Tuesday, 12 April 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —I have received the return to the writ which I issued on 19 February 1988 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Port Adelaide in the State of South Australia to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. Michael Jerome Young. By the endorsement on the writ it is certified that Rod Sawford has been elected. New Member Sworn Mr Rodney Weston Sawford made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance as member for the division of Port Adelaide. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on 31 March 1988 of the Rt Hon. Sir William McMahon, GCMG, CH, a former member of this House for the Division of Lowe from 10 December 1949 to 4 January 1982, a former Minister of the Crown and a former Prime Minister; places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service; and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I am sure that all honourable members were saddened to hear of the death of Sir William McMahon. Sir William, Australia's twentieth Prime Minister, was born on 23 February 1908 in Sydney. His mother's death four years later prompted his father to hand his upbringing over to his wife's family. Educated at Sydney Grammar School, he was later accepted into the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney. After graduating, he went to work for a firm of Sydney solicitors. In 1940 he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force and was appointed a lieutenant in the 1st Infantry Battalion, but was denied the opportunity to serve overseas due to a hearing impediment. After he was discharged in 1945 with the rank of major, he returned to the University of Sydney and graduated bachelor of economics. Bill McMahon won the new seat of Lowe for the Liberal Party of Australia in the 1949 election. He held the seat against all comers through successive elections until his retirement from Parliament in January 1982. He was the last of the `forty-niners' to sit in this House. As part of the postwar conservative Government, Bill McMahon did not have to wait too long for a place in the Ministry. He was first appointed Minister for the Navy and Minister for Air from July 1951 to July 1954. Up until the time he assumed the prime ministership in March 1971, he held in succession the portfolios of social services, primary industry, labour and national service, Treasury and external affairs. He held the position of Vice-President of the Executive Council from June 1964 to January 1966, when he became Deputy Leader of the Federal parliamentary Liberal Party. Sir William was Prime Minister of Australia from March 1971 to December 1972. He will probably be remembered best for his term as Treasurer, which was widely recognised as a successful one. Sir William was a longstanding and highly respected member of this House who had a distinguished parliamentary career. He was a Minister of the Crown for 21 years and a member of the House of Representatives Standing Orders Committee from March 1971 to November 1972, and he represented the Parliament and the Government at numerous international conferences. In recognition of his service to the Parliament and the people of Australia, he was appointed a member of the Privy Council in June 1966, a Companion of Honour in January 1972 and a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George in June 1977. As an advocate and then as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, I had contact with Bill McMahon on many occasions when he was Minister for Labour and National Service, Treasurer and then Prime Minister. While, as one could appreciate, many of these contacts were of an adversarial nature, I always found Sir William to be a generous opponent. Even after his retirement from the Parliament, he maintained an enthusiastic and constructive interest in political and economic issues. I increasingly came to find Bill McMahon a warm and concerned man whose interest in and commitment to his country were deep and transcended the confines of partisan considerations. For this I respected him. In Sonia, and then his daughters and son, Bill McMahon found an immeasurable source of support, comfort and pride. We all feel a great sense of sadness at the loss of a colleague who distinguished himself as a parliamentarian, as a Minister and, without question, as a dedicated member of his own Party. On behalf of the Government I extend to his widow, Sonia, and to their family our sincere sympathy at the passing of a fine Australian. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I second the motion. On behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia I extend to Sonia McMahon and to her three children our sympathy on the death of their husband and father and I join the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his generous comments about a former Australian Prime Minister. Bill McMahon's length of service in this House alone is not likely to be matched by many. Whilst I have not done a comprehensive search of the history books, I cannot think of any politician on either side in the post-World War II period who has held such a wide range of portfolios. For a man to have been Prime Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour and National Service, as well as having held other less senior portfolios, represents an astonishing spectrum. That is a mark of the extraordinary dedication of Bill McMahon to his Party, to his country and to the parliamentary system. I think the Prime Minister is right when he says that it is generally acknowledged that the time that Bill McMahon was Treasurer of Australia, between 1966 and 1969, marked his most distinguished period. He was a good Treasurer. The record shows that while he was Treasurer the rate of inflation, the rate of unemployment, the level of foreign debt and the size of our current account deficit were at enviable levels, given some of the experiences of subsequent years. Many will recall his very decisive intervention and stance in 1967 when, as Australian Treasurer, he resisted pressure to devalue the Australian dollar in sympathy with the devaluation of sterling which took place at about that time. He was also a person who stood very strongly for the liberalisation of many areas of regulation and tariff protection that affected Australian industry. As Minister for Labour and National Service, Bill McMahon was responsible for widespread reforms to the Australian stevedoring industry. He came to that portfolio without any specialist knowledge of the area but he left a very significant mark on it. As Minister for Foreign Affairs he was in fact responsible for changing the name of the Department of External Affairs-a somewhat colonial description-to the Department of Foreign Affairs. He applied himself very vigorously to the debate then raging in Australia regarding Western involvement in Indo-China. So in every portfolio Bill McMahon left a very significant mark. The Prime Minister has said something about Bill McMahon's personal life. He suffered a number of childhood deprivations, not only in terms of his parents but also in terms of a very severe hearing affliction which, because of the time he was born, was not cured or significantly ameliorated until much later in life. This is something of which I have some understanding. I regard Bill McMahon's coping with that as being a very significant thing. In 1972 Bill McMahon was Prime Minister when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was defeated. I suppose it is one of the inaccuracies of history that it is sometimes said-and I assure my friends opposite that I do not say this in any partisan sense-that Bill McMahon led the Liberal and Country parties to a resounding defeat. The reality is that the size of the swing achieved in 1972 was much lower than many had expected. In fact, the majority enjoyed and the swing achieved were lower than had been widely predicted by many people at the time. It was commonly thought, and understandably so, that in the early part of 1972 a change of government was inevitable after such a long period of coalition government. I speak as somebody who, at the request of the Liberal Party organisation at the time, took some eight weeks off from his professional practice to spend on the campaign trail with the then Prime Minister. Not only was it for me an insight into campaigning, but also it was a valuable instruction in those activities. I can say without any cant or exaggeration that, in very difficult circumstances, he campaigned very honourably and very courageously. The size of the movement, despite the overwhelming desire for a change after a generation of Liberal-Country Party government, was lower than many had predicted. He bore that defeat with considerable dignity and grace. As everyone who knew Bill McMahon would testify, he had an enormous amount of restless energy. He never lost his passion for politics. The last time that I saw Bill McMahon was at Alan Reid's funeral. In a sense, there is a symbolism in that because he was a man who covered so much of the period in which Bill McMahon made a significant and active contribution to the life of Australian politics. Bill McMahon retained, almost to the very end, his passionate and active interest-his restless energy. He was never a person to shirk an argument and he was never reluctant to create an argument. Anybody who thought for one moment that when he ceased to be Prime Minister he would adopt the role of quiet counsellor from the back was, of course, mistaken. He maintained in our party room, between 1975 and when he left it in 1982, a very active and lively interest. He was not averse to giving people a hard time if he thought they were doing it wrong. He had his critics. He was a controversial figure. He argued with many. He was vetoed by Jack McEwen in 1967. He survived and came back and, for a period, was Prime Minister of this country. Anybody who knew Bill McMahon will know that he derived enormous delight, security and well-being from his family. His was a close and well-liked family. All those associated with Bill McMahon would testify to that. He was a member of a very unique band of people on our side of politics-the forty-niners-and he made a very important contribution not only to Liberal politics but also Australian politics generally in the years that he served in the Federal Parliament. On behalf of all members of the Liberal Party of Australia, I pay tribute to his public service, his commitment to Liberal principles and the strength and dedication of all the causes to which he committed himself. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —In the strange environment in which those of us in politics play out much of our lives, it is difficult to pass instant judgment on somebody such as Bill McMahon. Bill was somebody with whom but a few of us in this place worked. Very few of the present members of this Parliament served with him. I guess those of us who did, certainly in the Ministry, will never forget him. He was not the easiest of men with whom to be associated. His propensity to use the telephone at the most unlikely hours of the day and night was such that no one of us found it necessarily easy to come to a resolution of whatever the particular matter he might have phoned about should be. Having said all that, he was a man who not only made for himself a justifiably high reputation in the Australian community but also brought to this place some of the essential qualities of goodness that one looks for in a parliamentarian. Bill McMahon held the seat of Lowe for 32 years. That is a seat which, on all the ordinary criteria, would hardly be said to be a conservative seat. On several occasions I visited the area as a Minister and spoke to differing groups. For all that we saw him in his public role, in his private role, and certainly in his association with people, he was truly quite remarkable. He had an ability to win and retain the confidence of others. His ability to speak well in the context of groups of elderly citizens, the young and others who might not necessarily have been inclined to support his political views was such that he was able to retain that seat in spite of all the vicissitudes of political fortune over those 32 years. I remember that on one occasion I went to the Apia Club with him and met a group of new Australians who admired him as much as old Australians did. On the first occasion, I went to the opening of an aged persons home in his electorate. He told me that it was largely through his initiative that the aged persons legislation, which has benefited many in Australia, came into the legislature. Bill McMahon had a great diversity of portfolio interests. He was a man not without controversy. For John McEwen, as the Leader of the then Country Party, and others in my Party there were occasions when we did not see eye to eye with him. Yet, having said that, he made a very notable contribution as a Minister and Prime Minister. Several of us worked with him in each of those roles. I was interested to go back through Bill McMahon's speeches and see some of the contributions he made to the Parliament. I do not wish unduly to take up the time of the House by referring to them but one, on a political front, that strikes a chord in my heart comes from the Hansard of 15 March 1971. It was on the occasion when he had announced to the House that he had assumed the prime ministership from John Gorton. In the course of responding to a motion of want of confidence moved by the then Leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam, Bill McMahon made the following comments: If we look at the various other areas that have to be looked at we see that our balance of payments is good, our overseas balances are strong at $1,600m, our trade balance is moving along well, housing is improving and the labour position is sound. We have a little more, but only a little more, than 1 per cent of the population unemployed. So we see in the ingredients I have just mentioned the substance of an economy that is basically sound. We should remember that much of that came out of the stewardship of Bill McMahon as Treasurer of Australia and how that contrasts with the present position. His last speech to this House as Prime Minister was on behalf of the returned servicemen of Australia. It was to bring into play the recommendations of what was known as the Jess committee that looked at the terms and conditions of retirement benefits and recommended quite a significant improvement in the entitlements of Australian veterans. Throughout Bill McMahon's life, he had a care for others. As my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said, Bill McMahon was an orphan who grew up in a circumstance which was really quite harsh; yet he finished life with a wonderful family around him-and how proud he was of his wife and children. To Sonia, Julian, Melinda and Deborah I would like to extend deepest personal sympathy from Rosemary and me and, I know, from all the members of the National Party of Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I join previous speakers in supporting the motion of condolence. All has been said that should be said in support of such a motion, clearly indicating that Bill McMahon, as we knew him, gave a lifetime of service to this nation. If we look at his history we see that he was orphaned at an early age. He spent time in the law, in economics, in wartime service and some 33 years in this Parliament. I note that he was the first non-Victorian to lead the Liberal Party of Australia. I am well aware that when I was first elected to this place in 1969 he had already served some 20 years. That period was very significant because Gorton had lost the leadership to him. I must say that whilst we were in opposition we were somewhat confident that we would win the next election-which we did. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, in terms of dealing with Bill McMahon as an individual, he was a delight to deal with although very difficult to convince on any issue on which one felt one might be able to persuade him. From the point of view of his wife and family, I can well understand their loss. As was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), I was present at Alan Reid's funeral. The rapid decline of Bill and the strong support he was receiving from Sonia could be noted there. I do not know that Bill McMahon was ever able to cope with the difficult decisions that have to be made in this House. One such decision, of course, is whether one can increase parliamentary salaries. I remember well that in 1971 those of us in opposition felt we were getting a very poor deal from the point of view of remuneration. A report had been given to Sir William McMahon as Prime Minister. We were confident that the report would be accepted by the then Prime Minister and his Cabinet-one cannot put all the responsibility on a Prime Minister in such circumstances. It was clear that the Government thought that we ought to get something less than what was recommended. I well remember Bill McMahon coming into the House and clearly indicating that position just before we were to suspend the sitting for the evening meal. The Australian Labor Party was to have its Christmas function at that time. When the sitting was resumed we had to discuss the merits of the recommendation from the Government. Fortified by what one might call the normal Christmas cheer, we unanimously passed a resolution saying that we should get all or nothing. The result was that we got nothing; Bill McMahon did not reappear in the Parliament. It was a salutary lesson for all of us that one should always take whatever one is offered in such a situation. I wish to say, on a personal basis, that it was to Bill McMahon's great credit that he was so interested in political life and the service of his nation. He was a credit to the legal profession. Bill McMahon was the Acting Attorney-General in the period 1960-61. He will be sorely missed by all of us who knew him. I extend my condolences to his wife, Sonia, and his family. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —Because of the warmth that has flowed from both sides of the House I shall be relatively brief in what I have to say. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) have spoken with a warmth, an understanding and a feeling for Sir William McMahon that have been accurately conveyed in this Parliament. I do not know of anyone in this Parliament who loves life as much as Bill McMahon did. He had an absolute zest for it, whether it be through sporting pursuits, cultural pursuits or whatever. He approached his own profession, politics, with the most extraordinary enthusiasm, night and day, in person and on the phone. One was constantly aware of whatever matter it was that Bill was pursuing. I learnt that very early as President of the Liberal Party in Victoria many years ago and when I served on the Federal Executive and the joint standing committee on Federal policy. Some people take an overt interest in what the Liberal Party decides in such councils and meeting places, but I am able to inform honourable members that, no matter what interest has been exhibited in recent times, no-one took a greater interest in ensuring that any motion in which he was involved got through than did Bill McMahon. I experienced that enthusiastic approach to life, politics, Parliament and the nation when I served with Bill McMahon in this place and, subsequently, when I served with him as a Minister in his Government. Although it was a matter of public record that I had supported John Grey Gorton, when Bill McMahon replaced him as Prime Minister that fact was never mentioned between Bill McMahon and me. I served as Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Treasurer in those days and I was actually promoted by Bill McMahon to the position of Minister for External Territories. Bill McMahon has never actually been given credit for a decision he took in terms of the smooth and orderly transition to independence for Papua New Guinea. I had a small role to play in setting that blueprint, all the guidelines, for the transfer of administrative and legal facilities from Australia to Papua New Guinea. Bill McMahon reposed very great confidence in me. Early in the piece when I told him that I thought we would have to chart the course for self-government, he said, `You cannot do that sitting around the Cabinet room week after week. We will just have to give you the authority of this Cabinet to report back every month'. I do not think that that transference would have been possible in the time, with the same smoothness and speed, had there not been that degree of confidence vested in the particular Minister at that time; that is, Bill's confidence, with Cabinet support, in me. He was a very significant Australian. He was tenacious; he was a fighter for so many things in which he believed. I have witnessed how strongly Sonia supported him and it is with much sympathy that I extend additional condolence to her for the loss of her husband, and condolences to Julian, Melinda and Deborah for the loss of their father. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —As one who served as Minister for the Interior in Sir William McMahon's Ministry, I wish to pay tribute to one of Australia's most significant sons. He not only offered his service to the nation in time of war, reaching, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, the rank of major, and graduated from Sydney University with degrees in law and economics, but also represented a marginal electorate in Sydney with dedication for 32 years. The very nature of his electorate meant that he did not ever lose touch with the people. However, his greatest public achievement was his 21 years in high ministerial office, culminating in his prime ministership in 1971. He probably earned the greatest recognition and respect during his years as Treasurer. Sir William's term as Prime Minister was brought to an end with a wave of social change in the 1960s and early 1970s. I recall that he faced his campaign amid a fairly protesting electorate with courage and always with understanding. His defeat came at a time when people became obsessed with trends and changes-sometimes change for change's sake. Whoever had been the incumbent of the prime ministership in 1972 probably would have faced the prospect of defeat in those heady days, but he took that defeat with grace and dignity. Ironically, the defeat of the McMahon Government brought about an unfortunate social change for Australians. Sir William's term as Prime Minister was brought to an end in 1972 when unemployment levels were about 3 per cent and inflation was about 3 per cent. We had a growth rate we have not achieved since. We were the twelfth greatest trading nation on earth; today we are twenty-second or twenty-third. We had little or no overseas debt problem. The defeat of Sir William McMahon's Government was followed by enormous human suffering, with galloping unemployment and inflation and economic instability. Very few Australians have played a more significant and distinguished part in Australian political affairs since European settlement. Sir William was a warmhearted, tenacious, persistent, energetic, intelligent person with a lively spirit. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has said, `Oh, how he enjoyed life', sometimes night and day. He was a colourful character. He spotted me one day wearing a tie which was very similar to his. He said to me, `Hunt, you're wearing the same tie as I am'. I said, `The difference is that yours probably cost $30 and mine cost $10'. He was compassionate and generous of spirit to those who sought his advice, help and support. Above all, he was a great family man and his affection for his wife and children was more than repaid during his long and painful illness. On behalf of the people of Gwydir, especially my wife Mim, I extend to Lady McMahon and their three children, Melinda, Deborah and Julian, our deepest sympathy at this sad time. We know how proud they must be of one who was not only a great Australian but a loving husband and father. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business) —Sir William McMahon had a long and distinguished career in public life, serving for 32 years in this place. I came to know him well in his last years here as a backbencher when, having nothing to lose, he spoke out vigorously on many issues, generally to the discomfort of his Party leaders-Snedden and then Fraser. The last phase was a radical one for him, as it was for John Quincy Adams as the father of the House in the Congress. When I drew that parallel to his attention he was rather taken with it and quoted it a few times. It is similar for Malcolm Fraser now in the wider world outside. Some of his speeches were extremely effective, especially on international finance, taxation and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. As every anecdote about him reminds us, he did not present well. His slight form, tremulous voice and frequent verbal disasters led him to be seriously underrated. Nevertheless, he had extraordinary energy and persistence. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) quite correctly pointed out, his defeat in December 1972, ending 23 years of coalition government, was surprisingly close. The campaign itself was a public relations disaster. He seemed to concede defeat towards the end when he criticised the competence and loyalty of his own Ministers. Nevertheless, despite Labor's `It's time' campaign and Gough Whitlam's very effective leadership and abundant energy, Labor won with a majority of only nine seats, although it was ahead of the Opposition plus the Democratic Labor Party by almost 3 per cent of the popular vote. I came to know Sir William McMahon under rather unfavourable conditions. I was an old friend of John Gorton and worked actively in reviving, almost exhuming, the Australian feature film industry. After Bill McMahon became Prime Minister in March 1971 the process of de-Gortonisation began and the proposed film and television school was a prime target for attack. The most vivid account of those years appears in The Howson Diaries: The Life of Politics, edited by Don Aitkin and published by Viking Press in 1984. I was in the enemy's camp from Bill's point of view, as the diaries made clear. Having had a fair blooding in the Victorian Australian Labor Party I learnt about politics as part of an informal coalition including Whitlam and Gorton which worked to keep the film initiative alive until the change of government. Bill later conceded, although not in public, that the film revival was a major achievement and that he had been wrongly advised. When Ralph Nader was brought to Australia in July 1972 by Barry Cohen and me, Bill McMahon attacked him as a paid pot stirrer and defended current administrative practice against open or critical examination. However, he was persuaded to meet Nader at Lennon's Hotel in Brisbane. I went with him to the hotel but was excluded by the Prime Minister's minders. Nader told me that Bill McMahon stuck his hand out to be shaken, but averted his head at an angle of 90 degrees and remained in that position for the 90-minute interview. He said that their eyes never met. I asked Nader, `What impression did he make?'. He said, `Weird'. Nevertheless, after the meeting Bill McMahon described Nader as a very pleasant fellow and announced he would set up consumer bodies in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and liberalise access to information flow. Graham Freudenberg dubbed him `Tiberius with a telephone' when he was drumming up numbers from Eric Robinson's home on the Isle of Capri. He was a virtuoso on the telephone. On several occasions, in opposition, the telephone would ring in my office and I would hear the familiar quavering voice: `Bill here. Have you looked at page 3 of the Age? What the Government is doing is an outrage. At Question Time, why don't you ask Malcolm . . .', and then would follow a carefully thought out question. As the Peter Howson book made clear, McMahon was a major player in an extraordinarily interesting time politically, and his life could have made an engrossing book. But he was not the one to write it. I read the typescript of his autobiography, and the most charitable description that one could apply was that it was dreadful; he seemed to suffer from total recall and to feel that every sentence he had uttered deserved to be preserved for all time. He had superior analytical skills and a waspish sense of humour, but was completely unable to apply either to himself. He overcame major problems, such as the hostilities of Menzies and of McEwen who vetoed him in 1967, his deafness and his tremulous style, but his later years were enriched by marriage and a family. Our sympathies go to Sonia McMahon and their three children. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to thank you for according me the honour of representing you at Sir William's funeral last Friday. I suppose in this House I worked as closely as anybody with Bill McMahon when he was Prime Minister. If the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) thinks he had some phone conversations to recall, he does not know anything at all. I recall to the House that on one occasion we had been working all one Saturday-and all one Saturday meant from 7 a.m. until nearly midnight-and by the time I got back to the salubrious suburb of Cronulla the phone was ringing. I then immediately said, `Bill, God knows we have been talking all day and night; what is left unsaid?'. He said, `I will ring you in the morning', and then put the phone down. From then on I got no late night calls: they all came at 5 a.m., which is all right for inner city members because they will possibly have received their newspapers by then. I was amused when I heard Minister Jones talking about `Have you read . . .?'. At 5.30 a.m., he had read every newspaper in Australia, either by phone or by vision. I say these things in a lighthearted manner to illustrate that the man himself gave to all parliamentarians on both sides the example of loyalty to his Party, which never varied; hard work, which he never fled from; and an example to people in this place that if you disagreed, disagree. That was a fairly strong statement for a leader to make. He had been trained by Menzies, who said, `If you have a view, put it; if you can convince me, convince me'. To me Bill McMahon become more than a political example and a political leader, he became a very close friend. I would like to remind the House that there were occasions when he was a person of great nobility. Those of us who had the privilege of sitting in the Liberal Party of Australia when he declined to nominate for the leadership, to become Prime Minister, when John McEwen had rejected him, will remember that his speech then was noble and magnificent. Those few of us still in this House will recall it as one of the great speeches of all time. His second moment of splendour was when he was defeated in December 1972. No one who was interested in politics at that time could possibly have forgotten the dignity and strength with which he conceded defeat. He set an example for subsequent leaders at election campaigns. As we have heard, he was an earnest person. I have heard some of the people who also sat with him as a Minister saying that he could be difficult. He could be difficult, but if one knew one's job and knew one's facts, one was right; God help one, if one did not. I think that all of us on this side of the House who had the honour of serving with him would have anecdotes to recall-anecdotes which I believe are not appropriate at this time. Despite his hard ministerial duties and the length of time he gave to them each day, every day of the year, he had strict rules which he followed-rules which other members could perhaps follow. I refer to his affection and devotion to his children when they were young and as they grew up. I think it was rather touching at the thanksgiving service last Friday to see the deep sadness and sorrow of his children. Sonia and his three children, whom I know very well, were deeply upset at having lost a devoted husband and a loving father. These are values which he brought to his own life and values which he frankly expected of everyone else. For those honourable members who were not able to make it to St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney on Friday, the tribute to him was splendid. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) so kindly said, he was a generous opponent. It was particularly pleasing to see that the Prime Minister, a former Labor Prime Minister and former Prime Minister Fraser were at the service. People such as John Ducker-people from all sides of the political spectrum-came on that morning to pay tribute to him. Some smart alec members of the Press Gallery have seen fit to write smart alec reports since the funeral. Some of those reports have not even been amusing; most of them have been incredibly wrong. This is not the place to right those wrong descriptions. However, as other speakers have said, Bill McMahon was one of the finest citizens produced by Sydney for the welfare of Australia. The parliamentary process should miss the type of person that Bill McMahon was and whom he represented. He believed in the primacy of this place for political discussion. He believed in listening to opposite views. He believed in debating people with opposite views. Surely that is what Parliament should be about. Bill McMahon taught us that. These are the thoughts that flooded through my mind last Friday morning in Sydney. Again, I pay tribute to Sonia whose work as his wife while he was Prime Minister was quite brilliant. She was a tyro to political life. Until she married Bill she had no idea of what the lifestyle was like. She was immediately thrown into the problem of marrying a senior Cabinet Minister, with all the problems that brought with it. Yet, by the time he became Prime Minister, she was more than just a wife; she was a supporter and a helpmate and someone who herself contributed much to the parliamentary activity of this country. So to Sonia and her three great children, Melinda, Julian and Deborah, whom I have watched grow up, I extend my deep personal sympathy but thanksgiving and gratitude for what their father gave to Australia. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page) —I rise briefly to support the words of condolence expressed in this House this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and other honourable members who have spoken. I do this because, along with the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), I share the record of the longest association with Sir William McMahon as a parliamentarian. I first met him in 1954 when I had been for a very short time a member of the New South Wales Parliament. Bill, in his inimitable fashion, immediately proceeded to give me some good advice. I am sure that many others have shared the pleasure and the impact of the kind of advice that he so freely gave so many members of this House over those long years of service that he rendered in this chamber. Bill McMahon was a devoted parliamentarian. He had a tenacious approach in matters to do with the parliamentary system. He had a very great determination about the philosophies of Liberal politics and was a leader of the Liberal and National Party coalition for a long time. One can but marvel at the enormous energy which was to be observed at all times whilst he fulfilled the roles that have been referred to this afternoon. I recall when he was appointed Minister for Primary Industry. That appointment seemed to surprise many people. It certainly surprised those of us who were closer to the land than he was. He said, `Don't worry. I have two pot plants on my front balcony and I know a little bit about it'. Around that time there were great problems in the dairying industry. My predecessor in the seat of Cowper, Sir Earle Page, was still at that time a member of this House. I remember Bill saying, `You know, the doc wants to do a little more for the dairying industry but we can't do it'. But it was done. So often he would begin from that stance, saying, `You can't do it; we can't afford it', and, following a little more negotiation and a little more consideration, he would move back from that position. I saw that happen on a number of occasions. I recall such an occasion on another level. Today the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales is suffering yet again a major flood. People in that part of Australia are experiencing very great hardship, but not to the extent that it was experienced in earlier years, largely because of the efforts of people such as Bill McMahon who were prepared to give financial support for the very necessary flood mitigation works that were carried out in that part of Australia. I recall that early one morning he rang to say in respect of the second round of funding for flood mitigation, `I'm sorry, we cannot do it'. A few weeks later the funding was approved. An interesting aspect of that is perhaps that the Treasury official whom he had devoting some time to the problem is now a member of another House. He likewise said, `You know, we can't do it. It is too much of an outlay. It ought to be undertaken by the State'. But it was done. I just want to say this afternoon that that is just one example of his approach to a very great need. I must not wander too far from the sentiments, the feelings and the purpose of this condolence motion. I recall very vividly, as does, no doubt, my colleague the right honourable member for New England, the occasion of the celebration party just prior to the marriage of Sir William and Sonia. It took place in the joint party room. Two people were recognised on that occasion: Sir William, because of his pending marriage, and the then honourable member for Denison, Adrian Gibson. The Prime Minister of the day, Sir Robert Menzies, was chairing the function. As Bill proceeded to respond to the words that had been expressed congratulating him and Sonia, his having taken precedence over Adrian Gibson, he was given some quiet words of advice by the then Prime Minister: `Bill, don't make it too long'. Sir Robert had the feeling that perhaps it was an occasion for fewer words than our illustrious friend would want to express at that time. So many of us have many personal recollections of Sir William McMahon, but perhaps the important matter to refer to today, because so much has been said, is the fact that he was a great Australian, that he and Lady McMahon gave commendable leadership to this nation over a long period and that the standard and the whole impact of their work will help foster for the future a recognition of what is so important in this country-family life and respect for the family from all sides of politics. I join with others in expressing sympathy to Lady McMahon and to the three children who have been seen as such an important part of a devoted family-Julian, Melinda and Deborah. I do so on behalf of my wife, Cynthia, and on behalf of many people who have shared a close friendship with the McMahons over so many years. I am sure that those of us who recall many of the little anecdotes and the important official occasions will recognise that history will record Sir William as playing a very important role in Australia's history and particularly the history of this chamber. This may be the last occasion in this chamber on which we pay tribute to one of the leaders of this nation before moving to another place in a few weeks time. Dr WOODS(Lowe) —As the current member for Lowe, the electorate which Sir William McMahon represented for over 30 years, may I express to Lady McMahon and to her son and two daughters my personal sympathy and the sympathy of all past and present constituents of Lowe. Death, whether it be of a public person or a private person, is very much a personal matter of sorrow and loss for the family and the relatives, and this is very much the case with the passing of Sir William. He was very much a family man with immense pride in Sonia, his bride of 23 years, and his son and two daughters. Bill retired from Parliament in 1982, having served his electorate of Lowe very well for more than 30 years. Electors in a seat which had a very marked change in demography maintained their support for him, I believe, as a tribute to his local and Australia-wide contribution to our community. His retirement years, so richly merited, were not easy ones for him. He was progressively burdened with poor health-a burden which, I think it is fair to say, he as a fitness fanatic found very difficult to bear but nonetheless bore with great fortitude. I am very pleased to say and proud to note that in those very difficult times the constant support of his wife, Sonia, was absolutely magnificent. He died in the fullness of his 80 years with a remarkable record of achievement in public life which extended over 33 crowded and challenging years. The achievements and honours, which we have already discussed, came deservedly to him. He was a bachelor of law and later on a bachelor of economics-and I think it is fair to say that this was surely his favourite discipline and one which was a constant stimulus to his eager mind. He reached the rank of major in his war service and entered Parliament in 1949, where he remained for 33 years. He was appointed to the Ministry in 1951 and over the next 20 years had the ministries of Navy, Air, Social Services, Primary Industry, Labour and National Service, Foreign Affairs, Treasury, and subsequently Prime Minister. He became a Privy Councillor in 1966 and was awarded the Companion of Honour in 1972. In 1977 he deservedly received the high knighthood of the Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George. He achieved the prime ministership in 1971, at a time when there was great internal turbulence in the Liberal Party and in the twenty-second year of continuous coalition government in Canberra. It is very doubtful that any man could have saved the then Government from defeat in that following year but, as we heard, by his example and leadership, he came very close. Such a focus on that loss would unfairly cloud the achievements of Sir William McMahon. It would wrongly seek the causes of defeat in that year as being in the man rather than in the declining fortunes of the Party itself, where they quite clearly belong. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) mentioned, Bill McMahon suffered throughout his public life from partial deafness. This constant handicap was one which he bore well. Of course it caused mannerisms-voice inflections might be the way of describing them-which were the cartoonists' and commentators' delight. He was not an easy man to know or to understand. As we have heard, he was driven by a powerful dynamo which gave expression in tireless work and endless curiosity. If, like Cornwall, we paint him warts and all, those human warts, with the objective judgment and the distance of history, will recede into relative insignificance compared with his magnificent record of achievement. On the north door of St Paul's Cathedral in London is an inscription-a tribute to the great Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of St Paul's, written by his son. In translation it reads, `If you would seek his monument, look around you'. Look around at Sir William McMahon's life journey and one will see an enduring monument. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —We have heard much today from honourable members about Bill McMahon's great zest for life, his strong idiosyncrasies and, above all, his greatness as a member of this Parliament. We have also heard about the number of portfolios he held, the fact that he was Prime Minister of Australia, and the great contributions he made to our nation. I would like to place on record my own brief comments about Bill as a colleague and as a friend. There has been no member of the Liberal Party of Australia in New South Wales over the last 30 odd years who has not to some extent been touched and impressed by him. He was the first Federal member I ever met because members of my family used to work for him in the electorate of Lowe. In my early twenties I was involved in numerous Federal and State campaigns for the Liberal Party and I worked closely with him in Sydney. When I joined the House of Representatives in 1974 Bill McMahon was, as always, a kind and generous friend, as he was to all who joined at that stage, and I look back on those days with sincere pleasure. I know of no other person in public life who, both as a member of the House of Representatives and after leaving it, with his wife made such a consistent contribution to so many worthy causes. In fact, I remember Bill once saying to me when he went to yet another art exhibition, `Looks like I've got to buy another painting. I've got the garage full as well as the loft'. That was the attitude he had. He was there to help people. He enjoyed helping people; he wanted to help them. In many respects he epitomised that element of the Liberal Party which has been so significant, that is, the need for people not to be afraid of those in power and to feel some sense of empathy with them. I recall no closer evidence of that than simply to have walked down Martin Place with Bill McMahon at lunch time. One would be embarrassed by the number of people who said, `Hi, Bill' and the way in which he would always respond to them with a friendly smile, a wave and a happy word. As I said, nobody feared him. He was everybody's friend and he will be remembered as such. On behalf of my wife and my family I place on record my sympathy for Sonia and her children at their sad loss and also that of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —As a mark of respect to the memory of the late Sir William McMahon, I move: That the House do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 3.16 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the making of statutory instruments. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1947, and for related purposes. Mrs Kelly to present a Bill for an Act to empower the Minister for Defence to make provision for an interim superannuation benefit for members of the Defence Force. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend and repeal various Acts relating to matters dealt with by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 12 April 1988: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 40. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for collection of information-1988-No. 1-Annual collection of statistics on public sector indebtedness. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement of disclosure of information-1988-No. 3-List of names and addresses of agricultural establishments for Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Cheques and Payments Orders Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 37. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determinations-1988-No. 3. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 35. Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act-Declaration pursuant to subsection 9 (2), dated 18 February 1988. Currency Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 45. Defence Act- Determinations-1988- No. 11-Special Action Forces Allowance and other allowances. No. 12-Temporary Rental Allowance. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 38. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988-No. 1-Export Control (Fresh Fruits and Vegetables) as amended (Amendment). Family Law Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 42, 44. Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 46. Fisheries Act-Notices-Nos. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211. Foreign States Immunities Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 36. Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 43. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Meat Inspection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 34. Naval Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 39. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- Family Law Amendment Act 1987-1 April 1988. Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Act 1987-Subsections 3 (4) and 4 (4)-28 March 1988. Public Service Act-Determinations-1988-Nos. 23, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53. Quarantine Act-Determination fixing fees pursuant to section 86e, dated 17 March 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination listing fees and charges for purposes of Health Authority Ordinance, dated 22 March 1988. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 33, 41. Treaties-Text of- Which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force- (1) Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region done at Noumea on 24 November 1986. Signed for Australia on 24 November 1987. The Convention is not yet in force. (2) Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the South Pacific Region by Dumping done at Noumea on 25 November 1986. Signed for Australia on 24 November 1987. The Protocol is not yet in force. (3) Protocol concerning co-operation in Combating Pollution Emergencies in the South Pacific Region done at Noumea on 25 November 1986. Signed for Australia on 24 November 1987. The Protocol is not yet in force. (4) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt concerning Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Transfer of Nuclear Materials between Australia and the Arab Republic of Egypt done at Cairo on 18 February 1988. (5) Agreement on Trade between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt done at Cairo on 18 February 1988. (6) Agreement on Trade and Economic Relations and Technical Co-operation between the Government of Australia and the Government of Israel done at Jerusalem on 22 February 1988. (7) Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of the Philippines done at Manila on 7 March 1988. (8) Agreement on Consular Relations between Australia and the Hungarian People's Republic with Exchange of Notes done at Canberra on 7 March 1988. To which Australia has become a party by signature- (9) Exchange of Notes at Singapore on 10 February 1988 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Singapore regarding the Status of Forces of each State in the Territory of the other State. The Agreement entered into force on 10 February 1988. (10) Exchange of Notes at Washington on 22 December 1987 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America to amend the Air Transport Agreement, 1946. The Agreement entered into force on 22 December 1987. (11) Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing done at Canberra on 29 October 1987. The Agreement entered into force on 1 November 1987. (12) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the World Intellectual Property Organization in relation to the functions of the Patent Office of the Government of Australia as an International Searching and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty done at Geneva on 11 November 1987. Entry into force 1 January 1988. (13) Exchange of Letters at Canberra on 8 October and 12 November 1987 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America relating to the Limitation of Australian Export of Meat to the United States. Entry into force 12 November 1987. (14) Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning Squid Jigging by Fishing Vessels of the Republic of Korea done at Canberra on 10 December 1987. Entry into force 1 October 1987. (15) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Co-operation in Space Research and the Use of Space for Peaceful Purposes done at Moscow on 1 December 1987. Entry into force 1 December 1987. (16) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Co-operation in the Field of Medical Science and Public Health done at Moscow on 1 December 1987. Entry into force 1 December 1987. (17) Exchange of Letters at Canberra on 24 and 30 December 1987 between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand constituting an Agreement to amend the Agreement on Closer Economic Relations. Entry into force 30 December 1987. (18) Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan done at Amman on 14 February 1988. Entry into force 14 February 1988. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- (19) International Tropical Timber Agreement done at Geneva on 18 November 1983. Instrument of accession deposited by Australia on 16 February 1988. The Agreement entered into force for Australia on 16 February 1988. (20) Protocol on the Authentic Quadrilingual Text of the Convention on International Civil Aviation done at Montreal on 30 September 1977. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 2 December 1987. The Protocol is not yet in force. (21) Second Geneva (1987) Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade done at Geneva on 5 October 1987. Instrument of acceptance deposited by Australia on 17 December 1987. Entry into force 1 January 1988. Which have been ratified by Australia- (22) Acts of the XIXth Universal Postal Union done at Hamburg on 27 July 1984. Instrument of ratification deposited by Australia on 9 February 1988. Entry into force 1 January 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 20) Mr Reith asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What legal expenses were incurred by the Australian Sports Commission between 1 January 1987 and 30 August 1987, and for what purposes were the expenses incurred. (2) Have the legal expenses been incurred with the authority of the Australian Sports Commission in accordance with the Australian Sports Commission Act. (3) From whom has the Commission usually sought legal advice, and from whom did it seek advice during the period 1 January 1987 to 30 August 1987. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The following legal expenses were incurred by the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) between 1 January 1987 and 30 August 1987: (i) $2,685 for advice relating to a number of issues, including the position of the Australian Sports Aid Foundation under the Companies Act, Commission ownership of the magazine ``Sports Coach'', the General Manager's powers to execute contracts in the name of the Commission and the development of a proposed Sports Development Trust. (ii) $600 for ``vetting'' of an ASC publication (then in publication) on sport and liability. (iii) $229.79 for advice relating to possible legal action in the light of possibly defamatory comments made by Mr Peter Reith MP. (2) Yes. (3) The Commission normally uses two sources of legal advice, depending on the nature of the issues under consideration. These are the Attorney General's Department (Australian Government Solicitor) and the Commission's legal advisers, Mallesons Stephen Jaques. The Commission also sought advice, during the defined period, from Dawson Waldron, a Sydney firm of solicitors. (Question No. 92) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: What concessions and rebates are available to pensioners and beneficiaries in the ACT for (a) electricity, (b) rates, (c) bus transport, (d) vehicle registration, (e) driver's licence, (f) funerals and (g) use of life support equipment. Mr Punch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Concessions and rebates available to pensioners and beneficiaries in the ACT are listed below. For the purpose of this question, pensioners and beneficiaries have been defined as people in receipt of the following: age pensions; invalid pensions/invalid (blind) pensions; widow's pensions; wife's pensions; carers pensions; sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances; unemployment benefits; sickness benefits; special benefits; pensions received by war widows, unmarried mothers and widowed mothers of deceased unmarried members of the Forces; service pensions; totally and permanently incapacitated pensions (T&I); pensions received by blinded or partially blinded veterans; disability pensions for double amputation. (a) A rebate on electricity charges of up to $92 per annum is available to the following pensioners: holders of a Pensioner Health Benefits Card (PHB card); pensioners who hold a special T&I letter from the Department of Veterans' Affairs; and war widows, unmarried mothers and widowed mothers of deceased unmarried members of the Forces who hold a Dependant Treatment Entitlement card. The current rebate is $4.00 per month or 50% of the bill (whichever is less), increasing to $15.00 per month or 50% of the bill (whichever is less) for accounts issued for the months of July, August, September and October. To receive the rebate the pensioner must apply annually with the relevant documentation to the ACT Electricity Authority which administers the scheme. (b) A 50% remission on basic residential rates is available to the following pensioners: PHB card holders; Dependant Treatment Entitlement card holders; and T&I pensioners. Other service pensioners, spouses of T&I pensioners, and widows of T&I pensioners who have not remarried may also be entitled to the remission if they can provide an authorisation of eligibility from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The remission only applies to the applicant's share of the residential property which must also be their principal place of residence. These pensioners are also entitled to defer the payment of all rates charges until the property is transferred, or the individual pensioner's financial circumstances allow the pensioner to pay the deferred charges. Interest, currently 12%, is charged on the amount of deferred rates. Pensioners are unable to apply for the 50% remission and to defer the balance of the payment concurrently. These concessions are specified in the Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) Ordinance 1970 and are administered by the ACT Administration. In exceptional circumstances a remission may be granted by the ACT Administration to applicants not meeting all of the above criteria. (c) Concessions for ACTION bus travel are available to the following pensioners and beneficiaries. PHB card holders in possession of a Travel Concession card from Department of Social Security who receive a discounted fare of 50c during peak periods and 20c during off-peak periods; World War 1 veterans, T&I and invalid (blind) pensioners registered with ACTION who receive an annual concession card, entitling holders and their attendants to free fares at all times; unemployment beneficiaries who, upon presentation of a current Continuation Form, receive a monthly concession pass entitling the holder to a 20c fare at all times; special or sickness beneficiaries who must present their respective Health Care card or Health Benefits card to receive a bimonthly concession pass which entitles the holder to a 50c fare at all times; and Dependant Treatment Entitlement card holders who receive a bimonthly pass entitling the holder to a 50c fare at all times. (d &e) The ACT Motor Vehicle Registry offers a 50% concession on fees for motor vehicle registration and driver's licence to persons who hold one of the following: current PHB/Travel Concession card; current Social Security card; a letter from the Department of Veterans' Affairs confirming that the person receives a pension and is 60 or older if female, or 65 or older if male. Persons who have been receiving unemployment benefits continuously for six months or more are eligible for a 50% concession on a one year driver's licence. Persons receiving a T&I pension are entitled to 100% waiver of the registration fee for one vehicle. (f) Funeral benefits are available from three sources for pensioners, beneficiaries and low income earners. Pensioners may be paid funeral benefits by the Department of Social Security if they are responsible for the funeral expenses of the following people: their spouse or de facto partner; their child; a person who was getting the age, invalid, wife's carer's or widow's pension, supporting parent's benefit, sheltered employment or rehabilitation allowance and who also qualified for fringe benefits; a person who had claimed, and was eligible for, one of these payments and fringe benefits but died before being paid. A benefit of $40 is payable if both the deceased and claimant received fringe benefits, and of $20 if only the deceased received fringe benefits. The various benefits are also available from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, depending on eligibility. A benefit of up to $550 may be granted towards the funeral expenses of: any veteran who was receiving the special rate pension for total and permanent incapacity; or for blindness or partial blindness, or an additional pension as a double amputee; or a war or defence widow receiving a war widow's pension and who is in financial need at a time of death. A benefit of $40 may be paid to: a service pensioner eligible to receive pensioner health benefits, or their spouse, who has paid, or is liable to pay, for the funeral of their spouse, child or a service pensioner; or a person receiving pensioner health benefits who has paid or is liable to pay, for the funeral of a service pensioner who is also eligible for pensioner health benefits. A sum of $20 may be paid to any person who has paid, or is liable to pay for the funeral of a service pensioner receiving pensioner health benefits. (This benefit is not payable in respect of a deceased widows pensioner or supporting parent beneficiary). Finally, if funeral costs cannot be met an application can be made to the Welfare Services Branch of the ACT Administration. If the applicant falls within means test guidelines the Administration will pay the cost. (g) a rebate of $12 per bi-monthly account is available to persons who have use of electrically operated dialysis machines, oxygen concentrators, respirators or other apparatus specifically approved by the ACT Health Authority. Life support equipment in the form of home dialysis equipment is provided free of charge to all patients regardless of pensioner status by the Hospital Services Division of the ACT Health Authority. The Community Health Services Division of the ACT Health Authority through its Community Nursing Service and Nursing Homes provides oxygen equipment when necessary for those on a pension or who qualify on a means test basis. These costs are met by the ACT Health Authority. Any ratepayer who uses a kidney dialysis machine at home is allowed a remission on the amount of water used by the machine per annum, if this volume causes the basic water allowance of 455 kilolitres to be exceeded. The ratepayer must apply for this benefit whenever an excess water charge is raised on the property. (Question No. 102) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: What progress has been made towards the establishment of a national incinerator to dispose of intractable toxic wastes. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Australia does not have a high-temperature incinerator necessary for the satisfactory destruction of stable organochlorine hazardous wastes, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and recalled pesticides (such as DDT). The Australian Environment Council has recognised for a number of years the need for a high temperature incinerator, and has taken steps to encourage establishment of a national facility. In 1982 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, in the First Report on its Inquiry into Hazardous Chemicals, supported the construction of a single, national facility. Currently, hazardous wastes which require high-temperature incineration are mainly stockpiled, with some going to the UK for destruction. Several proposals to establish an incinerator have failed, due mainly to community opposition. Against this background, the relevant Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Ministers recently established a joint taskforce, to investigate and report on a national solution to the disposal of these wastes. The taskforce will focus on a site for a facility in south-east Australia, and will emphasise community consultations. It will be assisted in its work by an advisory committee comprising representatives of various interest groups. The taskforce is due to report by mid-1988. The Australian Environment Council at its recent meeting strongly supported this initiative. (Question No. 120) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 22 September 1987: (1) How many of the 14 endemic species and sub-species of Norfolk Island birds are now extinct. (2) What are the population estimates for those species and sub-species of endemic bird which are not extinct. (3) How were the estimates made. (4) When did the last actual sightings of these birds occur. (5) What are the population trends of these species and sub-species. (6) How will the surviving species and sub-species of endemic bird be preserved. (7) What results have been obtained by the red-fronted parakeet captive breeding program since its introduction in 1984. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Six species or sub-species of birds are extinct, and another (the Grey-headed Blackbird) is probably extinct. (2) The population estimates of the remaining endemic species or sub-species of birds on Norfolk Island are as follows: Norfolk Island Boobook Owl - probably 1 female only Long-billed White-eye - a few hundred Green Parrot (Red fronted Parakeet) - 24-29 birds Scarlet Robin - probably less than 100 Golden Whistler - common in native forest probably more than 100 Grey Fantail - very common, more than 1,000 Grey Gerygone - very common, more than 1,000 (3) The estimate of Boobook owls is based on three surveys sponsored by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS). A 1985 survey undertaken over a 3 week period by the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union (RAOU) failed to detect any owls and concluded that, based on reports of birds calling, only one was known to exist with certainty. Surveys in 1986 and 1987 by Ms Penny Olsen, a well respected raptor specialist, located one owl only and concluded that it was highly unlikely that more than one owl remained. During the course of the 1985 RAOU survey, censuses were made of native birds in various habitats. Birds seen or heard within 25 metres of traverses were counted. Based on the data the RAOU estimated the population of the Long-billed White-eye at ``a few hundred''. The Green Parrot population was surveyed in 1977 and 1978 by members of Norfolk Island Conservation groups. The population then was placed at between 17 to 30 birds. A two week survey in 1986 and a 10 day survey in 1987 sponsored by ANPWS has estimated the wild population to be from 16 to 21 birds. There are a further 8 birds in a captive breeding program. The RAOU census data of 1985 and observations of ANPWS staff are the basis of the population estimates of the Robin, Whistler, Fantail and Gerygone. (4) The New Zealand Pigeon has not been seen since 1900. The Norfolk Island Ground Dove lasted only 12 years after settlement of Norfolk in 1788. The last Norfolk Island Kaka died in captivity in 1851. The Long-tailed Triller has not been seen since 1941. The Norfolk Island Starling was last recorded in 1923. The last observations of the White-breasted White-eyed Blackbird were in the 1970's. A Grey-headed was seen in 1978 but searches since have failed to relocate the bird. (5) The Boobook Owl population has declined dramatically this century to a single remaining female. The Green Parrot, now rare, was abundant in 1790. Forest habitat on the Island for the Golden Whistler, Scarlet Robin and Long-billed White-eye has declined and probably been matched by a decline in the populations of these forest-dependent birds. The Fantail and Gerygone have adapted well to farmlands and gardens and are not threatened. (6) By agreement with the Norfolk Island Government, the National Park was declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act in 1986 and ANPWS management of the Park introduced. The Park covers approximately 460 ha or 13% of the Island and includes most remaining weed-free rainforest. Some $247,000 was spent on conservation management in the Norfolk Island group in 1986/87, most of it on the Park. Biological management is given prominence in park management and current programs are in place to: preserve the genera of the Norfolk Island Boobook Owl. In September 1987 ANPWS released two male New Zealand Boobook Owls on the Island in collaboration with the Norfolk Island Government and the New Zealand Department of Conservation; progressively restore the biological integrity of the weed-infested portions of the Park's forest thereby improving bird habitat in the long-term; engage outside expert consultants to study and recommend management measures for endangered birds (in 1986/87 consultants worked on 4 bird conservation projects); reduce the impact of feral animals on endangered birds, particularly the Green Parrot; provide artificial nest boxes to overcome a scarcity of wild nest sites for the Green Parrot and Norfolk Island Boobook Owl. ANPWS is currently monitoring one wild nest of the Green Parrot and other possible nest sites of this species and taking steps to reduce interference from other species such as the introduced Crimson Rosella; breed the Green Parrot in a captive breeding program. (7) Unfortunately there has been no breeding success in the captive breeding program of the Norfolk Island Green Parrot (Red-fronted Parakeet) to date. Although the program commenced in 1983, it was not until 1985 that females were caught and placed in the aviary (there appears to be a predominance of males in the wild population). All the birds in the aviary remain in good health and failure to breed may be due to the fact that wild-caught birds take a long time to settle into captivity. On expert advice, modifications have been made to the aviaries and to the nest hollows provided. It is hoped this changed environment may stimulate breeding. Experts are retained by ANPWS to provide advice on the program. (Question No. 188) Mr Scholes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) How many ABC staff are engaged by contract or agreement outside approved staffing levels. (2) What was the (a) comparable figure and (b) authorised ABC staff level in each year since 1982. (3) How many persons have changed their status from staff to contract staff in each year since 1982, and how many were contracted at increased remuneration. (4) How many of those contracted at increased remuneration would have been approved under Government wages guidelines operating for Government payroll staff. (5) How many (a) staff and (b) contract persons in the ABC receive remuneration in excess of (i) $50,000, (ii) $75,000 and (iii) $100,000. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the ABC: (1) As at the beginning of September 1987, 537 staff were engaged on contract. The ABC is not subject to Government approval of staffing levels; its staffing level is subject only to overall budgetary controls. However, the ABC operates its own system of rigorous internal staffing controls by which every proposal for filling positions, including by the engagement of staff on contract, must be approved by a high-level committee established for the purpose. (2) (a) Historical figures for contract employment are not available. This has been due to numerous production and administrative areas being responsible in the past for the engagement of their contract staff. Separate records of contract employees were not maintained. However, a corporation-wide records system is being developed to overcome this particular problem and in the future it will enable the ABC to provide detailed analyses of its contract staff. (b) Actual staff levels as at 30 June each year are provided below. It should be noted that these figures mostly detail the staffing levels under the ABC's old headcount system. This system included full-time and part-time, paid and unpaid, operative and non-operatives (unpaid leave for 12 weeks or more) staff. In 1987-88 the ABC moved to a new method of determining staff strength which is more in line with the Commonwealth's method of establishing staff strength for the Australian Public Service. This new method includes full-time operative staff, paid non-operatives (unpaid non-operatives are now excluded) and full-time equivalents (as opposed to a simple headcount) of part-time and casual staff. To provide something of a historical comparison the staff strength figures for 1986-87 have been re-calculated using the new method. However, any earlier re-adjustment is not possible because the old ABC organisation structure was in place and details on casual strength in a meaningful form are not available. `Old Method' `New Method' 1982 - 6,387 - 1983 - 6,694 - 1984 - 6,801 - 1985 - 6,960 - 1986 - 6,755 - 1987 - 6,397 6,582 The average staffing strength so far this financial year (1987-88) is 6567. The last figure currently available (November 1987) indicated that the ABC's staff strength was 6484. (3) As historical information on contracts has not been centrally maintained until now, it is not possible to provide a response to this question. (4) The ABC observes Government wages guidelines in respect of its staff. Contract staff are, in some cases, remunerated at above award rates where it is necessary to match prevailing rates in the industry for personalities or staff engaged in the production of programs. Where market rates are paid engagements are on a fixed-term contract without the advantages of tenure available to staff employed under normal conditions. (5) Staff Contract (i) $50,000 100 37 (ii) $75,000 Nil 4 (iii) $100,000 Nil 1 (Question No. 229) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 8 October 1987: (1) What Government authorities are responsible for the certification of scuba diving instructors. (2) For each such authority, are (a) diving instructor candidates required to meet prescribed standards (i) of medical fitness, (ii) at written and oral examination and (iii) at formal training programs and (b) approved scuba diving instructors subjected to follow-up checks on fitness and qualifications. (3) Is it a standard requirement for scuba instructors or organisations to require students commencing scuba diving training to have a medical examination conducted by a medical practitioner; if so, is an approved standard form of medical examination used. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There are no Government authorities responsible for the certification of SCUBA diving instructors. However, an organisation which is made up of representatives of sporting associations and State/Territory and Commonwealth governments, known as the Australian Coaching Council, provides accreditation for coaching courses in many sports under its National Accreditation Scheme. This body recognises the Australian Underwater Federation (AUF) as the controlling body for SCUBA diving in Australia. (2) While not a Government authority the Australian Coaching Council has accredited coaching courses submitted by the AUF. To gain accreditation under these courses, a candidate is required to meet prescribed standards: (a) of medical fitness (b) in a written theory test (c) in a practical examination Accredited SCUBA diving instructors are subject to annual assessment. This assessment consists of a medical examination and a practical performance assessment. (3) Students undertaking SCUBA diving courses prescribed by the AUF and accredited by the Australian Coaching Council are required to have a medical examination by a medical practitioner before undertaking the course. This examination is designed to meet the standards of the AUF. (Question No. 253) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Has a total ban on trail bikes and off-road vehicles in National Parks been considered. (2) Will the Minister examine the practicality of declaring sensitive areas of Namadgi National Park off-limits to private off-road vehicles, and institute seizure provisions for offending vehicles. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Except in the External Territories and Kakadu and Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Parks, the management of the national parks in each State or Territory is the responsibility of the appropriate State or Territory authority. Consequently, no legal regime applies uniformly to all national parks in Australia. The various State and Territory park management authorities are represented through their Ministers on the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM). The National Working Group on Management of National Parks, established under CONCOM, prepared a report entitled ``Off-road Vehicles in National Parks'' which was endorsed by the Council at its meeting on 26 June 1986. The report recommended that use by the public of all vehicles, including off-road vehicles, within national parks, should be confined to designated roads and other areas such as car parks, unless a permit is issued to authorise special uses or such use is provided for specifically in a management plan. National parks administered under the (Commonwealth) National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 are controlled under the National Parks and Wildlife Regulations, which prohibit driving or using, a vehicle in a part of a park or reserve that is not a road, track, parking area or camping area. (2) Private off-road vehicles including trail bikes are restricted under the Namadgi National Park Management Plan to public roads and tracks available for use by two-wheel drive vehicles. They are not permitted to enter sensitive areas. The penalty under Section 56 (1) of the ACT Nature Conservation Ordinance of breaching these provisions is $200. Additional powers under Section 53 of the Ordinance enable the Conservator to restrict further or prohibit access to specified areas. This carries a penalty of $1,000. It has not been necessary to invoke these additional powers in relation to off-road vehicles and the institution of powers to seize offending vehicles has not been considered. (Question No. 341) Mr Smith asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 28 October 1987: (1) What sum was granted to conservation groups in Tasmania to assist with costs associated with appearances before the Helsham inquiry. (2) Which conservation groups received funds and what sum did each group receive. (3) Who acknowledged receipt of each grant and was a formal receipt sought by the Government on payment of the grants. (4) What were the terms and conditions applicable to each grant. (5) Did the terms and conditions of the grant permit them to be used for the purchase of property. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) $20,000 was allocated in 1986-87 under the program of Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations to assist with costs associated with appearances before the Helsham inquiry. A further $200,000 has been allocated in 1987-88. (2) the 1986-87 grant of $20,000 was provided to the Wilderness Society Inc, which made a joint application with the Australian Conservation Foundation. Four grants totalling $200,000 have been made to the Society this financial year. In these four cases, the Society has also represented the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and the Jackeys Marsh Progress Association (known as the Combined Environment Groups), and the funds have been used on behalf of all these organisations. (3) Mr Alistair Graham accepted each grant on behalf of the Wilderness Society Inc. Formal receipts were not sought on payment of each grant but statements of expenditure are required as outlined in (4). (4) The grants were made to enable the Combined Environment Groups to prepare a case and engage counsel for hearings of the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry. Each grant was made on the condition that a report is to be provided, by May 1988, to the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, certifying that the purposes and conditions of the grants have been complied with and supported by a statement of expenditure of the grant accompanied by appropriate evidence, such as receipts and audit certificates. (5) The terms and conditions of the grants did not permit them to be used for the purchase of property. (Question No. 497) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) Does the Government's policy regarding Australian sportsmen and women competing in South Africa differ if the person is competing as an individual as opposed to competing in a team. (2) Does the policy differ according to what sport is played. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. Under the Gleneagles Declaration the Government has agreed to withhold any form of support for and take every practical step to discourage contact or competition by Australians with sporting organisations, teams or sportspersons from South Africa. While the Government does not seek to prevent travel abroad by Australian citizens, it continues to urge Australian sports bodies to ensure that sportspersons are strongly discouraged from competing in South Africa either as ``non-representative'' individuals or as individuals or in a team representative of Australia or an Australian sports organisation. (2) No. The Government's policy on sporting contacts with South Africa was conveyed to all national sporting organisations in a letter of 15 February 1984 from the former Minister. (Question No. 516) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) Has the National Library terminated arrangements by which it had access to the US Library of Congress Middle East Arabic acquisitions; if so, will this result in little, if any, Arabic material being acquired for the Library. (2) What was the cost of the acquisitions program. (3) What alternative arrangements are being made to ensure that the Library continues to acquire Arabic material. Mr Punch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The National Library participated in the Library of Congress Middle East Acquisitions Program from 1 January 1982 to 30 September 1985. I am informed that the National Library withdrew from the Program because of the very low level of use made of the material received, in spite of action taken by the Library to publicise its availability; and for financial reasons. The Library still acquires a limited amount of Arabic material. (2) Between 1 January 1982 and 30 September 1985, 1892 titles were acquired for a total cost of $32,760. (3) The National Library continues to subscribe to a number of Arabic serials. In addition, material is acquired through gifts or exchange arrangements, or through purchase from library suppliers. In 1986 $A4,606 was spent on Arabic materials. (Question No. 539) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 8 December 1987: (1) Has a publication entitled ABC Guide 1987-88 been drawn to the Minister's attention. (2) What was the cost of production and distribution of the publication. (3) Does the publication contain a section entitled ``Money-where it comes from, where it goes''. (4) Does the publication only deal with percentages and not with actual amounts. (5) What sum was appropriated for the ABC in each year since 1982. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Minister is aware of the Publication. (2) The cost of production of the booklet was $8,738 for 10,000 copies. It has been distributed to Federal Parliamentarians and members of the public. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. (5) The ABC's appropriations for each year since 1982 are as follows: Domestic operational Radio Aust. operational Domestic capital Radio Aust. capital Total ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) 1982-83 250.538(i) 8.317 14.380 0.940 274.175 1983-84 274.356 8.715 18.061 0.200 301.332 1984-85 309.704 9.787 27.300 0.209 347.000 1985-86 372.300 9.382 48.218 0.100 430.000 1986-87 361.225 11.231 53.045 0.100 425.601 1987-88 374.847 10.845 44.625 0.075 430.392 (i) Including payment to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in respect of Commonwealth Games Brisbane 1982-Host Broadcaster activities. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board: (Question No. 548) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: (1) Further to the former Minister for Territories' answer to question No. 4956 (Hansard, 30 March 1987, page 1748), was the former Minister's approval required for the purchase of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board's strata title office accommodation in August 1984, in accordance with section 23 of the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Ordinance 1981; if so, was that approval (a) sought and (b) obtained. (2) Has his Department and the Chairman of the Board been able to resolve audit criticism that the purchase of that accommodation is in contravention of (a) the Lands Acquisition Act and (b) section 63e of the Audit Act; if so, what is the nature of that resolution. Mr Punch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes, (a) Yes, (b) Yes. (2) (a) No. There has been no audit criticism based on the Lands Acquisition Act. (b) Audit criticism arose from some units purchased being leased until required for operational purposes. The Board now fully occupies two of the units concerned and partially occupies a third. The Board has advised that it will fully occupy the third unit in the near future. Audit has requested that Attorney-General's advice be again sought to ensure that the original problem has been resolved. (Question No. 567) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) At what stage of operational capability is the new Brisbane Airport. (2) Has Qantas or any other carrier been able to provide more air freight capacity or improved services out of Brisbane by using the new airport. (3) Has Qantas or any other carrier been given dispensations to permit such operations to take place; if so, (a) what are they, (b) where were they issued, (c) how long have the dispensations been in force and (d) how long will they remain in force. (4) Have any restrictions been placed on the operations of Qantas or other carriers because of the inadequate strength of runways, taxiways or aprons at the new airport, or for any other reason; if so, what are the restrictions. (5) What will be the net effect on air freight capacity out of Brisbane after the issuing of any dispensations and the enforcing of any restrictions at the new airport. (6) Will he issue further dispensations for operations out of the new airport. (7) Will any dispensations still be necessary when the airport becomes fully operational; if so, (a) why and (b) which dispensations will still be necessary. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question, directed to the former Minister, is as follows: (1) Construction of all runways, taxiways and aprons with associated lighting, have been completed at the new Brisbane Airport. All navigation aids, surveillance facilities and air traffic services for the new airport have been installed and tested, ready for commissioning of the airport. (2) Yes. A limited number of scheduled Qantas flights have carried additional air freight out of Brisbane by using the new airport. (3) Yes. Qantas was granted a specific authorisation under Regulation 85 of the Air Navigation Regulations to use new Brisbane Airport. This dispensation which was issued in Brisbane on 30 November 1987 remained in force until 1 January 1988. (4) No restrictions have been placed on operations from the new airport because of inadequate strength of runways, taxiways and aprons. Operations from the new airport are restricted to departures from runway 01 during daylight only with minimum meteorological conditions of 1000 feet cloud base and visibility of 5 km or greater in order to ensure compatibility with operations from the existing airport. (5) On typical long range flights, Qantas advise that there is a 62% increase in freight capacity when those flights depart from the new airport. (6) No. (7) No. (Question No. 568) Mr Beale asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) Are the rubbish containers that collect garbage from domestic flights in Sydney located at the far eastern corner of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if not, where are they located. (2) Has overflow or excess garbage from international flights terminating in Sydney been deposited in these containers; if so, (a) when and (b) what effect does this have on effectiveness of Australia's customs and quarantine regulations. (3) What action has he taken or does he propose to take to ensure the security and integrity of Australia's customs and quarantine regulations in this case. (4) What are the implications of this breakdown of customs and quarantine provisions, including the possibility of drugs and other contraband being illegally brought into Australia by being taken from terminating international flights as garbage and deposited in these unguarded open containers. Mr Peter Morris —The Minister for Transport and Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. Galley waste from domestic flights is disposed of by loading into bins, located at Australian Airlines and Ansett Flight Kitchens, off Vickers Avenue and Sixth Street respectively, from where they are taken off the airport for disposal. (2) The area at the far eastern corner of Sydney Airport is used for storing empty containers. Garbage in the form of foodstuffs from international flights terminating in Sydney, is taken direct to the Waverley/Woollahra incinerator for disposal, Mondays to Saturdays inclusive. Due to the non-operation of the incinerator on Sundays, some loaded containers are stored in this area on Sundays ready for disposal on Monday morning. The standard international bins are of compactor design, are covered and require a power source to open them. I have been advised that the effectiveness of Australia's customs and quarantine regulations is not impaired by these arrangements. (3) No action is proposed. (4) I am advised the garbage handling and storage arrangements at Sydney Airport could not be considered as being a suitable medium for the importation of prohibited material or articles. In addition, the area in question is secure and not accessible to the public, and is subject to regular patrols by airport safety and security staff. (Question No. 588) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: How many persons have been permitted to enter Australia, with assurances of support having been supplied, in each year since 1978-79. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs does not keep separate data on settler arrivals under assurance of support provisions. While an assurance of support can be required of any applicant seeking to migrate to Australia, it mainly applies to aged parents entering under the family migration program who are of retiring age, or working age parents who are within ten years of the retiring age in Australia. In addition, a small number of other applicants under the family migration program would come within this age group and would have entered under assurance of support provisions. Data for both these groups has been extrapolated from the Department's information system and this is set out in the table below. As the table reflects, this data is only available from 1982-83 onwards, because disaggregated statistics by migration category and age were not collected by the Department prior to that time. Settler Arrivals Requiring Assurances of Support, 1982-83 to July-December 1987 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 July-Dec 87 (a) Aged/Working Age Parents 5,540 6,293 6,043 5,914 7,932 4,360 Other 76 121 104 119 146 83 Total 5,616 6,414 6,147 6,033 8,078 4,443 (a) Preliminary figures only available (Question No. 590) Mr Sharp asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Has he discussed the possible construction of a casino-motel complex in Canberra with representatives of Federal Hotels. (2) Is he able to say whether Federal Hotels expressed an interest in acquiring the licence for the Darling Harbour casino; if so, why was it unsuccessful with that application. (3) How many applicants were there for the licence to operate the casino at Christmas Island. (4) Upon what grounds was Federal Hotels granted the licence to operate the Christmas Island casino. (5) Is he able to say whether there was an Australian Federal Police investigation into and report on Federal Hotels; if so what were the results of that report. Mr Punch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) No, this is not a matter within my area of responsibility. The question should be directed to the NSW Government. (3), (4) &(5) A licence to operate the Christmas Island casino has not been granted at this stage. The developer of the Christmas Island resort hotel and casino, Mr Frank Woodmore, has nominated Federal Hotels as the preferred casino operator, and on this basis, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) undertook an investigation into the suitability of Federal Hotels. In September 1987 the AFP advised the then Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr Brown) that their investigations did not reveal such information as would cause AFP to recommend against Federal Hotels being granted a licence to operate the proposed casino. (Question No. 592) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) How long has the industrial dispute in Queensland public hospitals involving medical specialists and the Commonwealth been in progress. (2) What moves has his Department taken to resolve the dispute. (3) How many medical specialists are involved in the dispute. (4) Is the Commonwealth referring patients to the specialists as private patients; if so, what sum is this costing the Commonwealth in additional expenditure. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As far as I am aware there is no industrial dispute involving medical specialists, Queensland public hospitals and the Commonwealth. My Department has approached the Queensland State Department of Health, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Australian Medical Association on this matter and has been advised by all parties approached that they know of no such dispute. (2), (3) and (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 596) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Did his Department's annual report for (a) 1982-83 indicate that the first volume of selected opinions of the Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General of the Commonwealth covering the period 1901-12 was published in December 1981 and that work had commenced on the second volume, (b) 1983-84 not report progress on the second volume, (c) 1984-85 indicate the second volume, covering the period 1914-23, was well advanced and expected to be published towards the end of 1986, (d) 1985-86 indicate the second volume was expected to be published during the second half of 1987 and (e) 1986-87 indicate the second volume was expected to be published during 1988. (2) Does the interim edition of the Commonwealth Government Directory 1987-88 indicate at page 111 a vacancy in the position titled ``Opinions Books Review''. (3) Do the duties of the occupant of the position titled ``Opinions Books Review'' include responsibility for the preparation of the second volume. (4) When did the position become vacant. (5) What action has been taken to fill the position either on a temporary or permanent basis. (6) When will the position be staffed by a substantive occupant. (7) Is the continuing delay in publishing the second volume due to the failure to fill the vacant position. (8) Can his Department provide a reliable publication date for the second volume. (9) What is the timetable for publication of subsequent volumes. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. Yes 2. and 3. Yes 4, 5 and 6. The position became vacant when the occupant retired in November 1986 and completed the preparation of Opinions for publication on a consultancy basis during 1987. The position is at present being used for other priority work on a temporary basis, and is to be reviewed on 30 June 1988 as part of an examination of the production of subsequent volumes. 7. No 8. The Australian Government Publishing Service has informed my Department that publication will take place during the latter half of 1988. 9. No timetable has been determined at this stage. (Question No. 634) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1988: (1) How many person in receipt of a service pension have been affected by changes to the Additional Pension for Children as announced in the 1987 Budget. (2) What percentage of children involved are (a) tertiary and (b) secondary students. (3) How many of these students also receive assistance under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme. (4) What has been the percentage increase in (a) Veterans' Children Education Scheme, (b) service pension and (c) CPI in (i) 1985-86, (ii) 1986-87 and (iii) 1987-88. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As a result of changes announced in the 1987 Budget, some payments of Additional Pension for Children (APC) were increased, some were continued at the same rate and some were reduced, depending on the age of the child and on whether or not the child received separate education allowance (e.g. AUSTUDY, Veterans' Children Education Scheme (VCES)). Of the 3,500 pensioners receiving APC payments at the time of the change, approximately 1,850 had their APC increased, 320 continued to receive the same rate and 1,330 had their APC reduced. Those children in respect of whom APC was reduced received significant increases in their education allowances in January 1987 or January 1988 as part of a move by the Government to rationalise levels of youth assistance. (2) Records are not kept of APC payments by the nature of the schooling of the children. The pensioners, who received an increase in their APC, had children aged under 16 years and, therefore, primary and secondary students. Of the 1,330 pensioners whose APC was reduced (children aged over 16 years and receiving education allowance), about 40% would have had children who were secondary students and 60%, tertiary students. (3) Of the cases where APC was reduced, it is estimated that approximately 80 students were in receipt of VCES allowances and the balance (1,250) were receiving education allowances from the Department of Education, Employment and Training. (4) (a) The structure of VCES rates has changed greatly in recent years as a result of Government moves to rationalise the levels of youth assistance. Therefore, it is not possible to give a single percentage figure for the increase in VCES allowances each year since 1985-86. There were small increases in the allowances in January 1985 and 1986. However, the allowances were increased significantly in January 1987 and January 1988. For example, the maximum education allowance rates for secondary students aged 16-18 years and tertiary students aged 18 years or more (living-at-home rates) have changed as follows: January Secondary Students 16-18 years Living-at-home Rate PW Rise Tertiary Students 18 Years or more, Living-at-home Rate PW Rise 1985 ... $20.90 $39.30 1986 ... $22.30 6.7% $47.50 20.9% 1987 ... $40.00 79.4% $60.00 26.3% 1988 ... $50.00 25.0% $60.00 -% (b) The maximum rates of service pension have increased as follows: November 1984-November 1985 6.5% November 1985-December 1986 8.4% December 1986-December 1987 9.3%. (c) The percentage increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) weighted average for the eight capital cities, between June quarters are: June 1984-June 1985, 6.7%; 1985-86 8.4% and 1986-87, 9.3%. NOTE: The pension increases in November 1984 was a one-off increase not related to the CPI movements, because the CPI fell between December 1983 and June 1984. The pension increase (2.6%) in May 1985 was based on the CPI rise between December 1983 and December 1984 rather than June 1984 and December 1984. (Question No. 649) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 February 1988: (1) What are the desired attributes, essential qualifications, experience and other characteristics of persons to become members of the Immigration Review Panel. (2) Were suitably qualified persons invited to express interest in becoming members of the panel; if so, how many persons were asked. (3) Who or what authority made recommendations to his predecessor regarding possible members of the panel. (4) Did his predecessor make appointments to the panel from persons other than those recommended to him. (5) Who are the chairperson and members of the Immigration Review Panel in SA and what are the dates and periods of each appointment. (6) How many appeals are to be heard by the panel in (a) SA and (b) each State and Territory. (7) How many members, including chairpersons, comprise the panel. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The selection of persons for appointment as a chairperson has regard to the following criteria: (i) Knowledge of and experience in the administration of legislation; (ii) Understanding of the interface between powers provided in legislation and the policy setting out guidelines for the exercise of these powers; (iii) An understanding of and some experience in decision making in the context of the requirements of administrative law; (iv) Some experience in the administration of the Migration Act consistent with the above criteria (desirable); and (v) Capacity to operate effectively as a Chairperson of the Panel whose other members offer a range of qualifications, skills, experience and backgrounds. (b) Members are appointed in their individual capacity, for their personal skills and expertise and the background they bring to bear to the Review Task. (2) (3) &(4) The Immigration Review Panel was expanded in mid 1987 along with a significant increase in the number of officers working on review cases. At about the same time, a decision was taken to devolve the work of the Department-particularly casework, including consideration of appeals-to the State offices. The increased resources were to overcome the large backlog of review cases and to process the significant number of new cases being received each month. That expansion was also seen as an interim step pending consideration by the government of proposals for new review arrangements. At the time of the expansion of the IRP, it was believed that such proposals would be considered during the course of 1987. However, with the establishment of the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies, the consideration of that issue was deferred until the report of that Committee is received. It was in that short term context that 125 additional persons where appointed to the IRP as members or chairpersons by the then Minister. In making those appointments, he had regard to the advice of officers of the then Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as well as the advice of colleagues in the Parliament. At the same time, new IRP meeting rooms were established in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane in addition to the existing rooms in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. (5) SOUTH AUSTRALIA Chairpersons Date of appointment Mr Walter DE VEER MBE 19/6/87 Ms Mary LINDSAY 19/6/87 Mr Neven MAROVICH 19/6/87 Mrs Josephine MERCER 19/6/87 Mrs Judith ROBERTS AM 19/6/87 Mr Brian SMITH JP 19/6/87 Members Mr Frank BARBARO 19/6/87 Dr Bernardo BARBERA 5/8/87 Ms Judith BARR 19/6/87 Mr Colin BRANSON AM 19/6/87 Mr Max HARRIS 19/6/87 Mr David HOOKES 19/6/87 Ms Friederika KAIDER 19/6/87 Ms Eva KOUSSIDIS 19/6/87 Rev George MARTIN MBE JP 19/6/87 Mr John McGIRR 9/10/87 Mrs Karobi MUKHERJEE 19/6/87 Ms Glynis NUNN 19/6/87 Mr Michael RADIS 19/6/87 Mrs Irma RUDZINSKI 19/6/87 Ms Smiljana STOJANOVIC 19/6/87 Mr Ron TAN 19/6/87 Sister Marie TRAN Thi Nien 19/6/87 Ms Janet WOOD 19/6/87 Dr C H YEN 19/6/87 Initial appointments were to 31 December 1987 and were reviewed on 1 January 1988 and extended for one year to 31 December 1988, subject to decisions which may be taken in the meantime on revised review arrangements. (6) The South Australian panel was constituted to consider appeals made by eligible persons in South Australia and to contribute as appropriate and necessary to the consideration of cases in the backlog of appeals generally. The panels established in the other mainland state capitals were also given that dual charter. It is, therefore, not possible to give a precise answer as to how many appeals are to be heard by the Panel in South Australia or by the Panel in each state and the ACT. The following table shows the number of cases actually considered by the IRP located at each of the centres specified since 1/9/87. Location Number of Cases Canberra 857 Sydney 332 Melbourne 527 Adelaide 1026 Brisbane 419 Perth 414 (7) There are currently 44 IRP chairpersons and 111 members. A working panel comprises one chairperson and two members. (Question No. 739) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Was (a) Mr P. Adams, (b) Mr J. Singleton, (c) Mr R. Cameron or ANOP or (d) any company, organisation, joint venture, partnership or other structure in which these persons have a beneficial interest, employed, engaged or otherwise remunerated or compensated by the Minister's Department or any instrumentality or organisation responsible to the Minister in (i) 1986-87 and (ii) 1987-88 (2) What was the nature of the work undertaken (3) How was it decided to allocate this work (4) What was the total cost. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (i) No (ii) No (2) Not applicable (3) Not applicable (4) Not applicable (Question No. 806) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) What Australian groups and organisations use the services of the Ionospheric Prediction Service (IPS). (2) Do any foreign countries use information collected by IPS. (3) Is all the information collected by IPS available to the public; if not; (a) to whom is it available and (b) what kind of information is classified. (4) What are the formal arrangements with the US Air Force for access to information collected by IPS at its station at Learmonth, W.A. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The wide range of groups using the services of the Ionospheric Prediction Service (IPS) includes Federal Government (Defence, Transport and Communications, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Primary Industry and Energy), State Government (Bush Fire, Emergency services, Police, Ambulance), Broadcasting and Telecommunications, Electricity Commissions, Maritime groups, Geophysical exploration, radio communications, business, Pastoral companies and Scientific research organisations. (2) Yes, through an international network of data exchange. (3) Yes. (4) All the information collected at the solar observatory at Learmonth is shared by both US Air Force and IPS under a formal exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States.