applying now in circumstances after the stock market crash. If we look at that EPAC study we can also get some measure of the sensitivity of our economic predicament, in particular its estimates of what trade surplus will be required to stabilise our debts if we change some of those parameters. For example, if our growth rate falls from 3 per cent to one per cent, which cannot be ruled out as the prospective growth rate for the next couple of years, the required balance of trade surplus jumps from about 0.7 per cent of GDP to about 1 1/2 per cent of GDP-we are, as I have said before, a long way from even beginning that process under the favourable assumptions of EPAC-and the magnitude of our adjustment task will be about twice as great. We are going to need a trade surplus of about 1 1/2 per cent of GDP in each of the next few years to stabilise our debt. That study also offers one additional interesting dimension which has a direct bearing on what the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) said, which is of concern to us on this side of the House, namely, that we continue to emphasise the need for quicker policy adjustment. The EPAC study quite interestingly has some data that is helpful in that respect. The figures I quoted were of the trade surplus required to stabilise our debt at about 40 per cent of GDP, which is about the current level of our debt to GDP ratio. If we continue to let the situation slide, if we do not act and the proportion of our debt to GDP continues to grow, as it does every day and every hour that we continue to go on without doing something about that problem, the magnitude of the adjustment task becomes significantly greater. For example, if we let that ratio slip as far as EPAC suggests by way of example, to around 60 per cent of GDP, we would have to have a trade surplus of about one per cent, or a little more relative to GDP on a sustained basis. So we are in a very unreal world when the Treasurer and other Ministers in this Government can simply wander around the country trying to create the appearance that there is nothing significantly wrong with our current circumstances when those sorts of fundamental trends are there and growing day by day. The bottom line for the Government is that our international debts are a significant problem and they will get worse every day that we have to wait for the Treasurer to respond. In much of what I have said I put weight on the outlook for our economic growth. I am surprised that the Treasurer can suggest that the stock market crash will not have a significant effect on our growth. As a defence, he runs around the place saying that things are a lot better than the Government thought at the time of the Budget and so, even if our growth falls off a bit, it will not fall off very much, from his Budget estimates, and so on. If we think back to 1984 and 1985 and some of the things he said then, we will realise that he has learnt very little from any of his past mistakes. He always tends to paint a better picture than is in fact the case. So on a couple of occasions he has ultimately had to come out with pretty inflationary rhetoric, such as the `banana republic' statement, in order to attempt to change the nature of the unreal impression he has created. And that will happen again as we go into the early part of next year. We can be sure this Treasurer will be faced with the reality of our debt problem, the reality of our debt service burden, and will again have to try to shift the nature of the debate from the impression he has been so carefully building up prior to the New South Wales election. As our growth will probably fall off quite significantly in the course of the next 12 or 18 months, it is hard to see how there is not a clear recognition on the part of the Treasurer of that fact. He forecast in the last Budget that our GDP would grow by about 2 3/4 per cent. Since then, as I have said, we have had a major stock market crash. We also have in prospect very difficult international trading circumstances and our commodity prices, which have encouragingly shown some recovery lately, are most likely, as today's Australian Financial Review, for example, suggests, to flatten out around the middle of next year. How on earth will he be able to sustain our growth rate, which has been so importantly dependent on our external performance, in what will be very difficult international circumstances? Most international commentators are now reassessing the outlook for the United States of America and are now significantly reducing their earlier forecasts for growth in that country. Earlier growth figures of about 2 3/4 per cent have now been reduced quite significantly to about one per cent and, in some cases, some private sector forecasters in the United States are suggesting that growth could be as low as 0.1 per cent in 1988. Let me conclude with a simple plea to the Treasurer. Our debt levels are a serious economic problem. We are in the most difficult set of economic circumstances in the post-war period. I do not know how we can genuinely wander around the country complacently trying to create the impression that things are on the mend, when the magnitude of our debt is what it is, and when our debt service burden is growing month by month and is crippling this nation and its capacity to continue to grow and develop. I think he owes the people of Australia a significant explanation for that irresponsible behaviour. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(4.21) —I ask honourable members to look at the terms of the Opposition's matter of public importance. It refers to the need for the Government to take immediate-I emphasise the word `immediate'-policy action to reduce the vulnerability of Australia in light of our huge foreign debt. A number of aspects of this proposal warrant consideration. The Opposition talks about the need for immediate action to reduce our vulnerability which has resulted from the magnitude of our foreign debt. What does it have in mind in that regard? Presumably, it has in mind some fiscal policy, wages policy or perhaps even monetary policy-in other words, short term measures relating to the macroeconomic environment. I do not dispute for a moment that the macroeconomic environment is relevant to these issues; in fact, it obviously is. However, if the foreign debt problem and our balance of payments problem is to be corrected in the longterm, nobody seriously disputes that what is required is major structural change to our economy. We need to reduce our dependence on commodity exports-agricultural and mineral commodities-and increase the value added component in our exports, by moving into the area of highly processed manufactured goods and sophisticated services. Everybody agrees that is the essence of the real solution to the problem. That is what is required in order to correct the difficulty in the long term. The problem with the proposal that the Opposition has put forward is the notion that somehow there is a set of immediate policy measures that can be taken that will significantly address the problem. On the contrary, I argue that to place reliance on immediate policy measures as distinct from policies oriented to the medium to long term is fundamentally wrong. If one pursues a fiscal policy which is so tight and so restrictive that one must cut back and put the squeeze on necessary areas of government spending-on, say, education, infrastructure and structural adjustment for industry-one is eliminating the preconditions of major structural change in the economy and, in that sense, being thoroughly counterproductive. I think that the basic perspective embodied in this matter of public importance is fundamentally flawed. It is interesting also, given the Opposition's emphasis on fiscal policy, that no doubt it would tell us that what the Government should have done, in light of the stock market crash, was immediately to bring down an economic statement and to tighten the fiscal screws significantly. That is what it would say ought to be done. Of course, if one looks at the Opposition's record with regard to fiscal policy, one has no reason to suppose that it would do at all well in that area. When this Government came to power there was a $10 billion Budget deficit in prospect. I hesitate to mention that, because if I hear it referred to once more in a parliamentary debate, I think I will throw up. I am sick to death of hearing about it, but it happens to be true. Of course, the Government has addressed a major fiscal problem very effectively and in a way in which no other government in the post-war period in this country has managed to do. There are very few precedents, even internationally, for the way in which fiscal policy has been tightened up by this Government over the last few years. The winding back of the Budget deficit to zero per cent of gross domestic product is rather unusual, to say the least. We must ask ourselves what the Opposition would do. Is there anything in its policies or proposals to suggest that it would do better than that in the fiscal policy area? Of course, the only thing we have to go on is its stated policies. Its pre-election policies were shown conclusively to be an arithmetical absurdity; there is no argument about that. They were an absolute joke that would have blown out the Budget deficit enormously. Yet the Opposition expects to have its views taken seriously on the fiscal policy front. It is an absolute farce. To the extent that it is saying to the Government, `Yes, you should have been tighter on fiscal policy', what it put forward is utterly laughable and can be dismissed. On the fiscal policy front, there is a lot of discussion in academic literature about what the relationship is between the Budget deficit on the one hand and the current account deficit on the other, what that does to the capital account and, in turn, what that does to the level of our foreign debt. There is a presumption on the part of those who say that the key to getting the current account deficit down is to squeeze the Budget deficit. There is the so-called twin deficit hypothesis which supposes a fairly close linkage between the Budget deficit and the current account deficit. I think that that close linkage is frequently exaggerated. I do not dispute that there is a connection between the Budget deficit and the current account deficit, but I do not think it is as strong as many people argue. In fact, I have seen some literature regarding the theoretical and empirical evidence on that question, and it is a lot more ambiguous than many people imagine. Nonetheless, I believe that to rely on fiscal policy as the means of addressing our current account deficit is wrong. Basically, we need to have a range of both short and long term policies and, in particular, the key issue is to address the structural problem. That requires policies geared over the medium to long term. This Government has shown that it is capable of performing incomparably better, in terms of both short term policy and long term industry restructuring policy, than the Opposition. When the Opposition carries on about the vulnerability of our economy, the question that has to be asked is this: What reason is there to suppose that our admittedly significant problem with external indebtedness would be made better by the stated policy proposals of the Opposition, its performance in government and since, in terms of what it put forward by way of pre-election policies? There is no reason to think that it would do better and every reason to think that it would do vastly worse. It would destroy an existing framework of incomes policy. If its statements are to be taken seriously, it would utterly destroy any coherent fiscal policy. It has no coherent approach to industry restructure and, if anything, its proposals would make our existing difficulties far worse. There are some legitimate issues relating to the factors that have led to external indebtedness blowing out over the last few years. Some relate to the currency depreciation which has increased the Australian dollar valuation of our external indebtedness. Also, on the capital accounts side, the stock market boom, for example, has led to a larger magnitude of capital inflow than might have otherwise been the case. To that extent, that may well be driving the current account deficit, rather than the conventional wisdom of the current account deficit determining the capital account deficit. An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication entitled Financial Market Trends dated November 1987 reported that in Australia prior to the collapse surging equity markets continued to attract large capital inflows. One suspects that that and the associated spate of takeover activity may have been a contributing factor to the build-up of the private sector component of our external indebtedness. I do not think that that can be neglected. It is perhaps worth noting that the bulk of our external indebtedness is incurred by the private sector. We see a lot of nonsense in speeches by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) about the $110 billion of gross external indebtedness. That works out at $7,000 per head of population. We are told that every man, woman and child in Australia is in hock to the tune of $7,000. Of course there is a lot of nonsense involved in that suggestion. I would have thought that, if we are looking at the debt incurred by private companies, the people who are in hock if anybody is, or who are liable for that indebtedness, are the companies' shareholders, not the general population. The taxpayers are responsible for the Government component of our external indebtedness, both the Commonwealth's official borrowing and also borrowings by government owned enterprises. But certainly the suggestion that every Australian is in some sense liable for borrowings by Bond or Holmes a Court to finance their takeover activities is a preposterous proposition and it shows an absurd approach to this issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The time for the debate has now expired. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Small Business)(4.33) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1987) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 19 (1987). The Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Proposals, operative on and from 14 December 1987, provide for reduced rates of duty on certain refined petroleum products resulting from the Government's decisions on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. The Prices Surveillance Authority has indicated that new wholesale prices for refined petroleum products will also operate from 14 December. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 13 (1987) decreases the excise duty on the relevant petroleum products. Excise duty on motor spirit and diesel is reduced by 0.535c per litre. The reductions for aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene are 0.555c per litre and 0.428c per litre respectively. For other kerosene, fuel oil and heating oil the reduction is 0.111c per litre. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 19 (1987) make complementary changes to the Customs Tariff Act in respect of duties applying to equivalent imported refined petroleum products. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated to honourable members. I would also advise honourable members that the declared rates of diesel fuel rebate decrease in conjunction with these duty changes. The new declared rebate rates for currently eligible use of diesel fuel will be 20.295c per litre in respect of primary production, 17.907c per litre for mining operations and 15.452c per litre for other prescribed use in residential premises, homes for aged persons, nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions providing medical or nursing care. I commend the Proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clause 20 agreed to. Clause 21 (Review of magistrate's orders). Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.36) —I move: (2) Clause 21, page 18, line 24, at the end of paragraph (d) add ``unless the court otherwise orders''. This matter was canvassed in the debate earlier in the day. The amendment relates to adding to the existing provision material that can be the subject of proceedings before a higher court on appeal from a magistrate. The proposal in the Bill is that only that material which was before the magistrate can be the subject of proceedings at a later stage. The response of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), as I interpret it, is that the Opposition's proposal would open up a Pandora's box, that all the cases could go back to the trough to be rehashed. With great respect, that is not really the proposal that we have put. We have a choker on that Pandora's box possibility. Firstly, we go back to basics and we say that we do not want a situation which is totally inflexible; we want some flexibility in it. Something may arise; some new material might become available to a fugitive that was not available to him at the time of the first hearing before the magistrate. We want to have some mechanism by which we can get it in at a later stage but we do not want, as the Attorney would put it, to open up the situation entirely. We say that the court should be given a discretion to pick up material if it is in the interests of justice to do so. It seems to the Opposition that it is a perfectly sensible proposal. I honestly do not see the difficulties that have been adverted to and I commend to the Attorney that he give it his consideration, for everybody's sake. It may well obviate difficulties in the future. Special circumstances do arise after the first hearing. I think the system ought to have enough flexibility in it. Otherwise, the present Attorney-General or the Attorney-General of the day will have such matters on his or her plate. I think it is better to have all matters dealt with through the review processes as they are on the appeals. That is the basis of the amendment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.40) —The Government cannot accept the reasoning of the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). I can understand his concern about flexibility. However, clause 19, to which he wants to add this addition, deals with an appeal, which is actually in the province of the High Court of Australia. The provision is of a similar nature to that which already applies under the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. There, in an appeal to the Full Court, the Court shall have regard only to the evidence given in proceedings out of which the appeal arose. That is section 17a (10), and, in the same Act, section 18 (5) says the same thing. That is based on the principle that, on appeal, one is dealing with the matters that were raised at the original hearing. I am reminded of the fact that that is consistent with rules governing appeals in criminal matters before the courts. Under those rules, no new evidence is permitted because one must deal with the issue that was before the court at the original hearing. Let me make it clear to the honourable gentleman. The matters in extradition are rather limited, as he knows, and he has been arguing about the prima facie case. The matters that can be raised before the magistrate are specific matters. They include dual criminality, identity, a sufficiency of documents, compliance with treaty requirements and matters that go to proving extradition objections. All of these things are known to the person sought at the time, so to depart from the practice and say that something else will now happen opens the issue and results in a trial de novo. For that reason, particularly because it is extradition that we are talking about, it is consistent to say, `These are the only matters that can be argued on appeal. They must be the same matters as were dealt with by the magistrate'. Otherwise there is a brand new proposition, with attempts to put something additional before the court of appeal to that which was put before the magistrate. The issue must be looked at. It is acknowledged that if other matters were to arise-of a humanitarian nature or something of that sort-one would come into the discretion area, but not in this formality of appeal. I want to make a point that might be helpful in terms of the prima facie case. If the honourable gentleman gives me this licence, he will be pleased to know that on 17 November in the House of Lords, the House rejected an amendment from the Opposition that there should be brought into the legislation concerned a provision relating to evidence of a prima facie case. It was being done away with. I had not read this before I spoke earlier today. The Lord Chancellor says about that matter: In my submission to your Lordships, the principle that we are seeking to establish here is important in giving proper effect to the development of international co-operation in connection with the suppression of crime. It is a logical step when one recognises the strengths of the legal system of others as well as our own. I believe that in order to accede to the convention it will not be necessary for us to accede to it fully. Of course, we could have a reservation but the real justification for this advance in our legislation is that the result will be effective. We want effective co-operation in relation to this matter across purely national boundaries, between legal systems with mutual respect for one another. For that reason I submit to your Lordships that the amendments in principle should be approved. That concerned the prima facie case. The Lord Chancellor made another helpful remark. He said: In case it is thought that the matter of prima facie evidence is fundamental to our system- bear in mind that the proposals that he was talking about were being removed- it is worth pointing out, first, that in cases of extradition requested by the Republic of Ireland the prima facie rule does not apply. It is entitled to extradition because of the history of our connection. The authorities in the Republic of Ireland will proceed on a proper judicial determination in this country. Therefore, it is not correct to say that this requirement- that is, the requirement of prima facie evidence- has been fundamental to all extraditions. I rest my case. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.44) —The Attorney-General goes back to the previous legislation to rebut the point that we would make in regard to this amendment. I refer him to his second reading speech in which he said that this legislation is an attempt to modernise the law and to bring about improvements. That is all that we are attempting to do with this amendment. It does not open up a Pandora's box. It is in the discretion of the courts. I stick by the amendment, which I think is reasonable. As for the House of Lords, I am entertained that the Attorney-General, who I think has a secret agenda to knock down the powers of the Senate, the House of review, is here relying on the wisdom of the House of review at Westminster. As to the Irish arrangements, I make no comment. I have no knowledge of them and the Attorney-General obviously did not know about them before today either. I am not sure that he does now. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.46) —I wish to address the remaining clauses, and in particular clause 22. I want to provide the Attorney- General with an opportunity to respond to the issues that we have raised in respect of the implications of this death penalty prohibition on extradition unless one has an undertaking. I would be prepared to give the Attorney-General an extension of time. We usually do on debates on his portfolio. I was thinking that if 10 minutes was not enough, we would be prepared to hang around until later in the afternoon until we could finally come up with a response to this one. The response that has been elicited so far has not been satisfactory. Basically, the Attorney-General has got himself all tied up in red tape, then he has gone off to immigration law and the hijacking of aircraft legislation to try to get himself out of the difficult situation into which he put himself in the first place. To claim that it is a satisfactory answer to say that the immigration laws will deal with these fugitives is inadequate and inappropriate. Immigration laws are about immigration, not about dealing with major criminals. In respect of the hijacking of aircraft legislation, that might provide part of the answer, but it is limited to offences in relation to aircraft hijacking, or whatever it might be. That answer is not up to scratch. There are scenarios under this proposal, to which the Attorney-General is apparently sticking, where his answer is totally inadequate. The implications are very considerable. The Gold Coast tourist resorts in Australia are fairly free of this sort of thing. If this proposal goes through, we shall not have the Gold Coast and we shall not have to worry about the Costa del Sol-it will be the Costa del Bowen. The Bill contains a wide invitation. We have had a lot of debate recently about war criminals. Let me set out a scenario. The Attorney-General seemed to think that this is all pie in the sky stuff, but what if there were here a serious war criminal, and a request came from a requesting country that had the death penalty for those offences, and that person was neither an Australian citizen nor a permanent resident? Given those circumstances, what would the Attorney-General do? Would he ignore that person or give him a slap over the wrist under the immigration laws? Mr Lionel Bowen —Are you talking about Australian citizens? Mr REITH —No, I am talking about the implications of this legislation and the possible consequences of it. Mr Lionel Bowen —What about citizenship? Mr REITH —I am talking about a person who is neither an Australian citizen nor a resident. What would the Attorney-General do about such a person? The answer is that there is nothing that he can do. The Attorney-General is talking himself into this situation when he does not need to do so at all. The reality is that he has very wide discretions, as he has acknowledged and as everybody knows. He is tying himself up in this situation. Basically the response that I got from the Attorney's office last Friday when I raised this matter publicly is the same response that we have got today. The response was inadequate on Friday, and it is still inadequate today. The problem will not go away. In America 37 of the 50 states still retain the death penalty. Mr Lionel Bowen —You are saying that I would need to alter the law to allow them to go back to be executed. Mr REITH —No, it is not a question of whether they go back, because the Attorney still has a discretion. If the Attorney does not want a person to go back, that is fine. However, my point is: Why does the Attorney tie his hands? As soon as he does so there may be people who, in fact, take advantage of the situation. I have a copy of a letter addressed to the Attorney- General from the Queensland Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Clauson. He makes a very good point when he says: Canada, Eire, New Zealand and the United Kingdom retain capital punishment for treason as well as certain military offences. A number of European countries also retain the death penalty for certain offences, including Belgium, Spain and Greece. We like to draw authority from the House of Lords. I have used Canada as an authority. He says: . . . there is presently a debate in the Canadian House of Commons sponsored by the Government, on the possible re-introduction of capital punishment for murder. From information supplied to me, it appears that there is a strong likelihood that if a vote is taken Canada will restore the death penalty. As I say, this is a trend that we have seen in recent years. I do not know how that trend will continue in the future. However, it is a reality that many of these countries will either retain the death penalty or, in the case of Canada as we understand it, may reintroduce it. I think Mr Clauson put it very well when he said: The point of this is that it is dangerous and counter-productive for the Commonwealth to seek to refuse extradition simply because the alleged criminal may face a death sentence. That is the point he raises. He says that he understands the humanitarian aspects of this matter-as does the Federal Opposition. In the end, the Government is picking up on a fine- sounding principle and one we can understand. However, it has implications which, quite frankly, I did not think last Friday either the Attorney-General or his Department seemed to have fully comprehended. I am disappointed that the Attorney still does not seem to comprehend them. Furthermore, he does not seem prepared to accede to the point we are putting. On page 2 of Mr Clauson's letter he says: Taking another example, in 1985 an Australian citizen murdered over 10 women in a number of American States. In almost every State the penalty for such murders was death. As it happened that Australian citizen was killed in a shoot-out, but if he had managed to return to Australia, the Australian Government would have had to refuse extradition requests from American authorities. There is a complication there because he was an Australian citizen. Mr Lionel Bowen —He is an Australian citizen. Mr REITH —Yes, I realise that. However, the point I have made is still valid. As an example, it is still a useful contribution to the debate. Mr Clauson continued: I am deeply concerned that out of some misguided `humanitarian' objectives this Bill may in fact prove to be a major impediment to effective law enforcement and the administration of justice. Our primary aim, as I am sure is the primary aim of the Attorney-General, is the effective law enforcement and administration of justice. The provision is not needed because the Attorney-General already has the discretion. He is quite free to exercise his discretion. It is a wide and unfettered discretion. Quite frankly, it would have been much better to leave the situation as it was rather than opening up a potential situation in which Australia was regarded as a safe haven. That is not something that anybody would want. I am sure that it is not something that the Attorney-General would want. Therefore, I think that the Government ought to reconsider its position. This is a serious matter. I look forward to what the Attorney-General might say further on it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.55) —In reply to the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), I accept the view that he feels he understands the problem completely, as does the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General in Queensland. However, neither has negotiated extradition treaties. Why? They have never had the opportunity. The fundamental flaw in the honourable member's argument is that all the countries with which we negotiate treaties accept our death penalty proviso. It is not a shock to them, as the honourable member would like to make out. Mr Reith —Why put it in? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —For the very simple reason that our own law does not provide for the death penalty. In negotiating treaties we make the point that we expect the same situation to apply in regard to a particular person that a country might want to extradite. The honourable member has created the impression that such countries do not ask for extradition. They do. In fact, people are sent back to those countries. All that has happened, apparently to the honourable member's dissatisfaction, is that such people are not executed. Such an arrangement will not create a haven. Under the terms of the treaty everybody would go back. Someone who committed a crime in California, for instance, could well be executed. If that person escaped here and his extradition were asked for that person would be sent back to California, probably to serve a life sentence. But that person would not be executed. That is the only difference. The treaty would not be a haven for such people. That happens to be the treaty that we have already negotiated. Mr Reith —If it is already covered in the treaty as you have told me, why are you going ahead with this? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Does the honourable member not want to know that there is a statutory requirement on me to do that? Would not other countries want to know, in regard to the treaties that we negotiate with them, that that is the law of this country and that it is not something that is left to the discretion of Attorneys-General? Let me make it clear that extradition treaties relate to the laws of our country. We say to other countries `Our law is this'. Mr Reith —But it is their law, not ours. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) -Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. The honourable member has had more than sufficient time to argue his case. The honourable member has never had the benefit of negotiating treaty arrangements. In his earlier submission he was very worried about the problems of hijacking and matters of that nature. When I told him that they could be dealt with in Australia he got straight off that subject. He is not looking at the issues. I can understand that because he has not had the benefit of being in government. That seems to be the problem. Worse still, he has never had the benefit of organising extradition treaties. Such treaties were pretty light on when I came to office. We are up to about 20 extradition negotiations now. I negate completely the suggestion that people will come here and be able to remain here. They will not; they will be dealt with in accordance with the extradition treaties. It will be a different matter if they are Australian citizens. Of course, it is different if people come here who are not the subject of extradition proceedings but my ministerial colleague deports them because they are not here legally. That deportation has nothing to do with crime. The honourable gentleman is trying to say that there is a misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding. Many people are deported. In many cases when such people are sent back they may be charged with a crime. They are not exempt from such charges. We are clearly stating the law, as we do in the treaties themselves. When we negotiate such treaties the death penalty is clearly made an exception. All the countries with which we have negotiated extradition treaties have accepted that position. We are in line with every other country in the world. It gets back to what the Lord Chancellor in the United Kingdom has said. Even the British, after all these centuries, suddenly realise that they had better get up to date. They have agreed on this principle. The Opposition does not want to get up to date. The rules of evidence we apply in this regard have to have an international basis. Treaties are made on that basis. The Opposition must accept that when we talk about international comity in these matters we do it by treaty. The treaty sets out the situation applying in respect of each country. In extradition cases it is made very clear that the death penalty is one of the exceptions. It is put in our law to guarantee that there is some validity and support for that exception. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 28 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.02) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development of new utility helicopter facilities at RAAF Base, Townsville-Provision of 15 new married quarters. The proposed work is for the construction of some 15 married quarters associated with the development of new operational and support facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base at Townsville. The new facilities are required to enable No. 9 Squadron, which is to be shortly re-equipped with Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters, to be relocated from the base at Amberley to Townsville. The development of the new facilities was referred to the Public Works Committee (PWC) on 23 October last year. Following the tabling of the favourable report in this House on 2 April this year the Government considered it was expedient for the works to proceed. Construction has since commenced. When tabling the report, the Public Works Committee expressed concern at the apparent high cost of construction of the 15 houses and called for supplementary submissions addressing issues relating to the delivery and cost of the houses. The Committee tabled its supplementary report on 4 June this year. This report recommended that there was a need to construct the 15 houses and that they be constructed on existing defence owned land using the most economical method of delivery. Detailed investigations by my officers and those of the Department of Defence have indicated that the blocks already owned by Defence are not suitable for the dwellings to be constructed. The existing blocks are deficient in size, orientation and location for the standard of housing proposed. These blocks were originally purchased in 1982-83 for group one; that is, other ranks accommodation. To now construct the proposed houses on the existing blocks would result in over capitalisation and it would be a poor investment decision. Earlier this year more suitable blocks were identified and were estimated to cost up to $25,000 each. It is now intended to acquire 15 suitable blocks this financial year at a cost of $375,000. It is also intended to construct defence houses on the existing blocks at a later date as part of the ongoing housing program. Normally the replacement of houses for other rank personnel would require acquisition of blocks at a cost of $20,000 each. By using the existing 15 blocks, some $300,000 will be saved in later years, albeit at an additional cost now of $375,000 that I identified earlier. The cost of the houses when initially referred was $1.4m at October 1986 prices and to this is added the land acquisition cost to give a revised total project cost of $1.775m. My officers have undertaken a detailed study of the most economical method of delivery. There are no suitable dwellings that could be purchased that would meet the requirements for housing personnel of the defence forces, nor are there project houses constructed in Townsville that would satisfy the requirements. Two other methods of delivery are available: one is acquisitions of land house packages where builders construct houses on their land. The other is design and documentation by my Department with construction by contractors. The costs of both methods are similar. The quality control of the option of my Department supervising construction of its designed houses is considered to be superior. Land house package acquisition relies on intermittent local authority and departmental site inspections. It is intended to provide the houses based on my Department's design, but contracted out to private enterprise. The cost of these houses is not high, given the sizes involved, and the blocks will need to be developed and the houses completed to a stage where they are immediately habitable by service personnel and their families. Mr White —Why wouldn't they be? Mr WEST —What sort of a comment is that? We are doing the right thing, are we not? We are building the houses. The honourable member sits there and makes snide comments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The Minister should address the chair. Mr White —It sounds as though it is something unusual. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for McPherson will restrain himself. Mr WEST —The blocks will need to be developed and the houses completed to a stage where they are immediately habitable by service personnel and their families. The cost of the houses includes a number of additional features, such as landscaping and internal fittings and finishes to meet the defence scales and standards of accommodation. Contracts will be awarded as soon as suitable buildings sites have been obtained and they should be purchased later this financial year. The houses are to be completed by late next year or early 1989 to enable the relocation of No. 9 Squadron to Townsville early in 1989. I thank the Committee for the support it has given to this proposal. I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.08) —I am pleased to see that at least this defence facility has gone to the Joint Committee on Public Works (PWC). We are not trying to sidestep that Committee, as has happened too often in the past. I think everyone is very pleased to see these new houses being constructed in Townsville, an area that I know well. I question the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) on why there are only 15 houses when he is talking about a Black Hawk squadron. We are talking about a lot of people, although I am just not sure how many. We probably need 100 houses, if not more. Is there any plan to house the rest of the squadron? I hope the Minister will take this matter on board and give us an answer. Fifteen houses will not go very far. The Minister said in his speech a moment ago that the houses would be immediately habitable. Why would they not be habitable? Is the Minister saying that we are just going to build a box and the poor old inhabitants come along and because they are only Defence Force personnel they have to do the landscaping and gardening and make the houses habitable. Why would they not be habitable for Defence Force personnel to move in? I think that is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. I note with some concern that the PWC thought that the houses were too expensive. I am not quite sure why it thought they were too expensive, but I am suspicious enough to believe that this Government, given its record in looking after its Defence Force personnel, thought that these houses were too expensive for Defence Force personnel. If that is not true obviously I will apologise. But I am sick and tired, as are a lot of people in the community, particularly Defence Force personnel, of the Government saying, `That will be good enough for them'. When we look at some of the dog boxes that have been built in Townsville and at other places over the years, in which Defence Force personnel are still living, it is no wonder that they are fed up with the conditions that are being fed to them. When the PWC says that these houses are too expensive I ask: Too expensive for what and for whom? I would be grateful for an answer from the Government. I noted with some satisfaction that the Minister said that the Defence Force land that had been put aside for these houses was rejected as unsuitable. That is a step in the right direction. I hope that people are now starting to consider that service men and women and their families are ordinary people like everyone else and deserve the same sort of consideration, or better consideration, than other people. Let me come back to some of the houses that have been provided over the years-I do not attribute all the blame for this to the present Government because it has been a long process-and I wish to deal particularly with houses in Townsville. Many honourable members in the House, including the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), have seen that these are little more than dog boxes. When people moved into those houses there was no concrete underneath and no verandahs around them. How anyone can build a house in Townsville with any satisfaction and hand it over to Defence Force personnel and not put a verandah on it is completely beyond me. I have not seen the plan for these houses that we are discussing. I very much hope that we will get a decent design-apparently the Minister's Department has undertaken a design-for the tropical area into which these Defence Force personnel are going. I was also alarmed at some of the Minister's other remarks. He said that the land was not rejected for these houses because it was in a bad position or not good enough or not suitable for Defence Force personnel; he said that it was rejected because it was a poor investment decision. I think that reflects some of the Government's current attitudes when it is dealing with Defence Force personnel. Mr West —I said that those blocks were not good enough for the houses. Mr WHITE —They would be overcapitalised. It was not because the blocks were not suitable for the people. Mr West —For God's sake, read the speech. Mr WHITE —I have read it. It was not because the blocks were not suitable for the people; it was because it would have represented a poor investment decision. That is the point I am making. Mr West —It would have been overcapitalisation to build those types of houses on those blocks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr WHITE —It would have been much better if the Minister had said that the land was not suitable for the people instead of talking in commercial terms about the Defence Force personnel who might have to live in the houses. I also very much hope-I think the Minister mentioned this-that these houses will be built to Army scales and standards, but we have heard that story before. The fact is that about 12,000 out of the current 22,000 houses owned by the Department of Defence are below those scales and standards and are unsuitable. I very much hope that some of the lessons of the past have been learnt. Housing is one of the biggest problems causing this enormous wastage from the Services. Everyone I have spoken to in the last year or so who has left the Services has mentioned the poor standard of housing in which they have to live. How we can expect to retain bright men and women who are highly qualified and highly skilled when their standard of housing keeps on slipping below what it now regarded as the community norm-the standard that most people live in-is utterly beyond me. The Government has said that it will spend $75m on housing over the next 10 years. That commitment is welcome but I put it to the Government that that will not be enough. One of the reasons it will not be enough is that there is a sleight of hand trick in that $75m. This year half of that will go on new housing in brand new bases. Originally, when the Government talked about that $75m, it mentioned that it expected that that would be spent on new and renovated housing in existing bases. The fact is that half of that will go to Tindal and Rockingham, which are new bases. So only $30m-odd will be left for some of the badly needed renovations and new housing in existing areas. In conclusion, legislation recently went through this House to set up the Defence Force Housing Authority and I think both sides of the House agreed that that will be an effective organisation. We certainly hope that it will be. We wish it the best in trying to rectify some of the horrendous problems that exist in Defence Force housing. As I have said, I hope that the 15 houses that will be built at Townsville will be built to proper scales and standards and might set a standard that will encourage people to stay in the defence forces instead of getting out in droves. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.16) —I congratulate the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) and his Department on the work that they have done in ensuring that the 15 new houses to be constructed in Townsville to meet the accommodation needs of personnel to be stationed at Garbutt air base, Townsville, for the new Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter facility will be of a standard which will be the envy of service personnel around this country. The cost of the 15 new houses is $1.77m. They will be designed to a standard which not only will take into account the tropical environment but also will meet the expectations of defence spouses who have made a number of submissions to the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses in relation to the design of service homes. I refer to such things as the provision of screening in a tropical environment to ensure that insects do not intrude into their homes; the need for concreting underneath the homes; and the need to ensure that the kitchen and bathroom facilities in the homes are also able to cope with the climatic conditions of a hot, wet environment. The Government has spent millions of dollars on repairing service homes in Townsville to deal with the matters I have just mentioned. I am pleased to say that, through the efforts of Colonel Peter Desmond, the Commander of the District Support Group at Lavarack Barracks, Townsville, that the condition of defence homes in Townsville ranks among the better homes in Australia for defence personnel. This motion by the Minister to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Public Works for approval of the work is significant. Not only has he moved for approval of this work; he has foreshadowed also that there will be additional dwellings. It is of significance that he has done this because it is in line with the Government's commitment to locate 39 Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters at Garbutt base to provide an air mobile capability for one company of the Operational Deployment Force based at Lavarack Barracks. This will ensure that the Operational Deployment Force has a very effective capability in any part of Australia. Not only does the Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter represent an enormous advance in technology over the previous utility helicopter, the Iroquois, but also it is a fighting man's helicopter; in other words, it has the capability to provide insertion at minimal risk to the soldiers on the helicopter to ensure that they are able to get in, do the job and then get out, if possible. So this motion for approval of work is most commendable and is welcomed by the defence community in Townsville. I am sure that the tropical design of these homes, costing more than $1.77m, will be copied and emulated by other defence housing projects in tropical environments throughout Australia. I commend the Minister and I commend the motion to the House. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.21) —in reply-I want to clear up several points which I think the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) did not understand when I spoke to my motion requesting expediency for this project. The honourable member mentioned that construction of 15 houses was perhaps not adequate to provide enough housing accommodation to cover the relocation of No. 9 Squadron from Amberley to Townsville and, of course, that is so. I never intended to imply in my speech that the 15 houses constituted the total housing program which would be required to cover this move. The fact is that the relocation of No. 9 Squadron will require the provision of 113 married quarters off-base, 71 of which are to be provided by the new Defence Service Homes Corporation by the most economical means-that is by new construction, acquisition or leasing. The remaining 42 are to be provided by Defence from existing surplus Army stock. Of the 71 houses to be provided by the new Corporation, 15 were required to rectify partially the shortage of accommodation for the more senior ranks. These are the 15 houses that we are talking about, but those 15 for the more senior ranks for which I have asked for the expediency of the House so that we can get on with them are simply part of the provision of 113 married quarters in Townsville. I hope that clears up the either deliberate or involuntary misunderstanding by the honourable member for McPherson on this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.23) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new Commonwealth offices, Haymarket, New South Wales. In accordance with our policy of increasing ownership of office accommodation requirements, and therefore reducing the overall rental outlays, I propose to construct some 50,000 square metres net of office accommodation at the Haymarket in Sydney on Commonwealth land known as the Australian Gaslight site. It may be recalled that I mentioned this matter last night when talking about our total overall rental and ownership accommodation strategy for the city of Sydney. This site is a complete city block at the southern end of the central business district bounded by Pitt, Barlow, Park and Hay Streets. It is well positioned in relation to public transport, being only some five minutes walk from both the Central Railway Station and the bus interchange at Railway Square. The site contains a number of historic buildings, which I am advised will be classified by the Australian Heritage Commission. These include the former Australian Gaslight Showroom, Fire Engine House and the Presbyterian Manse. The proposal will provide for restoration of these buildings and their incorporation into the overall development. The site also contains a number of retail facilities. To take advantage of the full development potential of the site, the proposal includes some 1,200 square metres of new retail commercial accommodation which will be leased on the open market. The proposed office development will comprise a main tower of 31 levels at the southern end of the site, which will be linked to a medium rise building of nine floors along the western boundary. The development will accommodate some 3,000 staff, while on-site parking will be provided for approximately 140 vehicles. The building has been designed to the approved construction cost of $118m exclusive of fitout at April 1987 prices. The fitout of this accommodation is to be considered by the Standing Committee on Public Works, but it will be subject to later programming action. It is estimated that it will cost about $18m at April 1987 prices, so I will table drawings of this proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.26) —This motion raises some questions which really the Government is bound to answer before we continue with many more proposals for Commonwealth expenditure. I do not question the reference of this proposal to the Standing Committee on Public Works. However, I raise the more fundamental question of what is the Government's policy in relation to the provision of office accommodation for its employees. Last night the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) explained to the House why it was necessary for him to shift some of his own departmental employees out of an existing Commonwealth owned building into rental accommodation at Chatswood. That rental accommodation comprises 23,000 square metres to accommodate some 1,200 members of his staff. In the first sentence of the Minister's speech after moving this motion, he referred to the Government's `policy of increasing ownership of its office accommodation requirements'. This is quite contrary to the motion that was put to the House last night, which involved moving people out of existing Commonwealth owned office into rental accommodation. We are now expected to appreciate that the Government's policy today is that Government owned office accommodation should be increased, as is suggested in the motion put by the Minister, in order to reduce its overall rental outlays. What on earth is the Government's policy on this matter, because the last two resolutions relating to the provision of accommodation for Commonwealth public servants have contained diametrically opposed propositions? No doubt the Minister will endeavour to argue that those two propositions are consistent, but they are not. In relation to the move of his departmental officers out of the Government owned buildings into rental accommodation, he said last night that that move: . . . will still be in accord with our policy of transferring people, where necessary, out of expensive leased accommodation in the CBD to a Commonwealth owned building in areas such as Parramatta, and to leased private sector accommodation in areas such as Chatswood. Last night it seemed that the policy he put forward was that the Government wanted to move people out of the expensive Sydney central business district area and into outer Sydney areas or to regional Sydney areas such as Parramatta where the Government is building its own office block, or into leased accommodation in regional areas. That was the Government's policy last night, but today the House is told that the Government will build another office building in Sydney for the Government's own use, which is somewhat in conflict with the statements made last night. Nevertheless, if the Minister's response is that some Public Service officers must be accommodated in the Sydney area-and I believe that that is the case-who are those officers and how many does he expect will require accommodation in the central business districts of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, et cetera? Has any work been done or any long-term planning been carried out as to the office requirements of the Commonwealth Public Service? We have seen an extraordinarily haphazard approach unfold by way of these resolutions just in the past two days. There is no consistency in planning or approach, and it is high time that there was some consistency. We are faced with the extraordinary position where the Government has decided to sell the existing Commonwealth centre in Sydney and at the same time build a new centre. There is probably nothing inherently wrong with that. Mr West —It is what is known as rationalisation. Mr PORTER —It may well be rationalisation, as the Minister suggests, but one would have thought that the Government would provide the new accommodation before selling the old accommodation. There is sudden silence from the Minister. Because of the Government's great concern to raise cash, the existing Commonwealth centre will be sold before the new accommodation is provided for the people in that building. Some of these people, the Minister says, are not required to be in the city area any longer, for example, his staff members, who will be moved to Chatswood. I come back to my original question, how much office space is required in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and so on in the central business districts? That is the first question to which we must have an answer. Once we have the answer, we can establish how we should provide that accommodation. I would have thought it was pretty obvious and basic economic common sense that, before we sell one building, we build its replacement because, in the meantime, accommodation will have to be leased and we will have to pay the fit-out cost of new accommodation for the existing staff before the new building is completed. Mr West —That is not happening. Mr PORTER —Of course it is happening. We passed a resolution last night-- Mr West —They're going to Chatswood; there is a long term lease. Mr PORTER —Perhaps the Minister will let me finish, as he can exercise his right to speak again. He can try to explain the conflicting policies of his Department and Administration that he is putting to the House. We are faced with an extraordinary situation. The Government is saying that it wants to move some of the public servants out of the central business district into cheaper, regional accommodation-and we agree with that-and, secondly, the Government says, `We will still have to provide some accommodation for public servants in the business district, and we want to move from rental accommodation to our own Commonwealth owned accommodation'. However, at the same time, the Government is selling off its existing government owned accommodation before the new building is finished. That does not make sense to me. Certainly, it is not an economically responsible policy to be promoting, and it arises from this Government's dire need for cash. It must sell the Chifley Square building because it needs the money, and it is prepared to outlay what is, overall, a fairly small amount of money for leased accommodation in the meantime in order to achieve that capital sum, because it has been running an extraordinarily large deficit. The size of the debt is now overwhelming this Government's Budget strategy. Nevertheless, I come back to questions of policy. We really need from the Minister a policy statement on this Government's long term goal in the provision of office accommodation. So far in relation to two resolutions we have heard diametrically opposed propositions, and that is symptomatic of the chaotic state of this administration. There are conflicting goals, and they must be resolved, but the Minister does not seem to be able to resolve them. In the meantime, a situation is arising in which the Commonwealth Government will be up for enormous extra cost in having to hire or lease extra accommodation and to fit out that accommodation on a temporary basis for the personnel who will be left without accommodation because of the sale of one building before the new building has been completed. The same, might I say, applies to the following resolution. The Government will do the same thing in Melbourne; in its mad rush for cash the Government is selling the Commonwealth Centre in Melbourne-and it hopes to do so quickly-and in the meantime it will have to find temporary accommodation for the people who work in that building while the new Commonwealth Centre is being built. Of course, this involves shifting the capital requirement; the Government is obtaining capital this year and will spend it in two years time. It is merely pushing the capital requirement down the line by two years to try to dress up the Budget this year and next year to make it look a little better. The Government has been hoisted on its own petard; its expenditure is far too high, the deficit and the size of the debt of this Government are now catching up with it, and all Australian taxpayers are having to pay for this Minister's and this Government's collective administrative incompetence. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.36) —in reply-I rise to clear up a misconception-without any heat. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) is under the misconception that we will sell a building before we have completed the new building and that therefore expensive staging accommodation will be required. That is not so. As I said last night, the people who will leave Chifley Square before July-August next year and who will go to Chatswood, along with those who will go to Chatswood after the lease for the Australia Square building has lapsed, were never to go into the new building. Those people will be new or different personnel entirely. Basically, at this point of time, they are employees of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The new building will house the main State centre for the ATO. There will probably be enough room in that building to site the Department of Industrial Relations too. Therefore, I believe there is no possibility that we will be moving people from Chifley Square and Australia Square to Chatswood for three or four years and then back to the new building. That is not what we planned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.38) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new Commonwealth offices, Melbourne. Once again, in accordance with our policy of increasing ownership of office accommodation requirements and therefore reducing overall rental outlays, I propose to construct 60,000 square metres of office accommodation on the existing Commonwealth Centre site in Melbourne. The proposal is the first of a two-stage development, and will utilise some 6,000 square metres of the south-east corner of the property. As part of rationalisation of the Commonwealth's holdings on this site, the existing Commonwealth Centre has been scheduled for sale this financial year. The site is well situated within the Melbourne central business district and is well serviced by public transport: Parliament Station; part of the Melbourne underground rail link is immediately adjacent in Spring Street; tram services utilise nearby La Trobe and Nicholson Streets; and buses are available in Exhibition Street. There are no site constraints affecting construction of the building as designed, although it has been agreed with relevant State and local government authorities that a number of buildings of heritage interest will be retained, a similar situation to what we are doing in Sydney at the Haymarket site. The design solution adopted for this stage of the development allows for a building of 42 levels above ground and three basement levels below ground. The above ground design consists of a nine-floor podium with a tower section of a further 33 floors, all set back from the site boundary. The office areas will accommodate some 4,000 staff while the basement will provide parking, storage space, plant rooms and other service areas. The design is based on the guidelines for the design of Commonwealth office buildings and relevant Commonwealth construction standards and codes of practice. This building has been designed to the approved construction cost of $143m, exclusive of fit-out, at April 1987 prices. This fit-out of this accommodation will be considered by the Committee in this reference but will be subject to late programming action. It is estimated to cost some $20m at April 1987 prices. I table drawings of the proposed major work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.41) —I said in my comments in relation to the reference to the Joint Committee on Public Works of the new Commonwealth Centre building in Sydney that my comments would apply also to the reference of the new Commonwealth Centre in Melbourne. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) in his response to me said that the people in the existing Commonwealth Centre would not be going into the new Commonwealth Centre and therefore it was okay to sell it even though that sale would take place before the new building had been completed. I have some doubts about that. I understand that a number of inhabitants of the existing Commonwealth centres-the buildings which are to be sold-will be looking for accommodation in the new Commonwealth centres. If that is not the case, if all those departments and officials in the existing Commonwealth offices are not to move into the new Commonwealth Centre, why is it being built? The Public Works Committee ought to address the question whether there is a need for such a building. The Minister in his response to me in relation to the previous motion said that probably the Australian Taxation Office will go into the one in Sydney-- Mr West —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. One tries to give as much latitude during these discussions as one can but I make the point that we are supposed to be discussing the Melbourne project, not the Sydney project. This is a reference to the Public Works Committee. It is not an expediency motion which is generally the subject of a more extensive debate in the Parliament. My point of order is that this particular motion relates to the Melbourne project, not the Sydney project. We do not want to waste the time of the House debating that again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —It seems to me that some regard must be paid to relevance. I ask the honourable member to keep his remarks relevant to the motion that is before the Chair. Mr PORTER —I was saying that we need to know whether such offices are required. The Minister has given no indication of who will inhabit the new Commonwealth offices to be built in Melbourne. Similarly, we were given no indication as to who will inhabit the Sydney offices. I suggest that the Public Works Committee ought to seek from the Government what its long term strategy is. I should seek from the Government information as to who will occupy these buildings and therefore obtain proof or justification for the necessity of the buildings. As I have said, the Minister seems very unclear about who will occupy the Sydney building. He has given no indication whatsoever as to who will occupy the Melbourne building. If it is not to be the occupants of the existing Commonwealth Centre, who will it be? I would have thought that this is all part of the strategic planning that needs to be done but which clearly has not been done by this Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.45) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Upgrade of army living-in accommodation at various locations Australia-wide. This proposed work is for the upgrading of 124 accommodation buildings in various locations throughout Australia to provide living-in accommodation as close to the current defence standards as the existing buildings will permit. The bulk of the Army's living-in barracks accommodation for its single soldiers was built in the 1960s. Obviously it was built by a former conservative government and it was of a quite low standard. Mr Donald Cameron —Fair go! You can't help yourself. Mr WEST —I think it is a point worth scoring. It has to be upgraded; the former Government built it, not us. It consists of four-person rooms with minimal built-in furniture and communal ablution facilities. Since 1973 services scales and standards for single accommodation have been amended to reflect general community standards. That was done by a former Labor government. The current standards provide for single bedrooms and more acceptable sharing of ablution facilities and common rooms. This proposal is to convert the existing four-person rooms to single room accommodation. The scope of the work varies from building to building. Typically, the upgrading of the barracks buildings will involve the conversion of existing four-person bedroom units to two single-person bedroom units; provision of common rooms; provision of changing-room facilities for personnel living out; upgrading of ablution facilities; upgrading of internal engineering services; general repairs and refurbishment to the building fabric; and fire protection measures. Upgrading of existing buildings is preferred over the option of demolishing the buildings and replacing them with new construction. The cost of $57.6m, as at November prices, is about half the cost of new construction. As I mentioned earlier, the works will involve some 124 buildings at 16 locations throughout Australia and will provide 4,742 new bedrooms. Design, documentation and construction supervision will be carried out by my Department with construction by private enterprise. Subject to parliamentary approval it is intended that the initial tenders will be invited later this financial year and the first buildings completed some five months later. Given the large number of buildings involved, it is proposed to undertake the works progressively with the final buildings being completed in 1992-93. I table selected plans of the proposed work and I commend the motion to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.48) —Perhaps the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), will take note that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on 15 September this year said that $50m would be spent on single living-in accommodation. Everyone assumed that that would be spent this year. I can find no reference to that expenditure in any Budget items for this year. I ask the Minister to ask the Minister for Defence where that $50m will be spent. We strongly support the motion for the proposed work to be referred to the Joint Committee on Public Works (PWC). It has been said that the Services will get an extra 4,700 new bedrooms over a period, and that is good. There is no doubt that the current standard of some of the accommodation is poor. Some of it is very old, and the standards themselves, as is the case for other service housing, are not up to what is regarded as normal community standards. The days when one can bring in service men and women, put them in barracks, give them a bed and a locker and say, `There you are', are long gone. It is for those reasons that we are losing so many people from the Services. The present standards are not community standards. We need to attract high grade young men and women. Their expectations are much higher. We simply have to provide decent standards of living, amongst other things, if we are to keep them in the Services. The other thing, of course, is that as time goes by, young service men and women, particularly, have acquired many more household items. Some of them live in flats, and they simply cannot fit their possessions into the accommodation that is provided for them. I hope that the Government, if it is looking at upgrading accommodation standards for single people who are living in, will also look at giving those people an entitlement to removal, so that when they are posted from one area to another they will get not only decent accommodation in the long term but also removal at public expense so that they can afford to take all of their goods with them. I am not sure whether this matter comes within the responsibility of the Minister, but the other day I visited Woomera and I was shown a single unit occupied by a United States sergeant. Some of the old barracks had been done up to provide very comfortable units with modern furniture. I was then shown where an Australian sergeant had to live. The comparison was appalling. I do not think that the sergeant who has to live in that flat will remain in the Services for much longer. He was provided with hardly any furniture-a few dirty old curtains and a butter box in the corner. It was really appalling. That was the standard of accommodation in which he was expected to live. Next door to him, on the same base, a United States sergeant was living in what can only be described as comfortable circumstances. Mr West —Was it single quarters? Mr WHITE —Single quarters. Mr West —Well, that is what we are trying to do. Mr WHITE —I know. I am talking about the standards, and the comparison is very odious. I am pleased to see that this matter will be referred to the Public Works Committee. I hope that the PWC will look at it favourably. We simply have to provide better standards for servicemen. The only sour note is that the program is not due to be completed for another five years. That is a long time to expect people to wait for better housing and better conditions generally in the Services. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Administrative Services)(5.53) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of radio and orchestra facilities for the ABC and SBS at Ultimo, New South Wales. The proposed public work is the construction of radio and orchestra facilities for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and radio facilities for the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) on a site at Harris Street, Ultimo, Sydney. Currently the ABC and SBS operate those services from 16 separate locations around the central business district of Sydney. Of these, only one was purpose designed, the remainder having been adapted from commercial offices, factories and a cinema. Three properties are owned by the ABC with the remainder occupied on a leasehold basis. The ABC has costed the savings likely to be achieved by the proposed facility at approximately $10.2m per annum. This takes into account projected rent and staff savings and other operational efficiencies. Cabinet, in May 1986, approved the purchase of the Ultimo site on the basis that the three ABC owned properties would be sold, and also agreed to the provision of $2m of Budget funds in 1986-87 to cover design consultant fees. In May this year, Cabinet further approved the project proceeding under an instalment purchase funding arrangement within a building cost limit of $95m at February 1987 prices. The bulk of repayments are to come from the identified operational savings. The proposal provides for construction of a 39,800 square metre building over 10 levels, comprising offices, studio-production suites, a 700-seat rehearsal and recording hall, plus other public and support facilities. A feature of the building will be the central spine, designated as `studio capable' floor area, which will incorporate special provisions to ensure full acoustic isolation of studios. The `on air' studios will also have views over the city and Darling Harbour. The building includes all normal engineering services. In addition, it will incorporate comprehensive provisions to ensure an appropriate acoustic environment in all studio, production, recording and rehearsal areas and to maintain essential power supplies in the event of mains failure. Because of the importance of radio services in times of an emergency, special attention is also being paid to building security. As a separate part of the proposal, the ABC intends to construct a 520 space car park on the balance of the site. One hundred of these spaces will be permanently required for use by the ABC and SBS. The additional car parking spaces, when not required for ABC or SBS purposes, will be available for commercial hire and are expected to produce an attractive annual revenue return of approximately $0.75m. Design is being undertaken by private sector consultants and further design documentation and construction will be undertaken on a project management basis, with construction packages to be publicly tendered for. Subject to Public Works Committee (PWC) endorsement and government approval, it is planned that siteworks will commence in April-May 1988. The main building construction is scheduled to start in mid-July 1988, with an estimated total building construction period of 30 months. The estimated capital cost of the main building and separate carpark is $19m at February 1987 prices. This is the most significant public work to be undertaken by the ABC in recent times. Mr Donald Cameron —How much? Mr WEST —Ninety-one million dollars. The economies of operation should materially improve as a result of ABC and SBS co-location at the new Ultimo site. I table the plans of the proposed work and commend to the House the motion to refer the work for PWC consideration. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.58) —This proposal to consolidate, especially, the radio operations of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in one site would appear to be an extremely good idea. I understand that the ABC bought the site in the last financial year and that it will enable the ABC to bring all its radio operations in Sydney to the one site. I think it is intended that the Sydney Symphony Orchestra will be located at the same site as well. In addition, as the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) has explained, the Special Broadcasting Service will also be located in the same building. From the little information that has been provided to us to date, it seems like a worthwhile undertaking. The ABC claims that it will save a significant amount of money by the provision in a Commonwealth owned facility of accommodation which is currently, it claims, being provided in very expensive leased accommodation. The claim of the ABC ought to be tested by the Joint Committee on Public Works. Certainly, on the face of it, it would appear to be correct. The Minister suggested in his speech that this new facility is likely to save something like $10.2m per annum. I would ask the Public Works Committee to have a look at that claim to see whether that is the case. If it is, that would certainly be a very good reason for supporting the proposal. Another issue that the Public Works Committee ought to consider when reviewing this proposal-the Minister has tabled the plans-is that whilst it is important to have a practical and functional building we do not want to get carried away in providing a grandiose building on this site. One of the roles of the Public Works Committee is to make sure that the funds that are being provided are used to undertake a practical and efficient building that will provide better working conditions for the ABC and the SBS. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.02) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of the session with effect from 15 March 1988 with the exception of proposed new standing order 28d: (1) New standing order 28d be inserted: Selection Committee ``28d. (a) A Selection Committee, to consist of 11 Members of whom 6 members shall be Government members, shall be appointed at the commencement of each Parliament to arrange the timetable and order of business prior to 12.30 p.m. on each sitting Thursday pursuant to standing order 101. (b) Private Members' business which is to be accorded priority, the order of consideration and the times allotted for debate on each item shall be approved by a majority of the members present at a meeting of the committee and in accordance with general principles adopted by the House after report by the committee. (c) The Selection Committee may determine the order of precedence and times allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business and shall report its determinations to the House in sufficient time for its decisions to be published on the Notice Paper of the first sitting day of each week. (d) Reports of the committee made pursuant to paragraph (c) shall be deemed adopted when laid upon the Table and shall be printed in Hansard. (e) Five members of the committee, including 3 Government members, shall constitute a quorum of the committee. (f) For the purpose of private Members' business in this and any other standing order, a private Member is any Member of the House other than the Speaker or a Minister.''. (2) Standing order 48a be amended to read: Adjournment and next meeting ``48a. At 7.30 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday and at 10.30 p.m. on each other sitting day, the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, that division, and any division consequent upon that division, shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday in a week in which the House is scheduled under the standing orders to meet on the Monday, or at 11 p.m. on each other sitting day, the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 8.10 p.m. or 11.10 p.m., as appropriate, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting.''. (3) Standing order 101 be amended to read: Routine of business ``101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Questions without notice. 2. Presentation of papers. 3. Ministerial statements, by leave. 4. Matter of public importance. 5. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Matter of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. Thursday 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Presentation and consideration of reports from parliamentary committees and delegations. 3. Private Members' business (commencing no later than 11 a.m., debate concluding no later than 12.30 p.m.). 4. Grievance debate. 5. Members' statements (at approximately 1.45 p.m.). 6. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 7. Presentation of papers. 8. Ministerial statements, by leave. 9. Matter of public importance. 10. Notices and orders of the day.''. (4) New standing orders 102a, 102b and 102c be inserted: Committee and delegation reports ``102a. Following the presentation of petitions each sitting Thursday, parliamentary committee and delegation reports may be presented and orders of the day called on for the resumption of the debate on motions moved in connection therewith in the order determined by the Selection Committee. Statements on committee and delegation reports ``102b. Upon presentation of a report of a parliamentary committee or delegation pursuant to standing order 102a, the Member presenting the report and one other member of the committee or delegation may, subject to any determination of the Selection Committee, each be accorded priority in making a statement to the House for a period not exceeding 10 minutes and a specific motion in connection therewith may be moved without notice by the Member presenting the report whereupon the debate on the question shall then be adjourned until a future day to be determined by the Selection Committee. Precedence to motions regarding committee and delegation reports ``102c. Following the presentation of reports pursuant to standing order 102a, the resumption of proceedings on motions relating to committee and delegation reports shall have precedence until 11 a.m. according to the order of priority and times allotted for debate determined by the Selection Committee, each Member speaking for a period not exceeding 10 minutes or any lesser period determined by the Selection Committee. If the consideration of any question has not concluded at the time appointed by the Selection Committee or at 11 a.m., the debate shall be interrupted and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a future day under private Members' business.''. (5) Standing order 104 be amended to read: Precedence to government and private Members' business ``104. Government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of private Members' business except that, on each sitting Thursday, private Members' business shall have precedence of government business from the conclusion of consideration of committee and delegation reports but commencing no later than 11 a.m. and debate concluding no later than 12.30 p.m. At the conclusion of consideration of private Members' business, the Speaker shall put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, any questions on which a division had been called for earlier in the day, and which had been deferred pursuant to standing order 193.''. (6) New standing orders 104a and 104b be inserted: Private Members' business-Procedure ``104a. In the period during which private Members' business is accorded precedence pursuant to standing order 104, notices and orders of the day relating to private Members' business shall be called on by the Clerk in the order in which they appear on the Notice Paper. When the time allotted by standing order 104, or by the Selection Committee, for an item of business has expired, consideration shall be interrupted by the Chair and the question before the Chair shall be put: Provided that, where the Selection Committee has determined that consideration of a matter should continue on a future day, at the time fixed for interruption- (a) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings; (b) if the House is in committee, the Chairman shall report progress, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the next sitting Thursday for the further consideration of the matter. Priority will be given to notices by private Members of their intention to present bills in the order determined by the Selection Committee. Upon the respective notice being called on by the Clerk, the Member in whose name the notice stands shall present the bill and may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes in support thereof. The bill shall then be read a first time and, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 218, the next sitting Thursday shall be appointed for the Member to move `That this Bill be now read a second time'. If the motion for the second reading of any private Member's bill is agreed to by the House, further consideration shall be accorded precedence of other private Members' business and the Selection Committee may allot times for consideration of the remaining stages of the bill. Withdrawal of private Members' business ``104b. Any private Members' business not called on, or any private Members' business the consideration of which has been interrupted pursuant to standing order 104a and not re-accorded priority by the Selection Committee on any of the next 8 sitting Thursdays, shall be removed from the Notice Paper by the Clerk.''. (7) Standing order 106 be amended to read: Grievance debate ``106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each sitting Thursday shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker, at the conclusion of consideration of private Members' business, `That grievances be noted' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. If consideration of the question has not been concluded at 1.45 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions then before the House, and after resolution of those questions, shall forthwith call on Members' statements pursuant to standing order 106a.''. (8) Standing order 106a (General business and grievance debate) be omitted and the following standing order be substituted: Statements by Members ``106a. At the time indicated in standing order 106, a Member, other than a Minister, may be called by the Chair to make a statement for a period not exceeding 90 seconds. The period allowed for these statements shall not extend beyond 2 p.m.''. (9) Standing order 109 (general business procedure) be suspended for the remainder of the session. (10) Standing orders 112, 113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 127, 129, 130 and 132 be amended to read: Petition to be lodged with Clerk ``112. Every petition shall be lodged with the Clerk by 12 noon on the Wednesday previous to the Thursday at which it is proposed that it be presented. To bear Clerk's certificate ``113. Every petition when presented must bear a certificate signed by the Clerk or Deputy Clerk that it is in conformity with the standing orders. To request action by House and be legible ``115. Every petition shall request action by the House, shall be fairly written, typewritten, printed or reproduced by mechanical process, without interlineation or erasure and shall be free of any indication that a Member may have sponsored or distributed the petition. To be signed by persons themselves ``118. Every petition shall be signed by the parties whose names and addresses are appended thereto, by their own hand, and by no one else: Provided that persons unable to write shall affix their marks in the presence of a witness, who shall as such affix his or her signature and address, and the address of the petitioner. To be signed on same sheet ``119. Every petition shall contain the signature and address of at least one person on the sheet on which the petition is inscribed. Signatures not to be transferred ``120. Every signature and address shall be written upon the petition or upon sheets containing the prayer of the petition, and not pasted upon or otherwise transferred thereto. Member to affix name and electoral division and the number of signatories ``127. Every Member lodging a petition with the Clerk for presentation to the House shall clearly affix his or her name and electoral division at the beginning thereof, together with the number of signatories. Clerk to announce particulars of petitions lodged ``129. The Clerk shall make an announcement as to the petitions lodged for presentation to the House, indicating in the case of each petition the Member who lodged it, the identity and number of the petitioners and the subject matter of the petition, and any Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. The terms of the petitions presented and responses given shall be printed in Hansard. No discussion upon the subject matter of a petition shall be allowed at the time of presentation. Petitions deemed to have been received: Other questions on presentation ``130. Every petition presented shall be deemed to have been received by the House unless a motion, moved forthwith, that a particular petition be not received, be agreed to. The only other questions entertained by the House on the presentation of a petition shall be 1. That a particular petition be printed; or 2. That a particular petition be referred to a committee. Petition referred to Minister: Minister's response ``132. A copy of every petition lodged with the Clerk and received by the House shall be referred by the Clerk to the Minister responsible for the administration of the matter which is the subject of the petition. A Minister may respond to a petition by lodging a response with the Clerk for presentation to the House, such response being announced at the end of the petitions announcement.''. (11) Standing order 133 be amended to read: Notice of motion-how given ``133. Notice of motion shall be given by a Member by: (a) delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table; or (b) stating its terms to the House during the period of Members' statements made under standing order 106a and delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. The notice must be signed by the Member and seconder and show the day proposed for moving the motion. A notice of motion given by a Member in accordance with paragraph (a) which expresses a censure of, or want of confidence in the Government, or a censure of any Member, shall be reported to the House by the Clerk at the first convenient opportunity.''. (12) Standing order 135, as amended by sessional order, be further amended by inserting ``28d,'' after ``standing orders''. (13) Standing order 193 (When division may be taken) be amended by adding: `` Provided that, on sitting Thursdays, any division called for in the House before 12.30 p.m. on a question, other than a motion moved by a Minister, shall stand deferred until 12.30 p.m.''. (14) Paragraph (b) of standing order 211 be amended to read: ``(b) Notice of intention to present a bill shall be given by a Member by either: (i) delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table; or (ii) stating its terms to the House during the period of Members' statements made under standing order 106a and delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table.''. (15) Standing order 347 be amended by omitting ``the chairman'' and substituting ``a member of the committee''. (16) Standing order 348 be amended by omitting ``no discussion of the subject matter may take place; but''. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to extend the scope of this debate to cover the subject matter of notices No. 9 and No. 10. Mr YOUNG —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I suggest that, having moved notice No. 8, the debate may include notices No. 9 and No. 10, which I shall then move separately. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr YOUNG —Thank you very much for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been very beneficial in the years past and I look forward to it in the future. The concept behind these notices being brought to the Parliament was that to a very large extent honourable members would have the right to vote whichever way they felt on the issues brought before them by the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure in the last Parliament and that in this Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, reform of methods and deliberations in this Parliament move very slowly. It is very difficult to obtain change. People are always very suspicious when ideas and suggestions come forward about what changes ought to be made. Nevertheless, to some extent the Procedure Committee has given us the opportunity of discussing some of these things. There may be some frustration in that the Government did not adopt all the suggestions that were made to it by the previous Procedure Committee. Nevertheless, we have before us today a number of matters which we believe the Parliament, and parliamentarians themselves, should decide upon. I understand that notices Nos 8, 9 and 10 are not controversial but, understandably, honourable members will want to express some views about them. I do not do so on behalf of the Government. As I said, they come before the Parliament where honourable members can determine their attitude and the Government will be guided by the decisions that are taken. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(6.03) —The five motions being considered are of course designed to amend Standing Orders to provide improved opportunities for private members to raise matters in the House. They flow, as the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has pointed out, from the Government's response to the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and cover days and hours of sitting and the effective use of the time of the House. I would like to take this opportunity in speaking to the motion to compliment the members of the Committee responsible for the report and also the staff that supported that Committee. The report was completed in May of this year just prior to the elections. The Chairman of the Committee of course was the former member for Bowman, Mr Len Keogh, and my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) was Deputy Chairman. Both these gentlemen are highly regarded by honourable members on both sides of the House and both, of course, are very experienced parliamentarians. The other members of the Committee, also experienced parliamentarians, were the former member for Denison, the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). The honourable member for Grayndler of course is currently Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. The honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), another of my colleagues and a Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, was a very active member and made a tremendous contribution to the work of the Committee. Last but certainly not least, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), who is currently the Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, was a member of that Committee. I compliment all of those honourable gentlemen who served on that Committee because whilst there will be opposition expressed to some of the recommendations, and indeed the Government has not brought forward all of the recommendations with its blessing, I think the House owes those members who were responsible for this report a debt of gratitude. It is important that the House from time to time examine and re-examine the procedures and ensure that they remain relevant and appropriate for the time. The Committee, I think, has done an excellent job albeit that we may not agree with all of the recommendations. Over recent years, unfortunately, there has been a tendency for the Executive, as far as possible, to disregard Parliament and the views of private members. The changes to our Standing Orders that are proposed, particularly in the first three motions which we are addressing at the moment, will go some way to altering this perception. The Opposition will not oppose the first three motions which deal with the routine of business on Thursday mornings; the omission of standing order 10, which stipulates that no General Business, except of a formal character, can be discussed before the Address-in-Reply has been adopted; and the change in procedure for tabling ministerial papers. We will, however, carefully monitor the operation of these new practices to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. I think it is also important to highlight a view shared by many members that it will be necessary for us to review the whole of our procedures and practices when we move into the new Parliament House. When the Government's response was tabled, the Leader of the House made reference to that and he also referred to the fact that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) also had made that observation on a previous occasion. When we discuss the remaining two motions, dealing with the proposal to reduce the quorum of the House from a third of the members to a fifth and the reading of speeches, I will have something further to say. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(6.08) —I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). At the same time I congratulate the Leader of the House and thank him for the assistance that he has given to the Standing Committee on Procedure during its deliberations. As the current Chairman of the Committee, I know the hard work that was put in by the members of the previous Committee and the former Chairman, Mr Len Keogh. The purpose of the matters before the House at present which are the subject of this cognate debate is to give honourable members the opportunity to bring matters of concern before the House. With the increase in membership and the amount of legislation there has been a gradual diminution in the time available to individual members in which they can bring private or electoral business before the House. This is not a criticism of the Government of the day, because the increasing pressure of legislative necessities has been of such nature to inhibit time available for private members' business. The Procedure Committee has therefore come forward with proposals which, it is considered, will go a long way to giving honourable members of the House sufficient time to bring matters of interest or private members' Bills before the House for consideration. The proposals presently before the House provide for each Thursday morning's sitting to be set aside for private members. The routine of business proposed for each sitting Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. is shown in tabular form in the report and also in the letter that I recently distributed to all honourable members. I do not propose to go through all those matters at this stage because the Opposition has indicated that it is generally in agreement with the Committee's report and certainly in agreement with the three matters presently under consideration. It will bring back to private members opportunities that they do not have at the present time. The situation in regard to the introduction of private members' Bills will be given the regard which it is due. At the present time, it is quite difficult for private members to introduce legislation. If the proposals are carried here today, I believe that they will go a long way to encouraging members to bring legislation before the House for proper discussion. The major purpose of the Thursday morning proposals is not only to enable members to bring in private members' Bills but also to link in with the current grievance debate, which is at the moment held on only one Thursday morning each two-week sittings. Under our proposal, the grievance debate will be available for members on each Thursday morning. Although a number of expressions were made at Committee meetings that perhaps we are straying a little away from what one might call grievances during that debate-because almost anything can be debated, not only members' grievances-the Committee considered that it should remain as it is. It will be up to members to bring before the House the subjects that they wish to introduce, rather than going back to some narrowly defined lines. The 90-second statements, which are also proposed for a quarter of an hour during that morning will, I believe, be popular with honourable members. It proved tremendously popular in the House of Commons in Canada, although honourable members might think that 90 seconds is a reasonably short period of time. The Procedure Committee recommendation to the Government was that that should be held on each day, but we bowed to the Government wish that we should have such a debate once a week rather than every day. I am of the opinion that that segment will be very popular with honourable members, and perhaps in the future we may be able to bring some pressure to bear on the Government because of that popularity. We realise that the adjournment debate each evening will be shortened by a quarter of an hour to accommodate the matters that will be dealt with on Thursday mornings. However, the additional time allotted to members on Thursday morning is quite significant. Six hours will be allotted to private members business, compared to 2 1/2 hours at the present time. We believe that if the House adopts these procedures, not only will that be popular with members, but also, because of the new Parliament House-which will be more a people's House than this House because of the increased space that will be given to the public and because parliamentarians will be under greater scrutiny there than they are here-that will be of significance. I take on board the suggestion made by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), the Leader of Opposition Business in the House, that we shall need to give attention to procedures in the new building. I assure the House that the Procedure Committee is also of that opinion, and any further reports or investigations that the Committee conducts will take into consideration the move into that House in August next year. We shall not be making further proposals on the conduct of business in this House. All of our future deliberations will be angled to what will be happening in that new House. I believe that there will be quite a deal of work for us in that project. I commend the motion to the House and I hope that the House adopts it. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.16) —I start by referring to the former Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, Mr Len Keogh. Perhaps the role of a committee member looking at procedures is not that greatly appreciated, judging by the award meted out to him. I will seek to keep my comments short and to the point. I acknowledge the efforts of Mr Keogh's successor, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) and the secretariat that served us, and I do so with considerable appreciation. As the Chairman has just said, there will be a need in the new Parliament House to re-examine all our procedures, because that place will be totally different from this. I hope that the Committee will go on to a marking time period until that happens. I see no problem in the new procedures, and I noticed that the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), the Leader of Opposition Business in the House, said that the Opposition will be watching to see how it works. Immediately, in a rare display of total unity, the Leader of the House (Mr Young) echoed the honourable member for Hume and said that the Government would also be watching. I can see nothing wrong with starting off the day with prayers, and then we have the new system whereby, instead of the presentation of individual petitions each day, they will be presented all together. I think that I am correct in saying that from now on honourable members will have to count the number of signatures. Will that happen? Mr Mountford —Yes. Mr DONALD CAMERON —That will add authority and veracity to the petitions. If someone wants to come in here with three signatures on a petition-three people have the right to have their voices heard-the Clerk will stand up and say, for example, that a petition has been received from the honourable member for-- Mr Rocher —Curtin. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for Curtin-asking that speeches be read-with only three signatures. Somebody might come in with a petition with 23,000 signatures. Only a few weeks ago, I presented a petition about the retention of the Australian flag with over 100,000 signatures. It came in in a quiet way and there was no differentiation under the present system between my example of the petition from the honourable member for Curtin with three signatures and the one from the 100,000 Queenslanders who want the retention of our flag. We then suggested that we move into the committee and delegation reports. We have all watched with some horror in past years as reports are brought into the House at the end of a sitting and raced through, one each side. That has been a disgrace, and I congratulate the Government on being prepared to re-examine that procedure. Every week there will be private members' business, and that will be determined by a committee. We look forward to seeing how that works. At 12.30 every Thursday, if there are divisions, there will be divisions. This is the first time that the Australian Parliament has set a time of the day to hold divisions. That means that we are agreeing for the first time that divisions that may have been triggered off earlier in the morning will be held off until 12.30. That is really a breakthrough. We will see how this works. There may be other improvements in this field in the future. Every Thursday there will be a grievance debate in which honourable members will be given the opportunity to raise the matters they normally raise in this debate. We then come to members' statements at 1.45 p.m. This particular proposal is not an accolade for the Government. We have had to drag the Government to it, almost by the collar. We all remember what happened immediately after we came back after the 1984 election. The Leader of the House, who is at the table, chopped that opportunity. The Australian Labor Party went to the polls believing that it would be re-elected with a 50- or 60-seat majority. It was returned with a majority of less than a dozen. The Minister realised how effective the Opposition had been in using notices of motion, so he wiped them completely. This side of the House was silenced. This proposal is a sop. To get this sop we have had to be prepared to have a quarter of an hour chopped from the adjournment debate each night. I believe, however, that the opportunity being provided for members to stand up and speak for 90 seconds is a move in the right direction. Such a provision has not crumbled democracy in Canada. The Canadian Parliament has withstood the introduction of this provision. The only thing that worries me is that the Minister has been so backward in coming forward in being prepared to agree to it. Any man or any woman who is a leader of the Parliament who is frightened of what Opposition members might say in 90 seconds must surely have something to hide. No wonder the Minister said before that he will be watching it. With those few words I assure the Minister and the shadow Minister that this has not been the most invigorating and pleasant committee on which I have ever sat. That is no reflection on any of my colleagues on it. It is not an exciting task to examine the methods used by different parliaments around the world in the conduct of their business and try to draw out the best of those for our parliament. I sincerely hope that if the Government views this Committee as a way of keeping some honourable members in this Parliament busy it will inject a bit more excitement into it. However, we had a job to do. I believe that it has been done well. I often wish that the public could see that side of parliament when Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia members sit together and work together in joint committees. For instance, Liberal and Labor members might join together against other Labor, Liberal and National Party members of the Committee or there may be different combinations. This is the time when members of parliament cease to be politicians with a colour on their backs and work together for the benefit of the cause or the committee on which they are sitting. I thank honourable members for this wonderful experience over the last three years. It is not one I would seek again. However, I am pleased to see that in some way I have been partly responsible for much needed changes in this place. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(6.24) —I rise to support the motion moved by the good Minister, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and Leader of the House (Mr Young). I am very pleased that the Government has accepted the proposals put forward in this part of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure. I am very much a new member to the Committee. However, I would like to place on record, even with my brief acquaintance, my appreciation of the hard work put into the Committee by the Chairman, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford). I also wish to place on record my appreciation, as a result of reading through the reports of the previous Committee, of the work put in by the membership and the Chairman, the then honourable member for Bowman, Mr Len Keogh. Without detracting from the contributions made by the current honourable member for Bowman (Mr Sciacca), I must say that I am sorry that my colleague, Len Keogh, is not still with us here. This is a very comprehensive committee report. It is one that I have no hesitation in agreeing with and supporting. The proposals contained in the report will give a greater role for what is described as `private members'. That is a quaint use of the word `private' because I understand that, in this sense, a private member is a member who is not the Speaker or a Minister. We want to be more public. Therefore, it is a quaint use of the word `private'. We want to be more public in our opportunities to speak on those matters which concern us most and those matters which we wish to put forward and initiate. With the new Parliament House giving greater opportunities for the public to observe our work, our role will, indeed, be very public. I think it is very exhilarating to find that the time that will be made available to private members to be more public will be more than doubled. For example, there will be more opportunities to bring forward private members' Bills. I am one member of this House who has seconded a private member's Bill. I refer to the Bill debated in this House on 10 May 1973. It caused quite a stir at the time. It was called the Medical Practice Clarification Bill. It was often referred to as the law reform Bill or the McKenzie-Lamb Bill. I mention it, not because I want to remind honourable members about that time or the contents of the debate, but to recall the difficulties faced by the then Leader of the House, Fred Daly, who had to rearrange, reorganise and burrow into Government business time to have that Bill debated. The debate went on all day. It was quite a sacrifice for the Government of the day to push aside Government Business. I really cannot anticipate what private members' Bills will be put forward. However, I can say that it is a unique opportunity. It is an opportunity which we can extend even more to private members. I will be very interested to see the development in that area. I take the point made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) in regard to the number of signatures on petitions. He said that by knowing the number of signatures in support of a petition we get a good measure of the public support. Currently, we cannot tell whether three signatures or 3,000 signatures have been appended to a particular petition. The only way that the public has of getting a message across in volume is perhaps to have only a few signatures on each petition but to keep presenting that petition time and time again to the Parliament. To present a petition with 1,000 signatures once is better than presenting a hundred petitions with 10 signatures on each which takes up the time of the Parliament. I think that having the number of petitioners recorded is a most worthy change to our Standing Orders. I mention also that, although the Standing Orders provide that a Minister may respond to a petition, I would like to see a greater measure of obligation felt by Ministers to respond, at an appropriate time, to a petition should there be a fair measure of support for it. I support also the change to the grievance debate which will now be held not once a fortnight, or every two weeks of sitting, but weekly. As the Deputy Government Whip, I am conscious of the great scramble by private members trying to get an opportunity to speak on matters that are very important to them in the grievance debate. There is never enough time for them. Mr Tim Fischer —That is when we can get them to come into the House. Mr LAMB —I inform the honourable member for Farrer that even if we doubled the number of opportunities to speak on the grievance debate it still would not be enough. I know very little about the success of the 90-second statements in the Canadian Parliament which was referred to by the Chairman of the Committee. He says that such a provision will be very popular. If I gauge correctly the success of a radio program in Canberra during which listeners have an opportunity to speak for one minute to get their message across, I think it will be very successful. In that one minute callers to the radio station have been able to get across quite comprehensively the particular points they want to make, without the trap that confronts us here of having to divide a speech into a beginning, a middle and an end-which is really another way of saying the same thing three times in a debate. There will be pressures on honourable member in that short time to be succinct, to the point and extremely relevant. Mr McGauran —Succinct, to the point of absurdity. Mr LAMB —The honourable member for Gippsland need not take part if he believes that it is absurd. I am sure that the vacancy he leaves will be taken up by other members on his side of the House. The decision to cut back the adjournment debate from 45 minutes to 30 minutes is perhaps a loss at first sight but, when we realise that there will be more opportunity on Thursdays, this is more than adequate. In particular, the adjournment debate is not broadcast. That is a pity. I am sorry that the Government has not supported the recommendation to broadcast adjournment debates. However, more broadcast time will now be available to private members to debate and present their particular opinions to the public. Even though the new Parliament House will be larger and accommodate more of the public, for every visitor to our galleries there are thousands of people on farms and in cars listening to the broadcast of Parliament. I agree with other members who say that when we go to the big House on the hill we will need to review our procedures. It is recognised that the work environment can dictate or condition our work practices as much as anything. The honourable member for Banks said that it would be more of a people's house-I happen to have a few doubts about that-but will it be a member's House? There is some attraction in the current conditions here where we are forced because of lack of space to rub shoulders. There are far more opportunities to have casual conversation and to get a point across and discuss a matter briefly, whereas with the larger House-there is, more or less, an acreage of rooms over there, and a suite of rooms for members-there is every danger that we will be encapsulated in our own little domain and will rely on telephones rather than face to face conversations to discuss the matters of the House. Some intimacy will be lost at the new Parliament House. However, the change in environment will, perhaps, mean a change following our review of work practices. I conclude by commending the co-operation shown by the Minister and the excellent work by the current Procedure Committee and the former Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(6.33) —As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure it is mildly anti-climactic to find all those innumerable hours and nights culminating here in what, by understandable time constraints, must be a fairly brief debate. On immediate reflection it stands to reason that the substantial report, having been furnished to the House some weeks ago and naturally inviting the attention of interested members, would be refined to the point where the views of members of the House, if it be not side by side, will be expressed through the executives and we will have a commonality of view which could produce a result here this evening. Hopefully that will prove to be the case, though I am intrigued as to how we will arrive at that happy state in respect of one notice of motion dealing with the reading of speeches. I will put that aside just for the moment. Perhaps it is another tribute to the perspicacity of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) that we are not broadcasting this debate. I can just imagine those thoroughly mystified listeners trying to sort out the rites and practices of this place which, at times, seem to mystify and defy us as members; thus, we are sparing listeners the agony of trying to follow what we are on about. As the notices of motion cover about six pages of fine print in the Notice Paper, it stands to reason that there is not an opportunity to recapitulate, though the Chairman, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and some other members of the Committee have embarked on a mild excursion to touch on some of those points. It is not my intention to explore the ramifications; suffice to say that we have had an opportunity to address the matter. The House is very lightly populated, which is clear proof that this question will not be resolved as a consequence of the debate in this very tight time context. But in the mysterious way of this place, the consensus of opinion of members will produce a result in the best interests of the House. I mentioned earlier the question of the reading of speeches. This is the only matter which is designated for a free vote, to my understanding, and, therefore, it would perhaps be mischievous just to leave it hanging without a comment as to what may have motivated the Committee to make the recommendation to the House. Mr Mountford —We will do that later. Mr MILLAR —I thought we were free to touch on these matters collectively, whilst not voting on it. I stand corrected. Mr Ruddock —It is only the first three parts. Mr MILLAR —Yes; I thought that in any event we were free to speak on them all but that we would put the questions separately. Nevertheless, I am quite amenable to that constraint, if that is the will of the House. I will just pass that by. I emphasise to the House that members of this ecumenical Committee, consisting of members of both sides, addressed themselves quite seriously to maximise the opportunities for members to be accorded their due whilst, at the same time, recognising that the government of the day had an urgent need to properly address substantial matters peculiar to the Government's responsibility and, therefore, their prospects of being able to address themselves on a regular, scheduled and a reliable basis should be a parallel consideration. I feel the Committee in the ultimate has produced a report and recommendations to the House, now manifest in the motions by the Leader of the House, which, I would like to think, vindicate the earnest endeavours of Committee members over a considerable period. It is true that the new Parliament will prove to be a very substantial challenge and the Chairman's comments to the effect that the Procedure Committee's future address will be almost exclusive to this challenging environment in which we are about to move-the place on the hill. Contrary to general expectations, we are assured by those who have built the place that there is not a spot in that building from which members will not be able to access the chambers within the three-minute ringing of the bells presuming, of course, that they are not necessarily handicapped by having their attire in some temporary disarray. That is one point that we must ensure meets with the reasonable requirements of members in addressing themselves to the business for which they have come to this place. I shall be interested to witness the outcome of these recommendations. They are not the end of the line, by any stretch of the imagination. In the meantime, I think it fully justifies the House's action in establishing the Procedure Committee and, in turn, the work that the Committee has put into its responsibility, admirably assisted by the Clerks, the Leader of the House and executive members of the Opposition. I think it augurs well for future address to these very important considerations that subscribe to the proper functioning of this Parliament, which is important to us all and to the people of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That standing order 10 (Business before Address in Reply adopted) be omitted. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That this House endorses in principle the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure that the procedures for the tabling of ministerial papers following questions without notice, pursuant to standing order 101, be altered in accordance with the following arrangements: (1) By 12 noon on each sitting day a schedule of papers to be presented will be made available to the Manager of Opposition Business and will be circulated to all Members in the Chamber at the first opportunity; (2) Following questions without notice a Minister will present the papers as listed on the circulated schedule; (3) Papers presented will continue to be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings, and (4) A Minister shall present each paper individually if a schedule has not been circulated in accordance with these procedures or the paper has not been listed on the schedule, and shall retain to the option of presenting a paper separately from the list if a statement is to be made or a motion moved in connection with the paper. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(6.39) —I move: That the House endorses in principle the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure that legislative action be taken to reduce the quorum of the House from one-third of the Members to one-fifth and requests the Government to introduce legislation to achieve this end. As I said previously, the Government has not taken a position on this matter. We have left it to individual members to vote on, but I am greatly distressed that the Manager of Opposition Business, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), conveyed to the House in his opening remarks that the Opposition had taken a party decision. Again, it is the ruthless iron fist of the Liberal and National parties refusing to give their members even the slightest flexibility in the way they may express their views in this Parliament. They have taken them into the party room and stood over them and said, `Under no circumstances', in spite of the recommendations of several of their own members, such as the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) and other honourable members. They know about the ruthless iron fist of the Liberal Party of Australia. If they do not abide by the party room decision, out they go. They lose their preselection and they lose their seats because the Liberal Party, in spite of its name, cannot tolerate liberalism. It is a crying shame. For the purposes of this debate, 148 members could have determined by a majority vote what they thought was in the best interests of the Parliament, particularly now that we are going to the new Parliament House. But this is not the case. Again we have the big heavy foot of the Liberal and National parties standing over their members, not explaining to them what it is all about and not giving them any chance to express the freedom of attitude that we want in a debate of this nature. The members who served on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure now have to sit here and be embarrassed by the discipline which has been imposed on honourable members opposite against the view that they expressed in the Committee report. There is to be a free vote in this debate on the Government side. That does not happen on the other side of the House. Every honourable member on this side of the House is free, once again, to vote as he or she thinks fit. They will listen to the debate. They have read the report. They will hear the honourable member for Moreton, the honourable member for Wide Bay, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) and the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) tell us why they have made these recommendations. But we will then see the Opposition Whips going out to make sure that the honourable member for Wide Bay and the honourable member for Moreton do not cross the floor. The disciplinary committee of the Liberal and National parties is just sitting in the party room waiting. It has been waiting to get the honourable member for Moreton for about 20 years. This is its chance. Could honourable members imagine how Opposition members would be treated if they voted to drop the quorum from one-third to one-fifth? Could honourable members imagine the damage that would be done to the institution if Liberal members had to meet in their party room and take a decision? It is a great shame. I was hoping that honourable members opposite would have listened to the debate and then would have voted accordingly. But no. In this day and age, the Liberal Party cannot tolerate the freedoms which it predecessors stood for. When everyone is crying out for freedom the iron fist and the steel boot of the Liberal and National parties still exist. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.43) —I wish very briefly to respond to the comments made by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). He does not understand that, until earlier today, the Opposition was fairly free-wheeling on this subject. When the Parliament collapsed this afternoon it was recognised by honourable members on this side of the House that the Australian Labor Party is losing interest in the Parliament, to such an extent that it cannot keep the House going and we suddenly became unified and said, `The Government is on the run. It has lost interest. Let us keep up the pressure'. The public will deduce from reading in the papers, as the House closes day after day because of a lack of quorums, that the Australian Labor Party no longer wants to stay in power. It is for that reason that we have altered our views. When we have the Government on the run we do not let it go. That is why we will be voting as we will on this issue. For the Leader of the House to suggest that honourable members on this side of the House are hamstrung, tied and constrained by rules and discipline is an absolute fallacy. When I look at my colleagues in the House I realise that I have never seen freer men in my life. If they want to walk out of the House and go to their rooms and think, `I wish I were there but I would rather not be', they can. If they want to cross to the other side of the House and vote with Government members they can. So for the Leader of the House to come in here and lecture us on the freedoms and constraints that apply to this House is totally false. I only wish that the proceedings had been broadcast today so that the public could have heard how the House collapsed. That is why I am changing sides on my vote next time round. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(6.47) —I rise to support the motion as I think this is one of the most important motions to come before the House. The previous motion, which we have just dealt with and which the House agreed to, concerned Thursday mornings being devoted to private members business. Everybody who rose to speak in that debate spoke of the need for more time to discuss private members business. Of course, the Opposition is now saying that it does not agree that the number constituting a quorum should be reduced. We should be looking at a reduction not only in the number of people making up quorums but also in the number of quorums that can be called. I hope that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure will look at that matter in the very near future because nothing wastes more time in this House than the persistent calling of quorums. Indeed, I think this is one of the few Houses in the democratic world that waste so much time on the calling of quorums. Time and again we have seen quorums being called at specific times for no purpose other than a pay-back. Perhaps one Minister has taken too long to answer a question during Question Time or, as we saw today, the Opposition was not happy with the speaker that the Government put forward to reply to the Opposition's matter of public importance and three quorums were called during that debate. Of course, no matter what party is in power it has a particular legislative program to get through. If that program is delayed throughout a sitting day we find that the three-quarters of an hour which is set aside every evening for private members business in the adjournment debate is eaten into by the Government because of the inane calling of quorums during that day. We have seen this happen time and again. In fact, during the previous sitting weeks when the Government has been pushing to get its heavy legislative program through, we saw the calling of so many quorums that when we came to the adjournment debate there was very little time for private members to speak. All of us here at the moment are private members. At present, only two members present-the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), who is at the table-are not private members. Our time is being wasted because of the inane calling of quorums throughout the day. I would very much like to see this House, particularly when we move to the new building, come to some sensible decision on the calling of quorums as other democratic Houses have done so that quorums are not able to be called throughout the day at the whim and wish of somebody on the Opposition side who decides that the House should assemble at his beck and call. Indeed, the people who call quorums do not have their members coming into the House to fill the quorums. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) mentioned in his address just a few moments ago what happened today. But I bet that he was not in the House when that quorum was called to make sure that the House had a quorum. I commend the motion to the House. It does not deal with that very great question of the number of quorums that can be called but it tries to release some honourable members from having to attend when quorums are called throughout the day, as they are called at present. It reduces the number of members who have to come into the House from 50 to 30, which is not a big reduction at all. In my view, the percentage could have been lowered even further. But that was not the Committee's view. I certainly agree with the full Committee's decision that it be reduced from one-third to one-fifth. I hope that members of the Opposition support this motion, because not to do so is not living up to reality. It is certainly not living up to reality in our 1987 parliamentary year, coming into our 1988 bicentenary year. If honourable members think that the time of Parliament can be wasted by having one-third of its members coming into the House each time a quorum is called they are living in the past. Mr FIFE(Hume-Manager of Opposition Business)(6.50) —In a democratic parliament, it is not living in the past to require the government to pay due regard to the affairs of parliament. When we discussed the first three motions in this package of proposed amendments to our Standing Orders, I said that there was at least a perception that this Government, as far as possible, is disregarding the Parliament. If this proposed reduction of the quorum of the House from one-third of the members to one-fifth proceeds, this will further strengthen the perception to which I referred. The honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), who has just resumed his seat, pointed out that the proposal will reduce the quorum of the House from 50 to 30. If one looks at the figures on the other side of the ledger, that means that, instead of up to 36 honourable members of the Government, because some honourable members of the Opposition are always present when a quorum is called, being able to be absent from the House, under this proposal that figure will rise to up to 56. Today, when a quorum was called during a major debate in the House the Government was disgraced because it could not muster a quorum and, as a result, under the Standing Orders the House stood adjourned for 10 minutes. Today, the debate on the need for the Government to take immediate policy action to reduce the vulnerability of Australia in light of our huge foreign debt was led by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer (Mr Peacock). There was a Minister in the House who did not open his mouth and two honourable members on the back bench took part in the debate for the Government, but the Government could not muster the quorum. It is little wonder that the Government is marshalling all its number tonight to reduce the quorum. In all the years that I have been in politics at both the State and Federal levels, this is the first time that I can remember any Government moving to reduce the quorum of the Parliament, and I think it is a retrograde step. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(6.53) —A lot has been said in this debate about democracy and about how, apparently, the democratic nature and the workings of this Parliament will be measured by the size of the quorum required. In the free vote that is about to take place, at least on this side I will be one of those who will support the reduction of the quorum from one-third to one-fifth of the members of the House. In doing that, I point out the practice in overseas parliaments. Mr Mildren —Like in Britain? Mr LAMB —Exactly. The member for Ballarat refers to Britain. Britain has the Westminster system-it is the mother of parliaments and it requires a quorum of 6.2 per cent in a Parliament of some 650 members. That is a quorum of 40, one-fifth of what is required here. If honourable members believe that Westminster is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy, surely they can take a leaf out of its book and be more realistic about the size of the quorum that should operate here. Our current quorum of 33.3 per cent or one-third is 4 1/2 times that required in Canada, 1 1/2 times that required by our Kiwi mates across the Tasman Sea in New Zealand and three times that required in India, which is one of the newer parliaments of the world in the context of the Westminster model. On an international level, we have an unwieldy and unnecessarily high quorum requirement in this chamber which bears no reflection on the degree of democracy in this country. Opposition members interjecting- Mr LAMB —Those who laugh, particularly the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), should be reminded that, when we successfully reduce the quorum in this Parliament to one-fifth or 20 per cent, that figure will still be higher than the requirement of the State Parliament of Queensland, which requires a smaller quorum than is proposed here. If honourable members are to argue that the size of the quorum is a direct reflection of the degree of democracy, then I might agree with them on that point. State parliaments have far higher requirements than those applying to federal or national parliaments internationally. We propose to reduce the requirement to roughly that which operates in Queensland, which is 19.5 per cent, and New South Wales, which is 21 per cent. After people come into the gallery and observe the Parliament at work, they come back to our electorates and often ask, `Where was everybody?'. Honourable members know where they were: they were out there doing the important preparatory work for Parliament. What people in the gallery see is the tip of the iceberg, or the end of our productive work in Cabinet, Caucus and parliamentary committees. They see only the final product of the work that we have undertaken. When they understand that fact, they are quite happy with the explanation. If Parliament requires more honourable members to be in attendance, less preparatory work will be done and the standard will be lowered. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to count the number of honourable members who are here now. There are 10, and that only shows that, even with 10, parliament functions quite well. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I counted 11, but never mind. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(6.57) —Because this debate tended to gravitate to the punitive character of forums, I think that it would be not unhelpful to read into Hansard the actual recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure as distinct from the motion that is before the House. The recommendation states: legislative action be taken to reduce the quorum of the House from one-third of the whole number of the Members to one-fifth to minimise disruption to legitimate extra-Chamber activities, and each party represented in the House roster one-fifth of its Members for House duty to ensure a quorum is present at all times. As the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) mentioned, the Committee was concerned with a massive disruption to parliamentary committees which conduct their business while the House is sitting and, depending on whether or not one is in government, the disruption of Cabinet which, contrary to general opinion, really should, if it is not, be concerned with matters of considerable moment bearing on the world and on Australia. I thought it was prudent to read that recommendation into Hansard so that honourable members would understand the intention of the Committee. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(6.58) —I did not intend to speak until I heard the contribution from the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford). I must say that, if that is the sort of woolly thinking that went into the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I should have studied the other recommendations. Nevertheless, I am reassured by the presence of my colleagues on the Committee. However, the honourable member for Banks says, `Well, the Government has been forced to eat into honourable members' time during the adjournment debate because quorums are called.' Let me explain to the honourable member for Banks that fixed times are allocated for speeches in this Parliament and, if a quorum is called while an honourable member is on his or her feet, extra time is not allocated. The Government does not need any time to conduct its business unless, as happened today, it fails to man the House. That is the only time that quorums eat into the business of the Government. If the honourable member for Banks wants to justify this motion on that basis, they are entirely spurious grounds. I did not intend to vote against this motion, because I entered the chamber with an open mind, but I most certainly will vote against it now. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(6.59) —I address two specific issues: first, I refer to the matter raised by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) when he had the audacity to suggest that, for some strange reason, freedom to vote was vested in that side of the House and was denied to honourable members on this side. It was something of an irony that I should have found myself here surrounded by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), and the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) and there may be others. But at least four honourable members-and I include myself-exercised the very freedom that the Leader of the House pretended that we no longer have. Then the Leader of the House floated a mysterious disciplinary committee. I would like to know what that disciplinary committee is, because, as a member who in voting has crossed the floor of this chamber, I have never heard of a disciplinary committee and neither, I suspect, have my colleagues surrounding me. In fact, what ought to go in the Hansard record to be used to correct the myths perpetuated by the Leader of the House is the simple truth that in the Wakefield preselection college all but 5 per cent of the people who determine whether I will be the Liberal Party's candidate in Wakefield live in the electorate of Wakefield. I am answerable only to the Liberal Party members in Wakefield and to the electors of Wakefield, and I hope that the Leader of the House will bear that in mind before next he chooses to come in here with the sort of mischievous nonsense that we have seen paraded this evening. Mr Braithwaite —Ask him to apologise! Mr ANDREW —That would be fair, but rather I ask him to come in here and list for me the members of his Party who have exercised the sort of freedom that we on this side are able to take for granted. I am also forced to my feet by the misleading comments made by my colleague the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), who had the audacity, once again, to come in here and say that the calling of quorums had eaten into the adjournment debate and, further, he referred to the calling of quorums during the past two weeks, if you please. As a member responsible for the calling of quorums in this Parliament, on more occasions than I would like, I hasten to add, I assure honourable members that we could count on the fingers of one hand the number of quorums that have been called in the past two weeks. Far from those quorums in any way interrupting the adjournment debate, as the honourable member for Curtin so eloquently said, they have not even eaten into adjournment debate time. Furthermore, the honourable member for Banks came in here and once again had the audacity to say that quorums have been called irresponsibly. I could not sit through that allegation. Some of the colleagues of the honourable member for Banks have said to me, `Why are you such wimps on the other side? When we occupied the Opposition benches we showed you a thing or two about how to call quorums'. The reason we are wimps is simply that we do not wish to call quorums as a disciplinary measure. Finally, and because no other facility was available to us, we were forced to say to the Government, `We would like to see Question Time at least balanced in relation to the approach, and we think it is not unreasonable in 45 minutes to expect the Opposition to be able to ask six or seven questions. Mr Donald Cameron —Or eight. Mr ANDREW —Or even eight questions. That would be better still. We then used what the Government knows is a formula; it is true that quorums were called. But as the honourable member for Banks could easily discover by reference to the Hansard, if he were anxious to speak only the truth, there was a rapid increase in the number of quorums called, but that number decreased substantially when Ministers got the message that as long as they treated the Opposition reasonably-not even favourably-the Opposition would respond in a reasonable way. I have no wish to have the reputation in this Parliament as the sole caller of quorums. I have no wish to retire from this place being known simply for my capacity to call quorums or for the colourful way in which I go about it. In fact, I do not believe that quorums ought to be used as a disciplinary measure. However, I happen to find that they are the only facility currently available to the Opposition, and I regret that. Finally, I find it almost intolerable that any honourable member should come into this chamber and say, `Woe is me because members are calling quorums and forcing us to come into the chamber'. This should be the one place, in the House of Representatives, where we want to be. We only need to look at the Government benches to see which are the least frequently occupied benches and which are the most frequently occupied. The opportunity to participate in debate in the chamber and to hear other members' contributions is not a burden. A quorum is scarcely something that a member of this Parliament should regard as a burden to which he or she must adhere. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(7.06) —I really would be pleased to see honourable members from both sides of the House join together in supporting a motion such as this. I most certainly acknowledge that oppositions of all persuasions in the past have used the calling of a quorum as a means of-- Mr Lamb —Frustrating. Mrs DARLING —Yes, as a means of frustrating government and of disrupting meetings that they are aware are taking place when those quorums are called. I believe that the people of Australia-- Mr Tim Fischer —The chamber should be the focus of our deliberations, occasionally. Mrs DARLING —That is arguable, because of the entire system. I think honourable members are aware that if we were to remove our belongings to Canberra and legislate week after week without being able to go back into our electorates, we would be able to debate at length and be present in the chamber to debate legislation. On other days we would be in meeting rooms, as that procedure is a necessary part of the legislative process of this House. However, because of the fact that there are time constraints, it is childish to use the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House to disrupt government business and to get back at the other side. I think that even any comment between honourable members on either side regarding who is a wimp and who has called the best, the longest and the most effective quorums, is not living up to the standards that the community expects of us more and more. I refer not only to meetings of Cabinet; backbenchers are taken away from other business when a quorum is called. This afternoon I was one of many members who were away from this chamber. I was on the Senate side, trying to put forward representations on behalf of a nursing home in the electorate of Lilley. It was not as if there was even 20 minutes between quorums. I came running across here when a quorum was called, I went back to the Senate courtyard, I continued discussions, but another quorum was called, and I came back to this chamber again. It is a nonsense situation, and I commend honourable members on the Standing Committee on Procedure from both sides for getting their heads together in a professional way and agreeing to put forward proposals that should ensure that this House is much more effective and is run in an adult and proficient manner. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(7.09) —When we go back to our own electorates, as the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) just said, one of the more notable things is the perception that people have that we sit in this place all day and listen to each other's speeches and learn from them. People expect that of us. Many people who visit Parliament House and who happen to be interviewed by the Press say, `They must be a very lazy group of politicians, because they are nearly all in the bar or somewhere else; they are not in the chamber'. Honourable members know better than that. We know that a lot is done in this place. I for one would challenge any commentator who criticised members from either side of the House for wasting their time when they are not in this chamber. I would challenge them on that because of my personal observations. As honourable members have learnt I have been quite observant about these matters. I have not seen honourable members wasting their time. I particularly challenge the accusation that members waste their time by drinking in the bar or doing something else. They are hard working. They are either working in their offices or, as the honourable member for Lilley said, dealing with committee or other matters when they are not in this chamber. Nevertheless, the reasons for the absence of members from the chamber are quite clearly understood and have been accepted for a long time. I have just been looking at what Pettifer has said about the quorum and the actions of past Speakers who for instance-and it is a salutary lesson to think that this has happened in the past-came in at the beginning of a day for prayers at 10 a.m. and closed the House on the spot because of the lack of a quorum. It is one of those things that might be a good idea. I take my responsibility to be present in this Parliament each morning and to participate in the prayers as very significant. I am one of those members who leave the House after prayers. There is another point about all this. If a party chooses to be the Government-and there is the option; we fight for the privilege-there are a few responsibilities that go with that. One of them is `maintaining the House'. This motion puts before us another demeaning of the Parliament. It has been very significant in the lifetime of this Government. It is the most amazing thing that the protests in this regard are not coming from the back bench of the Government. I have not been here all that long; I have been here seven years. That is approximately the same time as the honourable member for Lilley has been here. I have never seen the back bench of a government treated with such disregard as this particular back bench. It has improved a little lately. Four or five backbenchers are allowed to jump up at once now, but half of them still ask dorothy dix questions. They do not get the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of their electorates. They are treated with disdain by their Executive. I read in the papers today that for the first time they got up the courage to roll the Executive in Caucus. It is the first time that the view of the Executive of this Government has not prevailed. What a disaster for the tradition of the Labor Party. We do things differently on our side of politics. We do not have votes, but our backbenchers have some privileges. The reality is that the Government back bench has been copping it for a long time. Now the back bench will abdicate another responsibility. I do not know whether backbenchers do it deliberately-I believe they do-but they are determined to have a scorched earth policy for matters of public importance. And the Government wonders why I called a couple of quorums today, and it was not able to meet the second one. Oppositions consider matters of public importance as very important. The only certainty of politics in Australia is that governments will be in opposition one day. I do not think what the Government is putting down today is very smart or in its own interest. It is certainly not in the interest of parliamentary democracy as we know it. It is very foolish to put a little convenience above its own interest when times change. The honourable member for Lilley would well remember her days in opposition. She might remember giving a notice of motion to present some issue. I see that we are to get 90-second speeches but they used to be 15-second speeches and oppositions of both sides have used them to great effect. But the next time the Government is in opposition it will not be able to make such speeches because it cancelled the opportunity. It took them out for convenience. The number of speakers was unlimited. While people kept jumping, the Chair had to accept them. I accept that matters started to clog up the Notice Paper. If the Government had suggested that there be some rotating fall-off-the-end basis that would not have been a bad idea. But with this proposal the Government is eroding the rights and responsibilities of its backbenchers and the need that the Executive has of them. They are becoming a further irrelevance. The Executive does not even need them to achieve a quorum under what is being proposed. Members of the front bench could come in, but they might refuse to come in. I am not sure which. We have a responsibility to the Parliament and I for one-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., the debate is interrupted. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Duncan-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Cunningham) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free. R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A C.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Hayden, W. G. Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. M. Ruddock) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Courtice, B. W. McLeay, LeoCrawford, M. C. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. C. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Snowdon, W. E.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Harvey, E. R. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Prosser, G. D.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J. R.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. Wilson, I. B. C.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Woods, R. L.Hunt, R. J. D. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Jull, D. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(7.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the centrepiece of the Government's child support scheme. Many Australian families over the last 10 years have experienced the pain of marriage breakdown. That is something governments can do little to help-but government can take action to alleviate dramatic and sustained drops in living standards for children in those families. Poverty has for too long been the traumatic result of marriage breakdown for children in sole parent families. This Government is committed to ensuring that by 1990 no child need live in poverty. The child support scheme is central to achieving that objective. This Bill will set up stage one of the scheme to ensure that parents who have the capacity to pay do not abandon the financial responsibility of supporting their children to the social security system. This Bill will make the legal right of children to be supported by both their parents a real right. We will turn what for most children is an empty promise into solid, regular financial support. Over half of the 800,000 Australian children in poverty are in sole parent families. Those families depend on pension and benefit and those payments are the only source of income for most of them-more than 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay regular maintenance for their children. This scheme will increase the number of families receiving maintenance, increase the level of that maintenance and will ensure that it is received on a regular basis. The enforcement of child maintenance has been recognised as a significant social problem in major Western countries, such as the United States of America. While those countries have adopted various collection mechanisms, the problem has continued and they are now piloting the approach we are about to adopt in this country. We are in a unique position to be able to use our family law, taxation and social security powers under the Constitution to integrate a national system. In addition to the Child Support Bill 1987, it is necessary to enact two other pieces of legislation to give full effect to the first stage of this scheme. My colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) recently introduced into the Parliament the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 which will, when enacted, provide for child maintenance obligations to be given priority over all commitments of non-custodial parents, other than those necessary for their own support. That Bill will also put an end to the practice of maintenance being essentially nothing more than a top-up to social security benefits, by preventing the courts from considering social security eligibility when making orders that relate to maintenance. A further Bill, which I propose to bring before the Parliament early next year, will amend the Social Security Act 1947 to provide for changes to the way maintenance is treated in the social security system. I turn now, Mr Deputy Speaker, to outline briefly the essential features of the Child Support Bill. Effective collection of maintenance has never been achieved in this country. The only way to ensure that children receive the support to which they are entitled is by a collection system that does not depend on voluntary payment. The deduction of maintenance automatically from salary or wages guarantees in the vast majority of cases that regular financial assistance is provided. The Bill will establish a Child Support Register which will record details of maintenance liabilities that will be enforceable under the Bill. There will be a Child Support Registrar who will be responsible for the administration of the Bill and the keeping of the Child Support Register. Under the Bill, the Child Support Registrar will be the Commissioner of Taxation. The Registrar will administer the Bill through a section of the Australian Taxation Office to be known as the Child Support Agency. A Child Support Agency within the Australian Taxation Office is best equipped to perform this task for three reasons: the Tax Office has an existing relationship with employers, who under the scheme of the Bill will be required to deduct maintenance from the salary or wages of liable employees; the Tax Office can best trace those persons who seek to avoid their obligations under the Bill; and the Tax Office has substantial experience in the enforcement of financial obligations. The Bill is drafted in such a way that all child maintenance liabilities that are payable on a periodic basis under a court order or a registered maintenance agreement are registrable on the Child Support Register. In my statement on 24 March this year, I outlined the parameters that would be applied to limit the population to be covered by the scheme. The Child Support Agency will collect periodic child maintenance that relates to children of parents who separate after the commencement of this Bill, or-where the parents have not cohabitated-to children born after that day. In all cases where the person receiving the maintenance is in receipt of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit, the Child Support Agency will be able to collect the maintenance. The Child Support Agency will take over the functions of State collection agencies. It will collect any orders lodged with those agencies on the date their functions are taken over. It is proposed to establish these parameters by regulation so that if in the future there are sufficient resources to extend the scope of the scheme it will not be necessary to amend the Bill. A significant feature of the Bill is that in the vast majority of cases maintenance will be deducted automatically from the salary or wages of liable parents. The effect of this automatic withholding is that regular payments are assured to custodial parents. The Government rejects the suggestion that automatic withholding be imposed only when default in payment occurs. Overseas experience is that a default will almost certainly occur in the two years after an order for payment is made. Stigma attaches to automatic withholding if it is imposed upon default and this would detract from the success of the scheme. The enforcement of child support has been recognised as a problem in the United States since the mid-1970s. Those States that have adopted less effective collection mechanisms to overcome this have found that the problem has continued and are now moving to the approach we have adopted. In some cases it will simply not be possible to impose automatic withholding and in these cases the liable parent will be required to pay the maintenance directly to the child support agency. The Bill also provides a statutory mechanism which ensures the payment to custodial parents of moneys paid over to the child support agency. The Bill contains strict secrecy provisions for Commonwealth officers and for employers regarding any information obtained through their involvement in the scheme. The Bill provides comprehensive appeal and objection rights to all parties affected by the registration of a maintenance liability coverered by the Bill. Since my announcement of 24 March this year the Government has decided to extend the scheme to cover spousal maintenance where that maintenance is payable in conjunction with registrable child maintenance. In addition spousal maintenance will also be collectable by the Child Support Agency in respect of individuals who are 45 years of age or over and in receipt of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit. Spousal maintenance will also be collectable where the order or agreement has been lodged for collection with a State collection agency and the Child Support Agency takes over those functions. The revenue effect of all these measures was estimated for 1987-88 Budget purposes to be net gains of $7.6m in 1987-88 increasing to $192.8m in 1989-90. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would mention that the Government intends to improve on this first stage of the child support scheme with the introduction as soon as is practicable of a system of formula assessment of maintenance obligations. Effective collection of maintenance is only part of the problem. Levels of child support awarded by the courts or agreed upon by parents have been consistently inadequate when compared to the real cost of raising children. The provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill giving child support a priority over all commitments of the parents, other than those necessary for their own support, will in part redress this problem. The Child Support Consultative Group, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Fogarty of the Family Court of Australia, will be advising the Government on elements of that formula early next year. The child support scheme is a major initiative of this Government of which Australians can be proud. It may be the forerunner for other countries to examine in addressing the real problem of child poverty. I commend that Bill to honourable members. In doing so, I present the explanatory memorandum on this Bill, further copies of which will be available tomorrow. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend various taxation laws to give effect to a range of policy decisions of the Government. The more important amendments to be made relate to provisions of the income tax law. They include measures to encourage the development of off-shore banking in Australia through a withholding tax exemption for interest paid to non-residents by off-shore banking units. Capital gains tax roll-over relief is being given for certain reorganisations of resident unit trusts. Amendments to correct certain deficiencies in the taxation of lump sum superannuation and similar payments are also proposed. The Bill will remove special concessional treatment for expenditure on buildings for scientific research or other research or development purposes and on the development of certain computer software. Other amendments include further concessions to permit shelf companies to satisfy `common ownership' tests contained in the income tax law, modifications to thin capitalisation provisions and measures to extend the coverage of the income tax law to a range of activities in off-shore areas and external territories. A number of technical amendments will correct anomalies and deficiencies in the taxation laws. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now further outline the more significant measures contained in the Bill. Off-shore Banking Units This Bill will give effect to the Government's decision announced on 1 July 1986 and expanded on 9 April 1987, to provide an interest withholding tax exemption to facilitate off-shore banking in Australia, primarily for dealings in foreign currencies with non-residents. Exemption will be confined to banks that are subject to the Banking Act, State banks and other financial institutions authorised to deal in foreign exchange which are gazetted by the Treasurer to be off-shore banking units. An off-shore banking unit may be a separate department of a bank or other financial institution, keeping separate accounts, or a separately incorporated body. The Bill will exempt from interest withholding tax interest and amounts in the nature of interest paid by off-shore banking units on specified borrowings contracted for after 1 July 1986. The scheme of the legislation allows an off-shore banking unit to borrow or accept deposits of foreign currency funds either overseas or on the domestic market or of Australian currency from non-residents. It is basically intended that they deal with these funds only in three ways: by on-lending them to non-residents, depositing them with another off-shore banking unit, or in purchasing foreign securities. To preserve Australia's withholding tax base, and in recognition of the practicalities of tracing and monitoring the application of particular borrowings, any misapplications of funds that attract the concession provided are to bear a special income tax at a penal rate. This tax will be declared and imposed by an associated Bill, about which I will speak shortly. Consistent with the basic concept of separate dealings by off-shore banking units in foreign currency transactions, any foreign income tax losses incurred by off-shore banking units from off-shore banking business may be offset only against subsequent profits from that business. There will be similar quarantining of off-shore banking income for foreign tax credit purposes, precluding the transfer of excess foreign tax credits within a company group of which the off-shore banking unit is a member. This measure is estimated to have a direct revenue cost of $2m annually, which may be offset by higher company tax collections on off-shore banking business profits. Capital Gains Roll-over Relief Effect is being given to the proposal announced on 29 September 1987 to extend roll-over relief-that is, deferral of liability-from tax on capital gains for certain reorganisations of resident unit trusts. Roll-over relief will be given where a resident company is interposed between a unit trust and its unitholders who dispose of their units to the company in exchange solely for non-redeemable shares in the company. Such a reorganisation will qualify for the relief where it is entered into, or commenced, after today. The reorganisation must be carried out by a direct exchange of units for shares or by redemption or cancellation of the units and separate issue of the shares. The interposed company will be required to elect that the roll-over provisions apply and declare that eligibility conditions have been met. Unitholders will separately elect for roll-over. They will thereby be able to choose, for capital gains tax purposes, between having their units treated as disposed of at the time of the reorganisation or to defer any capital gains liability until they later dispose of the exchange shares. Shares received in exchange for units acquired before 20 September 1985 will also be taken to have been acquired before that date. For the company, an effect of its election may be to have an appropriate proportion of the units taken as having been acquired before 20 September 1985 and therefore not subject to the capital gains and capital losses provisions on a later disposal-the proportion to be determined by reference to the net value of assets of the unit trust that were acquired before that date. For the remainder of units taken to have been acquired on or after 20 September 1985, cost bases will be determined by reference to the cost bases of the assets of the unit trust that were acquired on or after that date reduced by any liabilities of the trust attributable to those assets. The nature of this proposal is such that a reliable estimation of the potential revenue effect cannot be made. Eligible Termination Payments The Bill also contains measures, announced on 12 January 1987, that will amend the law relating to the taxation of lump sum superannuation and kindred payments. The amendments remedy shortcomings in the law that have been exploited so as to defeat the Government's objectives in the retirement incomes area. First, the Bill will ensure that a lump sum payment made after 12 January 1987 on the death of a superannuation fund member will be taxed as an eligible termination payment if the payment is made as an alternative to a superannuation pension or annuity. This is consistent with a policy of discouraging the conversion of retirement incomes into tax free lump sums, and will overcome arrangements by which some superannuation funds dress up as tax free lump sums payments that are in substance a commutation of a pension or annuity. The Bill will also close a loophole that allowed persons who are not dependants to receive superannuation and other termination payments tax free on the death of a taxpayer. Death benefits paid after 12 January 1987 will be exempt from tax only if paid to dependants. A range of measures is being introduced to ensure that annuities purchased with rolled-over eligible termination payments do not qualify for tax concessions unless they provide genuine retirement incomes for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's dependants. The concessions are the deferment of tax on the eligible termination payment and tax exemption for the income derived by the annuity issuer from that business. The first of the new requirements is that the annuity contract must provide for the annuity to commence to be payable by the annuitant's sixty-fifth birthday. Another measure will limit the class of persons who may be nominated under a roll-over annuity contract to receive residual benefits on the purchaser's death. It will exclude adult children who are not financially dependent on the purchaser. By a further amendment, only the spouse of a deceased annuitant will be allowed to roll over an eligible termination payment received as the residual capital value or commutation of a roll-over annuity. The other rules being introduced for roll-over annuities are aimed at securing timely release of an annuitant's income entitlements once age 65 is reached. Those rules are in two groups. One will set upper limits on any capital payments permitted under the contract on termination of the annuity after age 65. Under the other group of rules, the Commissioner of Taxation will look to whether the annuity contract permits unreasonable deferral of any annuity income payable after 65. Together, the rules reflect a policy that tax exemption for issuers of roll-over annuities cannot be justified beyond the normal retirement age if the tax payable on the relevant annuity income continues to be deferred. The Bill sets out matters that the Commissioner will have regard to in applying the rules. For example, the guaranteed component of an annuity and any bonus, or supplementary, component are required to be considered separately and according to different principles. More detailed explanations can be found in the explanatory memorandum. Another amendment will exempt from the eligible termination payment taxing provisions the residual capital value of a deferred roll-over annuity paid to a dependant on the death of the purchaser during the deferment period. This will bring the tax treatment of those payments into line with payments to dependants of deceased superannuation fund members and approved deposit fund depositors. The various amendments affecting roll-over annuities are to apply to annuities purchased after 12 January 1987, the date of announcement of the measures. As a complementary measure, immediate annuities not purchased wholly with rolled over eligible termination payments are to be required to satisfy conditions similar to those for roll-over annuities if the earnings of annuity issuers from that business are to be tax free. The conditions are to apply from the time of purchase, rather than at age 65 and apply to relevant annuities purchased after today. A further measure will treat de facto spouses on the same basis as legal spouses for the purposes of the lump sum payments taxing provisions. The Bill will also clarify two matters: firstly, that a roll-over payment to a personal or self-employed person's superannuation fund does not qualify as a tax deductible contribution to the fund; and secondly, that an annuity is regarded for these purposes as being presently payable-and therefore, an immediate annuity-at all times after the commencement of the first payment period. This package of measures is expected to result in a net revenue gain of $4m in 1986-87 and $30m in a full year. Research and Development Activities The Bill implements two changes announced on 20 November 1987 to the concessions for expenditure on scientific research and other qualifying research and development activities. The three-year write off for expenditure on the construction or acquisition of buildings used exclusively in these activities will be removed, except where the taxpayers who incur the expenditure had committed themselves to the construction or acquisition before 21 November 1987. This change will ensure more efficient use of the revenue available for research and development activities by focusing upon more productive, and innovative, investments. The second change is an anti-avoidance measure to deny deductibility as `Research and Development Activities' for expenditure incurred after 20 November 1987 on the development of computer software not intended for multiple application by persons not associated with the developer. Other changes arising from the Government's review of the research and development tax concession, which were also announced on 20 November 1987, are proposed to be introduced in the autumn sittings next year. The changes included in the Bill under this heading are estimated to save $5m in a full year. Shelf Companies The Bill includes measures complementary to those introduced in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 to permit a newly incorporated company, commonly referred to as a shelf company, to be eligible for various company grouping provisions of the income tax law. One change will backdate shelf company eligibility to the income year in which each of the relevant grouping provisions was first made available. Another change will extend the operation of the grouping concessions to shelf companies acquired by the mechanism of issuing new shares and redeeming the subscriber shares in the shelf company. Other Matters The remaining measures contained in the Bill are not matters of major significance and I shall not take up the time of the house by dwelling on them. Detailed explanations are set out in the explanatory memorandum. For immediate purposes I note that they deal with the following subjects. First, some technical redefinition of off-shore areas is being made, the main change being to amend Australia's taxing rights over certain sea installations used for tourism, recreation, business or transport activities. Unintended consequences of the imputation system legislation are being remedied so that non-resident life assurance companies are freed of dividend withholding tax on any unfranked dividend income attributable to superannuation and certain life assurance policies derived through their Australian branches on or after 1 July 1987. More generous transitional rules are being given to some companies with substituted accounting periods to enable them to rearrange their debt-equity ratios to comply with the thin capitalisation measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987. The income tax rebate for taxable bonuses received under short term life assurance policies is being extended under an agreement with the Western Australian Government to policies issued by the State Government Insurance Corporation of that State. Finally, a minor technical amendment is being made to the quarterly provisional tax system's legislation; a redundant machinery provision is being removed from the sales tax law; and full effect is being given to the abolition of stamp duty and tax on transfers of debentures in the Australian Capital Territory. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Employment Services and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(7.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally declare and impose an income tax, the liability for which may arise under one of the measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1987, about which I have just spoken. That liability may arise in respect of certain dealings by banks and other financial institutions which are declared to be off-shore banking units in accordance with provisions being inserted in the Income Tax Assessment Act by that Bill. Those provisions are part of measures designed to provide an interest withholding tax exemption for off-shore borrowings by such units in order to facilitate the conduct of off-shore banking in Australia, primarily for dealings in foreign currencies with non-residents. Liability for an income tax, at a penal rate, could apply if an off-shore banking unit misapplies borrowings that qualify for the withholding tax exemption, for example, by on-lending to residents of Australia. The income tax is to be based on a formula contained in the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The tax is a sanction against the use of the funds that have been exempted from withholding tax otherwise than, broadly, for off-shore banking business, but may be subject to remission in appropriate circumstances. This Bill imposes that income tax and declares the rate of the tax to be 300 per cent of the formula amount. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(7.59) —Yesterday, an open meeting of members of this Parliament, including members of all political parties and Independents, decided to form the Australian Parliamentary Association for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). At that meeting honourable members were addressed by a number of people representing UNICEF and were informed that a quarter of a million children die each year from preventable causes. It was estimated that two million fewer children died this year because of oral rehydration programs undertaken by UNICEF. Honourable members were pleased to form an association which will support the objectives of UNICEF and its operations through this Parliament. The charter of the Australian Parliamentary Association for UNICEF is as follows: 1. To support and promote the Declaration of the Rights of the Child as adopted by the United Nations in 1959 and to support the adoption of a Convention on the Rights of the Child. 2. To promote in the Parliament and throughout the Australian Government, and the Australian community, the work of UNICEF for children and their mothers. 3. To encourage Australian Governments to give priority support to children and their mothers in Australia's overseas development assistance program. 4. To annually elect a Secretary and Treasurer from among the parliamentary parties represented in the National Parliament and to provide UNICEF with an annual report on the Association's work. I am pleased to report that that proposal has been received with a degree of enthusiasm by members throughout the parliament. I rise tonight to inform the House of the formation and the future activities of this Association and to inform members that all members and senators will receive within the next 24 hours information regarding the Association and how to join it. I hope that the maximum number of members and senators from this Commonwealth Parliament will take advantage of that opportunity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo Mcleay) —Order. It being after 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8.01 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972. Mr Duncan to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to communications. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 9 December 1987: Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations Orders-1987-No. 6-Meat Inspection (Northern Territory). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 72) Mr Courtice asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 16 September 1987: (1) What schools in the Division of Hinkler received funding under the Special Schools Program in 1986-87. (2) What programs have been funded at each school since March 1983. (3) What is the cost of each project. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth does not administer a program called the Special Schools Program but there is a Special Education Program. The following non-government schools located in the Division of Hinkler have received Commonwealth funding under this Program: St Mary's (Junior) Primary School, South Bundaberg (Closed 30 June 1986). Chanel College, Gladstone. Funds are provided to Queensland in respect of all students attending government schools. The allocation between schools is determined by the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth does not hold this information. (2) and (3). Funds were provided for the integration of students with disabilities into regular classes, as follows: 1983-85 $ 1986 $ 1987 $ St Mary's (Junior) Primary School ... Nil 4,400 4,400 Chanel College ... Nil Nil 1,100 Details of all other types of Commonwealth funding for individual non-government schools are published annually in the report on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act-A report on financial assistance granted to each State, which is tabled in Parliament. (Question No. 261) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: Has each member of each of the advisory committees to the Constitutional Commission agreed with each of the recommendations proposed in the reports of each of the committees on which they have served; if not (a) which members dissented from which recommendations, (b) for what reasons did members dissent from the recommendations and (c) why has the Constitutional Commission not published dissenting reports. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Constitutional Commission has advised that there were dissents from some of the recommendations made by the Advisory Committees to the Constitutional Commission. Each Advisory Committee determined the approach it would take to the presentation of dissenting opinions in its report. In particular, each Committee decided where in its report any dissenting views would be recorded and whether the members who dissented from the majority should be identified. The Advisory Committee reports set out any dissenting views and reasons for those dissents. The Committees were responsible for preparing their reports for publication. They decided on the presentation and content of each report. The Commission arranged for publication of the complete text of those reports, including the dissenting views as mentioned above. (Question No. 326) Mr Jull asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) With which countries does Australia have international airline agreements. (2) When was each agreement signed. (3) Which agreements presently are not utilised by (a) Qantas and (b) the airlines of the country with which the agreement is valid. Mr Duncan —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: COUNTRIES WITH AIR SERVICES AGREEMENTS OR ARRANGEMENTS WITH AUSTRALIA Country Agreement Arrangement or other Year signed Entitlement utilised By Qantas By other country Austria... Agreement... 1967 No No Bahrain... Agreement between Qantas and Government of Bahrain... 1978 Yes No Brunei... Arrangement... 1984 No Yes Burma... Agreement... 1974 No No Canada... Agreement... 1946 Yes Yes China... Agreement... 1984 Yes Yes Cook Islands... Arrangement... 1986 No Yes Egypt... Agreement... 1952 No No Federal Republic of Germany... Agreement... 1959 Yes Yes Fiji... Agreement... 1973 Yes Yes France... Agreement... 1965 Yes Yes Greece... Agreement... 1971 Yes Yes India... Agreement... 1949 Yes Yes Indonesia... Agreement... 1969 Yes Yes Italy... Agreement... 1963 Yes Yes Japan... Agreement... 1956 Yes Yes Lebanon... Agreement... 1954 No No Malaysia... Agreement... 1972 Yes Yes Nauru... Agreement... 1969 No Yes Netherlands... Agreement... 1951 Yes Yes New Zealand... Agreement... 1961 Yes Yes Papua New Guinea... Agreement... 1975 Yes Yes Philippines... Agreement... 1971 Yes Yes Republic of Ireland... Arrangement... 1957 No No Singapore... Agreement... 1967 Yes Yes Solomon Islands... Arrangement... 1981 No Yes Sri Lanka... Agreement... 1950 No No Thailand... Agreement... 1960 Yes Yes Tonga... Arrangement... 1984 No No United Kingdom... Agreement... 1958 Yes Yes United States... Agreement... 1946 Yes Yes Vanuatu... Arrangement... 1980 Yes No Western Samoa... Arrangement... 1983 No Yes Yugoslavia... Agreement... 1974 No Yes Zimbabwe... Arrangement between Airlines... 1983 Yes Yes (Question No. 347) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: Was the mailing list of the Constitutional Commission made available to a member of an Advisory Committee to the Commission; if so, (a) is there a potential for the list to be used to the private advantage of the recipient and (b) will he provide similar access to the mailing list, either wholly or partially, to members of parliament to enable them to carry out their duties more effectively, if not, why not. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Constitutional Commission has advised me that its mailing list has not been made available to any member of an Advisory Committee to the Commission. However, the Commission itself arranged for publicity material on a book by Associate Professor Michael Coper `Encounters with the Australian Constitution' to be distributed by the Commission's mailing house to persons on its mailing list at the expense of the book's publisher CCH, but in a way which did not indicate any endorsement of the book. The mailing list was not provided to Professor Coper nor to his publisher, and the costs of both postage and handling were met by the publisher. Associate Professor Michael Coper is a member of the Commission's Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management. His book, which is directed to a general readership, is designed to attack ignorance in the community about the Constitution. The Commission's action in arranging for publicity material on the book to be distributed to persons on its mailing list is in keeping with its responsibilities for stimulating public discussion and awareness of constitutional issues. The Commission has advised me that it will co-operate as far as practicable with any request by a member of parliament for additional relevant material to be circulated to persons on its mailing list. (Question No. 434) Mr Howard asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: How many visits have been made by Cabinet Ministers to Papua New Guinea since March 1983 and what was the period of stay for each visit? Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Minister Dates Prime Minister 2-3 June 1983 6-9 August 1984 15-16 September 1985 Minister for Resources and Energy 14-23 May 1986 13-14 August 1986 Minister for Foreign Affairs 9-10 April 1983 15-19 February 1985 30-31 July 1985 6-10 November 1985 10-12 September 1986 Minister for Defence 14-19 June 1983 6-10 August 1986 19-24 October 1987 Minister for Primary Industry 1-2 August 1983* 15-17 February 1985 16-17 November 1986 2-3 April 1987 Minister for Health 6-10 August 1986* Minister for Education 19-24 May 1986 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs 15-17 February 1985* 15-16 September 1985* * Visit undertaken by non-Cabinet Minister (Question No. 81) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 17 September 1987: (1) Is the Minister able to say whether the former Minister for Trade announced during the 1987 general election campaign a grant of $180 000 from the Minister's Department to Haas Steel and Engineering to develop a bean harvester. (2) Was the intention of the grant to develop a commercially viable bean harvester for use in Australia and overseas. (3) Is it a fact that (a) 2 companies have developed technology to market these machines world wide and the same companies also market world wide multi-row machines for harvesting fresh beans, (b) Bowen, Queensland, bean growers have produced excellent quality machine harvested beans for the last 3 or 4 years, (c) the Queensland Department of Primary Industry held a field day in 1986 where several bean harvesters proved they could harvest beans very economically and (d) local farmers in Gympie, Queensland have invented a bean harvester for use on steep hillsides; if so, is the Minister able to say whether the former Minister, the Minister's Department or the Member for Capricornia were aware that there was no need to grant funds to develop a bean harvester. (4) Why were funds granted to develop a bean harvester. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My colleague, Mr Dawkins, has advised me that he and the member for Capricornia, Mr Keith Wright, visited Haas Steel and Engineering prior to the last election and later made a statement to the local media regarding the firm being awarded a discretionary grant to develop a bean harvester. (2) The intention of the grant was to develop a bean harvester that harvested successfully in hilly terrain and was thus particularly suited to the terrain in the Gympie area. The harvester also has potential for commercial sales elsewhere in Australia and overseas. (3) Detailed investigations are carried out by the Industry Research and Development Board for each grant application received. In the case of the bean harvester, it was found that although a number of bean harvesters are commercially available both locally and overseas, there is still a strong need to develop a reliable, efficient bean harvester that operates satisfactorily on hilly terrain. (4) Discretionary grants, such as the grant of $164,400 awarded to D J Haas Holdings Pty Ltd to develop a bean harvester are awarded at the discretion of the Industry Research and Development Board. The Board examines each grant application against criteria set out by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. To be eligible for a grant, the applicant must satisfy the Board that it is unable to obtain adequate benefit under the 150 per cent tax concession for research and development. The project must be directed to the development of internationally competitive and internationally traded goods, systems or services and be unable to proceed satisfactorily without a discretionary grant. The Board is also required to assess each application on economic, technical and commercial grounds and to satisfy itself that the applicant has the potential to carry out the project and see its development through commercial reality. I am advised that, against these criteria, the application for a discretionary grant for the development of a bean harvester by D J Haas Holdings Pty Ltd was approved by the Board. (Question No. 134) Mr Simmons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 24 September 1987: (1) Are letters from the Minister's Department forwarded to individuals and corporations marked ``postage paid'', without date stamping; if so, are there significant revenue savings from these measures. (2) If letters are not date stamped, will the Minister ensure all letters are appropriately date stamped. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes; there are significant revenue savings in not date stamping envelopes. (2) No; for reasons of significant savings. (Question No. 190) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) What was the cost of the Australian Commission for UNESCO in (a) 1985-86 and (b) 1986-87, and what is the estimated cost for 1987-88. (2) What is the cost of (a) publishing and (b) distributing its newsletter. (3) Is the purpose of the Commission to advise on policy towards UNESCO; if so, why does its newsletter never discuss any criticism of UNESCO, but acts solely as a vehicle for pro-UNESCO propaganda. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The cost of the Australian Commission for UNESCO in (a) 1985-86 was $153,000 (b) 1986-87 was $156,000 and the 1987-88 estimate is $160,000 (2) (a) The cost of publishing the UNESCO Newsletter is currently about $1,450 for a print run of 5,000. (b) The cost of distributing the UNESCO Newsletter is approximately $3,900. (3) The functions of the Australian Commission for UNESCO include advising the Government on UNESCO issues and providing for UNESCO programs in Australia. The Commission tells me that the contents of the newsletter reflect both these functions. It serves as a forum for discussion about the work of the National Commission, with particular emphasis being given to accounts of UNESCO's activities in the Asia/Pacific regions. The newsletter also addresses policy issues and is not solely a vehicle for pro-UNESCO propaganda. A recent issue (vol. 2 no. 3 April 1987) canvassed the objectives of Australia's membership of UNESCO. One of these is ``To ensure that UNESCO observes strict budgetary discipline, including zero real growth, and that the momentum for reform is maintained.'' Past editions have reported comprehensively on the reasons for, and the reactions to, the withdrawal from UNESCO of the United Kingdom and the United States. I will however give close consideration to the point you have made when the future operation of the Commission is before me. (Question No. 206) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) What sum is paid in pensions to Australian citizens, or persons entitled to benefits, living permanently overseas. (2) What is the breakdown of this sum by country. (3) What conditions apply to the automatic payment of benefits or pensions. (4) Do recipients have to present themselves annually at an Australian Consulate or Embassy. (5) Are recipients required to complete documents attesting to their residing at the address to which payments are made. (6) If recipients are not required to satisfy Australian authorities at regular intervals that they are living at the given address, what are the formalities to cancel welfare payment upon the death of the recipient. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) During the year ended 30 June 1987, $117,555,000 was paid to pensioners living permanently overseas. (2) Statistics of the amounts paid in each country have not been collected. Each annual report of the Department of Social Security provides details of the number of pensions paid overseas by country of residence. (3) Automatic payment of pension is conditional on a pensioner remaining eligible for a pension. Pensioners are required to notify changes in their circumstances which will affect their eligibility. The eligibility of all pensioners is reviewed regularly. (4) No. (5) Yes. Entitlement review forms include a question about the pensioner's current residential address. (6) Pensioners are required to keep the Department informed of their residential addresses. Cheques are posted 4 weekly to their residential addresses. Review Forms are also forwarded to their residential addresses annually. Checks are made to ensure that the form is returned by the pensioner. When information is received that a pensioner has died, payment is stopped. Payments made after the date of death are recovered. When there is a surviving pensioner spouse, the rate of pension payable to the spouse is reassessed. (Question No. 241) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: What proportion of the budget allocation for the Anglo-Australian Telescope is a result of the increased cost to Australia of the Schmidt Telescope following the reduction in contribution from the British Government. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The 1987-88 budget allocation for the Anglo-Australian Telescope is $2,383,000, $250,000 of which is the increased cost to Australia of the Schmidt Telescope following the reduction in contribution from the British Government. (Question No. 302) Mr Kent asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 21 October 1987: (1) Will the Commonwealth Schools Commission continue in its present form. (2) Is the Government committed to a new program to replace the Participation and Equity Program in post-primary schools; if so, (a) when will it be introduced, (b) what will be its funding allocation and (c) how will it be implemented and administered. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The Government has accepted in principle a model for a new set of portfolio advisory arrangements which have been developed by the Halton Task Force. The Government is currently undertaking an extensive range of consultations prior to announcing the membership, role and functions of the Councils to operate under the proposed National Board of Employment, Education and Training. (2) No. The Participation and Equity Program has been guaranteed funding until the end of 1987 but it is not possible in the current economic climate to provide funds for any new programs. Through the stimulus given by the Participation and Equity Program there is now a large measure of self-sustaining momentum in school systems and schools in this area. The significant real per capita increases flowing to schools under the General Recurrent Grants Program and the priority areas identified for the use of these extra funds will increase this momentum. (Question No. 498) Mr Wilson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: When will legislation be introduced to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act along the lines proposed in recommendations 2 and 3 of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in its report entitled ``Determining the Entitlement of Federal Territories and New States to Representation in the Commonwealth Parliament''. Mr West —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: During the Autumn Sittings 1988.