Tuesday, 10 May 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr REITH —I refer the Attorney-General to his statements made at the opening of the Australian Constitutional Commission when he praised the high level of legal and political expertise of members of the Commission and said that constitutional changes `must be clearly explained to the people and must also be developed in consultation with the people'. How does the Attorney-General reconcile that statement with the fact that, by announcing his proposals without having the opportunity fully to consider the Commission's report and obtain community response to its proposals, he has pre-empted his own consultation process? How does he justify the divergence between the Government's proposal for four-year terms for both Houses with the Commission's proposal that senators' terms be equal to two terms of the House of Representatives? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In answering the last part of the question first, let me make it very clear that in respect of that matter the honourable member would be aware that an interim report prepared by the Commission was circulated last October. Vigorous debate took place in this place on 8 October and also in the Senate on 17 December, during which time the Opposition made it very clear that it would not have a bar of the proposal that the Senate should be in any way inhibited from being able to refuse Supply. It is for that reason that I had to make the judgment, after discussion with the Commission, as to whether to pursue the line which the Opposition was putting, very clearly and cogently, that to restrict the ability of the Senate to refuse Supply for a period of three years was not a proposition that it would favour. I thought it could well have been argued in the States that that was an inhibition of the Senate's alleged powers to reject-although the word `reject' is not in the Constitution; it is an assumed power. The real import of what was put in evidence to the Commission in a number of hearings was that the whole community in Australia is bedevilled by the fact that we have had Federal elections every two years. The reason relates to the fact that there is disagreement between the two Houses. We need to be positive about the situation. The evidence given to the Commission is that the people of Australia want four-year parliaments. The only way that we can have four-year parliaments is to guarantee that the Senate will let the other House live. That is the first point. The second point that ought to be made very clear concerns that part of the honourable gentleman's question regarding what the Commission did. The Commission and its advisory committees met on about 92 days in many locations across the nation. A number of people made submissions to them. There were at least 4,000 oral and written submissions. The Commission involved itself in public discussion. The names of some 40,000 Australians were placed on its mailing list for papers and publications that it produced. In addition, it distributed 145,000 copies of the Constitution and a further 160,000 copies of a booklet entitled Time to Update. A summary of the committees' reports and recommendations was given away on that basis. So there has been a fair education of the people as to the problems involved. The information coming back is that the people want to have fewer but fairer elections, and the Bills that will be introduced later today deal with those issues, amongst others. They are the issues that the honourable gentleman ought to face up to. It ought to be placed on record that as soon as the Commission was established the Opposition said, `We are going to abolish it. We don't want a bar of it'. The Opposition even made it part of its policy in the last Federal election to abolish the Commission. Is it any wonder that we have nothing but sterility in terms of constitutional reform? We have an opposition which is devoid of policies in many areas, but when it comes to constitutional reform it says, `We do not know what our policy is but, whatever you are establishing, we are against it'. The business community of Australia is not against a four-year term; in fact, it favours it. Mr Howard —On a proper basis. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think the majority of people favour it-in fact, the interjector favours it on certain conditions. One condition is that a four-year term cannot be guaranteed. These are some of the ridiculous situations we are facing. Let me make it very clear that, if the Senate wishes to exercise its powers, all we want to do is guarantee that the Senate is responsible for its actions as well. In other words, it is about time that people got involved in the Constitution. We should not leave it to a professional team of assassins who just want to do away with any chance of life for the Constitution. Fancy negotiating with the Opposition on how long one might be expected to live! That is about the best those opposite can do from the point of view of their submissions. I make it very clear that the Commission has done a great service for this nation. It is not the marriage of professional politics that we had in the Constitutional Convention-or did not have, because between 1978 and 1983, when those opposite were in government, the Convention never met. That is how interested they were in constitutional reform. At least we have the people of Australia interested in formulating ideas. The questions now being put are on the basis that the people will judge the issue. These questions do not give any more powers to governments, but they give a lot more powers to people. That is the important thing which the honourable gentleman fails to recognise. Mr BRUMBY —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister tell the House what the reaction has been to the release last week of the Government's social justice document? Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HOWE —I can understand the laughter on that side of the chamber because social justice never has been and never will be in the lexicon of the conservative parties in this Parliament. The document Towards a Fairer Australia details the very real progress that has been made by this Government in making Australia a fairer and more equitable society. I believe that it has been very well received, particularly by those who understand both the meaning of social justice and the purpose of the document. It was not meant to detail new policies or programs. That is what we will be doing in several weeks time in the May statement; it is what we will be doing in the Budget. What it does, and does very clearly, is to outline the range and the depth of the Government's social justice program, which has been a vital part of its five years in government. Members of the Opposition may still be unclear about social justice, which is not surprising because, when in government, the Opposition never demonstrated any understanding of, let alone any commitment to, the principles of social justice that are so important to this Government. What social justice is about is allowing people, regardless of their circumstances or background, the opportunity to participate fully in the life of their community. It is about fairness and equity, obligations and rights; it is not simply about notions of welfare. As has been made clear, for this Government social justice is not a concept that can be conveniently pigeonholed. It is not a single issue or program. It cannot be achieved simply by increasing government spending or obtaining some arbitrarily determined poverty line. I encourage all honourable members in the Parliament to read the document as it contains a very comprehensive account of this Government's achievements, which are not only significant nationally but also significant internationally. No other government in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has achieved a record of employment comparable to that of this Government and nothing is more important to achieving a fairer distribution of income and wealth than participation in employment. No other government in the Commonwealth has tackled tax reform more vigorously or more fairly than has this Government. This Government in terms of its family package has introduced the most significant reform through assisting low income families. In terms of women and their participation in the work force and in the community, this Government's massive achievements in delivering child care places stand against the very sorry record of the Opposition when it was in power. Medicare, the universal health insurance scheme, is, again, a formidable achievement of this Government compared with the Opposition, which destroyed Medibank and which has never been able to develop any alternative to the coverage provided by Medicare. While the document sets out the achievements of the Government, it does not simply stop there. It does not suggest that all of the problems have been resolved. It goes on to suggest that the agenda of the Government in the future will not only meet the commitments made to child poverty. It will also go on to tackle one of the most formidable problems that exist despite the great achievement of our Government in employment-the issue of long term unemployment. This Government has dealt fairly with the people of Australia in a time of severe economic difficulty. In the future, under our social justice strategy, we will continue to do that and build on the very significant achievements outlined in the document released. Mr HOWARD —I address my question to the Attorney-General. It follows the answer he gave to the first question. I preface it by saying to the House that the differences between the Government and the Opposition relating to four-year parliaments concern only the role of the Senate and that there is common ground, as the Attorney-General will be aware, through both public statements and private discussions, so far as the House of Representatives is concerned. I also refer to the Government's rejection of the proposal that has been put that Opposition support would be forthcoming on the basis of four-year terms for the House of Representatives and eight years for the Senate. As I understand that it has been rejected on the basis that the honourable gentleman and his Government remain concerned about the capacity of the Senate to bring about a premature House of Representatives election-and the Attorney-General nods his head in assent-would his attitude to our proposal be different if it were accompanied by a proposal requiring the Senate to submit itself to an election if it brought about a premature election of the House of Representatives? Madam SPEAKER —The question is hypothetical. The Attorney-General may decide to answer it if he pleases. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The question is hypothetical. The interesting part of the honourable gentleman's question is an attitude expressed that what the Commission was about obviously had some value. Previous to this the Opposition's attitude has been that the Commission should never have been established and, in fact, would be abolished if it were ever elected. It is a refreshing change to think that the Opposition is at least talking positively about what we might do to make parliaments last a little longer. The problem that the honourable gentleman has is to suggest on one hand that perhaps Senate terms ought to be extended to eight years. I do not think public opinion is supportive of that. In fact, the public regards politicians as being answerable to it well before an eight-year period. Surveys indicate that to be the position. The honourable gentleman at last is saying that if the Senate rejects Supply senators at least will be able to be dealt with at the same time. If our proposals work it will be to the benefit of both Houses that they at least would have continuity. It is a problem that if the Senate rejects Supply it has continuity but the House of Representatives does not. This is the great gap in the Constitution, that the Senate can force its powers in this way. The honourable gentleman is trying to suggest to me now-I do not know how he gets this mandate-that he might be able to convince the Senate to forgo the right and to submit itself to the will of the people in such circumstances. I do not think he can speak for the whole of the Senate, for a start, and I am pretty convinced that he might not be able to speak for many of the States on that basis. Madam SPEAKER —It is normal for the Chair to recognise a certain category of people in the House but I am sure every member of the House today would join with me in welcoming a very distinguished Australian, a living Australian treasure, Lloyd Rees. On behalf of the House I bid him welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr MILDREN —I am sure the Minister for Industrial Relations is aware of the desire of members on this side of the House and Australians generally to see industrial relations improved in this country. Can the Minister advise the House what progress has been achieved in developing better industrial relations in the work place and in particular what advances there have been in the area of worker participation? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for Ballarat for his question. I am aware of his great interest in this subject. There have been very substantial achievements in industrial relations since this Government came to office, particularly in improving work place industrial relations. The clearest evidence of this is in the industrial disputes figures. The latest figures are for the whole year 1987. They show that in every year the Hawke Government has been in office the lost time in industrial disputes has been less than in any year under the Fraser Government. There has been a dramatic reduction in the time lost in industrial disputes since this Government came to office. In fact, the time lost per annum since this Government came to office has been 54 per cent less than that which occurred under the previous Government. If one looks at the figures in terms of per thousand employees, which is what one should do, one sees that the amount of time lost in industrial disputation is a massive 60 per cent less. In the overall picture of what is happening in industrial relations, it is clear that there has been a dramatic improvement since this Government came to office. That indicates that there has been a very large attitudinal change, which is evidenced in many other ways. For instance, in relation to the second tier wages system there were thousands of work place agreements for a second tier increase. There has been ongoing activity in a number of industries, including the maritime and stevedoring industry and the heavy engineering industry, to reduce restrictive work practices. There has been acceptance by the unions of wage outcomes which have meant a reduction in real wages. There has also been agreement at the industry level at the national level on three very important issues-in relation to restrictive work practices in September of 1986, in relation to labour market flexibility in December of last year and, more latterly, in relation to worker participation, participative practices. That agreement between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry is a landmark agreement in which the parties spell out the need for greater employee participation in enterprises, the principles that should guide that participation, the roles of the respective parties and the types of participative practices that can apply. That is an extremely important agreement because in reaching that agreement the parties have overcome many of the difficulties which they have had in the past and which have prevented the development of a concept which many industrial relations observers have regarded as highly desirable. With this agreement and with the overcoming of those road blocks in the way of progress in this area, I am confident that we can look forward now to a period in which worker participation in our enterprises will increase very substantially and, as a result, we will get even better industrial relations performance in this country and will increase productivity. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Treasurer and I ask: Is the Treasurer insisting that the Victorian Government's disguised debt raising, under the so-called Victorian Equity Trust, is brought within the global borrowing limits imposed under the Loan Council arrangements? Mr KEATING —The Government insisted upon that last year. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman does not read reports, or only gets interested in these things or `no comprehende' the reports, but that is in fact what has happened, simply because the Victorian Equity Trust was essentially a debt instrument. What may have been termed `equity' was simply buying the right to an income stream and not buying any part of the underlying assets. That is why we regard it as debt. But unlike the coalition, under which States borrowed outside the Loan Council under all of the substitute borrowing arrangements, this Government reintroduced the global borrowing limits to try to rein in the extravagant borrowings permitted by the Fraser-Howard Government in relation to the States. I record again that when I became Treasurer only 25 per cent of the States' borrowings were under the control of the Loan Council. We have changed that, and the very essence of the global borrowing approvals or the system of global borrowing arrangements at the Loan Council was to bring in all of these borrowing instruments, including surrogate equity of the Victorian Equity Trust kind. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the budgetary impact of dismantling the fringe benefits tax (FBT), the capital gains tax, substantiation provisions and the assets test? Mr KEATING —The question refers to the bases built into the tax system by this Government to ensure both a fairer and more equitable tax system and, of course, one which is more in keeping with the requirements of the nation, particularly in these last few years, given the way in which we had the squalid decline of the tax system under our predecessors. Broadly, the measures referred to in the honourable member's question represent roughly $2 billion cost to the revenue in their abolition. It is $750m for the fringe benefits tax and $300m for substantiation, which is $1,050m. One cannot run a substantiation provision of this variety without a fringe benefits tax; it is the personal equivalent of the tax on companies. So for those two measures alone the cost is $1 billion broadly; $330m for entertainment and about $500m for capital gains directly and indirectly, and I might add, some of the other measures were about $375m or $400m. In terms of increased Australian Taxation Office action by more staff and higher levels of compliance and higher levels of audit, about $500m; all in all, about $2.5 billion to $3 billion; about $275m to $300m for the assets test. In terms of the limitation of the issues of the honourable member's question, that was about $2 billion. But it is interesting that today the Liberal Party, the economic Bourbons who have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing, trotted out again its 1987 tax policy, with only one difference. And that is, it has finally come to recognise that it would be totally indecent and inequitable to restore entertainment as a deduction in the tax system so that people could have their meals deductable. With that one change-that one concession to the Government, the one which it attacked as being repressive and indecent, which it has now capitulated on-we have a rerun of the 1987 tax policy statement of the Leader of the Opposition, a rerun by him on this very day. In the proposals the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to say that a future coalition government would not introduce a broad-based consumption tax. In other words, last year he was done over by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen; this year he has been done over by Senator Stone. He is not going to have a broad-based consumption tax, but what he is about is a transparent introduction of such a tax in the form of a change to the wholesale tax arrangements. He goes on to say, in his release, that he would reform and rationalise `the existing ramshackle indirect tax system'. The coalition was in office for the last 30 years, so if it is ramshackle, who is to blame? He would `remove inequities and anomalies'; but what he has not said is whether it would be revenue neutral. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition is about having a broader base in the wholesale sales tax system, or higher rates, but not calling it a broad-based consumption tax-essentially, a broader based wholesale tax. It is the same thing under a different heading. It would simply mean that all of the things which are now exempt under the wholesale tax would be considered by a coalition government for incorporation under the wholesale tax-things such as food, bread, vegetables, meat, fish, butter, sugar, tea, building materials-at the moment there is no sales tax on building materials-books, newspapers, coal, kerosene, petrol, medicine, medical services, and a whole range of services such as life insurance, superannuation services, medical services, telecommunications services, legal services, veterinary services, educational services and restaurant services. By not saying that such a change would be revenue neutral, all the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that he would have a consumption tax in another form, with a bigger base and higher rates. That is the consumption tax element of this new statement. We go to capital gains. The Leader of the Opposition says that a coalition government `will abolish Labor's capital gains tax'. In other words, the rorts are back on for everyone who is taking income as capital. Then he has this shabby proposal where we would have a reduction in the amount of tax over four or five years so that, under a supposed coalition government, anyone who bought an asset after 19 September 1985 but sold it after 19 September 1990 would pay no capital gains tax. `Hear, hear', the Leader of the Opposition is saying. He brazenly admits to his own squalid policy. That is, for gains on the stock market after 1985, if people keep the shares until after 1990 the gains would be untaxed; if people had made gains in the property market after 1985 but sold the properties after 1990 the gains would be untaxed. The Leader of the Opposition is saying, later on, that he will tax employees under a fringe benefits tax and he will be taxing pay as you earn taxpayers, but he will let off great slabs of income-$500m a year-for the people he really represents, all the people out there working the capital gains to death. The honourable member may laugh. He has the contempt of the Australian Taxation Office as the Treasurer who ran the show into the ground. He has the contempt of every decent thinking person in the bureaucracy and out there in the accountancy profession for having the most squalid tax system in the world. What he is saying is that he would return to what he was at before. Well, if he wants to push that policy, we will push him into the ground while he is pushing it. Honourable members opposite will be held accountable for any such change in tax treatment in this country. As to the fringe benefits tax, what the Leader of the Opposition says in his statement is: `We will abolish Labor's fringe benefits tax'. It is a repeat, word for word, of the 1987 statement, in which he said that he would abolish the FBT in its entirety, accompanied by new measures to prevent abuse of the income tax system through the granting of non-cash benefits that are not job related. That is the same sentence, containing the same words, and it means the same thing. In other words, he wants to take the FBT away from companies and impose a lesser measure on employees. Mr Sinclair —Hear, hear! Mr KEATING —The Leader of the National Party of Australia says, `Hear, hear!'. In other words, honourable members opposite want to impose a new tax on employees. They want to remove the requirement for companies to pay it and impose a tax on employees. The FBT debate in this country is dead. Everyone in business accepts it; it is fair, decent, equitable and produces a better tax system. Opposition members are saying that they will disturb the existing, accepted tax arrangement that is working and revert to one which the Commissioner has since said cannot work. They would introduce it by lumping that inadequate, hopeless arrangement on the backs of employees. So let every employee in this country understand that that amount of $1 billion which is paid out in FBT and substantiation will be placed on the backs of employees so that there will be a new $1 billion tax on employees. That is the totality of the changes of the Leader of the Opposition. Today he has tried to say that he will remove the taxes but he will keep the money. He attempts to fashion a squalid tax policy which is unfair; a flatter tax system which has no progressiveness, which is unfair and which will be funded by removing these equitable taxes. He tries to pretend that he can remove them but keep the money. He cannot remove them and keep the money. If the coalition wants to fight on taxation again-the Leader of the Opposition said he would during the last Parliament, but he lost-we invite them to do so. Come in, spinner! Let them fight on tax again. They will have all the holes in their figuring that occurred in 1987. They will be shot down just as fast and as effectively as they were in 1987. If they want to go to an election with a tax policy shambles, they should use a bit of John Howard tax policy-policy on the run, with no courage and no decency. He has been done over again by the National Party-another demonstration of his weakness as Leader-to degrade the tax laws of this country in order to give back to the people that Opposition members really represent all the rorts that were in the system from the post-war years onwards, which the former Treasurer embedded and protected in the five years during which he occupied the treasury bench of this country. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In the past, in various parts of the world, have Soviet fishing vessels been used for surveillance purposes, that is, for spying? Mr BEAZLEY —Vessels like Soviet fishing vessels have been used for spying purposes. If the honourable member is talking about intelligence gathering vessels, they are usually pretty easy to pick. They stand outside ports from which American warships operate. They look like fishing vessels but sticking off them is a series of antennae that make them pretty easy to discover, if one has an inclination to do so. They do not normally hover around with fishing fleets. Mr LEO McLEAY —Can the Minister for Employment, Education and Training comment on responses to the report of the Committee on Higher Education Funding and in particular the statement made by the Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Professor John Scott, relating to that inquiry? Mr DAWKINS —I have generally been encouraged by the responses that we have received both from the community and from a number of interested organisations regarding the recommendations of the report of the Committee on Higher Education Funding, otherwise known as the Wran Committee. The community and many of those organisations recognise that the Committee's recommendations are very fair in as much as they only ask the beneficiaries of the system to pay some small contribution when and if they can afford to do so. They also establish a guaranteed source of new funds to underwrite substantial growth in numbers in the system and, of course, enhancement to Austudy or income support arrangements for students. The most incomprehensible response has come, surprisingly, from the Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. In his comments on the report, Professor Scott continues the unrealistic demand that the Government from the Budget and from the existing sources of revenue available to the Budget continue to provide one per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) to fund higher education at the same time as beneficiaries from the system pay little or nothing towards the cost of providing those very substantial benefits. I talk here in terms of beneficiaries being not only individuals but industry as well. This is a fanciful hope for Professor Scott to continue to embrace. Neither this Government nor any other in the foreseeable future can afford to do it. The point is that we cannot have a commitment to one section of the Budget, which is unrelated to domestic and external circumstances and, perhaps even more importantly, to the preparedness of ordinary taxpayers, which continues to provide privileges which go disproportionately to wealthier groups in the community and bestow further privileges on those people who are lucky enough to obtain a higher education. Professor Scott's written statement acknowledges that a new source of funds is required and that the proposals in the Committee's report are probably the best on offer. It is only if we are able to get in a system along the lines of the Wran Committee's recommendation that we will be able to fund, in total, support for higher education at about the one per cent of GDP level. Let me deal with some of the other misunderstandings which Professor Scott seems to harbour. In the first place he says that universities are not prepared to act as tax agents for the Government. We are not asking them to act as tax agents for the Government, what we are saying is that when the incomes of people who have been at university or college exceed average weekly earnings, then through the normal taxation system a surcharge through that system will be collected, not through the universities themselves. Professor Scott then says that there is a risk to the confidentiality of student records. We and the Committee have said that we will do whatever is necessary to guarantee confidentiality of student records as it currently exists. Professor Scott also says that there is a threat to mature age students. In the first instance there will be an increased number of positions for mature age students to benefit from, but the Committee also recommends that the higher education administration charge should be abolished. It is claimed that that has been a deterrent to mature age activity or participation within higher education. Professor Scott then says that the recommendations are not good enough in terms of places for post-graduate students. I want to reiterate what the Committee has said; that is, that those people proceeding from their first degrees to post-graduate degrees by research will not incur any additional liabilities as a result of undertaking those post-graduate degrees. He then says that this is just on the track to full fees. Quite clearly this is nonsense, although he ought to recognise that there is a very stark alternative sitting over on the other side of this House which represents full blown, full fees for a large number of prospective students who may wish to enter higher education establishments in the future. This is a fair scheme. It does provide a dedicated fund for the expansion of higher education and for increased opportunities for many thousands of young people who are, at the moment, denied the opportunity to participate in higher education and enjoy its benefits. I make it perfectly clear that the Government is happy to discuss the details of the proposal not only with the Australian Labor Party, but with other groups outside the Labor Party who may wish to put forward thoughtful criticisms or thoughtful suggestions for changing and improving the scheme. It is difficult to engage in that debate when one of the key players, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, continues to have such a confused approach to what it believes about this proposal. Mr NEHL —I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Following debate in the United Nations Security Council earlier this year concerning the terrorist bombing of Korean Airlines flight 858 on 28 January 1988 by North Korean operatives, will the Minister advise the House of the Government's attitude to acts of terrorism such as the bombing of flight 858? Does it condemn this atrocity, in which 115 innocent people lost their lives? What action does the Government intend to take and how will it use its influence to help stamp out terrorism throughout the world wherever it occurs? Mr HAYDEN —The statement of the Australian ambassadorial representative at the United Nations made it clear that we condemn terrorism, and many statements made by our ambassadorial representatives there and elsewhere reinforced that view. We expressed deep concern about what had happened and made it clear that there was a case to answer, that it was terrorism and it was unacceptable. In so far as the issue of terrorism is concerned, Australia has been active, collaboratively, with other governments of the world in seeking to work out ways in which they may cooperate at times of terrorist activity to work more effectively against it. Having said all that, terrorism is extremely difficult to handle because the people who are terrorists do not represent accepted standards of civilised conduct and certainly do not accept the restraints that are imposed by international law, which is a problem for governments of countries such as this one and the United States of America and for European and many other governments. I am a little mystified about the motive of the question from the honourable member because we have constantly repudiated the issue of terrorism and have been to the forefront in doing so. The honourable member may recall that, on the occasion of the American reaction against Libya, Australia was one of the few countries in the world to express understanding and support for the concern of the United States. Mr BLANCHARD —Is the Minister for Community Services and Health aware of allegations of widespread fraud within the Health Insurance Commission (HIC)? Can the Minister inform the House whether these allegations have been substantiated? Dr BLEWETT —Madam Speaker-- Mr Tuckey —If they did, he will get Temby to get them off. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. The House will not put up with such interjections. Mr Tuckey —On your warning, Madam Speaker: firstly, I ask on what basis; secondly, we just had the Treasurer take up 15 minutes of Question Time-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! I will explain to the honourable member for O'Connor. I did not quite catch what he said but I thought it was rather offensive. The tone of his voice sounded quite offensive. If the honourable member for O'Connor can assure me that it was not offensive I will withdraw the warning. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I do not think it would be offensive to the Minister. He knows the score. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor only needs to assure the Chair that he was not being offensive. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, it was not offensive. Dr BLEWETT —Madam Speaker, like all reasonable members in this House, I find the remarks of the honourable member about the Director of Public Prosecutions completely contemptible. Mr Sinclair —No wonder; he has been particularly kind to you. You owe him a debt, do you? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I might remind the House that one of the problems up here in the chair is that from where the aisle to my left comes down and across toward me there is almost a dead zone. Mr Sinclair —Why did you warn him? Madam SPEAKER —Do not interrupt. It is almost impossible to hear, with the noise in the background, while sitting up here. I suggest to the honourable member for O'Connor that the Chair has given him a lot of latitude over the past weeks. The Chair will expect that his remarks in future will conform to parliamentary standards. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: you have just been addressing your remarks directly to the honourable member for O'Connor. Madam SPEAKER —I have. Mr Sinclair —It was the Minister at the table, the Minister for Community Services and Health, who made remarks about the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was he who then, by inference, made allegations and assertions about the honourable member for O'Connor. Yet you let him go completely without reprimand. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the conduct of this House depends on your fair and impartial adjudication-- Madam SPEAKER —It also depends, if I may interrupt, on the behaviour of the right honourable member himself-- Mr Sinclair —of the proceedings, and we expect you to uphold the responsibilities of your office. Madam SPEAKER —Resume your seat. You are quite out of order. Dr BLEWETT —I am aware that Dr Menon and others have made allegations about fraud within the Health Insurance Commission, allegations which they have made for some years without a single shred of substantiation for those remarks. Never have they been able to bring forward to the authorities any substantiation for the charges they have made. In fact, Dr Menon first made the charges in 1984. On that occasion the Health Insurance Commission examined each of the cheques held by Dr Menon and provided him with an explanation of the error which had occurred. It was also arranged with Dr Menon that at any time he would contact the HIC with any further information of incorrect payments-an undertaking he has failed to fulfil. Despite this, Dr Menon went on to make further allegations of widespread fraud within the HIC last year, at which time I requested a full investigation of the claims by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Honourable members will recall that Dr Menon undertook to provide the AFP with a list of doctors who allegedly had received fraudulent cheques. Dr Menon and his sidekick, Dr Mackie, appeared on the television program A Current Affair last month, claiming to have collected 60 fraudulently issued cheques. Dr Mackie claimed that on the basis of material supplied to the AFP by Dr Menon the Australian Federal Police initiated a further full investigation. I think it is regrettable that that program did not bother to check out these allegations before putting them to air. It is equally regrettable that Senator Newman, amongst others, decided to jump on the band wagon and also, both in the Senate and outside, give support to those allegations. I have today received a letter from my colleague Senator Tate reporting on the outcome of the AFP's investigation into Dr Menon's serious allegations. Senator Tate stated that Dr Menon undertook to assist an AFP investigation into his allegations. Recently he had supplied copies of five cheques which he claimed supported his allegations. The HIC has provided evidence indicating that the five cheques were paid on the basis of error and no fraud was involved. Senator Tate's letter continues: Dr Menon has not yet provided the AFP with a comprehensive list of doctors who have allegedly received bogus cheques. In these circumstances, the AFP will not at this stage be making further inquiries. I must stress again that if Dr Menon is prepared to provide information the AFP and the Government will be prepared again to look at it; but, as I said, no information has been provided that would substantiate fraud. In the meantime, I would suggest that Dr Menon not only cease these kinds of allegations but also cease his ludicrous suggestions. The latest of them is that the HIC is committing fraud by directing payments through electronic funds transfer. That is not possible because of the simple fact that the HIC does not use electronic funds transfer. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr THEOPHANOUS —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I claim to have been misrepresented by Professor Geoffrey Blainey, in an article entitled `The thorough sham of multiculturalism' which appeared in the Australian on 30 April. In that article Professor Blainey attacks me and other members on both sides of this House for supporting multiculturalism, and in so doing he makes a number of serious misrepresentations of what I said. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I will correct the most serious one of these. Professor Blainey said: Dr Theophanous's multicultural plan of action calls for an attack on major inequalities due to cultural differences. I hope it is not unfair on him to comment that that principle was espoused by Hitler in order to take from one ethnic group and give to another. As an example of the misrepresentation, I read from Hansard what I actually said. It will show the way in which Professor Blainey misrepresented the debate on multiculturalism. I said: . . . for it is a fact that when we look at high unemployment, poverty, the lack of cheap accommodation and inadequate health and education services it is very often the migrant communities which suffer the most. Therefore, it is very important as an aspect of multiculturalism to emphasise the removal of these inequalities through an access and equity program. This has nothing to do with the kinds of principles espoused by Hitler or any of those fascists. So I would-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not go on to debate the subject. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr PEACOCK —On Sunday, 1 May, in the Sunday Telegraph and other associated News Ltd newspapers of that date, an article written by Fia Cumming was published alleging, among other things, that I may move to the Victorian Parliament. This allegation, as I have said time and again, is false. Worse, it was written knowing I had no such intention, for last Friday week, the Friday before the article was published, Ms Cumming sought to speak to me on the telephone and I returned her call. She asked me whether I intended transferring to the Victorian Parliament, and I said no. Furthermore, I said that I had indicated in response to other media inquiries that it was incorrect and that I was not and would not be making such a move. In addition, I referred her to a personal explanation I had given in this chamber during that very week, denying the allegation and describing it as a canard and a farrago of lies. Notwithstanding this, and the reference to a public record denial, Ms Cumming nevertheless wrote the story, thereby communicating an allegation she knew to be unfounded. The only ones that peddle this lie are members of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party who know their fortunes are sinking, for Kennett will lead the next Victorian Government. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating the issue. He will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) misrepresented my remarks in relation to a possible constitutional change requiring the Senate to submit itself to the people in the event of the Senate bringing about a dissolution of the House of Representatives, by alleging that in seeking such an amendment I did not have the support of my Senate colleagues or indeed of my Party. The truth is that in 1984 we introduced a Bill in the Senate, through Senator Peter Rae, to have a constitutional amendment in those precise terms submitted to the Australian people, and the Australian Labor Party voted against that measure when it was introduced in the Senate. In other words, the Labor Party opposed a measure which would bring the Senate to the people if it brought about a dissolution of the House, so the honourable member's misrepresentation of me is patent and obvious and is quite inexcusable. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the papers will be recorded in Hansard and the Votes and Proceedings. The schedule read as follows- Energy 2000-A National Energy Policy Paper-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources. Towards a Fairer Australia-Social Justice Under Labor-Report. Child Support-Formula for Australia-Child Support Consultative Group Report. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the following papers: Energy 2000-A national energy policy paper-report. Statement by Senator Cook, Minister for Resources, dated 28 April 1988. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Assent to the following Bills reported: Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements (Maintenance Income Test) Amendment Bill 1988 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority Bill 1988 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present volumes 1 and 2 of the first report of the Constitutional Commission, dated 27 April 1988. A copy of the report will be delivered to each member's room. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The total failure of the Government to foster a bipartisan consideration of constitutional reform in Australia's bicentennial year. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V.Campbell, G. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Snowdon, W. E.Harvey, E. R. Staples, P. R.Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E.Howe, B. L. Uren, T.Humphreys, B. C. West, S. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. P.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Smith, W. L.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Taylor, W. L.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hewson, J. R. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hunt, R. J. D. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Katter, R. C. Fatin, W. F. Prosser, G. D.Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 17 May 1988, at 2 p.m., unless Madam Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Yesterday we were all privileged to take part in a great event in the history of this Parliament and the history of Australia. Above everything else, the permanent Parliament House represents a deep and enduring affirmation of the Australian people's commitment to the future of Australian parliamentary democracy. The Australian Constitution is the foundation of Australia's Federal parliamentary democracy. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that we as a Parliament and a nation, in the year of the Bicentenary, should take this unique and historic opportunity to examine and advance measures to strengthen that foundation. That is the sole purpose of the proposals I place before the House today-to enable the people of Australia, by their own free choice and decision, to strengthen the foundations on which our Federal parliamentary democracy rests. The great building opened yesterday by the Queen of Australia can fulfil its true purpose in the service of the people only if the men and women called upon to serve within it make it a living and working expression of Australian democracy. Equally, the Australian Constitution is, and must continue to be, a living and working document, relevant to the needs and capable of responding to the challenges of our own generation and the generations to come. That was the fundamental consideration behind the Government's decision to establish the Constitutional Commission in December 1985. The Commission's first report was tabled today. The Commission's terms of reference, the long and dedicated work of its members, the unprecedented participation of so many individuals and community representatives, and the first report itself have all been based upon one key assumption: The basic building blocks of our parliamentary system are firmly in place, the edifice of the Australian Federation, its basic principles of responsible and representative government, upheld by our judicial system, are not under challenge. The Commission in its first report stated: From the outset it has been our clear intention not to propose an entirely new Constitution. We have sought to ensure that any proposals for change would preserve the framework and principles contained in the Constitution. In particular, we have been conscious of the need to retain in form and spirit the federal framework of government in Australia, parliamentary government and democratic institutions. The Commission continued: There are, however, some significant problems, and we have sought to identify ways in which the Constitution should be improved. It is in that spirit, and the desire to maintain and strengthen the fundamentals while improving certain particulars, that the Commission has approached its task so far and has presented its first report. It is in that spirit that the Government has received and reviewed its recommendations. I trust it will be in that spirit that this Parliament, and then the people of Australia, will approach one of the greatest responsibilities and opportunities enjoyed by a free and independent people-the task of making and amending their own Constitution, under which we all live, in this generation and for the generations to come. And this, points to the central feature of the new approach the Government takes to the task of constitutional reform. In Australia-perhaps, to a unique degree in Australia-the people themselves are the custodians of their own Constitution. The Parliament has an important role in proposing change. The judicial decisions of the High Court of Australia have a profound influence in defining change. But the ultimate responsibility for deciding for or against change rests with the people. And that is how it should be. It is not the politicians' Constitution, it is not the lawyers' Constitution; it is the people's Constitution. We believe that failure adequately to recognise this fundamental fact, and to make it the starting point for change, has been, at least in part, responsible for the relative lack of success in previous attempts over the past nine decades. Since 1901 there have been eight amendments carried by referendum. On 30 other occasions referendums have failed. There have been a number of bodies created to consider constitutional reform since Federation- the 1929 Royal Commission on the Constitution, none of whose recommendations have been implemented; the 1942 conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, none of whose recommendations were implemented; the 1959 Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review, whose recommendations were largely ignored; and the 1973-85 Constitutional Convention. Of the 14 referendums held in 1967, 1973, 1974, 1977 and 1984, only four were successful. The first in 1967, giving the Commonwealth an express power to make laws with respect to the Aboriginal people, was of major significance and received almost unanimous support. The other three in 1977 were of a minor nature relating to the retiring age of Federal judges, the filling of casual vacancies for the Senate, and the obvious need to give electors in the mainland Territories the right to be counted in constitutional referendums. While it is true that the State majority requirement in the Constitution adds to the difficulty of change, it was not the decisive factor in most of the referendums. A number of factors have contributed to this lack of success. Rightly or wrongly, the process has been perceived as dominated by politicians, acting for political advantage. Too often parochial and party political interests have swamped national interests. Sometimes one-off referendum proposals have been formulated in reaction to perceived difficulties and not considered in any broad context. Proposals have seldom been put forward as a result of widespread consultation. Many have not been clearly explained, and others have simply disappeared in the heat of a general election. Many of the proposals have been depicted as a power grab by the Commonwealth Parliament or by that side of politics forming the government of the day. We have seriously and sincerely attempted a fundamentally different approach. We have not restricted constitutional review to one-off issues. Instead, we have placed it in a broad perspective. In establishing the Constitutional Commission and five advisory committees, we appointed people with vision and a wide range of talents and experience and with strong links throughout the community. The Commission and the committees consulted widely in an attempt to build the kind of consensus on, and understanding of, the issues necessary for success. The Government gave the Commission a broad charter, which was to provide a basis for constitutional review not only in 1988 but into the twenty-first century; and to provide the most suitable framework for Australia's economic, social and political development. In particular, the Constitutional Commission was asked to consult widely with the public and to stimulate public discussion and awareness of constitutional issues. Over the last two and a half years the Constitutional Commission and its committees have made effective use of members' skills to raise public awareness on constitutional issues. They have achieved a good deal of success in obtaining popular participation in a way never before attempted, much less achieved. It is important to emphasise two points. First, wide-ranging as its first report is, the work begun by the Commission is not complete. Even with the presentation of the final report later this year, the great educative process involved in so massive and momentous an enterprise, of this scope and scale, will have only begun. But, secondly, it is vital that the momentum of the Commission's work should not be lost. It is essential that the sense of public involvement, interest and immediacy in the task of reform already generated by the Commission, by the distinction and representativeness of the Commission and its committees, and by the thoroughness and quality of its first report, should not be dissipated. These are the reasons why the Government believes it imperative to take a prompt initiative. We take the view that a genuine national debate on concrete and specific proposals is the best way to ensure that the wider questions of constitutional reform raised by the Commission are placed firmly in the forefront of the agenda of this nation. We believe our present proposals stand on their own merits. But we also believe that this initiative itself will advance the ongoing-the never ending-cause of constitutional reform. In that sense, our proposals should be seen as a first instalment in a long and steadily maturing process, and a first infusion into the lifeblood of our parliamentary democracy-this living Constitution of our `one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth'. The dedication and hard work of the Commission, its advisory committees and the staff of the secretariat have significantly contributed to a unique process of constitutional reform. The key element of the work of the Commission was establishing a process whereby distinguished Australians from many walks of life consulted widely with the community to ascertain the aspirations of all Australians for constitutional change. The recommendations of the Commission are the result of that process; they are not the work of politicians and political parties. To Sir Maurice Byers, the members of the Commission and its advisory committees I extend the Government's and my own deep appreciation for their work. To the staff of the Commission I say thank you for the enthusiastic and professional way they have supported the Commission's work. To those many Australians who have contributed ideas and opinions, and so have significantly assisted the work of the Commission, I also express my appreciation. Their involvement in the processes of the Commission has underlined the importance of public consultation in constitutional reform. It is against that background that I now bring forward proposals contained in four Constitution alteration Bills. The Government had before it the Commission's proposals in the first report when it made its decision on the questions to be put to referendum. The Commission had provided the Government with a summary of its recommendations in advance. Except for the proposal relating to four-year parliamentary terms, the Government's Bills differ from the Commission's Bills only in presentation and detail. There are four Bills and there will be four separate questions presented at the referendum. But I must emphasise the common theme and purpose which links them all. They are not about the power of the politicians or the political parties. They are about the rights of the people. The proposals address four fundamental democratic rights: the people's right to a more effective registration of the mandate they give at elections, through greater stability, responsibility and contemporaneity, in both Houses of the national Parliament; the people's right, everywhere in Australia, to vote in free and fair elections; the people's right, as members of local and regional communities, to have the important third level of government recognised as part of the Australian Constitution; and the people's right to have guaranteed, in the Constitution itself, certain inalienable rights and freedoms-trial by jury, just terms for compulsorily acquired property, and freedom of religion. I now briefly outline the first of the Bills, its purpose and the reasons for recommending it. The Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988 proposes to extend the maximum term of the House of Representatives from three years to four years, beginning with the next Parliament. It also proposes that the terms of all senators will expire upon the expiry or dissolution of the House of Representatives. The practical effect of the Bill is to establish a maximum four-year term and elections for both Houses of Parliament on the same day. This proposal does not involve any alteration to section 53 of the Constitution-which deals with the Senate's power in relation to Supply Bills-or section 57 dealing with double dissolutions. We believe this is a timely proposal. Its purpose is to provide greater stability by reducing the frequency of Federal elections. The need for a greater degree of stability in the years ahead is especially relevant to the challenges posed by the economic problems Australia will face into the twenty-first century. There can be no doubt that we are in an era of unprecedented change and complexity in both the national and international economy. Equally, there can be no doubt that the remarkable frequency of elections in Australia is tending to build an inherent instability into the system. Since 1949 there have been 21 Federal elections. This exceeds the number held in the United States of America where there are fixed biennial elections. Australians have gone to the polls for Federal elections on average once every two years since 1945. With the exception of Queensland, all State lower Houses now have four-year terms. The vast majority of democratic countries have four or five-year terms. The Constitutional Commission recommended four-year maximum terms for the House of Representatives. There has been general support for such a change. The Commission, like the Government, sees the clear benefits of a four-year term-greater stability and less frequent elections. The Commission also recommended restrictions on the powers of the Senate, the effective introduction of a minimum term of three years for the House of Representatives and extending the length of terms of senators. Whatever their merits, public reaction to these proposals since the Commission put them forward in October 1987 indicates that they have yet to achieve widespread support. This is indicated by the degree of opposition in this House on 8 October last year and in the Senate in December last year. The Government believes that our Constitution should continue to allow elected governments to test the will of the people at the ballot-box without a requirement for a minimum term for the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the Government does not believe that now is the time to address the question of the powers of the Senate. Proposals concerning the powers of the Senate deserve consideration in their own right after full exposure of the complex and substantial issues involved. To provide for senators to serve for a maximum term of eight years would significantly reduce the Senate's accountability to the people. We therefore propose that a senator's term should be the same as that of a member of the House of Representatives and that, in line with this, the terms of current senators would expire with the present House of Representatives. It is worth pointing out that, of the senators elected for six years since 1967 whose terms have ended, none served a full six years. Only half served terms of more than four years. The other half served for less than three years. The last senators who served a six-year term were those elected on 5 December 1964 who took their places on 1 July 1965. It will be seen, therefore, that this proposal, as it affects the terms of senators, would bring the Constitution into line with the reality of the past 20 years. Overall, the Bill will bring Commonwealth elections into line with the general democratic norm of four-year parliaments. I commend the Bill to the House. I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill introduces to the Constitution two basic principles that will guarantee fair elections: first, that in a democracy all elections should be conducted on the basis of one vote one value; secondly, that the citizens of a democracy should have an enforceable, inalienable and constitutional right to vote at elections. The Bill applies these principles to elections for Commonwealth and State parliaments and mainland Territory legislatures. The principle of one vote one value means that the vote of each elector should have approximately the same weight in determining the outcome of an election, so that every member of a legislature represents roughly the same number of electors. A majority of the High Court held in 1975 in what is known as McKinlay's case that there was no constitutional requirement for one vote one value in House of Representatives elections. No member of this House would deny that such a requirement should exist. This Bill locates the fair election provisions in a single chapter entitled `Fair Elections'. The Commission recommended, as a basic principle, that the number of electors in electoral divisions should vary by no more than 10 per cent from the average. A redistribution based on a 10 per cent tolerance may properly be regarded as a fair redistribution. Under the Bill an election held in electoral divisions more than one year after the commencement of the amendments will be invalid unless it is based on a fair redistribution within the previous seven years. There must also be a fair redistribution before any election is held in divisions after the commencement of the amendment, but with a period of 12 months grace. In addition there must be a fair redistribution where more than one-third of the electoral divisions have exceeded the 10 per cent tolerance for two successive months. The Bill allows a challenge to a redistribution only within 40 days of its public notification. This allows for certainty in the electoral process by precluding the validity of an election from being challenged if, firstly, the election is held after the 40-day period; and, secondly, each challenge to the redistribution instituted within 40 days has been withdrawn or dismissed. The Bill provides that, subject only to two exceptions, the right to vote extends to each Australian citizen who complies with reasonable conditions prescribed by the applicable Commonwealth, State or Territory laws as to residence and enrolment and who has reached the age of 18 years. The exceptions are any disqualification prescribed by the applicable laws as to persons who, because of unsoundness of mind, are incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolment and voting, and persons who are undergoing imprisonment for an offence. The Bill applies to voting in elections held more than one year after the commencement of the amendment, and includes a provision dealing with standing in the courts to enforce the constitutional right to vote. I commend the Bill to the House. I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Traditionally a three-tier system has been the basis of government in Australia. At present, however, there is no reference to local government in the Constitution. The constitutional recognition of local government was discussed regularly at sessions of the Constitutional Convention, culminating in a 1985 proposal to insert into the Constitution a new section providing for recognition of local government. Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales have all amended their Constitutions to recognise local government, but in differing forms. Queensland and Tasmania are the only States which do not recognise local government in their Constitutions. The Bill will give proper recognition to the third level of public administration in Australia today. Although local government bodies existed well before Federation, the range of functions undertaken by local government has expanded considerably since then. Many now provide a wide range of social services, recreational and sporting facilities, town planning, support for the arts, and significant measures to protect the environment. The Government has accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission that the proposed law should be confined to the States. The Commission noted that local governments might not be appropriate in the constitutional development of Territories such as the Australian Capital Territory, Christmas Island or Norfolk Island or in remote and sparsely populated areas in the Northern Territory. The Bill does not give the Commonwealth Parliament power to establish local government bodies in the States. It expressly recognises that the form and structure of local government is a matter for the States. It requires each State to provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government. The provision is not intended to prevent State governments from providing for the amalgamation of local government councils or for their dismissal on grounds of incompetence or malpractice. It is expected, however, that the States will need to make provision for the election of new councils within a reasonable time after any such dismissal. I commend the Bill to the House. I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Reith) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to strengthen three fundamental rights and freedoms already in the Constitution-trial by jury, fair compensation for acquisitions of property, and freedom of religion. The Bill extends the protection of these rights and freedoms in relation to actions taken by the States and Territories. This Bill gives real force and effect to the right to trial by jury. Section 80 of the Constitution currently requires trial by jury where the trial is on indictment for any offence against a law of the Commonwealth. However, as the Parliament is free to decide whether a particular offence must be tried on indictment, it may avoid the guarantee by establishing other forms of trial for particular offences. The Bill requires trial by jury where the accused is liable to imprisonment for more than two years or any form of corporal punishment-which includes capital punishment. The Bill excludes trials for contempt of court and courts martial of members of the Defence Force under a law relating to the discipline of the Defence Force. The Bill extends the right to trial by jury to trials for offences against State and Territory laws. The Bill makes appropriate provision for the places where jury trials for Commonwealth offences must be held. The Bill also allows for laws permitting an accused to waive his or her right to a trial by jury. Commonwealth, State and Territory laws now provide in many cases for an accused person to consent to be tried before a magistrate, and usually in these cases a lesser maximum penalty applies. It is not, however, contemplated that waiver of the right to trial by jury would apply in the case of the most serious offences, such as murder or major drug offences. There is also a public interest in ensuring community participation in the processes of the criminal law through trial by jury which ought not to be waived by decision of the accused alone. These matters are best left for determination by the relevant legislatures-Commonwealth, State and Territory. There are already State and Territory laws relating to the size and composition of juries and providing for majority verdicts. The Bill therefore allows the relevant parliaments to make laws dealing with those matters and allows existing laws to continue in operation. The second fundamental right guaranteed by this Bill is fair compensation for acquisitions of property under Commonwealth, State and Territory laws. Section 51 (31) of the Constitution currently provides that the Commonwealth Parliament may make laws for the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. However, there is at present no constitutional requirement for the State parliaments or Territorial legislatures to provide just terms for acquisitions of property under State or Territory law. The High Court of Australia has said that the States `may acquire property on any terms which they may choose to provide in a statute, even though the terms are unjust'. This will no longer be the case. The High Court has also held that the constitutional guarantee does not apply when the Commonwealth provides for the acquisition of property from a person in a Territory. The constitutional guarantee will now apply in this case also. The third fundamental right guaranteed by this Bill is freedom of religion throughout the whole of Australia and its Territories. Section 116 of the Constitution currently prevents the Commonwealth from making any law for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. It also forbids any religious test as a qualification for any office of public trust under the Commonwealth. Under this Bill the same safeguards will now apply to the States and Territories. If religious freedom warrants constitutional protection, the guarantee should apply uniformly to Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. The Bill also extends the protections in relation to any executive actions by governments. I commend the Bill to the House. In conclusion, the four Bills that I have introduced do not involve any increase in Commonwealth power, at the expense of either the States or the people of Australia. As I have already said, they are about the rights of the people of Australia. When the Constitutional Commission was first established, it was always envisaged that 1988-the year of the Bicentenary-would provide a focus and impetus for the work of revising and improving the Australian Constitution. I believe that much has already been achieved towards that end. But it is vital that the impetus and momentum should be maintained. There is a reason of very profound national importance why this should be so. The Bicentenary itself has a purpose far beyond, and far more important and far more enduring than, the celebrations and the spectacles, the great projects and monuments throughout Australia. Its larger purpose goes to the heart of our sense of national identity, our national self-understanding and our national unity. It goes to the heart of our nationhood itself. The Constitution under which this nation lives in surely an essential element in that process of nationhood-the keystone in the arch of the great institutions of parliament and the law which unite us as one of the world's strongest and truest democracies. I believe the work of the Commission is creating a new recognition of the importance of the Constitution and its basic strengths, as well as its flaws. Many of us-and not least, I freely acknowledge, on this side of the House-have tended to emphasise its defects. But the Commission's first report has offered us all the opportunity-and the challenge-to take a new look, from a new and broader perspective. We can now, I believe, approach the task of constitutional reform, not from the perspective of the partisan passions and prejudices of the past, but with a measured, informed and constructive desire to strengthen and improve the Constitution for the future-rationally, relevantly, realistically. We are in the closing sittings of the last session of the Parliament to meet in this historic chamber. There is nothing we could do more fitting or more worthy as the people's representative than that our last major act in this place should be to give the people of Australia the opportunity to enhance the Constitution under which this Parliament exists and under which this nation lives. It is in that spirit, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have commended the four Bills to the House. Mr Reith —I move: That the debate be adjourned. I ask the Attorney-General to advise the House when it is proposed these referendums will actually be held. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no provision for making that announcement. The debate is adjourned. The question is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(3.38) —In the absence of any of my colleagues wishing to speak now I would like to raise on this important occasion the fact that on the day after the opening of our new Parliament House we have finally flushed out the secret agenda of this Government with regard to the Constitution of this country. I realise it would not be proper for me to speak in detail and I will not do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I hope that the honourable member is not going to anticipate the debate on the second reading of the referendum Bills. Mr TIM FISCHER —I just forewarn that the Liberal and National parties will be studying the four referendum Bills in a great deal of detail. I would like to take this opportunity today to pay tribute to a lot of people who worked behind the scenes, in addition to those who were up front, with regard to the success of the opening of the new Parliament House on the hill in Canberra yesterday. In so doing I pay tribute to the comments of both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) at that historic opening-particularly the references by the Prime Minister to a former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, which were very generous comments indeed; and the reference by the Leader of the Opposition to the veterans who served and fought for this country and whose determination and dedication are the reasons why in this day and age we are a free and democratic country which can celebrate the opening of a new Parliament House as a citadel of our parliamentary democracy. In addition to referring to the comments of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition I want to say that I am sure that honourable members appreciate that behind the scenes there was an enormous amount of work not only to bring about the successful construction and opening of that building yesterday but to facilitate all that happened over the last 48 hours with regard to that occasion. I, as one member-along with many others-was very much assisted in that process and in facilitating the maximum number permissible from my electorate participating. I want to place on the record of the House this afternoon my appreciation of all those involved, too many for me to name, who brought this about. I refer not only to the staff who were physically in the new Parliament House yesterday but also to the staff who remained here and who carried out their duties in the various departments associated with this old Parliament House. It is a very difficult period. In effect, two buildings are in operation under the one set of departments and the one set of administrators. I hope that the transition will be smooth. My own office is scheduled to move up there on 3 June. I guess we all look forward to the first day of sitting in that new House on Monday, 22 August. I was especially delighted that amongst those invited to the opening of the new Parliament house were Australia's five remaining Victoria Cross winners. Again, that was indirect and direct recognition of the contribution made by veterans to the freedom and parliamentary democracy of this country. I am very glad that the Government acceded to representations-they came from more than one source, but included representations I made-and extended those invitations. I was delighted that the former member for Hume, Mr Charles Anderson, VC, was present in the Members Hall for the opening, along with Sir Roden Cutler, VC, Mr Kenna, VC, and others. I understand that not all five were able to be present due to certain other commitments they had accepted. In expressing my appreciation to those who worked up front and those who worked behind the scenes at the opening of this truly magnificent new Parliament House, I signal one note of warning. I know this has been reflected in a lot of editorials, but clearly that new parliamentary building will be only as good as its performance, only as good as the laws it passes. Equally, it will be only as good as the laws it repeals and the governance it provides to the country at large. I am deeply conscious that, as we celebrate the opening this week of the new Parliament House, there are many in my electorate of Farrer facing very severe hardship, especially with the continuing drought conditions in pockets of the electorate causing a difficult economic situation. Unless the Parliament succeeds in addressing many of these problems, to those people the new Parliament House will be nothing other than a Taj Mahal. Nevertheless, it is there and it is there to be occupied. My tribute goes to all those who have been involved with this magnificent project. I look forward to taking my seat as a representative of the electors of Farrer and I hope that the new Parliament House will serve this country well for many years into the future. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(3.43) —I endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) and compliment all those involved in yesterday's opening of the new Parliament House, in the lead-up to it and in its construction. The reception last night, especially with the Franklin B. Paverty bush band, really warmed up the place and made it appear human, which had not been the case before then. It was a real housewarming party. I want to say a few words about the importance of road funding. As the Government leads up to the May economic statement and the Budget in August, I believe it is absolutely vital that the Government place in proper perspective the importance of road funding. That need was clearly demonstrated in a survey conducted by the Office of the Status of Women of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, together with organisations such as the Country Women's Association (CWA). Women throughout rural Australia indicated that road funding was their top priority, their highest area of need. Roads are not just important in terms of transport, they are also important economically and socially. Only two weeks ago there were very heavy rains throughout south-eastern New South Wales, and I travelled from Bombala, through Cathcart, down Big Jack Mountain to Towamba to see constituents. I wish I had taken an axe. There were trees across the road and in one area the bridge had just been repaired as I reached it; there was widespread devastation through flooding. Arterial roads lacked attention over many years. When this Government came into power it restored funding to a proper level. When I became the member for Eden-Monaro there were children who could not get to school and people who could not get to hospitals because of bad roads. Roads are a vital issue for this country. It is freely acknowledged that for a country which has only a fraction of the number of taxpayers of the United States we have the equivalent of a sizable portion of the United States in roads to support. It is also recognised that we cannot possibly support roads to the extent that we would like. I do stress to the Government the importance of continued and indeed increased funding in real terms, particularly for roads that are provided by local councils but also for some of the arterial roads that are provided by the States. To that end I believe the Government needs to take into full account the recommendations not only of its own policy committees but also of organisations such as the CWA through the survey of rural women conducted with the cooperation of the CWA with the Government. I believe it is important for the Government to set another roads plan in place so that we have a clear proposal. It is also necessary that we take important arterials out of the political context-the buck passing sort of situation we reached between local, State and Federal governments over the last few decades. Roads such as that between the Australian Capital Territory and Batemans Bay, the Princes Highway between Sydney and Melbourne, and a large number of other arterials throughout Australia just have not received the attention they deserve because people are able to say, `It services people in another State' or, `It services people in the ACT; so we should not really have to pay for it'. We need to take these arterials out of that context and place them in full Federal control, even if it means reducing the amount of funding to the States, so that the Federal Government can establish its priorities for roads that cross State borders. I again stress the importance of having a plan of bringing cross-border arterials or interstate arterials into complete Federal control, the importance of no real cuts either to local government or to important arterial roads, and the importance of a higher proportion of national expenditure for road funding. I reiterate what the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said this afternoon, when he urged the Australian people to support constitutional change to give local government a status in this country. I urge them to vote yes on the local government question. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.48) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in this adjournment debate, but before I move to the subject that prompted me to rise this afternoon I wish to endorse the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) in his contribution. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) feels similarly, and he may well want to express such feelings himself. I join with the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) in reflecting on what happened yesterday as we went through that momentous and historic ceremony of opening the new and permanent Parliament House. I was very fortunate because only last weekend I had a phone call at my home from a Mrs Cooper, who lives in the same town. She asked whether I would mind coming around to meet her husband, who had been a trooper in the Light Horse guard of honour when the Parliament House which we now occupy was opened. I went around to meet Mr Jack Cooper, who had been a member of the Gawler voluntary Light Horse and had formed part of the guard of honour that had been present when this building was declared open in 1927. It was an honour because, although Mr Cooper is 83, he is spritely and is still mentally very much alert. Mrs Cooper gave me a booklet which was put together in 1927 to commemorate the opening of this House. I would like in this adjournment debate to read to the House the opening page of that booklet. It reflects some sentiments that Australians felt about this Parliament House that I think we should bear in mind as we prepare to leave this building and move into the new and permanent Parliament House on the Hill. I quote from the preface to this booklet, which is otherwise made up of photographs of Canberra as it was in 1927: In this year 1927, Australia is still a young country, with her destiny far from fulfilled, and with tradition of a sort. It is on the way to that destiny that this idealistic city of Canberra is being reared up on these banks of the Molonglo; it is meet that some of such tradition as Australia has should be mortared into the building. This part of the country has, in their time, felt the firm tread of the pioneers, has known the incursions of the gold-seekers, the movement of cattle, the hoof-beats of horses, the sinister goings and comings of bushrangers that Time has transformed into romantic figures; and-the gold-seekers and the pioneers gone their ways, and the bushrangers, more abruptly, gone theirs-it has given other men to play their part in the building of this new nation, to fight and to die for it, and so to add to its lustre. These, of course, are no peculiar attributes, unshared by the common land. It is their very generality which makes tradition of them, and invests them with the right to be mentioned in a breath with the city which is itself a generality, a capital not of any individual State, but of the nation. But they are small compared with the vista of tradition opening up to the imagination from the crest of this peak of history, of the reaching of which this sheaf of typical scenes is intended as a souvenir. These glimpses of public buildings and of other landmarks are recent-as they are to-day. They provide a panorama of the city in the making, more than a hint of what one day will be. There will be vast changes: even these majestic Parliament buildings are but temporary, and their cost, #750,000, almost a little loose change to the #3,000,000- I ask honourable members to note that- that is to be expended on the permanent House. Several generations will play their part in lifting Australia on toward her destiny before that great Capitol is built. But in the meantime it stands there, mighty in the imagination, a visionary symbol of the nationhood, the ideals, the aspirations, the lofty national sentiment of which this much of the city that is already built is our visible expression. Those were the sentiments at the opening of this building. I was proud to take this booklet, on behalf of Trooper Jack Cooper, to the ceremony that we conducted yesterday; so the booklet has been a part of the opening ceremony for this building and at yesterday's ceremony, too. I am pleased to note that the Prime Minister's office has indicated the willingness of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to inscribe this booklet, as has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), so that it will stand for history as a booklet that has been part of the present Parliament House and the new and permanent House that we plan to enter. I endorse the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Farrer and say that this chamber, oozing with history as it is, has heard many wise debates. Whether or not those wise debates are translated on to the hill will depend not on the chamber but on the people who occupy it. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(3.53) —I rise in this adjournment debate to speak about some aspects of the new Parliament House as well. I thought that the day went well enough. I thought that the protest in the name of Aboriginal people was most inappropriate and will do much to damage the cause and true aspirations of Aboriginal people. I am sure that it had no support from the great bulk of Aboriginal people in my electorate, who seek only to attain real things, such as jobs for their children, better housing, water and health. Be that as it may, the die has now been cast. In the program, I saw no need for prayers in three languages. I am certain that at the opening of any American parliamentary body there would not have been prayers in three languages. I also felt for neglected people, such as myself. I am an atheist. Over 10 per cent of Australians profess to be atheist. Yet there were no atheist prayers. How one has an atheist prayer I leave to the imagination of those responsible for these matters. But, as a group, I felt that we were grossly neglected. What I particularly want to talk about is radiation. Radiation presents a real hazard to us here. It is unarguable that the radiation levels in the new Parliament House are substantially higher than they are in this building. It is also true to say that the radiation levels in the new Parliament House are at least twice the background radiation levels of some parts of Australia. For these reasons, it would be most appropriate if people such as Senator Vallentine and the Australian Democrats, and indeed some members of my own Party, refrained from occupying the new building for fear of danger to their health. There is no doubt that the radiation comes from the masses of concrete which have a granite aggregate in them and from the granite itself which adorns the House. It is all very highly radioactive from the element thorium. Thorium has an enormously long half-life of 14 billion years. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, can appreciate the danger that we will all face in entering the new building. It seems to me that the Commonwealth Government has only three responsible courses: it must forthwith demolish the new building; it must then clad it in lead to protect us from this radiation; or it must pass legislation and declare it a nuclear free zone. I wanted to mention that. I had intended to ask a question at Question Time but unfortunately I was asleep following the affairs of last night. However, this matter highlights the hyperbole of some people in respect of radiation. Radiation, obviously, occurs naturally in just about everything we come in contact with. I am appalled at the constant scaremongering we get from people who do not understand that. It would be a very good thing today if a little more attention was paid in schools to an understanding of radiation. It might be far more useful than, say, peace studies, and it would certainly bring far more peace of mind. I raise these questions very seriously because in my electorate I am faced with a waste disposal project which has caused great hostility in the community, mainly on the basis of enormous misinformation, which has been, in some cases, quite mischievous. The Government of Western Australia said to the company concerned, Rohn Polenk, which has a virtual world monopoly on the treatment of mineral sands from which we shall have to extract some of the rare earths which will change the face of industry throughout the world, `Look, we are sick of you taking our jobs out of Australia. We want you to process your stuff in Australia and give us the value added and give us the jobs'. So the company agreed. But of course, once one starts to do that, one is left with the waste product, which in this case is that deadly element thorium again. All the expert evidence is that buried under two metres of earth-or, in real measurements, about two yards of earth-the background radiation is reduced to zero. It is undetectable from the normal background radiation. Yet this is seen as some great hazard to society. Despite the fact that it is in a very remote area, it has received enormous opposition. This is unfortunate, because the way forward for Australia and the way to provide jobs for our kids in the future will be through the higher technology, an area in which we have a natural advantage. Australia has 80 per cent of the world's sources for these rare earth minerals. It will be a national outrage if we do not exploit them for the benefit of future generations of Australians. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(3.59) —I am pleased to have heard the comments of those who have preceded me in this adjournment debate in regard to this Parliament, but as the Parliament will sit for another two weeks I shall leave whatever comments I have until we conclude our deliberations in this House. I should like to raise with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) a matter which is of concern to me and has been the subject of two questions that appear on the Notice Paper. They remain at this stage unanswered. One question is No. 586, asked by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) of the Minister, in relation to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The question was in this form: (1) In view of the weight given to Professor H. Hughes' article about the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and subsequent funding decisions, will he present to the House the advice from the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau concerning Australia's support of IFAD post-1992 and its special program for sub-Saharan Africa; if not, will he present the assessments on which Professor Hughes based her advice. (2) What advice had he received, other than the views of Professor Hughes, from his Department or from any other source in support of, or in opposition to, his decision to terminate IFAD funding. (3) Will he present the reasons for Australia not supporting IFAD's special program for sub-Saharan Africa. (4) Will he initiate a review of the funding decisions announced, so that Australia's attitudes may be based on current information about IFAD's effectiveness, including the recent statement by the US president that IFAD offers a brighter future around the Globe and new evidence of US support for IFAD's programs. In relation to the same matter, on 16 March I placed on notice the following question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade: (1) Is the Government reconsidering its decision not to participate in the third replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2) Has the Government, since its decision was announced, received a request from the US State Department Deputy Secretary of State, Mr J. C. Whitehead. (3) Did the Deputy Secretary of State advise him that Australia's non-participation would lead to the perception that OECD donors do not accord IFAD high priority and, in turn, encourage OPEC not to make maximum efforts to provide adequate funding in the third replenishment. (4) Did the Deputy Secretary of State advise him that the US State Department is of the view that IFAD is an effective development agency directed at the important objective of improving the productivity and income of small farmers in poor countries. I mention those questions because I am hopeful that the Government will reconsider its approach in relation to this matter. I also take the opportunity of indicating to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade that, if his views were based, as the honourable member for North Sydney suggested, on the views put in an article by Dr Helen Hughes which appeared in a Canberra newspaper that IFAD was not an effective international organisation and that the World Bank was a more appropriate body to fund international support for some of the poorest countries of the world, he ought to have in mind the views of the Chairman of the World Bank, Mr Barber Conable, who wrote recently to Dr Jazairy of IFAD, and made the following comments: My staff has also brought to my attention an article written by a former World Bank employee, Mrs Helen Hughes, questioning Australia's continuing support for IFAD. The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm my personal support and commitment to cooperation between IFAD and the World Bank. The collaboration between our two institutions, through co-financing or the Bank acting as executing partner for the appraisal and supervision of projects, has been excellent. I also appreciate IFAD's continued support for the research activities of CGIAR, your cooperation with EDI especially for project training in Africa, and your role in other Bank/IFAD joint activities such as work on monitoring and evaluation methodology. Within a relatively short time since opening its doors in 1977, IFAD has made an important and significant contribution to the development of the poorest of our member countries. As you know, I believe that, through pluralism among multilateral development institutions, we can better contribute to growth, development, and poverty alleviation in these countries. Those comments are particularly important and ought to be very much in the mind of the Minister-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK —as he reconsiders the Government's decision in relation to this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not overrun his time when he has been called to order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(4.05) —I would like to join my colleagues who have spoken favourably about yesterday's proceedings at the opening of the new Parliament House. I am sure that those who organised the day must feel that it was well worth the effort that they put into it. I will make one observation: I thought that it would have been beneficial for a lot of the members and their families to have known about a lot of the activities yesterday, particularly those in the forecourt area. This should be remembered in any future exercise. I recall that at the opening of the Parliament after the last election the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and his Department put on an excellent display from the combined defence forces. Unfortunately, people in the Parliament were not informed of it; we only found out about it later. As we move into the new building, there will be enormous enthusiasm from the Australian Community and from other communities to find out what we are doing there. We should learn to publicise as much as possible the activities that are organised. I think that that would be of benefit to all. I conclude this part of my comments by saying that I think the day was very well organised and very well run. It was a credit to those associated with it; it was not an easy exercise. There were about 7,000 people in a building that people were not familiar with. There were security problems and protocol problems. For a lot of people it was a most exciting day. On behalf of my family, who accompanied me, I thank the organisers because I think they did very well in putting the day together for all of us and for the Australian community generally. There are two other issues that I wish to speak about in the short time available to me. One is the question of housing. People such a my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) share my concern about an increase in the price of housing. Difficulty is arising in the Australian housing market because the base price structure is moving up, particularly in New South Wales. It is also going up in other States. We are finding that people have great difficulty in reaching the threshold level of housing-that is, to have enough money to buy a home. One of the things to which we on this side of the House have always given great emphasis is the first home owners scheme and public housing through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Government backbenchers are concerned about the future of the first home owners scheme and hope that it stays in position, with one slight change-that is, that the income limits be indexed so that as the price of housing goes up, so do the income limits for those who qualify for the scheme. As time has passed, as housing prices have gone up and as the income limits that people need to qualify for the first home owners scheme have not been indexed, the scheme has lost some-not all-of its cutting edge. It is important that that be restored. Many members of this Parliament and people in their constituencies have benefited from the efforts put into housing in the five years of this Government. My colleague the honourable member for Macarthur has provided me with the figure that 1.4 million Australians have been assisted into housing in the five years that we have been in government. In comparable terms, that figure represents a city the size of my home city of Perth. So we have put that many people into housing. It is a substantial achievement, but we would like to ensure that it continues. The other issue I wish to address very briefly relates to environmental concern. Whenever anybody in the Australian community goes to the coast, one of the great problems he finds is that the quality of the environment is continually degraded. The coast is the one environment that 90 per cent of the Australian community visits at some stage during each year. Of course, the more immediate concern relates to the future of the geography of the coastline around this country. The other concern is environmental litter. One of the major causes is the fishing industry. In my home State of Western Australia it is not uncommon to find beaches where the packaging from fish bait and crayfish bait is thrown into the water by the fishermen and ends up not only damaging marine life but also littering beaches. In the region north of Perth it is not uncommon to find on one beach after another crayfish bales and plastic from bait, having been thrown overboard by fishermen, littering the beach. It is a concern that worries not only me but the Australian community. I say to the fishing industry that it should either lift its game or suffer government activity which will cause it to improve its game. It is not good enough for the Australian community to go to beaches-my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur has wonderful beaches in his electorate, as is the case in my electorate of Stirling-and find them damaged by the indiscriminate use of disposable litter by those in the fishing industry. It is clearly something that needs to be addressed. In closing, I am pleased to say that I think that this Parliament has a great future in the new Parliament House on the hill, the opening of which we celebrated yesterday. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(4.09) —I congratulate all of those involved in the opening of our permanent Parliament House yesterday. This is our major bicentenary project. It is 200 years since we settled this nation, and at long last Australia has a national Parliament House of which we can be proud. For the first time we have a permanent Parliament House. Although we all enjoy working in this structure, it was never intended to be the permanent place for our Parliament. As of yesterday we have a permanent Parliament House where, no doubt, all sorts of things will happen. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) is very concerned about the radioactivity in the area. As time goes by I am sure that there will be quite a deal of that generated around the place, probably a lot of it by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. I congratulate the builders and all the workers involved-the stonemasons and so on. Concrete-Holland Joint Venture was the main contracting company involved and I think it should be congratulated for a job well done. We should also thank Her Majesty the Queen for opening the House, and Prince Philip, who accompanied her to the functions that were held yesterday morning and last night. It was a day of celebration. Many of our families and friends were present. My brother Bryan, his wife, Susan, and my daughter, Christina, were my guests, and I am sure that they enjoyed the day. A lot has been said about the cost and a sum of $1 billion has been mentioned. I am sure that the Australian Labor Party will exempt it from capital gains tax. If it really comes to the pinch and the Labor Party sends this country down the drain, as it is presently doing, the new House could be sold off to the Bonds and Packers of Australia. It has a reasonably wide veranda and a decent flagpole. I am sure that the Government could have quite a deal of the money expended returned to it. No doubt we are all going to enjoy working in the new environment and using the new facilities. As Australians we must all be justifiably proud of that building. I also mention World Expo 88, which is being conducted in Brisbane, the capital of the fine State of Queensland, and I implore every Australian to visit that wonderful happening. People should make sure that they go and see the Queensland pavilion because it is one of the best. It is better than the Australian pavilion. I tend to agree with the ex-tourism Minister, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), that we certainly could have done a bit more in the Australian pavilion to make it more interesting for the many hundreds of thousands of people who will go through that building. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) mentioned road funding, which is very dear to my heart. I fully support his words about the lack of funding for roads in this nation. In our bicentenary year this Labor Government should make an extra effort to allocate more funds for roads. Excise taxes are being indexed, and within the next 18 months to two years the Government will receive an extra $688m approximately from that tax, which automatically increases every six months, or daily, if you like. Surely to goodness we must expect those who sit in Cabinet to allocate more funds to the motorists who use our road system throughout Australia. Under the bicentenary roads program the previous Liberal-National Party Government introduced the worthwhile task of rebuilding and maintaining our national highway system and bringing it up to some sort of standard. At long last in our bicentenary year we can travel around Australia on bitumen, without getting on to dirt roads, as we have up to this time. Other speakers may wish to say something about the opening of the House and the other bicentenary projects we have going. I am very happy to support them and I look forward to moving up to the so-called big House on the hill and enjoying my stay there. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until Tuesday, 17 May 1988 at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 May 1988. Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 71. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 57, 75, 76. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 72. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 66. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 64, 65. Defence Act- Determinations-1988- No. 13-Education Allowance. No. 14-Payment of Financial Entitlements Consequent Upon the Death of a Member or a Former Member. No. 15-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 16-Defence Force Academy Textbook Allowance. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 58, 73. Fisheries Act- Notices-Nos. 163A, 170A, 204. Plan of Management- No. 15-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan (Amendment). No. 16-Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan (Amendment) and Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan (Repeal). No. 17-South East Trawl Fishery Preliminary Management Plan (Amendment). No. 18-Southern Shark Fishery Management Plan. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 63. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 61, 67. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 196AA relating to- Dr S. Choudhary, dated 28 April 1988. Dr M. L. Chy, dated 28 April 1988. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Law Officers Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 55. National Health Act- Determination under subsection 4 (1) for purposes of paragraph (dd) of the definition of ``basic private table''. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 56. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 79. Naval Defence Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 74. Plant Variety Rights Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules, 1988, No. 62. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following sections of Acts shall come into operation- Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Act 1988-Sections 15 and 16, subsection 52 (1), sections 55, 57 and 60 and subsection 69 (2)-30 April 1988. Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Part V-1 May 1988. Radiocommunications Act-Standards-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 69, 70. Science and Industry Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules, 1988, No. 77, 78. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules, 1988, No. 59 60. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 68. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 197) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: In relation to the (a) Australian Sports Commission, (b) Australian Tourist Commission, (c) Arts Development Board, (d) A.C.T. Electricity Authority (e) A.C.T. Gaming and Liquor Authority, (f) A.C.T. Health Authority and (g) A.C.T. Schools Authority, in each year since 1984-85, what was the (i) total number of employees, (ii) total number of employees receiving workers' compensation payments, (iii) gross expenditure on workers' compensation payments, (iv) value of the average compensation claim and (v) number of compensation cases as a percentage of total employees. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (i) to (v) The information is provided in the attached schedule. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) $ $ % (a) Australian Sports Commission 1984-85... 26 Nil Nil Nil Nil 1985-86... 34 1 9,417 9,417 2.9 1986-87... 26 Nil Nil Nil Nil (b) Australian Tourist Commission 1984-85... 90 3 14,157 4,719 3.0 1985-86... 91 2 13,364 6,682 2.0 1986-87... 85 3 33,081 11,027 3.5 (c) Arts Development Board 1984-85... 1985-86... 1986-87... The A.C.T. Arts Development Board is an honorary body appointed to advise the Minister on arts policy and funding. Its members are not paid and it does not have power to employ staff. It is serviced by employees of the A.C.T. Administration. (d) A.C.T. Electricity Authority 1984-85... 875 192 483,850 2,520 22.0 1985-86... 942 320 582,981 1,822 34.0 1986-87... 886 313 644,042 2,057 35.0 (e) A.C.T. Gaming &Liquor Authority 1984-85... 120 2 70,000 35,000 1.6 1985-86... 120 1 4,000 4,000 0.8 1986-87... 120 1 270 270 0.8 (f) A.C.T. Health Authority 1984-85... 5,241 459 1,590,511 3,465 9.0 1985-86... 1,800 164 732,541 4,467 9.0 1986-87... 6,049 555 1,160,005 2,090 9.2 (g) A.C.T. Schools Authority 1984-85... 4,867 281 959,381 3,414 6.0 1985-86... 5,828 496 1,814,319 3,658 8.0 1986-87... 4,800 430 1,800,818 4,234 9.0 (Question No. 312) Mr Beale asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: What is the present state of the proposal for a National Aviation Museum. Mr Punch —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The proposal for the establishment of a National Aviation Museum was referred for consideration in the context of the Review of the Commonwealth's role in the development of museums, which include collecting and exhibiting organisations, being conducted jointly by me and the Minister for Finance. I expect an announcement of the Government's policy relating to museums to be made shortly. (Question No. 399) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) What was the total sum spent by the Minister's entire portfolio on public opinion polls in the period covered by the 1986-87 Budget. (2) What was the objective of each of the opinion polls and what did each cost. (3) Who was commissioned to undertake each opinion poll. (4) Are the results of each opinion poll publicly available. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) $34,640 (2) to (4) The information is provided in the attached schedule. (2) (3) (4) Opinion Poll Title Opinion Poll Objective Cost of Poll $ Name of Organisation Commissioned to Conduct the Poll Are Results Publicly Available Awareness of Australia Day To assess the Australian community's awareness of and participation in organised/non organised Australia Day celebration activities (26 January 1987) 1,940 McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd Yes. Full details not published but available from Department. Media Release issued 24 February 1987. Survey of proposed changes to ACTION Route Network and Services To seek public opinion on proposals to change ACTION route network and timetables 12,700 Conducted in-house Yes. Results made public in newspaper advertisements and available through ACTION Liaison Committee. Survey of ACTION users To determine the views of patrons on services provided by ACTION. (Conducted as part of a broader Public Transport Study aimed at determining public transport requirements in the ACT over the next 10 years. The Survey was part of a public consultation process which included discussions with community groups and public seminars) Cannot be established (Survey was an integral part of the public Transport Consultancy) Undertaken by a consortium of consultants headed by Scott and Furphy Engineers. The public consultation process was undertaken by Lansley Hayes &Storer Yes. Released to public and given significant publicity in public seminars and through ACTION Liaison Committee. Results also incorporated in the final Study Report. Twentieth Century Masters Exhibition-Visitor Survey To determine views of patrons 20,000 Neilsen Associates Canberra Yes. Details available from Australian National Gallery. Total... 34,640 (Question No. 405) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: (1) What action has the Government taken since 1985 to prevent over-exploitation of krill stocks in the Antarctic. (2) On what estimates of the krill population is the Government basing its policy action. (3) Is the Government satisfied with the information and estimates presently available on krill stocks. (4) Is it a fact, as claimed by the Senior Lecturer in Zoology at Monash University, that original estimates of krill may have been optimistic by a factor between 10 and 50. (5) What research program is the Antarctic Division undertaking on the (a) extent of krill stocks in Antarctic waters, particularly in the Mawson/Davis area, (b) effect on krill stocks of the activities of Soviet fishing vessels in the Mawson/Davis area, (c) effect of reduced stocks of krill on the population of whales, seals and other species and (d) effects of krill depletions on basic relationships within the Antarctic ecosystem. (6) On what estimates of annual krill catch statistics is the Government basing its policy approach. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) It is the Government's policy to work through the Commission established under the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to manage krill and other stocks in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica, so that any harvesting and associated activities in the Convention Area are conducted in accordance with Article II of the Convention, which provides for conservation, including rational use, of Antarctic marine living resources. In annual meetings of the Commission, Australia has played a leading role in seeking strong conservation measures, including initiating in 1985, the development of a conservation strategy to prevent over-exploitation of Antarctic marine living resources, including krill. (2) (3) and (4) The best available estimates of krill stocks are provided by scientific research undertaken by CCAMLR member nations, including Australia. The current estimate of krill population is in the order of one hundred million tonnes. However, an accurate method for calculating the total Antarctic krill population has yet to be developed. Estimates are difficult to make because the biology of krill, is not fully known and because the swarming behaviour of krill, which is not fully understood, causes marked variations in their distribution. Early estimates of the total stock, or biomass, of krill in Southern Ocean were derived from analyses of the stomach contents of predators, such as whales, seabirds and seals, and subsequently by extrapolation from net surveys. These were never considered by scientists as providing an accurate basis for estimates, and with continuing refinement of the techniques of estimation there has been a revision downwards of estimates of the biomass of krill in the Southern Ocean, originally projected as one thousand million tonnes, to about one hundred million tonnes. Several CCAMLR nations including Australia are using hydroacoustic methods to determine the distribution and abundance of krill. Biological studies are also being conducted on the growth and longevity of individual specimens, the distribution of adult and juvenile animals and swarming behaviour. These are all areas of research in which Australia has concentrated its efforts. (5) (a) In the vicinity of Mawson and Davis stations (the Prydz Bay region) Australia conducts intensive net sampling and acoustic surveys. The Antarctic Division has conducted six major marine science cruises to this region. This field work has been supplemented by long-term laboratory studies on live krill maintained in the cold rooms of the Antarctic Division Headquarters in Tasmania. The Antarctic Division was the first laboratory in the world to raise krill from eggs collected in the field. The results of this work have been published in internationally recognized scientific journals, and include over thirty individual papers. (b) The USSR reported to the Commission that Soviet vessels during 1986-87 took 29,557 tonnes of krill in the Mawson/Davis area. As the result of Australian initiatives CCAMLR is developing an Ecosystem Monitoring Program aimed at detecting the effects of fishing on other components of the ecosystem. As part of this Program the Antarctic Division is establishing a new small study area between Mawson and Davis which will allow changes in the abundance and population structure of krill and their causes to be monitored. While the area is ideally located to determine the effect of fishing on krill, it may be that the large scale seasonal fluctuations in krill abundance due to natural phenomena will mask the effects of the fishing activity. (c) and (d) Australia is conducting ongoing research on the diet and ecology of a number of predator species, including Crabeater seals and Adelie and Emperor penguins. This work will contribute to the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program. There is no evidence that fishing of krill has reached a level that will adversely affect stocks of whales, seals and other species, or that it is affecting the basic relationships of the Antarctic ecosystem. (6) Preliminary figures on krill catches for the year 1986-87 were provided by member nations to the 1987 Meeting of the Commission. These figures indicate that 376,527 tonnes were landed in total by the krill fishing nations, compared with 445,673 tonnes in 1985-87. (Question No. 428) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) Is the Minister able to say what State and federal schemes currently are available to encourage and assist city children from low income families to visit national parks and world heritage areas in Australia. (2) Will the Minister encourage these schemes. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) I think the honourable member would be aware that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the National Parks and Wildlife Services in the States and Territories encourage and facilitate visits to the national parks and other protected areas which they manage. I suggest that the availability of rangers and other parks resources for school visits, the special school holiday programs, and the provision of barbecues and other recreation facilities are designed to encourage and assist city children and low income families to visit and admire our natural heritage. While I do not have details of these services and facilities, I am sure that the various National Parks and Wildlife Services would welcome inquiries from the Honourable Member. I am aware of two other programs of some relevance to the honourable member's inquiry. Firstly, in 1985, the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism funded a pilot Bush Recreation Program which was run by the Brisbane Forest Park. This scheme aimed to give newly arrived migrant and refugee children an understanding and appreciation of the Australian environment whilst also developing linguistic skills and self-confidence. Secondly, I understand that the Victorian Department of Sport and Recreation operates a scheme which assists groups of low income families to visit residential camps, some of which are adjacent to national parks. (2) The Government encourages the provision of visitor services and facilities in national parks and World Heritage Areas, consistent with the proper management and conservation objectives of those areas. (Question No. 471) Mr Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 November 1987: (1) Does the Minister have responsibility for the Australian Environment Council (a) Advisory Committee on Chemicals in the Environment (b) Chemicals Consultative Committee and (c) Chemicals Review Sub Committee. (2) Do those committees meet regularly; if so, how often do they meet. (3) Who are the members of these committees. (4) What are the titles and qualifications of the members of these committees. (5) Are the members of these committees elected or appointed. (6) What is their tenure on these committees. (7) Have these committees submitted (a) reports on the impact of, (b) findings as a result of investigations into, (c) conclusions on evidence submitted on, and (d) recommendations as a result of examinations of (i) organochlorine pesticides, including aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor and (ii) polychlorinated biphenyls in the environment; if so, when were they completed. (8) Will the Minister present that information to the Parliament; if not, why not. (9) What action has been taken on any reports, findings, conclusions and recommendations from these committees. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories is a member of the Australian Environment Council (AEC), the other members of which are the State and Territory Ministers for the Environment. The chairmanship of the Council, which is taken by each member in turn, is held this year by Queensland. The Secretariat of the Council is provided by the Commonwealth in the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. The Council provides a forum for inter-government co-operation and consultation on national environmental matters. The Advisory Committee on Chemicals in the Environment (ACCE), the Chemicals Consultative Committee (CCC) and the Chemicals Review Sub-Committee (CRSC) are sub-committees reporting to the Standing Committee of AEC. (2) ACCE meets regularly, usually two or three times a year. CCC and CRSC meet less frequently, as necessary to deal with the business at hand. (3) to (6) The members of the ACCE are nominated by the Commonwealth, State and Territory member agencies of AEC, and by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Agricultural Council, and the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. CCC comprises some of the members of ACCE and representatives nominated by three chemical industry associations, the Australian Conservation Foundation, and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. CRSC comprises members with expertise relevant to the performance of assessments of the potential environmental hazards of industrial chemicals. The membership has been recommended by ACCE and approved by the AEC Standing Committee. Because of the volume of the material, the details on individual committee members and other information about the committees are being provided separately to the honourable member. Details of the academic qualifications of members are not readily obtainable. The tenure of members is indefinite, but the AEC committee structure and the make-up of the membership of committees is kept under review by the AEC Standing Committee. (7) and (9) In relation to 7 (i), ACCE, CRSC and CCC have not submitted reports on organochlorine pesticides; nor have they been requested to do so. The Australian Agricultural Council (AAC) has the primary role in national consultations on and clearance of the use of pesticides, and State and Territory authorities are responsible for registration and control of these substances. The Australian Environment Council is represented on the relevant technical committees of AAC. Concerning 7 (ii), a consultant report on `Environmental behaviour of PCBs' was provided to AEC by the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories in 1975. ACCE has periodically addressed the issue of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the environment, most recently in connection with a Decision of the OECD Council (adopted in 1987) which would increase constraints upon the use of PCBs. ACCE recommended Australia should become party to the Decision. Since 1973 the Commonwealth has controlled the importation of PCBs; in practice importation ceased several years ago. PCBs are being removed progressively from electrical equipment. State and Territory authorities strictly regulate the storage and disposal of PCB wastes. In large part through the efforts of ACCE, AEC has been focusing upon means for disposal of organochlorine chemical wastes, including PCBs and pesticides. The relevant reports issued by AEC have been: `Management and disposal of hazardous industrial wastes', 1983; `Discussion paper on disposal of stable organo-chlorine and related chemical wastes', 1985; and `National guidelines for the management of hazardous wastes', 1986. AEC has strongly supported the joint sponsorship by the Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian Governments of an independent taskforce on disposal of intractable chemical wastes. (8) The AEC reports on hazardous wastes are available from the Parliamentary Library. The 1975 AEC report on PCBs is obtainable from my Department's library. (Question No. 494) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) Did he say in an interview with Mr P. Bosley on Radio 2UE on 4 August 1987 that the Government has an agreement with the Australian Rugby Union that rebel players travelling to South Africa would be banned for life from playing representative rugby; if so, will he provide details of the agreement, including when it was signed. (2) If the agreement was not signed, how was it concluded. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The question refers to statements allegedly made by the previous Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown. I am not aware of what was said in Mr Brown's interview with Mr Bosley. No agreement in the terms reported by the honourable member exists between the Government and the Australian Rugby Union. (Question No. 495) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) Did he say in an interview with Mr P. Bosley on Radio 2UE on 4 August 1987 that Australia is a part of the world rugby organisation that has banned contact with South Africa; if so, can he give details of this arrangement and say when and by whom he was informed of it. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The question refers to statements allegedly made by the previous Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown. I am not aware of what was said in Mr Brown's interview with Mr Bosley. (Question No. 496) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) Did he say in an interview with Mr D. Lord on Radio 2KY on 8 August 1987 that there have been video tapes played on Australian television of official spokesmen talking about the official Australian team playing official tests against South Africa. (2) Has he seen these tapes; if so, when. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The question refers to statements allegedly made by the previous Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown. I am not aware of what was said in Mr Brown's interview with Mr Lord, nor am I aware of any video tapes relating to the playing of official tests against South Africa. (Question No. 525) Mr Cobb asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) How many persons have been employed administering aspects of Aboriginal affairs in each Department in each year since its establishment. (2) How many persons now are employed in these areas of these Departments and what positions do they hold. (3) How many of these persons classify themselves as Aboriginal. Mr Willis —The following answer to the honourable member's question is based on advice provided by departments specifically concerned with the administration of programs for Aboriginals: (1) Department of Aboriginal Affairs This Department was established on 19 December 1972 with a staff establishment of 957. In subsequent years at 30 June, the staffing level was: 1973-606 1974-702 (+753 industrial staff working on former Aboriginal reserves in the NT) 1975-811 (+592 industrial) 1976-814 (+372 industrial) 1977-783 (+266 industrial) 1978-783 (+176 industrial) 1979-763 (+89 industrial) 1980-770 (+32 industrial) 1981-650 1982-604 1983-631 1984-676 1985-688 1986-690 1987-703 Department of Employment, Education and Training This Department was established on 24 July 1987 and has 566 staff employed in areas specifically related to the administration of Aboriginal affairs. Many of the Department's programs are targeted to those who are disadvantaged in education and the labour market and therefore involve serving the Aboriginal population. Department of Community Services and Health This Department was established on 24 July 1987 and has 45 staff whose duties are wholly or in part related specifically to the administration of Aboriginal affairs. Attorney-General's Department This Department does not have any officers employed in areas specifically related to administration of Aboriginal affairs. However, since November 1987, 2 officers have been involved with the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (see answer to Question 2). (2) Department of Aboriginal Affairs At 30 November 1987 the staffing level of the Department stood at 676. A breakdown of staffing levels and positions as at 30 June each year is available in the Department's annual reports. The most recent report is for 1986-87. Department of Employment, Education and Training At 29 July 1987, 312 persons were employed in Aboriginal Education areas and they held the following positions: Senior Executive Service Level 2- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 11- 2 Clerical Administrative Class 10- 4 Clerical Administrative Class 9- 13 Clerical Administrative Class 8- 15 Clerical Administrative Class 7- 37 Clerical Administrative Class 6- 99 Clerical Administrative Class 5- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 4- 49 Clerical Administrative Class 2/3- 27 Clerical Administrative Class 1- 3 Clerical Assistant Grade 5- 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 4- 39 Clerical Assistant Grade 3- 5 Clerical Assistant Grade 2- 12 Clerical Assistant Grade 1- 1 Word Processing Operator Grade 2- 2 Steno-Secretary Grade 1- 1 At 30 November 1987, 254 persons were employed in Aboriginal Employment areas and they held the following positions: Senior Executive Service Level 2- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 11- 3 Clerical Administrative Class 10- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 9- 13 Clerical Administrative Class 8- 12 Clerical Administrative Class 7- 57 Clerical Administrative Class 6- 12 Clerical Administrative Class 5- 109 Clerical Administrative Class 4- 11 Clerical Administrative Class 2/3- 2 Clerical Assistant Grade 6- 25 Clerical Assistant Grade 4- 4 Clerical Assistant Grade 3- 2 Clerical Assistant Grade 2- 1 Steno-Secretary Grade 2- 1 Department of Community Services and Health At 31 January 1988 officers held positions in the following areas of the Department at the levels shown: Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Medical Officer Class 3- 1 Medical Officer Class 2- 1 National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (Aboriginal program) Clerical Administrative Class 9 (project officer)- 1 People with Disabilities who need Additional Assistance Clerical Administrative Class 9 (Disability Services)- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 5 (Rehabilitation Services)- 7 Rental Housing Assistance for Aboriginals Clerical Administrative Class 9- 1 Children's Services Clerical Administrative Class 11- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 9- 2 Clerical Administrative Class 8- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 7- 7 Clerical Administrative Class 6- 9 Clerical Administrative Class 5- 10 Clerical Administrative Class 4- 1 Clerical Administrative Class 2/3- 1 Clerical Assistant Grade 3- 1 Attorney-General's Department Since 30 November 1987 approximately 75% of the time of one Senior Legal Officer (SLO) and 15% of the time of one Principal Legal Officer (PLO) have been devoted to administering the provision of legal aid to Aboriginal families for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is expected that, for the duration of the Commission, one SLO and one clerical assistant will be employed full time on legal aid for Aboriginal families. In addition the Department has since 14 December 1987, employed one PLO as the Solicitor instructing counsel assisting the Royal Commission. (3) Department of Aboriginal Affairs At 30 November 1987 the Department's staff included 233 Aboriginals. Department of Employment, Education and Training At 30 November 1987, 354 persons employed administering aspects of Aboriginal affairs classified themselves as Aboriginal. Department of Community Services and Health At 31 January 1988, 17 persons employed administering aspects of Aboriginal affairs classified themselves as Aboriginals. Attorney-General's Department At 14 December 1987 no officers involved with the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody classified themselves as Aboriginal. (Question No. 560) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: Is the Minister able to say what sum is being spent annually by the tobacco industry in the sponsorship of Australian sport. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No. However, tobacco industry figures provided by the Tobacco Institute of Australia indicate that the industry spent over $14 million on sports sponsorship in 1987. (Question No. 561) Mr Rocher asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 9 December 1987: (1) What (a) Commonwealth public property, including parks, forests and land reserves, (b) State public property and (c) private property, in Western Australia has been listed by the Commonwealth as having particular value to the National Estate. (2) Were the listings undertaken at the behest of (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the WA State Government or (c) private groups, bodies and individuals. (3) Do WA State Government authorities co-operate with the Minister's Department in the identification of areas to be listed and in the preparation of the listings. (4) What procedure is followed in considering potential sites for listing. (5) What is the effect of completing a listing. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In replying to this question I am conscious of the considerable resource cost which would have been involved in obtaining all the detailed information sought together with the Government's commitment to containing public expenditure and to sensible use of resources. I have therefore provided information only where the cost of obtaining the information is considered a reasonable use of resources. I have indicated in my reply those parts of the question I consider would have involved undue and inappropriate use of resources. (1) All places in Western Australia entered in the Register of the National Estate and the list of places publicly proposed by the Australian Heritage Commission for entry in the Register (Interim List), fall into these 3 categories. There are 921 places in Western Australia in the Register and 18 in the Interim List. Ownership of places is not central to the Commission's decision on the National Estate significance of a place and, although ownership at the time of entry is known in many cases, such records are not updated. To provide an up-to-date accurate breakdown of the 939 places listed some of which contain large numbers of separate properties, would require substantial research of local government and title office records and would involve undue and inappropriate use of resources. (2) Nominations have been made by bodies/individuals in all three categories. (3) Nominations have been made by Government departments and authorities. All nominations received for places in Western Australia are referred to the State Government Heritage Committee, which co-ordinates comments from all relevant State departments and authorities, and to the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. (4) The first step in the listing process is an examination by Commission staff of the adequacy of information in the nomination form. The second step involves an assessment of the national estate significance of the place. This is carried out in a number of ways depending on the expertise of the nominator, the availability of information from previous assessments and the existing heritage status of the place in question. Assessments may be carried out by: referral of the nomination to an expert panel referral to government or voluntary expert bodies review of existing information. The Commission as a whole considers all nominations at formal meetings of the Commission. All information accumulated is available to the Commission in making its decision. When considering a nomination for a place, the Commission examines only its significance in national estate terms. It does not consider current or proposed ownership, management or use of the place. If the Commission decides that a place should be entered in the Register, it must advertise its intention to register the place by public notice in the Press and in the Commonwealth Gazette. Any person may object to that proposal within three months of publication of the notice. The final step in the process is the entry of the place in the Register which again requires public notification. The Commission advises owners, local governments, State governments and Commonwealth departments and authorities of its intentions and decisions. (5) The Register has a direct protective role only in relation to actions proposed by the Commonwealth which might adversely affect the National Estate. The general purpose of the Register is to alert and educate all Australians to the existence of places of national estate significance and to provide an essential reference and a working tool for balancing conservation and development decisions. The Commission is willing to provide information on the significance of registered places to any inquirer. As a protective inventory, the effects of registration relate only to actions by the Commonwealth Government. The duties of Ministers, departments and authorities are set out in section 30 of the Act. In summary section 30 requires that: (1) Ministers ensure that their own actions and those of their departments and authorities do not adversely affect the national estate values of places in the Register unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives and, if there are no such alternatives, unless all measures are taken to minimise the effect. The Minister's actions to achieve these ends must be consistent with any relevant laws. (2) Authorities of the Commonwealth, in relation to their own actions, take similar steps to those described in (1). (3) Before a Minister, department of authority takes any action that might significantly affect the national estate value of a place in the Register, they must inform the Commission and give it a reasonable opportunity to consider the proposed action. The statement of significance for each place in the Register provides the basis for the Commission's conservation advice to Commonwealth Ministers and bodies. (Question No. 622) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February, 1988: Further to his answer to parts (3) to (7) of question No. 332 (Hansard, 8 December 1987, page 3030); (a) is the liquidator to the NAC accountable to the Parliament and Government; and (b) when will the answers to these questions be available from the liquidator. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No, the Liquidator was appointed by the Federal Court under the provisions of the Companies Act 1981. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 376 and 382 of the Companies Act 1981 and Section 62 of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 the Liquidator is only required to provide a preliminary report and a copy of the order of the release of the Liquidator to the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations. (b) The Liquidator has now provided a reply to my Department's request for information regarding the NAC as foreshadowed in my answer to Q332. The general thrust of his reply is as follows: (i) the Liquidator has provided evaluations of the assets held by the NAC totalling an estimated realisable value in the region of $400,000; (ii) the Liquidator has advised that ``substantially, all of the assets, equipment and funds held in each of the regional and national offices of the NAC at the time of the winding-up have been realised''. He further advises that miscellaneous office furniture, plant and equipment with an estimated realisable value of $8,856 has not been realised as yet; (iii) in relation to bank accounts held by the NAC at the time of the wind-up, the Liquidator has advised-``All known bank accounts of the National Aboriginal Conference have been recovered. To date, the only exception being an amount to the Creditors of the Lands Needs Conference, Queensland which, it appears, should be returned to the Aboriginal Development Commission being an unexpended portion of a grant. These moneys are currently invested in an Interest Bearing Deposit''; (iv) regarding recovery of NAC assets the Liquidator has advised ``. . . the realisation strategy was: (a) to offer the asset to the various Aboriginal organisations holding them at valuation; (b) if satisfactory arrangements could not be made, the items were collected and disposed of at public auction. In a large number of cases when the Aboriginal Corporation of the National Aboriginal Conference ceased, the assets of the particular locations were dispersed to other Aboriginal groups in the locality''. The above answers were prepared based on advice received from the Liquidator. It has not been possible to answer the questions in the depth sought by Mr Hunt from that advice. (Question No. 671) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total budgeted expenditure in 1987-88 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What has been the actual expenditure to date in 1987-88 on each area referred to in part (1). (3) Is it estimated that expenditure on these areas in 1987-88 will be under or over budget; if so, by what sum will it be under or over budget and what is the reason for the discrepancy. (4) What has been the expenditure by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister on (a) job advertising and (b) other advertising. (5) What major advertising projects, campaigns or information campaigns have been undertaken, are being undertaken or are being planned, and in each case, (a) what was the cost of each project, (b) who undertook the project, (c) how were they selected, (d) were public tenders called and (e) which firms were invited to tender. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $1,531,500 (b) $3,695,115 (c) $107,685 (2) As at 18 April 1988 actual expenditure was as follows: (a) $1,498,708 (b) $1,808,893 (c) $78,800 (3) It is estimated that expenditure on these areas in 1987-88 will be under budget only in as much as there will be a carryover of funding into 1988-89 to complete the major campaigns surrounding the Family Allowance Supplement and the Child Support Scheme. (4) (a) Non campaign advertising, covering job advertising and public notices calling for submissions to tender, submissions to enquiries, responses to Social Security Review Papers and announcements of visiting services has cost $179,832 to 18 April 1988. (b) Other advertising has cost $1,318,876 to 18 April 1988. (5) Two major campaigns being undertaken by the Department during 1987-88 are the Family Allowance Supplement (FAS) campaign and the Child Support Scheme (CSS) campaign. (a) $1.6m has currently been allocated for the FAS campaign. $1.09m has currently been allocated for the CSS campaign. (b) The FAS campaign is being organised and implemented by the Department with advertising placement carried out by the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). The CSS campaign is being undertaken in consultation with the public relations firm of Lee Patterson and Associates and IHJ Advertising. (c) The consultant was selected on the recommendation of a committee composed of representatives from the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office, the Attorney-General's Department, the Family Court and the Information Co-ordination Branch of the Department of Administrative Services. (d) Public tenders were not called. (e) The Information Co-ordination Branch of DAS invited expressions of interest from the following organisations: Dalziel, Harper &Grey/Grey Buchan Public Relations; Box, Archer &Emery/Turnbull Public Relations; Lee Patterson and Associates/IHJ Advertising; Scali McCabe Sloves/Hill Knowlton Public Relations. (Question No. 703) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Which firms or organisations have undertaken public relations campaigns on behalf of the Minister's Department. (2) How was each firm or organisation selected. (3) Were public tenders called; if not, (a) why not and (b) what other procedure has been adopted for inviting firms to quote. (4) Which firms or organisations undertook research projects, and in each instance, (a) what was the cost of each project and (b) how long did it take to complete. (5) Will the Minister provide copies of the results of each survey and details of the questions asked. (6) How were firms selected for this research work. (7) Was there a public tender; if not, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Lee Patterson and Associates/IHJ Advertising. (2) See answer to Question 671-5 (c). (3) No. (a) Finance Regulation 52aa (2) Appendix A stipulates that public relations firms and consultancy services are exempt from the public tendering process (b) See answer to Question 671-5 (e). (4) Frank Small and Associates Reark Research Co (a) Two projects were carried out by Frank Small and Associates to assess requirements for Family Assistance Supplement forms-one for $10,000 and the other for $8,000. Reark Research Co carried out an evaluation of the Unemployment Benefits Continuation Form, at a cost of $24,800 (b) Each FAS project took four weeks to complete while the Unemployment Benefits Continuation Form evaluation took 10 weeks. (5) A copy of each of the two research project reports has been supplied to the honourable member. (6) The Department sought approval from the Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) of the Department of Administrative Services to engage Frank Small and Associates because of the timeframe involved and the particular experience and expertise of the company. In the case of the Reark Research Co, expressions of interest were invited from four organisations and the contract awarded according to standard procedures for appointing research organisations. (7) No, the standard ICB procedures for appointing market research organisations, involving the calling of competitive submissions from three to five agencies, were used. (Question No. 719) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) What was the total expenditure in 1986-87 by the Minister's Department and instrumentalities and organisations responsible to the Minister, for (a) advertising, (b) public relations and (c) opinion research. (2) What were the major items in the advertising budget. (3) What were the major public relations initiatives. (4) What subjects were covered by the opinion research. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $631,080 (b) $1,390,954 (c) $29,800 (2) The major items in the advertising budget for 1986-87 were the amendments detailing the Social Security amnesty and changes to benefits and pension eligibility arising from the 1986-87 Budget. (3) The major public relations initiatives were the publication of a range of information leaflets and posters promoting details of benefits, pensions, allowances and services provided by the Department. (4) Subjects covered by opinion research were the information needs of sole parent pensioners, low income families, the effectiveness of the New Admission Procedures and the impact of existing brochures and leaflets. (Question No. 735) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, 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 Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) It is understood that Mr P. Adams is a principal of the Government's master placement agency for electronic media, Mojo MDA. My colleague, the Minister for Administrative Services will provide further details. (b) to (d) No. (2) to (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 759) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1988: (1) How many visits have been made by RAN ships to the Antarctic region in each year from 1982 to 1987. (2) How many sailing days within the region were involved in these visits. (3) How many ships does the RAN have with ice strengthened capacity. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) One only in 1985. (2) Two-one en route to Macquarie Island and one on departure. (3) None. (Question No. 19) Mr Reith asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Has the Australian Sports Commission published information pamphlets entitled ``Sport and the Law'' and ``Taxation and Sport'' based on projects undertaken by the Commission. (2) What is the cost of publication and distribution of both pamphlets. (3) Has the Commission commissioned an investigation into the impact of income tax on sport; if so, (a) what is the cost of the investigation, (b) who has undertaken it and (c) will the results of it be made public. Mr Punch —Senator Richardson has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Australian Sports Commission has published booklets entitled ``Taxation and Sport'' and ``Sport and the Law-Liability''. (2) The cost of the ``Taxation and Sport'' booklet was $641. The cost of the ``Sport and the Law'' booklet was $4,958. The cost of distribution of ``Taxation and Sport'' was $550.50. The cost of distribution of ``Sport and the Law'' was $900. (3) In 1985 the Australian Sports Commission funded an investigation into the impact of income tax on Australian sport. Entitled ``Taxation and Sportspersons Study'', this was undertaken by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell &Co. at a total cost of $45,000. The text of the report was not made public but a system of tax averaging for sportspersons was subsequently introduced in the 1986 Budget. In April 1987 the Sport and Recreation Ministers' Council commissioned a further study on anomalies in the area of taxation and sport. This is being undertaken by the Australian Sports Commission in conjunction with Peat Marwick Hungerford Management Consultants, whose services are being paid for by the Sport and Recreation Ministers' Council at an estimated cost of $5,000. The Council will determine whether or not the results of the study are to be made public. (Question No. 201) Mr Cobb asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) What are the names of all those appointed to the Constitutional Commission and their areas of responsibility. (2) What criteria were used for selection of each appointee to the Commission. (3) What remuneration has been paid to each appointee. (4) What travel costs have been incurred by each appointee. (5) What are the details of other costs incurred by the Commission, including costs of printing bulletins. (6) What is the total cost of the Commission. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question which was published on 18 February 1988 in Weekly Hansard on page 366 omitted certain information. The amended answer is as follows: (1) The following appointments have been made to the Constitutional Commission and the Advisory Committees to the Commission: CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION Sir Maurice Byers, C.B.E., Q.C. Former Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth (Chairman) Professor Enid Campbell, O.B.E., Faculty of Law, Monash University. The Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer, K.C.M.G., Former Premier of Victoria. The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, A.C., Q.C., Former Prime Minister. Professor Leslie Zines, Faculty of Law, Australian National University. The Hon. Mr Justice Toohey, A.O., then a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, was a member of the Commission until 31 December 1986 when he resigned in view of his appointment as a Justice of the High Court of Australia. EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Rt Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen, A.K., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.St.J., Q.C., Former Governor-General of Australia (Chairman). The Hon. Sir James Killen, K.C.M.G., Former Federal Minister (Deputy Chairman). The Hon. K. E. Beazley (Snr), A.O., Former Federal Minister (Resigned 10 August 1986). Emeritus Professor D. Horne, A.O., School of Political Science, University of New South Wales. Professor G. G. Winterton, Associate Professor of Law, University of New South Wales. Mr D. Solomon, Barrister, journalist and author. The Hon. J. Wheeldon, Former Federal Minister, presently Associate Editor, The ``Australian''. Ms S. Kenny, Barrister. DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Hon. Sir John Moore, A.C., Former President, Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Chairman). The Hon. H. Storey, Q.C., M.L.C., Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Legislative Council and Shadow Minister for Education; former Victorian Attorney-General. The Hon. D. A. Dunstan, A.C., Q.C., Former South Australian Premier. Mr G. Polites, A.C., C.M.G., M.B.E., Former Director-General, Confederation of Australian Industry. The Hon. J. Ferguson, A.O., Former Deputy Premier of New South Wales. Mr G. J. Lindell, Reader in Law, Australian National University. Mr P. Munro, Former Secretary, Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (Resigned 30 June 1986). Dr B. Greighton, Legal Officer, ACTU (Appointed 31 October 1986). TRADE AND NATIONAL ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Hon. M. G. Everett, Former Judge of the Federal Court of Australia and President of the Inter-State Commission, former Senator for and Deputy Premier of Tasmania (Chairman). The Hon. Dr R. A. Patterson, Former Federal Minister. Professor M. Cooper, Associate Professor of Law, University of New South Wales. Mr R. D. E. Bakewell, Former South Australian Ombudsman and Permanent Head of the Premier's Department of South Australia. Alderman the Hon. H. G. Percival, O.B.E., M.L.C., Member of Executive, Australian Council of Local Government Associations. Ms P. J. Smith, Policy and Public Affairs Manager, Australian Consumers' Association. Mr M. Burrows, Principal and Partner of Baring Bros., Halkerston &Partners Ltd, Merchant Bankers. INDIVIDUAL AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Mr T. Purcell, Director, New South Wales Law Foundation (Chairman). Dr P. Totaro, A.M., Chairman, NSW Ethnic Affairs Commission. Mr A. R. Castan, Q.C., President, Victorian Council for Civil Liberties. Mr P. Garrett, Entertainer. Professor E. P. Willmot, A.M., Chief Executive Officer, ACT Schools Authority; Former Head, School of Education, James Cook University and Deputy Secretary, Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr T. M. Keneally, A.O., F.R.S.L., Author. Mr R. Clarke, Journalist. Ms R. Galbally, Director, Commission for the Future. AUSTRALIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Hon. D. F. Jackson, Q.C., Former Judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Chairman). The Hon. Mr Justice R. McGarvie, Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Hon. Mr Justice W. M. C. Gummow, Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. Mr R. C. Jennings, Q.C., Deputy President, Administrative Appeals Tribunal and former Tasmanian Solicitor-General. The Hon. Mr Justice G. A. Kennedy, Judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Professor J. R. Crawford, Challis Professor of International Law, Sydney University, and member of the Law Reform Commission. (2) The members of the Constitutional Commission and its Advisory Committees were selected because of their prominence in public affairs, their wide ranging experience and their strong links with various sections of the community. People from all walks of life were appointed to the Commission and its Advisory Committees in an attempt to encourage effective communication with the general public and with the particular constituencies with which they have some affinity. (3) The Constitutional Commission has advised that at 30 September 1987 the following remuneration, by way of sitting fees, has been paid to each Commission appointee: (a) Commissioners $ Sir Maurice Byers Q.C. ... 62,250 Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer ... 17,797 Hon. Mr Gough Whitlam Q.C. ... 7,282 Prof Leslie Zines ... 11,874 (1) Prof Enid Campbell ... Nil (2) Hon. Mr Justice Toohey ... Nil (3,4) 99,203 (b) Committee members $ Mr R. Bakewell ... 7,755 Hon. K. Beazley ... 400 (4) Mr M. Burrows ... 6,115 Mr R. Castan Q.C. ... 7,355 Mr R. Clarke ... 4,060 Associate Prof M. Coper ... 10,415 Rt. Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen Q.C. 1,218 Prof J. Crawford ... 5,105 Dr B. Creighton ... 4,530 Hon. Mr D. Dunstan Q.C. ... 3,465 Hon. M. G. Everett ... Nil (3) Hon. Mr J. Ferguson ... 5,715 Ms. R. Galbally ... Nil (5) Mr P. Garrett ... Nil (6) Hon. Mr Justice Gummow ... 1,285 (3) (7) Prof D. Horne ... 6,795 Hon. D. Jackson Q.C. ... Nil (3) Mr R. Jennings Q.C. ... 8,580 Mr T. Keneally ... 5,515 Hon. Mr Justice Kennedy ... Nil (3) Ms S. Kenny ... Nil (8) Hon. Sir James Killen ... 3,725 Mr G. Lindell ... 6,735 Hon. Mr Justice McGarvie ... Nil (3) Hon. Sir John Moore ... 8,785 Mr P. Munro ... 1,000 (4) Hon. Dr R. Patterson ... 9,605 Hon. H. Percival ... 5,705 Mr G. Polites ... 8,790 Mr T. Purcell ... 14,985 Ms P. Smith ... 5,085 Mr D. Solomon ... 6,555 Hon. H. Storey ... 600 (9) Dr P. Totaro ... 4,495 Hon. Mr J. Wheeldon ... 2,035 Prof Willmot ... 1,625 Associate Prof Winterton ... 6,955 Total B ... 164,538 Total A &B ... 263,741 NOTES: (1) Until 30 April 1987 the Australian National University was reimbursed for Professor Zines' service on a one-third basis (one-third of salary and on-costs) plus 20 hours per week secretarial assistance. For the 15 months ending 30 April 1987 the cost was $38,699.93. Approval has been granted to vary the secondment from one-third to one-half time for the eight months ending December 1987. Professor Zines is paid sitting fees for Commission sitting days only. (2) Prior to 1 July 1986 Monash University was reimbursed for 50 per cent of Professor Campbell's on-costs and 50 per cent of the salary and on-costs of her secretary. Since 1 July 1986 Monash University has been reimbursed for Professor Campbell's services on a half-time basis, 50 per cent of salary and on-costs for her and her secretary. For the 17 months ending on 30 June 1987 the cost was $73,819.61. Professor Campbell does not receive sitting fees. (3) Judges of any jurisdiction are not entitled to sitting fees. (4) Resignations: Mr Justice Toohey-30 December 1986, Hon. K. Beazley-10 August 1986, Mr P. Munro-30 June 1986. (5) Ms R. Galbally is not entitled to a fee because she is a Commonwealth public servant. (6) Mr P. Garrett has not claimed sitting fees. (7) Mr Justice Gummow was entitled to sitting fees prior to his appointment to the Federal Court on 24 November 1986. (8) Ms Kenny (who is resident in Oxford, U.K.) has attended only 1 meeting, for which she had not been paid at 30 September 1987. (9) Mr H. Storey has claimed sitting fees for only three days. (4) The Constitutional Commission has advised that at 30 September 1987 the travel costs paid by the Commission for each Commission appointee (consisting of air fares and travel allowance but excluding car hire) are as follows: (a) Commissioners $ Sir Maurice Byers, Q.C. ... 5,525 Hon. Sir Rupert Hamer ... 11,312 Hon. Mr Gough Whitlam, Q.C. ... 12,277 Prof. Leslie Zines ... 4,788 Prof. Enid Campbell ... 8,093 Hon. Mr Justice Toohey ... 6,923 TOTAL A ... 48,918 (b) Committee members Mr R. Bakewell ... 16,072 Hon. Mr K. Beazley ... 3,713 Mr M. Burrows ... 2,312 Mr R. Castan, Q.C. ... 12,056 Mr R. Clarke ... 16,391 Associate Prof. M. Coper ... 1,310 Rt Hon. Sir Zelman Cowen ... 18,701 Prof. J. Crawford ... 415 Dr B. Creighton ... 7,973 Hon. Mr D. Dunstan, Q.C. ... 6,671 Hon. M. Everett ... 23,263 Hon. Mr J. Ferguson ... 3,639 Ms R. Galbally ... 4,520 Mr P. Garrett ... 1,613 Hon. Mr Justice Gummow ... 270 Prof. D. Horne ... 4,892 Hon. D. Jackson, Q.C. ... 7,464 Mr R. Jennings, Q.C. ... 16,429 Mr T. Keneally ... 5,578 Hon. Justice Kennedy ... 20,276 Ms S. Kenny ... 5,901 Hon. Sir James Killen ... 1,125 Mr G. Lindell ... 9,061 Hon. Mr Justice McGarvie ... 10,148 Hon. Sir John Moore ... 3,468 Mr P. Munro ... Nil Hon. Dr R. Patterson ... 39,519 Hon. H. Percival ... 1,697 Mr G. Polites ... 14,865 Mr T. Purcell ... 7,673 Ms P. Smith ... 765 Mr D. Solomon ... 17,745 Hon. H. Storey, Q.C. ... 8,973 Dr P. Totaro ... 1,242 Hon. Mr J. Wheeldon ... Nil Prof. Willmot ... 7,200 Associate Prof. Winterton ... 9,162 TOTAL B ... 312,102 TOTAL A &B ... 361,020 In addition, the Commission's care hire costs to 30 September 1987 were $56,739.59. These have not been broken down for each appointee as to do so would result in a significant diversion of the Commission's limited resources. (5) The Constitutional Commission has provided the details of its expenditure shown in Table 1. Figures for the 1985-86 and 1986-87 financial years represent actual expenditure, the amount shown for the 1987-88 financial year is the Commission's appropriation. Actual expenditure for the 1987-88 financial year to 30 September 1987 is $486,294, excluding rent. Rent of the Commission's premises ($20,300 per month) is paid by the Department of Administrative Services. Rent totalling $426,300 has been paid for the period February 1986 to October 1987. Included in the abovementioned figures is an amount of $34,806 being the cost of printing Bulletins (Nos 1-5). (6) The Constitutional Commission has advised that, excluding rent, the total running costs of the Commission to 30 September 1987 are $3,300,975, with the expected final cost being $5,106,051. A total $588,700 will be paid in rent for the Commission's life over the period February 1986 to June 1988. Table 1 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION EXPENDITURE 1985/86 Expenditure * 1986/87 Expenditure * 1987/88 Appropriation * $ $ $ (i) Commissioners' Remuneration ... 13,638 166,300 324,700 (ii) Committee Members' Remuneration ... 20,000 87,000 40,000 (iii) Travel: (a) Commissioners (b) Committee Members (c) Secretariat 124,577 38,200 320,500 103,000 80,000 17,500 70,000 (iv) Office Requisites ... 207,945 81,300 100,000 (v) Post/Telephones ... 6,221 189,000 200,000 (vi) Office Service ... 9,475 33,400 30,000 (vii) Incidentals: (a) Printing (b) Promotion/Advertising (c) Other 77,657 158,500 299,000 50,000 200,000 178,300 46,000 (viii) Computer Services ... 570 38,500 30,000 (ix) Consultants ... 15,100 152,500 287,500 475,183 1,718,000 1,604,000 Salaries ... 60,868 590,000 658,000 536,051 2,308,000 2,262,000 * excluding rent (Question No. 213) Mr Blunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) Why did the Governor-General's speech say that no Australian child need live in poverty when the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign that no child will live in poverty. (2) Are poverty traps created by the Family Allowance Supplement; if so, how are they caused and what is the extent of the traps. (3) If poverty traps are not caused by the supplement, why not. (4) When will the Child Support Agency be established. (5) How many persons will it employ. (6) Will additional staff need to be employed; if so, at what levels will these persons be employed. (7) What will be the cost of salaries. (8) What other expenses will be incurred by the Agency. (9) Will there be any increase in staff before 1997; if so, what will be the increase and when will it occur. (10) If there will not be any increase in staff, why not. (11) Does the Australian Taxation Office and its staff support the creation of the Child Support Agency within his Department. (12) How will the Child Support Agency function. (13) How will the Agency ensure the effective collection of maintenance payments. (14) How will the Agency work with the (a) Department of Social Security and (b) Family Court. (15) What security arrangements have been made for the Agency. (16) If security arrangements have not been made, why not. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The relevant consideration is that the Government has made a commitment. The commitment is expressed in terms of the achievement by 1990 of certain benchmarks between total payments for children in low income families (family allowance and the family allowance supplement (FAS)) and the combined married rate of pension. The target benchmarks are 15 per cent of the combined married pension rate for children under 13 years and 20 per cent for children aged 13 to 15. The benchmarks have been chosen following a thorough investigation by the Social Security Review of conditions in Australia and comparable countries. Once achieved, these benchmarks will be retained, ensuring that the real value of payments will not be eroded over time. (2) and (3) The FAS has provided a substantial boost to the disposable income for low and some middle income families with children. In order to target the FAS to those families most in need, the benefit needs to be withdrawn as income increases. As a consequence of this, it is possible for some middle income families with a taxpayer facing the 40 per cent marginal rate of tax (ie with annual income in excess of $19,500 pa) to suffer high effective marginal tax rates over a relatively narrow income band when an overlap of the FAS shade-out and the Medicare levy shade-in occurs. Compared with the numbers of the families receiving the FAS, very few families will be affected. To assist those affected the FAS was designed with some very flexible features. For example, family income can increase by up to 25 per cent over a 4 week period without affecting the family's current level of FAS payment. (4) The Child Support Agency (CSA) will commence operations as soon as possible after the enactment of enabling legislation. (5) The Agency's proposed average staffing level for the current financial year has been set at 73. Actual employment will depend on the start date and the rate of recruitment. (6) All additional staffing required by the Australian Taxation Office for CSA purposes will be contained within the ASL of 73 referred to above. The senior positions in branches of the Agency in State capitals have been classified (under the new Australian Public Service structures effective from 24 December 1987) at class 8 or class 7 levels depending on the size of the State, and operative positions are generally at class 3 level, with appropriate intermediate supervisory levels. (7) Estimated cost of salaries for 1987-88 is $2.38 million. (8) Administrative expenses for 1987-88 are estimated at $4.80 million. (9) Staffing will be reviewed annually having regard to operational requirements. Based on present estimates, staffing projections for 1988-89 and 1989-90 are 232 and 390 respectively. (10) See answer to (9) above. (11) The ATO is committed to ensuring efficient operation of the child support legislation as enacted by Parliament. (12) It is intended that initially the Agency will collect maintenance as ordered by the courts. Full details of the proposed operations are contained in the explanatory memorandum circulated on introduction of the Child Support Bill 1987. In a second phase, it is proposed that the Agency will determine maintenance liability according to an administrative formula as announced by the Minister for Social Security in his statement to Parliament on 24 March 1987. The Child Support Consultative Group appointed by the Government and headed by Justice Fogarty of the Family Court will make recommendations on various aspects of the proposed assessment procedure. (13) The CSA will collect maintenance payments based on tax collection mechanisms for employees, withholding deductions by employers and remitting on a monthly basis, in a similar manner to the PAYE system, will be the normal collection method. Other persons will be required to make monthly payments direct to the Agency. (14) The CSA will operate in conjunction with these agencies. It will identify potential cases requiring attention in cooperation with each agency and will pass maintenance collections on to the Department of Social Security for disbursement to payees. (15) and (16) Appropriate security arrangements have been developed in consultation with relevant unions. It is expected that CSA staff will have only limited direct contact with payers and payees. As necessary, security arrangements in line with those in place in Tax Office enquiry and interview areas will be used. (Question No. 330) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 26 October 1987: (1) To whom and how regularly have the details of the National Residue Survey been distributed since 1982. (2) What follow-up procedures have been implemented since 1982 when a violation or the presence of chemical residue has been detected. (3) What success has the Government had in tracing the source of a violation. (4) How often have the US, Canadian and Japanese authorities reviewed the adequacy of Australia's testing for chemical residues. (5) What has been (a) the results of the reviews and (b) Australia's response. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Residue summaries are produced quarterly as computer printouts and distributed to Central and Regional Offices of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy; the Commonwealth Departments of Community Services and Health and Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories; relevant committees established under Australian Agricultural Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council; commodity boards such as the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and the Australian Wheat Board; the Australian Chicken Meat Federation; the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories; State Departments of Agriculture; State Departments of Health; State Laboratories; the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia; the Veterinary Counsellors in Washington and Brussels; the United States Department of Agriculture; and Agriculture Canada. In addition, a detailed report is made once a year to the Agricultural Chemicals Committee, a subsidiary of Australian Agricultural Council. (2) Violative residues are reported to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy Regional Office in the State from which the sample was drawn. The Regional Office can make investigations to ensure that the residue was not due to in-plant contamination and take further samples from any stored product from the same production date and watch for further stock from the same property. A simultaneous report is made to the State Department of Agriculture which can trace the sample back to the farm of origin, conduct inquiries and investigations at farm level and take whatever action is appropriate. In some instances these actions are also taken for near-violative residues. Trace back procedures have been in place since well prior to 1982. (3) Tail-tagging of cattle and branding of pigs enable these species to be traced back to the farm of origin in the majority of cases. Sheep are less well identified and traceback is accordingly less successful. Fruits, vegetables and bulk commodities such as butter, milk, eggs and grain are more difficult to trace back to property of origin. This is a State government function and there are differences between the State procedures. (4) The United States Department of Agriculture has several reviewers resident in Australia. They are expected to monitor Australian residue survey procedures. Formal reviews were conducted by teams led by senior USDA officers in 1974, 1980, 1986, 1987 and again recently in 1988. Answers to a detailed questionnaire were provided in 1971, and a response to the so-called Farm Bill Questionnaire was forwarded to USDA in December 1987. Australia responded to a Canadian questionnaire in 1983. There have been no in-person reviews carried out by Canada. Japanese authorities have recently reviewed the Australian program. (5) (a) Australia has been deemed to be in compliance with the United States law which requires countries from which the United States imports meat to have standards of production at least equivalent to those of the United States itself. In 1986 the Office of the United States Inspector General queried Australia's regulatory control procedures which allow use of agricultural chemicals and veterinary drugs not permitted for use in United States; Australian maximum residue limits which differ from corresponding United States tolerances; the controls exercised in Australia over herds from which violative residues have been detected; and the departure from completely random sampling in certain areas of the National Residue Survey. (b) Australia has provided the US Department of Agriculture with written explanations and justifications for existing regulatory procedures and methods used for establishment of maximum residue limits. The Inspector General's report does not reflect the need for different farming practices in the two countries even though comparable though differing technologies are used. Australia has made a number of alterations to the analytical program and to sampling procedures used in the National Residue Survey. In view of past satisfaction with Australian residue monitoring, these recent queries may reflect increasing public pressure on government agencies in the United States, rather than any deterioration or deficiencies in the Australian system. Australia continues to liaise closely with the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the US Department of Agriculture through the Veterinary Counsellor in the Australian Embassy in Washington. (Question No. 757) Mr Downer asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 25 February 1988: (1) Is the Government undertaking an examination of the practice of the killing of wild pigs for sport; if so, what is the nature of that examination. Mr Punch —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No. This would be a matter, in the first place, for the relevant State and/or Territory Governments. (Question No. 795) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: (1) What is his Department doing to rectify the anomalous situation regarding the imposition of a 20% sales tax on the glue used in the small seed industry for securing palletised polythene bags to facilitate transportation. (2) Will he take action to exempt the glue that has been developed to supersede the strapping and adhesive tape originally used for this purpose as these materials are exempt under item No. 96 of the Sales Tax Exemptions. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The law does not provide an exemption for glue for use in the small seed industry to secure palletised polythene bags in the course of transportation. This situation is not limited to the small seed industry. Other industries using glue to stabilise goods during transportation also pay sales tax on the glue so used. (2) Item 96 in the First Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act provides exemption for strapping and adhesive tape of a kind used to wrap up or secure goods for marketing or delivery. Glue is a general purpose product that has a wide range of uses other than for the marketing and delivery of goods. It would be difficult to isolate glue used in the transportation of goods for marketing or delivery purposes from glue used for other purposes. In the circumstances I could not support an amendment to item 96 to exempt glue used in the marketing and delivery of goods. (Question No. 803) Mr Moore asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) What has been the increase in the price of (a) oranges and (b) orange juice in the last 6 months. (2) What sum did he, on behalf of the Government, donate towards the introduction and promotion of the orange growing industry in China on his last trip to that country. (3) What is the current duty payable on oranges imported into Australia. (4) What sum has the Government spent on the promotion of locally grown oranges in the last year. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Domestic prices for Valencia oranges for processing have risen from around $85/tonne in September 1987 to a current level of over $200/tonne, due to a seasonal shortage of processing oranges. This is a net increase for the period of some 147%. The world price of frozen orange juice concentrate has risen from $US1100/tonne in October 1987, to peak at $US1900 in January 1988. The price eased to $US1695 in February, giving a net increase for the period of 54%. (2) I made no new commitment of funds to the citrus growing industry in China during my last visit there. Since 1981 $4.118m has, however, been approved for a citrus demonstration project at Lingling in Hunan province via the Australian International Development Bureau. (3) The general rate of duty payable on imports of fresh oranges is 2%; no duty is payable on oranges imported from developing countries (DCs). Orange juice is subject to a duty of 10% (5% for DCs) plus $0.50/kg Total soluble solids (TSS) plus an amount/kg TSS equal to the amount by which the value/kg is less than $1. (4) The Government does not directly fund the promotion of oranges, however, it does provide funds for market related research and it has earmarked funds for the establishment of new horticultural institutions which will assist the citrus industry. In 1986/87 and 1987/88 Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program grants totalling some $219,000 were approved for research projects related to the marketing of oranges. The Government has also allocated $5.85 million over a five year period to assist in the establishment of the Australian Horticultural Corporation (AHC) which is scheduled to be operational by mid year. The AHC is designed to encourage, facilitate and co-ordinate horticultural export activities as well as contributing to the development of horticultural marketing and production within Australia. It needs to be recognised that the Government allocation has been provided for the whole of horticulture. The citrus industry has elected to be one of the first participating industries in the AHC through a levy arrangement and it can be expected that it will benefit from the Government's allocation. (Question No. 850) Mr Hawker asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 24 March 1988: (1) How many refugees entering Australia since 1983 have been tested for AIDS. (2) How many tested positive to the AIDS virus and from which countries did each come. (3) What action did his Department take following the discovery with regard to (a) the individuals and (b) subsequent refugee applications from those countries. (4) How many refugees have been checked for (a) syphilis and (b) gonorrhoea. (5) How many refugees were found to be infected with either syphilis or gonorrhoea and from which countries did those come. (6) What checks have been instigated at Australian overseas posts to prevent refugees infected with these diseases from entering Australia. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Refugees entering Australia since 1983 have not been routinely tested for AIDS. (2) As stated, there is no routine testing of refugees for AIDS. (3) Refugees and migrants are required to meet certain health standards for entry to Australia. The standards agreed upon by my Department and the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in relation to AIDS state that ``symptoms of AIDS or a related condition is cause for recommending rejection''. Were a refugee found to have evidence of AIDS, my Department would advise the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs that the applicant did not meet the health requirements for entry to Australia. (4) All refugees are routinely examined for evidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Specific serological tests are performed for syphilis. (5) Refugees come from a number of overseas countries and my Department does not maintain statistics regarding the incidence of syphilis and gonorrhoea. It is estimated that the number of refugees found to have syphilis or gonorrhoea is very low. (6) Following overseas screening for syphilis or gonorrhoea, refugees found to have one of these diseases would be provided with curative treatment prior to their departure for Australia. (Question No. 952) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 27 April 1988: Is Australia still importing the intravenous gammaglobulin preparation which is collected in Europe under different circumstances to that of the Australian Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service; if so, why are there not moves to cease this importation. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, there is an imported intravenous gammaglobulin available in Australia. It is manufactured from blood collected from volunteer donors. There are no moves to cease this importation, for the following reasons: Australia's policy on the importation of blood products is that an intending importer has to demonstrate either that a similar product is not already produced within Australia or that the imported product has a demonstrably significant clinical advantage over the local products. In the case of the imported intravenous gamma- globulin referred to, the position is that strong representations were made in 1985 which drew attention to the need for and rapidly increasing uses being found for intravenous gammaglobulins. It was claimed that the existing Australian product was unsatisfactory and that there was a need to obtain an alternative product. Shortly afterwards, an application was received for approval for general marketing of an imported intravenous gammaglobulin made from blood from volunteer donors. This application was assessed on its own merits by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee to ensure that the product was safe and effective and included protection against AIDS contamination. The Committee recommended that the application be approved and this approval was given in April 1987. Meanwhile, a modified local product has been developed and is currently undergoing clinical trials. An application for general marketing was first made in October 1986. This was considered by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee in 1987 but approval for general marketing was not recommended. Further data are currently under evaluation. If and when the local product receives general marketing approval, marketing approval for the imported product will not be withdrawn. There are no medical grounds to withdraw it from the market. To do so would be unfair to the importing company which has gone to considerable expense to obtain the approval. However, because locally produced blood products are made available without charge, while the imported product must be paid for, usage of the latter could then be expected to be relatively small.