Wednesday, 21 December 1988 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10.15 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. On 15 December in the Australian Financial Review an article by Mr Steve Burrell stated: A spokeswoman for the Government House Leader, Mr Beazley, said the House would almost certainly be recalled next Wednesday and would probably sit for about two hours-the bare minimum necessary to debate the amendments. We will gag, gag, gag', she said. Madam Speaker, under our procedures and practices, as you would be aware, a very grave restraint is imposed on anybody who seeks to impede the freedom of speech in this place. The Bill of Rights, which some on the other side sought to restate, replace and rephrase, said that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. Madam Speaker, I submit to you that it is totally inappropriate for any member of staff in any way to seek to impede the rights of members in this place to act as they believe proper on issues that they might wish to canvass. If one goes through both Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice and May's Parliamentary Practice, one sees that there are any number of references to the extent to which the privileges of speech in this place, freedom of speech and freedom of canvassing issues are sacrosanct. I suggest to you that for a member of staff to be quoted in that way is totally improper. Whatever the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) might do in here is different. For the Leader of the House in this place to move the guillotine or to move a gag is a procedure and practice which is condoned. But to have somebody who is a member of staff outside the place saying that it is not permissible for anybody in this Parliament to act other than in the way which she says I regard as not only an impertinence but also quite contrary to the procedures and practices laid down. Madam Speaker, there are any number of references such as: In so far as the House claims and Members enjoy those rights and immunities which are grouped under the general description of `privileges', they are claimed and enjoyed by the House in its corporate capacity and by its Members on behalf of the citizens whom they represent. That statement affects not any one of us; it affects us as a collection of individuals who are here, having been elected by our constituency. I have referred to the Bill of Rights and to the sacrosanct role that that imposes on us. Among the interpretations that have been placed on this, Madam Speaker, as you would be aware, there are a number of interpretations that are worthy of note. For example, in chapter X May refers to the fact that to attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats is a breach of privilege. May also says: Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege. I refer in that instance to page 151 of May. Madam Speaker, I put it to you that it is improper for any member of staff to act in this way. I think it is important on a day such as this, when we have been called back for a specific purpose on a matter which very much affects the interests of all the members of this House and we seek to canvass matters which we regard as of prime moment, to note that it is not proper for any member of staff to act in that way. I submit to you that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege and I trust that you will act accordingly. Madam SPEAKER —I tell the Leader of the National Party that I will give consideration to what he has raised before the House and inform the House at the earliest possible opportunity. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988 Triticale Levy Bill 1988 Triticale Levy Collection Bill 1988 Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill 1988 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1988 Petroleum Excise (Prices) Amendment Bill 1988 Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1988 National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1988 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1988 Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988 ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988 OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988 Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1988 Satellite Communications Amendment Bill 1988 Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1988 Postal Services Amendment Bill 1988 Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988 Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988 Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Child Support Amendment Bill 1988 Loans Securities Amendment Bill 1988 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1988 Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1988 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1988 Overseas Students Charge Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1988 National Companies and Securities Commission Amendment Bill 1988 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill 1988 Broadcasting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill 1988 Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988 Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill 1988 Crimes (Torture) Bill 1988 Bounty and Subsidy Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1988 Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1988 Migration Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1988 Message received from the Senate returning the Bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of Senator Cooney to the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority in place of Senator Morris, discharged. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89 Statutory Instruments (Tabling and Disallowance) Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1988 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 Defence Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 1988 Great Barrier Marine Park Amendment Bill 1988 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988 Australian Capital Territory (Electoral) Bill 1988 Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Bill 1988 A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1988 National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1988 Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1988 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1988 Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill 1988 Petroleum Excise (Prices) Amendment Bill 1988 Triticale Levy Bill 1988 Triticale Levy Collection Bill 1988 Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill 1988 Privacy Bill 1988 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 1988 Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1988 Australian National Railways Commission Amendment Bill 1988 Government Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill 1988 Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill 1988 Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1988 Postal Services Amendment Bill 1988 ANL (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988 Satellite Communications Amendment Bill 1988 OTC (Conversion into Public Company) Bill 1988 Superannuation Amendment Bill 1988 Bill returned from the Senate with requests for amendments and amendments. Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's requested amendments. Senate's requested amendments- No. 1-Page 50, Schedule 8, PART 1-NON-GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOLS, at end of Part, add ``1989'', ``166'', ``112'' and ``56'' to columns 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. No. 2=mPage 50, Schedule 8, PART 2=mNON-GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, at end of Part, add ``1989'', ``265'', ``177'' and ``88'' to columns 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(10.23) —I move: That the requested amendments be not made. Mr Chairman, the requested amendment which has been moved and agreed to in the Senate will not be supported by the Government. The reasons why the Government will not support this amendment basically are that it would increase outlays in relation to this year's Budget---- Mr Beale —Will you tell us which amendment-- THE CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Deakin will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Deakin will have a chance to contribute to the debate later. Mr Beale —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. We now have back before the chamber a Bill that has been before the Senate. The Minister is on his feet talking about the fact that the Government will not accept `this amendment'. The Bill that is before us has several amendments that have been proposed by the Senate, I am just asking the Minister to clarify what he is talking about. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The motion before the chair is that the requested amendments be not made. The Minister is speaking to that motion. Mr DAWKINS —Mr Chairman, I understand that the matter before us at the moment is not the series of amendments which the Senate has it in mind to make to this Bill but rather the request that the House of Representatives should agree to the proposition that establishment grants for some non-government schools should be reinstated in 1989. That is the request we have before us at the moment. The other amendments in respect of this Bill presumably will come before us later, once the Senate has had the opportunity to consider the attitude of the House to this particular request. The Government does not accept this request from the Senate, basically because it involves an increase in expenditure over and above that which the Government had accepted earlier. The context in which this decision was made was that earlier in the year, in the May statement, the Government was reviewing its policy in relation to the funding of schools and agreed to continue the second four-year period of funding for government and non-government schools. In the context of that decision it was decided to review certain other policy aspects, including the provision of establishment grants for new schools. At that time we agreed to eliminate establishment grants except in respect of those schools which were already in receipt of establishment grants. Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill What we have at the moment is a Senate, and more particularly an Opposition, which is trying to increase the Government's outlays and therefore overturn a decision which was taken in the Budget context. There have been numerous examples of where the Opposition has said that it is not its intention to change or amend Budget decisions in such a way as would increase outlays. Indeed, only today we had the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) again calling for expenditure reductions. How on earth can he support a proposition on the one hand which is to reduce expenditure and yet at the same time overturn or be party to overturning a Government decision which would do precisely that, that is, reduce government outlays in this particular area. To accept this request would involve increased expenditure of some $1.8m over the next three years. The important thing about this issue is that there is a question of principle here about whether the Senate should be able to interfere with the Budget measures of the Government, particularly in a context where the Opposition has said on numerous occasions that it would not participate in the Senate in some arrangement which would overturn properly made Budget decisions. It is all very well for some non-entity senator from South Australia, purporting to act as the Opposition's spokesman in this area, to propose these amendments but there comes a time when the Opposition in this House has to stand up and decide whether it is going to be part of that caprice on the part of a non-entity senator from South Australia. The other point about this proposal is that it is in fact technically deficient. Even if one were to accept this request in its current form, it would have no effect. In other words, the drafting of it has been so sloppy, so ill-considered, that whereas it is purported to re-establish establishment grants for certain schools, in its current wording, its current drafting, it would not have such an effect. It is quite clear what the intent of this amendment is and it is for that reason that the Government will not accept the amendment, either in this form or any amended and therefore technically operative form. There are other amendments which the Senate intends to advise us of in relation to this Bill. I will refrain from making my observations about those matters until they are properly before us. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.29) —The Opposition opposes the Government in its in globo attitude to these amendments. There are a number of amendments-- The CHAIRMAN —I point out to the honourable member for Deakin that we are dealing with two requests, Nos 1 and 2, which relate to page 50, schedule 8, parts 1 and 2, not the amendments that are going to be requested by the Senate later. Mr BEALE —We support the Senate's request. The Government does not decide our attitude on Budget Bills. The Government has no right to sit there and to say that we should or should not have a particular attitude toward those Bills. We decide what we are going to do about the Budget Bills and we alone decide that. It is pointless for the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) to argue that some precedent has been established whereby it is impossible for the Opposition to take its own decisions on any matter. We do take our own decisions. Let me deal next with the question whether the Senate's position is deficient. That argument has been the subject of some debate in the Senate. It is not clear whether that deficiency exists. In any event the intent of the Senate was quite clear. It is possible by one simple numerical change to overcome any difficulty that might be seen to exist with this aspect. My third point is that it is quite clear that what the Senate has in mind is to require the Government, with these changes, to account more fully on the whole question of its funding for schools. We reject what the Minister had to say. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(10.31) —This particular proposition which would have the Commonwealth increase its expenditure at the time when the Opposition, assuming that it has the skills to do so, actually gets its amendments in the Senate in order, is worth, I think, a degree of comment in this place before we go any further. If the Opposition does manage to get its amendments in the Senate in order, its action will have the effect of increasing Commonwealth outlays by an amount of $1.8m. It is worth making some comment on this matter at the start of today's business because two or three similar situations will occur during the morning. Requests will come in from the Senate for the Government in effect to increase Commonwealth outlays. This is the first of them. What needs to be clearly understood in this regard is that we have an Opposition going around the country touting itself as a Budget cutter. Opposition members are attempting to sell their position on tax reform and on other issues on the basis of their capacity to conduct their affairs in a disciplined manner and to conduct the business of this Government in a disciplined manner by the alleged courage of their actions on Commonwealth outlays. Indeed, they have in the past talked about $13 billion worth of cuts. Every time that matter is tested in this place-and this is one of those tests-they fail the test. They are failing the test on this $1.8m proposal. It needs to be quite clearly understood in the country that this is the case. We have here, in these amendments, a test of the Opposition's capacity to discipline public funding. This is a test for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). When this matter is divided on as it subsequently will be in this chamber today-and there will be other occasions when there will be these tests set by the Opposition's activity in the Senate-we will know by Opposition members' deeds in this place how serious they are about their capacities to deliver on funding cuts in order to be able to fund their tax promises and the other promises that they make. I am quite sure that, when we see their deeds in this chamber, we will know that they are members of an Opposition without the courage to take hard decisions and without the capacity to set sensible priorities. They run around this country constantly looking for opportunities to flatter any particular group, which takes their fancy at any time, with promises of handouts. This is one such example of that. We on this side of the Committee have learned over the years that the only way to govern this country is to govern it on the basis of a degree of fiscal discipline, in other words, to make hard choices. What these decisions that we are debating at the moment represent is one of many examples of this Government's ability to take hard decisions. What we see, of course, is the total incapacity of the Opposition when confronted with this proposal in the Senate to eschew the opportunity for a minor degree of grandstanding, to walk away from the short term political benefit of an element of grandstanding and to come into this place and actually to put themselves on the record as supporting the Government in the area of fiscal discipline. As usual the Opposition fails the test. From what the Opposition shadow spokesman has just said, he blatantly intends to fail the test here today. He says, when he makes his point here today, `The Government does not control the Budget'. The Government does put the Budget before the House. That is conceded. It puts it before the Senate. What happens in the House and the Senate is a demonstration to the public whether there is will in the House and the Senate to accept, as in this instance, the hard medicine that is sometimes required when effectively operating the economy of this country. He is quite accurate when he says that, in the final analysis, the Budget has to be determined by the House and the Senate. What we saw from the House was a willingness to face up to that discipline with no help from the Opposition. What we saw from the Senate, where the Opposition has the numbers, is the presentation of the fact that the Opposition is unwilling to face that discipline in the formal processes of its consideration of these problems. What we on this side of the House are happy to do is to see Opposition members obliged now to put their stamp on their discipline in the Senate. They will have, as I said, two or three opportunities this day to put their stamp on their discipline. We are going to provide them with the opportunity to do just that. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.37) —The argument put forward by the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) might have some substance if indeed he knew something about the subject of the funding of schools. But, since he quite clearly indicates that he does not, his point has absolutely no substance. What we are talking about is a small measure of support for the establishment of non-government schools. As every schoolboy knows, whenever a student goes to a non-government school as opposed to a government school there is a net saving to the taxpayer which is very substantial. Certainly, you, Mr Chairman, would be aware of this as am I, given the origins of our schooling. Also, I think the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) would have to agree with that proposition too. The proposal is a relatively modest one in terms of current expenditure. The actual savings to the Commonwealth over the longer period when these schools are established is very, very substantial indeed. It has to be understood that schooling in Australia is a cooperative effort between governments and private institutions. All we are doing here is attempting to assist parents to have choice in education. But, of course, when they exercise that choice, they also accept a financial responsibility and relieve the taxpayer of a great deal of that responsibility. I have to say to the Minister that the argument that he has put up is totally without substance. Honourable members on this side of the Committee can quite happily vote in favour of the Senate's sensible action without taking into account these nonsensical arguments. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.39) —The amendments before us today come as something of a surprise, seeing that they were not moved in this House when the Bills were being debated. Mr Beale —They were foreshadowed in this chamber, but you had a gag on us. You gagged the whole debate. Mr GEAR —Notwithstanding the meaningless interjection from the honourable member, who is at the table, I remind him that the Opposition still had time to foreshadow at least the amendments that have been moved in the Senate. One must ask oneself why this chamber had to be recalled today at great expense to the taxpayer to deal with these Bills. As the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) was pointing out quite rightly, what this action really means is expending more money. Wherever we look, the Opposition is talking about how it is going to cut spending. In turn, we talk about the fiscal responsibility Opposition members are about to show; and we ask them where the money is coming from to pay for these tax cuts that they are always holding out. I contrast that with a proposal like this from the Opposition. It actually increases expenditure. It does not decrease it at all. We on this side of the Committee are starting to wonder where these cuts are ever to be made because the Opposition is very non-specific about them. In the recess, we had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in response to unemployment levels, saying the Opposition was going to make 19- to 21-year-olds or perhaps it was 18- to 21-year-olds work for the dole. What a mindless statement from the leader of a major party in addressing one of the most pressing problems facing this country today. Certainly, the Government has taken the view that, if unemployment is to be tackled in a meaningful way, what we really have to do is to provide more training. The Bills that were passed by this chamber and amended in the Senate do just that. We have only to look at the record of this Government compared with those of its predecessors to recognise that training under this Government has received a very high priority. This action is reflected in the schools. When we came into Government, the retention rate in our high schools was only 36 per cent, which is one of the lowest in OECD countries. That demonstrated the record of the Opposition on education. Today, retention rates are in excess of 50 per cent. We will get the figure up to 65 per cent by the early 1990s and go on from there. I mention technical and further education (TAFE), where huge amounts of money have been invested by this Government and skills for employment have received a very much greater priority than they did in the past. We have played our part in making sure that TAFE is relevant in the 1980s. In higher education, a net gain of about 140,000 places up to 1991 has been foreshadowed by this Government. This amendment was carried with the intent of reversing the Government's decision, announced in the May statement, to discontinue the establishments grants scheme for new non-government schools from 1989. We all remember prior to 1983 when the approval for non-government schools was given by State governments, yet it was the Federal Government which paid the bill. So, the State governments could go around and curry favour with local constituencies by allowing them to establish these non-government schools and pass the bill on to the Federal Government. That ended as soon as this Government was elected. Of course, we have looked at the school situation as a total overall package, not in a piecemeal fashion, as this amendment does. That decision, announced in the May statement, was made as part of a generous overall package, which included a commitment, being given effect to by this legislation, to provide guaranteed real increases in general recurrent funding to government and non-government schools from 1989 to 1992. It also provides for the retention of existing funding categories for all non-government schools for the same period-from 1989 to 1992. It included a decision to allow non-government schools to increase their private income without affecting the level of the Government's general recurrent funding over the funding period. It provided further for the removal of the legislative requirement that proposed non-government schools be able to demonstrate that they have reasonable prospects of financial viability prior to receiving approval. All of those matters are covered by legislation. All of them are progressive. Yet we have to come back here today because the Senate in its lack of wisdom sought to amend these Bills and to take a step backwards, which is something we have come to expect from this Opposition. The amendment does not, however, meet its intention. It does not enable the payment of any new establishment grants in 1989 as the necessary enabling provision in the body of the Bill has not been amended. Even when the Opposition amended this Bill to give effect to some desire to go back in time, the Opposition did not do it correctly. Furthermore, the amendment of the schedule establishes per capita rates for establishment grants in respect of three years. The establishment grant scheme, however, provided for the payment of grants over four years. We can see that in the Senate the Opposition did not do its homework even on this amendment. We have been recalled here today at great expense to the taxpayers. I have seen estimates ranging from $500,000 to $2m to bring this chamber back today to deal with this amendment which is not even put up in its correct form. Of course, the Government will not accept this amendment. The Government also does not accept the intent behind the amendment. Establishment grants were not paid on the basis of applications from schools and their subsequent approval. Establishment grants were effectively automatically paid to schools located in developing areas following their meeting the final approval requirements for Commonwealth general recurrent funding. It seems to me that everything this Government has done in establishing private schools and maintaining those private schools that have already been established has been done on both educational and financial grounds. There is no use putting up schools in areas where the student population will not maintain them. There has to be fiscal restraint in the provision of private or public education. There has to be a fiscal requirement that the establishment of those facilities is necessary, that we are not wasting money by duplicating educational services in areas that cannot sustain them. That has been the whole intention of the Government in the legislation embodied in this package of Bills. The Senate's amendment goes back to the old scheme. It seems to me that those who supported the amendment in the Senate should have made themselves aware of what the Government's intentions were and brought themselves up to the 1980s. When one hears some of the contributions from the other side of the chamber one can be forgiven for thinking that one is in a time warp and one is really back in the 1950s. It is required of members of the Opposition that they address educational matters, economic matters and matters of great importance to this Parliament in the context of the 1980s, not the 1950s. Certainly the amendment of the Senate that is before us today is ample demonstration of the fact that we have in the Senate, in one small space, the greatest collection of incompetents in Australia. They put up amendments such as this which are incomplete, which do not match the intentions of the Government, which are not progressive and which force those of us who are working hard in our electorates on behalf of our constituents to give up that work and fly all the way back here to deal with the amendments. Mr Beale —You have had to come back here to work. Mr GEAR —There is a chuckle at the table, and I can understand why. It is because `Old Yella' there has just lost his seat in the redistribution, so he does not have much interest in what happens in this place. But many of us who are going to be here for a while do take some interest in what happens here because we are the ones who will have to deal with it in the future. For those reasons, I believe the Government should reject the amendment of the Senate. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(10.47) —I want to respond to a couple of the points made by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). He purports to say that the Opposition has well-considered views on these matters and was denied the opportunity to express those views because of the circumstances in which the debate was held in this chamber. I refer honourable members to a debate which occurred here nearly a month ago when we were considering this matter and other education matters. Whilst members of the Opposition did not have their act together at that point, it is true that the honourable member for Deakin did foreshadow that the Opposition would be making certain observations in the form of moving amendments to some of these measures in the Senate. I want to point out that the honourable member said at that point that their amendments would be criticising the Government for its tightening of the rules governing non-systemic, non-government, schools, as announced in the May statement. He went on to say that the amendments would also criticise us for the removal of establishment grants for 1989. There is a huge difference between moving amendments which have the effect of criticising the Government for making certain decisions-any Opposition, whether here or in the Senate, is entitled to do that-and moving amendments which have the effect of changing policy in a way which increases outlays on the part of the Government. The Constitution is very clear about this. At section 53 it says that the Senate may not make amendments which have the effect of increasing the burden on the people, that is, by increasing outlays which have to be met by taxpayers' funds. Therefore, what the Opposition has in fact done in the Senate is not what the Opposition foreshadowed here a month ago when the honourable member for Deakin said it would seek to criticise the Government for certain decisions that the Government had taken. No, the Opposition went much further than that and actually proposed in this request a change to the Bill in a way which, instead of criticising the Government, reverses a decision which the Government took. It is unacceptable conduct by members of the Opposition in the Senate to pick and choose on government measures, to agree with those things which they like and to disagree with those things which they do not like in a way which has the effect of increasing outlays. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was perfectly right in saying that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) cannot strut around this country saying that the Government must reduce expenditure-indeed, saying that the Opposition would reduce expenditure, without having the courage to identify where it would reduce expenditure-and then propose in the Senate, and support in this chamber, measures which would not reduce expenditure but, in fact, increase expenditure. That is why this is such a wicked measure on the part of the Opposition; one which the Opposition in this chamber is now going to support actively, quite out of context with what the enfeebled shadow Minister for education-the honourable member for Deakin-said when he addressed the chamber one month ago. In terms of the technical deficiencies in this measure, the honourable member for Deakin says, `That is just a simple matter of changing a figure here or there'. That is not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that the Senate has sought to change the Bill in one part but not in another part and unless it is changed in both areas the request has no effect. Has the honourable member come in here with a measure to rectify that deficiency? No, because he would not understand what the technical deficiency was and he would not know how to go about rectifying it if he did. If he was going to do something to rectify it, this was his opportunity to do so. But no, he sits there glued to his chair, petrified because he does not even understand how the request might be changed in a way to make it technically efficient. The other point I want to make is that this was part of a package of measures, an historically important package of measures, to support government and non-government schools throughout Australia. This was just one part of an historically generous set of measures designed to improve the confidence with which government and non-government schools, particularly non-government schools, can plan for the future. We were not only legislating funds for the next four years for the non-government sector as well as the government school sector but also legislating very substantial increases for those schools over the next four years. We have an eight-year funding period and we are now legislating for the second part of that. There will be 40 per cent increases in real terms for primary schools and 30 per cent for secondary schools as far as the non-government school sector is concerned. This is a very important package of measures, a package which involves the expenditure next year of $1.8 billion, expenditure which inevitably will be delayed as a result of the conduct of the Senate. This capricious Senate seeks to meddle around in these matters. It does not understand. It cannot get it right when it tries and it does it in a way which verges on the unconstitutional in any event. The Senate is prepared to delay the expenditure of $1.8 billion on the support of Australian school children all round the country in order to make this trite point, a point which the Senate cannot even get correct technically. As a result of this meddling in matters which the Senate clearly does not understand and clearly has no place in, the Senate is going to ensure that the payments which we had hoped to be making on time for the non-government school sector will be delayed. By all accounts they will be delayed as a consequence of the Senate's action and as a result of the recall of the House of Representatives. These are serious matters. We are talking about delaying the provision of $1.8 billion to, particularly, the non-government schools sector, whose sources of funds are not as extensive as those of the government school sector. This is the real issue which has to be confronted by the Opposition. The Opposition wants to do what it said it would never do; that is, change Budget decisions in a way which would increase the overall outlays of the Budget. Secondly, the Opposition wants to do it in a way which will delay the timely payment of subsidies by the Government to the non-government school sector. It is quite clear that the Senate has raised a series of alarms amongst those who are dependent on these funds. The National Catholic Education Commission has expressed to me its concern about the prospect of the payments being delayed as a result of these matters not being resolved quickly as between the two Houses. These measures must be seen as a package. We are increasing substantially the per capita grants to both government and non- government schools. We are making a number of other important changes as well. One of them involves the discontinuation of establishment grants. It seems to me that if this Opposition wants to be taken seriously in the electorate as a party which can make difficult decisions in difficult economic circumstances, it ought to be recanting and saying, `Those senators, once again, have got out of control. They have not only abandoned an important principle of the Opposition parties of not opposing Budget measures in a way which would increase outlays but also mucked up the way in which they have proposed it'. Those are the reasons why the Government cannot accept this request. This request must be turned down. We would hope that, as a result of the turning down of that request, the Senate will realise the folly of its ways and quickly return the Bill to the House of Representatives in a way in which it can be approved quickly here so that these payments can flow to the eligible recipients. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.57) —I rise simply to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government is working on what is called the Goebbels principle-if the Government repeats a point often enough, it will be believed. We continually hear from the other side of the chamber the claim that in this measure the Opposition is not working in the direction of containing government expenditure, as the Opposition advocates has to be done, but is in fact advocating an increase. But the point is that the Opposition is concerned to maintain this aspect of the legislation-these establishment grants-basically, at least in the first instance, to increase choice, something in which we believe very strongly indeed. But it is also important to recognise that when non-government schools are established the parents, often at very considerable sacrifice, thereupon assume a significant proportion of the burden of the cost of educating Australian children. So while in the first instance it may have the effect of slightly increasing expenditure, the fact is that in the longer run it reduces the level of government expenditure because a proportion of the financial burden is assumed by the parent. Mr Cadman —A couple of years. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is just a matter of a short period of time, as my colleague says. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and other Government speakers will go on insisting that the Opposition, which says that government expenditure ought to be cut-indeed, it ought and, indeed, the Government will find that it will have to get round to that early in the new year-is not being true to its principles. But the point is that it should be recognised that the effect of this amendment is to facilitate the development of non- government schools. That is a good thing from the point of view of increasing the choice available to parents, but it also has the effect that the parents who subsequently support the children assume some of the financial burden and that reduces, in effect, government outlays and the burden on the taxpayer. Question put: That the motion (Mr Dawkins's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jenkins, H. A.Beazley, K. C. Johns, G. T.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Kerr, D. J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charlesworth, R. Lavarch, M. H.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. 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 Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, JohnGrace, 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. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Pratt, M. K.Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K.Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. 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.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That the report be adopted. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Charles, D. E. Lavarch, M. H.Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. 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. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. 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.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- Page 2, clause 5, lines 7 and 8, leave out `` 23 August 1988'', insert ``3 November 1988''. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.18) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. To ensure passage of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) the Government will accept it as amended by the Senate. However, the Government wishes to place on the record that it does not accept the Opposition's views concerning the date of effect of the amendment to item 92 of the first schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(11.19) —As the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris) indicated, the proposed amendment is one moved by the Opposition in the Senate. It is all very well the Minister saying he wants to place on the record that he does not accept our view of the matter; the fact is that we have before us once again an amendment brought about by Opposition action striking out an outrageous form of retrospectivity. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 2) seeks to give full effect to sales tax changes announced in the Budget and the phrase sales tax changes, which I ought to put in quotes, is of course a Government euphemism for sales tax increases. Among other things the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced on Budget night was that taxation on all goods of the kind used to wrap or secure goods for marketing or delivery would increase from zero to 20 per cent. That is a 20 per cent increase, of course, and also there will now be a 10 per cent tax on thick shake mixes used in the manufacture of thick shakes. They were previously exempt. Ice-creams that were previously exempt will now be taxed at 10 per cent. In addition, accessories to takeaway food containers such as spoons and serviettes will now be subject to a tax of 10 per cent. They were also previously exempt. The Government describes these changes as `correcting anomalies and inconsistencies'. As I have said before, the Government is very adept at using such euphemisms. For years it has been talking about its great tax reforms. What it means, of course, is its great tax increases. There is no disputing that this Government, as we have said time and again, is the highest taxing government in the peacetime history of our nation. It has just plundered the pockets of Australian taxpayers and much of this has been done through taxation by stealth in the form of the wholesale sales tax system. In the case of Sales Tax Bill (No. 2), the Government has become worried that it may lose some of the revenue it has greedily sought to suck in. It seems that the original sales tax legislation introduced on Budget night, dealing with the changes I referred to before, was ambiguous in its meaning. A number of accountants were advising their clients that certain types of packaging material were not covered by the new legislation. The Government, always speedy when it sees a leakage in revenue, pounced on this gap and introduced Sales Tax Bill (No. 2) to cover all eventualities. Typically, however, instead of admitting it had made a mistake and acknowledging that the claims of the accountants were correct, the Government arrogantly backdated the second lot of legislation to Budget night and effectively said such advice was wrong, retrospectively speaking. There is obviously an outrageous retrospective penalty on those firms which took advantage of their accountants' legitimate advice that certain areas of packaging were not taxable. As a result, the Opposition correctly moved in the Senate a motion that struck out the retrospectivity by making the new Bill apply from the date of its introduction. It should have been taken into account when the Government introduced the legislation. So the Minister makes some brief remarks saying he places on the record that he disagrees with our interpretation, but honourable members will note that he did not seek to argue in support of that proposition-because there is no case to argue. This was an outrageous attempt at retrospectivity. I would have thought that, after stupidly trying and failing to get the 3 1/2-year retrospective, non-cash business benefits legislation through the Senate, the Government would have learned its lesson. But no, it does not seem to understand the principle of a fair go and it is only after it has been beaten in the Senate that it seems to take any notice of what people are saying. This Government, frankly, is only interested in the numbers-be it the numbers in the House, where it uses them maliciously to gag debate and stifle democracy, or the numbers in the Australian Taxation Office where they watch those piles of tax revenue increase and increase. Thankfully the Government does not have the numbers in the upper House, thankfully we are able to be zealous in our pursuit of such retrospective legislation and as a consequence the Opposition has prevented yet another unacceptable case of retrospective legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 2, lines 7 to 9, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Commencement ``2. (1) Subject to this section, this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. ``(2) Division 6 of Part III commences, or shall be taken to have commenced, as the case requires, on 1 January 1989.''. No. 2-Page 45, Part IV, lines 1 to 38, leave out the Part. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.25) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The first amendment will change the date the transitional provisions relating to dividend imputation come into effect. The date of effect for these provisions will be 1 January 1989 rather than the date on which the amending Act receives royal assent. The transitional imputation provisions will prevent franked dividends paid by early balancing companies with imputation credits that are calculated on the basis of the 39 per cent company tax rate being channelled through later balancing companies to be subsequently credited at the 49 per cent company tax rate. This amendment will ensure that franked dividends paid by early balancing companies during the period between 1 January 1989 and the day on which the amending Act receives royal assent will be subject to the same requirement as those paid on or after the date of royal assent. This amendment will prevent any revenue loss that might arise if royal assent does not occur before 1 January 1989. The second amendment will omit part 4 from the Bill. Part 4 proposed an amendment of the sales tax law to give effect to a proposal announced by the former Government on 20 August 1981. The proposal was to ensure that where overpaid sales tax had been passed on to others, refunds were available only if all persons to whom the tax was passed on had been recompensed. It has become apparent that the proposal would place an unacceptable compliance burden on certain wholesalers and retailers and for this reason the Government has decided not to proceed with this amendment. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(11.26) —The proposed amendments put forward by the Government simply highlight the Government's gross incompetence. There are a few other words to describe it, too. The first amendment seeks to ensure that an amendment in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) will have effect from 1 January 1989 and not when the Bill is given royal assent. The reason for this change is simple. The Government has so incompetently handled its legislative program-and those listening to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peter Morris) will have heard his words of concern about the date that the Bill may receive royal assent-that it is afraid that the Bill introduced in the first week of November will not be passed by 1 January. It is the same administrative incompetence that has forced this chamber to sit today. We do not oppose this amendment to clause 2 of the Bill. Mr Peter Morris —Come on, Andrew. Just stick to the Bill. Mr PEACOCK —The harsh reality is that if the Minister had looked at the line of the Government's legislative program in regard to that sort of amendment he would not be mucking about with us today, changing the date of operation of a Bill. If he could foresee the consequences of his actions he would not be using this amendment. He would have had it applying from a specific date, and that is why this particular measure is going through. But it does give me, on behalf of the Opposition, the opportunity to bring into the full light of day what is a legislative shambles in terms of drafting, preparation and seeing through measures in this Parliament. There seems to be no stopping the continuing stream of badly drafted and ill-considered legislation for the Government. It was only a matter of weeks ago that the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduced some 290 amendments to his own piece of legislation. Mr N.A. Brown —What about the War Crimes Bill? Mr PEACOCK —The shadow Attorney raises, validly, the question of the War Crimes Bill. The second amendment that the Minister has put before the House will strike out the measure restricting sales tax refunds. As the Minister noted, it has become apparent that the proposal would place an unacceptable burden on certain wholesalers and retailers. This is just another example of unintended consequences. The question ought to be asked, `Why was this not foreseen and where was the consultation with business on this matter?'. As I understand it, there was none. The fact is that this Government-which, as I said earlier and have said repeatedly in this Parliament, is the highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history-simply focused its greedy eye on the higher tax revenue that stems from this proposal. It was obvious that introducing a requirement, as the original Bill did, to force businesses to show that they could pass on sales tax refunds to the ultimate consumer of merchandise would be an administrative nightmare. Also, of course, it was based on some ivory towered, detached, inexplicable notion of retailing. It did not take account of the fact that retail prices are determined as a result of a variety of factors, including market forces. Many businesses do not simply price goods on some cost plus mark-up basis. Instead, they are price takers in a competitive market. It is extremely difficult to prove or disprove the level of sales tax, if any, `passed on' to consumers. Under the original Bill it could be anticipated that almost all refund applications would be rejected because the Commissioner of Taxation would never be satisfied that refunds were in fact, or at law, passed on. Again, this was simply a case of a Treasurer and an arrogant Government seeking to steamroll ahead and increase indirect taxes by the back door. Interestingly enough on this question of indirect taxes, when asked by the Australian Financial Review a week ago, `What about consumption taxation which has inherent benefits for savings?', the Treasurer replied: But we are doing that now, through the wholesale sales tax. That is what he said; they are his own words. For all the talk about no consumption tax et cetera, the Treasurer let the cat out of the bag unquestionably with that answer in the interview to the Australian Financial Review. We have an unholy mess in our tax mechanism. Worse than that, Australians with most depressed living standards, with the sheer impact of bracket creep forcing them to pay more and more in tax than has ever been paid over to a government, also face manipulation and normally deceit through the operation of the ramshackled indirect taxation system that we have at present. The Treasurer's words admit the reality that this revenue grab goes on not simply through the more direct means of income tax and the effect of bracket creep, but also with the application of a form of consumption tax. It is insidious consumption taxation through stealth. The Treasurer tried to do the same thing again in tax Bill (No. 5). There was a considerable amount of community outrage on that point. We are glad that the Government saw the light and moved the amendment, which we will not oppose. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(11.34) —The Opposition, of course, has no objections to the amendments being considered in the Committee of the Whole. After all, the amendments have to be considered. But it is appropriate at this stage that we put the matter in context and give some consideration for a few minutes to exactly where we are with respect to the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987. To put it in a nutshell, the Government proposed the War Crimes Amendment Bill and for some months the Opposition has been proposing what it regarded, and still regards, as essential amendments to that legislation. It can be said without a shadow of doubt that the Government's reaction to the Opposition's proposal has continually been to oppose the amendments that we maintained were essential and necessary to be made to this Bill. We proposed amendments because we believed quite firmly that if the Bill was not amended, there was within the Bill scope for enormous potential injustice to be done to defendants. We maintained and we still maintain that it is necessary for this Bill to be amended so that those accused of war crimes will, in fact, have a fair trial. What the Government did was to put its head in the sand and reject the Opposition's amendments. Only at the end of the day, when it had no room to manoeuvre at all, did it very grudgingly accept some, but not all, of the Opposition's amendments. Indeed, it is true to say that not only did the Government grudgingly accept our amendments only at the end of the day, but also we must put on record that the Government adopted the strongest possible position that it could have against accepting the Opposition's amendments. During this debate it may be appropriate at some stage to refer to correspondence that I and my predecessor, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith), had with the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in which the Attorney-General said that under no circumstances would these amendments be accepted. He resorted to the loftiest propositions in support of his case that the amendments could not be accepted. It is appropriate to say that when it became apparent to the Government that it had no room to manoeuvre at all in the Senate, it grudgingly, at that late stage, accepted some of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. It should be said, so that those who take an interest in this subject know what happened, that only yesterday and the day before was the Government prepared to put onto the statute book a piece of legislation which we and many people in the outside community maintained and still maintain has within it scope for great injustice to be done to people charged with offences under it. One must also conclude that the Government's conduct and behaviour have been quite reprehensible, not only in the general and broader sense, which I have described, but also in respect of a number of incidents that have occurred while this Bill has been before the Parliament. I want to give a few brief illustrations of the way in which the Government has been engaging in the most reprehensible conduct while this legislation has been before the House of Representatives and the Senate. We need to bear in mind that this Bill potentially puts many people's liberties at stake. Firstly, the Government established the Special Investigations Unit to assemble evidence and conduct further inquiries following on from the Menzies Review of Material Relating to the Entry of Suspected War Criminals into Australia to see what credible evidence there was against people whose names were on the various lists which had been thrust into the hands of Mr Hayden and other Ministers as they made their imperial progress around the globe at vast expense. The Special Investigations Unit was set up to investigate these particular allegations and to see what evidence there was against particular individuals. I made the allegation some time ago that the Special Investigations Unit had, in fact, been interrogating, interviewing and questioning suspects-not just that it was collecting evidence, not just that it was marshalling the evidence that was available and not just that it was progressing the work of the Menzies committee but that it had, in fact, been interviewing and interrogating suspects and potential defendants who may be charged under this Bill if and when it becomes law, as apparently it will. The Government made a considered response to that very serious allegation. That response emanated from the mouth of advisers in the Attorney-General's office, presumably with his knowledge and approval-if not expressed, then certainly implied. The reaction that came from the Attorney-General's office was that this was `absolute nonsense'. They were the words that were used. In other words, I had said, `Here is the Special Investigations Unit which, contrary to all principle, contrary to the whole way in which law and justice are administered in this country, is going around the country interrogating suspects who might be charged under a Bill even before that Bill has been passed by the Parliament and before it has become law'. What was the response of the Government to that allegation? It said, `It is untrue'. Not only did the Government say, through the Attorney-General's office, that the allegation was untrue, but it was described as `absolute nonsense'. Mr White —How many did they interrogate? Mr N.A. Brown —How many did they interrogate? This has become clear only in the course of the Senate debate on this legislation. It appears now that not simply, as I had thought, two or three suspects have been interrogated or interviewed but that up to 30 people have been quizzed by agents of the Special Investigations Unit, some of whom are seconded officers of the Australian Federal Police. I would have thought if there was any principle in the administration of law and justice that was clear beyond doubt it is that officials, whether they are in the Special Investigations Unit or any other law enforcement body, have no right whatsoever to go knocking on the doors of citizens or residents of this country and saying to them, in effect, `Under a law that might be passed by this Parliament, but which has not yet been passed, you may be a criminal and I intend to interrogate you about that'. These officials had no right to be interrogating or interviewing suspects who might be guilty or who might be charged under this Bill. In the course of the Senate debate it was said that this conduct was unAustralian. I agree with that remark, although I would express my view in much stronger terms and say that it was completely outrageous in the first place and that it was even more outrageous for the Attorney-General's office to deny that it was being done. I believe that two things have to be resolved about this matter. Firstly, we have to resolve under whose instructions these interrogations were conducted and by what right it was thought they could be conducted. The second thing that has to be resolved is what has happened to the records that the Special Investigations Unit has collected in the course of its investigations. That second matter is important for this reason: Senator Tate, the Minister for Justice, said in the course of the Senate debate, `Yes, it is true, 30 people have been interrogated as suspects, potential defendants under this law, if and when the legislation is passed, and some of them have been given a clean bill of health and will not be prosecuted if the Bill is passed'. Despite the fact that they will not be prosecuted, the fact remains that the Special Investigations Unit has records on them. It has records of interviews taken of them. The Special Investigations Unit also has records of the conclusions which it has reached. We say that that material should be shredded. In our system of democracy, in our system of law and justice which we thought was maintained by this Government, there is no warrant at all for any government agency to be keeping records of interviews and responses of people to allegations that have been put to them when, in fact, what has been revealed as a result of those investigations and inquiries is that no offence at all has been committed by these people. We say that the Government should take this matter in hand; it should get those records and have them shredded. Not only is there a great danger to the civil rights and liberties of the individuals themselves but also there is a great danger to the civil rights, liberties and reputations of their children in the future. If this material is not destroyed, those people will forever and a day have a black mark against them, a record in the office of the Special Investigations Unit and, for all we know, in the records of the Australian Federal Police that they have been interrogated and investigated by law enforcement officers. There is no answer to this; there is no defence to this. The Government must have this material destroyed and it must announce publicly that it has done so. If the Government does not do that, it will be rightly condemned for taking one more step-several steps have already been taken in the course of this whole matter-towards administering this country as a police state. I hope that the Attorney-General will take these matters on board. In addition, I hope he will find out what warrant people in his office had to say, when I made my allegation, that this was absolute nonsense. If the defence is that I used the word `interrogation', let me remind the Attorney-General, those in his office and those in his Department, that the word `interrogation' means to ask questions. Any lawyer knows that; any citizen knows that. What was being alleged was that before the Bill was passed by the Parliament, these people, who had committed no offence at all under Australian law, were being questioned. If the Attorney-General needs the assistance of the dictionary definition I will give it to him: `interrogate' means to ask questions. There was a serious and sustained attempt by the Attorney-General's office, by those advising him and those for whom he was responsible, to mislead this country and the media on this issue. I will have some more to say about this and related matters as the debate progresses because the Attorney-General should not assume that these amendments will be simply rubber stamped without any discussion. There is a lot more that must be said about this matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.48) —in reply-Mr Deputy Speaker, I will endeavour to reply briefly because I understand that some other matters have to be interposed. I want to make the point that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) was not leading for the Opposition at the time that this matter was debated in the House of Representatives. A number of the amendments now before us were, of course, not moved at that time. I am beholden to the fact that the Senate has clearly indicated that it will not pass the War Crimes Amendment Bill unless certain amendments are agreed to. But we will deal with that at the committee stage. I point out that this is a remarkable piece of legislation in terms of the time it has taken to come back to this House. It was sent to the Senate in December 1987. At that time there was notice of a motion by Senator Chaney to refer it to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That all-party Committee met; it took evidence from Mr Temby and Mr Greenwood; it made the closest analysis of the situation. In no way did it make any criticism of the kind that the honourable member for Menzies has now made. Never at any stage did it ask questions about what was happening. Never at any stage did it suggest that something improper was being done. Mr N.A. Brown —Who said it did? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —You did. The honourable member had inferred that Mr Greenwood had no right to be carrying out investigations. He has now said it again. I am telling him that the Senate Committee had Mr Greenwood before it, asking questions about what he was doing. I point out to the honourable member that the report of the Menzies Review of Material Relating to the Entry of Suspected War Criminals into Australia commented on these matters a long while ago-in February 1987. That was when the report and the Government's reactions to its findings were discussed in this House. Let me refresh the honourable member's memory on that. One of his findings was: It is more likely than not that a significant number of persons who committed serious war crimes in World War II have entered Australia and some of these are now resident in Australia; certainly the likelihood of this is such that some action needs to be now taken. The Opposition and everybody else said, `Yes, this is very important'. We had a bipartisan approach at that time. What has happened since? The only thing that has happened since is that the honourable member for Menzies has assumed the mantle of believing that there is something wrong with the whole conduct of the investigation. I point out that the Menzies report recommended that the Special Investigations Unit be set up. It then outlined the basis on which that unit should operate. The report recommended that the unit should: . . . make preliminary investigations of the remaining cases listed . . . as appropriate for investigation . . . Honourable members should bear in mind that the list was prepared by Mr Menzies. I have never seen it; it was handed to the then Special Minister of State, Mr Michael Young. The recommendation continued: This investigation would encompass requesting evidence from overseas countries- the honourable member should listen to this point; I think it is relevant- and providing an opportunity to the suspect to answer the allegations . . . I repeat those words: `providing an opportunity for the suspect to answer the allegations'. The recommendation continued: At the conclusion of this investigation, the unit would, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, report to the Attorney-General . . . That is, as to the position of the suspects. That is not inconsistent when compared with the Nuremberg Charter. Article 15 of the Nuremberg Charter proposes that, in matters under investigation, the chief prosecutors shall collect and produce all necessary evidence and have a preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of the defendants. To this end, we adopted the Menzies recommendation to have an investigations unit because a number of allegations could be made against people who were completely innocent. The first task of the unit relates to identity. So it was not set up on the basis of examination and cross-examination. In many cases I understand, as a result of some interviews, people have been completely exonerated from the allegations. Honourable members should bear in mind that the list was pretty substantial. It started off with 70 cases and a number of allegations have been made since. At this stage of the debate I wish to put at rest the suggestion that this legislation was always wrong. This legislation has always been right in terms of dealing with war criminals. We have had to accept the views of the Senate because the Bill has been there for more than 12 months. The proposition was put to me that, unless I could come to some sort of an arrangement, the Bill would never be finished with in the Senate. I am sure that might delight some people, but in relation to the principles of dealing with war criminals we must realise that we have accepted the Menzies Review report. In the second reading debate in this House we accepted the Menzies proposals. What has happened since, other than the two factors which resulted from the Senate Committee hearings? Senator Hill and Senator Stone said they would not be satisfied with the evidence that might come from the Soviet Union. I accept that; nobody is going to be satisfied with evidence coming from the Soviet Union. We have made it very clear that-and we are the only country in the world to do so-if we go ahead with trials, it will be on the basis that they are normal criminal trials in accordance with the procedures in Australia. In other words, there will be committal proceedings and if we bring any witnesses from overseas they will be subject to cross-examination. The alternative would be to have extradition arrangements-where Germany could ask for some of these people to be extradited and sent back. In that case there would be no question of a trial because we have treaty obligations. So here we are, trying to set up properly an opportunity for people to get justice-and no other country has done that-and we find that this remarkable attitude has now developed among Opposition members since September of last year. That was when the honourable member for Menzies wrote to me and asked whether I would accept certain amendments. I had to tell him that in certain circumstances I could not. Those amendments were never canvassed, never foreshadowed, never even mentioned in the second reading debate. So I give credit to the fact-- Mr Reith —Why do you think we had a committee? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the point: basically, I accepted the Senate Committee's recommendations. Mr N.A. Brown —You rejected them, you fool! You rejected them in writing. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is not so. The question of legal aid was accepted. The question of an annual report was accepted. On that basis I am amazed that the honourable member has to go to the point of saying that somebody is a fool. Mr N.A. Brown —That was not a Senate recommendation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It was a Senate recommendation. I do not know what is wrong with the honourable member's memory all of a sudden. If he looks at the Senate recommendations he will realise that I did not reject a Senate recommendation. I want to make that very clear-it is a matter of record. Those recommendations are: . . . that the Bill be amended by the insertion of a clause requiring that any prosecution . . . be conducted in the jurisdiction in which the defendant is resident- That is there. They continue: that the Bill be amended to provide that the magistrate . . . have a discretion to terminate a proceeding and . . . re-enter proceedings in such other forum as is determined by the magistrate . . . . . . the Bill be amended to include a provision that the `part of Australia' in which the act in question would have been an offence in the sense contemplated . . . be the `part of Australia' in which the proceedings are brought. . . . that if the Bill is enacted, special provision be made to ensure that any person charged with having committed a war crime who lacks `sufficient means to properly defend their case' be entitled to receive legal aid. The Government responded to those things in the Senate. For the honourable member's edification-- Mr N.A. Brown —On 13 April 1988. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, on 13 April. The response related to the provision of legal aid, to annual reports and to the disjunctive effect of section 7 (1), (2) and (3). Let us get that very clear. The honourable member should not come in here casting aspersions and pretending that he knows everything. The point I am trying to make is that it is the honourable member's cause-not the Opposition's-to malign and accuse people who cannot defend themselves if something wrong has been done. The honourable member was the only one who ever made a complaint on the basis that there might be war criminals in Australia because of the bombing of Dresden. He will recall that. Mr Reith —What about the RSL? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. I told the honourable member I had no complaints. He said, `I have. I will give you one now: the bombing of Dresden'. Mr N.A. Brown —When did this happen? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In my office. I remember it very clearly. Mr N.A. Brown —Was that a private conversation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, not at all. Mr N.A. Brown —We will have the rest of that private conversation recorded later. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member wants to talk about complaints being made, I will tell him that that is the only one. I knew he would be very sensitive about these issues. He is very fearless in accusing people who cannot defend themselves of doing the wrong thing. It is a miscarriage of justice to suggest that something improper has been done, especially as he knows very well that this legislation is without peer from the point of view of giving a fair trial. The point is that there must be committal proceedings. I do not think that any other country has got to that position. The United States favours extradition. Mr White —For very good reasons, I believe. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Does the honourable member think so? He should address his mind to this. If one is charged with these issues in the United States, one gets extradited. In Canada the position is very similar to ours, but I do not think the Canadians go as far as we do in giving opportunities. When the democratic countries look at this issue from the point of view of their residents, they have to consider whether they are going to deal with those residents there or whether they are going to send them back whence they came. We have made a judgment that we would prefer to deal with them here. Correspondence from the Opposition has always been along the lines, `We support the thrust of the Bill and we support the concept of dealing with war criminals', yet Opposition members are now adopting every possible attitude of antagonism. It amounts to vilification of those who have responsibilities in this area. The Menzies report suggested a Special Investigations Unit. That was welcomed by the Opposition. It is very clear that, in the conduct of its work the Unit has to ask whether there is any evidence. Is there some verification? Is there some method of identification? Can the suspect rebut the allegations? They frequently would, should, and can; and that might be the end of the investigation. Does the honourable member seriously suggest that, because the allegations have been made, the suspect should not be given the opportunity to comment on those allegations? I think not. Mr N.A. Brown —Before the Bill is passed? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. The Special Investigations Unit was set up and if the honourable member looks at the report of the debate-and I do not know whether he participated in it-he will see that it dealt with the question of what should be done about that unit. He will see from the Hansard report that everybody supported it and said it was a good idea. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said that. On that basis the unit had to be set up because Menzies had already recommended it. He said that unless there was some investigation, we had to look at it from the point of view of whether it was worth while talking about the issue. The honourable member for Flinders, when he was in charge of the matter, said `How long is the investigation unit going to remain?', and I said, `About two years'. That appears in Hansard. Almost two years have gone by in trying to get the Bill from the Senate. Mr Reith —That is in your hands. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it is not in my hands; it is in the hands of the Senate. It should be borne in mind that the Government has not got control of business in the Senate. It is all very well for the honourable gentleman to say, `We support the thrust of war criminals being dealt with'. We all do. His criticism should surely be of the method of doing that, of the Bill itself. I make the point that the Bill provides a mechanism that I think is the fairest in the world. I am getting signals. Mr Dawkins —Keep going. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —On that basis, I just want to make this point-- Mr N.A. Brown —He is padding. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it is not a matter of padding; it is a question of other matters having to be introduced. We are going into committee. There is no need to talk about padding. The honourable member is so sensitive, so vindictive, that he cannot address his mind to the issue here. Why did he write correspondence saying he supported the thrust of the Bill? I listened to the debate in the Senate and it was very clear that the Opposition would be happy if this Bill were not proceeded with in any shape or form. The Opposition has taken a hypocritical attitude in suggesting that it wants to deal with the issue that has been thrust upon this country of people coming here and allegedly being guilty of crimes committed elsewhere. That is the genesis of this situation. Let us not walk away from the issue. There are no politics involved in this. It is a question of Menzies in an independent report making it very clear that he is convinced that a number of people have entered this country who could well be guilty of war crimes and that we would need to investigate that matter. Never at any stage did he say, `You had better bring in the legislation before we talk about investigation'. That is very clear in his recommendation (3) (b), where he states, `You had better first see whether there is evidence and, when you get that evidence, at least give the suspect an opportunity to talk about it'. So the suspect is shown in advance what is deemed to be the evidence, and in many cases suspects have been able to rebut and refute the validity of the evidence or the identification. That is the point that is at issue here. The honourable member should address his mind to the fact that it was the Menzies report that suggested, in keeping with article 15 of the Nuremberg Charter, that we should at least talk to the suspect. We should not just go ahead and charge people in a blinkered fashion. I make the point again that the investigation should encompass requesting evidence from overseas and providing an opportunity to the suspect to answer the allegations made against him. Mr White —They cannot be suspects before the Act-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is the point the honourable member does not understand. A person is able to say `I am not that person; I was not there; that allegation is false', and that might be the end of the matter. Does the Opposition want to leave it on the basis that we have to say, `We will charge you first and you will have to go to the trouble and expense of trying to prove your innocence'? I think it is about time we had an opportunity to debate the matters in committee because they are relevant to the Bill. If the Opposition still wishes to support the Bill, I would welcome that attitude in committee. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(12.04) —I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Mr N.A. Brown —I take it that the debate will, in fact, come on at a later hour this day? Mr BEAZLEY —It will come on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —On behalf of Madam Speaker, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Senate amendments conveyed by this message include a purported amendment which raises an issue of constitutional significance. The third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution stipulates that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people. By its purported amendment No. 2, the Senate resolved to omit proposed paragraph 12 (3) (b) of the Bill, which alters part of the formula for providing grants to the States for approved courses provided by non-government business colleges. I am advised that this amendment removes an element from the calculation which is used to determine payment to the States for these purposes. This removes an important limitation on grants that may be made and thus may be said to increase the proposed charge or burden on the people. The question arises whether the alteration proposed by the Senate should have been by request and not by amendment. My task, as the Deputy Speaker, is to alert the House to this matter. It is for the House to decide the manner in which it will deal with the purported amendment. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 5, after clause 7, insert the following new clauses: Consultations on arrangements ``7a. (1) The Minister shall not, in respect of a program year commencing after 31 December 1989, make an arrangement under section 7 unless and until the Employment and Skills Formation Council has considered the proposed arrangement, and the Minister has taken into account any written submissions relating to the proposed arrangement, transmitted to the Minister by the Board on behalf of the Employment and Skills Formation Council. ``(2) References in this section to the Education and Skills Formation Council and the Board are references to the Education and Skills Formation Council and the National Board of Employment, Education and Training established under paragraph 23 (c) and section 6, respectively, of the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. Administrative Guidelines ``7b. (1) The Minister shall, by written instrument, issue administrative guidelines in relation to the preparation of, and conditions to be contained in, arrangements of the kind that may be specified by the Minister under section 7. ``(2) A written instrument referred to in subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.''. No. 2-Page 8, paragraph 12 (3) (b), lines 30 and 31, leave out the paragraph. No. 3-Pages 9 and 10, clause 13, line 21 (page 9) to line 31 (page 10), leave out the clause. No. 4-Page 15, after Part 5, add the following new Part: ``PART 6-AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING ACT ``31. (1) In this section: `Principal Act' means the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988; `States Grants Act' means the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Act 1988. ``(2) Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended by adding after paragraph (1) (b): `(c) to inquire into, and, from time to time, report to the Board with respect to, the operation of proposed arrangements.'.''. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.07) —I indicate to the Committee that I propose to move that the amendments be disagreed to. I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Committee to consider first amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together, and then amendments Nos. 1 and 4 together. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Is the Committee amenable to the proposal? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr DAWKINS —I thank honourable members. I move: That amendments Nos 2 and 3 be disagreed to. As indicated by the statement read by Deputy Speaker McLeay, these amendments would have the effect of increasing expenditures. Therefore, it is not properly within the competence of the Senate to move these propositions as amendments. They should, indeed, have been requests. But, even if they had been requests, the Government would have been constrained to oppose them in any event. I will read from the Acting First Parliamentary Counsel's advice that we received in relation to this matter. The Acting First Parliamentary Counsel writes: I confirm my oral advice that in my opinion amendment No. 2 of the Senate amendments, which omits paragraph 12 (3) (b) of the Bill, is an amendment which `increases any proposed charge or burden on the people'- that is the end of the quotation from the Constitution- and therefore, by virtue of section 53 of the Constitution, may not be made by the Senate. Furthermore, it seems to be that the amendment is one which, under section 56 of the Constitution, should not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated. For that reason, which is a very serious constitutional reason, the House cannot agree to this particular amendment. But there are more important issues at stake here as well. One is that once again the Senate is seeking to overturn a measure which the Government decided to embrace in the context of the May statement and has given effect to in the Budget itself. The point is that we, in the context of our higher education policy, agreed that for post-secondary institutions-those dealing with post-secondary education-we would not be providing direct support to private institutions or non-government institutions. The Government's intention was to withdraw over time or to phase out the subsidies which are currently provided to non-government business colleges. One of the difficulties here is that some non-government business colleges were receiving subsidies while others were not, and we had to decide whether we were going to make this consistent in terms of providing a subsidy to all students of non-government business colleges or to withdraw them. In the context of the large expansion in the higher education system, our continuing support for TAFE and so on, we decided that it was not appropriate for the Government to be providing these subsidies in the non-government area. In order to ease the phasing out of this particular proposition, we also agreed to provide something like an additional $1.5m to support those students who had been given an indication prior to Budget time that there would be a subsidised place for them. This was done in the context of negotiations with the association representing these non-government business colleges. And, of course, that was provided for in the Bill. The Senate's amendment is to remove these phase-out proposals and, in a sense, to maintain the subsidies for these colleges-something which would cost in 1989 alone in the order of $5m, and then, of course, in subsequent years a similar or larger amount. This takes us back to the debate we had earlier, on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. Not only is it not constitutionally within the Senate's competence to propose measures which will increase the burden on the taxpayer, but also it flies in the face of what the Opposition has said time and time again, that is, that it will not use its position in the Senate to play around with, to disrupt, or to disorganise the Government's Budget measures in a way which will increase expenditures or otherwise increase the burden on taxpayers. So, again, we have this very clear instance where the Opposition really cannot be running around the country, on the one hand, saying that it believes that expenditure ought to be cut and that the Government is spending too much money and then on the other hand, when this measure comes along, engage in the folly of in fact withdrawing an expenditure reduction proposal that the Government has decided upon. It is for those reasons, therefore, that we reject this amendment, this unconstitutional amendment agreed to by the Senate. We hope that when this matter returns to the Senate it will realise the error and allow the Bill as first proposed by the Government, at least in relation to this particular passage or section, to proceed. The important thing is that for as long as this Bill is held up as a result of disagreement between this House and the Senate, the hundreds of millions of dollars that we wish to provide to the TAFE system, to the States for the support or recurrent costs of the TAFE system and the capital costs of the expansion of the TAFE system, are thereby held up. That is the result of the failure of the Senate to pass this particular measure. We hope that this matter can be speedily resolved and that the measure can become law so that early next year we can begin to pay the amounts to the States in order to support the TAFE systems throughout the country. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.13) —I listened with interest to what the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) had to say about the constitutional aspects of this piece of legislation. He cited a legal opinion as his basis for continually saying that the legislation as it has been returned to the House is unconstitutional. I just point out that we can, of course, have a variety of legal opinions on matters that will differ one with the other and it may very well be that a different lawyer looking at the same set of facts, the same piece of legislation, the same amendment, would come up with a different conclusion. That raises the question why it was that this matter that the Minister has just referred to was not picked up in the Senate. If it is such an important matter, if this is a question of the abrogation of our Constitution, one would have thought that the Senate, with all its advice and with its lawyers, would have picked the matter up. I just say to the Minister, since he is holding out a small piece of political blackmail by saying that if the Bill does not go through all the hundreds of millions of dollars for technical and further education (TAFE) will be held up, `If you are satisfied that that aspect of the Bill is unconstitutional, let the Bill go through as it is and the Government can test it in the courts'. If the Government tests it in the courts and that aspect is unconstitutional, then the TAFE colleges will have their money and the non-government business colleges will not have their money. We reject the Minister's assertion that the basis for disagreeing with the Senate's amendments is a constitutional one. I have had a significant number of representations over the last few weeks from non-government business colleges about their funding. Although it may be true that the Minister has had discussions with representatives of non-government business colleges, it was on the basis of what had already been decided in the May statement. The Government had decided that it was going to cut the funds. The discussions were not about whether the funds should be restored. The Government had made a decision that it would cut the funds. The discussions were about the extent to which there should be some kind of alleviation of those cuts. The Minister refers to discussions with the representative body of the non-government business colleges, but he does not tell the Committee-and he should have done so-that it was a different basis on which he was having those discussions from the one to which he has alluded today. This is just another example of the Government's trying to corporatise control of education. It does not like those non-government business colleges. There are a lot of them and they are small. With these many disparate groups in our community, it is very difficult for the Government to do what it wants to do-that is, to centralise bureaucratic control over the whole education process. We see that in what it is doing with schools. A terrible brawl has broken out between the Minister and the Minister for Education in New South Wales, which has been the subject of comment in the Australian newspaper a couple of times in the last few weeks. It is obvious that what the Government is trying to do is to centralise complete control of all aspects of secondary education throughout Australia. The New South Wales Government, for very good reason, is taking exception to this endeavour. The Government is trying to do the same in higher education. A matter which will come before the chamber a little later today concerns educational profiles. The educational profiles that it is seeking to impose on higher education institutions are simply the Government's way of saying to those institutions, including universities and colleges, `This is what we want you to teach'. In forcing amalgamation of higher education institutions by putting together larger and larger blocks, the Government is making it easier to corporatise education. It is easier to control larger and larger blocks than it is to control small groups. That is one reason why the Government has really got it in for the non-government business colleges. It is a way of trying to complete the process of introducing the corporate state in education. It is a way of belting the private sector because this Government has always been suspicious about the private sector, and particularly suspicious about small groups such as the non-government business colleges that are out there performing a service for our community. It is the Government's way of making sure that all control in education is centralised, not only in advisory groups to which the Minister might have access but also right in the palm of his hand in his office here in Canberra. So, we reject what the Government wants to do with non-government business colleges. We reject the corporate state in education. We reject this further belting of the private sector. We reject what the Minister is trying to do in order to have complete control of education in his hands. What the Senate has asked for-and we concur with what the Senate has asked for-is the same level of support to the non-government business colleges as existed before the May statement. I should say, Mr Deputy Chairman, that we are dealing here, in many cases, with some very old established institutions. The Metropolitan Business College in Sydney, for example, as I understand, has been going for over 70 years. It is something with which my family had some connection; my father used to lecture there just after the Second World War. These are very well regarded institutions. They provide a very valuable service for the community. They provide a service particularly for women who are seeking training in secretarial courses and in stenography. Why the Government should be singling out these non-government business colleges and singling out women in particular is really quite beyond me. We reject the constitutional argument that has been put forward by the Minister. We invite the Minister, if that is on his mind, to let the Bill go through and test that aspect in the courts. We reject what the Government is trying to do with non-government business colleges. We reject, as part of this whole scheme, the Minister's attempts to centralise control of all education here in Canberra. Question put: That the motion (Mr Dawkins's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Sawford, R. W.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Sciacca, C.Gayler, J. Scott, JohnGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright. K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. Macphee, I. M.Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. 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. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. 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.Jull, R. C. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.29) —I move: That amendments Nos. (1) and (4) be disagreed to but that, in place of amendment No. (4), add the following new Part: ``PART 6-AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING ACT ``31. (1) In this section, `Principal Act' means the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. ``(2) Section 26 of the Principal Act is amended by adding after paragraph (1) (b): `(c) to inquire into, and, from time to time, report to the Board with respect to, the operation of arrangements referred to in section 7 of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Act 1988 and in particular to monitor the application of arrangements and advise on their role in supporting Commonwealth priorities.' These two Senate amendments were inspired by the Australian Democrats. They relate to the proposed scrutiny by the Employment and Skills Formation Council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training with respect to resource agreements between the Commonwealth and the States in relation to the funds that we provide to the States for the purposes of supporting TAFE colleges around the country. We believe that it is unnecessary and probably inappropriate for an advisory body of this kind to be involved in a detailed way in the negotiation of resource agreements between the State and Federal governments. It is quite appropriate for governments to negotiate between each other about the expenditure of Commonwealth dollars in State government institutions. Indeed, this year, 1988, we had a very successful experience with the negotiation of resource agreements to provide precisely for this purpose. What the resource agreements allow us to do, in a sense, is to ensure that our priorities-national priorities, if you like-and State priorities are pursued in the context of training for our current and future work force. Therefore we think that it is inappropriate for this Council to be involved in the approval of those resource agreements. It would mean that there would be an advisory body essentially capable of upsetting an agreement that had been struck between the two governments. We do not think that is an appropriate role for the Council. In relation to amendment No. 4, we are prepared to accept that there is a general proposition that the Council should be able to inquire into and, from time to time, report on the operation of these resource agreements. For that reason, we have moved an amendment to give effect to that intention. There is not much more that needs to be said about this matter, but it might be said that there are again some technical defects with these proposals. Indeed, in amendment No. 1 there is a reference to the wrong year in relation to the operation of resource agreements. In amendment No. 1 there is a reference to the so-called Education and Skills Formation Council, which should properly be called the Employment and Skills Formation Council. We have taken the opportunity to improve on the Democrats' amendments in this area and therefore make it operable in relation to the general monitoring of the resource agreements in regard to TAFE, but we do not agree with that part which would require this advisory council to scrutinise those agreements before they come into effect. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.32) —We accept the general thrust of what the Government is trying to do here and also accept that what it is trying to do is consistent with what the Australian Democrats had moved in the Senate. The Minister has referred a couple of times this morning to technical defects. I want to make the point very briefly that technical defects are not the sole preserve of those who are not in government. I point out to the Minister that these Bills went through the Senate last Wednesday and the Government still could not get its act together this morning, a whole week later, and as a result had to defer discussion on the two items that were shown in the second and third messages from the Senate. In summary, the Opposition takes no exception to what the Government proposes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolutions reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That Mr Lamb, Mr Cunningham and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendments Nos. 1 to 3 of the Senate. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.34) —On behalf of the committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, I present the reasons. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- Senate amendment No. 2 is not acceptable because: The amendment removes an element from the calculation which is used to determine payments to the States for approved courses provided by non-government business colleges. This removes an important limitation on grants that may be made and increases the proposed charge or burden on the people and is an infringement of section 53 of the Constitution. The Government decision to phase out the subsidy to non-government business colleges was based on the consistent application of the Government's policy on the development of and support for private tertiary institutions as set out in Higher Education: A Policy Statement. The Government was also concerned at the inequitable nature of the scheme which applied only to a limited number of institutions and a restricted range of courses. Senate amendment No. 3 is not acceptable because: This amendment is consequential on Senate amendment No. 2 and is not acceptable because it would prevent full effect being given to the package of assistance originally proposed for the non-government business colleges. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 9, after subclause 14 (2), add the following new subclause: ``(3) The approved form of an educational profile to be submitted by an institution under this section shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the institution.''. No. 2-Page 9, after subclause 14 (2), add the following new subclauses: ``(3) The Minister shall, by written instrument, issue guidelines to which regard shall be had when a profile is being prepared under subsection (1). ``(4) A written instrument referred to in subsection (3) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.''. No. 3-Page 58, after clause 122, insert the following new clause: Amendments of Employment, Education and Training Act ``122a. (1) In this section: `Principal Act' means the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988; `Funding Act' means the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. ``(2) Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by adding after paragraph (1) (b): `(c) to inquire into, and provide regular reports, in February and August each year, to the Board with respect to the operation of: (i) section 14 of the Funding Act; and (ii) the Higher Education Contribution Scheme established by the Funding Act, including its effects on access to higher education, and the level and quality of post graduate research; (d) to consult with institutions with regard to the preparation of educational profiles and variations of such profiles for the purposes of section 14 of the Funding Act.'; and (b) by adding the following new subsection after subsection (2): `(3) The Board shall transmit any report referred to in paragraph (1) (c) to the Minister who shall cause copies of it to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister has received the report.'.''. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.37) —I indicate to the Committee that the Government proposes that amendment No. 1 be agreed to and that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the Committee first to consider amendment No. 1 and then, when that amendment has been disposed of, to consider amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Is the Committee amenable to the proposal? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr DAWKINS —I move: That amendment No. 1 be agreed to. This amendment was one which the Government accepted in the Senate. It provides a basis on which, before the form of educational profiles is settled, there should be an opportunity for consultation with the particular institutions. It was always our intention that that course be followed. Therefore, we have no objection to this being spelt out in the provisions of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.38) —I move: That amendments Nos. 2 and 3 be disagreed to, but that, in place of amendment No. 3, new clause 122a be inserted in the Bill, as follows: ``122A. (1) In this section, `Principal Act' means the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. ``(2) Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by adding after paragraph (1) (b): `(c) to inquire into, and provide regular reports, in February and August each year, to the Board with respect to the operation of: (i) section 14 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, including the role of educational profiles in supporting Commonwealth priorities in higher education; and (ii) the Higher Education Contribution Scheme established by the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, including its effects on access to higher education, and the level and quality of post-graduate research; (d) to consult with institutions with regard to the preparation of educational profiles and variations of such profiles for the purposes of section 14 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988.'; and (b) by adding at the end the following subsection: `(3) The Board shall transmit any report referred to in paragraph (1) (c) to the Minister who shall cause copies of it to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister has received the report.'.''. This is very much like the arrangements that I mentioned in relation to the previous matter. We are accepting that the appropriate council of the National Board of Employment, Education and Training should have a monitoring role in relation to the operation of educational profiles and in relation to the operation of the higher education contribution scheme. These amendments were proposed by the Democrats with, I think, some assistance from the Opposition parties. Rather than approving them precisely in the form which they came from the Senate, they have been redrafted to improve their clarity and to remove yet another technical deficiency which existed in the amendments as they came to us. But, in terms of the principle of there being a monitoring role for the Higher Education Council, the Government accepts this in order to ensure the speedy passage of this measure. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.40) —The Opposition accepts the Government's position on this matter and notes that the general intent is as the Senate wished. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolutions reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That Mrs Darling, Mr Johns and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendment No. 2 of the Senate. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(12.41) —On behalf of the committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to amendment No. 2 of the Senate, I present the reasons. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- Senate amendment No. 2 is not acceptable because: The amendment is both unnecessary and ineffectual. Guidelines on the development of educational profiles are already issued as part of normal arrangements for administration of Commonwealth higher education programs. As well, the amendment would require an institution only to `have regard' to the guidelines issued by the Minister, without any requirement to comply with those guidelines. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Mr Beale —I raise a point of order. In dealing with the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill the Committee of Reasons gave the reasons for the House disagreeing to some of the amendments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —We have passed by that item. The House has already adopted resolutions relating to that piece of legislation. Mr Dawkins —In relation to two of the amendments we moved an alternative proposition, which I am advised satisfies the requirements for providing reasons. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is it clear to the honourable member for Deakin that the House did not need to give reasons for amendment No. 3 because another amendment was substituted? Mr Dawkins —I think the honourable member for Deakin's difficulty with the earlier Bill, where we rejected two amendments, is that we did not provide reasons but simply an amendment which covered both of them. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not necessary to give reasons. Mr Beale —With your indulgence, I would have thought the same was true about the Senate's amendment No. 2 to the Higher Education Funding Bill; but if the Minister tells me he is satisfied, I am satisfied. Mr Dawkins —I am satisfied. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Beazley-I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.01) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith: That this Parliament censures the Prime Minister for his failure to dismiss the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who has: (1) misled the Parliament; and (2) been publicly exposed as being incompetent in the administration of his portfolio. Madam Speaker, the Standing Orders should be suspended, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should be dragged back from the golf course-- Mr Beazley —To assist the Leader of the Opposition, we would be prepared to facilitate this matter at the conclusion of Government business later on today. We have no problems with this censure motion, but there are matters that we require to get to the Senate. If that is acceptable to the Opposition, we will give it that opportunity to move the motion later. Does the Opposition want it now? Mr HOWARD —Madam Speaker-- Mr Beazley —Very well. I move: That the honourable member be not further heard. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— 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 Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCourtice, B. W. Martin, S. P.Crawford, M. C. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Pratt, M. P.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr MILES(Braddon)(2.10) —Madam Speaker, it is disgraceful that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not here-- Motion (by Mr Beazley) put: That the honourable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— 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 Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. 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.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L.Jull, D. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House)(2.17) —Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the members of the Opposition opposite, although the rest of the House may not have heard, the Government has absolutely no problems with debating this particular motion. However, this House has been recalled to deal with items that have been referred to it from the Senate which constitute Government business. It will deal with those matters and other Government business and when it has concluded those matters from the Senate then it will consider the Opposition motion, and not before. I therefore move: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. 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.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G.Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S.Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R.Cobb, M. R. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. 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.Howard, J. W. Woods, R. L. Baldwin, P. J. Johns, G. T.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Kerr, D. J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brown, Robert Lavarch, M. H.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. J.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Courtice, B. W. Milton, P.Crawford, M. C. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Keefe, N. P.Dawkins, J. S. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dubois, S. C. Price, L. R. S.Duffy, M. J. Punch, G. F.Duncan, P. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Sawford, R. W.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sciacca, C.Free, R. V. Scott, JohnGayler, J. Scott, LesGear, G. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Snowdon, W. E.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Harvey, E. R. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Jenkins, H. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Committee of Reasons Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Leader of the House) —Prior to lunch the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) raised a question as to whether the Committee of Reasons which was set up in relation to the rejection of certain Senate amendments to the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Assistance Bill had failed to give reasons for the House not accepting the Senate's amendment No. 1. I have to inform the House that there was a misunderstanding on this matter and the honourable member was correct in believing that a reason should be given in respect of the rejection of amendment No. 1. I ask leave of the House for the reason to be now read by the Clerk. Leave granted. Thereupon the Clerk read the reason as follows- Senate amendment No. 1 is not acceptable because: The proposed additional powers for the Employment and Skills Formation Council (ESFC) run counter to the Government's objective in establishing a unified and modestly resourced advisory structure with the National Board of Employment, Education and Training (NBEET). The additional reporting activity proposed for ESFC will create demands for substantial increased administrative resources over and above the level currently provided to NBEET. The amendment also reduces the flexibility of the arrangements the Government was introducing for Commonwealth funding of TAFE, and would make administrative processes complex and potentially delay the payment of grants to the States. There are also technical problems with the amendments. Mr BEALE(Deakin) —With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I point out that both the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) this morning made much of some alleged technical defects that had arisen in amendments that came back from the Senate. It being Christmas I do not want to make too much of the point, but it is obvious that what we have here is sloppy work by the Minister and his Department. It is a further illustration of how arrogant, out of touch and incompetent that mob opposite is. 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- Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 63m of the Audit Act 1901-together with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 Section 8 Statement. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Expenditure-October 1988. Australian Forestry Council-Summary of Resolutions and Recommendations-Twenty-Fourth Meeting, Perth-21 July 1988-together with an explanatory statement. Australian Manufacturing Council-Annual Report 1987-88. Australian Institute of Marine Science-Annual Report 1987-88-section 37 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972. Soil Conservation Advisory Committee-Annual Report 1987-88-section 19 of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act 1985. Subsidiary Agreement Between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan-concerning Japanese Tuna Long-line Fishing-dated 27 October 1988-section 9d of the Fisheries Act 1952. Agreement Between the Commonwealth of Australia and Karina Fisheries Pty Ltd-dated 1 November 1988-sections 9b and 9c of the Fisheries Act 1952. Agreement Between the Commonwealth of Australia and Touchstone Pty Ltd-dated 6 November 1988-section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952. Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority Equal Employment Opportunity-Annual Report 1987-88-section 9 of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act 1987. Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board-Annual Report 1987-88-section 46 of the Managements and Investment Companies Act 1983. Aboriginal Hostels Limited-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report. Jawoyn (Katherine Area) Land Claim-Report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner-section 50 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies-Annual Report 1987-88-section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964. Australian Trade Commission-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 92 of the Australian Trade Commission Act 1985. Department of Primary Industries and Energy-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Department of Primary Industries and Energy-Portfolio FOI Statement 1988-Supplement to Annual Report 1987-88-section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Australian Dairy Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-section 123 of the Dairy Produce Act 1986. Review of Decisions Under Industry Research and Development Legislation-Administrative Review Council Report to the Attorney-General. Parliament House Construction Authority-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979. General Insolvency Inquiry-Volumes 1 and 2-Law Reform Commission Report-section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. Grouped Proceedings in the Federal Court-Law Reform Commission Report-section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. Agreement on Fisheries Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China-dated 17 November 1988-section 9b of the Fisheries Act 1952. First Home Owners Scheme-Annual Report 1987-88-section 41 of the First Home Owners Act 1983. Horticultural Policy Council-Annual Report 1987-88-section 28 of the Horticultural Policy Council Act 1987. Defence Service Homes Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 50b of the Defence Service homes Act 1918. Housing Loans insurance Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation Act 1965. Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 32 of the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973. Consultants Engaged under Secttion4 of the Members of Parliament (Staff Act 1984-Annual Report 1987-88-section 31 of the Act. Australian Film, Television and Radio School-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School Act 1973 and section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982. Repatriation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs-Annual Reports 1987-88-section 215 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922. Attorney-General's Department-Office of Parliamentary Counsel-Annual Reports 1987-88-section 25 of the Public Service Act 1922 and section 16a of the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970. Child Sexual Abuse-Family Law Council-Report September 1988. National Legal Aid Advisory CommmitteeAnnual Report 1987-88-section 18 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977. Australian Institute of Criminalogy-Annual Report 1987-88-Section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971. Criminology Research Council-Annual Report 1987-88. Guidelines for Organisations Seeking approval under the Family Law Act 1975-Part II and the Marriage Act 1961-Part IA-in relation to the Conduct of Programs of Marriage Counselling, Family Mediation or Marriage Education. Public Service Board EQual Employment Opportunity-Annual Report 1986-87-section 22b of the Public Service Act 1922. Australian Airlines Limited-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report. Australian Honey Board-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962. Financial Management Improvement Program-Report 1988. Living with AIDS Toward the Year 2000-Report of the 3rd National Conference on AIDS-Hobart, 4-6 August 1988. Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 38 of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island Ordinance 1985. Australian Quarantine: Looking to the Future-a Government policy statement-Paper. Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue Collections-Annual Report 1987-88-section 11 of the Taxation (Administration) Ordinance 1987. Racecourse Development Fund-Annual Report 1987-88-section 35z of the Betting (Totalizator Agency) Ordinance 1964. Canberra Development Board-Annual Report 1987-88. Australial Capital Territory Bookmakers Licensing Committee-Annual Report 1987-88-section 54 of the Bookmakers Ordinance 1985. Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 26 of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority-Final Annual Report 1987-88including the Auditor-General's Report-section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962. Australian Dried Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1987-88-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 36 of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978. National Legal Aid Representative Council-Annual Report 1987-88-section 18 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977. Australia New Zealand Foundation-Annual Report 1987-88. Australia-China Council-Annual Report 1987-88. Mr BEAZLEY —I present a paper on the following subject, being a petition which is not in accordance with the Standing and Sessional Orders of the House: Perth Airport-from the member for Swan-2,060 petitioners. Madam SPEAKER —Pursuant to section 9 (b) of the Public Service Act 1922 I present the annual report of the Department of the Parliamentary Library for 1987-88. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That the Financial Management Improvement Program Report 1988 be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The increasing concern regarding the Government's maladministration of Aboriginal Affairs. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr MILES(Braddon)(2.30) —Madam Speaker- Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —Madam Speaker, I wish to ask you a question. In the course of today's sitting Hansard has not been recording the proceedings of the House in the usual way-that is, manually. The Opposition has been advised that this is because of a lack of Hansard staff. Is it your intention to do away with the manual recording of the proceedings of the House? If not, why is there a shortage of Hansard staff on a day when the House is sitting? Madam SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Mayo for his question. I have been advised by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter that with only 28 of the 34 reporting and editorial positions occupied-we have shortages there-and nine of the occupants of the 28 positions absent from duty today on sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave and recreation leave from which they could not reasonably be recalled, it will not be possible to report both Houses in the usual way, especially if one of the Houses sits through the meal breaks. I might add that, depending on the length of today's sittings, it may not be possible for the Hansard copy to be processed and the Government Printing Office staff to print the Daily Hansards before the Christmas break begins at the end of this week. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 3, paragraph 7 (b), proposed paragraph (c) of definition of ``Australian resident'', line 18, leave out ``or''. No. 2-Page 3, paragraph 7 (b), after proposed paragraph (d) of definition of ``Australian resident'', add the following new paragraph: ``or (e) a person (not being a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d)) who: (i) is the holder of a temporary entry permit in force under the Migration Act 1958; and (ii) has applied for an entry permit that is not intended to operate as a temporary entry permit under the Migration Act 1958; and who, in the opinion of the Secretary, is a person with respect to whom it is more likely than not that: (iii) territorial asylum in Australia may be granted; (iv) another person, being the person's spouse, parent or child, is an Australian citizen or the holder of an entry permit that is not intended to operate as a temporary entry permit under the Migration Act 1958; (v) a determination may be made that the person has the status of a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the status of refugees that was done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 or of the protocol relating to the Status of Refugees that was done at New York on 31 January 1967; (vi) there is in force an authorisation to work in Australia and the person is not a prescribed non-citizen under the Migration Act 1958; or (vii) strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds for the grant of an entry permit may be found to exist;''. No. 3-Page 5, clauses 12 and 13, lines 6 to 15, leave out the clauses. Progress reported. Debate resumed. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clauses 3 and 4, lines 10 to 14, leave out the clauses, insert the following clause: Substitution of Preamble ``3. The Preamble to the Principal Act is repealed and the following Preamble is substituted: `WHEREAS: (a) concern has arisen that a significant number of persons who committed serious war crimes in Europe during World War II may since have entered Australia and became Australian citizens or residents; (b) it is appropriate that persons accused of such war crimes be brought to trial in the ordinary criminal courts in Australia; and (c) it is also essential in the interests of justice that persons so accused be given a fair trial with all the safeguards for accused persons in trials in those courts, having particular regard to matters such as the gravity of the allegations and the lapse of time since the alleged crimes:'.''. No. 2-Page 2, clause 6, proposed section 5, definition of ``occupation'', line 18, leave out the definition, insert the following definition: `` `occupation' means: (a) an occupation of territory arising out of a war; or (b) without limiting the generality of paragraph (a), an occupation of territory in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia as a direct or indirect result of: (i) the agreement of 23 August 1939 between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; or (ii) any protocol to that agreement;''. No. 3-Pages 2 and 3, clause 6, proposed section 5, definition of ``war'', line 35 (page 2) to line 3 (page 3), leave out all words from and including ``in so far as'' to the end of the proposed section, insert ``in so far as it occurred in Europe in the period beginning on 1 September 1939 and ending on 8 May 1945.''. No. 4-Page 3, clause 6, proposed subsection 6 (4), line 41, leave out ``(whether or not across frontiers)''. No. 5-Page 4, clause 6, after proposed subsection 7 (3), add the following new subsection: `` `(4) Two or more serious crimes together constitute a war crime if: (a) they are of the same or a similar character; (b) they form, or are part of, a single transaction or event; and (c) each of them is also a war crime by virtue of either or both of subsections (1) and (3).''. No. 6-Page 4, clause 6, proposed section 8, lines 37 to 41, leave out the proposed section, insert the following section: Effect of sections 6 and 7 `` `8. (1) Subject to subsection 7 (2), nothing in section 6 or 7 limits the generality of anything else in that section. `(2) An Act may be a serious crime by virtue of one or more of subsections 6 (1), (3), (4) and (5), but not otherwise. `(3) A serious crime may be a war crime by virtue of either or both of subsections 7 (1) and (3), but not otherwise. `(4) Two or more serious crimes may together constitute a war crime by virtue of subsection 7 (4), but not otherwise.''. No. 7-Page 5, clause 6, proposed paragraph 9 (1) (a), line 4, leave out ``29 October 1945'', insert ``8 May 1945''. No. 8-Page 5, clause 6, proposed paragraph 9 (1) (b), line 5, leave out the proposed paragraph. No. 9-Page 5, clause 6, proposed subsection 13 (2), lines 35 to 37, leave out all words from and including ``this Act'' to the end of the subsection, insert the following words and paragraphs: ``this Act has effect, in relation to an act that is, or is alleged to be, the offence, as if: (e) a reference in subsection 6 (3) or section 16 to a part of Australia were a reference to that State or Territory; and (f) without limiting subsection 6 (2), all defences under the law in force in that State or Territory when the person is charged with the offence had been defences under the law in force in that State or Territory at the time of the act.''. No. 10-Page 6, clause 6, after proposed subsection 13 (3), insert the following new subsections: `` `(4) Nothing in Part II or subsection 9 (1) shall be taken to exclude, limit or otherwise prejudice: (a) the application in proceedings for offences against this Act of the normal rules of evidence and procedure that apply in proceedings for offences against the laws of the Commonwealth; or (b) any of the powers of a court in respect of proceedings for offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, the powers of a court to take action to prevent an abuse of process. `(5) Where, on the trial of a person for an offence against this Act, the person satisfies the judge, on the balance of probabilities, that: (a) the person is unable to obtain evidence that he or she would, but for the lapse of time or some other reason beyond his or her control, have been able to obtain; (b) the person's inability to obtain that evidence has substantially prejudiced, or will substantially prejudice, the preparation or conduct of his or her defence; and (c) the interests of justice require the making of an order under this subsection; the judge may make such order as he or she thinks appropriate for a stay of proceedings for the offence. `(6) Nothing in subsections (4) and (5) limits the generality of anything else in those subsections.''. No. 11-Page 6, clause 6, before proposed section 14, insert the following new sections: Objection to venue `` `13a. (1) This section applies where a proceeding for an offence against this Act is being held in a State or internal Territory. `(2) The defendant may apply to the magistrate or judge for an order that all proceedings for the offence be held in another State or internal Territory. `(3) An application may only be made: (a) as soon as reasonably practicable after the defendant is charged with the offence; or (b) at such later time as the magistrate or judge allows. `(4) If an application is made, the magistrate or judge shall, unless he or she is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant, when charged with the offence: (a) was a resident of the State or Territory referred to in subsection (1); or (b) was not a resident of that other State or Territory; order that all proceedings for the offence be held in that other State or Territory. `(5) An order under this section is subject to appeal or review to the same extent, and in the same manner, as any other order or decision by the magistrate or judge made in the proceeding. `(6) For the purposes of this section, the Australian Capital Territory and the Jervis Bay Territory constitute a single Territory. Effect of order for change of venue `13b. (1) This section applies where: (a) a proceeding for an offence against this Act is being held in a State or internal Territory; and (b) the magistrate or judge orders under section 13a that all proceedings for the offence be held in another State or internal Territory. `(2) The magistrate or judge may order that the defendant be taken, as soon as practicable, in the custody of a specified person, to that other State or Territory and there delivered into the custody of a person having authority to arrest him or her. `(3) The magistrate or judge may make such further orders as he or she thinks necessary to facilitate the carrying into effect of an order made under subsection (2). `(4) While the order under section 13a is in force: (a) a proceeding for the offence shall not be held except in that other State or Territory; and (b) the defendant is not entitled to apply to a magistrate or judge in that other State or Territory for an order under section 13a in relation to the offence.''. No. 12-Page 6, clause 6, proposed section 14, line 12, leave out ``The'', insert ``Subject to subsections 6 (2) and 13 (2), the''. No. 13-Page 6, clause 6, proposed section 15, lines 17 to 22, leave out the proposed section, insert the following section: Defence based on laws, customs and usages of war `` `15. (1) This section has effect for the purposes of a proceeding for an offence against this Act. `(2) Subject to section 14, it is a defence if the doing by the defendant of the act alleged to be the offence: (a) was permitted by the laws, custom and usages of war; and (b) was not under international law a crime against humanity. `(3) To avoid doubt, the doing of the act by the defendant was permitted by the laws, customs and usages of war if it was reasonably justified by the exigencies and necessities of the conduct of war. `(4) The defendant is not entitled to rely on a defence under subsection (2) unless there is evidence of the existence of the facts constituting the defence. `(5) However, if there is such evidence, the onus of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those facts either do not exist or do not constitute the defence lies on the prosecution.''. No. 14-Page 7, clause 6, before proposed section 17, insert the following new section: Legal assistance `` `16a. (1) A person who has been, or is about to be, charged with an offence against this Act may apply to the Attorney-General for assistance under this section. `(2) If the Attorney-General is satisfied that in all the circumstances it is appropriate and reasonable to grant an application made under this section, he or she may authorise the provision by the Commonwealth to the applicant of such legal or financial assistance in connection with a proceeding for the offence as the Attorney-General determines. `(3) An authorisation under subsection (2) may be made subject to such conditions (if any) as the Attorney-General determines. `(4) In considering an application made under this section, the Attorney-General shall have regard to any hardship to the applicant that refusal of the application would involve. `(5) As soon as practicable after deciding to refuse an application made under this section, the Attorney-General shall give the applicant a written notice that: (a) sets out the decision and the reasons for it; and (b) requests the applicant to consent in writing to a copy of the notice being laid before each House of the Parliament in accordance with subsection (6). `(6) Where an applicant gives a consent in writing pursuant to a request under subsection (5), the Attorney-General shall cause a copy of the notice to which the consent relates to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Attorney-General receives the consent.''. No. 15-Page 7, clause 6, after proposed section 17, add the following new section: Annual report `` `18. (1) The Attorney-General shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year: (a) cause a report about the operation of this Act during the year ending on that 30 June to be prepared; and (b) cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is prepared. `(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include particulars of: (a) how many suspected offences against this Act were under investigation during the year; (b) how many prosecutions for alleged offences against this Act were begun during the year; (c) the resources available during the year for the purposes of investigating such suspected offences and carrying on such prosecutions; and (d) the timetable for finalising: (i) investigations of such suspected offences; and (ii) such prosecutions.''. No. 16-Clause 6, after proposed new section 18, add the following new section: Persons accused of war crimes not to be extradited unless prima facie case established `` `19. (1) Subject to Part II, an expression has the same meaning in this section as in the Extradition Act 1988. `(2) Subsection (3) applies where, in proceedings that are conducted in a State or Territory under section 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 in relation to a person, the magistrate is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that an extradition offence for which the extradition country concerned seeks the person's surrender is constituted by conduct constituting an offence against this Act. `(3) For the purposes of the Extradition Act 1988, the person is not eligible for surrender in relation to the extradition offence unless the magistrate is satisfied that there has been established a prima facie case that the person committed the offence against this Act, in other words, that there is evidence that, if uncontroverted, would provide sufficient grounds: (a) to put the person on trial in a court of that State or Territory for the last-mentioned offence; or (b) for inquiry by such a court in relation to the last-mentioned offence. `(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), subsection 13 (1) shall be disregarded. `(5) This section has effect despite any law or treaty.''. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(2.35) —I understand that the Opposition wishes to deal with the amendments seriatim. Accordingly, I move: That amendment No. 1 be agreed to. This amendment relates to the substitution of the preamble. The new preamble refers to issues that Mr Menzies dealt with in respect of those people who committed, or are alleged to have committed, crimes in Europe and who came to Australia. It refers to the safeguard that if there were to be trials in Australia they would be held in the ordinary criminal courts of Australia. Also, it outlines that all safeguards would be available to defendants in Australia-namely, matters such as the gravity of the allegations and the lapse of time since the alleged crimes would be taken into account. The Senate felt that this preamble should be inserted. The Government agrees and I accept the amendment. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(2.37) —As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has pointed out, this Government amendment, which is the first of a series of amendments from the Senate, proposes that a preamble be inserted into the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987. That preamble sets out a number of provisions which, in substance, the Attorney-General has explained to us. What the Attorney-General has not explained to us, and what I am sure everyone reading the Hansard would like to know, is exactly why the Government proposed this amendment. As the Attorney-General has given this House no explanation as to why the preamble is to be inserted into the Bill, it may be helpful if I explain to the Committee exactly why I understand the Government is proposing it. Mr MacKellar —Perhaps you should tell the Attorney-General. Mr N.A. Brown —Indeed, as my colleague has suggested, perhaps I could explain it to the Attorney-General. I will do so in this way: an argument has arisen with respect to whether the War Crimes Amendment Bill should apply to Australian ex-service personnel. The Opposition has consistently maintained that the Bill should not. We have argued that the War Crimes Amendment Bill, and the machinery for setting up and conducting war crimes trials in this country, should not apply to Australian ex-service personnel. We have maintained that all along and we maintain it even more strongly today for a particular reason which I will outline in a moment. We have maintained that this Bill should not apply to Australian ex-service personnel for two reasons: the first is that the Government has always maintained that the reason why we need this war crimes Bill at all is that there are in Australia people who are, in substance, guilty of serious war crimes. However, the Government goes on to say that there is no system of law which can be used to bring them to trial. As a result of that, the Government says, it is necessary to have a new and separate law which will retrospectively confer jurisdiction upon the Australian courts so that these individuals may be brought to justice and may be forced to stand trial within this country. As I have said, the underlying proposition behind all of that is that there is as yet no Australian system of law which governs those individuals and the dreadful acts that they committed. Therefore, it is now necessary to pass a new law and to apply it retrospectively some 45 years. There are arguments, of course, about the wisdom of adopting that retrospective method of legislation, but we will leave that to one side for the moment. Our point is simply this: those Australians who were members of the Australian armed forces were subject to a system of law. A system of law applied to them during the Second World War. There is, therefore, no need to subject them to this new retrospectively created structure of law which turns the clock back 45 years. That is the first reason. There is a second reason why we say that the Bill should not apply to Australian ex-service personnel. The Government has told us over and over again that there is no intention to prosecute any former members of the Australian defence forces. It is a good principle to make one's legislation say what one wants to achieve, to make it say what one wants to do. For that reason, we say: if the intention is that there should be no prosecutions of former Australian service people and if there is no ground for prosecuting any of them, which the Attorney-General maintains, what is the earthly point of having a Bill of such an enormously wide ambit which covers Australian ex-service personnel? All of that in one sense is by way of background. The Government, in response to this argument, has said, `We will tell you what we will do: This Bill, when we formally introduced it into the Parliament, applied to acts which were committed in such theatres of war as Europe, North Africa and the Pacific. We will take all of them out with the exception of Europe. We will leave Europe in and exclude all of the other theatres of war'. I do not know why the Attorney-General cannot explain why this change was made. The Government says, `Australian ex-service men and women were mostly engaged in the Pacific and in theatres other than Europe. Therefore, we will come half of the way, or part of the way, and we will change our Bill so that it will apply to Australian ex-service men and women who served in the armed forces in Europe during the war but it will not apply to those who were engaged in activities in the Pacific and in other theatres'. We accept this change because it is all right as far as it goes. But it goes nowhere near the distance it should go. It should exclude all Australian ex-service personnel. If the Government had an ounce of humanity and commonsense about it, it would do exactly that. We say that what the Government has done is make the situation worse than it was initially. It has now created two classes of Australian ex-service personnel-those who served in Europe and those who served in the other theatres of war apart from Europe. The Government is saying to ex-service men and women in this country, `If you served in Europe then for the rest of your lives you will be at risk of being charged under the War Crimes Act'. The Government is going to leave Australian ex-service personnel who served in Europe subject to that risk for the rest of their lives. Is it any wonder that members of the Returned Services League and other people outside this Parliament have expressed their concern and outrage at what the Government is doing? It is utterly reprehensible for the Government to rectify the problem which we highlighted by creating two classes of Australian ex-service personnel, which is really worse than the original situation. We support this amendment to the Bill because it goes part of the way and it acknowledges our concern. Another matter of equal concern about this preamble is the sloppy mumbo jumbo which the Government engages in. The preamble commences with the words: WHEREAS: (a) concern has arisen that a significant number of persons who committed serious war crimes in Europe during World War II may since have entered Australia and become Australian citizens or residents. It introduces the notion of serious war crimes. The preamble will be used as one of the parts of this piece of legislation to interpret the rest of it, because the Acts Interpretation Act says that it can be used for that purpose. So the Government has introduced this notion of serious war crimes. But serious war crimes are not even covered by the Bill. The Bill deals with war crimes. And war crimes are defined as `serious crimes', which are themselves defined as being such `if they were committed during the war'. That is what the Government's war crimes are. It has always had trouble working out what it is on about in relation to war crimes, but the definitions in the Bill are definitions of serious crimes which were committed during the war. Into this preamble the Government has brought this new notion of `serious war crimes'. This will give the courts-which will have to interpret this legislation when it becomes an Act, as it will-an additional problem, a new headache. They will ask, `What on earth did the Government mean by ``serious war crimes''?'. Does it mean that when people are prosecuted for war crimes which are less than serious they will not be entitled to a fair trial or to any of the other lofty propositions in the preamble? That is absurd. It is hopelessly sloppy drafting and the Government should be utterly ashamed of the way in which it has drawn this preamble and inserted it into the Bill. We support it as far as it goes, but the reality is that the Government has created two new major problems. The first is in interpretation of the Bill by the courts, because there is now this notion of serious war crimes, which is not the expression used in the Bill itself. The second problem relates to the fact that the Government has reprehensibly created two classes of Australian ex-service personnel. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the Committee have leave to sit again at a later hour this day. Mr N.A. Brown —This is the second time today that we have had a bite at the amendments that have come back from the Senate on the War Crimes Amendment Bill. We started off this morning and we fired the opening salvo. There was then a kerfuffle on the Government benches because something that the Government regarded as more important had emerged from the Senate and the House decided that it had to deal with that. So we had a go on that. Mr Beazley —Is the honourable member entitled to speak on this? Mr N.A. Brown —I am speaking to the motion. The Government just does not seem to know the rules. There are some rules that I do not know about, but I would have thought that the Leader of the House would know them all off by heart. I am simply making the point that we had half an hour on this debate this morning. We then had to abandon the whole thing and go onto other Bills. We started again with renewed energy after lunch. We have scarcely got going; I have scarcely got warmed up and now we have to adjourn again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have to interrupt the honourable member for Menzies. I was not warmed up and he is not entitled to speak at the moment. Mr N.A. Brown —In that case, I will sit down and abide by your ruling. But it really is extraordinary. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(2.50) —I indicate to the Committee that the Government proposes that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 from the Senate be agreed to and amendment No. 3 be disagreed to. Therefore, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Committee first to consider Nos. 1 and 2 together, which relate to the same matter, and when that amendment has been disposed of to consider amendment No. 3. The CHAIRMAN —Is that acceptable to the Committee? There being no objection that is so ordered. Dr BLEWETT —I move: That amendments Nos 1 and 2 be agreed to. In doing so I wish to say a little about those two amendments together. They involve no departure in principle and, although we believe there are administrative faults and difficulties with them, the Government is prepared to accept them. Honourable members will be aware that when this Bill was debated in this place the Government sought, amongst other things, to limit Medicare access to persons who have a legal entitlement to remain permanently in Australia and to exclude visa overstayers, illegal immigrants and the like from Medicare eligibility. I am sure that there would be general agreement in the chamber on that point. However, the Bill which is now returned from the Senate also proposes the insertion of a new subclause (e) in section 7 (b) to add the definition of `Australian resident persons' who, in the opinion of the Secretary to the Department of Community Services and Health, are likely to be granted an entry permit for permanent resident status following an application based on territorial asylum, family connections in Australia, refugee status, an authorisation to work in Australia or compassionate or humanitarian grounds. We believe that there are some real administrative difficulties with this proposal, which was supported, I might point out, by both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the Senate. For instance, it imposes on the Secretary to the Department a task of double judging the issue of the decisions made in an entirely different department. But, given the way the Senate behaves these days, these are the sorts of oddities that emerge from it. However, I wish to point out that already most of those problems are dealt with by the substantial discretionary power already possessed by the Minister, and indeed I believe the discretionary power would be able to be applied to these rather confusing amendments. I believe it would have been much better to have left the Bill as it was and to have left those discretionary powers with the Minister. Moreover, the new clauses seem to address situations which, to date, have never been brought to my notice under those discretionary provisions, so the extent of the concern is doubtful. I have certainly undertaken to meet the representatives of the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia with a view to resolving any problems in this area. Having said that, we will accept this amendment with reluctance, but I will also indicate that it is likely that in the not too distant future we will have to correct some of the problems that arise from it. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(2.53) —In responding to this debate on the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), I must say that this is another sad reflection on the manner in which legislation is introduced into this place and then pushed through the Senate to the exhaustion of senators who have been sitting for the last four weeks. When this was originally dealt with in the House of Representatives, I think we were allowed one hour's debating time as a result of the guillotine motion. Of course, the issue of Medicare did not receive the complete endorsement of this House, and we did not get the opportunity to examine and debate the legislation fully. I must say that many people in Australia are complaining very bitterly about Medicare. To use a medical term, Medicare is bleeding the health system of Australia. The health system is literally bleeding through lack of funding and lack of Government support. It is interesting that while the Government is prepared to accept these two amendments, on the other hand it says that it is not sure what the amendments mean. These amendments extend the Medicare categorisation to another five cases, which are, I think, listed within the amendment itself. If there is a suggestion that the next amendment changes expenditure, I would suggest that these categorisations themselves would increase costs to the Government in some respects. The Senate agreed to these amendments on a vote of 42 to 30, and at this stage the Opposition will go along with them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(2.56) —I move: That amendment No. 3 be disagreed to. The previous amendments have just received a fascinating defence from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Certainly, the Senate had plenty of time to consider in detail these measures and in this case it came up with a rather peculiar amendment. The first two amendments did not apply to principle nor, despite the claims of the honourable member for Dawson, do they have any significant financial effects. As I have indicated, we are not aware of particular cases covered by those categories, so the financial effect is minimal, if not non-existent. However, amendment No. 3 clearly attempts to reverse or deny the Budget policy of the Government. In the 1988-89 Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that the Government had: . . . painstakingly sifted through Commonwealth outlays, attacking waste and setting priorities. In Budget Paper No. 1 the Treasurer indicated: The Government has decided that the Health Insurance Act 1973 will be amended in 1988-89 to remove Medicare benefits in respect of services provided overseas, saving an estimated $5m in 1988-89 and $6m in a full year. Last night in the Senate, the Government attempted to achieve the objectives laid down in the Budget presented to this Parliament. The result, however, was that the Senate rejected the amendments to the Health Insurance Act designed to discontinue the payment of Medicare benefits for medical services provided overseas. In fact, what the Opposition has done in the Senate is to effectively overturn a Budget decision. Budgets, as the more responsible members of the Opposition would realise, are based on setting priorities and ensuring that groups deserving of the greatest financial support receive it. There is an important principle here. The Government is responsible for setting the financial framework for government expenditure through the Budget and it is not proposing to abrogate its responsibility in this area to the Senate. I would be very interested indeed to see those apostles of financial discipline and Budget responsibility, such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the shadow Minister for Finance, the honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), taking a position that the basic budgetary framework can be undermined in this particular way. We admit that the cost of the Senate rejection of the proposed amendments is not large in relative terms-some $5m per annum. But that $5m per annum will have to be found elsewhere in the portfolio. While the Opposition in the Senate seems to be keen to protect Medicare benefits for a few Australians who travel overseas, the result of that decision, the result of its refusal to accept the budgetary framework laid down, may well be that other much more needy Australians will suffer. So, first of all there is the issue of principle -that in making a Budget one has to make a number of tough decisions. If those decisions can be just rejected by the upper House then, of course, what we have is the destruction of effective budgetary responsibility in this country. That is the principle involved, even though the amount of money might be relatively small. I think that the senators also ignored the intrinsic virtue of the decision that the Government made, because they did not seem to realise that travellers who become ill and require medical treatment while overseas-or, even worse, hospitalisation-are personally responsible, even under the present system, for the often very high costs involved. The Government's position, explained very clearly to the Senate and to this House, is that it is more appropriate to remove the confusion relating to the application of Medicare overseas by removing what is really a token payment in relation to medical treatment. We intend to develop a larger network of reciprocal health agreements and to encourage travellers to purchase adequate travel insurance. At the moment too many people go overseas believing that they are covered adequately by Medicare. That is not so, because Medicare cannot cover hospital costs overseas and it certainly cannot meet the cost of medical and hospital treatment in places like the United States. We believe it would be much more appropriate for those travelling overseas to adequately cover themselves through systems of private insurance which are available at relatively low cost. The result of continuing the present uncertainty is that unfortunately many people will travel overseas and then be landed with very heavy burdens which are not covered by a Medicare system primarily designed to care for people here in Australia. Of course, we already have in place a policy to begin to deal with the overseas problem. We now have reciprocal agreements with the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Italy and Malta, and more are planned. Over 30 per cent of Australians travelling overseas visit the four countries with which we already have reciprocal agreements. We think that is a much more effective way of protecting Australians overseas. When they go to a country both their medical costs and their hospital costs will be covered where we have a reciprocal agreement with that country. Of course, we hope even during the course of this year to spread the range of these agreements. Apart from abrogating the principle of the budgetary responsibility of the lower House, the Senate has in fact ensured the continuation of confusion in the minds of Australians travelling overseas concerning the extent of Medicare cover and the real need for additional comprehensive travel insurance. Over the past 12 months or so I have attempted to ensure that the travelling public is better informed as to the need for comprehensive travel insurance which includes overseas health cover, in addition to the limited Medicare cover which applies for medical treatment overseas. But in spite of all those attempts made by the Government it is a fact that some 50 per cent of Australians travelling overseas do so without any form of insurance cover. The decision made by the Government in this matter would at least have made it much clearer and made it much easier to get the message across that travel health insurance is a prerequisite for people travelling overseas. It is therefore for reasons of principle and also the intrinsic merit of the Government's changes that we reject amendment No. 3 as proposed by the Senate. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(3.02) —It is very interesting to hear the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) talk about principles. In the case of the first two amendments apparently the principle of disagreeing with the Budget allocation is okay because of its minimal effect. He did not quantify it; he says that it may not have had any effect. But the fact that it could have had some effect means that if a proposition comes up before the Senate it is at liberty constitutionally, according to this Government, to alter it for a small amount but for a large amount that liberty is not available. It could also involve the principles of a Budget Bill. In this House we have had the Treasurer (Mr Keating) lay down the Budget forecasts and predictions, and already the major indicators are well below what is actually going to happen. On the balance of trade, for instance, by the end of November we had almost reached the 12 months figure estimated by the Treasurer at Budget time. The inflation figure is well off the target in the Budget. As to the exchange rate, maybe the Minister can tell me how close we are to predictions. The people exporting on the primary market and the secondary market are finding that their goods overseas are not selling as well as they might have because of that grave difficulty. Talking about a matter of principle, I also mention what the Minister has said. It is okay by this Government for people going overseas to insure for their medical costs while overseas; yet the same principle denies the Australian people the opportunity to cover the gap between the amount expended on medical expenses and what they get back through the miserable pittance of the Medicare refund. Where is the principle in that? If we go overseas we can insure for the full cover. If we are in Australia we cannot cover the gap. Of course the members of the Government who are still here are stunned by that revelation, because they never thought of it. One can go to a medical practitioner now and on the schedule of fees for a $25 visit one might be lucky to get a $15 refund. Where is the principle that the Minister is espousing? There is none whatsoever. What the Government is doing in this situation is giving the status of Australian citizenship two categories: one if people stay at home, so that they can be fleeced by the system of having to pay that $10 difference between the doctor's fee and the schedule fee; and the second category, people who can go overseas, because if they can afford to go overseas it is expected that they can afford also to pay for the insurance cover. But if they get sick overseas they do not belong to that category of Australians that can be covered. The argument that we put forward is that there are many groups of Australians who travel overseas in a situation which is vital to Australia's interests. For instance, there are those people who study overseas to acquire a skill and bring it back for profitable use in Australia and to the benefit of all Australians and of this country of ours. We are addressing those people who are trying to further their own ends by studying overseas and giving Australia an enhanced level of skill. There are also organisations such as Australian Volunteers Abroad. I would be the first to suggest that those people who are working overseas in a voluntary capacity, in Ethiopia or other countries, are there doing a job for Australia. It is the extension of goodwill from Australia to those countries. Yet they too are going to be denied the right of Medicare cover. I would not like to think what the cost would be to cover a person in a country such as Ethiopia, where obviously the health standards are a lot lower than ours. Those people are in the second category. There are people who are overseas on what we might call an almost involuntary basis, such as people who are working overseas for Australian companies trying to further Australia's trade ends in those areas. They are also going to be asked to cover themselves. There are also the bona fide travellers who go overseas. They do not all travel first class. They are not like the Ministers of the Government who travel overseas. First class travel is not always available to them. There are many people who use their hard earned savings to make such a visit. They are going to be faced with a situation of not being covered, in those overseas countries, unless it is by reciprocal agreements-and maybe they have forgotten to which countries they can travel and be covered by those agreements. In all of these cases, we have genuine Australians who are now going to be put into a second class category. It does not do the Minister's argument much good when he says that in practice there is little more than a token payment against these very high costs. I have already explained that that is the situation in Australia. The Medicare benefit is only a token recognition of the cost of those services, both medical services and hospital services. That is borne out by the fact that the payment is so token that the hospital queues are so much longer these days, at the same time as the private hospital system is being sent to the wall by this same program. We have a fundamental commitment. We do not believe that a principle can be adapted in the Senate to allow small expenditures over the Budget, yet the Government can espouse this high principle of not altering a Budget commitment. If it is good enough in the case of the first and second amendments, it is also good enough in the case of these. We are trying to establish `One Australia', not a divided Australia as this amendment would lead to. In fact, those people who are overseas for genuine reasons need the protection of the law and our Medicare system as much as those people who stay here. We still oppose the Government's position. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolutions reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Dr Blewett) agreed to: That Mr Kerr, Mr Griffiths and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendment No. 3 of the Senate. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Community Services and Health)(3.10) —Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to amendment No. 3 of the Senate, I report such reasons. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- Senate amendment No. 3 is not acceptable because: Repeal of section 21 implements a 1988-89 Budget decision to discontinue the payment of medicare benefits for medical services provided overseas. This should be accepted by the Senate. The proposed repeal of section 21 removes confusion in the minds of Australians travelling overseas concerning the extent of Medicare cover and highlights their need for comprehensive travel insurance. The acceptance of the amendment would continue the confusion in the minds of the Australian travellers overseas. Motion (by Dr Blewett) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Consideration resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.12) —Let me reply to what the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) has said. While supporting amendment No. 1, he has raised one or two issues, such as why we would use the expression `serious war crime'. I make the point that this is a preamble and it is an expression used in the Menzies report. In the findings, Mr Menzies talks about a number of allegations that there have been people who have committed serious war crimes. He goes on to say that in 1957 information was sought from the United States and that was unsatisfactory, to say the least, and therefore there should have been more efficiency in relation to the information that might have detected people coming to Australia. What the preamble is trying to do is to say that, as the investigation unit has been in operation for some time now and bearing in mind that nobody in this House disagreed with the findings of the Menzies report, it is now pretty clear that the findings or allegations pursuant to those findings would relate, if at all, to the European theatre of war. I understand what the honourable gentleman was saying when he asked, `Why is the Government doing it this way?'. I am able to tell him that, because of the extraordinary delay and difficulty in dealing with the matter in the Senate, it was thought that we could make it clear in the preamble that the matters obviously result from the allegations and investigations in relation to Europe. It was thought, wrongly as it turned out, that the Opposition would have agreed to that and that would have helped the Bill get through the Senate. It did not. As it turns out, the Opposition did not accept that position. Mr N.A. Brown —The Opposition did not accept what? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The position that if we were to talk about Europe, in the terms in which it has been expressed, that would certainly help the debate in the Senate. It has not; it has drawn this other position, which the honourable gentleman adverted to and which I think needs an explanation, that we have two classes of persons. I do not know that that is the case. In fact, I do not accept it. The Geneva Convention clearly shows that we cannot exempt people on the basis of nationality. That is the issue. The honourable gentleman did not advert to that in his argument. The difficulty always will be that, if we are to talk about accusations of criminal acts, we cannot exempt them on the basis of nationality. The honourable gentleman does not agree with me on that, but that is the basis. The international convention says that there are to be no exceptions on the basis of nationality. There are no exceptions here either. There happens to be the definition of a geographical area from which allegations have been made. It is still right to say-and I support what the honourable gentleman has said as I said it myself first-that there are still no allegations against any Australian ex-service men or women. But we cannot legislate on the basis that accusations can never be made against certain Australians. Accusations are being made against people who came to Australia. That is clear. That is the result of the investigations carried out by the unit. So, we are not in conflict with the international principle by saying we are excluding people on the basis of nationality-not at all. If the honourable gentleman wants to do that, that is why I cannot agree with him. I hope that explains the situation. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.16) —I wish to make our position clearer on the first of the two points to which the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has just addressed himself. The second of the two points is an argument on which it will probably not be very fruitful to delay the Committee by pursuing the matter further. I want to make a point about the first of the two issues. Perhaps I should start off by saying that I would certainly, on behalf of the Opposition, make the genuine offer to the Government that, if it now wants to change this expression `serious war crimes' in the preamble to `war crimes', or some other such expression, whichever honourable members wish, it should simply propose another amendment here and now-provided that there is power to do that, and I presume that there is-and we will accommodate it. I say that before going to the argument because I genuinely believe that, by including this expression `serious war crimes' in the preamble, the Government is building up trouble in the interpretation of this Act, as it will be carried out by the courts. There are enough problems associated with this legislation without manufacturing more problems. When in the preamble the expression `serious war crimes' is used but in the body of the Bill the expression `war crimes'-not `serious war crimes'-appears, that difference of expression really is asking for trouble because the court will look at the preamble, if there is any confusion about this Bill. Let us face the fact that every point is going to be taken in these trials. We all know that. We know that now. There will be a lot of point taking, and a lot of legitimate point taking. One of the arguments that will be advanced is that the Parliament's intention, as seen from the preamble, is that those on trial for serious war crimes should be given a fair trial, because that is what the preamble says. It will also be argued that one of the matters that will have to be taken into account in a trial, because the preamble says so, is that there should be particular regard given to matters such as the gravity of the allegations and the lapse of time since the alleged crimes. This will become, as a matter of practicality, tremendously important. I would imagine that it is common ground that, in some of these trials, the defence will apply for a stay of proceedings. It will apply for a stay of proceedings on the ground that too much time has passed by, so much time in fact that it is an abuse of process for the trial to proceed and that so much time has passed by that witnesses have died or their recollections have become faded in the mists of time, or witnesses have not been able to be found or documents have been lost, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That is what the argument will be. In the course of that argument, the court will have to interpret what the intention of the Parliament was. When the court looks at this Bill, it will have regard to the preamble. It will have regard to the preamble for this reason: the Acts Interpretation Act says that the court may have regard to: . . . all matters not forming part of the Act that are set out in the document containing the text of the Act as printed by the Government Printer. Now I concede, if I can remember my rules of statutory interpretation, that it is true that the preamble is not part of the Act, but it is had regard to. It is given regard to by the court as an aid to interpretation as to what the Parliament thought it was on about. When the court looks at this preamble and sees the expression `serious war crimes', what will it conclude about this concern about a fair trial? It will conclude that these concerns about a fair trial, the lapse of time since the alleged crimes were committed and the importance of getting a fair trial only apply to serious war crimes and not to other war crimes which are not so prescribed or felt to be serious. After all, the Bill refers to crimes other than murder. It does not confine itself to murder; it goes on from murder through manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, wounding, rape, indecent assault, abducting or procuring for immoral purposes, conspiracy to do those things, attempting to do those things, attempting even to conspire to do those things, if we please, after 50 years, which is going to make an interesting trial, but that is a side issue. The point is that the court will probably say that, because the Parliament has listed a whole series of offences here and has used this expression `serious war crimes' in the preamble, it was referring only to murder or perhaps murder and manslaughter, and perhaps even going as far as causing grievous bodily harm. It is clear beyond argument, I would have thought, reading this Bill, that what the Bill does is create war crimes and war crimes are serious crimes committed during the war. Serious crimes are defined, expressly. So, there is no such offence in the Bill as a serious war crime. Yet, suddenly, it pops up in this preamble in a most confusing way and in a way which is calculated to lead the courts to great doubt, we would have thought, as to interpretation of what the Parliament's intention was. I simply end by saying, as I did at the outset to show where I was proposing to go: if it is within the powers of this Committee at this stage to amend this provision, why does not the Government do it? It should simply say `war crimes' and not `serious war crimes', and we will all know what the Government's intention was and what the Parliament's intention was. We will all be better informed, even if no wiser. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.22) —I do not wish to delay the Committee, but the issue relates to this definition. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) says, `You should not be talking in the preamble about serious war crimes as such; you ought to be talking about war crimes'. He argues a strict legal definition. The Act itself does not advert to that. But I disagree with him for this reason: section 6 deals with what the heading describes as `Serious crimes'. Certain acts are serious crimes. The acts it talks about are those matters of murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, wounding and rape, et cetera. There might be some argument in a court whether such a crime is serious. The Menzies report referred to what are called `serious war crimes', and I think that is what we are about here. The honourable gentleman must agree with me that I cannot do anything about the fact that the Second World War ended in 1945; that lapse of time has taken place. War crimes are still being recognised across the world. Canada has now legislated in the same way as we have for the very obvious reason that perhaps-I say `perhaps'-people who are in Australia and who as Menzies said may have done so in circumstances that were somewhat doubtful, might have entered other countries. It possibly could be argued that, if they had remained in Europe, they would have been dealt with by now. I think the honourable gentleman argues very forcibly, even though he does not appear to say so directly, that perhaps we should abandon the Bill because 45 years have elapsed and there is nothing we can do about the effects of that. The world takes a different view. Mr N.A. Brown —I did not say that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —You did. You said that the lapse of time is such that it puts them in a particular situation. Mr N.A. Brown —It is in your amendment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Of course it is. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Menzies will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Of course it is. But, if the honourable member puts the argument on a broad basis, everybody can argue the lapse of time concept. The allegation whether it is serious is a matter of judgment. Menzies exercised that expression. This legislation adverts to the fact that the crime must be deemed to be serious. I listened to a debate in the Senate in which very much the same argument was put as the honourable gentleman is advancing. Are we to be concerned about murder or are we to be concerned about mass murder? Are we to be concerned about rape or are we to be concerned about multiple rape? Are we to be concerned about causing grievous bodily harm or do we mean mutilation and experimentation? All those elements come into what we might call a subjective judgment as to the situation. That will clearly arise in any accusation that will be the subject of a charge. Particulars will need to be given. But it does not support the honourable gentleman's argument that there is no definition of serious crime. Serious crime is defined in section 6 as being serious. It is also defined in section 7 by the words `a serious crime as a war crime'-those are the words that are used there. Also in section 6 (4) we read `Each of the following is a serious crime'. I know full well that good counsel-and there are plenty of them-are going to argue very effectively that as 45 years have gone by their clients will be placed in difficulty. They ought to win on that basis. The problem the Government has-I think the Opposition recognises it but does not want to say so-is that there may be people in Australia who, despite all the difficulties presented by the 45 years time lapse, have evidence and witnesses to produce who can be cross-examined and who will say that something rather horrific happened. That is a matter for the judgment of the courts. It is not for us in Parliament to be saying, `Look, you are really going to run into a lot of difficulties in the courts'. I will accept that argument. But we would not be starting trials, I would not think, unless we knew we could overcome the difficulties and the defence was given every opportunity to defend itself. It is not everybody who is going to be the subject of a trial. Many of them have obviously died. Many of them are perhaps unable to stand trial. The issue we are dealing with here is our international obligation. The Opposition throughout the debate, which has now gone on since February of 1987, has said that we ought to do something about the fact that Sir Garfield Barwick said in 1960. `The cases are now closed'. We would all be happy to accept that situation. But, of course, the Menzies report says that he did not get the right information. We were misled in 1957. The departments did not have the right information. So, we are grappling with the situation that the rest of the world has been able to deal with, particularly Europe. War trials are still taking place there. I mention France in particular. The Canadians are now dealing with one and have had to pass special legislation. The British are now passing special legislation. We are all in the same time frame now. We are passing legislation to cope with matters that certainly could have been dealt with in the 1940s. I hope that the honourable gentleman understands that that is the basis of what we are now saying. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.28) —I move: That amendment No. 2 be agreed to. Amendment No. 2 relates to what is deemed to be the period of war and specifically to the occupation. There was argument that the Baltic states were not at war, but were subject to occupation. There was argument, also, that whoever might have been in government in those states accepted the Soviet Union into those states. Certainly, in 1941, they were invaded because of what was called the Ribbentrop agreement. What we are saying here is that we will accept the view that there could well have been accusations made by people in Australia against others who are here and they would relate to that occupation. What we are now talking about here, by way of this definition, is that occupation means, in summary, the Baltic states. That would result from that agreement of 23 August 1939. It is acknowledged that there was no military invasion. But those people certainly were not assisted when there was a Soviet intrusion in the middle of 1940. There was certainly an invasion in 1941. Rather than argue the issue, we are now agreeing that, as a result of the agreement of 23 August, there was an occupation. There were certainly major troop movements in June 1940. Rather than having a definition that might exclude a period commencing in 1941, this provision overcomes the submissions made on behalf of the Baltic states. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.30) —The Opposition supports the Senate's amendment. It should be placed on record that it was an Opposition amendment. It was our proposal. It was our suggestion and recommendation and the Government eventually saw the light and moved its own amendment to incorporate what we had been suggesting. Mr Fife —After a lot of procrastination. Mr N.A. Brown —I am reminded that this was done after a lot of procrastination and I think, with respect, that is an understatement. There was not only procrastination but downright opposition to this amendment from the Government in the first stage. In fact, it is interesting to reflect upon the fact-and those who have a sense of history will appreciate it-that we put all of our amendments to the Government and, amongst the correspondence, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) wrote back to me on 21 September of this year and, dealing with this particular amendment, said: As to the Opposition's proposed amendment concerning occupation, I simply say that the annexation of the Baltic states was not a war by any principle of international law. Let me repeat that: it was not a war by any principle of international law. So what was, in September, a proposition that it was contrary to international law to adopt this amendment and proposal and put it into the War Crimes Amendment Bill, by December becomes something which, in fact, is so worthy of merit, so valuable an amendment and addition, that the Government itself moves the amendment and proposal and has the Senate pass it. We congratulate the Government on seeing the light at long last. We hope that in the future we will not be subjected to the same obfuscation and obstruction when we have sensible and reasonable amendments. Even though the Government's concession can really be described as a capitulation, nevertheless we acknowledge that the amendment makes an improvement to the Bill. It is for that reason that we accept the amendment. It must also be said that the reason why the Government rejected this amendment in the first place and continued to reject it for months and months until only a couple of days ago was that, believe it or not-you will find it hard to believe this, Mr Chairman, I know-the Government's assessment and view of what happened in the Baltic states after the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939 was that the Baltic states actually invited the Soviet Union to come in. They were not invaded; the Soviets were invited to come in. I can see that you are surprised at that view having been held, but that was the view expressed by the Attorney-General. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Menzies should not impute any motive to the Chair. Mr N.A. Brown —You looked as if you were surprised. If you were not surprised, you should have been, and you cannot have any challenge with that because it is an extraordinary proposition. The CHAIRMAN —Let me say that the honourable member for Menzies never ceases to surprise me. Mr N.A. Brown —People who migrated to this country from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia should remember three things about the present Government. Firstly, its predecessor recognised the incorporation of the Baltic states in the Soviet Union. They will never forget that, and there is no need for me to remind them of that. But there are two additional things that one should remind people who migrated to this country from the Baltic states. The first of them is that the Government actually believes and promoted the view originally that after the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939 the people of the Baltic states rose like one man and asked the Russians to come in, actually invited them to come in and occupy their country. Can you imagine that, that that is the world of reality? Of course it is not; it was an invasion pure and simple, and it is very unfortunate that the Government, even at this stage, does not acknowledge that. The second thing that those people should be reminded of is that the Government, until it was forced into a corner and forced to accept this amendment, was not prepared to have subjected to the War Crimes Amendment Bill those horrific and horrendous acts and atrocities committed against the people of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union. Now they are subject to that Bill, and that is progress; but we find it very difficult to give the Government any credit at all for having proposed this amendment. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.35) —I thank the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) for his support. The issue is certainly a technical one: was there a war taking place within those states? There was war all around in that sense, but there was no declared war between Germany and the Soviet Union until June 1941. The honourable gentleman can express surprise, but I have no doubt that we would all be surprised if somebody invited somebody else to come in. In fact, there was in place a puppet government which purported to do that, and did so in about June 1940. They are the facts. The actual declaration of war took place in June 1941, but we accept the view that as war was around them and as they were the subject of occupation we should let the matter be dealt with in this way. Quite frankly, from the point of view of a strict definition of `war', we were facing that problem. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.36) —I move: That amendment No. 3 be agreed to. Amendment No. 3 makes it clear that the period of the war was 1 September 1939 to 8 May 1945. I think it is incorrect at the moment in the sense that we have got it going up to October 1945. We are basically dealing with the war in Europe. On that basis the definition is limited to the war in Europe. I accept the amendment from the Senate. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.37) —The Opposition accepts the amendment; but, as the shadow Attorney-General-the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown)-has already said, we do not believe it goes far enough. The effect of this amendment will be that there will be two classes of veterans in Australia. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) knows, there will be those Australians who served with the Australian forces in Europe, apart from those who served with allied forces, and those who served elsewhere. I find it inconceivable, given all the difficulties that this Bill has aroused, that the Government would deliberately set out by not excluding Australians who served in Europe to make it so much more difficult for those who served during this period. I had, I think, five phone calls last night about this issue. The callers were saying to me, quite rightly, `I volunteered to serve the country. I was sent to Europe. Those who were not sent to Europe-who served in the Pacific and elsewhere-are now off the hook as they will not be liable under this Act. Through no fault of mine, I served in Europe'. However remote the possibility that they will be caught up, these people-some of them are quite elderly now-feel that this is a shadow hanging over their head. Mr N.A. Brown —They are at risk. Mr WHITE —They are at risk. Mr Lionel Bowen —They are not. Mr WHITE —If they are not at risk, why do you not exclude them? Mr Lionel Bowen —Where were you when I gave the explanation? Mr WHITE —I was here. I listened very closely. The Government has now excluded some Australian servicemen by virtue of the fact that they did not serve in Europe. But the Government will not exempt those Australian servicemen who, through no fault of their own, served in Europe. Mr Lionel Bowen —I have pointed to our obligations. Mr WHITE —It is interesting that the Attorney-General raises the question of obligations. It seems to be a timely interjection because I would have thought that the first obligation of the Australian Government would be to its own service men and women. Mr Lionel Bowen —And it is. Mr WHITE —The Government goes about it in a very funny way. Mr Lionel Bowen —I do not think you understand the Bill. Mr WHITE —If I do not understand it, there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who do not understand it either. Mr Lionel Bowen —Sure, because of the mischief here. Mr WHITE —We have been through this point. I have been through this point, as have the shadow Attorney-General and, for some days, the Senate, but I just want to put on record my concern. I speak for a lot of concerned ex-servicemen. The Government has made the situation worse. It took the view that it would not exclude any Australian servicemen. Now it has taken the view that it will exclude the majority, but some who served in Europe will be still liable under the Bill. All served their country under the same Australian military orders and regulations. Now some of them, in the latter years of their life, are going to be caught up under this shadow. I want to deal now with a matter which has not, as far as I know, been mentioned at all during this rather extensive debate; that is, the effect of the War Crimes Amendment Bill on people who are now serving in the Australian Defence Force. Many of them are very concerned about the attitude the Government has taken towards those who served in the past. If they are required, as they will be one day, to go into operations in Fiji, Vanuatu or New Guinea or in a major conflict, the question in their minds will be whether the Government is going to stick with them or whether at some time in the future, given this precedent, it is going to catch them up in some similar retrospective legislation. What sort of effect is that going to have on the attitude and morale of a young soldier who sees all this going on, who sees a government determined to catch servicemen some 40 years later and who is suddenly dispatched, as happened last year with the troops sent to Fiji? Going through his mind will be the question of how safe he is going to be in carrying out orders in any operation that he might be committed to. It is having a very serious effect on current servicemen. I am sorry that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is not here, because he would be very much aware of that. Whether he has made representations to the Attorney-General, I do not know. That is a matter for both Ministers. But the fact is that the Government's attitude to the War Crimes Amendment Bill is having a very serious effect on men and women currently serving in the Australian Defence Force. It is entirely understandable why they would be concerned if they were committed to operations, given the attitude of the Government. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.43) —Let me reply briefly to the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I accept the view that the ex-service associations are very concerned about this matter. The honourable member knows that this matter was not raised in the debate in this place. I think everybody accepted the view then that we were dealing with horrendous accusations against non-combatants. I think that is the position. I go on record as saying there are no allegations against Australian ex-service men and women. I am writing to them in that way. But we cannot pass a law which says that war criminals in Australia who served in the forces have to be exempt. We cannot do that because the Geneva Convention says that we cannot exclude anybody on the basis of nationality. No other country in the world has done it. Canada's legislation does not provide for any exception. Britain does not do it. Nobody in the world does it because of that prohibition. Mr N.A. Brown interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is interesting that the honourable member for Menzies keeps interjecting, is it not? He interjects all the time. He does not want to hear the argument. The real issue is what would happen if we said, `We are going to exempt Australian ex-service men and women'. The Japanese have already been to see us on the basis of saying, `Listen, are you trying to make out that you have got somebody here you are trying to protect?' That is the problem. I say no to that. I have no problem at all. But then we see programs of the sort that have been encouraged by the attitude that the Opposition has the credit for adopting. That happened in September. The Opposition was the first one to think of it. Mr N.A. Brown —What do you say, then? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member can say what he likes; it is in writing here. He was the first to propose that we exempt them, and I can understand why. It is a valid argument. But he was the first to do it after the Bill left this chamber. I do not think we can win this argument with ex-servicemen, but for the sake of their peace of mind let us make it very clear: Menzies had specific allegations. He did produce a list of 70. There were no Australian ex-service men and women on it. It will not come up. But if the Opposition wants to exempt from this legislation all ex-service men and women, I do not think anybody in the world will accept the validity of this legislation. People are going to ask: `Does that mean that although we might have an accusation we cannot raise it any more?'. No other country in the world has done that, but the Opposition wants to put Australian service men and women in the dreadful position that some of them might be guilty, but we have to exempt them. Those opposite should face up to the fact that these ex-service men and women were very honourable; they did nothing wrong. The accusations are being made against people who were part of a group of Australian ex-service men and women. This is the Opposition's problem and it has to think about it. No matter how many letters I may write, we have the accusations being made-some of these people have even been named on a television program which could be sold to Japan-about people who were fighting for this country, brave as they come. People would say to me, `Well, what do you think of that, Mr Attorney? You have some war criminals here'. I cannot say, `What are you talking about? We were flat out in the middle of a hostile action'. Our people were engaged in active combat. They were not going around concentration camps carrying out mass exterminations. The Opposition knows that. I say to the Opposition that, no matter how we argue it here, we have lost sight of the fact that there are 850,000 of them. Members of the Opposition may laugh. They think it is great. They were the first to do it; they should get the gold award. They did not do it in the second reading debate. That was a smart move. Mr Reith —That is a typical misrepresentation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it is not a typical misrepresentation. The honourable member probably feels a little guilty because he did not raise it. Mr Reith —It is a misrepresentation because it was raised before the Senate Committee. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that. The answer is that war criminals cannot be excluded on the basis of nationality. That is the answer. Mr White —They are excluded. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They are not excluded. That is the problem. It is a theatre of war now called Europe. Of course, accusations have been made against us already by the Captive Nations Council. There is not a tittle of evidence, but the accusation has been made; and the Opposition encourages that sort of thing. Surely if there are such people here and they are able to be dealt with in the normal courts, that is much better for them than following the course that Menzies recommended, which is extradition. That is the point. Mr N.A. Brown —You want to drop the Bill, do you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I do not want to drop the Bill. From the point of view of Germany, the honourable member should face up to this: if Germany asks for some of these people to be extradited and we have a treaty with Germany, what would he do? Silence. I would not extradite them. I would not, and that is the purpose of this Bill. It overcomes the problem of extradition. It is about time he looked at that issue. I am sure that if extradition were sought and granted these people would not get the same hearing. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(3.48) —The views I wish to put on this amendment are those I expressed in different words in the earlier debate we had before lunch. There is no need to go over it again in detail. I simply want to make the point that the Opposition's very firm position always has been, is now and will remain that this Bill should not apply to Australian ex-service personnel. The reality of what has happened in this case is that that argument was advanced by us. It was raised first not by me, I should say-the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) wants to give me credit for it-but I am happy to promote that view because I believe very strongly in it. It was in fact raised before the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It came to us, or at least it came to me, from ex-servicemen and their associations, whose attitude to the Government's position on this matter can be described only as one of outrage. They are outraged and they will continue to be outraged because the Government is saying two things to ex-service men and women. It is saying, `Although there are no allegations against you at the moment, you will so far as we are concerned, if you fought in Europe, remain for the rest of your lives at risk-not that you will be charged, but that you will be at risk of being charged under the War Crimes Act, when this Bill becomes an Act'. The second thing the Government is saying to Australian ex-service personnel is simply this: `With respect to those of you who served in theatres of war other than in Europe, you will be exempt, but with respect to this other group who took part in the war in Europe, you will remain subject to it. You will be at risk'. That is what the Government is saying to the ex-service men and women of this country. The Government should not come along here with this nonsense that it is prevented by some lofty principle of international law from drawing a Bill which will not have the effect of applying to Australian ex-servicemen. It has just done that. It was made perfectly clear in the Senate and in the debate outside the Parliament that the Government was in a corner. It knew the difficulties of proceeding with this Bill when, on its terms, it applied to all ex-service personnel. The Government was in a difficult corner. It knew that it was losing the debate. So what did it do? Instead of coming out and accepting the Opposition's proposals to make the Bill more sensible, the Government said, `Oh well, it looks as if most Australian ex-service personnel took part in the war in theatres other than in Europe, so we will excise that part of it. We will leave Europe in'. We say that that was an underhand and deceitful way of going about it and does not get the Government off the hook. It says it has international obligations which prevent it from amending the Bill in the way in which we say it should be amended. It has already done that by limiting the operation of the Bill to events that occurred in Europe. What the Government has done is typical of what Senator Stone described in the Senate as the hocus-pocus that the Government has engaged in with this legislation from beginning to end. Members of this chamber who were not following the details of this debate in the Senate may not know what the Government proposed to do originally. It proposed originally to amend the Bill-and it put this on paper in the Senate-so that it applied only to events in Europe, and then kept the time sequence up to October 1945. Believe it or not, that is what it did. Then when Senator Hamer pointed out to the Government that the European war ended in May 1945, it needed another amendment. It had already limited the Bill in terms of geographical operation but had not amended it in terms of time. It now comes along here and amends it in terms of time as well as geographical operation, and still goes on with this hocus-pocus, as Senator Stone described it accurately, that one cannot devise a Bill which will have the effect of not putting Australian ex-service people in jeopardy. Is it any wonder, Mr Chairman, that today bodies which have spoken against this Bill in various forms have maintained their opposition, despite the amendments the Government proposed? For instance, the Returned Services League this morning, in a statement by Brigadier Garland, its President, said that this was `a slap in the face by the Government'. That is what it is-a slap in the face by the Government and by the Australian Democrats to ex-servicemen which will be felt at the next election. They will not need us to tell them what the point is. They know, because they are telephoning us and writing letters to us expressing their outrage at what the Government is doing. My attitude to the Government's performance on this Bill, I must say, is coloured by this outrageous statement that was made in Question Time some weeks ago when, the Committee will recall, the Attorney-General had the gall to say that I had accused Australian ex-servicemen of war crimes because they were involved in the bombing of Dresden. That is what the allegation was, and he repeated it again today. He nods again now. When I interjected to say `Where did this happen?', he said, `In my office. You came to my office'. Mr Lionel Bowen —That is where it happened. Mr N.A. Brown —That is where it happened. Again it is repeated. The Attorney said, `You came to my office and you made accusations that Australian airmen engaged in the bombing of Dresden were war criminals'. I reject that. Not only am I grossly offended by it; it is an absolute outrage. Let me make the record quite clear: I did have negotiations with the Attorney-General. Seeing that he has lifted the veil on this matter, I feel obliged to draw it to the attention of the Committee. We did have negotiations and the Attorney-General made a number of points. Firstly, he rejected our amendments; secondly, he expressed his personal opposition to the War Crimes Bill-he is utterly opposed to it-and then said, `No-one is going to be charged under the Bill and if anyone is charged I hope they get bail and nick off'. This is his attitude. Mr Howard —That is what he said? Mr N.A. Brown —That is what he said. He hopes they will get bail and nick off so the Government will be relieved of the embarrassment. What a farce. The Attorney-General is nodding. It is an absolute outrage, not only smearing me in this way by saying that I had accused Australians of being war criminals, which I did not, but also first of all rejecting our amendments and then saying that he was opposed to the Bill, that no-one was going to be charged, that certainly no-one would be convicted, but that if anyone were charged he hoped they would get bail and disappear-abscond from bail. Mr Reith —That is lovely. Mr N.A. Brown —That is lovely. What an outrage that this should be the view promoted by the Attorney-General. He added, of course, his own objection to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been up on his high horse, saying publicly that people to be charged under this Bill are guilty. The Prime Minister has branded them already in public as being guilty. The Attorney-General is prepared, although he will not tell us the whole story, to tell us what a foolish thing it was that the Prime Minister did-to say that in public. Coming back to the point, Mr Chairman, we support this amendment because it goes part of the way along the road of the very sensible changes that we say should be made to the Bill. It does not go the whole distance, and it should. In the course of proposing this amendment what the Government has done is to create two classes of ex-service men and women. The veterans' community in Australia should understand that the Government has created two classes: those who served in Europe, who will be subject to the War Crimes Bill and may be prosecuted; and those who did not, who have now been let off the hook. That is an insult and an outrage to the ex-service and veterans' community in Australia, and should be condemned for what it is. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.58) —I just want quickly to make an explanation. When I spoke to the honourable gentleman, it was about the fact that I had had no allegations against Australian ex-service men and women. He said, `I have got one'. I said, `Where does it come from?'. He said, `The Captive Nations Council about the bombing of Dresden'. That is the point: `I have one and it is about the bombing of Dresden'. The honourable gentleman knows he said it. I did not say he invented it. It came from the Captive Nations Council. He said, `I have one'. That is the point, so let us leave it at that. The first instance I heard of was from the honourable gentleman. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.58) —I move: That amendment No. 4 be agreed to. This amendment confines the deportation offence. The amendment is to leave out the words `whether or not across frontiers'. In other words, deportation will be as defined. It is confined to what is called international law. `Deportation' will not include the words `whether or not across frontiers'. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.59) —I move: That amendment No. 5 be agreed to. This amendment facilitates the charging of mass murder as a single count without there being any suggestion of duplicity because of the fact that there might be more than one murder. It was a matter raised by the Director of Public Prosecutions in making submissions to the Senate Committee. We accept that this amendment corrects that position. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.00) —The Opposition supports this amendment, but with some reservations. It is important to note that a day or so ago, in the Senate, the Government gave this amendment to the Opposition over the dinner break. Such was the great thought the Government had put into it that it gave it to the Opposition over the dinner break and said, `Have this for dinner'. Mr Lionel Bowen —Anything could happen in the Senate. Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, and one thing that happened in the Senate, after the Government had been pondering over this Bill for months and months, was that suddenly over the dinner break it thought up another amendment. So it said, `Whiz this down to the Opposition, and it can try it for size'. The Opposition was forced to give hasty consideration to the amendment, and it supported it with some reservations. Senator Hill and other colleagues of mine in the Senate said how typical this was of the way in which the Government had handled this whole piece of legislation. The Government writes me letters-so frequently that it boosts the revenue of Australia Post-saying, `No, we won't accept any of your amendments', and then when it gets into a corner it decides it has to capitulate and dress up its legislation with all sorts of lofty nonsense and highfalutin principles to cover the situation. In reality it has been cornered and has had to find some way of getting out of its problems and on occasions, such as with respect to this amendment, it dreams it up over the dinner break. When I say that we have some reservations about this particular amendment, I mean that there has been, during the conduct of the preparation of this legislation and its promotion, a number of departures from very basic principles of the administration of law and justice. This, unfortunately, is one case which has the potential for creating another departure from the way in which we administer law and justice. In fact, it will give legislative support to what is known as duplicity in indictments; that is to say, where you dress up two or three or more charges and pretend that they are really one, and enable by that means the prosecution to have an easier ride than it otherwise would because it can get in bits of evidence which it would not have been able to get in had there been only one single charge. So what we are saying now, after the Bill is amended, is `Right, we have a War Crimes Bill and one of the war crimes we will have will be a double-headed one, a triple-headed one, a four-headed one, or a multi-headed hydra, and this will make it easier for a prosecution to get a conviction'. The reason I say that is that I do not think it is literally correct, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said, that the Director of Public Prosecutions had brought this problem of mass murders and how to prosecute them to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In fact, I think if we read closely what Senator Tate said in the Senate, it appears that the Director of Public Prosecutions is already getting up a prosecution. It seems to me, from reading what Senator Tate had to say, that the Director of Public Prosecutions was having a bit of trouble in framing the indictment to give him a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. So before the Bill even gets through the Parliament-and this is the problem we have about the way this Bill is drafted-there are problems in administering it and applying it. So we simply say this: we support the amendment but we warn the Government not to go too far down this path of dressing up indictments in such a way that it is going to make it easier for the prosecution to get a conviction than it would normally in a typical case. That is one departure from the accepted way of doing things. The other departure, of course, and I repeat it, is that the Special Investigations Unit has been questioning suspects, potential defendants, before the Bill has been passed by the Parliament and at a time when what the suspects had allegedly done was not contrary to Australian law and not subject to the jurisdiction of the Australian courts. The Attorney-General said this morning in this debate that there was no need to worry about that, that they were just talking to people and those people were baring their souls. The fact that they have two Australian Federal Police officers standing over them, of course, is no inducement to unburdening themselves. But the Attorney says, `It's all right; don't worry; these investigations and inquiries are conducted perfectly properly'. Let me tell honourable members about one such investigation, very briefly. It involves a case that I have mentioned before in public. I am not going to table this document or incorporate it in Hansard, but I have a record of interview of a poor man who had been visited and interrogated by two officers of the Special Investigations Unit. I am not going to read from it because I do not want the man identified but I invite the Committee to see that I have here a record of interview-and my colleagues confirm that I do. It is headed `Australian Federal Police'. What does that record of interview reveal? It reveals that the two police officers, or at least the two agents from the Special Investigations Unit, interrogating this man, before the Bill has been passed by the Parliament, actually refused to give him copies of the two documents which they were questioning him about and which contained the allegations against him. Is that where we are going in the administration of law and justice in this country? Before the Bill is passed, without any legislative authority, we have officers and agents of the Special Investigations Unit knocking on people's doors, saying `Come on; it does not matter whether the law has been passed or not, we are going to ask you questions about allegations here in two documents-which we are not going to give you copies of, so you will not be able to let your lawyers have a look at them and you will not be able to follow it up later'. I would hope that is not where we are going, but because of the lax and slack way in which the current Government administers law and justice in this country, particularly in this case, that would seem to be the way we are going, and we in the Opposition say that we oppose this method of doing business and we will not let this matter rest until we have found out who has been giving this advice that this conduct was legitimate. We certainly will take whatever action we can to bring it to an end. I repeat the point I made this morning: some of these people quizzed by the Special Investigations Unit have been given a clean bill of health, according to Senator Tate, as a result of the investigations but the Special Investigations Unit has still got their files. Senator Tate says their files have been closed. They have not been charged with anything, they will never be convicted of anything, but the officers of the Special Investigations Unit have interrogated them and keep written records, and the file-it is almost as if the file has a capital F-has been closed and is presumably in the records of the Special Investigations Unit. We say, as we did with the information that was illegally obtained before the Australia Card Bill was dropped, that these records should be shredded, they should be destroyed, and if they are not it is a step towards a police state. That is no exaggeration. If the police are able to keep files on people when no offence has been committed and no charges will be made against them, but there is a record, it will be a step towards a police state. If the Government has an ounce of self-respect left about this matter it should have those files and records destroyed immediately. Of course, the other aspect of the departure from normal principles, I say again, is that outrageous conduct by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in going around the country saying, `These people to be charged under the War Crimes Bill appear to be guilty'. That is what his words were. He branded them in public, with all the weight and authority of his office. What sort of way is that for a Prime Minister to conduct himself? It is absolutely appalling and disgraceful. How on earth people are going to get a fair trial out of this Bill I do not know, when we have the Prime Minister of this country saying that about some of them. So, coming back to this amendment, we say that the amendment has potential for another departure from the normal way in which law and justice is administered in our sort of country and we would urge the Government to watch this very closely indeed to make sure that it is not used by the authorities to give them an unfair advantage over the defence and to enable them to obtain a conviction when in normal cases, on normal principles, they would not. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.10) —I move: That amendment No. 6 be agreed to. The Government accepts this amendment. It was requested by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to ensure what is called the disjunctive interpretation of subsections 7 (1) and 7 (3). Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.10) —We support this amendment because it may help a clearer reading and understanding of the Bill, although in view of what the Government has put in the preamble we believe that it is not really helping the court interpret the meaning of the Bill. I also note in passing that this amendment repeats in subclause (4) the same duplicity point which I have already referred to. So it is not only there once; it is there twice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.11) —I move: That amendment No. 7 be agreed to. Amendment No. 7 confines the offence created to the period of the war in Europe. At the present time the relevant date in the Bill is 29 October 1945. It needs to be brought back to 8 May 1945. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.11) —Again, we support this amendment. This is an amendment which the House will be interested to know contains the Government announcement that the European war ended on 8 May 1945 and not 29 October 1945. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the Government was not gracious enough to thank us for drawing its attention to the fact that the European war ended on 8 May 1945. If it were not for us we would have had a Bill confined to the European war but having its effect on acts which were committed after the end of the war in reality and indeed up till October 1945. So we say, once again-it is something that can be said about almost every provision in this Bill-that there has been sloppy drafting and sloppy supervision. One really wonders who was in charge of drawing up the Bill and advising the Government on this matter from beginning to end. Mr Howard —Education is declining. Mr N.A. Brown —Education is declining, as the Leader of the Opposition says. We hope that it will improve. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.12) —I move: That amendment No. 8 be agreed to. This amendment deletes from paragraph 9 the reference to conduct in Australia being in a theatre of war. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.13) —We are not opposing the amendment. I doubt, frankly, whether the amendment really does say what the Attorney-General just said that it says. In fact it proposes to leave out proposed paragraph 9 (1) (b). Paragraph 9 (1) (b) provided that, subject to definitions, what one did in committing a war crime made one guilty of an indictable offence against this Act if, amongst other things, one did it within or outside Australia. As I understand it, both of those provisions are being taken out. If they are both being taken out I have an interesting question to raise. I am not asserting this as being correct; I simply raise the question: if we are taking that out and the court looks at this Bill as a whole, why is it going to assume that the Bill deals at all with war crimes that were committed outside Australia? Why have we taken out the bit about outside Australia, as well? I can understand the Government taking out the bit about events that occurred within Australia. As I understand it, it is talking both out by leaving out the proposed paragraph. I suppose the Attorney will reply that the court has the preamble to aid it in its interpretation, and the preamble refers to Europe. As I have already said, I do not know whether the preamble is going to be very much help. I simply draw the Committee's attention to that problem. We are not opposing the amendment. It is the Government's drafting; if this is what it wants it can certainly have it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.14) —The drafting is on the basis that the relative period of 1939-45 would clearly show it is Europe. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.15) —I move: That amendment No. 9 be agreed to. This amendment would ensure that all defences-that is, Australian defences-were available for the benefit of any person accused of war crimes. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.15) —The Opposition supports this amendment. As the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated, if, for example, a person is put on trial in South Australia, it will be deemed to be the case that the defence under the law of South Australia at the time the offence was committed will be available to that person. That is really what the amendment does. We support the amendment because it is sensible. This originated from Senator Durack's deliberations on this difficult matter. Senator Stone used the word `hocus-pocus' during the course of the debate in the Senate and that certainly sums up a lot of the drafting of the Bill. Can I just tell the Committee what the Government has done with respect to the way in which it has structured this war crimes Bill? Mr Lionel Bowen —The Senate. Mr N.A. Brown —No, what the Government has done; it is its Bill. First of all, the Government has created the system of law. Secondly, it has made it retrospective by 50 years. Then, it has said for good measure, `We will take away from you any defence that you might have had by the law of the place where you did the act-Germany, Yugoslavia or wherever it was. You are denied that defence but miraculously, by some strange process now embodied in this amendment, you are entitled to a defence under the law of the place where you are put on trial-say, South Australia; not the law as it is today, but the law retrospectively applied to the time that you committed the offence'. Mr Howard —Although you did not commit the offence there. Mr N.A. Brown —Although the offence was not committed there, but in Europe. Is not Senator Stone's expression `hocus-pocus' a fairly accurate description of the way in which the Government has engaged in this drafting? Is it any wonder that there are people in the community who still have grave concerns about this Bill and the way it is expressed? The Attorney-General keeps saying this legislation is unique in the world. I should hope it would be unique. I am quite convinced that the drafting of it is unique. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.17) —I think the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) might have got it slightly wrong. Proposed section 6 (2) in the Bill limits the law to the law at the time the offence was committed. A person therefore has the advantage of using defences that were available at that time plus any other defences that might have been developed since then in the State concerned. I think it adds to the defence. I am surprised that the honourable senator thinks that our drafting is so bad; I think it has improved out of sight. A defendant is being given the opportunity not only to use the law at the time, but also to use any improvements in the law since then. It is on that basis that we have moved the amendment. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.18) —I have said all that I want to say on the amendment, other than the fact that the legislation is starting to look like a patchwork quilt. There is a denial of defences that the defendant might have had under the law of the place where he committed the act and then, retrospectively, he is being given defences under the local law of the place where he did not commit the offence. Because we support the thrust of this legislation, we simply say, `Good luck'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.19) —I repeat the point that we do not want to have people sent outside Australia to face trial. This creates problems with respect to extradition. We said we would deal with these matters in Australia and, as such, this legislation is unique. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) criticised me. But this legislation is unique. In contrast, people do get deported from the United States of America. All we are trying to do is give everybody who may have to face a trial the same opportunities as anybody else. Australia is a federation. Does the honourable gentleman suggest that we should have some special code of law that deals with these matters? Mr Howard —You have got that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We have not. These matters will be dealt with on the basis of a normal criminal trial. Mr N.A. Brown —You have it now. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The only thing we have is delay from the Senate. Some sort of world record has been created. The legislation went to the Senate at the end of 1987. It has been in the Senate for so long that the only person the Opposition is supporting is Senator Stone. The only contribution that Senator Stone made as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, that dealt with the Bill, was to say that he was not prepared to accept evidence from behind the Soviet Union. Fair enough. The other day I heard Senator Stone going on, as Opposition senators do-they must love to hear themselves talk once we adjourn here because they realise that somebody may be listening, although there would be very few guilty of that-on the basis of what was meant by murder. Mr N.A. Brown —Are you asking me? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I would not dare ask the honourable member. Senator Stone wanted to know. A whole lot of accusations have been made by people who are understandably upset about having seen not one or two, but many people exterminated. Does the Opposition want the language in the Bill to be redefined in such a way that a murder is considered to be all right, but mass murder is all wrong; that a single rape is all right, but multiple rape is all wrong? Let the court judge the evidence that will be given. That evidence, if given, will be pretty substantial because it will be in accordance with the same sort of evidence that has already been given in Germany. Mr N.A. Brown —Have you seen some of the evidence? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I have not. Mr N.A. Brown —How do you know? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am telling the honourable member that the evidence has to be of a substantial nature to guarantee that these matters will be dealt with. The honourable member is treating this matter far too lightly from the point of view of the evidence. Why cannot a defendant have an opportunity to use every defence avail- able- Mr N.A. Brown —We are supporting you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, it is very belated support. I am glad that the honourable senator listened to the debate and improved his attitude. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(4.22) —The way in which the Opposition has dealt with the amendment now before us is, I think, an indication of how perverse it has been in this debate. The Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), said that unfairness has been built into this legislation which will ensure, he believes, that people who are charged under the legislation are not going to receive a fair trial. He complains that we have rendered the legislation a hotchpotch by providing all available conceivable defences to defendants. On the one hand, he is saying-and this is the only way we can interpret him-that we ought not do something and then, on the other hand, he says perhaps we should. He accuses us of being in a state of total confusion; but what about that position for starters? The point about the amendment which is being debated is that it maximises the opportunity for the defence. Listening to the way in which members of the Opposition have debated this and so many other amendments in this place, one would have thought that they had absolutely no conception or understanding of the sorts of matters that are at issue in respect of war crimes. Absolutely horrendous crimes were committed in Europe during this period. Millions and millions of people were sent to the gallows or were burned in concentration camps. The lives of millions of people were destroyed. Whole countries and whole ethnic groups were destroyed. This is morally irrelevant as far as members of the Opposition are concerned. One of their tricks is to try to cloak these mass murderers in the heroism of Australian armed forces. Now they are trying to cloak their unwillingness to concede the fact that a fair trial-- Mr N.A. Brown —Well-- Mr BEAZLEY —Ah! The honourable member for Menzies looks at his watch. The honourable member thinks that perhaps the time of the Committee has been taken up too much with discussion of this issue. How unfortunate for the honourable member. The honourable member has a view that only he may speak in this place. On a previous occasion in this chamber, an attempt was made by one of his National Party of Australia colleagues to organise a division. The honourable member for Menzies decided that a division could not be held because he had to be heard. When I come in here to discuss this item, the honourable member for Menzies says, `Oh, this has been discussed for far too long', looks at his watch and says, `How terrible, we are wasting the time of the House'. The honourable member has been well accommodated. We are going through this matter amendment by amendment for the benefit of the honourable member; we are trying to discuss these amendments seriously for the benefit of the honourable member for Menzies who has used the liberality that we have permitted on this side of the House to debate these serious matters to the fullest possible extent. So he can just listen to a few explanations from this side of the Committee when the time comes for them to be given. It is relevant to do so in this case because, yet again, he provided an example of the Opposition just slip-sliding away from the critical moral issues involved in this whole debate. Unfortunately, part of that slip-sliding has involved an implicit slander on the honour of Australian servicemen. But now it involves some sort of slander on the honour of the Australian judicial system, which is being utilised by this clause to provide the widest possible defence for anybody who is charged under it. I am sure that if one consulted those people who are likely to be charged and looked at the background of similar trials overseas, one would see a very strong preference on the part of those likely to face justice under the terms of this legislation and similar Acts which are in place elsewhere to be tried under our legal system. For example, the United States is a country which has at least as much regard for due processes of law as this country has. But the United States has absolutely no problems at all in not trying these sorts of offences in the United States but deporting people to be tried in other jurisdictions where they may not get the fullest possible opportunities for the legal defences that are offered under the United States judicial system. So, the complaints of the honourable member for Menzies about this amendment, which he is going to support anyway, albeit grudgingly, are totally bogus. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.26) —by leave-The brief breather that the captain of the ship took was occupied by a short burst from the cabin boy who seems, so far as I can see, simply to be wasting the time of the Committee. Let me make it perfectly plain that we support this amendment. I said that at the outset of my remarks and I did not depart from that position. If the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) can hear me-and I will send him a copy of the Hansard so that he can get the benefit of this point, because he seems to have had a belated interest in the subject-I simply said that this is a badly drawn Bill. Anyone who reads it can see that. This is amply evidenced by the fact that there have had to be such a wholesale series of Government amendments to it. The Leader of the House talks about the moral issues and, having made that point, walks out of the chamber. I will send him a copy of the Hansard so that he can be made aware of this point too. We do not need any lectures from him about the morality of the issues that have emerged in this case. What we have seen is a situation where the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with all the authority of his office, has been saying in public that people who will be charged under this Bill are guilty. That is what he has said. His exact words are that they appear to have been guilty. Mr Robert Brown —He didn't say that. Mr N.A. Brown —Is the honourable gentleman denying that? Mr Robert Brown —I deny your initial statement. Mr N.A. Brown —Oh, the honourable gentleman agrees with the fact that he said that they appear to have been guilty. That is all right, is it? So we have got an admission from the Government by way of a junior Minister that the Prime Minister has, in fact, said, `Yes, people to be charged under this Bill appear to have been guilty'. Mr Kent —It is a serious allegation. Mr N.A. Brown —Of course it is a serious allegation and I will show the honourable member the transcript. Would the honourable member like to see the transcript? There is no answer from him. We will send it to him just in case he has not seen it. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Prime Minister said that people who will be charged under this Bill would appear to have been guilty. We do not need any lectures from the Leader of the House about the morality of this issue when the Prime Minister has the audacity before the Bill is passed to announce to the public that people to be charged and to stand trial for offences which could result in imprisonment for life appear to be guilty. So he should not come in here and give us any lectures about morality. That is an utterly immoral position for the Prime Minister to have adopted. The Attorney-General has admitted that himself. So if the Leader of the House wants to come in here and contribute to this debate, he ought to acquaint himself with what took place before hand. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.30) —I will be brief. I rise to speak after listening to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) giving us a lecture on morality. The Minister for Defence should be the last person in this chamber to lecture us about the moral issues involved in the War Crimes Amendment Bill. If the Minister wants to talk about morality, I ask him about the morality of loyalty to all those who served in World War II. They are now divided into two groups and they are now very concerned-- Mr Beazley —Nonsense. Mr N.A. Brown —There are two classes-read the Bill! Mr WHITE —Here we go again; we are going through all this again. Of all the people who should speak in favour of the arguments that we are putting forward, the Minister should be the first. He should be concerned with the morality of loyalty to ex-serviceman and, more particularly in his present position as nominal leader of the Defence Force, to people who are currently serving in the armed forces of this country. What about their concerns? Should they be committed to operations? How does the Minister think they regard him-and the Government-when he supports this sort of nonsense? Will he stick by them should they be committed to operations? The answer in most of their minds is no. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(4.32) —How can I answer that nonsense? As the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) well knows, all provisions in this Act that deal with anything that could conceivably relate to Australian servicemen protect their position. That is not just the opinion of this Government. Honourable members should read a few columnists who have sat down and seriously studied the legislation that is before the House. Because it wants to avoid a debate inside the ranks of the Liberal Party-particularly inside the ranks of the New South Wales Branch of the Liberal Party-the Opposition has raised these totally bogus concerns. If disloyalty lies anywhere here, it lies with somebody who introduces a totally bogus legal consideration into this matter. There are no Australian servicemen who have been involved in any acts in the Second World War, in Europe or anywhere else, who could conceivably come within the framework of this legislation. The Opposition knows that and so does the Australian public. The disloyalty lies in attempting to cover potential criminals, potential mass murderers and wrap them in the flag of Australian servicemen. That is the immorality in this whole issue. That is exactly what-- Mr Howard —No, you have been doing the slurring. Mr BEAZLEY —No, I am not doing any slurring. It is Opposition members who have been doing the slurring in this instance. The honourable member for McPherson has sought to do that yet again. We reject that totally. We have loyalty to the reputation of past and present members of the defence forces. Mr KENT(Hotham)(4.34) —I did not intend to rise in this debate to discuss these points, but I am disgusted by the stand of the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), who has brought up some hocus pocus. He said that Senator Stone had called the War Crimes Amendment Bill a hocus pocus Bill which was badly drafted. The Opposition had 38 years in government to draft a Bill like this. There were allegations and accusations that the Liberal-National Government of Mr Menzies was harbouring war criminals in Australia. Time and again there were allegations in the press, on the radio, by individuals and organisations that that Government let war criminals into this country under the immigration laws; that they were not screened. Mr N.A. Brown —Not the Chifley Government? Mr KENT —No, the Menzies Government. Menzies got up and said that there were no war criminals in Australia; that no-one could be accused of war crimes. Senator Greenwood said, `There are no war criminals in Australia; there are no such people.' If there are no such people, what are Opposition members worrying about? Who are they protecting? Liberal governments had 38 years-they were in power for 35 of those 38 years-to deal with this matter. Now Opposition members are saying, `It is too late; it all happened 45 years ago'. Why did they not act? Why did they not do something about it? If the Opposition was not prepared to prevent war criminals from coming here under the immigration laws and taking Australian citizenship, what does it want to do now? Does it want to say that they do not exist? If they do not exist, who is it protecting? Is the Opposition protecting some members of its own Party-the uglies, the beauties or whatever the factions are called in New South Wales? Is that the problem? Is that where the Opposition's loyalties are? I fully support this Bill. I fully support the amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.36) —I move: That amendment No. 10 be agreed to. I accept this amendment. It inserts new subsections 13 (4) and (5) which ensures that the normal rules of evidence and procedure, including those that relate to protection against abuse of process, apply to proceedings for war crimes. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.37) —We support this amendment. Indeed, it should be placed on the record that this was one of the two major amendments which the Opposition proposed. It is in fact an amendment which will ensure that the court will have a real power to stay proceedings where, because of lapse of time and the very nature of these offences, there is a risk of an injustice taking place. This amendment has its origins in the work done by the Opposition and the advice which the Opposition has obtained. It was very unfortunate that with this amendment, as with others, the Government fought it tooth and nail for months. Now it has seen the light and we congratulate it on adopting the amendment, albeit belatedly. Of course, it has dressed it up in its own words to give it an air of originality, but nevertheless in substance it is the amendment which the Opposition proposed. It is very important that there should be such an amendment. I cannot help but recall a very vivid recent illustration of the problems that arise when people are expected to remember events which happened years ago. The Committee will recall that some weeks ago in the debate on what I shall call the Eddie Kornhauser matter, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was challenged about a meeting that he had had with some other people some 8 1/2 years ago. He threw up his hands in despair, got that look on his face that he gets sometimes and said, `How can anyone be expected to remember what happened 8 1/2 years ago? How can you expect me to remember that? People cannot remember conversations and what they did 8 1/2 years ago'. What a vivid illustration of the very situation we face here, because the Government is now expecting defendants, under these proceedings, to defend themselves on the basis of their recollection of events that happened 45 years ago. `Where were you on this date? What were you doing on this date? Where were your witnesses? Where are your witnesses now? Produce them. What can you remember? Surely you can remember precisely what you were doing on the afternoon of 3 June 1940.' That is the difficulty. In case the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) is going to intervene, let me say that we believe, beyond any shadow of doubt, that people who committed these horrendous crimes, of course should be put on trial. I hope that he would agree also that they should get a fair trial. If they are to get a fair trial, then there must be an opportunity for the court to have regard to the lapse of time, deceased witnesses and lost documents and those sorts of problems. This amendment, which the Government is now proposing, and which originated from the Opposition, will cater for those problems. We, of course, support it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.41) —I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I want to make the point that it was always thought to be the case-and I do not think he would disagree-that the courts would apply the normal rules of evidence and be able to look at the question of the delay. That is now virtually a common law position, but we are stating here in order to put it beyond any argument that has arisen, unfortunately, as a result of the inability to get a bipartisan attitude to the process. We do not mind stating that. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) made another point about the lapse of time and memory. I do not think that time will erase the events at issue in these allegations. Some of the next of kin of people who may be witnesses were exterminated-I do not think they will forget that. The allegations would be so horrendous and so personal that witnesses would not have any problem about the lapse of time. Some have already given evidence in Germany as to the situation. What they do have is a very clear, burnt-in impression in their brain of what happened to their loved ones when they were exterminated-in some cases because of their religion. Very specific evidence has already been given. Whilst the honourable member for Menzies can advert to the fact that perhaps the 40-odd years is far too long, I point out that if he keeps saying that there is no point in our proceeding with the Bill at all. We cannot alter the lapse of time, the 40-odd years has gone but the memory has not and the deaths have not been forgotten. That is the point. If the honourable member looked at some of the evidence given in Germany of what happened in these camps, how women and children were sent to their death for no other reason except, perhaps, that they belonged to the Jewish race, he would realise that those things are not forgotten. If a defendant feels that he is prejudiced by the lapse of time, by being unable to get evidence, certainly that should be given credence. It puts the matter beyond doubt. We are just trying to overcome an unfortunate situation that suggests there is something wrong with having a trial in Australia. There is no alternative to this. Let us hope that we do not have any trials in Australia, but if there is a trial it will be held on the fairest basis in the world. Nobody else has gone to this trouble and it is about time we looked at that issue. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.48) —I am one of those who are somewhat disappointed at the amount of time the Government took to come round to the view that this amendment ought to be accepted and I was surprised that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was still raising arguments today that suggested that there were, perhaps, good reasons why this matter ought not to have been pursued and the Government was, in some way, merely accommodating the Opposition. My old master solicitor, who used to speak very highly-and no doubt still does-of the Attorney-General, used to say to me in this matter, `One should exercise more abundant precaution'. I must say that this is one of those areas where it seems to me that that is very appropriate. The argument was that the very passage of this War Crimes Amendment Bill could be construed as having overcome or removed the operation of the ordinary rules that the courts might apply, particularly in relation to the question of the passage of time. The courts would be asked to construe the legislation on the basis that the Parliament, by passing this very legislation, intended that these matters should be dealt with, even though they may have occurred 45 years ago and the question that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) has raised might well have been relevant. Whilst the argument is a technical one and one that courts might or might not have upheld, it seems to me that there is nothing to be lost by the words that the Opposition intended to add, or that the Attorney-General has now added. All the amendment does is make clear the principle that the Attorney-General tells us he wanted to see apply, that we wanted to see apply and in which there was opinion of eminent counsel to suggest that the courts might not be able to apply. If there was any case where more abundant precaution should have applied, it was this case. It might have taken a lot of the agony out of the negotiations in which the Government was involved with the Opposition and avoided a good deal of the agony in which the Opposition was involved in relation to this matter in any event, if this amendment, this very reasonable amendment, could have been accepted at a far earlier point in time. I think it was somewhat churlish, in fact, to put the matter to one side and deal with it at the door of the court, as it were. These are the sorts of bar tactics that are used in negotiations by those people who want to squeeze every last drop out of their opponents. They leave it until the matter is being dealt with at the court. That is what the Attorney has done. He has left it until the Senate had an opportunity to press him, and then he has said, `I will give way on that'. I think they are pretty poor tactics and I think it was very unfortunate that that occurred in relation to this matter, because I certainly, as one who wants to see these things dealt with, wanted to see an element of goodwill on the Government's part in relation to accommodating all of the very reasonable amendments that the Opposition has pressed. Question revolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —I understand it is the wish of the Committee to deal with amendments 11 to 16 together. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.47) —With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Chairman, let me say that I suggested that because in the course of the debate which has been on and off since this morning I have really, in effect, made the various points that I wish to make. Therefore, it might well assist things if the Attorney were to move the remainder of the amendments as a job lot. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.48) —I was happy to move the job lot at the start, but the honourable gentleman-- Mr N.A. Brown —We wanted to do a job on you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Did you? Well, that shows your personal vindictiveness, I suppose. I thank the honourable gentleman and I seek leave to move amendments 11 to 16 inclusive. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —You do not need leave. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Things are improving out of sight. I move: That amendments Nos 11 to 16 be agreed to. I accept amendment 11. It inserts a new section 13A, which enables an accused to seek a change of venue and provides that the application be granted unless the Crown can establish that the accused is not a resident of the jurisdiction to which he seeks to have the proceedings removed or is a resident of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings are currently being conducted. There is also a new section 13B, which provides that where the court has ordered the removal of proceedings to another jurisdiction the court may make other orders necessary to effect that removal, requires that all proceedings be conducted in that jurisdiction and would preclude the accused, if the court so ordered, from making further applications for a change of venue. Amendment 12 ensures that the preclusion of any defence of superior orders by section 14 is subject to the operation of any defences available under Australian law, either at the time of the offence or at the time of charge, which is akin to a defence of superior orders. I accept that amendment. I accept amendment 13. It inserts a new section 15, which ensures that, in relation to the defence that the conduct was permitted by the laws, customs and usages of war and was not at international law a crime against humanity, the accused bears only an evidential onus and the Crown must rebut that defence beyond reasonable doubt before the accused can be convicted of the offence if that defence is raised. This amendment makes it clear that the exigencies and necessities of war are covered by the laws, customs and usages of war. I accept amendment 14. This provision gives the Attorney-General power to grant legal assistance to a person charged with a war crime and provides that if the Attorney-General refuses such an application he must notify the applicant in writing of his decision and the reasons therefor and seek the permission of the applicant for the tabling of the notice in each House of Parliament. Where this consent is given, the notice must be tabled in each House within 15 sitting days of the receipt of consent. I accept amendment 15. This requires the Attorney-General to table in Parliament an annual report which gives details of progress on investigations and prosecutions conducted under the Act. I accept amendment 16. This amendment provides that a person who is otherwise, under the terms of the Extradition Act 1988, eligible for surrender to a foreign country cannot be surrendered for a war crime unless in addition to the normal extradition requirements a magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the person whose extradition is sought. This provision provides additional safeguards to an accused whose extradition is sought for conduct which falls within the ambit of the War Crimes Act. I stress that all the normal requirements applicable to extradition cases apply to the extradition of a person for a war crime. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(4.51) —Mr Chairman, we accept the amendments. I am not going to speak with respect to each of them; but with respect to amendment 14, which relates to legal aid, we still maintain that there should be a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by those who apply for legal aid and are rejected. These trials will clearly cost millions of dollars. It is quite extraordinary that originally the Government said that this Bill was to have no financial impact. That is lost in history, of course, with the bill having been run up by Mr Greenwood and company. Mr Lionel Bowen —Here you go again. Mr N.A. Brown —It is the bill that has been run up by him. He has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating these matters overseas. The Government said that the Bill would have no financial impact. So, there is that cost. If my recollection serves me correctly, it is over $2m so far. These trials will cost millions of dollars. The Opposition says that there should be a right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendment requiring an annual report to be tabled in the Parliament came from the Opposition and the Government has now accepted that. With respect to extradition, that likewise was an amendment which the Opposition proposed and, of course, which the Government fought tooth and nail. In fact, the letter from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to me on 27 September, in rejecting this amendment which the Government has now accepted, said, `How can we possibly agree to this, to require that there cannot be any extradition unless a prima facie case has been made out? How can we possibly agree to this when it would be contrary to our extradition treaties?'. What was contrary to an extradition treaty in September is all right in December? Snap one's fingers, the whole world changes and the problems are over. Of course, the reality is that the Government was in a corner and this is the only way it could get out of it. It abandoned principle for the sake of convenience. The Opposition still says, with respect to extradition, that there should be a complete embargo on the extradition of people to be charged with these offences and similar offences if they are to be extradited to Warsaw Pact countries or Yugoslavia. But the Government has not accepted that amendment. The Opposition therefore accepts those amendments. We have saved some time by dealing with them compendiously; but we simply place on record the fact that there are other amendments which the Government has not accepted, which it should have accepted and which would have made the Bill a better one. I repeat that we support the thrust and the objective of this legislation but we do maintain, first, that there should be an exclusion of all Australian ex-service personnel; secondly, that there should be an appeal in the case of applicants for legal aid who have had that legal aid refused; thirdly, that there should be an amendment which has been overlooked and I think forgotten but which is tremendously important in the Opposition's view. That is an amendment to give defendants access to witnesses, sites and documents in Warsaw Pact countries or Yugoslavia and indeed to go so far as to say that there should be no prosecutions where the prosecution will rely on evidence from those countries, unless the defendant is given a fair chance of having access to those witnesses, sites and documents in those countries. That will do no more than help the defendant to get a fair trial. Surely there are two principles in this matter: one is that those who committed these horrendous offences should be put on trial and the second, also important, is that they should get a fair trial. To get a fair trial for those who will be prosecuted where the prosecution will rely upon evidence from Warsaw Pact countries or Yugoslavia, the prosecution should not take place unless the defendants are given access to that material. Fourthly, as I have already said, we still believe that there should be an amendment to prevent extradition to a Warsaw Pact country or to Yugoslavia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.56) —I thank the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) for his contribution. He would know that we do not agree to extradition to countries with which we do not have a treaty. The issue of a prima facie case, of course, arose in respect of the treaty. The question of prima facie seems to have two definitions. Pursuant to the treaty, what is called the modern definition of prima facie is some evidence or allegation that an offence has been committed. We will accept the view that in these cases we would need to have more than that. We would need to have the prima facie evidence that would guarantee virtually a committal. The point that I have been trying to make from the commencement of this debate, which goes back to February of 1987, is that for the first time in the world Australia has developed a concept whereby it can deal with residents who were not residents at the time of the cessation of the Second World War in accordance with normal court procedures. This of course does lead to the issue that the United States does not. It talks about extradition. Menzies talked about extradition being an opportunity or revocation of citizenship being the way out, but we do not accept that as being a very satisfactory result. I think that is where some credit has to be given for what we are about here. He makes the point that we can run into all sorts of difficulties here. He says this: If it was not thought appropriate . . . this is a matter for judgement . . . consideration should be given to proceeding by way of revocation of citizenship and deportation in the case of citizens who acquired citizenship less than ten years ago and deportation in the case of non-citizens. If this is not practical or appropriate . . . the Government should consider . . . permitting a civil court to deal with a war crime. We have done that. Whereas this debate started off virtually on a bipartisan basis, that we had a problem in this country or we appeared to have a problem in this country, we seem to have deteriorated into the belief that there is something wrong with this legislation. Mr MacKellar —There certainly is. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not think there is. Whilst the interjector says that there certainly is, I notice that he did not make any contribution in the course of the debate. Mr N.A. Brown —We will wait and see how it works out. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We will wait and see; but I just make the point that I do not think any government is taking this as being an issue that belongs to government policy. It relates to the fact that something has to be done about dealing with allegations that there are war criminals somewhere in Australia. They certainly do not exist in the Australian armed services or in the former armed services, which is the unfortunate result of the Opposition's belated amendment. It was not moved at the time of the second reading debate; it was moved subsequently. Mr Reith —Yes, because it came out of the Senate Committee. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Maybe it did, but at the time it was very clear that the honourable gentleman who is interjecting did not think it ought to be raised, because it would create the divisions that it has. I do not think we can overcome that. Mr Reith —We wanted a fair hearing just to sort these issues out, as you well know. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The issue that we are sorting out is the fact that there have been allegations, particularly by the Jewish community, that a large number of their next of kin have been exterminated. They are the allegations. They are very simple, very clear, very concise. Mr N.A. Brown —What form were they in? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know what form they were in. Mr Menzies would know about that. He produced a list which was not given to me. I have never seen it and nor should I, from that point of view. That is the purpose of the review of the material relating to the entry of suspected war criminals into Australia. Perhaps the Wiesenthal Institute also has some evidence; I do not know. Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Mr N.A. Brown —You have never seen the allegations? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have never seen them, no; nor should I. Mr N.A. Brown —Why? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Because I happen to be the Attorney-General at the other end of the scale. That is the reason. Why should I be forming judgments? We have the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is to look at it from an impartial point of view. That is the whole idea of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is the law here and that is the point. Certainly from the point of view of miscarriage of justice the matters can be raised, but here we are talking about allegations. I just think this has taken an extraordinarily long while. We got a Bill passed in this House as far back as October 1987. We are now in the dying days of 1988 desperately trying to get it passed. There is another intelligence in this. The Opposition never really wanted the Bill. The point is that if the Opposition really wanted to assist in dealing with this matter, it could have been dealt with in the first session of 1988. The Opposition is not really sincere about this. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) would know that some of the interjections are not altogether far removed from the point as to the reasons why the Liberal Party did not want to deal with this issue. Mr Howard —That is nonsense. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Of course, it is not nonsense. Mr Howard —You wanted the defendants to nick off. You told Brownie that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. I am not arguing whether I wanted them to nick off. The honourable gentleman is trying to say that, when the honourable member saw me, I had a very quick way of dealing with the problem. I am not arguing that. What I want to say is that I mentioned to the honourable member the problems of any accused-that is the most serious part of it-and the further problems that have now been brought about by the fact that the honourable member is bringing within the ambit Australian ex-service men and women. That has created a real problem. Mr Reith —All I can say is that the $41m which you lost on the referendums will be but chickenfeed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I say to the honourable member for Flinders that we would have frequent elections. We can still have those. Nobody worries about them. From that point of view, I thank the honourable members for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. 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. Sitting suspended from 5.03 to 6.28 p.m. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The following message from the Senate has been received: The Senate returns to the House of Representatives the Bill for an Act relating to the grant of financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for schools and for related matters, and acquaints the House of Representatives that the Senate has considered message No. 359 of the House dated 21 December 1988, in reference to such Bill. The Senate has resolved to press its requests for the amendments and again requests the House of Representatives to make such amendments, as indicated by Schedule A annexed. The Senate desires to inform the House that the amendments indicated by Schedule B annexed have been made by the Senate in the Bill. Before the House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole, I wish to read to the House a statement, on behalf of Madam Speaker, on the subject of the message I have just announced. Where the personal pronoun `I' occurs, it refers to Madam Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to the constitutional question which this message involves. The message purports to repeat the requests for amendments contained in message No. 274 which the House rejected at its sitting earlier today. The `right' of the Senate to repeat and thereby press or insist on a request for an amendment has never been accepted by the House of Representatives. On several previous occasions when a request was pressed on the House by repetition the House had regard to the claim that the public welfare required passage of the legislation which was the subject of the pressed request and gave the pressed request the House's consideration notwithstanding that the House resolved to refrain from determining its constitutional rights. The House so informed the Senate of the terms of its resolution in its message to the Senate in reply. It is not certain whether the Senate's `right' to press a request by repetition is justiciable in the courts. However, it is a matter of constitutional propriety as between the Houses based on the provisions of sections 53 to 57 of the Constitution. Strong arguments that the Constitution does not give the Senate the rights to press a request were advanced by Quick and Garran who were intimately involved in the development of the Constitution. Their views may be found on pages 671 and 672 of their treatise on the Constitution. In 1943, some 40 years later, the question was examined by four eminent constitutional lawyers-Garran, Knowles, Bailey and Castieau-who, after considering other learned opinion, summed up the question in the following words: In our opinion, the Constitution-- Mr Sinclair-Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of procedure-- Government members-Sit down. Mr Sinclair-Mr Deputy Speaker, are you participating in this debate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat while the Chair is on its feet. Members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair-You are making a statement which relates to the activities of the Senate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair-On what basis are you making this statement? Is it something given to you by the Government or is it your statement? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair-I am asking you a question. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The four lawyers wrote: In our opinion, the Constitution in denying the right of amendment and conferring the right of request intended a substantial difference. In this we respectfully agree with the views expressed by Sir Harrison Moore, Sir Isaac Isaacs and Sir John Latham. Opposition members interjecting- Mr Beazley-You fellows are hopeless. Mr Howard-He has no right to read a Government statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Howard-Is this a Government statement? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The quotation continues: We think it clear that the Constitution did not intend to stultify itself by giving back in one clause what it had taken away in another. The essence of the difference between request and amendment is that in the case of a request the right of decision as to the form of the Bill rests solely with the House of Representatives. To press a request is to insist upon it-which is a contradiction in terms, and also in our opinion unconstitutional. Other more recent legal opinion has been of a similar view, including the opinions of Professors Richardson, Sawer and Pearce. Madam Speaker continues: I respectfully agree with these opinions, as I had reason to indicate to the House as recently as 11 April 1986. I might add also that my immediate predecessors, Speaker Snedden on 21 October 1981 and Speaker Jenkins on 20 August 1985, also indicated their agreement to these opinions in similar statements. It rests with the House whether it will consider message No. 295 in so far as it purports to press the requests that were contained in message No. 274. In the circumstances of the present case, the House may deem it expedient to pass a resolution, as has been done on occasions in the past, that the public welfare demands the early passage of the legislation and that the House refrains from determining its constitutional rights. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: (1) That this House endorses the statement of the Speaker in relation to the constitutional questions raised by message No. 295 transmitted by the Senate in relation to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1988; (2) this House, having regard to the fact that the public interest demands the early passage of the legislation, refrains from the determination of its constitutional rights in respect of such message; (3) this House resolves to consider the message in Committee of the Whole House forthwith; and (4) part 2 of this resolution be incorporated in the message when the Bill is returned to the Senate. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. 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, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca, C.Gear, G. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W.Jones, Barry Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.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.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that the requested amendments be taken into consideration in the Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's requested amendments. Senate's requested amendments- SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE SHOWING THE ORIGINAL REQUESTED AMENDMENTS OF THE SENATE WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS NOT MADE, AND WHICH THE SENATE AGAIN REQUESTS THE HOUSE TO MAKE No. 1-Page 50, Schedule 8, PART 1-NON-GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOLS, at end of Part, add ``1989'', ``166'', ``112'' and ``56'' to columns 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. No. 2-Page 50, Schedule 8, PART 2-NON-GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOLS, at end of Part, add ``1989'', ``265'', ``177'' and ``88'' to columns 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(6.45) —I move: That the requested amendments be made. Honourable members will recall that when this matter was before the chamber earlier today we had requests from the Senate which were quite clearly defective in a technical and major sense because they purported to extend benefits which the Government intended to withdraw in relation to establishment grants for new non-government schools. The Senate, in considering the rejection of that request later in the day, decided to foreshadow a further amendment which would correct those technical deficiencies. The way in which the Senate has chosen to correct those technical deficiencies would add a new subclause after subclause 22 (2) which would give the Minister the discretion to make certain payments to these schools, and I read precisely: Where a school has been provisionally approved to commence in the year beginning January 1, 1989, the Minister may- and I emphasise the word `may'- by determination in writing, authorise the payment to the State under this section by way of financial assistance to the State for recurrent expenditure of the school . . . The important thing here is that this does not require the Government to make any particular expenditure. It does give the Minister a discretion to make a payment. It is worth making the point that the only reason the Government is agreeing to this request is that it does not make it mandatory-a point which was made in the Senate by my colleague the Minister for Finance-for the Government to make these payments which it announced in the May statement it would not be doing. For those on the other side who have said that the white flag has been run up the mast, I can assure them that that is not the case. Mr Howard —Why did you vote against it? Mr DAWKINS —The Leader of the Opposition, in between his cackles, asks why we voted against it before. The reason we voted against it before was that his ninny friends in the upper House had got it wrong. Indeed, if we had been particularly smart we would have agreed to it at that time because it was so technically deficient that it was inoperative in any event. We decided that the best course to take was to point out to the Senate that its request was technically deficient. It has now taken the action of foreshadowing a further amendment which will be moved in the Senate and which will correct the technical deficiency; but, in correcting the technical deficiency, the Senate makes the payment of these establishment grants entirely discretionary in the hands of the Minister. Whilst this is a nice bit of face-saving for the Senate, it does not require us to reinstate the payments which the Government decided in May that it would withdraw in the context of its historically important overall package of support for non-government schools. We will have in this Bill when it returns to the Senate a provision which will leave in the Minister a discretion to pay to certain schools establishment grants for those schools starting in 1989, but I can say that the Budget has not been recast and therefore the additional funds necessary have not been identified at this point. We can say that, unless there was an identification of offsetting savings from the same area within this Bill, there would be no payments made using the ministerial discretion which the Senate intends to place within this particular measure. It is for the reason that this matter is a matter of discretion-it is not a measure which mandates any particular additional expenditure over and above that which was decided by the Government in the Budget context-and only that reason that we will be agreeing to this particular proposal. There has been some speculation about what we might do in relation to the pressed amendment in relation to the technical and further education (TAFE) Bill. I can assure honourable members that it will be the Government's intention to send that back to the Senate without agreement. We will have in that case-a matter entirely in the hands of the Senate-the fact that payments which ought to be made to the technical and further education system throughout Australia will be at least delayed as a result of this unconstitutional action on the part of the Senate. In relation to this matter, where there is $1.9 billion at stake which should properly be paid to the States and the non-government school system, we will not hold that up on this measure because the way in which the Senate has now cast its proposal does not mandate any additional expenditure on our part in relation to these establishment grants which the Government decided in May and in the Budget that it would withdraw, phase out. This is a serious matter. The Opposition guffawed about the statement which was read out by the Deputy Speaker on behalf of the Speaker. These are crucially important issues. We will not have a situation where irresponsible senators will mess around with our Budgets. We are the ones who have the responsibility for putting together responsible Budgets. We are the ones who have the only constitutional power to initiate expenditure. That is why a statement is needed from the Governor-General in order to initiate those appropriations. This is the House in which appropriations will be initiated; this is the House in which Budgets will be cast; and this is the House in which any changes to Budgets will be contemplated. The Senate will have to contemplate over the summer what damage it is doing to the TAFE system as a result of its recalcitrance in relation to the matter which will come before us later this evening. In relation to this matter, we have decided, as the motion agreed to by the House a moment ago said, that there is an important public interest here in respect of the payment of $1.9 billion. Mr Cadman —What a way to go. Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Mitchell may well interject. What he has to answer for is how the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) can swan around this country berating the Government for overexpenditure, imploring the Government to reduce expenditure, and then come in here and vote irresponsibly to increase expenditure in areas where the Government has already determined that expenditure ought to be reduced. That is the area not only of irresponsibility but also of fiscal inconsistency. The question that has to be answered by the Opposition is how on earth it can on the one hand advocate expenditure reductions and yet come in here and vote for measures which were not dreamt up on this side of the House but, rather, were initiated in the Senate. The honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) had no idea what amendments might be contemplated when this measure was first before the House. All he said was that in the Senate there would be a contemplation of amendments which would criticise the Government for certain measures the Government intended to put into effect in these Bills. There was no anticipation of amendments which would meddle with the appropriations; no anticipation of amendments which would increase appropriations or reverse properly construed Budget decisions which this Government had made. Now we have some inconsequential senator from South Australia who decided to dream up these proposals and has finally got it right, having been told by this House earlier today that the Opposition's early attempt was technically totally incompetent, but has got it right in a way which does not mandate any additional expenditure overall. For that reason the Government will not hold up the funds which should properly be flowing to the vast number of non-government schools that rely so heavily on funds from this Government; will not hold up the funds that go to State governments to support the State government school system; and will not hold up the funds which go to capital projects in both the government and non-government school systems. But anyone who is waiting and holding his breath for us to respond to this invitation to increase our appropriations overall will be waiting a very long time. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.55) —Mr Chairman, what an extraordinary display we have seen from the Government today. What an extraordinary display of incompetence and arrogance we have seen from the Government. The first thing is that we did not need to come back today because we foreshadowed in this House what we were going to do in the Senate. The Opposition had to do it in that way because the Government applied the guillotine here and the only chance for the Opposition to make the amendments was in the Senate. If the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) had only listened in this chamber to what the Opposition was saying, Government members would not have had to be here today. If they are complaining about being here they can blame the Minister. His failure to heed what the Opposition had to say in this chamber, his failure to understand what the Opposition was going to do in the Senate, meant that Government members had to be brought back here today. That was the first step in this extraordinary display of incompetence that we have seen today. The second step was the extraordinary number of conferences we had, with people running up and down this marvellous front bench of the Government's: `The bits of paper are not here', `We cannot do anything', `We will bring it on', `We will take it off again', `We can't, there are no bits of paper'. These blokes opposite could not run a chook house. Their performance today, their incompetence, their arrogance, has been so bad that they must be doubly blessed because that broadcasting sign is not on. If the people of Australia had listened today or watched Government members scurrying up and down here like chooks with their heads cut off, there is no doubt that this myth-that is what it is, an absolute myth-that the Government has a competent front bench would evaporate instantaneously. The Government has displayed an extraordinary amount of incompetence today; and now, guess what? The white flag is up. For all the grandstanding, for all the huffing and puffing, for all the talk the Government went on with, it has now given way. The Minister has wasted all the money. We will come to the next Bill, and the Government has a pretty clear message what the Senate is going to do. The Senate is pretty well disposed to send back to this chamber again and again what was agreed there until the Government runs up the white flag again. That is what the Senate is going to do. That is what we will be talking about in the other Bill when it comes before the chamber later tonight. There has been an extraordinary display of arrogance, of incompetence, of Ministers not knowing what is going on, of their advisers running backwards and forwards, of drafting amendments and redrafting amendments. This extraordinary display of incompetence sets at rest once and for all this extraordinary myth that the Government has a competent front bench. The Government is tired, it is arrogant, it is out of touch, it is incompetent, and it is time to go. I am reminded that the average Australian over the period of this Government is $56 a week worse off. Tired, arrogant, incompetent-and people are $56 a week worse off. It is all very well for the Government to be carrying on like this. I can tell the Government that if it is behaving like this now, it is going to be a lot worse when the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill comes back into the House with the same message to this Minister. Guess what the Minister is going to be doing during dinner? He is going to be running around trying to find another peg. He found a funny little peg for the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill; he is going to find a peg for the TAFE Bill. Mark my words: the Senate has already sent on its way back here the TAFE Bill, which is going to deliver the same message as the schools Bill did. Your Minister is going to be running around at dinnertime trying to find a way out of the dilemma he has got himself into. Again I say to you rabble over there-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member might like to say something to the Chair. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Chairman, I would like to say something to the Chair. It is infinitely preferable to be talking to the Chair than it is to be talking to that absolutely incompetent rabble over there. Mr Deputy Chairman, it is worth while reminding the Committee what all this establishment grants kerfuffle has been about. By the way, Government members should not go away. The Opposition has two or three other amendments that the Minister will also have to run up the white flag on in a couple of minutes. I want to draw attention to a letter from the Minister's Department dated 16 December 1987, before the 1988 May statement, headed `Proposed Commencement of a New School in 1989'. It states: Following final approval the school could expect to receive general recurrent funding at category 10 and will be eligible for the establishment grants, with grants in respect of the first year of establishment payable in 1989. That is what all this has been about. It is protecting these private schools against the ravages that took place in the 1988 May statement. This is not an isolated incident; this is not the only one. Dr Theophanous —What? Mr BEALE —The honourable member for Calwell should go back and change his electorate name but he should not interject. He knows nothing about this. He should not interject and he should not pretend. I know the front bench is weak, but it will not be enhanced by his presence on it. This is not an isolated incident, Mr Chairman. We have advice from the National Council of Independent Schools that as many as 15 and possibly 20 schools are affected by this matter on which the Minister has now run up the white flag. The Minister has agreed to the amendment proposed by the Senate. All this business about being poorly worded is a smokescreen. The wording is subject to a variety of interpretations, as is the Constitution, as is the statement that came from the Speaker's chair, in the name of the Speaker, a few minutes ago. Heaven knows where that came from. The Minister must have been hunting around for most of the afternoon trying to find that sort of stuff so he could get the rationale he needed before he ran up the white flag. That is what these establishment grants are all about. They are to protect these small schools against what the Government was trying to do. Mr Howard —They broke their word. Mr BEALE —Yes, but it is not the first time. Do we want to run through them? There will be no capital gains tax, no increase in the Medicare levy. That is part of the business about competence. Incompetence is the mark of people who really do not know what they are up to, people who change their minds all the time, people who cannot get the bits of paper straight, people who run around in little huddles trying to get their act together, people who had to hand a surreptitious note to the Deputy Speaker for him to adjourn the House because they had so mismanaged the business of the House that there was nothing for us to do today. Members have been dragged back here today because of this Minister's incompetence, because of his failure to understand what the Opposition told him when these Bills were being debated in this House, for his failure to sit down constructively at that time and do something about them, for his failure repeatedly to understand what the Senate was going to do. The Opposition welcomes the fact that the Government has given in on this matter, and raised the white flag. The Opposition believes that the Bill as amended will be a better Bill for schools around Australia. We condemn the Government for its arrogance, for its incompetence, for the fact that it is out of touch, and for the fact that average Australians are $56 a week worse off. Those opposite really deserve a Christmas holiday. They have been so hopeless in the last few months that it suggests next year is going to be a cakewalk for the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Adoption of Report Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(7.10) —I move: That the report be adopted. In doing so I might just recount that earlier today the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) was so bereft that he asked me could he please speak to one of the members of my staff because he did not have a clue what was going on. I was pleased to be able to help him out. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 7.11 to 8.15 p.m. Message received from the Senate returning the Bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments Nos 1 and 2 disagreed to by the House, and that it has agreed to the amendment made by the House in place of amendment No. 3. Message received from the Senate returning the Bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments No. 1 and 4, disagreed to by the House, insists upon amendments Nos 2 and 3, disagreed to by the House, and has agreed to the amendment made by the House in place of amendment No. 4, and that the Senate desires the reconsideration of the Bill in respect of amendments Nos 2 and 3. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 2-Page 8, paragraph 12 (3) (b), lines 30 and 31, leave out the paragraph. No. 3-Pages 9 and 10, clause 13, line 21 (page 9) to line 31 (page 10), leave out the clause. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(8.17) —I move: That the Committee insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted on by the Senate. I think we have traversed this territory once already today; so it is probably not necessary for us to go into very great detail again, except to remind the Committee that the amendments Nos 2 and 3 that we are dealing with-that is, the original amendments Nos 2 and 3 which the Committee had not agreed to and which the Senate is now insisting upon-were disagreed to by the Committee for a couple of reasons. The first was that they came to the Chamber from the Senate as amendments to the original Bill, amendments which the Chamber believes contravene-and on the basis of advice from the Parliamentary Counsel and other distinguished legal advisers contravene-section 53 of the Constitution in the sense that it is not for the Senate to impose a greater financial burden on the people. That is what this amendment purports to do. It would have been better, if possible, for the Senate to recast this proposal as a request, as it did on the earlier occasion in respect of the Sates Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. But, as it happens, one of the major reasons for the House objecting to the Senate's amendment was simply that on the advice we had it contravened the Constitution in the terms that I have expressed. There was another reason as well, but even if it had been cast in the form of a request the House would still have rejected it because it seeks to reverse a decision taken by the Government in relation to the funding of non-government business colleges. For many years, indeed going back to the time when tertiary fees were first abolished, in 1973 for the 1974 academic year, it was the position of the then Government in 1974, and of subsequent governments, to provide some fee relief for those students who were attending non-government business colleges. The Government, in reviewing its higher education policy and its tertiary education policy generally, has decided that it will not support non-government tertiary institutions of this kind. We also had a situation where there had been no new entrants, no new colleges approved, in the context of this scheme and no new courses approved in the context of this scheme for some years. So we had a situation where students attending some non-government business colleges were receiving the subsidy support, others in other colleges were not, and even within the same college some students attending one course were receiving support whereas those attending another course were not. There was this major inconsistency which had to be resolved in either one of two ways-either we had to extend the support, at a very substantial cost, to a larger number of business colleges and a larger number of courses, or else we had to decide to phase out this support for non-government business colleges. The Government took the decision, in the context of the May statement and the context of the financial support we provide to the States for technical and further education (TAFE) and in the context of the substantial expansion for higher education, that looking at the education budget in total it was not appropriate for us to extend support for non-government business colleges and therefore we took the only other decision available to us, which was to phase it out. I make the observation that, since we relaxed the rules which prevented the coming to Australia of students to undertake full free courses, the non-government business colleges, have been major beneficiaries of that policy. Perhaps `beneficiary' is the wrong word, but they have been the ones who have been most enthusiastic about taking up those new opportunities. Literally thousands of overseas students are now enrolled, paying full fees, in these non-government business colleges. Many of them have expanded their operations substantially and, indeed, many new colleges have started up. So it would not be right to say that these colleges were in a state of financial collapse, and indeed I can say from discussions that I have had with representatives of these colleges that, even if they are not throwing their hats in the air, they at least understand the reasons behind the Government's decision. There was a particular problem for those students who had been accepted for courses in 1989 prior to the Government's decision having been announced and it was with those students in mind that we decided to increase support. At Budget time we agreed to extend support later in the year, to the tune of an additional $1.5m which was to be provided to support those students who had enrolled for courses in 1989 prior to the announcement earlier this year. The Government is not inclined to go beyond that point. We are not inclined to reverse the decision that we took in the context of a difficult budgetary situation, and I might say pursuing a fiscal policy which the Opposition would claim is not tight enough. In other words it would claim that we should be spending less money, not more. But in the context of trying to get fiscal policy right-and we have been far more successful than any other government that has gone before us in that sense-we had to make some difficult decisions and this was one of them. This will provide for savings to the tune of $5m per calendar year, and a reversal of this decision as proposed by the Senate will, of course, increase appropriations by a like amount if that were to be the way in which the matter was handled. There are two other issues that need to be considered. Firstly, it would be possible to save the money elsewhere in the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill, but that would mean taking money away from the States for support of the TAFE system, and that is a decision which the Government is disinclined to take at least at this time. Secondly, there is the related question of eligibility for Austudy. The way in which Austudy operates at the moment, eligibility is determined by those students who are enrolled in government supported courses and therefore those who have been enrolled in courses in these business colleges which receive a subsidy have been eligible to receive Austudy. Those who are in courses not supported or in colleges not supported are not eligible for Austudy. This proposal from the Senate to continue this policy of subsidising non-government business colleges does not only involve the expenditure of the subsidy to the colleges but also involves a continuation of the eligibility for Austudy for those particular students. This is a big issue because it is not just the $5m, which is the cost of the existing program that we are talking about but, in order to maintain any semblance of consistency, if we were going to maintain it for some colleges and some courses we would have to extend it to other colleges and other courses at a far greater cost than the $5m that we are talking about here. But this $5m is not a trivial issue. We are concerned not to have the Senate trying to make a patchwork quilt out of our Budget-that is, accepting some parts of it but trying to add to expenditure in other parts of it. It is not the role of the Senate to put together Commonwealth Budgets. It is the role of the properly elected government, and that is what we have done and that is what we continue to do. It is for that reason that we are not going to accept the Senate's insistence on this particular measure and, lest there be any suggestion there is an inconsistent approach between this matter and the one we dealt with before the adjournment, I want to make the point that there is a quite clear constitutional issue here which needs to be resolved; that is, the Senate is pressing its case that this is not an issue over which a request was the appropriate way to approach the House of Representatives but rather that an amendment was the appropriate device. There are quite clear conflicting opinions about that. There are the opinions that we have which quite clearly say that it is not the prerogative of the Senate to approach the House on this measure in that way. Presumably the majority in the Senate has different advice, and during the period between now and when the Parliament next resumes-because I do not expect that this matter will be resolved tonight-there will be the opportunity to further pursue that matter. There will also be an opportunity for us to consider whether or not we should take funds from somewhere else in this Bill, in other words from the TAFE system, in order to pay the cost of extending this measure in the way in which the Senate would propose because we are not increasing, and no-one would expect us to, appropriations contrary to a decision that we have made in the Budget context. Over the course of the summer I hope that the Opposition and the Senate will contemplate the potential damage that they have done to the TAFE system as a result of delaying payments because there will inevitably be some delay in the payments that we can make to the States both for the recurrent and the capital costs of running TAFE colleges throughout Australia. There will also be an incapacity for us to pay anything to the non-government business colleges either in respect of that phase-out period that we were talking about or in respect of the additional $1.5m which this Bill attempted to appropriate. So what is going to happen is that the TAFE system will at least have its funds delayed and the non-government business college system will at least have its funds delayed until this matter can be further considered either by the Senate or perhaps by both Houses when the Parliament resumes later in February or early in March. It is for those reasons that I support the motion. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(8.29) —Mr Deputy Chairman, I just want to make the point that the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) said he thought we had traversed this ground earlier today and that he did not want to take too much time, but he has taken 15 minutes which is much more time than he took this morning. When these Bills were debated cognately a few weeks ago we foreshadowed in this chamber that the Senate would make the amendments that it has made and so I just say again to the Minister that he was very well aware of what we had proposed with the non-government business colleges and that he should have taken that into account before subjecting us all to this recall of the Parliament. The Minister has made much of the so-called constitutional aspects of the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill and in his speech this morning he said that all the legal advice that the Government had received suggested that what the Senate chose to do was unconstitutional. This afternoon, presumably after having had advice on the speeches in the Senate, he changed his tack and said that it was clear that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the Senate had had different legal advice. If one asks a bunch of lawyers for their opinion on this sort of subject, one gets a range of views. What we are asking for here-and I think I made this clear this afternoon-is for the status quo to be maintained and the Senate amendments give effect to that wish of ours. Mr Deputy Chairman, there is no need for me to reiterate at length why we do not like what the Government has done to non-government business colleges; we do not like the fact that this is just another group in the private sector that the Government is belting; and we do not like the fact that in its grand plan for education in Australia it wants to get rid of all the small institutions because small institutions are much more difficult to manage and deal with. The Government is trying to get together big blocks of educational institutions. This makes it much easier for it to impose its will on the peak bodies and to achieve its corporate state objectives in education. We see that with the amalgamation of the higher education institutions; we see it with the Government's wish for educational profiles in schools, universities and colleges of advanced education. I again draw the attention of the Committee to the brawl that has erupted between the Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the Minister for Education in New South Wales-a brawl, incidentally, that had previously erupted between this Minister and the Labor Minister for Education in New South Wales-where New South Wales is saying, `We don't want you interfering in our education process here; we don't want you telling us what to teach our children; we don't want you interfering; and we don't want central control in Canberra. So we do not like what the Government is doing'. This manifests itself, in what the Government is seeking to do with non-government business colleges. The Minister also said that his discussions with representatives of those colleges had been very amicable. But, if one has had $6m taken away and the Minister says, `Because of the mass of representations that I have had'-and I say to the Minister that I have also had a mass of representations-`come back and talk to us, we might be able to find a way to give you $1 1/2m this year before phasing it out', of course there will be an amicable conversation. But that is a loaded gun at the head situation. I suppose the Minister really does understand what he is doing because he has done it with the higher education institutions as well. I would just like to make a comment on fiscal policy because the Minister made reference to that this morning. It is absurd to suggest that in the development of our fiscal policy we will agree with the Government on every item except those items where we would cut spending. There will be some items in respect of which we will want to cut expenditure-a majority of the items-but there will also be some items that happen to fit our political philosophy where we may choose to make more funds available. So all this running off at the mouth and saying, `Look, you are financially irresponsible because you want to spend a little more money in this area', is completely inconsistent with the global approach that we will take to the control of government spending and the development of fiscal policy. I just want to touch briefly on this question of political blackmail to which the Minister has referred. The Minister is now, presumably, going to be running around the technical and further education colleges (TAFE) and saying, `Look, we would have loved to have given you a new gym, but that wicked Senate won't allow any money through the system. So we can't give you any money for your gym because of the Senate'. Well that is absurd. It is open to the Minister at any time to agree to the Senate's proposal and let the Bill go through. We will be going around to these TAFE colleges and saying, `If the Minister is saying that to you, it is because of the Government's cussed-mindedness and its inability to deal sensibly with a proposal that has the majority of support in the House of review'. We will be going around and saying-- Mr Simmons —Come up my way and say it. Mr BEALE —I would love to come up the honourable member's way. I think I will be coming up his way a bit in 1989. The reason that I am going to be coming up his way and seeing a bit of him in 1989 is that in 1990 I am not going to be seeing anything of him at all. The honourable member is one of those people who will be gone in 1990. So I accept his invitation; I would love to come up his way. Mr Lamb —Mr 48 per cent. Mr BEALE —The honourable member does not even have a seat. The honourable member is out; he is gone. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has had to mediate in respect of the faction to which the honourable member belongs. The honourable member was here for a few years before and he is gone again. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Deakin might come back to the matter and direct his remarks through the Chair. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Chairman, I would much prefer to talk about what the Government is up to in this belting of non-government business colleges than waste time talking about the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) whose seat has been abolished-bye-bye Streeton. So we will be delivering our message to the TAFE colleges around Australia that it is open to this Government at any time to allow this legislation through. It has not been passed because of the Government's cussed-mindedness. We will be saying to the TAFE colleges that again, with this legislation today, we have seen how arrogant, how out of touch and how incompetent the Government is. This much vaunted front bench looked like an absolute rabble today. We will also be saying that the average Australian family is $56 a week worse off under Labor over the last six years. For good measure, we will also be saying what a fantastic document our Future Directions is and what a successful launch the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), his deputy, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), and the rest of us have made of that document which has transformed the political landscape around Australia and had Government supporters running off to their burrows with their tails between their legs. There was a shrill response by the Prime Minister on day one, and then nothing. Where is the Government's response to the framework that the coalition parties have established for the kind of Australia they want, the kind of Australia that gives incentive, choice and competition-the very things that we want in education that are quite different from the things that this Minister wants with his corporate state in education? That is what the Opposition will be saying to people in the TAFE colleges. We will be delivering the message about this arrogant, out of touch, incompetent Government. We will be saying that it is open to the Government at any time to allow this Bill through. The people at those TAFE colleges will have to make a judgment on which policy will be better for them-this rabble's policy or our good policy-and they will unanimously go for the coalition's policy. Question put. That the motion (Mr Dawkins's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. C. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Sawford, R. W.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Sciacca,C.Gear, G. Scott, LesGriffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Harvey, E. R. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. (Teller) Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. 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.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L. Hawke, R. J. L. Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Howard) agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith a motion in the following terms: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to dismiss the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who has (1) misled the Parliament; and (2) been publicly exposed as being incompetent in the administration of his portfolio. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.48) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his failure to dismiss the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who has (1) misled the Parliament; and (2) been publicly exposed as being incompetent in the administration of his portfolio. Madam Speaker, this motion which was first put forward by the Opposition some hours ago is not only about ministerial standards, the competence of the front bench of the Hawke Government and the standards demanded by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of his Ministers but, more important than that, it goes to the very heart of the attitude of the Hawke Government towards the institution of parliament. It is therefore appropriate that this censure motion be moved today, a day which has witnessed a shambolic handling of this Parliament by the Government; a day which has demonstrated again the depth of contempt that the Hawke Government has for the institution of parliament; and a day which explains very clearly the mentality of a Treasurer who says that Question Time is not a privilege of the elected people of the nation but a courtesy extended by the Executive to the Parliament. The attitude of every member of the Government towards the recall of the House of Representatives today was not the attitude of people accepting an exercise in democracy, or of people who accepted that the other chamber in our bicameral system had a certain quantum of rights, but rather it was the attitude of a group of people who found democracy profoundly irksome. In the quite disgraceful words of the spokesman for the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) it was going to be a question of gag, gag and gag. At least in some respects the Government has had second thoughts about that. This motion goes to the very heart of whether this Government regards the basic principles of the Westminster system and ministerial responsibility and the basic standards of candour, honesty and competence required of Ministers in our system as being of any account. Tonight we want to examine this matter. We ought to ask the Prime Minister whether he demands the same standards of his Ministers as Gough Whitlam demanded of his Ministers when he was Prime Minister of this country. Many people would think it was passing strange that the standards of the Hawke Government could be found to be below the standards of the Whitlam Government on matters of parliamentary propriety. The reality is that except on one occasion-and ironically enough it was almost a year ago today that the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) was pushed and dumped by the Prime Minister-the ministerial standards of this Government have fallen lamentably short of the ministerial standards of the Whitlam Government. It ought to be remembered by this House, and by the Prime Minister, that Gough Whitlam, his Labor predecessor, demanded a far higher standard of the late Rex Connor and of Jim Cairns than he has had the guts to demand of all but one of his Ministers in a period of six years. What is at stake tonight is whether, in the face of the clearest evidence of this Parliament having been misled, in the face of the clearest evidence of ministerial incompetence, and in the face of the clearest evidence negativing the absurd proposition that this is a competent front bench, this Prime Minister is prepared to assert the historical standards demanded of Ministers in this chamber and not least enforced by his own Labor predecessor, Gough Whitlam. This Parliament ought to be reminded that Connor was sacked because he told the Parliament that communications of substance with Khemlani had ceased; a telex was unearthed months later, and he was sacked on that ground. Cairns was sacked despite the fact that he denied any recollection of having signed a letter. Those were the standards that Whitlam was prepared to enforce-a man whom the present Prime Minister has derided and sneered at in the Labor tradition over many years. Tonight we want to know whether the principles of ministerial propriety and prime ministerial courage of this Prime Minister in relation to a group of people he so phonily lauds as the greatest front bench since World War II, come within a proverbial bull's roar of the standards laid down by Gough Whitlam, let alone the standards laid down by Malcolm Fraser and Sir Robert Menzies when they held the office of Prime Minister of this country. We have in front of us clear and unmistakable evidence, relating to two specific items, that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) has misled the Parliament. He has not only misled the House of Representatives, he has achieved a double header, he has also misled the Senate. The first example of his misleading related to the statement that he made on 8 November when he was asked-and we all remember it-about the funding of the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO) and he gave the answer: I have yet to make a decision. After Question Time the Minister met with senior officers. He went to such lengths that he met ministerial staff in departmental offices, then rang Mr McDonald of his own Department and asked him to agree that the answer he gave in the House was correct. According to Mr McDonald, he agreed in broad terms that the answer was correct but significantly, and of his own volition, and a day after the discussion had taken place, he addressed a memorandum to the Secretary of his Department in which he said this: I do not agree that I accepted that the Minister had not approved funding to the organisation. I have never had any doubt that he had agreed to fund it. I repeat those words: `I have never had any doubt that he had agreed to fund it'. Here we have the man who is supposed to have got the Minister off the hook-McDonald; his own man-who said originally that he took a decision on 31 August to fund NAIHO to the tune of $180,000 and who was subsequently dragooned, heavied and traduced into trying to reconstruct events to save the Minister's neck. That was too much for an honest public servant. He addressed the memorandum to the Secretary of his Department and he laid it fairly and squarely on the line. He nailed the Minister for the dishonesty that he represented to the Parliament and he said, `I have never had any doubt that he had agreed to fund it'. That is the first example of the Minister having misled the Parliament. Mr N.A. Brown —Very clear. Mr HOWARD —It is very clear, as my colleague the honourable member for Menzies says. An even better illustration relates to the misleading of the Senate. Here we have an even more culpable example of the Minister having misled the Parliament because he was not caught on the hop and he could not have been mistaken. Yet we are dealing here with a statement that was read to the Senate and it had presumably been settled by the Minister. He gave it to the Senate in circumstances where he knew that his credibility, honesty, candour and competence as a Minister were under assault and being challenged. The statement related to the report of Arthur Anderson and Co.-the report about the money wasted by NAIHO, the report that followed the action of the previous Minister in suspending funding, the report that said that NAIHO had not lived up to the expectations of the Government or of the Aboriginal community. So the Minister was not doing it blind, he was not caught on the run and his mind, presumably, was fully focused on the matter. Yet despite that in the statement given by the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus) to the Senate this is what he had to say, inter alia: This report was compiled before I was Minister and this was the first time it was drawn to my attention. Anybody reading that would take that to mean, `Look, I knew nothing about the Arthur Anderson report until 8 September'. There is no other way that one could interpret that statement. The Minister can shake his head and the Prime Minister, in his presumably fevered defence, will wave his arms around and say, `He's a good bloke, he has my support, he wears his heart on his sleeve and he is interested in the welfare of the Aboriginal people', but when it comes to telling the truth to the Parliament, when he is under notice that he has misled the Parliament, when he is not on the run and not caught on the hook, what the Minister said can only have one plain and unmistakable meaning and that plain and unmistakable meaning is that until that particular date he had never seen that report. The truth, of course, as the Minister well knows, as the Prime Minister knows, as the Senate knows, as every officer in the Minister's Department knows-and is it any wonder that morale is at rock bottom in that Department; is it any wonder that honest members of that Department want the truth to come out?-and as the Aboriginal community knows, is that as far away as July and August of 1987, in a briefing paper given to the Minister, he was told the following things: NAIHO has now received more than $1m of public money but has not lived up to the expectations of either Aboriginal people or the Government. Despite repeated requests, it has failed to account adequately for its funds or to provide considered and timely advice on issues of importance in the Government's efforts to improve Aboriginal health. In May 1986 the Minister instructed that the accounts and administrative practices be audited in depth. The independent professional auditor Arthur Anderson and Co. found that its system of internal control over operations and finances was inadequate, as were the information and advice provided to the Minister, the Department and other Government organisations. The report recommended a number of procedures and measures to redress these deficiencies. A copy of the report was provided on 25 July 1986. That is a succinct and, I put it to the House, fair summary of the Arthur Anderson report. What the Minister, having had that document drawn to his attention as it should have been, is inviting us to believe is that, when he tells the Senate a bare two weeks ago, `This report was compiled before I was Minister and this was the first time it was drawn to my attention', he is not misleading the Parliament. There cannot be a starker example of somebody having been caught in the act of misleading the Parliament. Even if some fevered defence of the Minister will get him out of the first charge, it does not get him out of the second charge. I am quite sure that if Rex Connor were around today he would like to have the benefit of the doubt of a Prime Minister that would let him off in the face of that clear misleading; Cairns would take the same attitude in relation to what Whitlam did; and I am quite sure that the honourable member for Parramatta would think that he is doing it pretty hard, given what happened in relation to him. But no, there has to be something special and something particular in relation to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Madam Speaker, this is not just a question of comparing the treatment of different people; it is something that goes to the very heart of the believability of Ministers in this chamber. I am not asking this Parliament and this House to accept an outdated notion of ministerial responsibility. I am not saying that, because some remote out-of-the-way official, far away in a removed area of Australia, makes a wrong decision, the Minister has to lose his head. That was the doctrine that the Government when it was in opposition tried to argue. I am not arguing that. That is unfair and it is out of touch with the reality of modern day government, as the Prime Minister acknowledged in his Sir Robert Garran Memorial Oration on 27 October 1988. What I am doing is asking the Parliament to accept that there are some basic canons of ministerial conduct and there are some things a Minister can do and there are some things he cannot do. If he crosses the line, he ought to go, and if he does not go his Prime Minister ought to have the guts and the strength to sack him. That is what I am saying ought to happen on this occasion. It is as narrow but as important as that. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has crossed the line; he has crossed it twice. I put aside for a moment-my colleague the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), will deal with this in more detail-the incompetence in the administration of the Department and the disappointment in expectations. I am going to the question of whether the Minister was candid and honest with the Parliament. I put it to the Minister, I put it to this Parliament and I put it to the Prime Minister-he is the ultimate custodian of the standards of this Government-that the Minister was not candid with the Parliament. He was at best culpably sloppy and incompetent in the answers that he gave to the Parliament, and at worst he was completely indifferent and cavalier regarding the truthfulness of what he told the Parliament. If that is the nature of his behaviour, then he ought to be removed; he is no longer fit to hold the office of Minister of State in this Government. If the Prime Minister had the standards of his predecessor Whitlam, let alone the standards of his Liberal predecessors Fraser and Menzies, he would have removed the Minister long before now. I say that to the Prime Minister, even if he does not accept a more conventional and orthodox view of ministerial responsibility, even if he adopts-as he apparently does-a more narrow version of ministerial responsibility which he spelt out in his Sir Robert Garran Oration on 27 October last when he had this to say: In other words, Ministers must, of course, continue to be answerable to the Parliament and to take any necessary corrective action. That is the first thing the Prime Minister said. He continued: But the truth is that there is no requirement for them to resign except where a significant act or omission was theirs, or taken at their personal direction, or was a matter about which they obviously should have known, and done something. I put it to the House that even if we accept-and I do not-for the purposes of this debate that narrow definition of ministerial responsibility laid down by the Prime Minister as recently as 27 October 1988, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is caught in it. Even on this Clayton's standard of ministerial responsibility the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has failed the test, because he has not been properly accountable to Parliament; he knew about the Arthur Anderson report; he knew about the suspect findings regarding NAIHO; he knew that a million dollars had been wasted; he knew that Aboriginal expectations and Government expectations had been disappointed; and he knew that he had not been truthful to the Parliament in relation to the $180,000. But, despite all of that and in the clear knowledge that his candour was at stake, he, in cold blood, settled a document which told the Senate that he had never heard of the Arthur Anderson report until 8 September. Here in clear words is the fact that he was told about it when he became the Minister and he was reminded about it on two other occasions. Yet he expects us to believe that he is treating this Parliament with other than complete contempt. I think the Minister's behaviour deserves censure. The Prime Minister ought to remove him. The Parliament will be gratefully indebted to him if he does so. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is there a seconder of the motion? Mr Miles —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(9.09) —Madam Speaker, the virtue of this motion, and indeed of this Opposition, can be assessed by its performance in this place today. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Just one moment. The honourable member for Mayo will note that the Chair is standing. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, as I said, the virtue of this motion can be assessed by the standard of the behaviour of members of the Opposition today, and it has just been reinforced by interjections in which we have heard again their untruths and their smears. They have just been repeated here. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) today said that I was not in the House because I was out playing golf. It has just been repeated here that I was out playing golf. This is an absolute lie; I was not playing golf. But it is typical of the standard of this House. The Leader of the Opposition gets up on this motion and demands that the truth be told. Today he has lied to this House-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw that comment. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw it and say that the Leader of the Opposition told a deliberate untruth to the House today. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister may not use that language. He will withdraw. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, what he said -- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw. Mr HAWKE —What he said was incorrect, and he knows that it was incorrect. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has been asked to withdraw. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Opposition members interjecting - Madam SPEAKER —Order! If those on my left continue to interject, we are going to hit trouble. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I use the language which it is necessary to use under the forms of this House. I have withdrawn the word. But this man who has got up and said that the truth must be told has deliberately told other than the truth -- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister must not continue down that path. I point out to the House that, even under a substantive motion, parliamentary language must be observed. The honourable member for Bass is being most discourteous. The Prime Minister will withdraw and will moderate his language. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, I trust that this formulation will meet with your approval: The Leader of the Opposition has misled this House and there can be no doubt that that has been deliberate. I have indicated where he has deliberately misled the House -- Mr Fife —Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is flouting your ruling. He is referring to the Leader of the Opposition as having deliberately misled the House. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may say that the Leader of the Opposition has misled this House but he may not impute improper motives to him. He will withdraw `deliberately'. Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, he has misled the House in another place -- Opposition members-Withdraw, with- draw! Mr HAWKE —He has misled-I am allowed to say that he has misled. I will not withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has to withdraw `deliberately'. Mr HAWKE —I have withdrawn `deliberately'. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HAWKE —He has misled the House-- Dr Woods —Name him! Madam SPEAKER —Order! I will name a few others if I do not have silence. That is enough. Mr HAWKE —He has misled the House as in another place today the Opposition has misled the Senate. This is typical of members of this Opposition. They get up here and move these motions demanding truth and yet themselves deliberately depart from the standards which they seek of others. That is how we can judge the integrity of this Opposition-an Opposition which is the most despicable, untalented and worst led Opposition since the war. Members of the Opposition simply have no concern in this place when they approach any motion in this House-- Mr Downer —Even William the Conqueror was not so despicable. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Mayo interjects again, I will deal with him. Mr HAWKE —They have no concern with the truth. It is always the first casualty. I have said before, and I repeat, that the gutter is their natural habitat and the smear is their natural weapon. The Leader of the Opposition would be repudiated by every previous leader of the Liberal Party in the post-war period. Indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition talks about previous leaders, let me remind him of this: as he says that there are standards to be set and standards to be followed on the question of ministerial responsibility, what was the standard set by the Leader of the Opposition's Government, by his predecessors, when it established its own royal commission to investigate the meat scandal? The then Government established the Woodward Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry, and never has there been a more devastating indictment of a Minister than was brought down by the Woodward Royal Commission. The members of that Government would not accept it. Under any normal standard and practice, the Minister concerned should have been dismissed. But not only did they not accept the report of the Woodward Royal Commission; what they did was to vilify their own royal commissioner. So let them not stand up in this place and talk about their standards of ministerial responsibility. On any other occasion, under any other government, with a royal commissioner bringing down a report like that against a Minister, it would have dismissed the Minister. But no, the members of that Government did not do that; they vilified the royal commissioner. Let me say this just in passing, if the Leader of the Opposition wants me to pick up his point about the standard of this front bench: the Leader of the Opposition says that I talk about its standard. I do not need to. The honourable member for Wentworth (Dr Hewson), the Opposition's shadow Minister for Finance, out of his own mouth, has described this front bench as the most talented since the Second World War. That is the honourable member's statement. He cannot deny it. It is in print, and the honourable member knows it. It is one of the few things he said that are absolutely accurate. Now, Madam Speaker, let us put this question into the context in which it needs to be put. This motion deals with the question of Aborigines and how we deal with Aborigines in this country. Mr Howard —No, it is about how you tell the truth. Mr HAWKE —Of course it does, Madam Speaker. Any person who has been in this House in the last two or three months and has listened to the succession of honourable members get up here and ask their questions would have been appalled by the nature of those questions. The unstated assumption was that these people about whom we are talking are somehow some second-class citizens who cannot be trusted and to whom different standards have to be applied. Madam Speaker, let us get it clear that in dealing with the question of Aborigines in this country we are talking about the most disadvantaged group of people in Australia. Let me list the facts which are never acknowledged by those opposite. These are facts which should cause enormous concern to every reasonable person in this country and I should say particularly to every person in this House. I ask honourable members to remember these facts about the Aborigines in this country. Their average life expectancy at birth is 20 years less than that for other Australians. Aboriginal infant mortality, while improving, is still nearly three times that of the rest of Australians. Aboriginal unemployment is six times the national average. The number of Aboriginal people who have never attended school is about 11 times the figure for other Australians. On average Australian Aboriginals earn only half of what other Australians earn. A large proportion of Aboriginal Australian families live in substandard housing or temporary shelter. Aboriginal imprisonment rates are about 20 times that of the national average. Let us remember that, except for nine of the last 39 years, those on the other side of this place have been in government in Australia. If we are to make some assessment of the responsibility for the position of Aboriginal people in this country, we have to remember that overwhelmingly the responsibility for those sad and tragic facts lies with those opposite. So, when we are talking-and I am going to come to the issues about the Minister-let us remember that we are talking about a tragically disadvantaged section of our population, people in respect of whom we have to be prepared to make considerable allowances. In none of the questions that have been directed towards the Minister which have raised questions of responsibility has any allowance been made about these facts at all. I repeat-and I will continue to repeat-that, when we are talking about Aboriginals in this country, we have to be prepared to make allowances for them that we would not make for any other section of the Australian people. Anyone who does not understand that fact is totally lacking in any sense of charity or decency. Having said that, I repeat, as I have said so often during this year, that it does not mean when we acknowledge those tragic facts about the Aboriginal people, that we should have some collective sense of national guilt. We should not. But it certainly does mean that we should assume a sense of mutual national responsibility. That is precisely why just some four months ago I introduced into this Parliament a motion which dealt with the relationship between the Australian nation and its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander citizens. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that that was a motion which emanated from the desire of the heads of the Australian churches that there should be put on record by this Parliament a statement of the position of the Parliament regarding the Aboriginal people. One can assess the attitude of members of the Opposition to the whole question of Aborigines in this country by the despicable attitude which they adopted on that occasion. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that that gave rise to the most severe condemnation by the heads of the Catholic Church in this country about the attitude of the Opposition to the Aborigines in this country. That action establishes the basis from which the people opposite approach this whole question. I content myself simply with the statement of Archbishop Francis Carroll. He said: Some view the resolution as an empty token. I prefer to see it as a powerful symbol. The great meanings of life and history can often be expressed only in symbols that contain inner substance and imply active commitment. I believe that this action of the Federal Parliament represents a truer recognition of the past, a present desire for reconciliation and a promised commitment to a more just future. And, in those circumstances, Father Frank Brennan condemned in the most severe language-and I do not use stronger language than that-the amendment moved by and the attitude of the Opposition. So, Madam Speaker, we come to a consideration of this motion in the knowledge that the Opposition is on record as having a totally despicable attitude to the question of Aborigines in this country. Having said that, I make the point in regard to this motion, which springs from that attitude of the people opposite, that, on the issue of ministerial responsibility and the attitude of this Minister, I attach the highest importance to ministerial integrity. I have spoken at length with the Minister; I have reviewed the relevant documents; and I have concluded on the basis of those discussions and of that examination that there should be complete confidence in Mr Hand as Minister. The facts that have emerged are clear cut. On the question of NAIHO funding, I am satisfied that no decision has been made by the Minister and that he did not, therefore, mislead the Parliament. On the question of the audit report, I have already made it clear, and the Minister agrees, that he could have been more precise in the language that he used. But he did not in any sense have any intention to mislead the Parliament. There was-to use the words of the Opposition's senatorial colleague, Senator Durack-`no guilty mind'. All of the actions and all of the attitudes exhibited by the Minister are consistent entirely with those tests which I laid down in the Garran oration to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. There is no doubt that, in the presence and in the person of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, the Opposition has someone who constitutes for it an extreme danger because no-one in this House and no-one in this country can seriously question the integrity or the commitment of Gerry Hand-no-one! Indeed, that is a problem for this Opposition. This area of Aboriginal affairs has been for every government since Federation one of the most complex, difficult and tragic areas. In Gerry Hand, not only the Aboriginal community but also the people of Australia as a whole, have a person who beyond measure and who, beyond comparison, has committed himself with integrity to the defence and the advancement of the Aboriginal people of this country in a way in which this Government is proud, with which the Aboriginal people are satisfied and of which the Australian nation as a whole should be thoroughly grateful. He has not only my confidence, Madam Speaker; he has the total confidence of this Government and, I believe, overwhelmingly he has the confidence of the Aboriginal community as he properly should. Mr MILES(Braddon)(9.24) —I rise to second this motion. Madam Speaker, it is 9.24 p.m. on the last sitting day of this Parliament in this year of our Bicentennial celebration. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has come into this place and spent the first five minutes of his 15-minute speech castigating the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) about his speech, not mentioning one thing about the topic which is before the House. This House had its Question Time suspended today. The sittings of this House today were suspended for a total of 1 1/2 hours because the Government did not have any business to be carried out in the Parliament. Here we are with the Prime Minister spending 12 minutes before he even reaches the topic before us at this stage, which is a censure of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). The situation is that, in a parliamentary democracy such as ours, the trust of Ministers is a vital principle. The information which is given to this Parliament, whether it be in the other House or this House, is absolutely vital for the functioning of a democracy. What we have seen today is the trust of this House being betrayed. The Leader of the Opposition said that we wanted candour and honesty. I say to Government members politically, keep the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs where he is. We do not mind. Keep him there, because that is the situation we prefer him to be in. While Minister Hand is in that position, information will flow to the Opposition and there will continue to be chaos and maladministration in the area of Aboriginal Affairs. Mr Barry Jones —Do you condone that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will cease interjecting. Mr MILES —We certainly do not condone that. What I am saying, politically, is: keep him there. What we want the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to do tonight is to address the issues which are before the House. We do not want him to come in here and give us all the facts about the situation which the Aboriginal people face in Australia. We have had that from the Prime Minister and we have it every time the Minister speaks. What we want the Minister to do is to address those issues which we raise here tonight. I refer to ministerial responsibility before I address some of those issues of the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO) and the failed ability of this Minister in regard to administration of Aboriginal affairs. I refer to a book entitled The Politics of Australian Democracy written by Professor Emmy of Monash University. He wrote: Whitlam thereby confirmed that the sanction of resignation was brought because of the Minister's indiscretion in misleading the Parliament, not because of improper, illegal or corrupt conduct. It is not necessary to suggest that there has been improper, illegal or corrupt conduct. It is only necessary that the Parliament should have been misled. Now, that is a very clear, simple, unequivocal statement. That is why we are debating this issue here tonight. The Parliament on at least two occasions has been misled by this Minister. Any objective observer of these events over the last few weeks would agree with that statement. The book continues: Responsible government requires a high standard of integrity. The ancient maxim that those who rule others should first be able to rule themselves is still relevant. Those entrusted with public office need to be excessively scrupulous in their public behaviour because public contempt for an individual Minister may easily produce contempt for his authority and his office. This is the contempt that we have before us tonight. People will be concerned about the authority of this Minister. Contempt exists for this Government and its handling of Aboriginal affairs. We have heard what the Prime Minister said in his speech in the Robert Garran Memorial Lecture. I am not going to go back over that. But this is what the Governor-General designate said on 28 April 1982: No Minister should believe that he or she can flout the spirit if not the letter of the law as well as the high standards of propriety demanded of public office. Then we have the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), who has been referred to already tonight. He said: Because of my respect for the institution of Parliament I feel that I have no alternative in all the circumstances but to resign as a Minister. That is exactly what this Minister should do. He should show respect for the institution of Parliament. He should offer his resignation to the Prime Minister. Let us move on to the actual proceedings of NAIHO. This all began in answer to a question on 8 November when Minister Hand said in regard to recommencing funding, `I am yet to make a decision'. But then we find that on 5 September there was a record of the proceedings of a senior officers meeting in which it was reported and written that on 31 August the Minister directed that NAIHO receive $180,000 this year in funding. Mr N.A. Brown —Before his answer. Mr MILES —Before his answer, as the honourable member for Menzies says. Let us think about that situation. There was a situation in which the Minister spoke with officials from NAIHO. He did not have one of his departmental officers with him. He preferred to keep them out of the whole discussion. That is typical of the way in which the Minister has administered Aboriginal affairs over the last 18 months. He freezes out the Department and does not have anything to do with it. Then we have the Minister coming out of that meeting with the NAIHO officials and instructing Mr McDonald as to what had happened. We can understand that, at a meeting like that where discussions had been going on, sometimes it is not always clear as to just what has been decided on. But not in this case. The Minister came out and gave a clear instruction to Mr McDonald. The fascinating thing about this scenario and saga is that after the question was asked by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) the Minister had to call together his officers and check whether his answer in the Parliament was in accord with the record. What do we find being tabled later in that regard? We had the comments by Mr McDonald. This is what he stated in his note tabled in the Senate: Let me make it quite clear from the outset that I have absolutely no doubt that, at the end of his meeting of 31 August with NAIHO, the Minister has decided to fund NAIHO with effect from 1 December. What was the answer of the Minister on 8 November? `I am yet to make a decision'. Mr McDonald went on to say in his minute: I am very clear on our discussion, which took place in the Minister's own office. Mr Cleeland —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek guidance on whether it is appropriate for the Leader of the National Party to fall asleep in this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —There is no point of order. If the honourable member for McEwen takes another point of order like that, I will deal with him. Mr MILES —Mr McDonald went on to say: He said- that is, the Minister- `I have decided to fund NAIHO . . . obviously you don't agree with that decision'. That is what the Minister said to Mr McDonald when he came out. The Minister knew that the Department would not accept that view that the Minister held. Mr McDonald replied, `Obviously', but made no further comment. That is the evidence which we have in regard to that sorry state of affairs, and there is much more to be said about that. I give one more quote from Mr McDonald. I should also say that my recollection of the 8 November telephone conversation was that the Minister's only concern was whether his answer may have misled Parliament in any way. He did not at any stage ask me if I believed my note for the file was an accurate record. Had he done so I would certainly have made it clear that it was. That is his clear recollection of that situation. The Opposition wants the Minister to address these issues. Why was it necessary for the meeting of 8 November to be held? Why was it that the minutes of that meeting were dated 1 December, the last day on which we sat and the day on which we asked another question? We are familiar with the details of NAIHO and prior knowledge. That has been debated at length in the Senate. I want to go on to the second part of this censure motion. What we have today is a failure by this Minister to administer Aboriginal affairs in an effective and efficient manner. For the Prime Minister to come in here and say that we are impugning Aboriginal people around Australia by undertaking the type of questioning which we have undertaken in this Parliament is absolute bunkum and absolute nonsense. The Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister know it. They only want to try to shed the blame for their irresponsible attitude to Aboriginal affairs by claiming that we are blaming Aboriginal people. We are not and we have not intended to do so. We believe it is our responsibility as an opposition to question the accountability of funds given by taxpayers for use to assist the most disadvantaged people in this nation of ours. The Minister in his approach to Aboriginal affairs has sacked eight ADC commissioners. He appointed a new board whose decisions are a litany of disaster. We saw reports of that in the Canberra Times only last week. There are situations in which people appointed to that board have a conflict of interest. We know the debate which occurred about the Woden Town Club. The type of administration we have here is one in which the Minister likes to differentiate between the Government giving money and giving a guarantee and a grant for money. Whether it be a grant, a loan or a guarantee it could ultimately all end up being paid. Then, of course, we have had the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission disaster. There was narrow consultation. He never consulted the State governments and never consulted farming organisations. Mr Hand —You know better than that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not interject across the table. Mr MILES —The Minister knows that that is absolutely correct. Of course, the way in which it is being described by his colleagues is that it will be either a fraud or a disaster. That is the form of administration which this Minister hopes to put in place to get rid of the difficulties of maladministration which we now have in Aboriginal affairs. The Government stands condemned. The Prime Minister stands condemned because of his failure to take action over the sacking of Minister Hand. Throughout this debate on Aboriginal affairs over the last few weeks it has been clear that the Minister misled the House on two occasions, and the Minister should go. Mr HAND(Melbourne-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(9.39) —I want to make one thing perfectly clear to the House-I am not going to resign. Nor does anybody on this side of the House look like asking me to resign. Mr N.A. Brown —I had better go, then. Mr HAND —I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his support of the explanation at the commencement of my speech. A number of accusations have been made-mostly, I suggest, with an exclusion of some of the facts-by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). I will deal briefly with the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO) situation. My answer on the NAIHO situation on 8 November to the question of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) is correct. I remind honourable members that I met with NAIHO on 31 August; it was not funded at any stage until 8 November and it still remains unfunded. There is absolutely no way that I misled the honourable member for Higgins. I will tell honourable members why. Mr Shipton —They wrote a letter-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Higgins will cease interjecting. Mr HAND —The second point to make is that in a memo typed on 3 December by Mr McDonald, he himself says: The minutes of the meeting- the document the honourable member for Braddon quoted from- are in error. Honourable members opposite should read that part of his statement. When I contacted Mr McDonald by phone, as explained by other senior officers who were present in the hook-up, he agreed with my answer. Also, he referred to a diary note that he had made on 8 November in which he had recorded the fact that I had rung him. It just happens I have today a copy of that diary note sent to me by Mr McDonald. It is dated Tuesday, 8 November, and reads: The Minister rang re his answer to question in the House on NAIHO. Told him I had no problems. He had no problems with my answer. So let us end this talk about how I misled the House about NAIHO. I have not misled the House. In no way have I misled the Parliament about NAIHO. Mr Shipton —Read us the officer's minute. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Higgins will cease interjecting. Mr HAND —NAIHO remains unfunded. I resent the fact that accusations have been made by some of the people who are sitting in the gallery and who reside over the other side of this building, who have cast aspersions on very senior officers of my Department and made accusations against them. On behalf of those people I make the point here: there was no coercion by me of them and no standing over of Mr McDonald. His own diary reference on that day is an example of what I am saying. Mr Shipton —Quote his statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Higgins. Mr HAND —He made a number of statements and I suggest honourable members opposite read the lot. They should read the whole story. Here we have interjections from the honourable member for Higgins, the only person ever to be dragged away from an Aboriginal rally because he was trying to start a riot. That was in front of the old Parliament House. Mr Shipton=mI rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making against me an accusation that can only be done on a substantive motion in this House, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Higgins will resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —The Minister has just made an accusation relating to the motives of the honourable member for Higgins. That motive is one that suggests that the honourable member for Higgins has not been conducting his affairs as a member of this House in a proper way. He can do that only by substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Sinclair —But there is, Mr Deputy Speaker. You heard the honourable gentleman. You cannot just-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. Mr Sinclair —You are saying that there was no accusation? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled that there was no point of order. Mr Sinclair —Do you want me to move dissent from your ruling? Are you suggesting that there is some way by which you are going to move without listening to the Minister. That is disgraceful, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister shall continue the debate. Mr HAND —Mr Deputy Speaker, the point about this debate is-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister might resume his seat again. The Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Sinclair —You are a disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. I call the honourable member for Higgins on a point of order. Mr Shipton —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am entitled under the Standing Orders of this House, firstly, to a withdrawal from the Minister and, secondly, to a recognition that the accusation he makes should be put by way of a substantive motion. Those are the Standing Orders and practices of this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister shall continue. Mr HAND —Thank you for allowing me- Mr Sinclair —You just said it doesn't matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member for New England shall cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —Why don't you worry about him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will worry about you in a moment. The honourable member for Higgins raised a point of order. He said that the Minister had made a reflection which should be dealt with by substantive motion. As I was about to point out to the House before honourable members on my left started to debate this matter rather hectically, a censure motion is a matter where a fair amount of passion is involved. There are often more wide-ranging statements made than in normal debate in the House. It might help the debate, if the honourable member for Higgins is offended, for the Minister to withdraw. The Minister can then conduct his defence rather than being held up by points of order. Mr HAND —I will withdraw my accusation, Mr Deputy Speaker, and get a copy of the video. Mr Shipton —Withdraw unconditionally. Mr HAND —I have withdrawn, you goose, now be quiet for a change. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not cast epithets across the chamber. Mr HAND —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but they can come into this place and make all sorts of accusations about me- Mr Shipton —What have you said about me? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Higgins. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting or I will warn him as well. Mr HAND —They make all sorts of outrageous comments and accusations about me, but I cannot make even the slightest comment without having a point of order taken. The point about it is that what we have been witnessing here over the last two months is innuendo, half truths, smears and, I would suggest, a whole range of lies told by people about other persons. We have witnessed one of the great examples of the old saying: If you tell enough lies, hopefully a bit of it will stick. That is the purpose of this whole exercise. What we have had in the Senate, where there have been a range of issues raised-- Mr Miles interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Braddon. Mr HAND —There have been accusations made about all sorts of people. People who have worked in the Public Service for 20 years have been accused of rigging Public Service procedures. People have been accused of working for the Labor Party. The person who happened to work for the Labor Party was the Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) in Western Australia. Somebody stole a document out of his drawer, sent it over to the Senate, and it was read out. What was not taken out was the letter from the Liberal Party asking him to have a look at its policy as well. So he is a Labor Party stooge-a person who worked for a long time for the Aboriginal people of this country. The Opposition has made a whole range of personal attacks on the eight commissioners that I appointed mid-year, accusations that will not hold up. For the Opposition's information, their lawyer has sought an appearance by them before the Senate Select Committee on the Administration of Aboriginal Affairs. By golly, I look forward to that. A lot of the things that will come out during these inquiries will put an end to the sort of campaign that has been waged by the Opposition. The Paul Kelly article last weekend really started to address what this is all about. It is all about the change in direction that the Government is seeking to bring about in Aboriginal affairs, a change away from a system that has failed Aboriginal people-a system that the Opposition contributed to setting up. That is the point that we are trying to make. Kelly addressed the fundamental question of what we are trying to do. Mr Miles interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Braddon interjects again I will name him. Mr HAND —So what we have is an Opposition which has expressed its opposition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). That opposition has been, I guess, best exposed in the Senate. Here in the House of Representatives the shadow Minister has not made one alternative proposal, not one suggestion of how we can improve the legislation, not one suggestion about working something out with the States. His comment about the States is untrue. What the Opposition should do with the States is talk to them about its own policy. The States do not like it very much, I can assure the Opposition of that. The point about ATSIC is that it will work and people like those honourable members opposite who have been party to this campaign have denigrated anybody who has jumped up in support of ATSIC. It is extraordinary that a whole range of people who have shown an interest in the development of ATSIC have been denigrated in the way they have in the Senate. There has been a range of attacks on individuals. I guess that the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde of Aboriginal affairs has to be Senator Chaney. Senator Chaney comes to my office and sits there for nearly 2 1/2 hours, congratulates me on certain things that I have carried out that day, and the very next day goes into the Parliament and buckets people that he has told me are doing a great job in their particular functions-the same Senator Chaney that wants a seat from somebody opposite; the same Senator Chaney that walks into the Adelaide Airport and publicly abuses an Aboriginal woman because she is on the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC); the same Senator Chaney who has gone around this country pretending to support people. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Senator Chaney is a member of the other House. He cannot be damned in this place other than on a substantive motion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has not in my view raised matters that would need to be dealt with by a substantive motion. Mr Sinclair —So he can say what he likes about Senator Chaney? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, he cannot say what he likes. Does the Leader of the National Party have a further point of order? Mr Sinclair —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We might hear it. Mr Sinclair —I submit that the Minister has been speaking of Senator Chaney in a manner and form that he cannot use against a member of the other House any more than he can a member of this place. I do not believe that you can allow this to go on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. Mr HAND —Mr Deputy Speaker, they can smear anybody else, they can smear any Aboriginal, they can smear any public servant, but I cannot tell the truth about that lot over there or they get offended. What hypocrisy. There will be no resignation by me and the reason for that is this: Aboriginal affairs, as those people who have been Ministers, including Senator Chaney, Mr Viner, Senator Baume, and Mr Wilson and Mr Holding, all know, is an incredibly difficult area to operate in. I have not misled the House and the records prove that. Mr Miles —On ATSIC? Mr HAND —Why should I resign? The problem is that we are having a lot of success in Aboriginal affairs and those opposite do not like the success. Mr Sinclair interjecting-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Minister should be given the courtesy of being heard in silence. Mr HAND —Mr Deputy Speaker, recently we had a meeting with all the State Aboriginal affairs Ministers. For the first time at any of those meetings, we had unanimous decisions between the Commonwealth and the States on every issue raised there. Mr Miles —On ATSIC? Mr HAND —On ATSIC, yes. They supported the resolutions on every policy issue on ATSIC and the honourable member for Braddon knows it. Look at the minutes. On every area of policy that we are working on with the States, there is cohesion and togetherness. One has only to talk to the Premier of New South Wales and look at the joint press releases we have been putting out. Aboriginal affairs are turning around and the Opposition is doing everything it can to smash that. That is what it is about. The Opposition's mainstreaming policy will not work; every expert in the business will say that. The Opposition's policy will be a return to the pre-referendum days and Aboriginal people do not want it. We are on the right track. We are not going to resign and, what is more, we are going to do the job better than the Opposition ever was able to do. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Howard's) be agreed to. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Mackellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. Macphee, I. M.Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Brown, N. A. Moore, J. C.Cadman, A. G. Peacock, A. S.Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Pratt, M. P.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. R.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Smith, W. L.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Taylor, W. L.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hewson, J. R. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Woods, R. L.Lloyd, B. Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. (Teller)Brumby, J. M. Lavarch, M. H.Charles, D. E. Lee, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Courtice, B. W. Mildren, J. B.Crawford, M. C. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. C. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Sawford, R. W.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Sciacca, C.Griffiths, A. G. Scott, LesHand, G. L. Simmons, D. W.Harvey, E. R. Snow, J. H.Hawke, R. J. L. Snowdon, W. E.Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R.Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C.Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E.Humphreys, B. C. Uren, T.Jakobsen, C. A. West, S. J.Jenkins, H. A. Willis, R.Johns, G. T. Wright, K. W.Jones, Barry Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That standing order 48a, as amended by sessional order (adjournment of House) and Standing Order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting. Madam SPEAKER —Earlier today the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised as a matter of privilege reported statements of a spokeswoman for the Leader of the House (Mr Beazley) in connection with the recall of the House. The right honourable member referred to privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament and referred to relevant statements in House of Representatives Practice and May's Parliamentary Practice and to the importance of protecting the House and members from improper interference and attempts to influence them by threats or actions tending to impair their freedom of action. I have examined the article mentioned by the right honourable gentleman. It would seem to me that if the report is accurate the nub of the statement is an indication as to what a spokeswoman believed the action of the Government would be in connection with the recall. It foreshadows arrangements for the sitting and the use of certain procedures. Whilst members may deprecate the statement, when considered in context it does not appear of itself to constitute a threat or attempt by the person involved to interfere improperly with the free exercise of the House's functions or the free performance of the members' duties, to use the words of section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act. In my opinion a prima facie case of contempt has not been made out and I am therefore not prepared to give priority to a motion in connection with the matter. Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Schools Assistance Bill Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts I present the Committee's 295th report relating to therapeutic goods. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr TICKNER —by leave-Madam Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour I ask for the leave of the House to table a copy of a speech made by Senator Watson in the Senate today in connection with this matter. Leave granted. Message received from the Senate returning the Bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the Bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate with amendments, and that the Senate requests the concurrence of the House in the amendments made by the Senate. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 10, subclause 6 (5), lines 16 and 17, leave out ``being a change that occurred due to circumstances outside the control of the approved authority,''. No. 2-Page 24, after clause 18, insert the following new clause in Part IV: Agreements with States ``18a. (1) For the purposes of this Part, in respect of any program year commencing after 31 December 1989, the Minister shall not specify an agreement to be entered into by a State with the Commonwealth, unless and until the Schools Council has considered the proposed agreement, and the Minister has taken into account any written submissions relating to the proposed agreement, transmitted to the Minister by the Board on behalf of the Schools Council. ``(2) References in this section to the Schools Council and the Board are references to the Schools Council and the National Board of Employment, Education and Training established under paragraph 23 (a) and section 6, respectively, of the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. Administrative guidelines ``18b. (1) The Minister shall, by written instrument, issue administrative guidelines in relation to the preparation of, and conditions to be contained in, agreements of the kind that may be specified by the Minister under this Part. ``(2) A written instrument referred to in subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.''. No. 3-Page 27, after subclause 22 (2), insert the following new subclause: ``(2a) Where a school has been provisionally approved to commence in the year beginning January 1, 1989, the Minister may, by determination in writing, authorise the payment to the State under this section by way of financial assistance to the State for recurrent expenditure of the school in respect of a program year (not being a year commencing more than three years after the commencement of the establishment year) of an amount not exceeding the sum of: (a) the product of the amount set out in the column of part 1 of Schedule 8 that relates to that year and the number of students (including the full-time equivalent of part-time students) receiving primary education at the school on the schools census day for the State for that year or on such other day as the Minister, in special circumstances, determines in writing; and (b) the product of the amount set out in the column of part 2 of Schedule 8 that relates to that year and the number of students (including the full-time equivalent of part-time students) receiving secondary education at the school on the census day for the State for that year or on such other day as the Minister, in special circumstances, determines in writing.''. No. 4-Page 27, paragraph 22 (5) (b), line 44, after ``that year'', insert ``or the Minister is satisfied that factors outside the control of the authority have prevented it from entering into such an agreement''. No. 5-Page 45, after clause 51, insert the following new clause: Amendment of Employment, Education and Training Act ``51a. (1) In this section: `Principal Act' means the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988; `States Grants Act' means the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1988. ``(2) Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended by adding after paragraph (1) (b): (c) to inquire into and, from time to time, report to the Board with respect to the operation of proposed agreements.'.''. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(10.07) —Mr Chairman, I indicate to the Committee that the Government proposes that amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 be agreed to and amendments Nos 2 and 5 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the Committee first to consider amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 and, when these amendments have been disposed of, to consider amendments Nos 2 and 5. The CHAIRMAN —If that is the wish of the Committee, I will allow that course of action. Mr DAWKINS —I move: That amendments Nos 1, 3 and 4 be agreed to. I do not think there is a need really to spend much time on these matters. They essentially relate to proposals that the Opposition has moved in the Senate which relate to, amongst other things, the circumstances in which a school could appeal against a change in the level of subsidy or to whether or not a school would be disadvantaged as a result of not having signed an agreement by the due date and those sorts of issues. It was never the intention that, for instance, schools would be disadvantaged as a result of not being party to an agreement under circumstances which were beyond the schools' or the authority's control. This has just been spelled out in the Bill. Whilst the other matters do widen the circumstances in which an appeal might succeed-that is, it makes them wider than the Government had intended-in the end the settling of an appeal remains in the hands of the Minister and therefore whilst this will add an administrative burden which we had hoped to dispense with we do not, in the context of the handling of this current Bill, intend to oppose this particular proposal by the State. It might help the House's consideration of the matters if we proceed to the other items. In relation to amendments Nos. 2 and 5, the Government proposes to move a further amendment which will clarify the position. I will not say anything more except to say again that the Government is happy to accept amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 as proposed by the Senate Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(10.10) —I move: That amendments Nos 2 and 5 be disagreed to, but that the following new clause be inserted in the Bill in place of amendment No. 5: Amendment of Employment, Education and Training Act ``15a. (1) In this section `Principal Act means the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. ``(2) Section 24 of the Principal Act is amended by adding after paragraph (1) (b) the following paragraph: `(c) To inquire into and, from time to time, report to the Board with respect to the operation of agreements referred to in Part IV of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1988 for both government and non-government sectors and in particular to monitor the application of agreements and advise on their role in supporting Commonwealth priorities'.''. That amended clause has already been circulated to the Committee. This is rather like the other matters that we have dealt with in this broad debate on education matters and it relates to the extent to which the Schools Council should be involved, firstly in the negotiation of resource agreements between the Commonwealth and the States or the Commonwealth and the non-government school authorities or the extent to which the Schools Council should have a monitoring role in relation to the implementation of those resource agreements. We have proposed, in order to overcome some of the technical defects in the amendments as proposed by the Senate, to move our own amendment which will secure a role for the Schools Council in the monitoring of the implementation of the resources agreement. I would therefore suggest that the House reject amendments Nos 2 and 5 and agree with the Government's amendment which would replace amendment No. 5. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.12) —The Opposition takes no exception to the Government's position. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolutions reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That Mr Brumby, Mr Scholes and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendment No. 2 of the Senate. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Employment, Education and Training)(10.14) —Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to amendment No. 2 of the Senate- Mr Downer —They haven't met yet. Mr DAWKINS —Yes, they have; they are very speedy. I report such reasons, which are being circulated to honourable members. Thereupon the Clerk read the reasons as follows- Senate amendment No. 2 is not acceptable because: The amendment inserting new clause 18A: (a) would have the effect of broadening the role and range of tasks of NBEET and the Schools Council in ways not originally envisaged by, and acceptable to, the Government; (b) would inevitably, and unnecessarily, hamper the administrative process for agreements between the Government and various education authorities; (c) in the case of government schools, the Schools Council would not be an appropriate body for this purpose given its make-up. The amendment inserting new clause 18B allows for disallowance of administrative guidelines, to be determined in accordance with the new clause, by the Parliament. This approach introduces uncertainty into the consultation and negotiation process with States on agreements. It represents an inappropriate form of Parliamentary scrutiny and unwarranted intrusion into the workings of Government. A legislative requirement to provide information on the processes of Government decision-making, especially the power to intrude into those processes, is unacceptable. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Message received from the Senate returning the Bill and acquainting the House that the Senate insists upon the amendment disagreed to by the House. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Consideration of Senate's amendment. Senate's amendment- No. 3-Page 5, clauses 12 and 13, lines 6 to 15, leave out the clauses. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga-Minister for Housing and Aged Care)(10.16) —I move: That amendment No. 3 be agreed to. In Budget Paper No. 1 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) indicated that the Government has decided that the Health Insurance Act 1973 be amended in 1988-89 to remove Medicare benefits in respect of services provided overseas, saving an estimated $5m in 1988-89 and $6m in a full year. The Senate has rejected the amendments to the Health Insurance Act designed to continue the payment of Medicare benefits and medical services provided overseas. The Senate has further considered this question and has resolutely ignored commonsense and confirmed its opposition. The Opposition in the Senate has, in effect, overturned a Budget decision. The Government, which has a clear majority in this House and is responsible for setting the financial framework for Government expenditure through the Budget, is not proposing to abrogate this very important responsibility to the Senate. The cost of the Senate rejection of the proposed amendment is not large in relative terms, but this $5m will now have to be found elsewhere within the portfolio of Community Services and Health. But while the Opposition in the Senate has been keen to protect Medicare medical benefits for a few Australians who are able to travel overseas, assistance to needy Australians here in Australia will now go lacking as a result of this move. The Opposition, it would seem, has not recognised that the travellers who become ill and require medical treatment while overseas or, even worse, hospitalisation, are really personally responsible for the often very high medical costs in many countries which are in stark contrast to the very great benefits we have in Australia, both in terms of cost and effectiveness of Medicare and pharmacy benefits. There are already four reciprocal agreements currently in operation-those of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Italy and Malta-and more are planned. Over the past 12 months the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has attempted to ensure that the travelling public is better informed as to the need for comprehensive travel insurance which includes overseas health cover in addition to the limited Medicare cover which applied for medical treatment overseas. But in spite of these efforts, it is a fact that some 50 per cent of Australians travelling overseas do so without any form of insurance cover. Unfortunately, because of the opposition in the Senate, including that of the Australian Democrats, we are now in a situation where many people travelling overseas will be continually confused and put themselves at risk, as so many of them do already, by not taking out adequate health and medical insurance. The Government recognises that it would not be appropriate to hold up the Bill at this stage, particularly when many people are travelling. In addition, this Bill contains more than the amendment now before us. It has many other facets which relate to the frail aged and the sick in our community, Medicare, nursing homes and hostels. I hope that the people of Australia recognise that we are dealing with a provision which will cost $5m, most of which will in fact end up in the pockets of insurance companies. The Opposition in the Senate and the Australian Democrats have decided to put at risk the frail aged and the sick. If other important parts of the Bill such as the amendments to Medicare agreements and respite care are to be implemented in an appropriate timeframe, the Government has little option now but to support the amendment. To do otherwise would mean that many thousands of Australians-the frail aged and the sick in this country who depend on Medicare, Government assistance to nursing homes and hostels, the home community care programs and other important programs-would be put at risk for the sake of $5m for insurance companies and people travelling overseas. At the appropriate time, the Government will consider the impact of the amendments made in the Senate and may bring forth appropriate amendments to achieve the Government's objectives in this area. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.20) —I am glad to know that even at this late hour the Government can see a bit of sense in connection with what has been happening both here and in the Senate over the last couple of weeks. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) talked about commonsense and about $5m. Maybe he did listen to the debate that took place in the Senate earlier tonight. A lot of the theories that the Government has put up in connection with this matter being a Budget Bill were destroyed because this Government in opposition in 1976 took exactly the same attitude to Budget Bills that is being taken now. The Minister talked about the effect that the $5m could have on the frail aged and nursing homes. Nursing homes are already under threat because of massive reductions in assistance. As a result, the care that is required both for the sick in hospital and for the frail aged in the nursing homes will be seriously impaired. When the Minister talks about the $5m additional cost that will result from this amendment, he ignores altogether the commonsense of the argument that many Australians still pay the Medicare levy while they are overseas. These people will be denied their basic rights-rights that they are already denied in terms of the differences between doctors' fees and the Medicare schedule fee. The Minister also ignores the fact that this year the Government has wasted $50m of taxpayers' funds in trying to subvert the wishes of the people in regard to constitutional referendums. So the argument advanced in regard to the Constitution has no validity-the matter of principle raised by the Minister is not worthy of consideration. Instead of guillotining legislation in the first place, the Government should have been prepared to listen to the reasoned debate that was put forward. Instead, it has had to come into this place late at night and, after a massive waste of time paid for by the taxpayers of Australia, agree to the amendment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Mr Beazley —Mr Deputy Speaker, it might suit the convenience of the House to adjourn until the ringing of the bells. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think it would suit the convenience of the House at all. I seek your indulgence to draw your attention to what the Standing Orders say on this matter. Standing order 40 is explicit in terms of general meeting days. According to the daily blue today's meeting was called to commence at 10.15 a.m. The only period laid down for it not sitting today is between 12.45 and 2 p.m. During the day the Government decided that it had to cancel Question Time; it had to cancel the matter of public importance; it was unable at the time to deal with the censure motion and that had to be brought on at a later time. All of a sudden, at approximately 5 o'clock, the Government, because of an inadequacy on its part to bring on business-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The chair will be resumed at the ringing of the bells. Sitting suspended from 10.25 to 11.37 p.m. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 28 February 1989, at 2 p.m., unless otherwise called together by Madam Speaker, or, in the event of Madam Speaker being unavailable, by the Chairman of Committees. Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to: That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the termination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. House adjourned at 11.38 p.m. until Tuesday, 28 February 1989, at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 21 December 1988: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report- Australian Heritage Commission-Report for 1987-88. Christmas Island Services Corporation-Report for 1987-88. Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island-Report for 1987-88. Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 344. Archives Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 340. Audit Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 318. Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 331. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 324, 325. Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 363, 364. Automotive Industry Authority Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 362. Bankruptcy Act-Rules-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 342, 343. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 323, 379. Bounty (Ships) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 359. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 65-Honorary Degree 1988. Civil Aviation Act- Civil Aviation Regulations-Civil Aviation Orders-Parts- 105-Amendments, dated 22, 29 and 30 November, and 1, 5 and 9 December 1988. 106-Amendments, dated 22 November and 9 December 1988. 107-Amendments, dated 22 November and 9 December 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 373. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinance-1988-No. 3-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment). Commonwealth Electoral Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 339. Currency Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 380. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 326, 327, 361. Defence Act- Determinations under section 58b-1988- Nos. 70 and 71-Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. Order-Rifle Clubs (Firearms) (Revocation), dated 5 December 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 321, 322, 333. Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 315. Futures Industry Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 341. Health Insurance Act- Guidelines pursuant to subsection 124h (1), dated 17 November 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 314. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1988, No. 382. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under subsection 7 (1). Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 356. Meat Inspection Act-Meat Inspection (Orders) Regulations-Orders-1988-No. 8-Meat Inspection (Victoria) (Amendment). Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 367 National Health Act-Declaration pursuant to subsection- 85 (2), dated 16 November 1988. 85 (2aa), dated 16 November 1988. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 332. Plant Variety Rights Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 369. Postal Services Act-Australian Postal Commission-By-laws-1988-Postal-Amendment-No. 6. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation- A.C.T. Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988- (a) Part I, section 6, 8, 11 and 31 and section 32 so far as it relates to the amendments of paragraph 40 (1) (e) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 and the Broadcasting Act 1942, subparagraphs 47c (1) (a) (i) and 82b (1) (a) (i) of the Public Service Act 1922 and subsection 3 (3) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, commence; and (b) the amendments of paragraph 40 (1) (e) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Broadcasting Act 1942, subparagraph 47c (1) (a) (i) and 82b (1) (a) (i) of the Public Service Act 1922 and subsection 3 (3) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, made by schedule 5 of the first mentioned Act-7 December 1988. Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 198 Parts I, III, and VIII and sections 73 and 74- 7 December 1988. Banking Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Sections 10, and 11 and Part III-30 November 1988. Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Act 1988- Subsections 6 (2) and 7 (2), section 12 and subsection 14 (2), other than those parts of Schedule 2 that amend subparagraphs 90l (1) (a) (i) and 92g (1) (a) (i) of the Broadcasting Act 1942-8 December 1988. Parts of Schedule 2 that amend subparagraphs 90l (1) (a) (i) and 92g (1) (a) (i) of the Broadcasting Act 1942-8 June 1989. Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1985-Section 162-9 December 1988 Crimes Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1988-Sections 13 to 19 (inclusive)-1 December 1988 Extradition Act 1988-1 December 1988. Public Service Act- Determinations-1988-Nos 233, 235, 238, 239, 241, 244, 246, 247, 251. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination-1988-No. 4 Public Works Committee Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 312. Quarantine Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 328. Radiocommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos. 348, 349. Remuneration Tribunals Act- Determination-1988/11-Master, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and holders of public offices on other bodies. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 319, 320, 355, 357, 3. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 330. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 334. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 313. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 353. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 316, 346, 347. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, Nos. 317, 329. Superannuation Benefit (Interim Arrangement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 351 Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunication Commission By-laws- Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 53. Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 85. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 386. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Regulations-Entitlements Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 335. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act- Proclamation pursuant to subsection 6 (3), dated 15 December 19 . Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988, No. 389. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 489) Mr Sinclair asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 November 1987: (1) How many thefts of arms or ammunition are known to have taken place from Defence or Defence-related installations in (a) 1985, (b) 1986 and (c) 1987, to date. (2) In each case referred to in part (1), (a) where did the theft take place, (b) what arms or ammunition were stolen, (c) were the offenders prosecuted; if so, with what result, (d) were the stolen arms or ammunition recovered and (e) has there been a review of security procedures; if so, when did the review take place. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 1985 - 24, (b) 1986 - 43, (c) 1987 - 36, and (d) 1988 (to 31 October) - 28. (2) (a) to (d) See following table (e) Security procedures are reviewed in conjunction with the investigation into the circumstances of each incident. THEFT OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION 1 January 1985 to 31 October 1988 1985 (1)...a. 10 Terminal Regiment, Sydney. b. Two bayonets. c. Yes, ADF member: 14 days restriction of privileges and $40 fine. d. Yes. (2)...a. HMAS JERVIS BAY, Whangarei, NZ. b. Two bayonets. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (3)...a. 4 Field Engineer Regiment, Sydney. b. One sub-machine gun. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (4)...a. Defence Force School of Music, Melbourne. b. Two Self Loading Rifles and bayonets. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. Yes. (5)...a. HMAS STALWART, Sydney. b. One 9mm pistol. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (6)...a. Perth Workshop, Perth. b. Two Self Loading Rifle and bayonets. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (7)...a. Infantry Centre, Singleton. b. One Self Loading Rifle gas plug, one 5.56mm rifle (M16) magazine, and 48 7.6mm rounds. c. Yes, ADF member: 28 days detention. d. Yes. (8)...a. Central Army Records Office, Melbourne. b. One bayonet. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (9)...a. Infantry Centre, Singleton. b. One 66mm short range anti armour weapon, one M26 anti personnel grenade, and one 76mm high explosive round. c. Yes, juveniles: civil Court action. d. Yes. (10)...a. 131 Divisional Locating Battery, Brisbane. b. One Self Loading Rifle bayonet, 104 7.62mm blank rounds, and seven 7.62mm live rounds. c. Yes, ADF member: Fined $200. d. Yes. (11)...a. 11 Supply Battalion, Brisbane. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (12)...a. 25 Royal Queensland Regiment, Toowoomba. b. One privately owned rifle. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (13)...a. 51 Supply Battalion, Perth. b. 1089 rounds of small arms ammunition. c. Yes, ADF member: Court Martial, reduced in rank. d. Yes. (14)...a. District Support Unit Liverpool, Sydney. b. 35 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition and one illumination flare. c. Yes, ADF member: severe reprimand. d. Yes. (15)...a. Adelaide Transport Unit, Adelaide. b. One bayonet. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (16)...a. 42 Battalion Royal Queensland Regiment, Rockhampton. b. One 7.62 Self Loading Rifle less the bolt. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (17)...a. 2/4 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville. b. One smoke grenade and one F1A1 firing device. c. Yes, ADF member: two days loss of pay. d. Yes. (18)...a. Special Air Service Regiment, Perth. b. One 9mm pistol and one .38 Smith and Wesson revolver. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. Yes. (19)...a. 4/19 Prince of Wales Light Horse, Melbourne. b. 358 rounds of small arms blank ammunition. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. Yes. (20)...a. 2 Commando Company, Williamstown. b. 14 sub machine guns and one flare gun. c. Yes, ADF member: civil action. d. Yes, five sub machine guns. (21)...a. Explosives Factory Maribyrnong, Melbourne. b. 19 one pound bags of gunpowder. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (22)...a. District Support Unit Randwick, Sydney. b. One stick of service plastic explosive. c. Yes, ADF member: discharged. d. Yes. (23)...a. 2 Training Group, Sydney. b. 1,124 rounds of blank ammunition, one signal flare, one smoke grenade, and 11 blasting caps. c. Yes, ADF member: discharged. d. Yes. (24)...a. Explosives Factory Maribyrnong, Melbourne. b. Two boxes of 25lb practice cartridges. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. 1986 (25)...a. Ammunition Factory Footscray, Melbourne. b. 200 7.62mm rounds of ammunition. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (26)...a. 2 Battalion Royal Victoria Regiment, Ballarat. b. One Martini Cadet rifle. c. Yes, ADF member: no action taken. d. Yes. (27)...a. 2 Signal Regiment/School of Signals, Melbourne. b. 60 5.56mm blank rounds. c. Yes, ADF member: not prosecuted. d. Yes. (28)...a. Infantry Centre, Singleton. b. 141 7.62mm rounds. c. Yes, ADF member: reduced in rank. d. Yes. (29)...a. 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Brisbane. b. One demolition kit. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (30)...a. 5 Training Group, Perth. b. 395 rounds of small arms ammunition. c. Yes, ADF member: fined $100. d. Yes. (31)...a. Army School of Transport, Puckapunyal. b. 47 7.62mm blank rounds. c. Yes, ADF member: discharged. d. Yes. (32)...a. 11 Supply Battalion, Brisbane. b. One .38 Smith and Wesson revolver. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (33)...a. RAAF Base Edinburgh. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (34)...a. RAAF Base Richmond. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle. c. Yes, ADF member: member found guilty, no action taken. d. Yes. (35)...a. 8/12 Medium Regiment, Holsworthy. b. 300 7.62mm blank rounds. c. Yes, juveniles: civil Court action. d. Yes. (36)...a. 21 Construction Squadron, Puckapunyal. b. One 9mm pistol. c. Yes, ADF member: fined $1,000. d. Yes. (37)...a. Headquarters 6 Brigade, Brisbane b. One 7.62 mm self loading rifle minus barrel c. Yes, ADF member: fined and good behaviour bond d. Yes (38)...a. Infantry Centre, Singleton b. 30 M26 anti personnel grenades and two short range anti armoured weapons c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. No (39)...a. 2/14 Light Horse (Queensland Mounted Infantry), Brisbane b. One M26 grenade and 760 7.62 mm rounds c. Yes, ADF member: fined $100 d. Yes (40)...a. 11 Field Force Group, Townsville b. One sub machine gun c. Yes, ADF member: 40 days detention and discharge d. Yes (41)...a. 2/4 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville b. Two 7.62 mm self loading rifles and one M16 rifle c. Yes, ADF member and two civilians: fined $500 each d. Yes (42)...a. 35 Field Squadron, Mount Isa b. One smoke grenade c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. Yes (43)...a. 4 Field Regiment, Townsville b. 233 7.62 mm blank rounds, 40 5.56 mm rounds, and one blank firing attachment c. Yes, two ADF members: five days loss of pay each d. Yes (44)...a. 1 Field Squadron, Brisbane b. One 9 mm sub machine gun c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. No (45)...a. 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Brisbane b. Quantity of small arms ammunition c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. Yes (46)...a. 8/9 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Brisbane b. One 9 mm pistol c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. Yes (47)...a. Clontarf Cadet Unit, Brisbane b. One 7.62 mm self loading rifle c. Yes, juvenile: prosecuted juvenile court d. Yes (48)...a. 2/14 Light Horse (Queensland Mounted Infantry) and 1 Field Regiment, Brisbane b. 119 rounds of small arms ammunition c. Yes, ADF member: no disciplinary action taken d. Yes (49)...a. Infantry Centre, Singleton b. 70 rounds of small arms ammunition c. Yes, two ADF members: discharged d. Yes (50)...a. 17 Royal New South Wales Regiment, Green Hills Training Area b. One 9 mm pistol c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. Yes (51)...a. 2/4 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville b. Two practice grenades c. Yes, ADF member: fined two days pay, four days restriction of privileges d. Yes (52)...a. 1 Military Police Company, Brisbane b. One M16 rifle c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. No (53)...a. 21 Construction Squadron, Gladstone b. 90 practice mines c. Yes, juvenile prosecuted: juvenile court d. Yes, two not yet recovered (54)...a. Royal Military College, Canberra b. One smoke grenade c. Yes, two ADF members: detention/fined $200 d. Yes (55)...a. 9 Battalion Royal Queensland Regiment, Brisbane b. 217 7.62 mm rounds and 149 small arms weapon parts c. Yes, ADF member: discharged from ARES for civil court action d. Yes (56)...a. 11 Supply Battalion, Brisbane b. One 9 mm pistol c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) d. No (57)...a. RAAF Base, Edinburgh b. 5,204 7.62 mm rounds and two bren guns c. Yes, ADF member: civil court action d. Yes (58)...a. 9 Battalion Royal Queensland Regiment, Brisbane b. One stick of plastic explosive, one blasting cap, and 40 cm of blasting fuse c. Yes, ADF member: discharged d. No (59)...a. 2/4 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville b. Two firing devices, two coupling bases, and two explosive charges c. Yes, ADF member: fined $100, restitution $60 and discharged d. Yes (60)...a. 11 Supply Battalion, Brisbane. ...b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle. ...c. Yes, ADF member: civil prosecution. ...d. Yes. (61)...a. 7 Field Squadron, Brisbane. ...b. Seven coupling bases and two practice mine firing devices. ...c. Yes, ADF member: fined 7 days pay. ...d. Yes. (62)...a. RAAF Base Fairbairn. ...b. 10 7.62mm Self Loading Rifles and two Bren guns. ...c. Yes, two ADF members: severe reprimand. ...d. Yes. (63)...a. 11 Supply Battalion, Brisbane. ...b. Four 7.62mm Self Loading Rifles. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. No. (64)...a. 5/6 Battalion Royal Victorian Regiment, Melbourne ...b. Four combination booby traps, one sub machine gun, one (F1A1) firing device, 1.3m of blasting fuse, one parachute flare, four M1F1 anti tank simulators, and seven F4 coupling bases. ...c. Yes, ADF member: civil prosecution pending. ...d. Yes. (65)...a. 18 Field Squadron, Townsville. ...b. 84mm cartridge case, one parachute flare, and one anti personnel (M30) practice grenade. ...c. Yes, ADF member: discharged. ...d. Yes. (66)...a. District Support Unit, Brisbane. ...b. One M26 grenade, one signal flare, seven coupling devices, and three firing devices. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. Yes. (67)...a. RAAF Base Fairbairn. ...b. 24 7.62mm rounds. ...c. Yes, ADF member: conviction without punishment. ...d. Yes. 1987 (68)...a. 2/14 Light Horse (Queensland Mounted Infantry), Brisbane. ...b. One .30 Calibre machine gun flex. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. No. (69)...a. School of Military Engineering, Moorebank. ...b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. No. (70)...a. 11 Brigade (formerly 11 Field Force Group), Townsville. ...b. 40,461 rounds of blank small arms ammunition. ...c. Yes, three ADF members: one member reprimanded, one member five months suspended sentence, one member $700 fine. ...d. Yes. (71)...a. 1 Field Squadron, Holsworthy. ...b. 4 parachute flares, one smoke grenade, one explosive coupling, small quantity of firing devices, and one trip flare. ...c. Yes, two ADF members: discharged from ARA. ...d. Yes. (72)...a. Pilbara Regiment, Port Hedland. ...b. One civilian rifle, 170 7.62mm rounds, and two bayonets. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. No. (73)...a. 5/6 Battalion Royal Victoria Regiment, Melbourne. ...b. A small quantity of explosives and devices were recovered from a member's private residence. ...c. Yes, ADF member: civil prosecution pending. ...d. Yes. (74)...a. Infantry Centre, Singleton. ...b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. No. (75)...a. District Support Unit, Puckapunyal. ...b. 66 rounds of small arms ammunition. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. Yes. (76)...a. 5/7 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Holsworthy. ...b. 14 grenade simulators, one signal flare, and one smoke grenade. ...c. Yes, ADF member: fined $150. ...d. Yes. (77)...a. 2/4 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville. ...b. One smoke grenade. ...c. Yes, two ADF members: one member fined $300, the second $150. ...d. No Generator expended. (78)...a. 1st Armoured Regiment, Puckapunyal. ...b. One expended 66mm rocket launcher. ...c. Yes, ADF member: convicted of theft. ...d. Yes. (79)...a. 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Brisbane. ...b. 800 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. No. (80)...a. 173 General Support Squadron, Oakey. ...b. One signal distress kit. ...c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). ...d. No. (81)...a. Pilbara Regiment, Port Hedland. b. One 9mm pistol and 34 9mm rounds. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (82)...a. 1 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville. ...b. One 9mm pistol. c. Yes, ADF member: convicted of theft. d. Yes. (83)...a. Headquarters 3 Division, Melbourne. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (84)...a. 8/12 Medium Regiment, Holsworthy. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (85)...a. 17 Battalion Royal New South Wales Regiment, Pymble. b. One bayonet. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (86)...a. 8/12 Medium Regiment, Holsworthy. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (87)...a. 8/9 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Brisbane. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt, one M16 bolt, and 10,776 rounds of small arms ammunition. c. Yes, ADF member: reduced in rank, 14 days detention and fined $1,200. d. Yes (88)...a. HMAS WATSON, Sydney b. Three drill purpose 7.62mm Self Loading Rifles and one bayonet. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (89)...a. Royal Military College, Canberra b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle minus bolt. c. Yes, civil police not proceeding. d. Yes. (90)...a. 108 Signal Squadron, Melbourne. b. Five bayonets. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (91)...a. 4/19 Prince of Wales Light Horse, Melbourne b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle bolt. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (92)...a. 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Brisbane. b. One signal flare. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (93)...a. 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Brisbane. b. One signal flare and 984 rounds .22 ammunition. c. Yes, ADF member: Fined $100 first offence and $200 on a second charge. d. Yes. (94)...a. 3 Base Workshops Battalion, Melbourne. b. Two 9mm pistols, quantity small arms weapons parts, and four 9mm rounds. c. Yes, student on work experience identified as offender. d. Yes. (95)...a. 1 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville. b. 40 practice grenade fuses. c. Yes, ADF member: charged with improper possession, no disciplinary action taken. d. Yes. (96)...a. Infantry Centre, Singleton. b. One 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle minus bolt. c. Yes, ADF member: charged by unit, no disciplinary action taken. d. Yes. (97)...a. 4 Field Regiment, Townsville. b. Three signal flares. c. Yes, ADF member: charged by unit, no disciplinary action taken. d. Yes. (98)...a. 9 Battalion Royal Queensland Regiment, Brisbane. b. 50 tear gas (CS gas) capsules. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (99)...a. Special Air Service Regiment, Perth. b. 2,197 rounds of small arms ammunition. c. Yes, ex-ADF member: civil Court action. d. Yes. (100)...a. 131 Supply Company, Brisbane. b. 50 tear gas (CS gas) capsules. c. No. To date the perpetrator(s) have not been identified or apprehended but investigations are continuing. d. No. (101)...a. RAAF Base Amberley. b. One 9mm pistol. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (102)...a. 22 Construction Squadron, Perth. b. One grenade simulator. c. Yes, juvenile: civil police declined to prosecute. d. No. (103)...a. 11 Supply Battalion, Meandah. b. One 9mm sub machine gun, two 7.62mm Self Loading Rifles, and 11 9mm pistols. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. 1988 (104)...a. 18 Field Squadron, Townsville. b. Two smoke grenades. c. Yes, ADF member: fined $900 and loss of seniority of 12 months. d. Yes. (105)...a. District Support Unit, Adelaide. b. One Self Loading Rifle and one shotgun. c. No. Investigations continuing. d. No. (106)...a. 2/14 Light Horse (Queensland Mounted Infantry) Brisbane. b. One .30 calibre machine gun. c. No. Investigations continuing. d. No. (107)...a. 5/7 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Holsworthy. b. Two Self Loading Rifles bolts. c. No. Investigations continuing. d. No. (108)...a. 34 Water Transport Unit, Bulimba. b. Eight bayonets and scabbards. c. No. Investigations continuing. d. No. (109)...a. 3 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Holsworthy. b. One M16 rifle bolt. c. No. Investigations continuing. d. No. (110)...a. 1 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, detachment Butterworth, Malaysia. b. M16 and Self Loading Rifle components. c. Yes, ADF member: Unit disciplinary action pending. d. Yes. (111)...a. 5/7 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Holsworthy. b. One 7.62 Self Loading Rifle. c. Yes, ADF member: Unit action pending. d. Yes. (112)...a. School of Military Engineering, Moorebank. b. Self Loading Rifle bolt. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (113)...a. 2/4 Battalion Australian Regiment, Townsville. b. Two smoke grenades. c. Yes, ADF member: Unit disciplinary action. d. Yes. (114)...a. 18 Field Squadron, Townsville. b. Ammunition and explosives. c. Yes, ADF member: two months imprisonment and discharged. d. Yes. (115)...a. 68 Ground Liaison Section, Penrith. b. One smoke grenade. c. Yes, ADF member: civil and military legal action taken. d. No. (116)...a. Sydney University Regiment, Armidale. b. One 9mm pistol. c. Yes, ADF member: on a summons to appear before a civil Court. d. Yes. (117)...a. RAAF Base Pearce. b. One replica pistol. c. No. d. No. (118)...a. District Support Unit, Adelaide. b. One flare. c. Yes, details not available. d. Yes. (119)...a. 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Enoggera. b. Smoke grenade. c. Yes, details not available. d. No. (120)...a. 20 Regional Cadet Unit, Sydney. b. Self Loading Rifle bolt. c. No, investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. No. (121)...a. 2 Transport Squadron, Brisbane. b. One Self Loading Rifle (innocuous). c. No. d. No. (122)...a. 18 Field Squadron, Townsville. b. Twenty 7.62mm tracer rounds. c. Yes, details not available. d. Yes. (123)...a. Armoured Centre, Puckapunyal. b. Small arms ammunition and pyrotechnics. c. No. d. Yes. (124)...a. 31 Supply Battalion, Bandiana/32 Supply Battalion, Broadmeadows. b. One .303 rifle missing in transit. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. Yes. (125)...a. 7 Field Squadron, Enoggera. b. Grenade simulator, two booby trap switches, four booby trap couplings. c. Yes. d. Yes. (126)...a. 22 Supply Company, Penrith. b. Explosives, detonator cord and firing devices. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. Yes. (127)...a. Married quarter, Townsville. b. Signal flare. c. No. Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s). d. Yes. (128)...a. 6 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Enoggera. b. Green U.S. mask case, smoke grenade, dummy hand grenade, two M30 practice grenades, two anti-tank practice mines, one .50 calibre round, twenty-five 7.62mm blank rounds, nineteen 5.56mm blank rounds, 110 7.62mm live rounds, 212 5.56mm live rounds. c. Yes, details not available. d. Yes. (129)...a. 2 Army Quality Assurance Unit, Sydney. b. Weapons' parts. c. Investigations continuing. d. No. (130)...a. 22 Construction Squadron, Penrith. b. Quantity of .22 calibre ammunition. c. Yes, details not available. d. Yes. (131)...a. 1 Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Townsville. b. 9mm pistol. c. No. d. No. (Question No. 508) Mr Beale asked the Minister for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support, upon notice, on 25 November 1987: (1) What proposals has his Department developed for the flight service facility at Lord Howe Island. (2) Is closure of this facility the preferred option of his Department; if so, why. (3) Is a flight service or air traffic control facility on Norfolk Island to be closed; if not, why not. (4) What are the differences between (a) the flight service and air traffic control facilities on, (b) air traffic movements to and (c) the type of aircraft flying to, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands. (5) What effect have these differences had on his Department's proposals and why have they had such an effect. (6) What impact will there be on flight safety, including response capability in a search and rescue situation, if either of these services are to be terminated, restricted or altered. (7) What international air navigation obligations does Australia have that impinge upon any change in the status of these facilities and how does his Department intend to continue to meet these obligations if either of these facilities is closed. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question, directed to the former Minister, is as follows: (1) and (2) The Department closed the flight service facility at Lord Howe Island on 31 December 1987. Services are now provided remotely from Sydney. (3) There are currently no plans to close the Norfolk Island flight service facility. Norfolk Island is an international airport with regular public transport jet aircraft operations from both Australia and New Zealand which requires a manned Flight Service Unit to be operational on the Island. (4) (a) There is no and has been no Air Traffic Control Service provided at either location; (4) (b) Movements for the financial year 1986-87 were: Lord Howe Island, 3,522 Norfolk Island, 2,014; (4) (c) Lord Howe Island has Beech 200 and PA31 type aircraft operations on a Supplementary Airline Licence whereas Norfolk Island has international F28 and B737 jet operations on full Regular Public Transport Licence. (5) Supplementary Airline Licence operations utilising B200 and PA31 type aircraft do not require a manned Flight Service Unit nor do they require a Remote Aerodrome Flight Information Service to be provided. However ICAO recommends the establishment of a manned Aerodrome Flight Information Service as a basis for the operation of international services. This service is provided by the Flight Service Unit located on Norfolk Island. As a consequence it has been possible to close the Flight Service Unit on Lord Howe Island but it has been necessary to retain the Norfolk Island facility. (6) Closure of the Lord Howe Flight Service Unit will not involve any compromise to the safety of aviation services to the Island. A Search and Rescue Service will continue to be provided from Sydney as before. (7) Australia's international obligations are not affected by these changes. (Question No. 612) Mr Macphee asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 17 February 1988: (1) Has the Government established an asset sales task force. (2) Is Mr H. Heinrich head of that task force. (3) Who are its other members and if they are from outside the public service, are they, or will they, be paid for services to the Commonwealth, if so, what sum will they be paid. (4) What is the lifespan of the task force. (5) What are the specific tasks and objectives of the asset sales task force and have there been any discussions with major financial institutions; if so, what was the nature of these discussions and what was decided. (6) What role have Mr D. Block, Mr K. Halkerston and Mr N. Whitlam had in regard to past and possible future sales of government assets. (7) What sum has the Government raised to date from its asset sales announced in the 1987-88 Budget and what sum does it expect to raise. (8) What persons and institutions have received commissions and fees for services to the Commonwealth for asset sales listed in the 1987-88 Budget and what sums did they receive. (9) Were normal tendering and advertising procedures followed with respect to these commissions; if not, why not. (10) What was the total cost to the Commonwealth of organising these sales. (11) Has the Government conducted any research to estimate the cost of future asset sales. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The other full-time members of the Task Force on Asset Sales at the present time are; Mr R. Martin, Dr G. Smith, Mr L. Scholes, Mr C. Roe, Mr D. Baker, Mr J. Hutson, Ms C. Perkins. All of these officers are from the Department of Finance, except for Mr Roe, who is on secondment from the Department of Administrative Services. The Task Force is also assisted, as appropriate, by officers from other Departments, and the Australian Government Solicitor's Office. Mr John Uhrig, A.O. has been appointed by the Government to oversight the activities of the Task Force in relation to the sale of aspects of the Defence Service Homes Scheme. Mr Uhrig's appointment provides for a fee of $200,000 to be paid to him for this purpose. (4) The Task Force was set up in May 1987 and will continue in existence until it is no longer required. (5) The specific tasks assigned to the Task Force so far have been to: (a) sell long-term leases over Australia's international airport terminals-this decision was later rescinded by the Government. (b) sell the Commonwealth phosphate rock stockpile. (c) sell Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited (CACS) to the private sector as a going concern. (d) oversight the sale of surplus Embassy land in Tokyo. (e) sell aspects of the Defence Service Homes Scheme to the private sector, including the existing mortgage portfolio and new lending business. (f) provide the Government with an independent valuation of the 6/7 airports proposed for transfer to the Federal Airports Corporation (announced in the 1988-89 Budget). (g) monitor the progress of other asset sales being handled by other Departments so that periodic round-up reports can be provided to Ministers. These tasks have now been substantially completed, although a number of details still need to be tidied up in relation to particular sales. The objectives of the Task Force were and still are to progress the above sales in as efficient and as timely a manner as possible and to secure fair and reasonable prices for the Commonwealth. There have been a number of discussions with several major financial institutions, both domestic and foreign, about the Task Force's role in general and the above sales in particular. Many institutions have made unsolicited offers to assist the Task Force in an advisory and/or executive capacity in regard to any other public sector enterprises or business activities that the Government might decide to sell in future. (6) Neither Mr Block, Mr Halkerston nor Mr Whitlam has had any direct involvement with the activities of the Task Force. (7) The Government raised $1,058.7 million from major asset sales in 1987-88. The Budget estimates for proceeds to be received in 1988-89 and in 1989-90 from major asset sales announced in the 1987 May Statement and 1987-88 Budget are $632.3 million and $1,047.8 million respectively. (8) The majority of the asset sales announced in 1987-88, mainly routine property sales, are being handled by the various responsible Departments (eg, Defence and Administrative Services). In respect of the asset sales listed in the 1987-88 Budget for which the Task Force has been directly responsible, the following fees and expenses had been paid as at end-October 1988: $ Mr John Uhrig, A.O. ... 171,799 Harley Little Associates ... 50,000 Mrs A. Moshinsky ... 4,100 Dr C. Jessup ... 3,850 Mr G. Moore ... 500 Mr T. Ginnane ... 450 Financial consultants (Schroders Australia Limited) were appointed to assist the Task Force on the complex international airport terminals exercise. (A total of $112,024 was spent on consultancy services for that exercise before it was discontinued.) (9) Normal procedures for the procurement of consultancy services were followed with respect to the hiring of Harley Little Associates. Because of the urgency of the requirement, a Certificate of Exemption from Tenders and Quotations was obtained under Finance Regulation 52aa (4) to contract with the sole know suitable consultant, Mr John Frost of Harley Little Associates. Mr Uhrig has been appointed by the Government to conduct the sale of aspects of the Defence Service Homes Scheme in light of his previous experience with that matter. Mr Uhrig was Chairman of a small review group set-up by the Government in October 1987 to report on the sale proposal in light of representations from the RSL and other interested bodies. Dr Jessup, Mrs Moshinsky, Mr Moore and Mr Ginnane are Briefing Counsel, who were engaged by the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) on behalf of the Task Force. Normal AGS procedures were followed with respect to these engagements. (10) Total expenditure by the Task Force in relation to the sales announced in the 1987-88 Budget, as well as on its involvement in the Tokyo Embassy project, to end-October 1988 is estimated to be $789,392, comprising salaries ($392,937), consultancy fees ($230,699), advertising ($36,225) and administrative expenses ($129,531). (11) No. (Question No. 800) Mr Cobb asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 March 1988: What are the details of all Federal Government grants to trade union groups since March 1983. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Over the period 1983-84 to 1987-88, Federal Government grants were provided to the following trade union groups: Portfolio Type of Grant Year Recipient Amount Arts, Sport, the Environment Tourism and Territories Retrenchment Subsidy 1984/85 Union of Christmas Island Workers 68,000 Retrenchment Subsidy 1985/86 Union of Christmas Island Workers 68,000 Retrenchment Subsidy 1986/87 Union of Christmas Island Workers 68,000 Innovative Employee Fitness and Recreation Program 1984/85 Combined Union Shop Committee (Williamstown Dockyard) 20,000 Australian Council-Art and Working Life Projects 1983/84 Various 316,646 Australian Council-Art and Working Life Projects 1984/85 Various 574,992 Australian Council-Art and Working Life Projects 1986/87 Various 448,836 Australian Council-Art and Working Life Projects 1986/87 Various 1,215,269 Australian Council-Art and Working Life Projects 1987/88 Various 1,005,494 Commemoration of Historic Events and Famous Persons 1983/84 Trades and Labor Council of Queensland 18,400 Commemoration of Historic Events and Famous Persons 1985/86 Australian Workers' Union 10,000 Commemoration of Historic Events and Famous Persons 1986/87 Australian Workers' Union 2,000 Commemoration of Historic Events and Famous Persons 1986/87 Railway Unions 2,500 Community Development Fund 1987/88 Trades and Labor Council of the Australian Capital Territory 6,000 Community Services and Health Local Welfare Research 1983/84 Australian Council of Trade Unions 25,000 Local Welfare Research 1984/85 Australian Council of Trade Unions 25,000 Local Welfare Research 1985/86 Australian Council of Trade Unions 25,000 Staffing Study 1985/86 Royal Australian Nursing Federation (South Australia) 61,250 Disability Services 1987/88 Disabled Workers' Union 62,361 Employment, Education and Training Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1985/86 Labor Council of New South Wales 8,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1985/86 Australian Workers' Union (Queensland) 28,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1985/86 Trades and Labor Council of Queensland 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1986/87 Australian Workers' Union (Queensland) 41,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1986/87 Trades and Labor Council of Queensland 45,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1986/87 Federated Clerks' Union (South Australia) 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1986/87 Trades and Labor Council of Tasmania 19,450 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Federated Clerks' Union of Australia 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (NSW Branch) 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Federated Clerks' Union (Victoria) 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (Victoria) 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Victorian Trades Hall Council 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Australian Workers' Union (Queensland) 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Federated Clerks' Union (Central and Southern Queensland) 12,500 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (Queensland) 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Trades and Labor Council of Queensland 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Union of Australia (Tasmania) 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Northern Territory Trades and Labor Council 25,000 Institutional Development Grant Expenditure 1987/88 Victorian Trades Hall Council 9,725 Curriculum Development 1987/88 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 10,000 Projects of National Significance-Education of Girls Element 1983/84 Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools 7,105 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association 31,971 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Printing and Kindred Industries' Union 177,158 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association 78,192 Community Employment Program 1983/84 South Coast Labor Council 145,491 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Water and Sewerage Employees' Union 56,565 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (New South Wales) 23,293 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union 44,922 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Victorian Trades Hall Council 197,385 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Victorian Teachers' Union 114,228 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Federated Storemen and Packers' Union of Australia (South Australia) 201,606 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Building Workers' Industrial Union 87,291 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 86,557 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Western Australian Psychiatric Nurses' Association 19,753 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Western Australian Fire Brigade Employees' Industrial Union of Workers 9,000 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Trade Union Community Research Centre Inc 29,710 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Tasmanian Public Service Association 14,237 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Albury and Border Trades and Labor Council 39,429 Community Employment Program 1983/84 Local Government Engineers' Association 8,420 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association 10,263 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 61,861 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Public Service Association of New South Wales 7,478 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Newcastle Trades Hall Council 18,250 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Technical Teachers' Union of Victoria 66,937 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Trades Hall Adelaide Inc 15,173 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Australian Workers' Union 5,472 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Food Preservers' Union of Australia (South Australia) 42,990 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Management Committee, North-West Workers' Health and Welfare Centre 28,903 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Trades and Labor Council of the Australian Capital Territory 23,4587 Community Employment Program 1984/85 Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association (Australian Capital Territory) 43,417 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association 14,156 Community Employment Program 1985/86 South Coast Labor Council 57,041 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (New South Wales) 14,300 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia 13,527 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (New South Wales) 10,036 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Griffith Trades and Labor Council 56,250 Community Employment Program 1985/86 New South Wales Social Welfare Workers' Union 12,736 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Gippsland Trades and Labor Council 20,006 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Whyalla Trades Hall Inc 31,994 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Federated Clerks' Union of Australia (South Australia) 11,531 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Federated Storemen and Packers' Union of Australia 15,834 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Australian Textile Workers' Union 11,140 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Australian Public Service Association 14,424 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Australian Timber Workers' Union 11,140 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Municipal Officers' Association of Australia 14,538 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Food Preservers' Union of Australia 13,080 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia 13,527 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Australian Social Welfare Union 11,140 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Clothing and Allied Trades Industrial Union (Western Australia) 16,487 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia 88,865 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Australian Railways Union (New South Wales) 74,533 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Trades Hall Adelaide Inc 12,490 Community Employment Program 1985/86 Royal Australian Nursing Federation (South Australia) 11,140 Community Employment Program 1985/86 College Academic Staff Association (South Australia) 11,138 Community Employment Program 1986/87 Federated Storeman and Packers' Union of Australia (South Australia) 22,947 Community Employment Program 1986/87 Riverina Trades and Labor Council 77,444 Community Employment Program 1986/87 Australian Railways Union 27,438 Community Employment Program 1986/87 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 23,317 Wage Pause Program 1983/84 Trades and Labor Council of the Australian Capital Territory 38,800 Payments of Grants to Non-Government Youth Organisations 1987/88 Food Industry Unions' Federation of Australia 33,000 Foreign Affairs and Trade Trade Unions Official Visits Scheme 1983/84 Various 26,406 Trade Unions Official Visits Scheme 1984/85 Various 20,072 Trade Unions Official Visits Scheme 1985/86 Various 28,209 International Year of Peace Grants 1986/87 Queensland Teachers' Union 2,660 International Year of Peace Grants 1986/87 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 8,900 Australian Development Assistance Bureau 1983/88 Various 537,570 Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Local Government Development Grant 1983/84 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union 50,000 Local Government Development Grant 1984/85 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union 10,000 Local Government Development Grant 1984/85 Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association 10,000 Local Government Development Grant 1984/85 Municipal Officers' Association of Australia 36,000 Local Government Development Grant 1986/87 Municipal Officers' Association of Australia 11,000 Local Government Development Grant 1987/88 Municipal Officers' Association of Australia 32,965 Local Government Development Grant 1987/88 Municipal Officers' Association of Australia (Queensland) 30,000 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union (New South Wales) 11,814 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia 29,846 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (New South Wales) 10,830 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (New South Wales) 12,799 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Australian Council of Trade Unions 32,490 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Trade Union Migrant Workers' Centre 13,212 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia 12,220 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Hospital, Services and Miscellaneous Workers' Union (Western Australia) 10,830 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1983/84 Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia 25,606 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union (New South Wales) 25,517 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia 32,681 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (New South Wales) 27,517 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (New South Wales) 23,827 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 South Coast Labour Council 1,151 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Australian Council of Trade Unions 35,713 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Australian Railways Union (Victoria) 35,295 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Victoria) 1,193 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (Victoria) 1,194 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Trade Union Migrant Workers' Centre 28,668 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union (Queensland) 1,195 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union (South Australia) 1,195 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 27,517 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Hospital, Services and Miscellaneous Workers' Union (Western Australia) 27,517 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1984/85 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 27,482 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union (New South Wales) 21,248 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia 35,042 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (New South Wales) 29,499 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (New South Wales) 29,499 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 South Coast Labor Council 25,656 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Australian Council of Trade Unions 38,284 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Australian Railways Union (Victoria) 29,499 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Victoria) 31,536 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (Victoria) 19,440 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Trade Union Migrant Workers' Centre 28,365 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (Queensland) 33,294 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (South Australia) 31,713 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 32,281 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Hospital, Services and Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Western Australia 29,299 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1985/86 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 32,316 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union (New South Wales) 17,303 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (New South Wales) 15,710 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia 37,174 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (New South Wales) 15,350 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (New South Wales) 18,228 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (New South Wales) 15,590 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 South Coast Labor Council 31,300 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Australian Council of Trade Unions 40,606 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Australian Railways Union (Victoria) 23,565 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Victoria) 37,174 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia (Victoria) 31,300 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Trade Union Migrant Workers' centre 31,129 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (Queensland) 31,300 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (South Australia) 31,300 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 37,174 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Food Preservers' Union of Western Australia 16,301 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Hospital, Services and Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Western Australia 18,288 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 37,174 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (New South Wales) 33,160 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1986/87 Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia 39,380 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Clothing and Allied Trades Union (New South Wales) 33,160 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (New South Wales) 16,580 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 South Coast Labor Council 33,160 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Australian Council of Trade Unions 43,020 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Australian Railways Union (Victoria) 16,580 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Victoria) 39,380 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union (Victoria) 33,160 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Trade Union Migrant Workers' Centre 33,160 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Victorian Trades Hall Council 39,380 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (Queensland) 33,160 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Australia (South Australia) 1,559 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 39,380 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Food Preservers' Union of Western Australia 33,160 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Hospital, Services and Miscellaneous Workers' Union of Western Australia 16,580 Migrant Workers Rights Scheme 1987/88 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 39,380 Industrial Relations Employee Participation Program (Cost Subsidisation Grant) 1983/84 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union 30,000 Employee Participation Program (Research Grant) 1983/84 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union 20,000 Employee Participation Program 1983/84 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1983/84 Labor Council of New South Wales 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1983/84 Victorian Trades Hall Council 12,500 Employee Participation Program 1983/84 Gas Industry Salaried Officers' Federation 5,025 Employee Participation Program 1983/84 Federated Engine Drivers and Fireman's Association of Australia 15,873 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 South Australian Institute of Teachers 50,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 50,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Federated Storemen and Packers' Union of Australia (National Office) 50,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 50,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Victorian Trades Hall Council 3,750 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union (National Office) 39,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees (Victorian Branch) 50,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Joint Rail Unions' Committee, Victoria 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Printing and Kindred Industries' Union (National Branch) 43,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (Western Australian Branch) 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Commonwealth Bank Officers' Association (National Office) 24,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees 23,163 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Australian Railways Union (National Office) 40,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Municipal Officers' Association of Australia 18,500 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Australian Council of Trade Unions 15,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Federated Clerks' Union of Australia 18,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Amalgamated Metals, Foundry and Shipwrights Union 18,000 Employee Participation Program 1984/85 Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia 19,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union (National Office) 40,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (National Office) 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 National Research and Co-ordinating Committee of the Building and Construction Industry Unions 25,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Commonwealth Bank Officers' Association (Federal Office) 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Sydney Branch) 40,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Royal Australian Nursing Federation (Victorian Branch) 50,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Victorian Trades Hall Council 45,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees 16,500 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Metal Trades' Federation (Western Australia Branch) and Tomlinson Industries Ltd Western Australia 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 30,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Joint Union (State Electricity Commission of Western Australia) Advisory Council 25,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 South Australia Institute of Teachers 40,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Trade Union Community Research Centre Inc (Tasmania) 50,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees 26,500 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Vehicle Builders Employees' Federation of Australia 8,490 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Amalgamated Metal Workers' Union 17,540 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Australian Telephone and Phonogram Officers' Association 19,675 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Association of Professional Engineers, Australia 20,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Victorian Trades Hall Council 19,800 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Electrical Trades Union 20,000 Employee Participation Program 1985/86 Australian Council of Trade Unions 11,830 Employee Participation Program 1986/87 Building Workers' Industrial Union of Australia (National Office) 37,000 Employee Participation Program 1986/87 Federated Ironworkers' Association of Australia (Sydney Branch) 45,000 Employee Participation Program 1986/87 Joint Union Advisory Council 35,000 Employee Participation Program 1986/87 Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia 35,000 Employee Participation Program 1986/87 Trades Union Community Research Centre Inc. (Tasmania) 40,000 Employee Participation Program 1986/87 Victorian Trades Hall Council 35,000 Employee Participation Program 1986/87 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 27,927 Employee Participation Program 1987/88 United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia 22,500 Occupational Health and Safety Resources Grant 1984/85 Australian Council of Trade Unions 100,000 Occupational Health and Safety Training Grant 1984/85 Australian Council of Trade Unions 303,998 Occupational Health and Safety Resource Grant 1985/86 Australian Council of Trade Unions 250,000 Occupational Health and Safety Training Grant 1985/86 Australian Council of Trade Unions 1,000,000 Occupational Health and Safety Resource Grant 1986/87 Australian Council of Trade Unions 295,000 Occupational Health and Safety Training Grant 1986/87 Australian Council of Trade Unions 825,000 Occupational Health and Safety 1986/87 Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees 28,712 Occupational Health and Safety Resource Grant 1987/88 Australian Council of Trade Unions 200,000 Occupational Health and Safety Training Grant 1987/88 Australian Council of Trade Unions 650,000 Occupational Health and Safety 1987/88 Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees 17,882 Industry, Technology and Commerce Heavy Engineering Assistance and Development Program 1987/88 Various 42,000 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Plan 1987/88 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Unions' Federation 80,000 Primary Industries and Energy Commonwealth/State Grant to Western Australian Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council 1986/87 Mining Unions' Association of Employees of Western Australia 20,610 Commonwealth/State Grant to Western Australian Iron Ore Industry Consultative Council 1987/88 Mining Unions' Association of Employees of Western Australia 23,650 National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program 1987/88 Queensland Coal Employees' Union and CSR Ltd 159,200 Prime Minister and Cabinet Australian Bicentennial Union Involvement Program 1987/88 Australian Council of Trade Unions 1,000,000 Action Program for Women 1984/85 ACTU Working Women's Centre 40,000 Action Program for Women 1985/86 ACTU Working Women's Centre 40,000 Action Program for Women 1986/87 ACTU Working Women's Centre 40,000 Action Program for Women 1987/88 ACTU Working Women's Centre 40,000 Consultation Activities 1984/88 ACTU National Women's Consultative Council 5,000 Consultation Activities 1985/86 ACTU National Women's Consultative Council 5,000 Consultation Activities 1986/87 ACTU National Women's Consultative Council 5,000 Consultation Activities 1987/88 ACTU National Women's Consultative Council 5,000 ILO Convention 156 Activities 1986/87 Australian Council of Trade Unions 1,700 National Agenda for Women Grants Program 1987/88 Trades and Labor Council of the Australian Capital Territory 7,840 (Question No. 818) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 17 March 1988: (1) Is he able to indicate (a) what the Food and Agricultural Organisation report on the Food Supply Situation and Crop Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa shows about the food supply prospects for Sub-Saharan Africa in 1988 and (b) what proportion of food needs in each of the 42 Sub-Saharan African countries (i) can be supplied domestically, (ii) is required to be imported and (iii) will have to be met from food aid. (2) What contribution is Australia making to the food requirements of Sub-Saharan African countries in 1988. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1 (a) The June 1988 issue of `Food Supply situation and Crop Prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa: Special Report', produced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture, shows that the food supply prospects for Sub-Saharan Africa in 1988 are mixed. The following countries in the region are facing exceptional food emergencies: Angola...Malawi Chad...Mozambique Ethiopia...Niger Burkina Faso...Sudan The report provides the following regional food situation forecasts for Sub-Saharan Africa: Western Africa The threat to 1988 cereal harvests in western and northern Africa from infestations of desert locusts is even greater than anticipated earlier this year. Swarms invaded the Sahelian countries from north-west Africa much sooner than expected, in April and May, and on a scale unprecedented so early in the season. Swarms of locusts have been reported from every country between Cape Verde and Senegal in the west to Sudan in the east. Although it is difficult to be precise, current indications are that 1 to 2 million hectares of cropland could be affected, which could lead to a potential loss of up to 1 million tons of cereals. Severe localised food deficits persist in several Sahelian countries where rains were inadequate in 1987, most notably in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Niger. Following two unusually good harvests in 1985 and 1986, part of the production shortfalls are expected to be met by stock withdrawals. Serious delays have occurred in the mobilisation of resources due to the lack of logistic facilities, communication difficulties and slow donor response. As a result the food supply situation is becoming extremely tight. Reserve stocks are likely to be drawn to dangerously low levels leaving little or no safety margin to cope with shortfalls in 1988 harvests which are seriously threatened by desert locusts. Eastern Africa The overall food situation is satisfactory. However, a number of countries face localised food shortages with the situations in Sudan and Ethiopia being of particular concern. In Sudan the food supply situation is deteriorating rapidly. Acute food shortages and civil strife are causing people to move to the north where the food supply position is already tight. Deaths from starvation have already occurred and efforts are being made to overcome logistic difficulties in the delivery of supplies. Recent rains have improved the prospects for the current harvest but the widespread flooding has disrupted rail and road links seriously impeding the distributing of relief supplies. Serious food shortages continue in Ethiopia with the situation being particularly grave in Eritrea, Tigray, Wollo, Hararghe and parts of Gondar, Shoa and Sidamo. Famine relief supplies are being distributed but severe logistic constraints are causing delays in distribution schedules and food airlifts continue to be necessary. Food aid pledges virtually cover the 1988 food aid needs but port congestion is causing large stocks of food aid to pile up in both Assab and Massawa. Southern Africa The aggregate output of cereals for 1988 is estimated at some 40% above last year's poor production. Nevertheless, Angola and Mozambique face serious food supply difficulties as a result of civil unrest, while in Malawi food assistance is required for the increasing number of Mozambican refugees. In Mozambique nearly 6 million people will need food aid during 1988/89. FAO calculates the aggregate cereal requirement to be 800,000 tons, all of which will have to be provided as food aid. Supplementary food, clothing and medical supplies are also urgently required. Civil strife has intensified in recent months putting increasing strain on logistic resources and necessitating the expansion of airlift operations. In Angola an estimated 1.4 million people will need food relief in 1988/89. Below average cereal harvests over the last few years mean that both commercial imports and food aid will have to meet an estimated aggregate cereal requirement of 408,000 tons. Central Africa The overall food supply situation appears satisfactory. External assistance is being received from the purchase and distribution of local supplies of rice. 1 (b) The report referred to above provides the following information on the food supply situation in 1988. Country Domestic Supply (per cent) Commercial Imports (per cent) Aid Needs (per cent) Angola 45 28 27 Benin 80 17 3 Botswana 10 63 27 Burkina Faso 93 4 3 Burundi 95 3 2 Cameroon 79 20 1 Cape Verde 42 - 58 Central African Rep. 80 17 3 Chad 88 7 5 Comoros 31 54 15 Congo 7 90 3 Cote d'Ivoire 58 42 - Djibouti - 78 22 Equatorial Guinea - 25 75 Ethiopia 79 2 19 Gabon 12 88 - The Gambia 84 8 8 Ghana 85 6 9 Guinea 77 16 7 Guinea-Bissau 93 2 5 Kenya 94 2 4 Lesotho 41 48 11 Liberia 62 23 15 Madagascar 92 5 3 Malawi 86 4 10 Mali 95 2 3 Mauritania 55 27 18 Mauritius 5 81 14 Mozambique 40 - 60 Niger 87 8 5 Nigeria 95 5 - Rwanda 90 5 5 Sao Tome and Principe - 30 70 Senegal 68 28 4 Seychelles - 80 20 Sierra Leone 81 11 8 Somalia 60 14 26 Sudan 83 3 14 Swaziland 61 36 3 Tanzania 97 1 2 Togo 84 15 1 Uganda 98 1 1 Zaire 78 15 7 Zambia 92 5 3 Zimbabwe 97 2 1 (2) Australia made the following contributions to the food requirements of sub-saharan Africa during the 1987/88 financial year. Country Commodity Quantity (MT) Value (incl. Freight) Ethiopia Wheat 29,875 $A10,727,088 Ethiopia Sorghum 768 331,040 Ethiopia High Protein Bisc. 577 1,984,255* Ethiopia Vegetable Oil 300 487,935 Ethiopia Locally Purchased - 600,000 Mozambique Rice 7,170 3,447,369 Mozambique Maize 15,661 4,738,541 Tanzania Rice 3,470 1,684,970 Tanzania Flour 2,700 1,182,110 Zambia Maize 5,000 1,454,021 TOTAL 65,521 26,637,329 * Revised from figures given in earlier documents on the basis of new information from WFP on the destination of their shipments. Australia proposes to make the following contributions to the food requirements of sub-saharan Africa during the 1988/89 financial year. Country Commodity Quantity (000 MT) Value (incl. Freight) Ethiopia Wheat 12,042 $A4,313,694* Ethiopia Vegetable Oil 300 553,000 Malawi Maize 10,000 3,509,334 Mozambique Rice 7,000 4,000,860 Mozambique Maize 17,280 5,223,540 Zambia Wheat 3,500 1,639,108 TOTAL 50,122 19,239,536 * No further emergency food is planned at this stage because of the high level (500,000 MT) of Ethiopia's carryover into 1989. (Question No. 934) Mr Miles asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) What were the election dates of the National Aboriginal Conference. (2) For each person who was elected to the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee and the National Aboriginal Conference, what (a) area did the person represent, (b) were the dates of their periods of service and (c) positions did they hold on these bodies and for what periods did they hold those positions. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There were two general elections for the National Aboriginal Conference, on 12 November 1977 and 17 October 1981. Until 27 September 1980 Tasmania was included with rural Victoria in the one NAC electorate, VCB, when an election was held for NAC area TSA to provide separate representation for Tasmania. There were also three by-elections; on 27 April 1979 for the QEA area, on 5 July 1983 for the QEH area and on 27 October 1984 for the TSA area. (2) The schedules attached list all persons elected to the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee and the National Aboriginal Conference and include: (a) the areas which these people represented in each State and the Northern Territory. (Copies of the maps setting out NACC and NAC areas have been provided to the honourable member and also to the Parliamentary Library), and (b) the dates of their periods of service. In relation to 2 (c), the attached schedule for the NACC also includes positions held and the periods the positions were occupied, obtained from information published in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Hiatt Report 1976). However, there was a firm policy that the NAC operated independently from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the NAC did not always provide the information which would facilitate a full and accurate response to this part of the question in regard to the NAC. PERSONS ELECTED TO THE NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE Name of Member (a) Area Represented (b) Period of Service Elected Terminated (c) Positions Held MYE George Queensland 1 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 LOBAN Ted Queensland 2 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 12.11.1977 SAUNDERS Keith Queensland 3 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 12.11.1977 GRAINER John Queensland 4 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 SAYLOR Kevin Queensland 5 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 ASSAN Anthony Queensland 6 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 ALBERTS Stanley Queensland 7 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 HAGAN James Queensland 8 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 23.10.1974 to 12.11.1977 FISHER Allen Queensland 9 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 HALL Phillip N.S.W. 1 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 23.10.1974 to 11.3.1976 WILLIAMS Thomas N.S.W. 2 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 23.10.1974 MACKAY Valmai N.S.W. 3 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 SMITH Keith N.S.W. 4 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 23.10.1974 and 11.3.1976 to 12.11.1977 MARSHALL Rex N.S.W. 5 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 BROWN Leonard N.S.W. 6 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 HALL Harry N.S.W. 7 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 NAGAS Raymond N.S.W. 8 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 23.10.1974 and 11.3.1976 to 12.11.1977 McGUINNESS Bruce Victoria 1 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 11.3.1976 SKUTA Nessie Victoria 2 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 ANDERSON David Victoria 3 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 11.3.1976 to 12.11.1977 PERSONS ELECTED TO THE NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE Name of Member (a) Area Represented (b) Period of Service Elected Terminated (c) Positions Held STANLEY James S.A. 1 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 12.11.1977 and Chairman 23.10.1974 to 12.11.1977 AGIUS Alfred S.A. 2 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 23.10.1974 to 11.3.1976 MILLER Glenmore S.A. 3 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 BAKER Ivan S.A. 4 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 EDGAR Tommy W.A. 1 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 OAKES July W.A. 2 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 PARKER Herbert W.A. 3 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 COUNCILLOR Phillip W.A. 4 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 MASON Benjamin W.A. 5 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 23.10.1974 to 12.11.1977 RILEY Keith W.A. 6 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 MILLER Ossie W.A. 7 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 BENNELL Edward W.A. 8 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Chairman 14.12.1973 to 23.10.1974 MANSELL Morgan Tasmania 1 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 23.10.1974 to 11.3.1976 FEJO Walter N.T. 1 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 23.10.1974 GWADBU John N.T. 2 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 23.10.1974 to 11.3.1976 WUYATIWUY Alfred N.T. 3 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 TUNGUTALUM Hyacinth N.T. 4 24.11.1973 26.9.1974 RANGIARI Mick N.T. 4 28.7.1975 12.11.1977 ISSAC Jack N.T. 5 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 LONG David N.T. 6 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 LIDDLE Milton N.T. 7 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 Executive 14.12.1973 to 23.10.1974 and 11.3.1976 to 12.11.1977 LANE Phillip N.T. 8 24.11.1973 12.11.1977 PERSONS ELECTED TO THE NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONFERENCE Name of Member (a) Area Represented (b) Period of Service Elected Terminated BIRD Bill N.S.W. NSA 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 SMITH Bill N.S.W. NSA 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 CRUSE Ossie N.S.W. NSB 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 MACKAY Val N.S.W. NSC 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 SIMPSON Ted N.S.W. NSD 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 HALL Allan N.S.W. NSE 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 STANLEY Jim N.S.W. NSE 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 MUNRO Lyall N.S.W. NSF 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 ROBERTS Frank N.S.W. NSG 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 BERG Jim Vic./Tas. VCA 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 JACKOMOS Merle Vic./Tas. VCA 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 SKUTA Nessie Vic./Tas. VCB 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 NICHOLS Roy Vic./Tas. TSA 2.10.1980 28.10.1984 STEVENSON Edward Vic./Tas. TSA 14.11.1984 30.6.1985 JACOBS Cedric W.A. WAA 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 RILEY Rob W.A. WAA 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 COLBUNG Glen W.A. WAB 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 BROWNLEY Morris W.A. WAC 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 LYNCH Aubrey W.A. WAC 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 MALLARD Margaret W.A. WAD 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 PARKER Herbert W.A. WAE 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 BIEUNDURRY Jim W.A. WAF 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 YU Peter W.A. WAF 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 BIRCH Reginald W.A. WAG 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 CHULUNG Frank W.A. WAG 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 WILSON Garnett S.A. SAA 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 O'DONOGHUE Lois S.A. SAB 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 COLSON Daniel S.A. SAB 17.10.1985 30.6.1985 THOMPSON Punch S.A. SAC 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 NARJIC Aloysius N.T. NTA 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 CLAYTON Willy N.T. NTA 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 MUNYAL Ray N.T. NTB 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 WEIBENANGA Don N.T. NTB 17.10.1981 30.6.1981 MINYIPIRRIWUY Peter N.T. NTC 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 MARTIN Willie N.T. NTD 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 COOMBES Anthony N.T. NTE 12.11.1977 17.10.1985 WILLIAM Ross N.T. NTE 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 TURNER Brian N.T. NTF 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 JAMBAJIMBA Martin N.T. NTF 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 STOCKMAN Billy N.T. NTG 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 FORRESTER Vincent N.T. NTG 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 NEWFONG John Qld QEA 12.11.1977 27.4.1979 MAM Steve Qld QEA 28.7.1979 30.6.1985 HAGAN Jim Qld QEB 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 ROBINSON Ray Qld QEB 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 BLAIR Norris Qld QEC 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 MALONE Patrick Qld QEC 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 GEIA Eva Qld QED 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 ASSAN Tony Qld QEE 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 YANNER Phillip Qld QEE 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 NEAL Alfred Qld QEF 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 HOLLINGSWORTH William Qld QEF 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 ZINGLE Isaac Qld QEG 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 DAPHNEY Harry Qld QEG 17.10.1981 30.6.1985 LOBAN Ted Qld QEH 12.11.1977 17.10.1981 NONA Ben Qld QEH 17.10.1981 5.7.1983 NONA Bull Bull Qld QEH 1.12.1983 30.6.1985 MYE George Qld QEI 12.11.1977 30.6.1985 (Question No. 1001) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, upon notice, on 19 May 1988: (1) What issues were on the agenda for the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board at the second part of its 34th session in late April and early May 1988. (2) What position did Australia's representative take on these issues and what were the outcomes of the discussion. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The agenda for the second part of the 34th session of the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board was as follows: 1. Procedural matters: (a) Adoption of the agenda and organisation of the work of the session; (b) Adoption of the report on credentials; (c) Provisional agenda for the first part of the thirty-fifth regular session of the board and organisation of the work of the session; (d) Designation of the President of the thirty-fifth regular session of the Board (Board decision 338 (XXXIII) ). 2. Protectionism and structural adjustment. 3. Trade relations among countries having different economic and social systems and all trade flows resulting therefrom. 4. Review of the implementation of the guidelines contained in Board resolution 222 (XXXI). 5. Matters requiring action by the Board arising from or related to reports and activities of its subsidiary and other bodies: (a) Restrictive business practices; (b) Copper; (c) Working Party on the Medium-term Plan and the Program Budget; (d) Reverse transfer of technology; (e) Shipping. 6. Selected matters including those arising from the Final Act of the Conference at its seventh session, requiring attention by the Board in accordance with its decision 350 (XXXIV), including a progress report on work undertaken by the secretariat in the following areas: (a) The continued updating of the UNCTAD Data Base on Trade Measures; (b) Technical assistance activities provided in connection with the Uruguay Round; (c) Services within the mandate of UNCTAD as defined in the Final Act. 7. Institutional organisational, administrative and related matters: (a) Treatment of new States members of UNCTAD for purposes of elections; (b) Announcement of any changes in the membership of the Board and election to membership of main committees; (c) Designation of intergovernmental bodies for the purpose of rule 78 of the rules of procedure of the Board; (d) Designation and classification of non-governmental organisations for the purpose of rule 79 of the rules of procedure; (e) Review of the calendar of meetings; (f) Administrative and financial implications of the actions of the Board. 8. Other business. 9. Adoption of the report of the Board. (2) At the Trade and Development Board Meeting held in late April/early May 1988, a topic of particular interest to Australia was that covered under Agenda Item 2, Protectionism and Structural Adjustment. The Australian delegation delivered a statement expressing disappointment at the lack of any real progress in the previous twelve months in the area of trade liberalisation and calling for fundamental reform of trade distorting policies. Emphasis was placed on the need to address agricultural trade problems in the multilateral framework of the Uruguay Round and the importance in achieving results at the mid-term review to be held in Montreal in December 1988. The delegation also introduced the concept of the Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) as a useful way in which to assess the protective effect of a range of different tariff and non-tariff measures. Australia's early intervention helped to set the tone for a useful review of protectionism and structural adjustment and issues in the Uruguay Round, with a considerable number of delegations from both developed and developing countries taking the opportunity to present their views. I have arranged for the honourable member to receive a copy of Australia's statement on Protectionism and Structural Adjustment and an information paper circulated by Australia to members of the Board on use of the Effective Rate of Assistance for measuring the impact of trade protection. Under Agenda Item 6, the Australian delegation pushed successfully for early access to the UNCTAD data base on non-tariff measures in order to improve countries' ability to obtain objective information on market access conditions. On other agenda items, the Australian delegation worked closely with other Group B countries and Australia's views are reflected in the statements made on behalf of Group B. These statements, together with the outcomes of the discussion under each agenda item can be found in the ``Report of the Trade and Development Board on the Second Part of its Thirty-Fourth Session'' and I have also arranged for a copy of this report to be made available to the honourable member. (Question No. 1094) Mr John Scott asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) Is the radioactive substance americium being used in sections of the food and beverage industry in Australia. (2) Is americium one of the substances permitted by the National Health and Medical Research Council regulations on food irradiation. (3) Is he able to say whether the use of americium in the food and beverage industry is permitted under present State food legislation. (4) If its use is not permitted, will he immediately take up with his State counterparts the question of prosecuting those food and beverage manufacturers who are using americium in their food processing and packing operations. (5) If he will not take this matter up with his State counterparts, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Sealed americium-241 sources are integral components of automatic inspection systems used in the bottling and canning sections of the food industry to monitor the level of contents in containers on high speed filling lines. The instruments are not used in the preparation and processing side of the food industry. (2) (a) No. the level of radiation exposure of food or beverages from sealed of americium-241 used in inspection systems is completely insignificant and poses no public health risk. The level of radiation dose received by each can or bottle is estimated to be about 10-8 Gray, which is less than that received from naturally occurring cosmic radiation over an hour. (b) The use of small radioactive sources for inspection purposes in the food and beverage industry does not result in any processing of the food and so the National Health and Medical Research Council Model Food Standards Regulation, S3 Irradiation of Food, is not applicable. The irradiation of food for preservation or disinfestation involves maximum average absorbed doses of up to 10,000 Gray. (3) The safe use of sealed sources of americium-241 is subject to the provisions of the relevant legislation controlling the use of radioactive substances in each State. (4) See (3) above. (5) Based on the above, I see no reason to take any further action on this matter. (Question No. 1101) Mr Aldred asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) How many Soviet nationals, over and above the number already in Australia as at 1 January 1988, will be allowed into Australia for the (a) establishment and (b) running, of Mica Exfoliators, the joint venture company newly formed as a result of the signing of an agreement between the South Australian company Magnacrete and the Soviet foreign trade organisation, Stroymaterialintorg. (2) Will all Soviet nationals involved in this venture be (a) security screened by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and (b) subject to the requirements of the Travel Notification System currently enforced with enpost Soviet diplomatic and consular officials; if not, why not. (3) What form will the Soviets' 40% equity in the joint venture company take. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answers to the honourable member's questions: (1) (a) I am informed that two Soviet nationals will visit Australia for one to two weeks for the purpose of oversighting the establishment of the operation. (b) According to our information, no ongoing Soviet presence will be involved. (2) (a) Soviet nationals seeking temporary entry to Australia are subject to routine pre-visa inquiry procedures. (b) The Travel Notification Scheme applies to all members of Soviet missions except the Ambassador and to Soviet business and commercial personnel holding temporary residence status. Soviet officials on short term visits are required to supply the Australian authorities with an itinerary of their intended travel in Australia. (3) Soviet equity will involve provision of plant, equipment and technology. (Question No. 1191) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: Further to the answers to questions Nos. 645 and 873 (Hansard, 22 August 1988, pages 49 and 110), has Australia urged Vanuatu to become a party to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; if so, when did Australia make its views known to Vanuatu. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Australia has urged Vanuatu to become a party to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on a number of occasions including during the lead-up to the 1985 Treaty Review Conference and the negotiation of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. The most recent occasion was during the visit to Australia of the Vanuatu Foreign Minister in June this year. (Question No. 1216) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Trade Negotiations, upon notice, on 28 September 1988: Will he bring up to date the information, in respect of Australia's trade with Africa, given in answer to Question No. 1382 (Hansard, 6 June 1984, page 3036). Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The total value of Australia's trade with individual African countries and Indian Ocean island states for the last five years is as follows: 1. The value of all (a) imports and (b) exports between Australia and individual African and Indian Ocean island states for the last five years is as shown below. 2. Major items (a) imported and (b) exported in respect of each of the individual African and Indian Ocean island states is shown below. Trade figures are published twice yearly, on a calendar and financial year basis, in Directions of Trade and Composition of Trade by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Copies of these publications can be obtained from the Central Statistics Section of the Department or, the honourable member can have his name put on the mailing list and the latest bulletins will be posted to him when they become available. (a) IMPORTS INTO AUSTRALIA $'000 Region and Country 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 AFRICA NORTH AFRICA Algeria - - - 1 516 Egypt 172 385 281 241 2,197 Libya 2 1 2 4 - Morocco 2,070 6,032 10,690 9,466 36,925 Tunisia 151 236 134 6 24 TOTAL NORTH AFRICA 2,395 6,654 11,107 9,718 39,662 WEST AFRICA Benin - - - - - Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) - - - - - Cameroon 232 387 258 93 18 Cape Verde - - - - - Central African Rep. - 24 - - - Chad - - - - - Congo - 9 265 54 - Equatorial Guinea - - - - - Gabon - - - - - Gambia - 6 - - - Ghana 2,983 256 209 1,657 2,582 Guinea - - 5 - - Guinea-Bissau 66 - - - - Ivory Coast 6,544 4,143 3,889 2,920 7,812 Liberia - - 378 1 50 Mali 13 2 1 - - Mauritania 5 - 31 33 0 Niger - - 18 - - Nigeria 219 21,737 112 320 2,191 Sao Tome and Principe - - - - - Senegal 1 3 3 1 1 Sierra Leone 68 - 13 1 - St Helena - - - - - Togo - - 862 - 1,525 Western Sahara 9 19 70 354 148 Zaire 301 528 225 151 337 TOTAL WEST AFRICA 10,441 27,113 6,339 5,585 14,665 SOUTHERN AND EAST AFRICA Angola - - 7 - - Botswana 5 - 214 42 6 British Indian Ocean Terr. - - - - - Burundi 100 154 217 119 98 Comoros 1 - 6 5 11 Djibouti - - 14 52 - Ethiopia 469 1,052 1,367 1,404 1,182 Kenya 3,908 4,904 6,063 8,075 7,692 Lesotho 119 211 355 55 72 Madagascar 1,196 640 178 308 233 Malawi 5,951 6,069 6,291 9,796 9,490 Mauritius 1,035 2,389 3,264 3,332 2,995 Mozambique 113 - 73 337 699 Namibia 9 40 9 1,012 1 Reunion 8 10 35 7 9 Rwanda 58 125 232 34 396 Seychelles 7 2 5 2,750 106 Somali - - - - - South Africa 131,813 136,854 157,831 154,717 99,217 Sudan 227 205 309 371 450 Swaziland 1,891 802 3,760 10,297 4,029 Tanzania 2,200 2,981 1,721 1,145 1,872 Uganda 13,894 14,963 9,033 4,997 2,491 Zambia 659 3,314 3,066 4,824 3,853 Zimbabwe 3,358 4,778 6,152 294,091 179,730 TOTAL SOUTHERN AND EAST AFRICA 167,021 179,493 200,202 497,770 314,631 TOTAL AFRICA 179,857 213,258 217,648 513,073 368,958 (b) EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA $'000 Region and Country 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 AFRICA NORTH AFRICA Algeria... 7,985 44,669 53,080 40,505 35,863 Egypt (a)... 350,759 448,844 508,129 362,472 311,424 Libya... 29,046 29,557 1,373 24,362 8,739 Morocco... 78 3,640 3,256 6,939 2,171 Tunisia... 356 1,807 988 752 616 TOTAL NORTH AFRICA (a)... 388,224 528,517 566,826 435,030 358,813 WEST AFRICA Benin... 2 216 436 2 72 Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)... 11 20 4 18 42 Cameroon... 4 33 210 75 25 Cape Verde... 1 160 934 2,066 706 Central African Rep.... - 8 14 - 5 Chad... - 1 - - 19 Congo... - - - - - Equatorial Guinea... 6 21 5 79 - Gabon... 9 1,240 3 51 19 Gambia... 2 237 271 216 9 Ghana... 108 1,657 14,462 18,295 6,530 Guinea... 1,113 9 1,428 169 18 Guinea-Bissau ... 2 102 651 129 9 Ivory Coast... 320 93 1,623 1,962 278 Liberia... 516 76 1,719 750 197 Mali... 39 37 6 98 162 Mauritania... 259 88 512 10 1,571 Niger... 604 50 205 91 26 Nigeria... 1,158 979 4,700 4,647 1,406 Sao Tome and Principe... - 9 - - - Senegal... 41 86 434 46 23 Sierra Leone ... 21 167 4,308 4,370 277 St Helena... - - - - - Togo... 32 3 17 311 51 Western Sahara... - - - - - Zaire... 8 41 - 833 707 TOTAL WEST AFRICA... 4,257 5,330 31,942 34,218 12,102 SOUTHERN AND EAST AFRICA Angola... - 94 311 569 1,589 Botswana ... 72 33 95 1,567 3,049 British Indian Ocean Territory... - - 3 - - Burundi... - 5 4 4 90 Comoros... - - 368 360 - Djibouti... 171 262 491 633 69 Ethiopia... 3,579 14,917 42,761 36,211 5,957 Kenya... 13,379 30,522 14,716 16,514 9,096 Lesotho... 77 66 253 171 226 Madagascar ... 635 990 274 471 678 Malawi... 913 240 93 17 89 Mauritius... 15,817 20,828 20,487 26,520 37,980 Mozambique... 1,048 748 2,882 3,085 3,529 Namibia... 153 1,303 3,380 1,023 1,262 Reunion... 1,504 1,430 1,260 2,058 1,865 Rwanda... 5 49 8 46 3 Seychelles... 670 2,361 877 1,490 1,192 Somali ... 3,504 423 2,900 3,586 2,244 South Africa... 171,276 206,401 137,658 154,130 152,715 Sudan... 2,848 3,077 3,909 9,925 4,890 Swaziland... 55 275 138 100 114 Tanzania ... 6,598 5,073 5,063 2,741 3,582 Uganda... 382 4,715 389 657 142 Zambia... 794 3,167 246 635 674 Zimbabwe... 3,821 4,326 6,170 4,832 7,581 TOTAL SOUTHERN AND EAST AFRICA... 227,301 301,304 244,736 267,345 238,616 TOTAL AFRICA (a)... 619,783 835,155 843,504 736,593 609,531 (a) Excludes exports of alumina. MAJOR IMPORTS INTO AUSTRALIA 1986-87 Country Item $A'000 North Africa Egypt... Spices... 42 Works of art, collectors pieces &antiques... 27 Armoured vehicles, arms &ammunition... 26 Textile yarn... 25 Petroleum products, refined... 24 Libya... Outer garments women's, girls &infants (excl knit)... 4 Morocco... Fertilizers, Crude... 3,277 Inorganic chemical elements, oxides &halogen salts... 3,244 Crude, vegetable materials, nes... 2,691 Tulle, lace, embroidery, ribbons... 74 Tunisia... Outer garments, knitted or crocheted... 4 Algeria... Works of art, collectors pieces &antiques... 1 West Africa Cameroon... Coffee &substitutes... 90 Congo... Veneers, plywood etc nes... 54 Ghana... Pearls, precious &semi-prec stones... 773 Veneers, plywood etc nes... 341 Fruit preserved &preparations... 334 Ivory Coast... Cocoa beans, unsweetened cocoa powder, paste... 2,231 Coffee &substitutes... 586 Veneers, plywood etc nes... 76 Liberia... Works of art, collectors pieces &antiques... 1 Mauritania... Feeding stuff for animals (excl unmilled cereals)... 33 Nigeria... Cocoa beans, unsweetened cocoa powder, paste... 288 Items for which details are not sep available... 31 Senegal... Printed matter... 1 Sierra-Leone... Other crude minerals... 1 W. Sahara... Spices... 319 Wood manufactures, nes... 20 Veneers, plywood, etc nes... 14 Zaire... Veneers, plywood, etc nes... 60 Coffee &substitutes... 45 Other organic chemicals... 18 Southern and East Africa Botswana... Ores &conc of base metals, nes... 22 Pig iron, spiegeleisen, sponge iron, etc.... 16 Burundi... Coffee &substitutes... 119 Comoros... Essential oils, perfume &flavour materials... 5 Djibouti... Petroleum products, refined... 52 Ethiopia... Coffee &substitutes... 1,404 Kenya... Tea &mate... 2,692 Other crude minerals... 1,615 Coffee &substitutes... 1,286 Items for which details are not sep available... 512 Crude vegetable materials, nes... 499 Vegetable textile fibres (excl cotton &jute)... 468 Lesotho... Crude vegetable materials, nes... 34 Other miscellaneous manufactured articles, nes... 15 Madagascar... Spices... 137 Other crude minerals... 75 Coffee &substitutes... 59 Essential oils, perfume &flavour materials... 33 Malawi... Tobacco, unmanuf... 9,587 Tea &mate... 149 Mauritius... Outer garments, knit or crocheted... 981 Optical goods, nes... 555 Medicinal &pharm prod... 593 Crude vegetable materials, nes... 362 Feeding stuff for animals (excl milled cereals)... 292 Tea &mate... 216 Mozambique... Fruit &nuts (excl oil nuts), fresh or dried... 167 Articles of artificial resins, plastics etc.... 140 Namibia... Fruit &nuts (excl oil nuts) fresh or dried... 1,012 Reunion... Spices... 3 Essential oils, perfume &flavour materials... 3 Rwanda... Coffee &substitutes... 34 Seychelles... Fish FCF... 2,748 South Africa... Fish... 27,419 Silver, platinum &platinum group metals... 23,160 Paper &paperboard... 11,700 Pig iron, spiegeleisen, sponge iron etc.... 10,378 Special transactions &commodities nes... 7,783 Items from which details are not available... 7,199 Inorganic chem elements, oxides &halogen salts... 4,146 Fish dried, salted or in brine, fish smoked... 3,668 Stone, sand &gravel... 3,398 Other mach specialised for particular industries... 3,379 Fish crustaceans &molluscs, prep or pres nes... 3,040 Textile yarn... 2,955 Dying tanning extracts etc.... 2,822 Other inorganic chem, organic &inorganic... 2,773 Compounds of precious metals... Sudan... Crude vegetable materials, nes... 366 Alcoholic beverages... 5 Swaziland... Textile yarn... 4,458 Perambulators, toys, games &sporting goods... 1,835 Made-up articles, textile materials, nes... 1,194 Disinfectants, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides etc... 971 Tanzania... Tobacco, unmanuf... 374 Cotton... 288 Pearls, prec &semi-prec stones... 124 Special textile fabrics &related products... 109 Uganda... Coffee &substitutes... 4,977 Other organic chemicals... 20 Zambia... Tobacco, unmanuf... 4,733 Misc. non-ferrous base metals... 76 Zimbabwe... Special transactions &commodities, nes... 282,691 Tobacco, unmanuf... 8,517 Structures &parts of iron, steel or aluminium... 1,178 Internal combustion piston engines &parts... 208 Under garments (excl knitted)... 203 Source: Compiled from information supplied by the ABS. (b) MAJOR EXPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA-1986/87 Country Item $A'000 North Africa Algeria... Coal... 21,233 Butter... 8,383 Live animals, chiefly for food... 7,586 Animal oils &fats... 1,544 Greasy &fleece-washed wool... 1,373 Egypt (a)... Wheat in bulk... 309,737 Greasy &fleece-washed oil... 18,512 Coal... 14,443 Iron or steel ingots... 5,911 Vegetables, FCF or simply pres... 3,966 Live animals, chiefly for food... 2,591 Food processing mach &parts (excl domestic)... 2,229 Libya... Live animals, chiefly for food... 23,536 Items for which details are not sep available... 587 Civil engineering plan &equipment &parts... 107 Morocco... Cheese &food... 3,675 Coal... 1,216 Crude vegetable materials, nes... 1,121 Mutton &lamb, FCF... 615 Tunisia... Oats... 456 Crude vegetable materials, nes... 157 Items for which details are not sep available... 120 West Africa Benin... Crude vegetable materials, nes... 1 Structures &parts of iron, steel or aluminium... 1 Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta)... Crude vegetable materials, nes... 18 Cameroon... Sorghum... 57 Telecom equip &parts, nes... 13 Cape Verde Islands... Cereal &flour preparations... 1,842 Items for which details are not sep available... 221 Equatorial Guinea... Telecom equip &parts, nes... 70 Pumps for liquids... 6 Gabon ... Other mach specialised for particular industries ... 29 Crude vegetable materials, NES ... 13 Gambia ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 210 Furniture and parts ... 6 Ghana ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 16,109 Other mach specialised for particular ind ... 1,948 Butter ... 85 Tobacco, manuf ... 45 Guinea ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 168 Guinea Bissau ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 127 Ivory Coast ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 1,855 Vegetables, FCF or simply preserved ... 65 Agricultural mach (excl tractors) and parts ... 13 Liberia ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 537 Civil engineering plant and equip and parts ... 113 Beef and veal, FCF ... 37 Cheese and curd ... 32 Mali ... Telecom equip and parts, NES ... 67 Crude vegetable materials, NES ... 20 Mauritania ... Telecom equip and parts, NES ... 9 Niger ... Heating and cooling equip and parts ... 67 Telecom equip and parts, NES ... 17 Nigeria ... Wheat in bulk ... 3,556 Cheese and curd ... 230 Agricultural mach (excl tractors) and parts ... 207 Metal containers ... 141 Heating and cooling equip and parts ... 130 Senegal ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 39 Telecom equip and parts ... 4 Measuring, checking etc, instruments, NES and parts ... 4 Sierra Leone ... Other mach specialised for particular ind ... 4,056 Civil engineering plant and equip and parts ... 260 Internal combustion piston engines and parts ... 17 Pumps for liquids, etc ... 16 Togo ... Other fixed vegetable oils, fluid or solid crude, ref ... 204 Sorghum ... 36 Mutton and lamb, FCF ... 26 Zaire ... Coke and briquettes ... 811 Agricultural machinery (excl tractors) and parts ... 12 Southern and East Africa Angola ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 537 Elect machinery and apparatus, NES ... 31 Botswana ... Other fixed vegetable oils, fluid or solid crude, ref ... 1,264 Telecom equip and parts, NES ... 159 Civil engineering plant and equip and parts ... 140 Burundi ... Crude vegetable materials, NES ... 4 Comoros ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 360 Djibouti ... Sorghum ... 272 Items for which details are not sep available ... 161 Vegetables, FCF or simply preserved ... 122 Ethiopia ... Wheat in bulk ... 34,756 Cereal and flour preparations ... 492 Other fixed vegetable oils, fluid or solid crude, ref ... 341 Made-up articles, textile materials, NES ... 121 Telecom equip and parts, NES ... 105 Kenya ... Wheat in bulk ... 10,912 Petroleum products, refined ... 1,332 Civil engineering plan and equip and parts ... 494 Animal oils and fats ... 484 Other fixed vegetable oils, fluid or solid crude, ref ... 365 Crude vegetable materials, NES ... 272 Pumps for liquids, etc ... 222 Lesotho ... Vegetables, FCF or simply preserved ... 158 Madagascar ... Animal oils and fats ... 217 Other machinery specialised for particular ind ... 217 Pumps for liquids ... 13 Malawi ... Vegetables, FCF or simply preserved ... 8 Mauritius ... Mutton and lamb FCF ... 4,190 Meal and flour of wheat or meslin ... 3,866 Sheep's or lamb's wool, nes (excl wool tops) ... 3,400 Milk and cream ... 1,679 Edible meat offals, FCF ... 1,539 Cheese and curd ... 1,507 Butter ... 1,081 Vegetables FCF or simply preserved ... 1,030 Mozambique ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 2,203 Animal oils and fats ... 463 Special transactions and commodities, NES ... 350 Namibia ... Lead ores and concentrates ... 1,008 Manufactures of base metals ... 6 Reunion ... Meat NES, FCF ... 1,009 Edible meat offals, FCF ... 341 Mutton and lamb, FCF ... 319 Agricultural mach (excl tractors) and parts ... 164 Rwanda ... Telecom equip and parts, NES ... 33 Measuring, checking, etc instruments, NES and parts ... 13 Seychelles ... Items for which details are not sep available ... 342 Ships, boats and floating structures ... 300 Cheese and curd ... 252 Crustaceans and molluscs, FCF, salted etc ... 84 Somalia ... Sorghum ... 1,615 Items for which details are not sep available ... 990 Meal and flour of wheat or meslin ... 449 Wheat in bags ... 270 South Africa ... Items for which details are not separately available ... 72,340 Wheat in bulk ... 10,704 Internal combustion piston engines and parts ... 6,802 Crustaceans and molluscs, FCF, salted etc ... 3,903 Lead ores and concentrates ... 3,618 Aluminium and Aluminium alloys, worked ... 3,255 Misc chemical products, NES ... 2,919 Non electric parts and accessories of mach, NES ... 2,573 Greasy and fleece-washed wool ... 2,136 Sudan ... Agricultural mach (excl tractors) and parts ... 5,104 Meal and flour of wheat or Meslin ... 3,453 Crude vegetable materials, NES ... 955 Swaziland ... Crude vegetable materials, NES ... 43 Mutton and lamb, FCF ... 34 Tanzania ... Animal oils and fats ... 1,151 Misc chemical prods, NES ... 310 Agricultural mach (excl tractors) and parts ... 260 Motor vehicles for the transport of goods, etc ... 153 Items for which details are not sep available ... 149 Uganda ... Telecom equip and parts, NES ... 508 Printed matter ... 143 Zambia ... Mechanical Handling equipment and parts ... 322 Parts and Accessories for office and ADP Mach, etc ... 162 Parts and Accessories, NES for road motor vehicles ... 49 Zimbabwe ... Wheat in bulk ... 3,240 Animal oils and fats ... 471 Oats ... 356 Parts and accessories, NES for road motor vehicles ... 131 Source: Compiled from information supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (a) Excludes Exports of Alumina. (Question No. 1226) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: What is the level of funding received by the Industry Research and Development Board? Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Industry Research and Development Board is responsible for administering the Government's industry research and development incentives which include: 150 per cent Tax Incentive; Grants for Industry Research and Development (GIRD) scheme; National Procurement Development Program (NPDP); and residual components of the former Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme (AIRDIS). Funds allocated to the IR& Board for the above programs for the 1988/89 financial year are as follows: Program Commitment Appropriation GIRD $41.044 M $33.429 M AIRDIS --- $5.067 M NPDP $7.792 M $3.900 M Estimated revenue forgone through the 150 per cent tax incentive is expected to be $170 million in 1988/89. (Question No. 1227) Mr Smith asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: (1) When will the synroc demonstration plant be completed by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). (2) What is the anticipated cost of the plant. (3) Who will have access to the data and research developed by ANSTO in the preparation and completion of the plant and data and information subsequently achieved by the running of the plant. (4) Are there any requirements under any of the international science treaties to provide information that may have commercial value. (5) What targets have been set for external earnings by ANSTO. (6) What are the most likely sources of external earnings. (7) Who are the tenants for ANSTO's Technology Park. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Commissioning of the synroc demonstration plant was completed in early 1988. (2) The cost of the plant, including services, was approximately $3.5 million. (3) Information of a non-commercial nature is published in the open literature. Normal business arrangement will apply for access to commercially valuable expertise and data. (4) No. (5) ANSTO is currently developing targets for external earnings in the context of its preparation of a Five Year Strategic Plan which will be published later this year. These targets are not finalised at this stage. (6) ANSTO is currently reviewing its commercial capabilities and products. Initial market surveys and analyses of current interaction with industry indicate wide ranging potential markets for ANSTO goods and services. Particular opportunities exist in the biomedicine and health, advanced ceramics and environmental protection areas. (7) The Technology Park to be developed on ANSTO premises adjacent to the Lucas Heights Research Laboratories (LHRL) is still at the conceptual stage. It is planned to be started by an Incubator Facility catering for firms with an interest in interfacing with the considerable expertise and facilities available at the LHRL. (Question No. 1230) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 11 October 1988: (1) Will the transportation route of spent fuel from Lucas Heights traverse local government nuclear free zones; if so, which nuclear free zones will be involved. (2) What is the practice of the Government in regard to the transportation of radioactive material across nuclear free zones. (3) Will local governments with jurisdiction over the transportation route of the spent fuel be consulted prior to the transportation taking place; if not, why not. (4) Has his attention been drawn to the fact that New York City has successfully challenged the transportation of nuclear fuel through its jurisdiction. (5) Is he concerned that a local government may launch a court challenge to prevent the transport of spent fuel throught its area of jurisdiction. (6) What is the permissible level of radiation allowed to emanate from the casks carrying spent fuel during transportation. (7) Will the workers involved in the transportation of the spent fuel be informed of the level of radiation emanating from the casks. (8) Will the workers involved in the transportation of the spent fuel receive special training in the handling of the material; if not, why not. (9) If the workers are to receiver special training, what are the details of the training. (10) In view of recent evidence from Hiroshima and Nagasaki which has led to an international call for permissible radiation doses to be lowered, will the radiation from the casks pose a risk to those workers coming into contact with the casks or driving the trucks. (11) How many casks will be needed to transport the fuel. (12) How many fuel rods will be packed into each cask. (13) What will be the total weight of the casks carrying the spent fuel. (14) How many trucks will be involved in transporting the spent fuel to the docks. (15) Will the trucks travel in a convoy. (16) What type of casks will the spent fuel be contained in for transportation. (17) Is the German Castor cask suitable for transporting the fuel; if so, how does it compare in design and cost to the type of cask chosen. (18) Are the casks leased or were they purchased; if so, from where were they purchased or leased. (19) What is the total cost of the casks. (20) Are the casks new; if not, how old are they. (21) For what length of time has the spent fuel been cooled prior to encapsulation in the casks. (22) Will a police guard be present for the transportation of the spent fuel; if so, will State or Federal police be involved and what special training or instructions have they been issued with. (23) Has his attention been drawn to an article which appeared in WISE News Communique Number 288, dated 4 March 1988, which stated that 11 types of spent fuel and plutonium shipping casks in use in the US have been suspended after serious questions were raised about their safety. (24) Is it a fact that none of the casks presently in use in the US has been physically tested, but only tested by computer simulation or by calculation. (25) Is he able to say whether any of the casks which have been withdrawn are of the same type as those which will be used to transport the spent fuel from Lucas Heights. (26) What type of ship will be used to transport the spent fuel. (27) Does the spent fuel remain in the same casks for the sea voyage, if not, what are the arrangements. (28) Is the ship of special design to withstand impact with another vessel. (29) What is the destination of the spent fuel in the US. (30) What steps has the Government taken to ensure that the material recovered through the reprocessing of the spent fuel will remain solely for peaceful use. (31) What is his estimation of the worst possible accident which could occur during the transportation of the spent fuel. (32) Is it a fact that Edlow International, the firm contracted to remove the fuel rods, has limited insurance in Australia to $25m; if so, what provision has been made for compensation in the event of a major accident. (33) What emergency plans exist in the event of an accident occurring during the transportation of the spent fuel through populated areas. (34) What guidelines were used in choosing the route for the transportation of the spent fuel. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Transport of spent nuclear fuel is perceived by some as a high risk operation more dangerous than transporting hazardous materials such as chlorine gas, inflammable liquids or acids. In fact, spent fuel has been transported for millions of kilometres over land and sea for more than 25 years with no accidental release of radioactivity, serious injury or death. This compares with hundreds of injuries sustained each year from the transport of other hazardous materials and thousands of people evacuated as a result of spills from transport accidents involving non-nuclear hazardous materials. (1) Yes. The municipalities with nuclear free zones could include Bankstown, Botany, Canterbury, Leichhardt, Marrickville and City of Sydney. (2) The safety of radioactive material transported by road and rail within Australia is subject to the legislative requirements of the relevant State or Territory. The Government notes that radioactive materials are transported through nuclear free municipalities on a daily basis. (3) All local governments between Lucas Heights and the ports of Sydney and Botany have been advised of the spent fuel transport and invited to discuss the transport operation. (4) Yes. Transport of spent fuel from the Brookhaven National Laboratory was halted from 1976 to 1985 by the city of New York. I understand this matter has now been resolved and shipments are proceeding. (5) No. See (2). (6) The cask is securely held within a shipping container. The maximum permissible level of radiation at 2 metres from the shipping container is 0.1 millisieverts/hour (10 millirem/hr). (7) Officers of unions with members involved in the transport have held discussions with the relevant Federal and State officials responsible for the safety of the operation, which will be conducted in full accordance with the stringent levels of safety embodied in the Australian Code of Practice for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Substances and the Regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials. The Code of Practice and Regulations ensure that external radiation levels from the cask are consistent with current international radiation protection standards and pose a negligible risk to workers or members of the public. (8) No. In view of the high standards of safety and the precautions taken, as in (7) and (33), no special training is considered necessary. (9) See (8). (10) No. See (7) (11) One. There will be four shipments. (12) 114-120 fuel elements for each shipment. (13) The total weight of the cask (including the shipping container) is 24 tonnes. (14) One low loader and prime mover. (15) See (14) (16) The cask has been purpose designed and manufactured in the USA for the transport of spent fuel from Lucas Heights and is owned by ANSTO. It is constructed of stainless steel with lead as additional radiation shielding. (17) No. The Castor cask is too large, weighing about 100 tonnes. It is designed for the transport and storage of spent fuel from nuclear power stations. (18) See (16). (19) The cask has an insured value of $US750,000. (20) The cask manufacture was completed in 1988. (21) More than 15 years. (22) Yes. Both State and Commonwealth security officers will be involved. In terms of training, see (8). (23) Yes. I understand that United States authorities have decertified a number of designs for some old and out-moded casks that may no longer comply with current US regulations. (24) No. The approval of casks presently used in the US is based on a combination of physical testing and analysis techniques including full scale tests, scale model tests and computer simulation. (25) As indicated above, the ANSTO cask has been purpose designed and manufactured in accordance with the current IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material. (26) A commercial container vessel. (27) Yes. (28) See (26). (29) The reprocessing facilities of the US Department of Energy at Savannah River or Idaho Falls. (30) The material will be transferred to the United States under the Australia/United States Safeguards Agreement as elaborated in an exchange of notes concluded on 2 August 1985. This will ensure that all nuclear material recovered as a result of reprocessing the spent fuel will remain solely in peaceful use. (31) A road accident involving another truck travelling at high speed followed by a fire. Even in this unlikely event, the possibility of any release of radioactive material is extremely remote. In over 25 years of worldwide spent fuel transport there has never been an accident that has released radioactive material and there have been no serious injuries or deaths as a result of the radioactive nature of the material. (32) No. The amount of $25m is the maximum amount of insurance commercially available in Australia for this purpose. Liability associated with the fuel while it is in Australian jurisdiction rests with the Commonwealth. The insurance policy only minimises the financial risk to the Commonwealth. (33) The transport will be under police escort and an officer of the NSW Department of Health will accompany the transport from Lucas Heights to the wharf. Officers of the NSW Department of Health and ANSTO will be available to provide any necessary specialist assistance. (34) The route has not yet been chosen, but will be selected at the time of transport on the basis of prevailing physical security and traffic requirements. (Question No. 1235) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 11 October 1988: (1) Does the Veterans' Review Board frequently use terminology such as ``In this case the cancer was of unknown aetiology and the Board could find no evidence of any connection between the veteran's war service and his death''. (2) How many cases have been rejected utilising this terminology during the last reporting year available relating to veterans from (a) World War I, (b) World War II, (c) Korea, (d) Vietnam and (e) other conflicts. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Members of the Veterans' Review Board are not obliged to use any standard terminology in their reasons for decision and the terminology may vary from member to member. The terminology used in the question may be used in written decisions of the Board. However, to determine the frequency of the use of such terminology would require detailed analysis of Board decisions. About 700 decisions are made by the Board every four weeks. (2) To answer this question would require a manual check of all Board decisions for the year. Due to the number of decisions I am not prepared to authorise the diversion of the Board's resources for such an exercise. (Question No. 1242) Mr Cobb asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 12 October: (1) What are the details of all Government funding to Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe for each financial year in which grants have been made. (2) What grants to these countries are intended for the current financial year. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) Australian Official Development Assistance to Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, 1977/78 to 1988/89 at annual current prices, is as set out in the following table. Ethiopia Tanzania Mozambique Zimbabwe ($'000) 1977-78 ... 82 2,322 2 50 1978-79 ... 1,827 19,838 334 50 1979-80 ... 943 4,192 1,232 1980-81 ... 5,070 6,792 4,119 1981-82 ... 6,286 9,482 718 1,220 1982-83 ... 4,331 9,145 3,165 2,115 1983-84 ... 5,423 10,858 2,602 5,774 1984-85 ... 23,945 6,572 4,400 6,051 1985-86 ... 16,677 4,502 5,721 4,298 1986-87 ... 11,383 2,947 7,120 1,059 1987-88 ... 18,365 3,772 11,010 1,187 1988-89*... 5,387 4,130 4,675 6,500 * 1988/89 figures are approved expenditure targets for country programmable activities only. Final figures available after the end of the financial year may include items such as emergency relief and other assistance through international, non-government and other organisations, which cannot be estimated in advance. The aid is provided in grant terms, but in the form of commodities and services, not as cash grants. Note: The costs of educating students from developing countries in Australia secondary and tertiary institutions have been included as Official Development Assistance from July 1984. Figures for 1977/78 to 1987/88 include all bilateral aid, and multilateral aid where the destination of the contribution is known. (Question No. 1258) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 17 October 1988: (1) Is it a fact that, according to UNICEF's State of the World's Children Report 1988, (a) some 14 million under-five's died last year from easily preventable diseases, complicated by malnutrition and (b) some 5 million of those children died from diarrhoeal diseases. (2) Could these tragic losses be mitigated by preventive medicine. (3) Could the application of a simple solution of salts and sugar and water (oral rehydration therapy) costing some 15 cents a day, have saved up to 3.5 million children on UNICEF's estimates. (4) What proportion of Australia's total aid budget is directed to the primary health care aimed at child survival and development. (5) Will the Government reassess its allocation of aid funds so as to provide more aid for primary health care aimed at child survival and development. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) According to UNICEF's State of the World's Children Report 1988- (a) an estimated 14 million child deaths occurred in 1987 malnutrition was a contributing cause in approximately one third of the child deaths the majority of child deaths could have been avoided by prevention and low-cost treatments (b) approximately 5 million of the child deaths were due to diarrhoeal diseases. (2) Yes (3) UNICEF estimates that 3.5 million child deaths due to diarrhoeal diseases could have been averted through prevention or treatment with low cost oral rehydration therapy. Prepared packets of oral rehydration salts or solutions using locally available ingredients vary in cost but are generally quite inexpensive. (4) It is not possible to give a precise figure for expenditure on child survival and development within health sector activities. Many projects in the health field impact broadly on communities without being targeted at particular age groups. Total bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) expenditure on health in 1987/88 was approximately $11.3 million. There was a substantial emphasis on primary health care and maternal and child health in this expenditure. In addition, ODA contributions to multilateral and international agencies active in the health sector include $3.1 million to UNICEF, and a further $0.65 million to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities; $6.3 million to the World Health Organisation (of which the Department of Community Services and Health provided $4.8 million); and $0.9 million and $0.62 million to other international health and population programs respectively. (5) In September 1987, the Government approved a strategy for improving the visibility, focus and programming of Australian health sector assistance. WATCH (Women And Their Children's Health) has been adopted as the health sector theme. In support of the strategy, the 1988/89 budget included $3.1 million for the first year of a four-year package of health initiatives (totalling approximately $20 million). Activities will be directed primarily towards the countries of the South Pacific and South East Asia and will also include assistance for international organisations such as UNICEF and WHO. Priority is being given to activities which support the WATCH theme-such as immunisation activities which promote improved primary health care systems, as well as integrated community-based primary health care projects. The health initiatives provide an immediate boost to the level of health assistance while complementing longer-term efforts aimed at incorporating health activities in mainstream aid programs. Thus aid expenditure on primary health care activities is expected to increase, assisting child survival and development while also benefiting women who are the primary child-carers. (Question No. 1259) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 17 October 1988: (1) Does the Minister's Department insist that a foreign intelligence officer must be apprehended while handing over secret documents, whereas in some countries evidence of intelligence activity by itself is enough to have an intelligence officer expelled. (2) Is he able to say whether ASIO has identified many hostile intelligence officers operating in Australia but has lacked either sufficient numbers of staff or equipment to apprehend them in the act of compromising Australia's security. (3) Does the requirement that evidence, sufficient to indict foreign intelligence operatives, be of the same standard as that for criminal trials endanger national security. (4) Has the Minister's Department in the past advised against expelling foreign intelligence officers for fear that an Australian diplomat might be expelled in retaliation. (5) Is he able to say whether ASIO has identified about three dozen foreign intelligence officers working inside the country who are from approximately ten different diplomatic missions and what action has been taken as a result of this. (6) Has Soviet espionage been undertaken in Australia for the past 45 years. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) It has been the policy of successive Australian Governments not to comment on intelligence and security matters. I do not propose to depart from that practice. (2) (3), (4), (5) and (6)-see (1) above. (Question No. 1262) Mr Blunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The outlay by the Attorney-General's Department in 1987-88 was: (a) for radio advertising: $5320 (b) for television advertising: nil (c) for newspaper advertising: $81,513,73 (d) for public relations: nil (e) for publication and distribution of journals: $21,135 (2) The projected expenditure for 1988-89 is: (a) for radio advertising: nil (b) for television advertising: $1,875,920 (c) for newspaper advertising: $942,321 (d) for public relations: $3000 (e) for publications and distribution of journals and magazines: $26,000 (Question No. 1263) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There was no expenditure on radio or television advertising in either year. Newspaper advertising accounted for $23,117 in 1987-88 (excluding $2,045,311 in non-campaign or recruitment advertising for the whole Portfolio except AUSTRADE). Public relations accounted for $468,823 including administrative expenses for the PR Section. A total of $1,079,250 was spent on publications including $244,383 (mostly recovered) for publications of the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Offices, plus general printing such as forms. (2) It is expected that $160,400 will be spent on advertising Departmental programs in 1988-89. The non-campaign figure is not known, but is expected to be less than for 1987-88 due to a drop in recruitment activity. A total of $469,835 has been set aside for PR in 1988-89. This figure does not include funds provided to AUSTRADE for overseas investment promotion. An expected total of $879,622 for publications includes an estimated $279,300 for the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Offices, most of which is expected to be recovered through sales, plus general printing such as forms. (Question No. 1282) Mr Milton asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 19 October 1988: (1) Why has an environmental impact study not been carried out on the transportation of spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights. (2) Is it a fact that there will need to be further shipments of spent fuel from Lucas Heights; if so will the Government undertake to carry out an environmental impact statement prior to future shipments; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) On 8 December 1985 the then Minister for Resources and Energy determined that the proposal to transport spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights would not have a significant effect on the environment in terms of Section 5 (1) of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. In his press statement of 17 December 1985 the Minister for Resources and Energy said that as spent fuel transport had been carried out overseas for over 25 years, involving thousands of transport movements without any environmental impact, the transport of spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights will not present any adverse environmental implications. (2) Yes, there will need to be further shipments of spent fuel rods in the future. The Government sees no need to carry out an environmental impact statement prior to further shipments as current transportation methods and procedures ensure that the shipments do not have a significant effect on the environment. (Question No. 1284) Mr John Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 19 October 1988: (1) Was an agreement made between the US and Australia in 1953 on the Establishment and Procedures for the Handling of Classified Information; if so, where may a copy of this agreement be found. (2) Why is the 1953 Agreement not in the Australian Treaty Series. (3) Who signed the Agreement for (a) Australia and (b) the US. (4) Where and when was the agreement signed. (5) Have any amendments been made to this agreement; if so, (a) on what date or dates and (b) what was the substantive effect in each case. (6) Will the Minister make available a copy of this agreement and any amendments thereto; if not, why not. (7) If an agreement between the US and Australia on the establishment of procedures for the handling of classified information has not been made, what procedures have been established for the handling of such information and (a) when were they established, (b) under what authority or agreement were they established, (c) have any variations been entered into since they were established and what are the details of the variations and (d) will the Minister make available a (i) current copy or (ii) description of the procedures established; if not, why not. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No (2)-(6) Not applicable (7) Although no agreement was made in 1953, the United States and Australia have executed instruments in other years dealing with the procedures for the handling of classified information. Those procedures are set out in the following documents: (a) The Security Agreement between the United States and the Australian Department of Defence which came into effect on 29 August 1950. The agreement was amended in 1952 (to enable US classified information to be passed to the Department of Defence Production), in 1956 (to enable Australia to pass US classified information to private contractors for military purposes, subject to conditions) and in 1968 (to reflect the transfer of munitions production from the Department of Defence Production to the Department of Supply and to enable transfer of US classified information to the Department of External Affairs and Australian Government authorities having a need to know). Arrangements under that agreement are in place. (b) The Arrangements between the United States and Australia known as the General Security of Information Agreement came into effect on 2 May 1962 and was amended in 1981. The Minister is not in a position to make available a copy of either the 1950 Security Agreement (as amended) and the arrangements under it or the 1962 General Security of Information Agreement (as amended) nor the procedures set out in them as both documents are classified. (Question No. 1302) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: (1) How many (a) 1 star; (b) 2 star; (c) 3 star; (d) Colonel or equivalent; and Lieutenant Colonel or equivalent regular Defence Force ranks are posted to Canberra. (2) How many equivalent rank civilian defence personnel are posted to Canberra. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 1 star...69 (b) 2 star...26 (c) 3 star...4 (d) 4 star...1 (e) Colonel or equivalent...177 (f) Lieutenant Colonel or equivalent...495 (2) There is no direct equivalence between public service levels and service ranks although, for organisational purposes within Defence, there is an internally agreed relationship between the ranks from Lieutenant Colonel through to Major General and public service levels ASO 7 through to First Assistant Secretary. The Secretary and CDF are of equal status. On this basis the numbers of personnel in relevant public service levels working in Defence Canberra are: (a) Assistant Secretary...72 (b) First Assistant Secretary...28 (c) Deputy Secretary...7* (d) Secretary...1 (e) ASO 8 and professional equivalent...418 (f) ASO 7 and professional equivalent...678 * (does not include one officer detached on a Defence Fellowship) (Question No. 1308) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: Will he bring up-to-date the information contained in the answer to question No. 2438 (Hansard, 19 August 1986, page 5) concerning Army Reserve training allotments, and provide similar information from 1979-80 for the RAN Reserve and the RAAF Reserve. Mrs Kelly —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The current advertising campaign continues to address both the recruitment of the Army Reserve (ARes) and the retention of the ARes. In the case of RAN Reserve, no national campaign is conducted but each Port Division can advertise in local media to fill specific billets. RAAF Reserve does not advertise nationally and can maintain strength by offering Reserve positions to selected permanent RAAF who have elected to take their discharge. RAAF Reserve sometimes advertises in local media to fill unskilled positions. (2) Army has indicated that the campaign will need to continue if ARes strength is to reach its revised strength of 26,000. (3) Actual expenditure on the ARes campaign to June 1988 was: FY1985/86-$2.623m, FY1986/87-$2.562m and FY1987/88-$2.55m. (4) (a) Market Force (previously called Creative Oasis) of Sydney devised and implemented the campaign. MOJO-MDA Pty Ltd are the booking agents for clearing media and MPS Advertising Pty Ltd are the booking agents for magazines and newspapers. (b) The total cost of the campaign for FY1988/89 is $2.856m which includes Special To Unit (STU) advertising of $0.5m. (5) The net monthly change in ARes strength since the campaign began is shown in the following table. RAN Reserve and RAAF Reserve strengths vary from nil up to 30 people each month. (6) The target strength of the ARes remains at 30,000 however an interim target of 26,000 has been allotted as a minimum to meet current operational tasks. RAN Reserve has a target strength of 1,954. RAAF Reserve has a target strength of 1,500. (7) High rates of wastage in the ARes have caused the primary target of 30,000 to be unachievable in the shorter term. The interim target of 26,000 is expected to be achieved by June 1992 if wastage can be kept at or below 6,700 per annum. The RAN Reserve target should be achieved by June 1993; RAAF Reserve by January 1990. (8) ARes strength has exceeded 30,000 on several occasions. The most recent being July 1981 until June 1984. The advertising campaigns of FY 1985/86 to 1987/88 slowed and then reversed the underachievement that commenced in 1984. In conjunction with the campaigns, Army has improved administrative/management procedures for processing recruits and has raised Recruiting Units in each State. Positive benefits are resulting from integration of the ARA and ARes where more Regular Army members are joining the ARes when they elect to take their discharge. The targets and upper limit of the ARes are the same but with the interim target of 26,000 in force until June 1992 unless the target is achieved earlier. Both RAN Reserve and RAAF Reserve expect their targets to be achieved. (9) The projected active ARes strengths as at 31 October 1988 are set out below. The recording of personnel as efficient/non-efficient occurs as at 30 June each year with some delay before all results are received. (a) Active ARes-24,666 comprising: Efficient-17,181; Non-Efficient-2,972 and not recorded-4,513. (b) 26,000 by June 1992 or earlier. (c) 26,000 by June 1992 or earlier. The current strength of the RAN Reserve is 1,408 and the RAAF Reserve is 1,353. NET MONTHLY CHANGE IN ARMY RESERVE STRENGTH From June 1986 to October 1988 Date Net Change July 1985 ... -49 August ... -147 September ... -113 October ... +27 November ... -28 December ... +155 January 1986 ... -78 February ... -232 March ... -82 April ... -286 May ... -143 June ... -61 July ... -111 August ... +93 September ... +314 October ... +14 November ... +218 December ... +881 January 1987 ... +69 February ... +209 March 1987 ... +155 April ... +372 May ... -479 June ... +212 July ... -40 August ... +270 September ... -66 October ... +115 November ... -286 December ... +422 January 1988 ... -154 February ... -243 March ... -227 April ... -373 May ... -349 June ... +266 July ... +142 August ... +11 September ... -156 October ... -34 (Question No. 1309) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: Will he bring up-to-date the information contained in the answer to question no 1102 (Senate Hansard, 3 October 1984, page 1165) with respect to RAAF flying hours and provide information from 1982-83 with respect to (a) RAN steaming time and (b) Army track time and fuel allowances. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Percentage growth year on year 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 Planned 1988-89 % % % % % (1) (a) RAAF Flying time... +5.0 +5.6 -1.0 -3.3 +4.1 (b) Navy steaming time... +5.6 -10.8 +0.7 -6.1 +15.2 (c) Army track time - Light AFC (kms)... +11.5 +4.7 -16.6 +19.9 0 - Tanks (kms)... +10.5 0 -1.2 +1.2 0 (d) Army fuel ($'s)... +5.8 +6.7 -18.0 +10.5 -8.6 (2) The decline in RAAF flying hours during 1986-87 and 1987-88 was due to the Mirage rundown without a corresponding increase in F/A-18 hours due to technical problems. (3) Seadays encompass all classes of seagoing vessels. Variations generally reflect unit availability, maintenance requirements and different fuel consumption patterns of the various classes of vessels within the annual fuel allocation. (4) The decline in Army track time for Armoured Fighting Vehicle during 1986-87 was due to difficulties with track links and transmission service problems. The problems have since been rectified. (5) It is not possible to separately identify Army fuel expenditure associated with track running. The figures provided cover Army's total fuel expenditure for the years concerned, including direct consumption and changes in stock. (Question No. 1312) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: Will he bring up-to-date the information contained in answers to questions Nos. 3488 (Hansard, 5 June 1986 page 4860) and 5289 (Hansard, 1 June 1987, page 3756) concerning Soviet submarine strengths and weapons production. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Update of Question No. 3488 (1) According to figures given in the 1988-89 issue of the Military Balance, Soviet cruise missile and attack submarines currently outnumber US units 263 to 99. (2) and (3) Assessments remain unchanged. Update of Question No. 5289 The 1988 edition of Soviet Military Power contains a table at page 34 which updates the information provided in the Minister for Foreign Affairs' answer to Question 5289. According to that table, between 1978 and 1987 the Soviet Union constructed 3,000 ICBMs and SLBMS; 120,000 surface-air-missiles, 25,300 tanks, 82 submarines and 27,300 artillery pieces. Comparable figures for the United States are given as 700 ICBMs and SLBMs, 18,000 surface-to-air missiles, 7,600 tanks, 41 submarines and 3,200 artillery pieces. (Question No. 1316) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: (1) Since its inception how many cadets at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA), during each academic year, have resigned from each of the 3 academic year levels. (2) Since the first graduating class from ADFA, what is the resignation rate of cadets who have graduated from ADFA and who are completing their single-service training year. (3) What is the break-down by (a) service and (b) sex for cadets referred to in parts (1) and (2). (4) How many cadets by (a) service and (b) sex have elected for discharge upon successful completion of their studies since the first graduating class from ADFA. (5) What is the attrition rate from ADFA for each year since its inception by (a) service and (b) sex for persons leaving due to (i) medical discharge, (ii) discharge at own request, (iii) disciplinary discharge and (iv) academic failure. (6) What is the estimated cost of training a cadet in years 1, 2 and 3 of the training cycle at ADFA. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) the number of cadets resigning from ADFA is shown in the following table: Year 1 M F Year 2 M F Year 3 M F Navy ... 1987 ... 11 6 5 3 1 0 1988 ... 12 2 3 2 2 0 Army ... 1987 ... 19 3 4 1 1 0 1988 ... 36 6 8 4 1 0 Air Force ... 1987 ... 15 1 1 0 0 0 1988 ... 14 1 4 1 0 0 ADFA records for 1986 only indicate the total number discharged and transferred from the Academy. Details of resignations could not be determined without an extensive manual search of individual files. (2) No Navy or Air Force cadets have resigned during their single-Service training since the first ADFA graduating class. One Army male cadet (1.4%) resigned after graduating in 1986 and five male cadets (6.6%) resigned after graduating in 1987. (3) See (1) and (2) (4) No ADFA cadets have resigned since being commissioned. (5) The attrition rate from ADFA is shown in the following table: Navy (%) M F Army (%) M F Air Force (%) M F Medical ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Own Request ... 10.5 21.4 8.9 14.3 8.2 4.3 Terminated* ... . . 2.4 1.5 . . 0.5 . . Academic ... 4.9 . . 5.6 3.6 8.2 4.3 1988 Medical ... . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . Own Request ... 8.9 6.3 16.4 20.8 9.6 5.0 Terminated* ... . . . . 0.7 . . . . . . Academic ... 4.2 . . 2.2 . . 1.1 2.5 A similar analysis for 1986 could not be done without an extensive manual search of individual files. *Although no cadets have been discharged as a result of disciplinary action, several have been discharged due to unsatisfactory responses to `show causes' regarding `Officer Qualities'. (6) The estimated cost of training an ADFA cadet is $72 798 for each of the first three years. (Question No. 1327) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 3 November 1988: (1) Why are some positions which are advertised in his Department restricted to sections of the community purely on the basis of skin colour or race. (2) Is it possible that persons with other skin colours would sometimes be better qualified for the position and so provide a better service to persons to whom the position is designed to service. (3) Why are positions often advertised in the salary range of $20,000 to $35,000 with the only qualifications being ones of race, the holding of a driver's licence or intention to get one, and the ability to communicate with Aborigines. (4) Are those salaries higher than necessary to attract employees with so few qualifications. Mr Hand —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No positions advertised as being available in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are restricted to any persons on the basis of skin colour or race. (2) I cannot answer this question as skin colour is not a criteria for any position within my Portfolio. (3) All advertised positions conform with Public Service Act requirements so that, regardless of salary range, they will include various eligibility and other requirements which form part of the selection criteria. (4) As with all positions advertised for DAA, the salaries offered are based on the classification of the position, and the duties and selection criteria reflect the classification level. (Question No. 1332)) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) How many of the Boeing 707 aircraft recently purchased for the RAAF are for operational purposes. (2) How many of the aircraft are for other functions. (3) Where were the aircraft purchased. (4) Did the contract to supply the aircraft go out to tender; if so, (a) how many tenders were received; and (b) which companies submitted tenders (5) What are the costs associated with purchasing the aircraft. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Two of the Boeing 707 aircraft acquired by the Commonwealth in March 1988 are for operational purposes (2) A third B707 aircraft, delivered in April 1988, was acquired for conversion to spares. This aircraft was assessed as being in a very poor condition. However, because of the similarity of its configuration to the other two aircraft, and the requirement for additional spares support, it provided an effective way to acquire that support, the value of which exceeds the purchase price of the aircraft. (3) The aircraft were purchased from the Boeing Military Airplane Company, Wichita, Kansas, USA. Acceptance occurred at RAAF Base Richmond, following a delivery flight from Naples, Italy. (4) The contract to supply the aircraft did not go out to tender, but instead resulted from an offer made by Boeing to the Commonwealth. Certificate of Exemption procedures for sole source purchases were followed. The reason given in the request for a Certificate of Exemption was that the subject aircraft were the sole source of available supply. B707 aircraft were sought because of a commonality requirement with the existing RAAF B707 fleet, and the aircraft in Naples were the only aircraft available possessing enough remaining life for RAAF life-of-type purposes. (5) The contract price for the acquisition was $US8.775.000, comprising $US6,850,000 for the two operational aircraft and $US1,925,000 for the aircraft to be converted to spares. Additional project costs, to the value of about $A13m, were, or will be, incurred in inspecting the aircraft, maintenance of components, installations of additional equipment, eg Auxiliary Power Units and procurement of Ground Support Equipment, documentation etc. (Question No. 1341) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) What was the Minister's Department's expenditure on international (a) air freight and (b) shipping in 1987-88; (2) What is the estimated expenditure for these categories in 1988-89. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) $16 395 (b) $23 716 (2) (a) $8 000 (b) $10 600. (Question No. 1356) Mr John Scott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) Were cheeses contaminated with Listeria withdrawn from sale on the Australian market; if so, when were they withdrawn. (2) How many batches were involved in the withdrawal. (3) Were public notices of the withdrawal of those cheeses advertised; if so, where were they advertised. (4) If public notices were not advertised, why not. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Minister for Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Cheeses identified in Europe as having been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes were investigated as it was possible they had been imported into Australia. As a result, cheeses contaminated with Listeria were withdrawn from sale on the Australian market during January and February of 1988. (2) Approximately ten batches of contaminated imported cheese were identified as having been distributed in Australia. Two brands of Australian produced ricotta cheese were also removed from sale. Continual monitoring of soft cheeses for Listeria is taking place at the Commonwealth, State and Territory level. (3) No. (4) All State and Territory Health Departments and possible importers were notified of these recalls and took appropriate action to remove all contaminated products from the market. In the case of imported cheeses, the majority of the product was seized at the Customs barrier or from importers' warehouses. However when the affected product had been released for retail sale it was recovered by importers' sales representatives; this action was monitored by State and Territory Health Departments. In the case of Australian ricotta cheese, recall to retail level was ordered and monitored by State Dairy authorities. In view of these steps taken, State and Territory Health Departments did not consider a recall from the public was necessary. There have been no adverse health effects recorded in Australia. (Question No. 1394) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 November 1988: Has his attention been drawn to the recent report by Mr R. J. Cooksey, in which it is recommended that the Dubbo RAAF Base be closed; if so, is it a fact that Mr Cooksey has changed his recommendation following a visit to Dubbo in August 1988. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The implications of Mr R. J. Cooksey's ``Review of Australia's Defence Facilities'' are explained in my reply to your question upon notice, on 28 November 1988 (No. 1401). There are a number of alternatives regarding the future of the RAAF stores depot at Dubbo which are possible in addition to the recommendation for disposal in the Cooksey Report. Mr Cooksey advised that he saw potential for an alternative use for Dubbo as a tri-service depot. (Question No. 1401) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 November 1988: (1) Which RAAF bases are to be closed, as recommended in the Cooksey Report. (2) When is each base to be closed. (3) If bases are to be relocated, to where are they to be relocated. (4) What will be the cost of each closure or relocation. (5) How many staff are currently at each base. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) The Review of Australia's Defence Facilities, prepared by the former Ministerial Consultant, Mr R. J. Cooksey, is an independent analysis of Australia's Defence facilities. It is not a statement of Government policy. The report contained more than 170 recommendations. At the time of the report's release many of its proposals and the facilities in question were already under review within Defence or were projects which had been initiated or were being further developed; for example, the Government's position on the two ocean navy and facilities developments at HMAS STIRLING were presented in my statement of the Fleet Base Relocation Study Report on 25 February 1987. The Cooksey program is a long-term one extending to 25 years. In drawing together many complex and wide-ranging issues, the report provides a perspective that can be drawn upon the development of Defence facilities as resources and priorities permit. Mr Keating —On 13 October 1988 (Hansard, page 1593) the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) asked the Acting Treasurer a question without notice as to whether the real rate of return after tax on a savings bank account paying, say, 11 per cent interest, for a wage earner facing a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent is close to zero. The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In the circumstances described, the real rate of return after tax would currently be close to zero. Historically, that has long been the case with such accounts. Indeed, prior to the deregulation of financial markets, it was not uncommon for the real rate of return after tax, on such accounts, to be negative. Since deregulation, there is a much broader range of investments available (including from banks) to smaller investors, many of which offer noticeably higher rates of return. Some investors continue to favour lower-yielding investments because of their perceived greater security and liquidity. Mr Holding —On 25 May 1988 (Hansard, page 2971) the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) asked the then Minister for the Arts and Territories: (1) Why is the Army no longer involved in psychological assessment and selection of applicants for the Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions? (2) Is it correct that the psychological assessment function previously performed by the Army has been contracted out, at a cost of about $1m, to Dalmau and Associates, a firm of consultant psychologists? (3) Is it a fact also that, during the selection process in Tasmania earlier this year, the two psychologists carrying out the selection procedure were paid about $800 a day; stayed at the new Sheraton Hotel in Hobart; and were transported to and from the assessment area in the central highlands of Tasmania by Commonwealth car, a two-hour trip each way? The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Army Psychology Corps has been continuously used and is still used by the Antarctic Division to conduct psychological screening and assessment of applicants for selection as members of Australian National Antarctic Research Expeditions. (2) It is not correct that the psychological assessment function has been contracted out to Dalmau and Associates Pty Ltd. Dalmau and Associates Pty Ltd has been engaged by the Antarctic Division in the capacity of management consultants, working on a number of projects, including the expeditioner selection process. Amongst other initiatives, the consultant raised concern about the suitability of the Army psychology test. Accordingly, the Division decided to examine the use of alternative tests. A separate consulting company, ``Appraisal into Development Services'', was engaged to conduct a different test, which was first used in 1987 and was used in parallel with the Army psychology tests in May 1988 during the selection process for Station Leaders for 1988-89. The tests conducted by the consultant were not part of the screening process. Rather, they were used to develop a data base on which decisions could be made as to which test is the most suitable for screening purposes. The test evaluation program was conducted in consultation with the Army Psychology Corps. The Antarctic Division has since decided not to continue with the tests by ``Appraisal into Development Services'', and they were not used for general expeditioner screening for 1988-89. Following discussions between the Division and the Army Psychology Corps, and at the request of the Antarctic Division, the Army has added an additional screening test which was introduced in 1988 for the 1988-89 expedition, for evaluation purposes. (3) The contractual arrangement which the Antarctic Division had with ``Appraisal into Development Services'' provided that the consultant be paid $800 per eight hour day; air travel, ground transport in Hobart and accommodation to be arranged by and for the account of the Antarctic Division; incidental expenses to be paid at the rate applicable to those components of the travelling allowance payable to senior executive officers of the Australian Public Service and other expenses approved by the Director to be reimbursed on receipt or claim from the consultant. The consultant did not stay at the Sheraton. Under the contract with Dalmau and Associates Pty Ltd the consultant has been provided with a self drive car, which, on one occasion, was a Commonwealth self drive car provided through the Department of Administrative Services. The provision of this car was within public service guidelines, since Mr Dalmau was on Commonwealth business, and it was to the advantage of the Commonwealth, being cheaper than providing a driver or hiring a car commercially. The consultant pays his own accommodation from within his travelling allowance. (Question No. 674) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, 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 Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Listed below, as a key to the tables which follow, are the various Statutory Authorities and other departmental bodies within the ASETT portfolio and their common acronyms. It should be noted that information provided is in respect of the completed 1987-88 financial year. The response to Part (5) of the Question includes only those bodies within the ASETT portfolio which have undertaken major advertising or information campaigns in 1987-88. LIST OF ACRONYMS-PORTFOLIO OF THE ARTS, SPORT, THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND TERRITORIES Department Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (excluding ACT Administration) DASETT ACT Administration ACT Admin Other Departmental Bodies Australian National Botanic Gardens ANBG Australian National Maritime Museum ANMM National Film and Sound Archive NFSA National Science and Technology Centre NSTC Statutory Authorities Australia Council AC Australian Film Commission AFC Australian Film, Television and Radio School AFTRS Australian Heritage Commission AHC Australian Institute of Sport/Australian Sports Commission AIS/ASC Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service ANPWS Australian National Gallery ANG Australian Tourist Commission ATC Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority GBRMPA National Library of Australia NLA National Museum of Australia NMA Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region OSS (1)- TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURE 1987-88 (a) (b) (c) Advertising Public relations Opinion research $ $ $ DASETT Central Office ... 320,050 172,197 2,190 ACT Admin ... 1,664,740 324,800 115,000 ANBG ... 10,000 nil nil ANMM ... 23,690 105,000 nil NFSA ... 1,192 2,000 nil NSTC ... 16,500 9,700 nil Total DASETT ... 2,036,172 613,697 117,190 Statutory Authorities AC ... 85,000 31,000 12,270 AFC ... 184,600 15,000 nil AFTRS ... 75,000 8,000 nil AHC ... 92,670 251,173 nil AIS/ASC ... 42,400 88,400 nil ANPWS ... 76,400 45,000 nil ANG ... 388,700 156,900 20,000 ATC ... 15,749,350 1,789,117 806,334 GBRMPA ... 23,000 3,000 nil NLA ... 57,000 192,000 nil NMA ... 11,500 19,400 nil OSS ... 20,000 nil nil (2)- ACTUAL EXPENDITURE 1987-88 (a) (b) (c) Advertising Public relations Opinion research $ $ $ DASETT Central Office ... 300,890 168,092 2,190 ACT Admin ... 1,754,675 318,685 116,680 ANBG ... 6,292 nil nil ANMM ... 23,690 105,746 nil NFSA ... 1,042 2,057 nil NSTC ... 26,502 nil nil Total DASETT ... 2,113,091 594,580 118,870 Statutory Authorities AC ... 79,145 40,243 12,270 AFC ... 234,568 6,633 nil AFTRS ... 78,000 6,000 nil AHC ... 90,845 244,468 nil AIS/ASC ... 38,590 79,478 nil ANPWS ... 57,071 39,101 nil ANG ... 375,059 149,734 11,750 ATC ... 13,480,450 1,952,498 940,931 GBRMPA ... 18,676 2,037 nil NLA ... 53,848 201,147 nil NMA ... 9,300 19,200 nil OSS ... 26,735 nil nil (3)- BUDGET STATUS-1987-88 Budget Status Budget expenditure Reasons for discrepancy $ DASETT Central Office ... Under budget -23,265 Streamlining of stamp packs/advertising costs (Cocos Isl); non-placement of press advertisements ACT Admin. ... Over budget +85,500 Increased advertising costs; major campaign to promote new bus network; recruitment of teaching staff ANBG ... Under budget -3,708 Late invoicing (after 30.6.88) for major component ANMM ... Over budget +746 Increased costs of staff advertising NFSA ... Under budget -93 NSTC ... Over budget +302 Additional advertising costs related to late opening of new building Statutory Authorities AC ... Over budget +3,388 Consultant and graphic arts costs related to National Arts Week AFC ... Over budget +41,601 Increased marketing costs and demand for marketing materials overseas AFTRS ... Over budget +1,000 Increased requirements for staff advertising AHC ... Under budget -8,530 Slippage in public relations publications AIS/ASC ... Under budget -12,732 Advertising taken up by the AIS in amalgamation with the ASC ANG ... Under budget -29,057 Reduced costs of advertising placement costs; public relations costs contained ANPWS ... Under budget -25,228 Reduced requirement in advertising and staffing ATC ... Under budget -1,970,922 Late completion of many projects and invoicing after 30.6.88 GBRMPA ... Under budget -5,287 Deferral of publicity costs NLA ... Over budget +5,995 Additional promotional costs for Bicentennial Exhibition `People Print and Paper' NMA ... Under budget -2,400 Value of contracts less than estimated OSS ... Over budget +6,735 High cost of overseas advertising to fill senior research vacancies (4)- EXPENDITURE-1987-88 Job advertising Other advertising DASETT $ $ Central Office ... 67,886 233,004 ACT Admin. ... 528,835 1,225,840 ANBG ... nil 6,292 ANMM ... 22,000 1,690 NFSA ... 218 824 NSTC ... 9,203 17,299 Total DASETT ... 628,142 1,484,949 Statutory Authorities AC ... 20,932 58,213 AFC ... 73,359 161,209 AFTRS ... 48,000 30,000 AHC ... 251 90,594 AIS/ASC ... 18,412 20,178 ANPWS ... 14,837 42,234 ANG ... 23,521 351,538 ATC ... 24,867 13,455,583 GBRMPA ... 3,130 15,546 NLA ... 18,708 35,140 NMA ... 2,400 6,900 OSS ... 26,735 nil (5)- ADVERTISING PROJECTS, CAMPAIGNS &INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS DASETT Central Office (a) (i) $192,416-Rainforest radio, press and TV advertising relating to World Heritage nomination, especially boundaries (ii) $3,600-Advertising the Public Lending Right Act and the 1987-88 program (b) (i) S P Needham and Mojo MDA (ii) Neville Jeffress Advertising (c) (i) Approved Government Agency (ii) Approved Government Agency (d) (i) No (ii) No (e) (i) N/A (ii) N/A ACT Administration (a) $460,000-Promotion of ACTION's new bus network (b) Mojo-MDA; Neville Jeffress Advertising; National Recording Studios, and Media Graphics (c) Mojo-MDA and Neville Jeffress Advertising hold Government contracts for advertising work. National Recording Studios and Media Graphics were selected after expressions of interest were sought from local advertising agencies. Others considered were Green Advertising, Performance Advertising and Gay Advertising (d) No (e) N/A Statutory Authorities AFC (a) $54,060-Promotional campaign (b) Berry's Creative (c) Selected on the basis of the most attractive and appropriate campaign (d) A number of companies were invited to tender, on their familiarity with film campaigns, their interest in the job, and past experience with the company on other related activities. (e) Art Thieves (Vic); Berry's Creative (NSW); John Willstead (NSW); Gretton Davis Advertising (NSW) AHC (a) (i) $12,000-Forest package information kit (ii) $8,500-Upgrade information exchange with local government (b) (i) In-house (ii) In-house (c) (i) Not applicable (ii) Not applicable (d) (i) Not applicable (ii) Not applicable (e) (i) Not applicable (ii) Not applicable AIS/ASC (a) (i) $17,200-Community Service Information Program promotion. (ii) $10,300-Women in Sport Community Service Advertisement. (b) (i) Maxted Marketing. (ii) Film Australia. (c) (i) Tender board. (ii) By invitation. (d) (i) Yes. (ii) No (e) (i) Maxted Marketing, Zenith Marketing, Broadcom Australia Ltd, Corporate Video Production. (ii) Not applicable. ANG (a) $180,400-``Old Masters-New Visions'' promotion. (b) Mackay, Dalziel, Harper &Grey. (c) They were selected by a review of material submitted and a six month trial. (d) No (e) N/A ATC (a) (i) $700,000-``I'm Aussie'' Campaign-Japan. (ii) $4,000,000-Enhanced Awareness Advertising Campaign-USA. (iii) $2,386,500-Consumer Advertising Campaign-UK. (b) (i) Kakuhodo Agency. (ii) Mojo MDA. (iii) Mojo MDA. (c) (i) 9 agencies were approved to tender and then shortlisted. (ii) Selected on the basis of credentials received by 4 agencies in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. (iii) Presentation of credentials were sought from 8 agencies. This list was then short-listed to 4 companies each given a month to prepare recommendations. (d) (i) Yes (ii) Yes (iii) Yes (e) (i) Detsu; J Walter Thompson; Hakuhodo; Denstu-Young &Rubican; Tokyo Agency International; Saatchi &Saatchi; Ogilvy &Mather; Meitetsu, Kenyon and Eckhart; Standard. (ii) Backer Spielvogel Bates, Inc.' AC &RDBH &Bess; N.W. Ayer; Mojo MDA. (iii) Foote, Cone, Belding; Saatchi &Saatchi; Mojo (UK); Young &Rubicam; Wight, Collins, Rutherford, Scott, Bodse, Massimi, Pollitt; Still, Price, Court, D'Souza, Twivy; Penman &Partners. NLA (a) (i) $2,200-Librarians Class 1 Recruitment Campaign. (ii) $15,000-Promotional Video on the National Library's services. (b) (i) Neville Jeffress Advertising. (ii) Capital 7 Special Projects. (c) (i) They are the approved Government agency. (ii) Selected on the basis of script outlines and budgets submitted by four firms. (d) (i) &(ii) No (e) (i) &(ii) N/A NMA (a) $35,438*-Promotional Campaign. (b) Film Australia. (c) In accordance with Commonwealth Government guidelines they are designated preferred agency. (d) No (e) N/A *$12,400 in 1987-88; balance in 1986-87. (Question No. 1063) Mr Porter asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What week-end conferences, including management meetings and team-building exercises, and involving overnight accommodation have been conducted out of Canberra for staff of the Minister's Department for the year ending 31 May 1988. (2) When and where were the meetings held. (3) How many days were involved. (4) What was the agenda for each meeting. (5) Who attended each meeting from the Minister's Department and from outside the Minister's Department. (6) What was the total cost to the Minister's Department. (7) What were the itemised costs, including transportation, accommodation, speakers, food and drink costs. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Conferences conducted by the Department involving overnight accommodation at the weekend: (1)- (a) Senior Management Seminar. (b) World Competitive Manufacturing Workshop. (c) Strategic Management Program. (2) and (3)- (a) Monday, 16 November-Saturday, 21 November 1987-Thredbo. (b) Sunday, 18 October-Tuesday, 20 October 1987-Bateman's Bay. Sunday, 17 January-Tuesday, 19 January 1988-Bowral. (c) Sunday, 29 May-Friday, 3 June 1988-Brighton. (4)- (a) Key strategic issues in the development of Australian industry; management practices; public sector reform. (b) Briefing on World Competitive Marketing-a strategic planning model for manufacturing industry sponsored by National Industry Extension Service (NIES). (c) Business analysis and business strategy formulation for manufacturing industry. (5)- (a) 20 departmental staff, 1 Automotive Industry Authority officer, 2 Australian Customs Service officers, 1 officer from the NSW Department of Industrial Development and Decentralisation, and 26 guest speakers including 10 departmental officers, 8 from other departments/federal agencies/Parliament, 8 from the private sector/unions/university. (b) 30 departmental staff, 4 Austrade, 12 NSW State Government officers. (c) 5 Canberra-based departmental staff, 11 Melbourne-based departmental staff, 1 Automotive Industry Authority officer, 1 Textiles, Clothing &Footwear Development Authority officer. (6)- (a) $25,100. (b) No cost to the Department. (c) $33,800. (7)- (a) Approximate breakdown of costs: accommodation including meals and conference facilities $18,200, transportation for participants and speakers $5300, travelling allowance and incidentals $1500. (c) Accommodation and meals $11,500, transport $1800, consultants $19,500 miscellaneous (hire of equipment, papers) $1500. (Question No. 1144) Mr Wright asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) What Commonwealth financial assistance is given to the States or to State-based quasi autonomous non-government organisations, including the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation, for the promotion and development of the tourist industry. (2) What assistance of the kind referred to in part (1) was given in each year since 1982. (3) Is there any agreement or law to prevent the Commonwealth from giving financial assistance on a regional rather than a State basis. (4) Will the Minister give fresh consideration to the submission forwarded to his predecessor which sought direct funding to the Capricornia Region as a pilot scheme, in view of the urgent need for special assistance to this area which a boost to the tourist industry could achieve. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There is no program in the portfolio for the 1988-89 financial year which provides financial assistance to State or Territory Governments or regional tourism authorities for the promotion or development of the tourism industry. (2) In previous years the amounts paid for programs of the kind listed in Part 1 of the question above are: Steel Regions Assistance program: $10,046,431 paid in the period 1983-84 to 1987-88. Grants to Victoria for the Sesquicentenary of Foundation: $4,900,000 paid from 1983-84 to 1985-86. Grants to South Australia for the Sesquicentenary of Foundation: $1,820,000 paid from 1983-84 to 1985-86. Grants to the Northern Territory for the operation and management at Uluru National Park: $1,250,000 paid from 1982-83 to 1983-84. (3) There is an understanding between the Commonwealth government and the governments of the States and Territories, reached by the Tourist Ministers' Council, that prime responsibility for the development and promotion of specific State or Territory regional tourism facilities and attractions rests with the respective State, Territory and/or local Government bodies. The point of law raised in the question is a matter which should be directed to the Attorney-General. (4) Given the general policy position taken by the Tourist Ministers' Council outlined in Part 3 above, fresh consideration will not be given to direct Commonwealth funding to the Capricornia Region. (Question No. 1170) Mr Sharp asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: What have been the cost of all (a) travel, (b) accommodation, and (c) incidental and other expenses, including the cost of meals and refreshments, paid in respect of each member of the Board of the (i) Australian Institute of Sport and (ii) Australian Sports Commission for each year, or part of a year, that the members have held those offices. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: I am advised that the items in question are charged to broad heads of account and separate records of transactions are not kept. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to ask the Australian Sports Commission/Australian Institute of Sport to spend the considerable time and resources which would be involved in order to seek to identify and draw together the information which the honourable member has requested. (Question No. 1283) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 19 October 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a book published in the USA entitled ``Next Nuclear Gamble'' by M. Resnikoff which concludes that there are safety problems in the present methods of the transportation and storage of nuclear waste. (2) Are the requirements for the design of the casks which will carry the spent fuel from Lucas Heights based on tests conceived in the 1960's; if so, has the Government carried out an independent evaluation of the cask design to ensure safety standards meet with contemporary highway and rail accident conditions. (3) Should the casks transporting nuclear waste be able to withstand a temperature of 1475*F for a period of 30 minutes in the case of fire; if so, should this level be reviewed in light of US requirements that a liquid petroleum gas tanker must withstand a 100 minute fire at 1600*F and the average highway fire burns at between 1850*F and 2400*F. (4) If the trucks carrying spent fuel from Lucas Heights are involved in a fire, within what time must the fire be extinguished to prevent damage to the casks. (5) Will fire stations along the transportation route of the spent fuel be placed on alert; if so, what special instructions will be issued to the fire fighting officers. (6) Has his attention been drawn to reported faults in the pressure relief valves of shipping casks which have led to removal of some casks from service. (7) Has this weakness been taken into consideration in the transportation of spent fuel from Lucas Heights; if not, why not. (8) Will the transportation of spent fuel from Lucas Heights involve holding the casks to the truck-trailer by the tie-down method; if so, is this considered to be an adequate method. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I am aware of the book. It contains many statements and questions recently repeated in the Parliament and in the media. It presents only one view of the transport of nuclear fuel. The book was published in 1983. (2) Tests were first specified in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials in 1964 and have been successively reviewed and revised in 1967, 1973, 1979 and 1985. The ANSTO cask has been designed in accordance with the 1985 edition of the IAEA Regulations which form the basis for the safe transport of virtually all radioactive materials throughout the world. The design of the cask has been reviewed by the relevant Australian competent authority, the Department of Transport and Communications. (3) The IAEA Regulations specify a thermal test equivalent to a package being fully engulfed in a fire of sufficient extent to provide an average emissivity coefficient of at least 0.9 and an average flame temperature of at least 800*C (1472*F) for a period of at least 30 minutes. The specification of the thermal test does not define the characteristics at a particular instant of a worst conceivable fire. Temperatures and heat fluxes can exceed the above figures but, on the basis of exhaustive tests and experience, it has been found that the positioning of a package within a fire; movement with time of the fire source relative to the package; shielding by non-combustible items; wind effects and the massive structure of the package combine so that the average conditions in actual fires do not exceed the above test specification. (4) This would depend on the particular circumstances but would be not less than 30 minutes. (5) No. See answer to part (8) of Question No. 1230. (6) See answer to part (23) of Question No. 1230. (7) There are no pressure relief valves in the ANSTO cask. (8) Yes, and yes. (Question No. 1396) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 November 1988: Has his attention been drawn to concerns expressed about the different retirement age for men compared with women and the views held by some individuals and groups that the retirement age for men should be lowered; if so, what is the Government's response to those views. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The issue of the different retirement ages for men and women was addressed in the Social Security Review Issues Paper No. 6, Towards a National Retirement Incomes Policy. The Government is not considering lowering the age pension eligibility age for men for three major reasons: it would reduce people's opportunity to save for retirement and to accumulate superannuation entitlements. These private provisions for retirement would have to be spread over a longer retirement period; reduction of the age pension eligibility age may provide an incentive for older people in employment to retire, indicate to employers that it is acceptable to compel men to retire at an earlier age and generally lead to a lowering of the usual age of retirement. This would be neither economically desirable nor consistent with the Government's support for the active participation of citizens in the economic and social life of the community; and the cost would be considerable. The estimated cost of lowering the age pension eligibility age for men to 60 in April 1988 was almost $2000m. Population projections indicate that this figure would increase substantially in the future. (Question No. 733) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Defence, 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 Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No. (1) (b) No. (1) (c) Yes, ANOP in 1986-87. (1) (d) See answer to (c) above. (2) An opinion poll of community attitudes to the defence of Australia and the Australian Defence Force. (3) Competitive submissions from selected research companies. (4) $120,000. (Question No. 738) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) Was (a) Mr P. Adams, (b) Mr J. Singleton, (c) Mr R. Cameron or ANOP or (d) any company, organisation, joint venture, partnership or other structure in which these persons have a beneficial interest, employed, engaged or otherwise remunerated or compensated by the Minister's Department or any instrumentality or organisation responsible to the Minister in (i) 1986-87 and (ii) 1987-88. (2) What was the nature of the work undertaken. (3) How was it decided to allocate this work. (4) What was the total cost. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The Australia Council funded a conference in the 1986-87 financial year which engaged Mr Singleton as the keynote speaker. The conference, `Marketing and Media Relations for the Arts', was held at the Sydney Opera House on 17 May 1987. (3) Mr Singleton was chosen as he is a leader in the field of marketing and media relations. (4) Mr Singleton waived his fee on condition that a donation of $500 was made to the Nomad Project of the Wayside Chapel. Therefore the total cost for Mr Singleton's service amounted to $500. Since 1983 Mr P. A. Adams AM has held the position of Chairman of the Australian Film Commission for which he has received remuneration at a rate determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. In addition, I understand that Mr Adams became a non-active member of the Mojo MDA Board of Directors following the merger of these companies in early 1986. Mr Adams left the Board in July 1987. One company in the Mojo MDA group, the Mojo MDA Advertising Agency, handles the Australian Tourist Commission advertising account. (Question No. 1070) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What weekend conferences, including management meetings and team building exercises, and involving overnight accommodation have been conducted out of Canberra for staff of the Minister's Department for the year ending 31 May 1988. (2) When and where were the meetings held. (3) How many days were involved. (4) What was the agenda for each meeting. (5) Who attended each meeting from the Minister's Department and from outside the Minister's Department. (6) What was the total cost to the Minister's Department. (7) What were the itemised costs, including transportation, accommodation, speakers, food and drink costs. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There were 3 weekend conferences involving overnight accommodation conducted out of Canberra by officers of the Department of Defence during the year to 31 May 1988. (2) (a) Hunter Valley Secretary's Conference 25-27 September 1987, Hungerford Hill Convention Centre, Pokolbin, NSW (b) Supply Systems Redevelopment Conference 29-30 November 1987, Boardroom, Arthur Andersen &Co, Sydney NSW (c) Secretary's Senior Management Conference 20-22 May 1988, Thredbo Alpine Hotel, Thredbo, NSW (3) (a) 2 days (b) 2 days inclusive of travelling time (c) 3 days (4) (a) Hunter Valley Secretary's Conference: The way ahead for Defence (b) Supply Systems Redevelopment Conference: Resolution of issues raised by Arthur Andersen &Co (c) Secretary's Senior Management Conference: Financial devolution and its implications for Defence (5) (a) Hunter Valley Secretary's Conference: 16 participants-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Senior Private Secretary, Secretary, Chief of the Defence Force (four-star), Chiefs of Staff and Vice Chief of the Defence Force (4 three-star), Deputy Secretaries and equivalents (5 SES Level 6), Defence Force officers and the civilian head of a Defence Establishment (2 two-star, 1 SES Level 5). (b) Supply Systems Redevelopment Conference: 12 participants from the Department, all with functional responsibility for aspects of the Supply Systems Redevelopment. 1 SES Level 5 1 SES Level 4 1 SES Level 3 3 SES Level 2 1 Defence Force two-star officer 3 Defence Force one-star officer 2 Group Captains (ASO 8 equivalent) 3 non-Departmental participants Arthur Andersen &Co executives (c) Secretary's Senior Management Conference: 66 participants-Minister for Defence Science and Personnel Secretary, 29 SES Level 3 and above from Canberra, 4 SES level 4 from interstate, 20 SES Levels 1 and 2 from Canberra, 2 Regional Secretaries (Level 2), Vice Chief of the Defence Force, 5 One- and Two-star Defence Force officers, Chief Executive Assistant to the Secretary, 2 Coordinators (6) (a) Hunter Valley Secretary's Conference: $5 449.45 (b) Supply Systems Redevelopment Conference: $5 068.00 (c) Secretary's Senior Management Conference: $36 520.00 (7) (a) Hunter Valley Secretary's Conference: Transport Costs: $960.00 (Two Caribou aircraft which were used between Canberra and Cessnock were on routine training missions. As such there was no additional costs to the Commonwealth). Accommodation costs: $2 419.65. Meals and Beverages: $2 069.80 (b) Supply Systems Redevelopment Conference: Transport Costs: $3 240.00. Travelling Allowance: $1 828.00 (Accommodation and meal costs were paid by individual officers from their travelling allowance). (c) Secretary's Senior Management Conference: Transport Costs: Approximately $12 355.00. Accommodation: $10 080.00. Meals and Beverages: $13 454.90. Departmental contribution towards social activities, and incidental expenses: $630.10. (Officers were paid only the incidental rate of travelling allowance. Nineteen officers availed themselves of their annual eligibility to have their spouse accompany them on a visit at public expense). (Question No. 1176) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: How many vacancies were there at (a) 31 December 1987 and (b) 30 June 1988 on the boards and councils of each of the statutory bodies which are responsible to him. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information provided relates only to the arts and territories aspects of the Arts, Sport, Environment, Tourism and Territories portfolio as these are the portfolio areas for which I am responsible. A vacancy has been assumed to occur only if the membership of a particular board or council had fallen below the minimum membership required by statute or where the position of Chairman or Deputy Chairman, specified by statute, was unfilled. Vacancies (a) 31.12.87 (b) 30.6.88 ARTS Australia Council Boards Aboriginal Arts Board ... 3 - Literature Board ... - 1 Performing Arts Board ... - 5 Visual Arts/Craft Board ... - 5 Council of the Australian Film, Television and Radio School... - 1 Council of the National Library of Australia... - 1 Sub-total ... 3 13 TERRITORIES Bodies associated with the ACT Administration Agents Board ... 1 - Apprenticeship Board ... 1 - Architects Board ... 1 5 Building &Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board ... 1 - Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education 1 2 Canberra Institute of Arts ... - 7 Canberra Theatre Trust ... 2 2 Chiropractic Board ... 3 - Fire Brigade Appeal Board.... 3 3 Fire Brigade Promotion Appeal Board ... 2 2 Insurers Advisory Committee ... - 3 Legal Aid Commission ... 3 1 Legal Aid Review Committees 6 - Mental Health Advisory Council ... 3 - Milk Authority ... 2 1 Parole Board ... 1 - Physiotherapy Board ... 1 1 Sub-total ... 31 27 TOTAL ... 34 40 (Question No. 1208) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: What proportion of positions at each of the senior executive service levels of the A.C.T. Administration are occupied by women. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Male Female Total %Female Level 1 ... 25 3 28 11 Level 2 ... 20 4 24 17 Level 3 ... 7 0 7 0 Level 4 ... 5 1 6 17 Level 5 ... 5 0 5 0 Level 6 ... 1 0 1 0 (Question No. 1305) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: (1) What is the operating cost per hour of (a) an F/A-18, (b) a Mirage, (c) a C-130, (d) a Caribou, (e) a P3C, (f) an F-111C, (g) an F-111A, (h) an RF-111C, (i) a B707, (j) a UH-1H, (k) a CH-47, (l) an AS-360, (m) a BAC 1-11, (n) an HS 748, (o) a Mystere 20, (p) a Winjeel, (q) a CT-4A, (r) an MB 326H, (s) a Sea King Mk 50/50A, (t) a Wessex 31B, (u) a Bell 206B-1, (v) a Pilatus Porter, (w) a Nomad, (x) a PC-9, (y) a Sikorsky S70-A-9 and (z) a Sikorsky S70-B-2 aircraft. (2) How many hours did each type fly (a) in each year since 1981-82 and (b) during the period 1 July 1988 to 1 October 1988. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The operating costs per hour for each aircraft type are listed in following table (Attachment A). (2) The details sought on flying hours by aircraft type are classified. OPERATING COSTS (Note 1) Aircraft Hourly cost $ F/A-18 ... 10,475 Mirage ... 6,172 C-130 ... 2,597 Caribou ... 2,449 P3C ... 4,432 F-111 (Note 2) ... 13,234 B707 ... 6,239 UH-1H ... 1,552 CH-47 ... 7,078 AS-350B (Note 3) ... 805 BAC 1-11 ... 2,827 HS 748 ... 1,399 Mystere 20 ... 3,390 Winjeel ... 223 CT-4A ... 386 MB 326H ... 1,505 Sea King ... 3,237 Wessex ... 3,339 Bell 206B-1 ... 516 Pilatus Porter ... 619 Nomad ... 772 PC-9 ... 706 Sikorsky S70-A-9 ... 2,391 Sikorsky S70-B-2 (Note 4) Notes: 1. The above operating costs include elements for petrol, oils and lubricants, spares, contractor and In-house servicing of aircraft and components, and crew costs. 2. Figures for F-111A, F-111C and RF-111C aircraft are amalgamated under one rate. 3. The ``AS-360'' is not operated by the Department of Defence. However, details for the AS-350B (Squirrel) helicopter which is currently in service have been provided. 4. The Department is not currently operating the Sikorsky S70-B-2 and therefore, no data are available. (Question No. 1306) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: (1) What was the total value of Defence offsets contracts entered into in each year since 1981-82. (2) What was the total value of outstanding Defence offsets contracts at the end of each year from 1981-82 to 1987-88. (3) What are the details of current outstanding Defence offsets contracts, including the (a) name of each project, (b) name of each company, (c) percentage still outstanding in each case and (d) period over which the obligation has been outstanding. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member's question refers to ``Defence offsets contracts''. My response assumes that the honourable member is actually referring to: (a) the total value of Defence contracts placed for new capital equipment in each of the years for which the imported content incurred offsets obligations; (b) the value of offsets obligations incurred in each of the years; and (c) the value of offsets obligations for each year which remain outstanding at September 1988. Up to December 1985 Defence contracts with a significant imported content were subject to the rules of the Australian Industry Participation (AIP) program. A number of elements were aggregated to achieve the desired level of AIP. These were: (a) Australian manufacture of portions of the equipment and final assembly and testing at no additional cost but which reduced the value of the imported content; (b) Designated work where the Commonwealth paid a premium to ensure that sufficient technology capability was established in Australia to provide support for the equipment in service; and (c) Offsets, whereby the overseas supplier placed work in Australia at no cost to the Commonwealth, to stimulate the Australian industry technology base. The records up to December 1985 were maintained on an individual project basis using the AIP obligation and achievement, and did not provide a breakdown into each of those elements. In January 1986 the Government announced a significant redirection and strengthening of the Australian Offsets Policy and since that date broader based records have been maintained which separately identify offsets obligations and achievements. In view of the above, the information requested by the honourable member is provided in Table 1 under the following headings: (1) Contract Value (Column 1)-the total value of Defence contracts placed in each year since 1981 which incurred AIP/offsets obligations. (2) AIP/Offsets Obligations (Column 2)-the value of AIP/offsets obligations incurred in relation to Defence contracts placed in each year since 1981. AIP/Offsets Achievement (Column 3)-the AIP/offsets achievement against the obligations as at September 1988. It should be noted that obligations, particularly against major new capital equipment purchases are acquitted over an agreed period related to the type of work and the life of the equipment. This may be several years after completion of the contract. (3) Outstanding AIP/Offsets Obligations (Column 4)-the value of AIP/offsets obligations outstanding at September 1988 for each of the years. The Inglis Committee of Review of Offsets, in 1984, made a recommendation to the Commonwealth that details of individual obligations not be disclosed, except in the case of major delinquencies. The Commonwealth accepted the recommendation and considers such details to be Commercial-in-Confidence. The Department of Defence does, however, make publicly available a document entitled `Australian Defence Offsets Program-List of Overseas Suppliers' which lists companies participating in the program. The document is annually updated and provides an indication of the activities from which obligations were incurred and the overall obligation status of a company against its Defence contracts. If the honourable member would like a copy of the document he may obtain one through my office. Table 1 SUMMARY OF DEFENCE AIP/OFFSETS COVERING THE PERIOD 1981/82 TO 1987/88 Period Contract value (1) AIP/OFFSETS obligation (2) AIP/OFFSETS achievement (Note 2) (3) Out Standing AIP/offsets obligation (4) $m $m $m $m 1981/82 (Note 1) ... 1,787.802 581.676 259.077 324.411 1982/83 (Note 1) ... 130.048 40.130 49.159 7.039 1983/84 (Note 1) ... 121.990 54.633 30.082 19.509 1984/85 (Note 1) ... 107.281 38.665 29.689 17.492 1985/86 (Note 1) ... 854.766 317.602 53.044 262.842 1986/87 ... 1,474.845 221.351 38.511 182.840 1987/88 ... 166.066 32.001 Not yet available 32.001 TOTAL ... 4,642.788 1,286.058 459.562 846.134 * Note: 1. Figures relate to obligations/achievements under the AIP program. 2. In a number of cases achievement exceeds obligation. (Question No. 1310) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: Will he bring up-to-date the information contained in answer to question No. 5192 (Hansard, 6 May 1987, page 2751) concerning ADF exercises. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The following table provides the information on the name, location, purpose and cost of exercises since March 1987. It should be noted that the costs listed are not brought to a common base in dollar terms although the costing method used for each is the same. (2) The table also indicates which exercises were combined with another nation's forces, which nations were involved and which of their units took part. Exercise Location Purpose Cost ($m) Combined Which nations Which units Silent Pearl 88-4 ... Hawaii Practise anti-submarine warfare against a SSN 1.535 Yes US USN (P3 and SSN) Explorer ... Holsworthy Practise divisional command procedures. 1.644 Yes NZ BDE HQ personnel Swift Eagle 88 ... SWBTA Practise ODF Bn Gp deployment and interoperability. 17.341 Yes NZ 2/1 RNZIR Tamex 88-5 ... Tasman Sea Anti-submarine warfare training. 1.938 Yes NZ RNZAF (P3) Jupiter ... WA Practise specialist airborne skills and patrolling techniques. 0.610 Yes US US SAF Unit Matilda 88 ... SWBTA Practise interoperability and broaden cooperation. 3.350 Yes Singapore RSAF INF Coy Lima Bersatu ... Malaysia FPDA units in major air defence exercise. 3.211 Yes MAL/SING/NZ/UK RMAF/RSAF/RNZAF/ RAN/RAF/HQ IADS Valiant Usher 88 ... WAXA US Amphibious exercise-operability. 1.876 Yes US USN/USMC Tasmanex 88 ... Tasman Sea Training in multi-threat maritime environment. 11.133 Yes NZ RNZN/RNZAF Tamex 88-4 ... Tasman Sea Anti-submarine warfare training. 1.983 Yes NZ RNZAF (P3) Ram 88 ... US Tactical air reconnaissance competition. 2.110 Yes US/CA/FRG USAF/USA/USANG/ USN/USMC/CF/FRG Tamax 88-3 ... WAXA Anti-submarine warfare training. 1.932 Yes NZ RNZAF (P3) Night Falcon 88 ... PNG Exercise SAF planning and operations. 2.646 Yes PNG PNGDF Iads Adex 88-5 ... Malaysia FPDA units in a minor air defence exercise. Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAS/RSAF/RNZAF/ HQ IADS Pitch Black 88-1 ... Darwin Improve the air defence expertise within the AS air defence system. 11.741 Yes US USAF/USA/USMC Starfish 88 ... South China Sea Exercise all aspects of maritime and air warfare especially patrol boat operations and ASW. 4.728 Yes MAL/SING/NZ/UK RMN/RSN/RNZN/RN Tropic Prelude 88 ... Townsville Brigade command post exercise. 0.006 Yes US 25 Inf Div Rimpac 88 ... Hawaii Improve coordination and interoperability of joint and combined force. 44.6 Yes US/CA/UK/JAPAN USN/USAF/USA/ USMC/RN/CF/JMSDF Pacific Bond 88 ... Enoggera/Hawaii Exchange-practise interoperability at battalion level and broaden cooperation. 0.829 Yes US 25 Inf Div North Star 88 ... UK Subunit exchange-broaden military experience. 1.110 Yes UK 2 Para BN Wantok Warrior 88 ... PNG Exercise in different terrain and climate and practise interoperability. 0.856 Yes PNG 1 RPIR Tropic Lightening 88 Hawaii Practise interoperability at divisional level and broaden cooperation. 1.017 Yes US 25 INF Div Dig In ... SWBTA Artillery locating exercise. 0.988 Yes NZ RNZA Div Loc TP Tasman Link ... Townshend Island Practise single Service and joint procedures for offensive fire support for land operation. 5.241 Yes NZ RNZA Forward Observer Parties Termite Spray ... Port Augusta Practise logistics over the shore operations. 1.052 Yes NZ NZ Terminal Troop Blue Flyer 88 ... Pukapunyal BFHK Milan firing in AS 0.292 Yes UK 43 Gurkha BDE Silent Pearl 88-1 ... Hawaii Practise anti-submarine warfare against a SSN. 1.746 Yes US USN (P3 and SSN) Iads Adex 88-3 ... Malaysia FPDA units in a major air defence exercise. 4.755 Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAF/RSAF/RNSAF/ HQAIDS Expanded Sea 88 ... Anzio Area Test and evaluate allied Naval Control and Protection of Shipping. 0.449 Yes CA, FR, US, UK, ARGENTINA, CHILE, BRAZIL, PARAGUAY, VENEZUALA, URUGUAY. Tamex 88-1 ... WAXA Anti-submarine warfare training. 2.466 Yes NZ RNZAF (P3) Black Cat 88-1 ... WAXA Anti-submarine warfare training. No Haringaroo I8 ... Malaysia Small scale infantry excercise with Malaysia. 0.413 Yes MAL HQ 1 (MAL) Div Distant Drum ... Singleton Provide training for a US National Guard unit in AS. 0.025 Yes US Ohio Army National Guard Tasman Canopy ... Nowra Parachute training seminar-interoperability. 0.056 Yes NZ NZ Parachute Training Centre Tasman Reserve 88 ... AS/NZ Familiarize Reserve personnel with another army and exercise interoperability. 0.222 Yes NZ 3BN RNZIR IADS ADEX 88-2 ... Malaysia FPDA units in minor air defence exercise. 0.174 Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAF/RSAF/RNZAF/ HQ IADS Dark Horse ... Cooktown Logistic support group tactical exercise without troops. No Tasman Exchange 88... AS/NZ Practise allied interoperability at regimental level and broaden cooperation. 0.770 Yes NZ 16 FD REGT Brolga Country ... Mission Beach Practise brigade command post procedures. No Tasman Ruler 88 ... Williamtown Maritime air defence and maritime strike interoperability. 2.608 Yes NZ RNZAF (A4 and P3) Flying Fish 88-1 ... Tasman Sea Exercise in a maritime multi-threat environment and improve interoperability. 8.805 Yes US USMC El Alamein 88-1 ... Puckapunyal/Sydney Fire power demonstration. No Haringaroo 17 ... Malaysia Small scale infantry exercise with Malaysia. 0.295 Yes MAL 8 (MAL) BDE IADS ADEX 88-1 ... Malaysia FPDA units in minor air defence exercise. 0.174 Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAF/RSAF/RNZAF/ HQ IADS Tamex 87-5 ... Tasman Sea Anti-submarine warfare training. 2.361 Yes NZ RNZAF (P3) Kangaroo 87 ... Sydney Command Post exercise. No Willoh 87-4 ... NZ Fighter exchange-interoperability. 1.635 Yes NZ RNZAF (A4) Haringaroo 16 ... Malaysia Small scale infantry exercise with Malaysia. 0.218 Yes MAL 1 (MAL) INF BDE Caltrop Tyro ... US ABCA armies command post exercise-interoperability. 1.115 Yes US/UK/CA IADS ADEX 87-6 ... Malaysia FPDA units in minor air defence exercise. 0.174 Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAF/RSAF/RNZAF/ HQ IADS Tasman Ruler 87 ... Williamtown Air defence exercise. 2.504 Yes NZ RNZAF (A4) Nevada Recce ... US Tactical air reconnaissance competition. 1.316 Yes US/CA/UK USAF/CF/RAF Diamond Dollar 87 ... Cooktown Brigade exercise in low level operations in North of AS. 31.159 Yes US USA Bn and Blackhawk Coy. Fincastle Trophy 87 ... Canada Anti-submarine warfare competition for aircrews. 1.650 Yes CA/UK/NZ CF, RAF, RNZAF Cope Thunder 88-1 ... Philippines Provide air defence and strike training for RAAF. 7.307 Yes US/PHIL USAF (TACAIR) AFP (TACAIR) Far Canopy ... Cape York Airborne exercise. No Silent Pearl 87-4 ... Hawaii Practise anti-submarine warfare against a SSN. 1.719 Yes US USN (P3 and SSN) IADS ADEX 87-5 ... Malaysia FPDA units in major air defence exercise. 1.066 Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAF/RSAF/RNZAF/ HQ IADS Phoenix 87 ... NZ Special Forces exercise. 0.413 Yes NZ NZSAF Valiant Usher 87-3 ... West Coast AS Amphibious landing exercise. 11.485 Yes US USN and USMC (13 MAU) Silent Pearl 87-3 Hawaii Practise anti-submarine warfare against SSN. 1.719 Yes US US (P3 and SSN) El Alamein 87-2 ... Puckapunyal/Sydney Fire power demonstration. No Temple Jade 87 ... Enoggera Provide training in AS for Royal Thai Army. 2.866 Yes Thailand RTA company group Swift Eagle 87 ... Townsville ODF exercise-practise interoperability. 12.260 Yes NZ NZ Sub-unit of RRF Night Falcon 87-1 ... PNG Exercise Special Action Forces in an overseas setting and to improve interoperability. 2.575 Yes PNG PNGDF Land and Maritime Elements Willow 87-1 ... Williamtown Fighter exchange-interoperability. Yes NZ RNZAF (A4) Reindeer 87 ... Hong Kong Broaden interoperability and enhance military experience. 0.980 Yes UK 10 GR Tamex 87-3 ... Tasman Sea Anti-submarine warfare training. 1.546 Yes NZ RNZAF (P3) Jupiter 87 ... Yampi Practise special warfare techniques and exercise interoperability. 0.900 Yes NZ NZ SAS Tasman Link ... Townshend Island Practise offensive fire support for land operations. 4.168 Yes NZ RNZAF (A4) and RNZA (FO parties) Starfish 87 ... South China Sea FPDA units in a maritime exercise. 3.359 Yes NZ/MAL/SING RNZN/RNZAF/RMN/ RSN Oily Rag ... Learmonth Practise special warfare techniques in a maritime environment. 0.755 Yes US US SEAL Termite Spray ... Jervis Bay Practice Logistic over the shore operations. 2.122 No Tropic Lighting 87 ... Hawaii Broaden military experience and enhance interoperability. 1.131 Yes US 25 INF DIV Silent Pearl 87-2 ... Hawaii Practise anti-submarine warfare against a SSN. 1.710 Yes US USN (P3 and SSN) Pitch Black 87-1 ... Darwin Improve air defence expertise in the Australian Air Defence System. 8.324 Yes US USAF (TACAIR) North Star 87 ... AS/UK Broaden military experience. 0.794 Yes UK 7 RHA Tropic Prelude 87 ... Holsworthy Exercise interoperability and improve command post procedures. 0.003 Yes US 25 INF DIV IADS ADEX 87-4 ... Malaysia FPDA units in a minor air defence exercise. 0.198 Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAF/RSAF/RNZAF/ HQ IAD Cope Thunder 87-6 ... Philippines Provide air defence and strike training for RAAF. 5.566 Yes US/PHIL USAF (TACAIR) AFP (TACAIR) Overlord ... Enoggera Practise divisional command post procedures. No IADS ADEX 87-3 ... Malaysia FPDA units in a major air defence exercise. 5.074 Yes MAL/SING/NZ RMAF/RSAF/RNZAF/ HQ IADS Silent Pearl 87-1 ... Hawaii Practise anti-submarine warfare against a SSN. 1.710 Yes US USN (P3 and SSN) Pacific Bond 87 ... AS/Hawaii Broaden interoperability and enhance military experience. 0.829 Yes US 25 INF DIV (Question No. 1321) Mr Mildren asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: (1) Since March 1983, which national parks have been gazetted by the Government. (2) What areas are currently under examination for granting national park status. Mr Holding —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Since March 1983 five new national parks have been declared. They are Kakadu (Stage 2) National Park gazetted on 28 February 1984, Namadgi National Park gazetted on 3 October 1984, Christmas Island (Stage 2) and Christmas Island (Stage 3) National Parks and Norfolk Island National Park, gazetted on 31 January 1986. Seven small enclaves within Uluru (Ayers Rock=nMount Olga) National park were incorporated in that park on 28 October 1985. Kakadu (Stage 2) National Park was incorporated in Kakadu National Park on 20 December 1985 and another large area, often referred to as Kakadu Stage 3, was added to the park on 12 June 1987. In addition to national parks some six other reserves or protected areas have been declared by the Government since March 1983. They are the Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve, gazetted on 16 August 1983, Jervis Bay Nature Reserve (Bowen Island) and Lanyon Landscape Conservation Reserve, both gazetted on 18 December 1985, Norfolk Island Botanic Garden, gazetted on 31 January 1986, Ningaloo Marine Park (Commonwealth Waters) gazetted on 20 May 1987 and Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs Marine National Nature Reserve gazetted on 23 December 1987. (2) With respect to areas currently under examination for granting of national park status a significant extension to Christmas Island National Park and addition of some adjacent areas to Namadgi National Park are being investigated. In addition to extensions to the above national parks incorporation of an area within Ningaloo Marine Park is being considered as is the proclamation, as marine parks, of part of the Great Australian Bight and Commonwealth waters in the Rowley Shoals area. Within the Australian Capital Territory areas being considered for reservation for nature conservation purposes are four sites within the Murrumbidgee River Corridor, the Jerrabomberra Wetlands, Black Mountain, Ainslie-Majura, Red Hill, Mount Taylor, Rob Roy and the Molonglo Gorge. (Question No. 1328) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 November 1988: (1) How long has the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project (SSRP) been in existence? (2) How many civilian and military personnel have been employed on the project since its inception? (3) What is the (a) total cost of SSRP to date and (b) breakdown of project costs in each financial year since inception? (4) Was a detailed study conducted into the Canadian Forces Supply System project which commenced in 1982 to evaluate the inherent problems associated with attempting to establish a unified services' supply system; if so, (a) was a report, or were reports, compiled in respect of that study, (b) was the report, or reports, submitted to him or his predecessor and (c) what were the conclusions of the report or reports? (5) When will SSRP be fully operational? (6) What is the estimated outstanding expenditure for the SSRP until its operational implementation? Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government approved commencement of preliminary definition studies for SSRP in the context of the 1983/84 Budget. The project office to manage the project was formerly established in August 1984. Background studies for the project commenced in 1980. (2) Since the project was formally established the manpower employed on the project has been: 1984-85: Civilian 31 manyears, Service 34 manyears. 1985-86: Civilian 46 manyears, Service 34 manyears. 1986-87: Civilian 60 manyears, Service 31 manyears. 1987-88: Civilian 65 manyears, Service 28 manyears. TOTAL: Civilian 202 manyears, Service 127 manyears. (3) The total cost of SSRP to the 30 June 1988 is $34.4m. Financial year breakdown is as follows: Year Capital Operating expenses Consultants Staff Total $m $m $m $m $m 1984-85 ... 0.5 0.3 4.2 5.0 1985-86 ... 6.2 0.2 0.1 5.2 11.7 1986-87 ... 1.8 0.2 0.1 5.9 8.0 1987-88 ... 1.9 0.8 0.9 6.1 9.7 TOTAL ... 10.4 1.5 1.1 21.4 34.4 (4) While there has been mutual interchange of information between the Canadian Defence Force Supply Systems Project (CFSS) and SSRP, there has been no identified need to conduct detailed studies into the CFSS project. The primary reason for this is that the CFSS project, which commenced in March 1981, was concerned more with replacing outdated hardware, which had reached processing capacity and software maintenance limits, rather than the `establishment of a unified Services' supply system'. At that time the Australian Department of Defence was in the final stages of commissioning new software and replacement UNIVAC hardware to overcome similar capacity problems which had been experienced by the Department in the mid to late seventies. Subsequent CFSS upgrade activity was aimed at enhancing an existing `unified' system through the introduction of modern software techniques while the SSR project was involved in creating a `common' system from three separate systems. The use of modern software techniques was the primary common factor among the two processes. (5) The SSRP will be fully operational by December 1997. However, system implementation will be progressive, with fully operational segments being commissioned according to the following planned schedules: JUNE 1990-Automation of Army ``Q'' Stores JUNE 1992-Automation of Navy shipboard supply system DECEMBER 1992-Automation of the Services Executive Procurement Systems JUNE 1995-Replacement of the Defence Cataloguing System JUNE 1996-Replacement of the Services Depot and Base Supply Systems DECEMBER 1997-Automation of the remaining Executive Supply functions. (6) The estimated outstanding development and recurring expenditures on the period to 1997-98 (including recurring operation expenses for those elements implemented prior to this) are: $m (a) Capital Costs...154.1 (b) Operating Expenses...93.1 (c) Consultants...53.2 (d) Manpower...41.6 TOTAL...342.0 Note: All foregoing costs do not include cost of the Services staff which are co-located with the project to represent the interests of the users. To date, these have totalled 170 man years of effort at a cost of $8.0m. It is estimated that future costs will total $10.7m. (Question No. 1333) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) How many M113 APCs were (a) in service, (b) in store, (c) unserviceable or (d) repairable, as at each year since 1980. (2) How many of those APCs will be upgraded under current plans in (a) 1988-89 and (b) each of the next four financial years. (3) What is the estimated cost of the total upgrade program for the APCs. (4) When will the upgrade program be completed. (5) How many of the upgraded APCs will be held in stock and how many will be on issue. (6) Which units will receive the APCs intended for issue and in what quantities will they receive them. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Public release of the specific information requested is not considered to be in the national interest. (2) to (6) I can indicate that the Army presently has 565 M113 APCs in service and has proposed to upgrade 362 of these vehicles. At this stage it is not possible to comment on the cost of timing of the upgrade as it has yet to receive Government approval. (Question No. 1335) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) Did he say, in response to recommendation 26 of the report entitled `The Management of Australia's Defence' by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, that the Government will not consider further review of his Department's Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) until after adaptation of the system to a program budgeting format has been successfully completed. (2) Is the (a) apparently distinctive component structure of sub-program 1.3 in comparison to sub-programs 1.2 and 1.4, (b) apparent ability of component 1.2.1 to operate without any expenditures authorised under Division 234 and (c) difference, in regard to attribution of expenditure to Division 234, between component 1.2.1 and components 1.3.1 and 1.4.1, satisfactory. (3) Is the change to program budgeting successfully completed when detail in respect of Division 234 sub-items 02 to 07 in the 1987-89 documents is no longer indicated in the Budget Papers or the Explanatory Notes; if not, when will his Department achieve a successful transition to program budgeting, and will he instruct his Department that a requirement of the program format is the provision of documents to Senators and Members with at least as much detail as was available in the 1987-88 Explanatory Notes at the sub-item and dissection or category level of expenditure divisions. (4) At what date after the expected achievement of a satisfactory program budgeting format will he call for a review of the efficiency, complexity and cost-effectiveness of his Department's PPBS. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) Yes. As outlined in the overview at Appendix 1 to the Defence Portfolio Explanatory Notes for 1988-89 (Budget Related Paper No. 8.5), Defence has adopted a program structure which has close regard to the Departmental and ADF organisations and functions which contribute to or participate in the development of defence capabilities and objectives. Consistent with this approach the Army, Navy and Air Force subprogram structures are based on their major commands and head office elements. This approach is consistent with the orientation of Program Management and Budgeting to the day-to-day management within Defence. The Army structure differs in that it has separate Commands for logistics and training which are reflected in its component structure. The equivalent functions in Navy and Air Force are embraced by their Support components. (2) (b) (c) Yes, in the initial stage of development it was not possible to attribute Appropriation Division 234 to the Navy Combat Force. Much of that expenditure is for stores eg fuel, ammunition and spares procured on a global basis by the Navy Support Command and is correctly attributed to the Navy Support component. When information sources are improved, those Division 234 expenditures incurred on a local basis by the Navy Combat Force will be appropriately attributed. As stated in Appendix 1 to the Defence Portfolio Explanatory Notes for 1988-89, Defence aims to refine and improve its program attributions including those for the Navy Combat Force. (3) No, the completion of the transition to program budgeting is not marked by a change in treatment of Division 234. Some elements of program budgeting and associated systems will not be in place until the 1989-90 Budget and others may take even longer. The latter part of the question refers to the process of consolidation of appropriations which has been under way across the Service for a number of years. While not a prerequisite for, it is consistent with the `managing for results' approach being fostered by the Government through measures such as the adoption of Program Management and Budgeting. The consolidation of appropriation items is seen as enhancing the capacity of managers to manage their funds efficiently, and as helping to shift the focus of scrutiny from a detailed examination of inputs towards a consideration of the relationship between the resources south and the expected program outputs and outcomes. Such a shift is consistent with views expressed by both the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure and the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. As indicated in my reply to Question on notice number 1334, the matter of the provision of more detailed information under Division 234 will be re-examined in the context of the overall effort required to meet other Budget-related information needs. (4) In view of the initiatives now being undertaken, or planned, in connection with the Defence resource and financial management system, it is not possible, now, to put a precise time for, or scope of any further review. (Question No. 1354) Mr Taylor asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) Did NZ authorities visit Australia during the week commencing 31 October 1988 in relation to the Anzac Ship Project; if so, was this a routine project visit or are there serious doubts about New Zealand's commitment to the project. (2) If the New Zealand commitment is questionable (a) can he provide assurances that the project is viable for Australia on a unilateral basis and (b) is he satisfied that the present budgetary cost cap per ship will be sufficient to provide 8 operational platforms for the RAN that will satisfy fully the naval force structure requirements set out in the Dibb Report and in the subsequent Defence white paper. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) New Zealand authorities visited Australia during the week commencing 31 October 1988 for routine project discussions. (2) New Zealand has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Australia for collaboration in the acquisition of the ANZAC ships. New Zealand had reserved the right in the MOU to withdraw from the collaborative arrangements either at design selection or after the evaluation of the tenders. New Zealand opted to continue after the design selection. The evaluation of the tenders will be completed in the second quarter of 1989. New Zealand's continued participation in the collaborative arrangements is a matter for the New Zealand Government. It is considered that the project is viable for Australia on a unilateral basis. The budgetary cost cap per ship set in the Request for Tender should be sufficient to provide 8 ships within the indicative total project cost which would meet the requirements of the Government's Defence White Paper. (Question No. 1413) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 December 1988: (1) Who are the part-time members of (a) Aerospace Technologies of Aust. Pty Ltd and (b) the Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management. (2) How many meetings of each organisation were held in 1987-88. (3) How many meetings were attended by each part-time member. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988 the following persons served as part-time members for the periods shown: (a) Sir Brian Inglis-full period. Mr K. Harris-1 July 1987 to 14 October 1987 and 24 February 1988 to 30 June 1988. Mr L. Woodward-full period. Mr L. Masel-full period. Mr S. Gibbs-full period. Mr J. Leslie-1 July 1987 to 1 April 1988. Dr M. McIntosh-29 October 1987 to 24 February 1988. (b) Mr B. P. Bradbury-full period. Major General P. R. Phillips-full period. Major General J. N. Stein-1 January 1988 to 30 June 1988. Major General D. C. J. Deighton-1 July 1987 to 14 November 1987. Air Vice Marshal J. A. Paule-full period. Air Vice Marshal A. R. Reed-full period. Mr R. B. Finnegan-13 October 1987 to 30 June 1988. M P. Fogarty-1 July 1987 to 7 October 1987. Mr D. A. Oldfield-full period. (2) Aerospace Technologies of Aust. Pty Ltd-13. Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management-4. (3) Aerospace Technologies of Aust. Pty Ltd: Sir Brian Inglis 13. Mr Harris 8. Mr Woodward 12. Mr Masel 11. Mr Gibbs 12. Mr Leslie 6. Dr McIntosh 4. Army and Air Force Canteen Service Board of Management: Mr Bradbury 4. Major General Phillips 4. Major General Deighton 2. Major General Stein 2. Air Vice Marshal Paule 4. Air Vice Marshal Reed 3*. Mr Fogarty 1. Mr Finnegan 3. Mr Oldfield 3. * Air Commodore J. P. Trinder deputised for Air Vice Marshal Reed for the other meeting. (Question No. 1218) Mr Tim Fischer asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 September 1988: (1) Between 1962 and 1973, from what locations did Australian (a) troops and their equipment and (b) naval ships loaded with troops and their equipment embark for Vietnam. (2) did both the above travel through the now known transit period; if so, why is there a difference in the period of allotment given to the 2 groups. (3) Was there at the time any difference in the risk and danger faced by those being carried through the transit area to those transporting them; if so, what was that difference. (4) Were the personnel involved in the transportation told that they would not be allotted for special duty in a special area prior to commencement of voyage; if so, was this because of financial considerations. (5) Were the civilian crews of the Jeparit and Boonaroo paid danger money for their voyages to Vietnam; if so, why was the danger faced deemed to be different for naval transport crews. (6) Why has the HMAS Sydney and the Vietnam Logistic Support Veterans Association been denied access to an important document relating to the conditions of issue of the South Vietnamese Campaign Medal, namely, the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Order No. 48, dated 24 March 1966. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Australian troops and their equipment embarked for Vietnam from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Townsville. (b) Naval ships loaded with troops and their equipment departed from Sydney, Brisbane, Fremantle, Port Adelaide and Townsville. (2) Yes, both troops and their equipment, and naval ships loaded with these troops and equipment, travelled through the transit period. The background to the difference in the period of allotment given to the two groups is as follows: In 1965 the Government directed the formation of an Inter-departmental Committee to examine the principles on which eligibility for benefits under the Act should be determined. The Committee recommended that allotment for special duty should only be made when personnel were exposed to potential risk provided by a continuing danger from activities of hostile forces. In making this recommendation, the Committee considered that the responsibility for allotment should remain with the Services, under appropriate direction from the Government as to the ingredients to be present in respect of the danger. The Government of the day endorsed this recommendation and following on from this decision, the Secretary, Department of Defence stated in part: ``In the terms of this direction, personnel on temporary duty in `special areas', such as staff visits or other occurrences of a short term nature, are not eligible for allotment for `special service'. The complements of ships or aircraft engaged in conveying or escorting personnel to or from `special areas' are not eligible for allotment.'' Personnel in units such as HMAS Sydney, HMAS Boonaroo and MS Jeparit which were engaged in the transport of troops and supplies to Vietnam did not gain allotment for special duty. The presence of these ships in Vietnamese waters was of a temporary nature only, and their service was not considered by Cabinet to warrant the granting of operational benefits. A similar view was taken of other temporary duty visits such as staff visits or ships in transit through Vietnamese waters. On the other hand, the crews of warships which served on the gunline off the coast were allocated for special duty as the ships were sent to Vietnam for operational duties. On 22 May 1986 I stated the Government's decision that all regular service personnel who participated in Australia's involvement in the Vietnam conflict were to be entitled to repatriation benefits and Defence Service Home Loans. The Government has essentially removed the distinctions in benefits that previously existed and which depended on the length of service in Vietnam. (3) It is considered that there was no difference in the risk or danger faced by those being carried through the transit area to those transporting them. (4) No records exist to confirm or deny that personnel were informed that they would not be allotted for special duty in a special area prior to commencement of a voyage. However, members of HMAS Sydney's crew who are still serving, report that they were aware that their Commanding Officer was making application to the Fleet Commander for a certain number of voyages to count towards the South Vietnamese Campaign medal. In the case of Army, a former Officer Commanding 32 Small Ships Squadron has indicated that ships' crew (Army) were aware of the special provisions before departure for Vietnam. (5) Conditions of employment for civilian crews of Jeparit and Boonaroo are not known and this information will have to be drawn from the Australian National Line (ANL). (6) A copy of Republic of Vietnam Ministry of Defence Order No. 48 dated 24 March 1966 was forwarded to the Secretary of the South Australian Branch of the HMAS Sydney and Vietnam Logistical Support Veterans' Association on 30 August 1988. (Question No. 1304) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: How many (a) Harpoon missiles launchers and (b) Harpoon missiles are currently in stock. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Harpoon missiles can be launched from four FFG Frigates, six Oberon Class submarines, twenty P3C Orion and eighteen F111 aircraft. The fifty six F/A18 aircraft now in service with the Royal Australian Air Force are capable of launching Harpoon within a limited manoeuvre envelope. However, it is expected that by 1992 all seventy four F/A18 aircraft will have an enhanced capability for Harpoon delivery. (2) The information, which the honourable member seeks about the number of Harpoon missiles in stock, is classified and, therefore, cannot be released. (Question No. 1311) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: Will he bring up-to-date the information contained in answer to question No. 1466 (Senate Hansard, 23 February 1982, page 373) concerning ADF equipment. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In the reply by Senator Durack to the original question from Senator Mason in 1981, the point was made that a full and detailed reply would disclose defence information prejudicial to national security. That is still the case today. Most of the information provided by Senator Durack is still relevant, and as it is a matter of record in Hansard I will present only those changes which have occurred to that information. The changes are: (a) 5.56mm Weapon System. A new weapon system consisting of individual weapons and a light machine gun is being produced under licence in Australia and will be introduced into service in 1989. It is expected to be fully introduced by 1994 and this new system will replace many of the weapons which were identified in the original question by Senator Mason, namely: (i) the 7.62mm rifle L1A1 (ii) the 5.56mm rifle M16 (iii) the 9mm sub machine gun F1 (iv) the 7.62mm heavy barrelled rifle Fn L2A1 (v) the 7.62mm light machine gun L4A4 (vi) some of the 9mm pistol Browning L9A1, and (vii) some of the 7.62mm sustained fire machine gun M60. (b) 7.62mm General Service Machine Guns. The Belgian MAG 58 machine gun was purchased and introduced in 1986 to replace the 7.62mm M60 machine gun in the General Support Machine Gun role. (c) HAMEL 105mm gun. A 105mm howitzer is under local production and is entering service in 1988. This gun will replace both of the 105mm guns which are nominated in the original question, that is the 105mm M101 Field howitzer and the 105mm Pack howitzer. (d) The M198 gun of 155mm calibre has been procured from the US and entered service in 1985, replacing the 5.5 inch gun. (e) Both a Very Low Level Air Defence System and a Medium Range Anti-Armour Weapon System have been purchased overseas and introduced into service in 1987 and 1984 respectively. Senator Durack advised that it was policy to manufacture in Australia as much of the ammunition requirements as possible. That is still the policy aim, however for a number of reasons the ammunition for some of these new weapons is procured overseas.' (Question No. 1402) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 November 1988: (1) How many valuers are employed by his Department to value properties for asset test purposes in (a) city and (b) country areas in order to determine pension entitlements. (2) What is the average number of valuations being made each week in (a) city and (b) country areas. (3) What is the average delay between an application for a valuation being made and the actual valuation being carried out in (a) city and (b) country areas. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security does not employ valuers. Property valuations are given by the Australian Valuation Office (AVO). (2) The AVO has advised that this information is not available but 33,400 valuations were completed in 1987-88. Approximately 21,600 comprised property reviews; these were completed between November 1987 and May 1988. The balance comprised new claims and these were spread throughout the year. (3) Valuation estimates for review purposes begin in November and are completed in May to enable reassessment of entitlement in June. The AVO has advised that while the average time taken is not available, the program has always been completed on schedule. With regard to new pension claims, valuations are generally turned around within 4 weeks for both city and country areas. (Question No. 1425) Mr Cobb asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 November 1988: What changes have been made to social security benefits to former prisoners since March 1983. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: For many years my department has provided an immediate payment of one week's special benefit to former prisoners on their release. After considering the special needs of released prisoners the Government has decided to improve the assistance for this group of clients. From 1 January 1989 the one weekly payment will be doubled and paid during the first week of a prisoner's release. Additionally, from 12 June 1989 the 26 week waiting period for rent assistance that applies to some beneficiaries will be reduced by the length of time they have spent in prison. By increasing the level of immediate assistance to released prisoners, the Government is providing help at the time when they are attempting to re-establish themselves in the community. The assistance is aimed at reducing recidivism. My department is liaising with State Corrective Services authorities to see that adequate information about social security requirements is available to prisoners on release, including on such matters as providing Proof of Identity. (Question No. 1431) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 December 1988: (1) Which countries currently pay a proportion of pension to migrants who have settled in Australia. (2) What is the total sum of pension money paid each year by other countries to Australian residents. (3) Are there any negotiations taking place with other countries for similar agreements; if so, with which countries are negotiations taking place. (4) Are there any plans to commence negotiations for similar participation with other countries; if so, with which countries. (5) What sum each year is paid in the form of pensions to expatriate Australians living in other countries? Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Many countries pay pro-rata (proportional) pensions to people in Australia. They include: Austria, Canada, Cyprus, Germany, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, United States. (2) The amounts paid into Australia by the countries listed presently totals $366m annually. (3) Many countries pay pensions into Australia under their domestic law. As well, pro-rata pensions can be paid under agreements. Currently Australia has reciprocal agreements on social security with the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Italy. An agreement with Canada has been signed and is expected to start operating in 1989. An agreement with Spain is expected to be signed in 1989. Discussions are well advanced with Malta, Portugal and the Federal Republic of Germany. (4) Preliminary talks have been held with Austria, Greece, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden and Turkey have expressed interest in agreements. (5) As at 30 June 1988 Australia was paying a total of $134.2m in pension payments overseas. (Question No. 582) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 10 December 1987: (1) In which countries does Australia have Defence Attaches? (2) From which countries has Australia recalled its Defence Attaches since March 1983? (3) In which countries has Australia appointed Defence Attaches since March 1983? Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Australian Defence Attaches or Defence Advisers are currently located in the United States, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua and New Guinea and the Republic of Korea. (2) Since March 1983, Defence Attache or Adviser positions have been withdrawn from India, Pakistan, the Federal Republic of Germany and France. (3) The position of Defence Adviser to the South Pacific region, located in Fiji, was established from May 1984. (Question No. 655) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 24 February 1988: (1) Does the Government support the thrust of the Antarctic Minerals Regime negotiations to establish a regime to control, by regulation, any future mineral exploration and development in Antarctica? (2) Will the Government consider alternatives to the Minerals Regime, including the provision of a (a) World Park and (b) UN mandate? Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Australia has supported and participated in negotiations aimed at establishing an Antarctic Minerals Convention within the framework of the Antarctic Treaty system. The aim of the negotiations was not to encourage minerals activity in Antarctica, but to ensure that, if exploitation of Antarctic minerals should ever be feasible, effective mechanisms would be in place to protect the environment and to prevent disputes and political discord. The negotiations took place on the basis that Antarctica would remain closed to minerals exploitation unless a specific decision were taken to open it. The Government has not yet made a decision on signing the Convention that has emerged from these negotiations. There are different views within the Australian community on its merits and demerits. With that in mind, the text of the Convention was tabled on 22 November to facilitate public discussion before a Government decision on signature is made. (2) (a) Consideration of the feasibility of the World Park concept should not be inhibited by the recent conclusion of a Minerals Convention, which has as a major objective the preservation of the Antarctic environment. At this stage however, the Government judges that the obvious interest of some countries in the minerals potential of Antarctica would prevent the necessary consensus agreement by Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties. An attempt by New Zealand to gain support for such a proposal from fellow Treaty Members in the mid-1970s was not successful. It is unlikely that there will be any significant minerals activity in Antarctica for many years. (b) We see no need for or benefit in any UN mandate to administer Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty system, which is based on the principles of the United Nations charter, has for thirty years provided an outstanding example of international co-operation in environmental protection and scientific research as well as ensuring that the continent has remained free of military weapons, nuclear explosions, and political contention. Governments representing more than three-quarters of the world's population are now parties to the Treaty. Accession is open to all countries prepared to accept the obligations of the Treaty. Moreover, the Treaty system has shown itself capable of evolving and adapting to meet changing circumstances. (Question No. 942) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) Is he able to say what is the current situation with regard to Belau and the Compact of Association with the US. (2) Is he able to say whether the compact provides that (a) Belau must accept any military forces invited by the US with no provision to determine their nuclear status, (b) Belau must consult with the US on foreign policy while being subject to any US defence treaty or security agreement and must refrain from any action which the US determines is incompatible with the US responsibility for security, (c) in addition to land specifically referred to in the Compact, Belau must, on 60 days notice, make available to the US any land the US chooses and Belau must compensate the owners, (d) Belauan courts have no jurisdiction over US military personnel in most circumstances, (e) the US agrees to apply the standard of US Environmental laws to its activities in Belau, except that the US President may exempt any US military and security activities from any environmental standard, (f) Belau relinquishes its rights under the law of the sea when they conflict with the provisions of the Compact, (g) Belau must obtain US approval for the manner in which it spends all sums granted under the Compact, (h) the actual sum of aid over the 50 years of the Compact is approximately $US307m and not $US1 billion, (i) the $1 billion aid package proclaimed by Compact supporters includes a minimum of $US585m anticipated income over 50 years from enforced Belauan investment of $US60m grant money and (j) the Compact may be terminated unilaterally by either the US or Belau after 6 months notice, but Belau may do so only after a plebiscite and that, in either case, all of the defence-related clauses stay in effect after such termination. (3) Is he able to say whether the US Department of the Interior, which is responsible for administering the US Territory of the Pacific Islands, does not have a representative based permanently in Belau. (4) Has his attention been drawn to a statement made by Judge R. Hefner on the 9 September 1987 on the dismissal signed by plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of the referenda held on 4 and 21 August 1987 that the dismissal may have been brought about by intimidation through the use of violence. (5) In view of the violence and intimidation against anti-Compact campaigners and the murder of Mr B. Bedor, will the Government request that the US, as trustee of Belau, act to ensure that the democratic rights of the Belauan people are upheld; if not, why not. (6) Will the Government insist, through the UN that the termination of the US strategic trusteeship of Belau be considered by the UN Security Council; if not, why not. (7) Has the Government of Belau appealed to the Government for assistance; if so, what was the nature of the request and was the request met. (8) In view of the poor credit ratings for loans and development aid of the Belauan Government and current economic crisis facing the country, is he able to say whether the United States has violated Article 76 (b) of the Charter of the UN by failing to achieve a viable, independent economy. (9) Is he able to say whether, prior to the Belauan Government entering an agreement with the British firm IPSECO, Belau's electric power was obtained by 3 diesel generators loaned by the US Department of Defence. (10) Is he able to say whether the US Department of Defence ordered that these generators be pulled out of Belau, forcing the Belauan Government into a position where it was forced to sign a preliminary agreement with IPSECO. (11) Is he able to say whether the US Department of Interior warned that the project would present difficulties for the Belauan economy. (12) Is he able to say whether US Ambassador Mr F. Zeder, who was in charge of negotiating the Compact of Free Association, gave British banks an assurance that the Belauan Government could repay the $30m loan despite the warning from the Department of the Interior. (13) Is he concerned at allegations that the US Department of State conspired to bankrupt Belau through the IPSECO contract to press the Belauan Government to agree to the Compact of Association. (14) Have the nuclear provisions in the Compact of Free Association been discussed in South Pacific forums; if so, when did the discussions take place and what was the nature of the discussions. (15) Is the Government concerned about the impact of the Compact of Free Association on its efforts towards establishing a nuclear-free Pacific. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Compact of Free Association between Palau and the United States of America has not been approved by Palau. The Australian Government considers that a decision on the Compact is a matter solely for the Government and people of Palau. (2) The Compact Agreement is a publicly available document and the relevant provisions can be examined in the copy of the Compact held by the Parliamentary Library. (3) The U.S. Department of the Interior does not have an officer based permanently in Palau. The department does maintain representatives on a rotating basis with a scheduled overlap during changeovers. The U.S. State Department has a status liaison officer based permanently in Palau. (4) Yes. (5) The Australian Government expressed regret about the acts of violence which took place in Palau around September 1987. The Government considered it was a matter for the appropriate Palau authorities to maintain the necessary law and order. (6) Article 79 of the United Nations Charter provides that amendments, and, by implication, termination of a strategic trusteeship agreement should be approved by the Security Council. There is no reason to expect that this procedure will not be followed by the parties concerned at the appropriate time. (7) No. (8) No, but I note that small island states commonly suffer the effects of paucity of natural resources which, even with large-scale external assistance, restrict prospects for self-sustaining economic development. (9) Three diesel generators on loan from the U.S. Department of Defence supplied a portion of Palau's electric power. There was also a trailer-based portable system for power generation provided by IPSECO. (10) The U.S. Department of Defence advised the Palau Government after the loan period had expired that it required the return of the diesel generators. (11-13) The IPSECO power plant purchase was a matter essentially falling within the purview of the Government of Palau. I understand that the U.S. had severe doubts as to the wisdom of Palau proceeding with the IPSECO purchase and communicated these doubts to the Palau Government. The U.S. nevertheless advised the U.K. Government that the U.S. supported conceptually the acquisition of a reliable power system by Palau although also indicating clearly that the U.S. was not in any way able to stand as guarantor for the IPSECO loan. The U.S. Government also advised the U.K. Government that, from the U.S. perspective, there was nothing in the proposed Compact of Free Association with Palau that would bar the use of Compact funds to repay the IPSECO loan. This advice was provided when Ambassador Zeder was the U.S. Ambassador for Micronesian Status Negotiations. (14) No. (15) The Australian Government's efforts to support limits on nuclear weapons and their ultimate elimination (including as provided for under the Treaty of Rarotonga) would not be impeded by the Compact of Free Association between Palau and the United States. The U.S. has agreed under the Compact not to use, test, store or dispose of harmful substances, including nuclear weapons and waste, in Palau. Palau has assured the U.S. that in carrying out its responsibilities under the Compact the U.S. has the right to operate nuclear-capable or nuclear propelled vessels and aircraft under the NCND doctrine. Article V of the Treaty of Rarotonga allows individual countries to retain their sovereign right to decide whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft. As Palau is not a member of the South Pacific Forum, it would not fall within the zone of the Treaty of Rarotonga. The Treaty is open for signature only by members of the South Pacific Forum. (Question No. 1087) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) Were investigations made in 1987 into alleged irregularities involving motor vehicles and members of the Australian Embassy in (a) Jakarta and (b) Berlin; if so, (i) what investigations were made, (ii) by whom were they conducted, (iii) whose conduct or alleged conduct was investigated, (iv) what findings were made in these investigations, (v) were members of the Embassy staff found to have profited from transactions involving motor vehicles and if so, who and to what extent did they benefit, (vi) has disciplinary action been taken in respect of any individuals whose conduct was investigated and (vii) have individuals who were the subject of any disciplinary action since been posted overseas and if so, who and to what level of responsibility. (2) Was the conduct of spouses also investigated during these investigations; if so, (a) who were they and (b) were they found to have profited from any transactions under investigation and if so, to what extent. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) In late 1986 and for some months in 1987, investigations were conducted by the Department into alleged irregularities concerning the importation and sale under diplomatic privilege of motor vehicles into Indonesia by staff of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. (i) Initial investigations were conducted, in accordance with sub-section 61 (2) of the Public Service Act 1922, to determine whether officers of the Australian Public Service at the mission who may have failed to fulfil their duty as officers should be charged with misconduct. As a result of these investigations, a second inquiry was conducted to determine the disciplinary action to be taken against a number of officers. (ii) The investigations were made by a senior officer of the then Department of Foreign Affairs authorised for that purpose under sub-section 61 (2) of the Public Service Act. (iii) The officers investigated were Australia-Based officers at the Embassy in Jakarta and the Consulate in Bali. A member of the locally-engaged staff of the Embassy was also investigated. All Australia-Based Staff at the Embassy in Jakarta and the Consulate in Bali were interviewed in this matter, 57 officers in all. A further 13 officers who had previously served in Indonesia were also interviewed in Australia by the Authorised Officer. The scope of the investigation covered the importation of motor vehicles by Australia-Based Staff into Indonesia since 1982. In the course of the inquiry 133 officers were investigated. (iv) The investigations indicated that officers had in some instances disposed of their motor vehicles otherwise than in accordance with the Indonesian regulations and procedures governing the sale or disposal of vehicles imported into Indonesia under diplomatic privilege. (v) Details of financial benefits to officers resulting from the sale of private diplomatic motor vehicles in Indonesia are matters for the officers concerned and the Australian Taxation Office. Profit-making from transactions involving motor-vehicles is not illegal nor subject to disciplinary measures in itself. The prime consideration is that such transactions are legal and comply with regulations and guidelines. It is true that some officers benefited financially from the purchase and sale of motor-vehicles, but it is also true that some others lost money in such dealings. (vi) As a result of these investigations 11 officers were charged with offences under the Public Service Act and 14 officers were counselled concerning their conduct under the Public Service Act. Two other Departments were asked to consider action in respect of four officers who were not covered by the provisions of the Public Service Act. Ten of the 11 officers charged under the Public Service Act had disciplinary action, taken against them, ranging from deduction from salary to reduction in rank. (vii) No. (1) (b) Yes. (i) An investigation was made in response to allegations of improper conduct by individuals concerning the sale of personal motor vehicles in Berlin. The investigation was in two stages. First an officer was authorised under sub-section 61 (2) of the Public Service Act 1922 to determine whether an individual may have failed to fulfil his duty as an officer within the meaning of the Public Service Act and, if so, to decide whether to lay disciplinary charges. The second stage of the investigation was conducted to determine whether the charges were proven. (ii) The investigations were undertaken by a senior officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade authorised for that purpose. (iii) The alleged actions of a senior officer at the Embassy in East Berlin were investigated. (iv) The investigating officer determined that the officer did not have a case to answer, but concluded that the result may have differed if the charge had been based on a different provision of the meaning of misconduct by an officer. The original charge had been drafted with legal advice. (v) Details of financial benefits to officers resulting from the sale of private diplomatic motor vehicles are matters for the officers concerned and the Australian Taxation Office. Profit-making from transactions involving motor-vehicles is not illegal nor subject to disciplinary measures in itself. The prime consideration is that such transactions be legal and comply with regulations and guidelines. The initial investigations indicated that financial benefits had not been improperly made by the sale of motor vehicles. It was not therefore within the scope of the inquiry to establish what profits may actually have been made. (vi) No. (vii) Not applicable. (2) (a) No. The disciplinary provisions of the Public Service Act apply only to officers and employees employed under that Act. (b) See 1 (a) (v) above and 1 (b) (v) above. (Question No. 1192) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Did the Minister's Department promote the World Expo Australia 1788-1988 calendar which noted the anniversaries of major aviation events in Australia's history. (2) Why did the calendar note the Australia-Britain return flight 1926 but not the first foreign flight to Australia, namely the Australia-Italy return flight of 1925. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) My department produced and distributed overseas an Australian bicentenary wall chart in calendar form which was primarily designed to draw attention to major bicentennial activities in Australia during 1988. (2) A selection of significant anniversaries was also included to emphasise Australian achievements in many fields of endeavour together with important historic events. Aviation was one of several areas represented. This was not intended to be exhaustive in its coverage and could not possibly have included all significant events. (Question No. 1211) Mr John Scott asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 28 September 1988: (1) Does the Government have a maximum permissible level or standard for pesticides, agricultural and veterinary chemicals, poisons and industrial pollutants in (a) pastures, (b) stock feeds and (c) animal and vegetable agricultural produce; if so, what are the permissible levels or standards. (2) Who is responsible for monitoring compliance with those levels or standards. (3) What are the penalties for breaches of those levels or standards. (4) How many breaches of those levels or standards have there been since May 1987 and have there been any prosecutions as a result of those breaches. (5) Do Australia's international trading partners have compatible levels or standards for their agricultural produce. (6) Is any review of Australia's levels or standards currently under way or contemplated; if so, will he inform the House of the nature and content of the review. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The MRLs established by the NHMRC have legal standing when they are adopted into State Food and Drug legislation. (2) State Government agencies are responsible for the domestic market and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy for exports. (3) Penalties can be imposed by rejection of produce and in some cases the property of origin may be quarantined. (4) The total number of residue violations detected since May 1987 is not available. During the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988, only 142 samples with residue above the MRL were detected in the 24,339 samples examined in the National Residue Survey which covers an extensive range of chemical/commodity combinations through its screening test procedures. No prosecutions have been made as a result of violative residues detected in the NRS. State authorities are responsible for tracing excessive residues back to the property of origin where further investigations and corrective action are made. (5) Yes. (6) Review of existing MRLs is an ongoing function of the NHMRC. They are amended and sometimes rescinded in the light of new toxicological data or when new use patterns are proposed for the parent chemical. (Question No. 1219) Mr Scholes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 28 September 1988: Has Australia made a formal protest to the Government of Romania about the serious denial of the rights of minorities in that country. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Consistent with its commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights, the Government has conveyed its concerns about Romania's rural urbanisation plans to the Romanian Government on two occasions: on 18 August to the Romanian Charge d'Affaires in Belgrade and on 31 August to the Romanian Deputy Foreign Minister in Bucharest. (Question No. 1264) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) $244,603. (d) $2,201,215. This sum comprises expenditure of $2,007,515 by the Australian Overseas Information Service and $193,700 by the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. Expenditure by the AOIS covers all of its activities under its overseas publicity budget. (e) $206,674 which does not include printing and publication costs for Historical Documents Treaty Series, Diplomatic and Consular Lists, Hints for Australian Travellers and other miscellaneous publications. (2) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) It is expected that a similar sum to that expended in 1987-88 will be committed in 1988-89. (d) $1,940,000. (e) $260,300. (Question No. 1270) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 18 October 1988: (1) What sum did the Minister's Department outlay in 1987-88 for (a) radio advertising, (b) television advertising, (c) newspaper advertising, (d) public relations and (e) the publication and distribution of journals and magazines. (2) What is the projected expenditure for each of those categories in 1988-89. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Primary Industries and Energy expended in 1987-88 on each category the following amounts: $ (1) (a) radio advertising 184,476 (b) television advertising NIL (c) newspaper advertising 434,734 (d) public relations Note: this amount is for contract public relations services and does not include the normal day to day public relations functions carried out within the Department 46,416 (e) publication and distribution of journals and magazines 572,553 Proposed expenditure in 1988-89 on each category is as follows: $ (2) (a) radio advertising 14,000 (b) television advertising NIL (c) newspaper advertising (c) - publicity 250,910 - public notices and recruitment 365,000 est (d) public relations Note: this amount is for contract public relations services and does not include the normal day to day public relations functions carried out within the Department 25,000 (e) publication and distribution of journals and magazines 693,926 (Question No. 1295) Mr Campbell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 1 November 1988: Will the Minister seek clarification from the Indonesian Government of the circumstances of the death, while investigating the deaths of 5 Australian journalists, of Mr R. East in Dili, East Timor, on 6 December 1975 at the same time as it seeks clarification of the circumstances of the death in Indonesian waters of Mr Blenkinsop. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Despite persistent enquiries over the years into the disappearance of Mr East, no reliable information concerning his disappearance has emerged. This is a matter of regret to the Government. The Government does not believe, however, that linking the efforts to seek clarification of the circumstances of the death of Mr Blenkinsop with the disappearance of Mr East would be productive. (Question No. 1337) Mr Blunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) What was the Minister's Department's expenditure on international (a) air freight and (b) shipping in 1987/88? (2) What is the estimated expenditure for those categories 1988-89? Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Freight expenditure is recorded under a separate charge code without distinction between domestic and international freight. It is thus not possible to provide an exact figure on past expenditure for international freight, and estimated expenditure for 1988/89 has similarly been calculated without distinction. A separate charge code for recording the cost of any international freight has not hitherto been introduced because the quantum of such expenditure has not been regarded as sufficient to warrant further complication in the Department's Chart of Accounts. Total expenditure on freight of all types in 1987/88 was $422 709. (Question No. 1339) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) What was the Minister's Department's expenditure on international (a) air freight and (b) shipping in 1987-88. (2) What is the estimated expenditure for those categories in 1988-89. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Expenditure on air and sea freight in 1987-88 Diplomatic mail and freight $2,908,504 Shipment of personal effects from overseas posts $1,843,729 Shipment of personal effects to overseas posts $2,590,466 (2) Estimated expenditure for those categories in 1988-89 Diplomatic mail and freight $2,900,000 Shipment of personal effects from overseas posts $1,752,000 Shipment of personal effects to overseas posts $3,575,000 Because of the structure of the Department's chart of accounts it is not possible to separate air freight and sea freight costs. The Department of Administrative Services arranges the shipment of officers' personal effects from Australia. The amounts shown above for shipment to overseas posts include, in addition to freight costs, costs for packing, storage, clearance and domestic freight. These costs are not totalled separately on the accounts submitted by the Department of Administrative Services. From 1 July 1988 the Department of Administrative Services commenced charging for their services. Due to delays in presentation of accounts, the figures for shipment of personal effects to overseas posts in 1987-88 represent approximately 9 months expenditure only. The provision for 1988-89 represents the estimated requirement for a full twelve months expenditure. (Question No. 1382) Mr Burr asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 November 1988: (1) Has he accepted an invitation to open an Australian summit on health. (2) Does the program for the summit indicate it will, among other things, aim at crystallising a new policy which will benefit all Australians. (3) Will his attendance at the summit indicate that he regards the Medicare system as a total failure and that he has a desire to see it reformed. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) &(3) I have not received an invitation to open an Australian summit on health. (Question No. 1433) Mr Macphee asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 December 1988: (1) Has the search of Australian records for assets held by the former President of the Republic of Korea, Mr Chun Doo-Hwan, and his wife, revealed any assets; if so, what has been revealed. (2) Was a former brother in law of President Chun a former Korean Ambassador to Australia; if so, will the Government extend its search of records to encompass any assets held by that person. (3) Will the Government extend its search of records to encompass any companies in which Mr Chun, his wife or his brother in law may have been involved. (4) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Melbourne Herald on 7 April 1988 which reported on allegations that Mr Chun's assets in Australia included 50% of a well-known beer brewery and a large number of stocks in the Swan Lake Motel Chain; if so, will he authorise a search of records pertaining to those companies. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I confirm that the Australian Government has agreed to undertake searches of certain records for assets in Australia held by the former President of the Republic of Korea, Mr Chun Doo-Hwan, and his wife. The searches which have been conducted up to 9 December 1988 do not reveal any assets but the searches have not yet been completed. (2) The Government of the Republic of Korea has provided a list of names of certain further persons and requested that the searches also be undertaken against those names. That list includes Mr Kim Sang-Goo a former Korean Ambassador to Australia. (3) The Government has informed the Government of Korea that it would be prepared to extend its search of records if the Korean Government provides sufficient detail to enable the searches to be undertaken. (4) I am aware of a number of reports, including that which appeared in the Melbourne Herald on 7 April 1988, of alleged assets of former President Chun in various companies in Australia. In consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade my Department has arranged for the necessary investigations to be undertaken in relation to allegations that have come to my attention of such asset holdings by former President Chun Doo-Hwan. Further we have invited Korean authorities to provide us with the names of companies in which it is believed shares may have been acquired and, if such details are provided, the search will be extended accordingly. (Question No. 1315) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: To bring up-to-date the information contained in answer to question No. 87 (Hansard, 27 March 1985, 362) concerning sales of defence equipment overseas. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The table below shows figures of approved export applications from 1 January 1985 to 6 September 1988. Values are given in `then year' dollars. (2) Actual exports may differ from the figures of this table because sales can fall through after approvals have been granted. Further, the annual figures are slightly understated as equipment values for some export applications approved were not provided. (3) Many of the smaller exports, including, for example, South Africa and Yugoslavia, are of sporting/personal firearms taken out of Australia for personal use and usually brought back to Australia when the owner returns. The South African statistic for 1987 includes the export of a second-hand gelignite wrapping machine worth $90,000 for use in the mining industry. APPLICATIONS FOR EXPORT OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT DEFINED UNDER SCHEDULE 13 OF CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED EXPORTS) REGULATIONS Country 1985 1986 1987 1988 (to 6/9) $ $ $ $ American Samoa ... 2,223 Argentina ... 50,000 Austria ... 6,600 1,403,453 Bahamas ... 63,395 736 Bahrain ... 268,782 Belgium... 118,814 514,266 307,193 22,000 Brazil... 543,000 Brunei ... 363,806 379,057 Canada ... 44,212 29,938 2,235,658 49,760 China ... 1,920 5,500 Cocos Is. ... 792 Columbia ... 50,000 Cyprus ... 6,600 Denmark ... 39,420 22,377 132,000 6,740 Fiji ... 3,640 France ... 82,676 729,700 3,211,800 95,838 Gibraltar ... 640 Greece ... 6,600 Hong Kong ... 95,036 31,232 418,871 8,250 Iceland ... 2,177 India ... 3,443,361 Indonesia... 26,780 1,248,175 Ireland ... 7,000 50,000 Israel ... 21,280 41,120 143,000 7,000 Italy ... 434,030 347,889 329,330 68,130 Japan ... 5,600 245,247 Jordan ... 15,031,241 6,000 Kuwait ... 102,000 Malaysia ... 20,252 300,900 10,680 13,150 Namibia ... 1,000 Nepal ... 62,283 Netherlands ... 1,031,183 163,720 326,795 10,900 New Caledonia ... 5,000 5,458 23,383 NZ ... 4,063,527 4,015,036 32,591,180 3,985,062 Norfolk Is. ... 5,929 5,872 Norway ... 6,600 1,280,000 Oman ... 395,168 364,713 147,307 Peru ... 192 Philippines ... 9,385 154,866 22,282 PNG ... 56,508 47,265 4,510 198 Portugal ... 6,600 32,250 194,000 Puerto Rico ... 3,700 Qatar ... 655,878 849,580 635,572 Saudi Arabia ... 14,000 77,000 Singapore ... 14,164 75,895 125,567 92,837 Solomon Is. ... 21,107 22,258 11,538 Sth Africa ... 4,480 6,350 94,150 SW Africa ... 1,000 Sth Korea ... 3,865 Spain ... 6,400 82,000 Sri Lanka ... 45,978 12,000 Sweden ... 1,255,140 17,810 98,058 Switzerland ... 17,200 880,097 292,000 Thailand ... 360,525 42,735 72,579 Tonga ... 530 19,000 Turkey ... 6,600 UAE ... 9,305,760 90,742 UK ... 311,831 212,008 428,903 24,620 USA ... 1,130,662 279,901 871,213 688,080 Vanuatu ... 900 966 6,621 Wallis Is. ... 208 W. Germany ... 77,318 54,966 248,959 745,444 West Samoa ... 333 8,336 2,092 Yugoslavia ... 1,060 1,347 9,920,379 40,400,733 44,414,713 7,948,077 N.B. The above totals are slightly understated as equipment values for some export applications approved were not provided. (Question No. 1322) Mr Mildren asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: How many war veterans or dependants are receiving war pensions or allowances in the electoral division of Ballarat in the categories of (a) full war service pensions, (b) part war service pensions, (c) war widows pensions or allowances, (d) TPI pensions and (e) disability non-TPI allowances. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: My Department is currently unable to supply the specific breakdown of service and disability pension recipients requested by the honourable member. A breakdown of statistics on an electorate basis is not used by my Department. However, arrangements have been made for the program which accesses the information from the client data base to be amended to permit access on an electorate or postcode basis. This task will be completed in early January. I will write to the honourable member and supply the figures he has requested as soon as they become available. In the interim, the following figures may be of interest. As at June 1988, in the Ballarat electorate there were: (i) 976 veterans each receiving a disability pension; (ii) 731 beneficiaries each receiving a dependant's pension; (iii) 603 women each receiving a war widows pension; and (iv) 1408 women each receiving a service pension. (Question No. 1410) Mr Scholes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 30 November 1988: (1) Who are the part-time members of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. (2) How many meetings of the Trust were held in 1987-88. (3) How many meetings were attended by each part-time member. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The part-time members of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust are Mr G. Dewar and Mr B. Cotter. (2) There were 11 meetings in 1987-88. (3) Mr Dewar attended 10 meetings in 1987-88. Mr Cotter attended 6 meetings. (Mr Cotter replaced the former part-time member Dr Scott late in 1987). Dr Scott attended 3 meetings. (Question No. 210)) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) What has been the (a) nature and (b) results of any investigation of the matters I raised in the adjournment debate (Hansard, 14 May 1987, page 3287) relating to the claims in respect of hotel costs by Mr Kelty. (2) If there has not been an investigation, will he permit me to table further documentation in connection with this and other matters relating to the Trade Development Council/ACTU mission to Western Europe. (3) Has any action been taken over allegations raised by the Sunday Telegraph in April 1987, including the hire of 2 chauffeur-driver, stretched Mercedes limousines to transport 6 trade unionists and 2 departmental officers around Vienna, when his department had said that a mini-bus would be ideal. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Officers of the former Department of Trade examined all documents relating to the matters which the honourable member raised in the ajournment debate on 14 May, and prepared a report on them, a copy of which has been lodged with the Parliamentary Library. The conclusions to be drawn from the Department of Trade's report as a whole were that none of the members of the ACTU/TDC mission had acted improperly, but there had been some accounting misunderstandings by the former Department of Trade during the acquittals checking process, and some cases of expenditures having been made outside Commonwealth guidelines. As a result, adjustments were made to the members' acquittals and recovery action for all the amounts involved has been completed. The Department of Trade's finding in relation to Mr Kelty was that he had been underpaid, not overpaid, in relation to his mission expenses. (2) Since an investigation has taken place, the question does not arise. (3) Transportation for the Mission's work program in Vienna was provided by the hire of two Mercedes 250L (chauffeured) at a cost of $A2,275.26. Prior to the Mission's arrival in Vienna, there were communications between the then Department of Trade and the Embassy in Vienna. On 22 August 1986, the Vienna Post advised that, although a minibus would have been cheaper, such a vehicle would only hold 8 people. This meant that supplementary transport would have been needed to cover Embassy staff escorting the 8 member mission. Funding for hire of cars was authorised by the Department of Trade on 28 August 1986, although a cable from the Mission Manager in Stockholm of the same date acknowledged that a minibus would be more cost effective. Whilst the cars were indisputably more expensive, the Department of Trade made the judgement that cars should be preferred to a minibus, particularly in light of the actual numbers involved (8 Mission members and Embassy Secretary/Interpreter) and having regard to the status of the Mission and its members. (Question No. 381) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: Will he update the information contained in the answer to question No. 1539 (Hansard, 10 October 1984, page 2085) and provide information as at 1 November 1987. Mr Beazley —The information sought by the honourable member is contained below. The strengths shown are as at 18 November 1988. Electorate Establishment Service No. of people over 18 a. Employed b. Resident Adelaide Hampstead Barracks, Greenacres ... Army 157 3 Logistic facility, Adelaide ... Air Force 13 - Recruiting office, Adelaide ... Navy 11 - Regional office, Adelaide ... Civilian 10 - Training depot, Torrens ... Army 569 - Aston Recruiting centre, Ringwood East ... Army 3 - Training depot, Ringwood East ... Army 230 1 Ballarat Battalion Headquarters, Ballarat ... Army 88 - Recruiting centre, Ballarat ... Army 3 - Training depot, Ballarat ... Army 60 - Banks Training depot, Padstow ... Army 85 - Barker Training depot, Berri ... Army 31 - Training depot, Mount Gambier ... Army 47 - Training depot, Narracoorte ... Army 8 - Barton Training depot, Arncliffe ... Army 89 6 Training depot, Kogarah ... Army 93 - Bass Training depot, East Launceston ... Air Force 13 - Parade facility, Georgetown ... Army 20 - Paterson Barracks, Launceston ... Army 100 - Recruiting centre, Launceston ... Navy 2 - Research establishment, Scottsdale ... Civilian 25 - Training depot, Scottsdale ... Army 20 - Training depot, Youngtown ... Army 120 - Batman Recruiting centre, Preston ... Army 3 - Training depot, Preston ... Army 109 - Bendigo Logistic unit, Bendigo ... Army 293 57 Production facility, Bendigo ... Civilian 660 - Quality Assurance, Bendigo ... Army 3 - Recruiting centre, Bendigo ... Army 3 - Training depot, Bacchus Marsh ... Army 15 - Bennelong Training depot, Gladesville ... Army 176 - Barracks, Woolwich ... Army 169 50 Bonython Air Force Base, Edinburgh ... Air Force 2008 439 Logistic centre, Salisbury ... Army 65 8 Production facility, Salisbury ... Civilian 23 - Research establishment, Salisbury ... Civilian 2391 - Regional Office, Salisbury ... Civilian 10 - Training centre, Salisbury ... Navy 43 3 Training depot, Elizabeth ... Army 169 4 Boothby Training depot, Unley ... Army 53 - Braddon Training depot, Burnie ... Army 30 - Training depot, Devonport ... Army 75 - Training depot, Ulverstone ... Army 5 - Bradfield Training depot, Pymble ... Army 95 - Brand Logistic facility, Garden Island ... Navy 17 - HMAS Stirling, Garden Island ... Navy 573 178 Regional Office, HMAS Stirling ... Civilian 1 - Brisbane Enoggera Barracks, Enoggera ... Army 4320 1127 Logistic centre, Ashgrove ... Army 106 - Regional Office, Brisbane ... Civilian 2 - Training centre, Kelvin Grove ... Army 520 - Training depot, Fortitude Valley ... Army 119 - Bruce Training depot, Mt Waverley ... Army 221 - Burke Logistic facility, Somerton ... Navy 10 - Training depot, Kyneton ... Army 27 - Training depot, Maryborough ... Army 17 - Training centre, Mt Macedon ... Civilian 45 - Calare Ordnance depot, Bathurst ... Army 3 - Production facility, Lithgow ... Civilian 630 - Training depot, Bathurst ... Army 35 - Training depot, Lithgow ... Army 16 - Training depot, Orange ... Army 24 - Calwell Logistic facility, McLeod ... Army 46 2 Canberra HMAS Harman, Canberra ... Navy 225 335 Training centre, Weston Creek ... Army 86 - Training depot, Canberra ... Army 158 - Canning Training depot, Bushmead ... Army 65 - Capricornia Training depot, Biloela ... Army 44 - Training depot, Rockhampton ... Army 197 1 Training depot, Sarina ... Army 18 - Chifley Production facility, St Mary's ... Civilian 504 - Electronic support facility, St Mary's ... Civilian 51 - Corangamite Parade facility, Belmont ... Army 105 - Staff College, Queenscliffe ... Army 200 24 Corio Recruiting centre, Geelong ... Army 3 - Training depot, Geelong ... Army 150 1 Cowper Training depot, Coffs Harbour ... Army 67 - Training depot, Kempsey ... Army 15 - Training depot, Port Macquarie ... Army 16 - Cunningham Training depot, Port Kembla ... Army 58 - Training depot, Wollongong ... Army 66 - Recruiting centre, Wollongong ... Navy 3 - Curtin Logistic/training facility, Karrakatta ... Army 1392 73 Regional Office, Karrakatta ... Civilian 1 - Training depot, Karrakatta ... Army 125 - Dawson Training depot, Mackay ... Army 89 - Denison Anglesea Barracks, Hobart ... Army 330 50 HMAS Huon, Hobart ... Navy 45 - Regional Offices, Hobart ... Civilian 27 - Training depot, Battery Point ... Army 40 - Training depot, Glenorchy ... Army 80 - Logistic centre, Goodwood ... Army 210 - Support unit, Hobart ... Air Force 11 - Dundas Training depot, Dundas ... Army 120 45 Eden-Monaro Training depot, Cooma ... Army 44 - Fadden Training depot, Coopers Plains ... Army 13 - Maintenance workshop, Coopers Plains ... Army 127 25 Fairfax Parade facility, Nambour ... Army 59 - Farrer Logistic facility, Bandiana ... Army 9 1 Production facility, Mulwala ... Civilian 260 - Recruiting centre, Albury ... Army 3 - Fisher Training depot, Kallangur ... Army 77 - Flinders Parade facility, Baxter ... Army 65 - HMAS Cerberus, Flinders ... Navy 2059 980 Training centre, Portsea ... Army 105 105 Forde Logistic facility, Mooroka ... Army 7 - Parade facility, Mooroka ... Army 14 - Radio station, Acacia Ridge ... Army 28 9 Forrest Training depot, Albany ... Army 31 - Training depot, Bunbury ... Army 56 - Training depot, Collie ... Army 20 - Fowler Training depot, Merrylands ... Army 62 - Franklin Logistic facility, South Arm ... Army 10 4 Training depot, Huonville ... Army 20 - Fraser Air Force Base, Fairbairn ... Air Force 804 119 Air Force Office, Russell/Campbell Park ... Air Force 1310 - Army Office, Russell/Campbell Park ... Army 1191 - Central Office, Russell/Campbell Park ... Civilian 3258(a) - Communications station, Belconnen ... Navy 41 16 Headquarters ADF, Russell ... Tri-service 196 - HMAS Creswell, Jervis Bay ... Navy 313 115 Navy Office, Russell/Campbell Park ... Navy 1853 - Training centre, Campbell ... Tri-service 1171 849 Training centre, Campbell ... Army 946 536 Fremantle Artillery Barracks, Fremantle ... Army 178 - Leeuwin Barracks, East Fremantle ... Army 552 - Training depot, East Fremantle ... Army 55 - Gellibrand Logistic centre, Maribyrnong ... Army 104 - Ordnance facility, Maribyrnong ... Civilian 915 25 Production facility, Footscray ... Civilian 1023 - Production facility, Maribyrnong ... Civilian 312 2 Logistic facility, Tottenham ... Air Force 569 295 Logistic facility, Maribyrnong ... Navy 60 - Training depot, Williamstown ... Army 126 2 Gilmore Joint training centre, Nowra ... Air Force/ Navy 35 4 Naval Air Station, Nowra ... Navy 1553 303 Training centre, Nowra ... Army 78 40 Training depot, Goulburn ... Army 32 1 Training depot, Nowra ... Army 11 - Gippsland Air Force Base, East Sale ... Air Force 887 102 Training depot, Bairnsdale ... Army 18 2 Training depot, Sale ... Army 45 - Goldstein Research depot, Highett ... Air Force 29 - Grayndler Training depot, Forest Lodge ... Army 35 - Greenway HMAS Nirimba, Richmond ... Navy 900 416 Training depot, Blacktown ... Army 100 1 Grey Regional Office, Woomera ... Civilian 2 - Research establishment, Woomera ... Civilian 198 1 Training depot, Port Augusta ... Army 53 3 Training depot, Whyalla ... Air Force 39 - Griffith Bulimba Barracks, Brisbane ... Army 168 - Communications centre, Brisbane ... Army 1 - HMAS Moreton, Brisbane ... Navy 58 - Logistic/recruiting facility, Brisbane ... Air Force 42 - Regional Office, Brisbane ... Civilian 166 - Victoria Barracks, Brisbane ... Army 353 - Groom Aviation Centre, Oakey ... Army 733 140 Borneo Barracks, Cabarlah ... Army 440 225 Logistic facility, Toowoomba ... Air Force 299 36 Gwydir Training depot, Muswellbrook ... Army 62 - Hawker Keswick Barracks, Keswick ... Army 638 45 Training depot, Somerton Park ... Army 69 - Warradale Barracks, Warradale ... Army 712 1 Herbert Air Force Base, Townsville ... Air Force 587 128 Ground liaison unit, Garbutt ... Army 5 - Jezzine Barracks, Townsville ... Army 533 63 Lavarack Barracks, Townsville ... Army 3602 1697 Parade facility, Ingham ... Army 20 - Regional Office, Townsville ... Civilian 11 - Higgins Training depot, Dandenong ... Army 108 - Hindmarsh Regional Office, Keswick ... Civilian 130 - Hinkler Training depot, Bundaberg ... Army 18 - Training depot, Mackay ... Army 89 - Holt Training depot, Dandenong ... Army 76 - Hughes Logistic facility, East Hills ... Army 187 - Logistic facility, Moorebank ... Army 2868 949 Regional Office, Moorebank ... Civilian 6 - Training depot, Sutherland ... Army 103 - Hume Air Force Base, Wagga Wagga ... Air Force 1536 1032 Logistic/training facility, Wagga ... Army 50 2 Recruiting centre, Wagga ... Army 2 - Training centre, Kapooka ... Army 1152 716 Hunter Logistic/training facility, Singleton ... Army 471 169 Training depot, Rutherford ... Army 19 - Indi Logistic/training facility, Bandiana ... Army 1009 119 Logistic facility, Albury ... Army 183 11 Regional Office, Bandiana ... Civilian 11 - Training centre, Bonegilla ... Army 649 370 Jagajaga Logistic/training facility, MacLeod ... Army 840 385 Regional Office, MacLeod ... Civilian 2 - Kalgoorlie Communications centre, Northwest Cape ... Navy 259 - Air Force Base, Derby ... Air Force 2 2 Parade facility, Carnarvon ... Army/Navy 19 - Parade facility, Koolan Island ... Army 12 - Parade facility, Port Hedland ... Army 48 - Parade facility, Tom Price ... Army 21 - Parade facility, Wyndham ... Army 8 - Training depot, Broome ... Army 16 2 Training depot, Derby ... Army 14 - Training depot, Kalgoorlie ... Army 52 - Training depot, Karratha ... Army 38 - Training depot, Knunurra ... Army 12 2 Training depot, Newman ... Army 32 - Kennedy Training depot, Mt Isa ... Army 75 - Kingsford- Logistic facility, Mascot ... Army 83 - Smith Logistic/training facility, Randwick ... Army 284 60 Logistic facility, Zetland ... Navy 1168 - Research laboratory ... Civilian 38 - Kooyong Training depot, Burnley ... Army 34 - Training depot, Hawthorn ... Army 287 4 Training depot, Kew ... Army 31 - Training depot, Ripponlea ... Army 89 - Training depot, Surrey Hills ... Army 80 - Lalor Air Force Base, Laverton ... Air Force 1526 450 Air Force Base, Point Cook ... Air Force 805 529 Radio station, Rockbank ... Army 28 31 Leichhardt HMAS Cairns, Cairns ... Navy 165 70 Research laboratory, Innisfail ... Civilian 19 - Lilley Logistic facility, Banyo ... Army 45 - Logistic facility, Meeanday ... Army 559 - Training depot, Sandgate ... Army 45 - Lindsay Air Headquarters, Glenbrook ... Air Force 362 116 Ground liaison, Glenbrook ... Army 7 5 Logistic centre, Kingswood ... Army 78 34 Logistic centre, Penrith ... Army 243 68 Logistic facility, Kingswood ... Navy 171 - Logistic facility, Orchard Hills ... Air Force 269 56 Lowe Logistic centre, Concord ... Army 72 - Training depot, Silverwater ... Army 132 20 Lyne Air Force Base, Williamstown ... Air Force 2007 643 Ground liaison, Williamstown ... Army 4 3 Training centre, Williamstown ... Tri-service 38 8 Training depot, Taree ... Army 43 - Lyons Training area, Buckland ... Army 2 2 Training camp, Brighton ... Army 170 60 Training depot, Deloraine ... Army 15 - Training depot, Longford ... Army 20 - Range complex, Pontville ... Army 2 2 McEwen Logistic/training complex, Puckapunyal ... Army 2293 1739 Regional Office, Puckapunyal ... Civilian 5 - Mackellar Training depot, Dee Why ... Army 58 - McMillan Training depot, Traralgon ... Army 27 - McPherson Training depot, Southport ... Army 64 - Macquarie Air Force Base, Richmond ... Air Force 3117 659 Ground liasion, Richmond ... Army 8 5 Training depot, Richmond Army 27 6 Mallee Training depot, Horsham ... Army 65 - Training depot, Mildura ... Army 72 - Training depot, Swan Hill ... Army 26 - Maranoa Logistic facility, Wallangarra ... Army 94 4 Training depot, Blackwater ... Army 19 - Training depot, Dalby ... Army 30 - Training depot, Goondiwindi ... Army 7 - Training depot, Roma ... Army 20 - Training depot, Stanthorpe ... Army 16 - Maribyrnong Research establishment, Maribyrnong ... Civilian 552 - Mayo Logistic facility, Woodside ... Army 370 290 Training depot, Murray Bridge ... Army 32 6 Melbourne Headquarters,Melbourne ... Army 194 - Logistic facility, Melbourne ... Air Force 120 - Training centre, Melbourne ... Army 92 - Training depot, Carlton ... Army 27 - Training depot, Melbourne ... Army 345 - Melbourne Victoria Barracks, Melbourne ... Army 876 57 Ports Logistic facility, Melbourne ... Air Force 2120 - Logistic/training facility, South Melbourne ... Army 119 - Recruiting centre, Melbourne ... Army 5 - Regional Office, Melbourne ... Civilian 641 - Research laboratory, Fishermen's Bend ... Civilian 460 - Training centre, HMAS Lonsdale ... Navy 28 - Training depot, Richmond ... Army 23 - Training depot, St Kilda ... Army 123 - Training depot, Melbourne ... Army 522 - Moncrieff Training/logistic centre, Canungra ... Army 478 270 Moore Air Force Base, Pearce ... Air Force 1126 270 Range complex, Lancelin ... Navy 1 1 Moreton Training depot, Annerley ... Army 478 211 Murray Training depot, Echuca ... Army 24 1 Training depot, Shepparton ... Army 72 - New England Training depot, Armidale ... Army 133 - Training depot, Tamworth ... Army 86 - Training depot, Tenterfield ... Army 15 - Newcastle Logistic centre, Stockton ... Army 92 36 Recruiting centre, Newcastle ... Navy 3 - Training depot, Hamilton ... Army 50 - Training depot, Newcastle ... Army 65 - Training depot, Waratah ... Army 78 - North Sydney HMAS Platypus, North Sydney ... Navy 252 - HMAS Waterhen, North Sydney ... Navy 272 - Hydrographic office, North Sydney ... Navy 94 - Logistic centre, Neutral Bay ... Air Force 21 - Logistic facility, North Sydney ... Navy 96 - Logistic facility, North Sydney ... Air Force 17 - Logistic facility, North Sydney ... Navy 101 - Training depot, Erina ... Army 30 - Training depot, Willoughby ... Army 50 - Trials unit, North Sydney ... Navy 120 - Northern Air Force Base, Darwin ... Air Force 774 192 Territory Air Force Base, Tindal ... Air Force 535 460 Communications centre, Darwin ... Army 54 - Logistic facility, Stokes Hill ... Navy 8 - Headquarters, Darwin ... Navy 23 - HMAS Coonawarra, Darwin ... Navy 545 267 Larrakeyah Barracks, Darwin ... Army 384 130 Parade facility, Alice Springs ... Army 43 2 Parade facility, Bathurst Island ... Army 8 - Parade facility, Croker Island ... Army 10 - Parade facility, Groote Eylandt ... Army 6 - Parade facility, Jabiru ... Army 4 - Parade facility, Katherine ... Army 15 - Parade facility, Nhulunbuy ... Army 20 2 Parade facility, Tennant Creek ... Army 10 - Regional Office, Alice Springs ... Civilian 5 - Regional Office, Darwin ... Civilian 162 - Regional Office, Katherine ... Civilian 60 - O'Connor Training depot, Geraldton ... Army 51 - Training depot, Katanning ... Army 16 - Training depot, Northam ... Army 22 - Oxley Air Force Base, Amberley ... Air Force 2,819 517 Ground liaison, Amberley ... Army 4 2 Training depot, Ipswich ... Army 80 - Page Training depot, Casino ... Army 29 1 Training depot, Grafton ... Army 30 - Parkes Logistic facility, Dubbo ... Air Force 61 29 Training depot, Dubbo ... Army 18 - Training depot, Parkes ... Army 11 - Parramatta Recruiting centre, Parramatta ... Air Force 3 - Training depot, Parramatta ... Army 198 - Perth Recruiting centre, Perth ... Army 18 - Regional Office, Perth ... Civilian 63 - Swan Barracks, Perth ... Army 202 - Phillip Parade facility, Kensington ... Army 220 - Randwick Barracks, Randwick ... Army 331 37 Port HMAS Encounter, Port Adelaide ... Navy 34 - Adelaide Training depot, Alberton ... Army 25 - Rankin Radio station, Greenbank ... Army 11 3 Training depot, Wacol ... Army 386 - Reid Logistic facility, Newington ... Navy 239 - Logistic facility, Regents Parks ... Air Force 552 85 Logistic facility, Villawood ... Air Force 101 - Training depot, Lidcombe ... Army 35 2 Richmond Training depot, Lismore ... Army 104 1 Training depot, Murwillumbah ... Army 34 - Riverina- Darling Training depot, Broken Hill ... Army 46 - Training depot, Leeton ... Army 20 - Robertson Training depot, Erina ... Army 40 - Ryan Logistic facility, Indooroopilly ... Army 32 6 Training depot, St Lucia ... Army 500 - St George Logistic facility, Belmore ... Army 49 - Training depot, Sydney ... Army 32 - Scullin Logistic facility, Broadmeadows ... Army 22 - Logistic facility, Broadmeadows ... Army 490 58 Regional Office, Broadmeadows ... Civilian 1 - Shortland Logistic/training facility, Adamstown ... Army 48 20 Training depot, Blacksmiths ... Army 12 - Sturt Training depot, Beulah Park ... Army 69 - Swan Logistic facility, Guildford ... Army 56 - Sydney Logistic facility, Millers Point ... Air Force 11 - Research laboratories, Pyrmont ... Civilian 109 - Training centre, Sydney ... Navy 17 - Training depot, Haberfield ... Army 186 - Training depot, Millers Point ... Army 7 - Throsby Training depot, Mosvale ... Army 31 - Wakefield Logistic facility, Wakefield ... Army 60 36 Training depot, Clare ... Army 10 - Training depot, Gawler ... Army 35 - Training depot, Kadina ... Army 10 - Wannon Parade facility, Portland ... Army 20 - Training depot, Hamilton ... Army 15 - Training depot, Warnnambool ... Army 48 - Warringah HMAS Penguin, Sydney ... Navy 595 208 Training centre, Chowder Bay ... Army 61 16 Training centre, North Head ... Army 203 74 Training depot, George's Heights ... Army 393 32 Training depot, Middle Head ... Army 220 96 Training depot, Mosman ... Army 31 - Wentworth HMAS Watson, Sydney ... Navy 518 176 HMAS Kuttabul, Sydney ... Navy 1410 292 Logistic facility, Garden Island ... Civilian 2766 24 Recruiting centre, Sydney ... Navy 19 - Regional Office, Sydney ... Civilian 297 - Support command, Sydney ... Navy 339 - Training depot, Vaucluse ... Army 49 - Victoria Barracks, Paddington ... Army 704 103 Werriwa Logistic facilities, Ingleburn ... Army 425 38 Logistic facility, Liverpool ... Army 261 19 Research establishment, Ingleburn ... Army 23 - Training centre, Ingleburn ... Army 462 11 Training depot, Ingleburn ... Army 53 - Wide Bay Training depot, Gympie ... Army 61 3 Wills Logistic facility, Coburg ... Army 3 - Production facility, Coburg ... Civilian 674 - Note (a): Includes Defence Science and Technology Organisation central staff, Office of Defence Production central staff, outrider organisations and inoperatives who were not previously counted. (Question No. 838) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 23 March 1988: (1) In view of the Government's decision to change the basis for diplomatic recognition from recognising governments to recognising States, does Australia now recognise the states of Kampuchea and Afghanistan; if not, why not. (2) If the Government does recognise those states, has it made an announcement to this effect; if not, when will an announcement be made. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) For the purposes of international law, Australia, like most other countries, has recognised for years now Cambodia and Afghanistan as States. Australia does not, however, as a matter of policy, accept any of the various factions or regimes in Cambodia and Afghanistan as the legitimate governments of those States. (2) In light of the above, it is not necessary for the Government to make any announcement. (Question No. 866) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 13 April 1988: Is he able to say to which UN agencies the US is in arrears; if so, (a) by what sum and (b) what proportion is this of its most recent required annual contribution in each case. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Organ- isation Total US Arrears as at 30 June US Assessed Contribution for 1988 FAO ... $US 67,410,212 $US 60,680,000 GATT ... S.F. 2,953,890 S.F. 9,678,552 IAEA ... $US 3,253,185 $US 5,182,876 Aust Sch: 401,192,645 ICAO ... $US 1,500,000 $US 7,522,500 ILO ... $US 13,100,000 $US 40,607,500 IMO ... $US 72,548 # 500,801 ITU ... NIL S.F. 6,894,000 UN ... $US 466,884,865 $US 214,909,500 UNIDO ... $US 10,488,702 $US 4,111,888 UPU ... NIL S.F. 1,148,500 WHO ... $US 17,613,055 $US 74,749,580 WIPO ... S.F. 409,946 S.F. 910,064 WMO ... S.F. 1,000,000 S.F. 11,955,554 Note: Payments falling due in a particular year are classified as arrears if they remain unpaid on 1 January of the following year. (Question No. 1053) Mr Bilney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 26 May 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in The Australian of 7 May 1988 alleging that funds from Australian churches have provided arms to the New People's Army rebels in the Philippines. (2) Could Australian aid organisations inadvertently be funding illegal Philippines organisations as stated in the editorial in the Australian of 9 May 1988. (3) Do documents provided to him during his visit to the Philippines provide any evidence to support allegations that aid funds from Australian churches have been misused; if so, will the Government provide the information to the churches who have expressed their willingness to investigate all allegations with a view to ensuring aid funds are not inadvertently misdirected. (4) Do such allegations undermine public confidence in aid to the people of the Philippines as well as attacking the integrity and credibility of the efforts of Australian churches, if so, what action has he taken concerning these matters. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. I have also seen another article on this matter in The Australian of 29 August 1988. (2) The Australian Government provides funding to a wide range of Australian and Philippine non-government organisations through the Australian International Development Assistance Bureau, which has mechanisms in place to assess and monitor carefully all projects funded or assisted by the Government. These mechanisms are kept under close review and, while they are not fool-proof, the Government is confident that they give a fair degree of assurance that funds are being used for stated purposes. At this stage, we have no evidence that Australian Government funds have been diverted to illegal organisations in the Philippines. The Government also has no evidence that funds raised by Australian churches and non-Government organisations from community sources have been diverted to illegal organisations. While it is clearly the responsibility of those making the allegations to substantiate them, the possibility of inadvertent diversion taking place in the Philippines cannot be ruled out, and warrants investigation by Australian organisations providing funds for humanitarian and development purposes. (3) During Mr Hayden's visit to the Philippines in April, Philippine authorities provided to the Australian Government documents captured from the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The documents mention a number of organisations including some Australian ones, but do not constitute evidence of assistance or funding to the CPP, its military wing, the New People's Army (NPA), or other illegal organisations. I do not propose to comment further on the nature of the documents which remain confidential between the two Governments. (4) The Australian Government is naturally concerned by these allegations. When in the Philippines in April, Mr Hayden reaffirmed to Foreign Secretary Manglapus that the Australian Government is opposed to the violent activities pursued by the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army against the democratically elected Government of the Philippines. At that time, and again at the ASEAN meeting in Bangkok in July, Mr Hayden gave a firm undertaking that if evidence was found of violations of Australian Law, the Government would act promptly to enforce the Law. At the same time, Mr Hayden stressed that enforcement of Philippine Law is clearly a matter for Philippine authorities. The Australian Government is concerned that the allegations could call into question the integrity of Australian church and non-government aid organisations an the valuable social and humanitarian work they carry out in the Philippines and elsewhere. It is against this background that the Government has called on Australian organisations to maintain high standards of accountability. In this context, I welcome the expressed willingness of the bodies concerned to investigate the allegations with a view to ensuring aid funds are not inadvertently misdirected. (Question No. 1079) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What are the health requirements, or health checks made, for the purposes of determining a person's fitness to take up the position of head of, or any other position in, an overseas mission. (2) Are there different requirements, or health checks made, between persons who, when appointed as heads of mission, are (a) officers of his Department and (b) not officers of his Department; if so, what are the differences. (3) What health requirements are sought, or health checks made, as to former Speaker Jenkins' fitness to take up the position of Ambassador to Spain. (4) What is the practice in his Department regarding (a) posting to the position of head of mission or any other position in a mission, a person who does not speak the language of the country to which he or she has been posted and (b) language training in respect of persons posted to heads of mission. (5) When Ambassador Jenkins was appointed Ambassador to Spain, did he speak or read Spanish with reasonable fluency; if not, was language training required of him during his period as Ambassador. (6) When was Ambassador Jenkins appointed as Ambassador to Spain and what was the date of his effective retirement. (7) What reasons did Ambassador Jenkins give for resigning from his position as Ambassador to Spain. (8) What is the language competence of the staff in each foreign mission. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) For Government officials proceeding overseas on a long-term mission, a pre-posting medical examination is required. This can be undertaken at the Commonwealth Medical Office in any of the State or Territory capital cities. A Senior Commonwealth Medical Officer will certify whether an officer is or is not fit for service in particular country of posting. (2) No. (3) Dr Jenkins had a preposting medical examination at the Melbourne Commonwealth Medical Office on 4 February 1986, which included reports from his treating specialists. On the basis of these the examining Commonwealth Medical Officer declared him fit for overseas service for a three year posting to Madrid. The Senior Commonwealth Medical Officer, on examination of all the specialist reports and his knowledge of the specific conditions in question, wrote an additional report to the Secretary of the Department confirming there to be some limitation to his physical capabilities to undertake the duties of the overseas position when compared with a person of the same age not suffering from this disorder. A recommendation was then made by the Department to the Minister that the posting should proceed. (4) (a) (b). In reaching its decisions on postings to all positions at overseas missions the Department takes into consideration the desired level of language proficiency for individual positions, including those of Head of Mission. Positions at overseas missions are accorded a language designation and the desired level has been established in accordance with the experience of officers who have occupied specific positions in relevant missions. All Head of Mission positions are designated language positions. Where an officer, including the Head of Mission, does not have fluency in the language of the country of posting, the Department arranges tuition to enable the officer to reach the desired level of proficiency to ensure his/her capability to operate effectively in the country of posting. The level of training takes the form of: long term (more than six months) for a high level of proficiency in the more difficult key languages; short term (usually 2 to 4 months)-the main form of Departmental training; additional training at post, often part time. (5) At the time of the announcement of his appointment as Ambassador to Spain, Mr Jenkins did not have any fluency in Spanish. The Department arranged for him to receive language training. There is a provision for a maximum of 14 weeks full time language training for this purpose. In the case of Dr Jenkins, 170 hours private tuition were arranged for him on a part-time basis, 110 hours in Australia before he took up his appointment, and 60 hours in Madrid. (6) Dr Jenkins commenced duty with this Department on 10 March 1986 and arrived in Spain on 18 June 1986. He ceased duty with the Department on 16 June 1988. (7) Dr Jenkins resigned for personal reasons relating to his health. (8) The language competence of staff varies constantly as the staff members move to and from each foreign mission. Currently within the Department 467 officers have demonstrated high level skills in languages, summarised as follows: Japanese, 45; Chinese, 39; Korean, 10; Russian, 27; French, 135; Spanish, 32; Arabic, 14; German, 46; PNG Pidgin, 14; Bislama, 6; Indonesian/Malay, 45. (Question No. 1081) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What were the (a) staffing numbers and (b) levels held by staff as at 30 June (i) 1983, (ii) 1984, (iii) 1985, (iv) 1986, (v) 1987 and (vi) 1988. (2) What are the details of resignations or early retirements, including the level from which a person resigned or retired from his Department in (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84, (c) 1984-85, (d) 1985-86, (e) 1986-87 and (f) 1987-88. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been in existence only since July 1987, following the amalgamation of the former Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Promotion Australia, staffing numbers and levels held by staff for the years 1983 to 1987 are not relevant. Figures for the year ending 30 June 1988 are contained in the following chart. PERMANENT STAFF FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE INCLUDING AIDAB AS AT 30 JUNE 1988 Designation FA 8AIDAB Total Secretary Equivalent ... 3 - 3 SES 6 ... 8 1 9 SES 4 ... 23 1 24 SES 3 ... 17 1 18 SES 2 ... 59 6 65 SES 1 ... 20 4 24 ASO 8 ... 164 35 199 ASO 7 ... 217 67 284 ASO 6 ... 302 109 411 ASO 5 ... 118 30 148 ASO 4 ... 264 59 323 ASO 3 ... 213 21 234 ASO 2 ... 497 67 564 ASO 1 ... 441 23 464 CSO 5 ... 3 - 3 CSO 4 ... 7 1 8 CSO 3 ... 15 1 16 CSO 2 ... 8 - 8 CSO 1 ... 1 - 1 Engineer Class 4 ... 1 - 1 Engineer Class 2 ... 1 - 1 Director Public Rela- tions ... 5 - 5 Journalist Grade A1 ... 34 - 34 Journalist Grade A ... 2 - 2 Chief Artist ... 1 - 1 Chief Press Photo- grapher ... 1 - 1 Senior Press Photo- grapher ... 3 - 3 Press Photographer Grade 3 ... 6 - 6 Press Photographer Grade 2 ... 2 - 2 Senior Technical Officer Engineer Grade 3 ... 4 - 4 Senior Technical Officer Engineer Grade 2 ... 12 - 12 Senior Technical Officer Engineer Grade 1 ... 20 - 20 Technical Officer Engineer Grade 2 ... 17 - 17 Technical Officer Engineer Grade 1 ... 10 - 10 Technical Officer Grade 2 ... 2 - 2 Technical Officer Grade 1 ... 1 - 1 Technical Assistant Grade 2 ... 4 - 4 Technical Assistant Grade 1 ... 2 - 2 Librarian Class 3 ... 1 - 1 Librarian Class 2 ... 3 - 4 Librarian Class 1 ... - 1 1 Social Worker Class 3 - 3 3 Social Worker Class 2 - 6 6 Teacher Grade 2 ... 1 - 1 Senior Registered Nurse ... 1 - 1 Science 5 (Agricultural Science) ... 1 - 1 Senior Principal Research Scientist ... 3 - 3 Principal Research Sciencist ... 2 - 2 Film Director Grade 2 1 - 1 Film Director Grade 1 1 - 1 Navy Systems Technical Officer 1 ... 1 - 1 Principal Technical Officer Engineer ... 3 - 3 Senior Drafting Officer 1 - 1 Drafting Officer Grade 2 ... 1 - 1 Drafting Assistant Grade 1 ... 1 - 1 Communicator Grade 4 ... 9 - 9 Darkroom Operator Grade 3 ... 1 - 1 Darkroom Operator Grade 1 ... 2 - 2 Building &Services Officer 2 ... 1 - 1 Building &Services Officer 1 ... 1 - 1 Works Supervisor ... 3 - 3 Locksmith ... 1 - 1 Sound Recordist ... 1 - 1 Machine Operator ... 10 - 10 Typist ... 1 - 1 Caretaker ... - 1 1 Assistant Printer Grade 1 ... 1 - 1 Assistant Grade 2 ... 1 - 1 Assistant Grade 1 ... - 1 1 Totals ... 2561 439 3000 (2) Information for the years prior to the formation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in July 1987, is not relevant. Information on staff separations for 1987/88 is contained in the following chart, except for the level at which an officer separated as this is not readily available from personnel records. LIST OF STAFF SEPARATIONS 1987/88 Type of Separation Date Sep Rank Surname Given name Honours Transfer to Dept. Annulment of Appt.-other 880325 Miss Hermansen Lisa Jayne * 1 Death ... 880312 Ms Baldwin Susan Alexandra 880417 Ms Mullins Mary 871005 Mr Tricks Arthur Frederick Ian 880325 Mr Weston Kenneth John * 4 Resignation-Other ...880316 Mrs Agapulakis Julie Anne 880113 Mr Agnew Simon Stair 871021 Miss Allan Vickie Angela 880226 Miss Allen Kathryn Lynette 871127 Anastasopoulos Efthima 870909 Mrs Anderson Kerrie Denise Contract expired 871209 Bareket Yehezkel 880426 Mr Baxter Adrian Shane Contract expired 880205 Ms Bennett Mary Jessica 880226 Mrs Berry Gloria Joyce 880523 Mr Boden A R 880427 Mr Bolsenbroek Oskar Hendricus 870807 Miss Boscolo Caroline Louise 871223 Mr Boyle Stephen John 880205 Mrs Brown Marie Odette 870902 Ms Bursztyn Judith Deborah 880329 Miss Caldwell Jennifer Michelle 871126 Mr Campbell Dale Ross 871009 Mr Cannon Gary Peter Contract expired 871231 Miss Chang Carol Ann 870722 Mrs Chaur Helen 880601 Ms Christian Melanie 880111 Miss Colosimo Thomasina 880210 Mr Cottier Gregory James Aust Army 870902 Mr Cox Allan John 880410 Mrs Cox-Ralstegar Geraldine Dorothea 890422 Ms Cross Joanna 870828 Cvetkovski Lupco 870731 Miss D'Ambrosio Silvana Contract Expired 880623 Mr Davenport Calvin Paul 871007 Ms Davis Anne Maree 870917 Miss Di Lorenzo Rosa 880226 Ms Dinning Joanna Brigid 881029 Ms Doyle Karen 880106 Edwards Steve 870708 Ms Faaeteete Perise 871123 Ms Fegan Loraine Margaret 871113 Miss Finch Naomi Joan 880303 Miss Folster Lynnette Frances 871016 Fomin Anna Resignation-other 870911 Miss Forbes Michelle Caroline 871204 Frey Amanda 870923 Mr Fry Frederick Stuart 870925 Garrett Dean 880229 Miss Gillibrand Kelly Anne 870923 Mr Girvan Alan Douglas Contract Expired 871013 Mrs Gossip Margaret Fay Contract Expired 871009 Gow Sandria 880229 Dr Grey Jeffrey Guy 870828 Mrs Hadley Gay Helen Contract Ceased 880624 Ms Hadley Jane Mary 880624 Ms Hamersley Gail Allison 870905 Mr Harrbour David Micheal 880122 Mr Harris Dennis John 880229 Mrs Harris Hilda Margaret 880608 Mr Hawkins Jonathan David 870731 Miss Haynes Rachel Dorothy Contract Ceased 871020 Mr Heffernan Gerald 871001 Miss Hennessey Lisa 870701 Miss Hodge Jacqualine May 880108 Miss Hope Leslee Ann 880229 Miss Hunt Allyce Ann 880113 Ms Hunter Madeline Mary 880115 Miss Hush Glenda Joy 880106 Jothilingam Shanthi 871012 Mr Kapsis Con 880226 Miss Keane Marilyn Anne 870915 Mr Kelly John Charles 880226 Mrs Keyte Elizabeth Ann 870828 Ms Le Breton Angela Maria Contract Ceased 871023 Mrs Levier Shirley Elizabeth Contract Expired 880126 Miss Lilley Joanna Margaret Mulh 871030 Lovegrove Joy Carmel 870828 Mr Luke Lawrence Ronald Contract Ceased 880415 Mr Maher Mark Gerard 870819 Mr Manning Steven Percival Contract Expired 880318 Mrs Marion Marie Noelle Lizelle 870904 Ms Masters Virginia Contract Expired 871202 Mr McNab Robert William 870928 Mrs McTiernan Lynette Susan 870915 Mr Meyers John Arthur 871102 Mr Miller Nicholas 871123 Mr Moffat Gerard Joseph 870701 Ms Mudge Suzanne Elizabeth 870929 Miss Murphy Donna Maxine 880223 Mrs Nancarrow Sharon Lee 880107 Mr Newton Ronald James 871009 Nicolazzo Lina 830517 O'Reilly Madeline 880205 Mr Osburne Jason Harley 871125 Miss Oxley Caroline Anita 871203 Mr Parmeter Ian Paul 880104 Mr Penfold Peter George 871210 Mrs Pigott Dorothy Ellen Invalidity 871130 Miss Quade Carmel Mary Anne 880513 Ms Richards Pauline Ann 880208 Miss Rix Leonie Therese 880108 Mrs Rojas Janice 880325 Mr Rowe Terence Robert 871016 Rowson Janet 871127 Ms Rubie Gillian Ann 880322 Mrs Sackl Sandra Rae 880111 Miss Santoro Mimma 870708 Miss Sarvaas Jane Thomasina 870828 Mr Scalzo Peter 871002 Ms Schultz Cheryl Maree Contract Expired 871210 Miss Seares Deborah Joy 870902 Mr Smith David John 871023 Mr Smyth Francis Thomas 870727 Miss Spackman Roslyn Ann 880607 Stagno Emmanual 871120 Miss Stewart Ann Mary 871204 Ms Stewart Geraldine Majella 870726 Mrs Susnig Kathy 880526 Mr Sutherland Alexander 870828 Mrs Tait Rosemary Elizabeth Contract Ceased 880304 Ms Tarjan Georgia Carla Andrea 871222 Mr Thompson Andrew Lock 870723 Miss Thompson Robyn 870828 Twigger Leanne 880226 Miss Uhlmann Norma Dorothy 870925 Mr Ward Malcome 880513 Mr Warner Stanley Maxwell 871006 Ms Wheatley Dale 880301 White Julie 871029 Mr Williams James Charles 880128 Miss Willis Robin May 880201 Mr Wiseman Gary Lloyd 880107 Mr Wynd Anthony James 880328 Mrs Zammit Vivienne Mary Resignation-Private Industry ... 880212 Ms Astroulakis Ilianne 871210 Mr Billingsley Anthony John Westpac Banking 880129 Miss Button Caroline Elizabeth 880229 Ms Cameron Elizabeth Prentice Unknown 880209 Miss Chivers Annette Jean 870710 Mr Choquenot Peter Stephen AAP. Reuters Comm 880531 Dr Clancy Michael Charles Itoa 871019 Miss Collins Robyn Resignation-Private Industry ... 880506 Miss Esfandiari Elizabeth Ann 880129 Fernandes Maria 880101 Miss Fingleton Pauline Anne 880131 Mrs Ghirardello Christine Mary 871223 Miss Graham Catherine Heather 871028 Dr Heilbron Selwyn George 870828 Mr Hindes Christopher Edward 880129 Mr Hutley Peter Stephen B 880520 Mr John Richard Anthony 880122 Miss Jolly Susan Catriona 880302 Mr La Fontaine Gerard 871224 Ms Lochead Loraine 880112 Mr Merkenish Ernst 880129 Ms Millner Jacqueline Barbara 880106 Miss Newell Veronica Ann 880603 Mr Nolan Francis Perry 880616 Ms Pederick Kathleen Frances 880114 Miss Pennella Teresa 880112 Mr Redfern Paul Anthony Davis 870724 Dr Schott Kerry 871125 Miss Sims Gina 880331 Miss Smith Amanda Yeoman 880418 Mr Sofield Trevor Harvey Boyd 880604 Ms Steer Naomi Claire 871224 Miss Turner Ann Kathleen 870925 Mr Wallis John David 870930 Ms Widner Janet Rose * 35 Resignation-State Government 880506 Mr Blums Aivars Qld State Gv Dep 880108 Ms Cooper Amanda 870911 Miss Ellis Michelle Winifred 871122 Miss Hancock Rosemary Anne 871006 Mr Lepore Eugene G.I.O. 871104 Mrs Speechley Carleen Janice * 6 Resignation-Tertiary Institution 880215 Mr Keen Stephen Leslie 870814 Mr Verner Anthony James Teaching * 2 Resignation-Trans/Prom to Dept Parliament 871206 Miss Cacciotti Angela AFP 870902 Ms Petrovic Melissah P.H. Const. Authrt * 2 Resignation-Trans/Prom to other Dept 871231 Mr Alman Philip Keith Veterans' Affairs 880622 Mr Anderson David Francis ONA 880304 Ms Barbour Suzanne Joy Social Security 880304 Mr Blake Ronald Mark Dilgea 880525 Mr Blucher David John Defence- JIO 880316 Ms Bourke Maureen Joan Austrade 880113 Mr Brooks Timothy Edmund 880219 Mrs Brophy Irene Ann Admin Serv. Syd 870903 Miss Burford Christine Barbara AIDAB 880212 Mr Calcraft Benjamin Iain Bill Attorney-General 880630 Mr Callender William DIR 870812 Mrs Came Carol Ann Defence 870812 Miss Charles Wendy Jane Att-Gens DPP 880408 Miss Childs Deborah Louise Veterans' Affairs 880630 Ms Clark Lindie Phillippa DIR 880527 Mr Clarke Allistair Robert Bureau of Stats 880516 Mr Collins Allan Thomas Human Rights 880208 Mr Cook Trevor Raymond 880422 Miss Couch Sheree Ann Def. Housing Ath 880413 Mr Crawford Lyall Stewart Taxation 880219 Mr Cripps Peter Bevan Dopie 880622 Mr Cusack Michael John Immigra- tion 870821 Ms D'Agostino Vincenza Comm Serv &Hel 870914 Ms Denniston Jacqueline Gay Depsocsec Adelde 880226 Mr Desiatnik Robert Steven Attorney-General 880520 Mr Done John Robert 871028 Ms Dornoch Heather Joy AIDAB 880512 Ms Eglington Katherine Belle Federal Police 880630 Mr Ewer Peter James DIR 880526 Mr French Philip Gardner Attorney-General 880205 Ms Fritsch Patricia Evelyn Health 880411 Mr Gosper Bruce Charles DPIE 870929 Mrs Gurney Anjali 871209 Mrs Hadgis Irene Petronna Taxation Perth 880324 Mr Haines Simon Nicolas ONA 880121 Halmoukos Peter 880414 Mr Harber Geoffrey Robert Parl'tary Libry 880208 Mr Hyland Peter Philip DAS 880504 Ms Iglesias Teresita Margarita 880415 Mr Johnson Peter Damian AG's (Mob Prov) 880208 Mr Julum Albert Charles Community Servs 880323 Mr Linabury Graeme Peter AFP 871109 Mr Lindsay Craig Hamish DITAC 870914 Miss Maguire Patricia Anne ABS-Brisbane 870806 Mr Maynard Robert James AIDAB 880502 Mr McClory Robert Sean Australia Post 870716 Ms Miles Rhonda Alice AIDAB 871231 Mr Mroz Henry Joseph Aust. Archives 870813 Mrs Mueller Gisela PM& 871014 Mrs Nash Kathryn Maree Defence 870723 Mr Neill Peter John Tax 880304 Ms Nicholas Lynne Christine Pub. Service Com 870703 Mr Norman Robert William Bureau of Stats 880210 Mr O'Dwyer Gerard Thomas AIDAB 880513 Ms O'Shaughnessy Bernadine Reserves 870702 Mrs Parkinson Helen Gwenth PM& 880505 Mr Pickin James Taxation 880630 Mr Pitman David Bruce Henry Dir 880519 Mr Puckridge Robert Stephen Taxation 880630 Mr Rawlinson Peter Edwin Dir 880630 Mr Ryan Christopher Anthony Dir 871214 Mr Scott Christopher Reece Veterans Affairs 880622 Mrs Sheldrick Susan Louise The Treasury 880303 Mr Smith Brian David Benjamin Admin SVS-O/S PR 880621 Mr Southwell Peter Guilford Dir 870909 Mr Suur Lembit PM& 870921 Mr Tayao Lionel 870924 Mr Tomlinson Glyn William Prime Minister 880330 Mrs Tuck Rowena Jean Ditc 871016 Mr Veldhuizen John Super Fund Inv T 870817 Mr Webb Ian John Dept of Health 880129 Mrs Wellington Julia Margaret Unknown 880111 Mr Wilkinson Thomas William Aust Audit Off 870807 Mr Williams Gavin John Education Dept 880630 Mr Wilshire Edward George Dir * 75 Retirement (Sec.20) Excess Officers 871019 Mr Brady Geoffrey Vincent 880217 Mr Brewster Charles Andrew Richard 880311 Mr Browning Christopher John 880120 Mr Houldsworth John 880120 Mr Lindsay Malcolm 880318 Ms Twigg-Patterson Sara * 6 Retirement (Sec.67 (2)) Invalidity 870821 Mr Lyon Malcolm Elliot 880218 Mrs McDonald Sally Priscilla 880602 Mrs Semmar Aleksandra * 3 Retirement (sec. 85(1) ) 60 years 871231 Mr Brown Keith Lynden 870710 Ms Crombie Beatrice Mildred 870904 Mrs Curnow Helen Patricia May 880405 Mr Dobbyn Brian Henry 880217 Mr Goodall Harry 871007 Mr Hickey Brian Blakely 870801 Mr Hill William Craig 870715 Mr Hutton Pierre Norman 880619 Mr McRae Francis James Adam 870731 Miss Radcliffe Alice May Retirement (sec. 85 (2)) other than max. age ... 860427 Mrs Bailey Eileen Dorothy 871014 Mr Bowden Ivor Gordon 880512 Mr Brooks Walter Stevenson 871127 Miss Buckie Joan Margaret 871111 Miss Burke Billie Jeanette 871127 Mrs Butler Valarie Patricia 880515 Mr Casley-Smith Raymond John 880311 Mr Chek Peter Albert 880229 Mr Cowen Thomas Michael 871103 Mr Dean Horace John Albert 870814 Mr Flanagan William Kevin 880210 Mr Hanafin John Charles 880530 Mr Handmer Walter Philip Jon AM 871214 Ms Hargrave Shirley Mabel 870726 Hon Johnson Leslie Royston 880422 Mr Little Reginald Eric 880513 Mr Loveday Harold Maxwell 880114 Mr Parsons Alfred Roy 880615 Mr Paterson Kenneth Walter 870908 Mr Rae Bruce Henry 880412 Mr Smith Noel Ross 880205 Mrs Stephenson Phyllis Audrey 870708 Mrs Suiter Joan Pameline 880311 Mrs Valko Ilona 880510 Mr Woodberry Bruce William * 25 Retirement (sec. 86) 65 years ... 871026 Mr Anderson Harold David AO OBE 880209 Mr Cranswick John MacVie 871002 Mr Given John William 871030 Mr Lovegrove John Vincent * 4 Retirement-medical/compensation ... 880524 Miss Ffrench Shirley 880525 Miss Pulbrook Helen 871001 Mr Rennef Paul 880525 Mr Sloane Gary 880525 Mr Woolley Thomas * 5 Retrenchment ... 880120 Mr Kelly Peter Martin 880120 Mr MacColl Robert Allan * 2 Secondment complement-return to doner department ... 880208 Mr Adams Denys Guildford 871015 Mr Ahern Kevin Francis 870803 Mr Anderson Graham Hayden Defence 880208 Mr Bigg Graham John 880613 Mr Brennan Gerard Attorney-General 880602 Mr Brooks John Frederick Housing and Const. 880208 Mr Cox William Lester 880101 Mr Curtis Vernon Frederick Unknown 871208 Dr Davie John Private Practice 871008 Ms Dunn Janene Elizabeth 880422 Dr Garnaut Ross Gregory ANU 880630 Mr George Gilbert Charles 880411 Mr Graham William Edward 871030 Dr Hartwig Arthur William 880208 Mr Lindsay Ralph Rowland 880413 Miss Matijevic Maria Frances Dasett 871015 Mr McGrath Shane Ernest 880411 Mr Oates Christopher John 880418 Mr Onton Lindsay Housing and Const. 880307 Mr Pringle Graham Peter 880411 Ms Quinn Annette Gay 880411 Mr Sheppard Ian 880411 Mr White Daryl Glynn 871204 Ms Wigg Louise Shirley 24 Termination of services ... 880226 Ms Aiken-Petersen Mette Petra 871120 Mrs Alexander Vicki Christina 880108 Ms Astolfi Simonetta Maria 880325 Miss Bain Karin Maree Contract expired 870701 Miss Bajada Joan 870703 Mr Ballantyne Matthew James 880127 Mr Beauman Andrew John 880329 Miss Bennett Vicki Karen Contact ceased 870911 Mrs Burgess Sandra Ann 870904 Ms Camporeale Lee 880331 Mrs Cheffers Margaret Contract expired 880126 Mr Coleman Paul Sebastian 871120 Ms Corrie Geraldine Angela 871001 Ms Cracknell Wendy Jane 870710 Ms Cull Barbara Morris 871207 Mrs Cullen Gwenyth Anne 880630 Mr De Mar Gareth Thomas Contract expired 880210 Mr Dent Nicholas Nigel 880122 Ms Donaldson Sharon Jane 880510 Mr Duff Alexander David Contract expired 880205 Evans Donna 871204 Mrs Flakelar Mary 880630 Miss Gagliardi R. 871123 Mr Gantner Carrillo Baillieu 871224 Mrs Gare Margaret Anne 880129 Miss Gleeson Jacqueline Marie 870719 Mrs Godfrey Deborah Jane 880630 Mr Greenhalgh W. 870701 Miss Gregoriadis Freda 870701 Miss Gullifa Maria 870811 Ms Herkes Karen Joy Contract expired 870720 Mr Honey Grantley Beric 880616 Dr Jenkins Henry Alfred 870803 Mrs Kempster Susan 870708 Ms Koch Katherine 880630 Mr Lim Teng Chiv Contract expired 880630 Mr Matthews Anthony Kevin Contract expired 871218 Mays Dolores 871023 Mr Mooney Phillip Ronald 870930 Mrs Murrell Moireen 871103 Ms Nixon Kayley-Ann Maree Contract expired 870710 Ms Noman Eliane Rose-Marie 880617 Mr Nugent David James Contract expired 880307 Miss Otton Prue Jane 880219 Mrs Pearce Josephine Carol 871101 Miss Peters Lisa Anna 870710 Mr Peters Richard Neil 871030 Mrs Purcell Elaine Madge Contract expired 870829 Miss Quach Thi Anh Tuyet Contract expired 880129 Mr Quade Matthew John 880405 Mr Reid Mark David Attorney- General 871006 Mr Roach Scott Wayne 880513 Miss Rothfield Jasmin Lydia Contract expired 880128 Mrs Socha Pauline Margaret 871221 Mr Stojanovic Andrija 880318 Mr Taylor John 880511 Mr Taylor John Casey 870805 Miss Vellnagel Anita 871019 Mr Vickers Michael Peter Contract ended 871201 Mr Weinham Ieuan James 880226 Mr Woodcock Andrew James 61 Transfer to app A. or B. of permanent Staff list ... 880307 Mr Oxenham Michael Humphrey 1 397 (Question No. 1085) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) When was the Australian Embassy in Ethiopia (a) opened (b) closed. (2) What were the costs of (a) establishing and (b) closing that Embassy. (3) Why was the Embassy (a) opened and (b) closed. (4) What was the value of Australian aid to Ethiopia provided, or to be provided by bilateral, multilateral or other means, during (a) 1985-86, (b) 1986-87 and (c) 1987-88, including particulars of how such aid was made up. (5) As Australia has no permanent diplomatic presence in Ethiopia, what individuals or organisations does Australia rely on to oversee the distribution of Australian sourced aid in Ethiopia and how does the Government supervise this work. (6) What are the departmental forecasts of the kind of problems that are likely to be en- countered in the distribution of Australian sourced foreign aid in Ethiopia, in particular, how do the various insurgencies affect the distribution of this aid in Ethiopia. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Australian Embassy in Ethiopia was (a) opened on 10 December 1984 and (b) closed on 2 December 1987. (2) The costs of (a) establishing the Embassy were $485,000 and (b) closing the Embassy were nil. As a result of the Embassy closure an amount of $349,000 was received for the sale/transfer of motor vehicles and fittings and the transfer of furniture to other posts. (3) (a) The reasons for opening the Embassy derived from the Joint Committee's report on Australia's Representation in Africa (of December 1983) which recommended that Australia open a resident mission in Addis Ababa. The Government then decided that it would be in keeping with Australia's interests in this region, and with our intention to focus Australia's foreign policy role towards the Indian Ocean and East Africa, to establish a small resident mission in Addis Ababa to: Provide Australia with a direct channel of communication with the Ethiopian Government and our first resident diplomatic presence in the Horn of Africa; Manage Australia's large scale emergency food aid program to Ethiopia; Serve as a point of contact with the Organisation of Africa Unity and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, both of which have their headquarters in Addis Ababa. (b) The decision to close the Australian Embassy in Addis Ababa was taken with great reluctance and was solely for budgetary reasons. It was necessitated by the extraordinary constraints dictated by the economic situation and reflected the Government's commitment to cutting expenditure. (4) The value of Australian aid to Ethiopia was as follows: Assist- ance Through Multi- lateral Agencies $'000 Other Assist- ance (1) $'000 Total $'000 (a) 1985-86 710 15,967 16,677 (b) 1986-87 125 11,257 11,382 (c) 1987-88 1,719 16,555 18,274 (1) The bulk of `other assistance' is channelled through non-government organisations. (5) The Government oversees and supervises the work of distributing Australian sourced aid in the following manner: The primary means of oversight for the distribution of Australian sourced aid in Ethiopia is the Australian High Commission in Nairobi which also has administrative responsibility for an AIDAB office in Addis Ababa. During the recent emergency a Nairobi-based aid officer spent 75 percent of her time in Addis Ababa monitoring Australian aid to Ethiopia. With regard to developmental aid the aid officer is in regular contact with the World Food Program, an agent for the large food-for-work program in the Southern Zone, as well as the associated Ethiopian government instrumentalities. Similarly, the aid officer liaises with the World Bank on the Forage Seed Program of the Bank's fourth Livestock Development Project; the program is supported by funds from the sale of Australian wheat. An Australian livestock adviser is also attached to the World Bank's Agricultural Development Service in Ethiopia. The aid officer makes regular field trips to program sites, receives regular program reports and is in frequent contact with the offices in Addis Ababa of the WFP and World Bank as well as Ethiopian Government officials concerning the running of these developmental projects. The emergency component of the 1987-88 program to Ethiopia is controlled through various mechanisms. Australian emergency assistance is monitored by the aid officer in conjunction with the selected implementing agencies. The major part of Australia's emergency aid is channelled through Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) operating in country as well as UN agencies (UNDRO, FAO, and UNICEF). In addition an Australian NGO Consortium monitors the distribution of packages of emergency aid to the rebel controlled areas of Eritrea and Tigray. This NGO Consortium and four other NGOs have also received individual support for emergency assistance under the AIDAB/NGO Co-operation Program. The Government of Ethiopia's Relief and Rehabilitation Commission received approximately 12% of Australian emergency assistance to Ethiopia in 1987-88. In all instances organisations are selected on the basis of a proven capacity to operate effectively in the areas where relief is to be provided. Regular reporting by the implementing agencies to AIDAB is standard practice. (6). The problems experienced previously in the provision of Australian aid to Ethiopia and which may continue in the future are port congestion, grain storage limitations and internal distribution. Port congestion and grain storage problems caused by limited capacity to handle the large volumes, can be expected to ease with increased donor coordination on food aid shipments, increased storage capacity, and improved rainfall which is likely to reduce the need for current levels of external food aid. Internal distribution problems relate to both the inadequate supply and maintenance of truck transport (which has improved over recent months), heavy rainfall which can make roads impassable, and access to sensitive areas under dispute between insurgents and the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) With an escalation of the fighting in northern Ethiopia, the GOE ordered the withdrawal of virtually all expatriate aid workers from Eritrea and Tigray. The Australian Government worked in concert with other donors and made representations to the GOE authorities about the problems created by these developments, in particular the impact on monitoring food supplies. As long as insurgencies continue in Ethiopia, it will remain a difficult task to provide relief aid to people in need of emergency assistance and adequate monitoring arrangements to ensure the viability of the assistance provided. (Question No. 1088) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What progress has been made in the establishment of an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace. (2) What has been the reaction of other Indian Ocean Zone States to the Indian Ocean Zone of Peace. (3) Is he able to indicate the number of nuclear powered submarines in the Indian ocean and the countries to which they belong. (4) What reaction to the establishment of an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace has been given by the Government of (a) The USA, (b) India, (c) Pakistan, (d) Britain, (e) the USSR and (f) France. (5) What role has Australia played as a member of the relevant UN Council to bring about an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace and what is the status of the work of that Council. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) It is fair to say that little progress has been made in the establishment of an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace (IOZOP) since the adoption of Resolution 2832 at the United Nations on 16 December 1971 declaring that Zone, and the establishment in 1972 of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider issues associated with the implementation of that resolution, including the convening of an international conference on the Zone. Differences remain within the Committee, comprising 49 member States (list attached), on the question of the circumstances under which a successful conference could be convened. (2) and (4) Members of the Committee stated in their report to the Third Special Session on Disarmament that they remain convinced that concrete action for the achievement of the objectives of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean Zone of Peace would be a substantial contribution to the strengthening of international peace and security as well as the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and peaceful development of the States of the region. The Governments of the USA, Pakistan, UK and France are broadly of the view that, if a conference is to be convened on the Indian Ocean Zone of Peace, it must offer some prospect of contributing to the establishment of such a zone. This means, among other things, that it must be adequately prepared; there must be a clear understanding of what it is expected to achieve, including the definition of appropriate commitments and obligations on the part of both the regional States and the extra-regional powers; and it must stand a realistic chance of success. The USSR has urged, most recently in Mr Gorbachev's Krasnoyarsk speech in September 1988, that a conference on the Zone be held not later than 1990. India maintains that the conference should be attended by all States with a direct interest in the issue. (3) The only nuclear-powered submarine which is known to be permanently based in the Indian Ocean is the Charlie-class submarine recently leased by India from the Soviet Union. It would not be in Australia's security interests to provide details of transits by any other nuclear-powered submarines through the Indian Ocean. To do so would have the effect of assisting other countries to evaluate the ability of the Australian Government, and the countries with which it shares intelligence information, to monitor the activities of foreign navies. (5) The Australian Government has given consistent support to the concept of the IOZOP in line with Labor Party policy and its commitment to peace and disarmament. Australia has played a prominent role in the Ad Hoc Committee of which it was a foundation member and which has met regularly in New York. Australia holds the positions of Vice Chairman of the committee and also that of Western Group Coordinator. Australia has sought to perform a ``bridge-building'' role in the Committee, promoting consensus and, where possible, positive progress towards implementation of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly. Early in its first term, the Government took the view that a conference should be viewed as contributing to the evolution of a suitable political and security environment rather than being dependent on such an environment already being in place. Earlier, Australia had broadly subscribed to the view that a conference would not be appropriate until a conducive political and security climate had emerged in the region. The Government considers that the establishment of an IOZOP requires the full and active participation and cooperation of all permanent members of the Security Council, the major maritime users and littoral and hinterland states. The Ad Hoc Committee is composed of the following 49 Member States: Australia Italy Singapore Bangladesh Japan Somalia Bulgaria Kenya Sri Lanka Canada Liberia Sudan China Madagascar Thailand Democratic Yemen Malaysia Uganda Djibouti Maldives Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Egypt Mauritius Ethiopia Mozambique United Arab Emirates France Netherlands United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland German Demo- cratic Republic Norway Germany, Federal Republic of Oman United Republic of Tanzania Greece Pakistan United States of America India Panama Yemen Indonesia Poland Yugoslavia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Romania Zambia Iraq Seychelles Zimbabwe Sweden attends meetings of the Committee as an observer. (Question No. 1089) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 3 June 1988: (1) What negotiations or proposals are being engaged in or are under examination between the Government and the Government of the USSR in relation to (a) fishing, (b) Cape York space facilities, (c) landing rights for Aeroflot and (d) the training of an Australian astronaut, (2) When were such negotiations or proposals first discussed between the two governments and at whose initiative and why has there been such haste in following up these proposals. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) In relation to (a) fishing and (c) landing rights for Aeroflot, the following proposals were made by the USSR in April 1988: (i) A Government to Government agreement between Australia and the USSR on fisheries co-operation. (ii) Commercial research fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ), the results of which would be made available to Australia. (iii) Access to an Australian port to be nominated by Australia for Soviet fishing vessels operating in southern waters for repairs, maintenance, revictualling and crew changes. (iv) Access to one Australian airport for Aeroflot charter flights for crew changeover purposes only. (v) Opportunities for landing fish from USSR fishing vessels directly for Australian fish processing factories, on a commercial basis. (vi) Continuation of scientific research in the AFZ adjacent to Heard and McDonald Islands. During the round of negotiations in Moscow in September 1988 the Soviet side elaborated and expanded on their original proposals to include possible future commercial fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone, the appointment of fisheries attaches, establishment of a joint committee, co-operation in conservation and utilisation of marine living resources, and the encouragement of activities such as joint ventures, scientific and technological exchanges, training and joint processing and marketing of fish. In relation to (b), the development of space launching facilities in the Cape York area has been proposed as a privately owned and operated project. The Commonwealth Government fully supports the Queensland Government's efforts to develop a commercial spaceport on Cape York and to ensure that there is full private sector ownership and responsibility for the project. The Commonwealth Government's role is to assist consortia undertaking feasibility studies to address and resolve Commonwealth related issues so that the viability of the spaceport can be determined. The Commonwealth will also facilitate discussions with foreign governments which have a potential interest in the civil use of the proposed project. The Government is aware of discussions which have taken place between the USSR space organisation, Glavkosmos, and representatives of Cape York Space Agency Pty Ltd, one of the consortia examining a spaceport at Cape York. Glavkosmos representatives have also visited Canberra to explain their position to officials in Government departments. No negotitions or proposals emerged from these contacts which require examination by the Australian Government. In relation to (d) the Soviet Union space organisation, Glavkosmos, in the course of a conference on ``Commercial Opportunities from Space Transport'' in Brisbane on 28 April 1988, publicly extended an offer to train an Australian to fly on a Soviet spacecraft. The offer was again extended, on a commercial basis, to Departmental officials in Canberra on 2 May, and it was further discussed during the recent visit to the Soviet Union of an Australian delegation under the Australia/USSR Space Research Cooperation Agreement. It is not under any further examination at present. (2) There have been discussions between the Governments of Australia and the USSR on fisheries-related questions, such as those which have now been proposed, for approximately a decade (essentially since Australia proclaimed its AFZ in 1979). Indeed, prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Australian Government had given its approval to Australian-USSR joint ventures in feasibility fishing. At that time the initiative rested both with the USSR and with Australian companies. Fisheries matters were raised with the Prime Minister during his visit to Moscow in December 1987. On that occasion the Prime Minister undertook to consider any specific proposals submitted by the USSR. The first set of proposals, mentioned above, were made during a visit to Australia in mid-April 1988 by a delegation led by the Soviet First Deputy Minister for Fisheries, Mr N. P. Kudryavtsev. During the visit to Australia in July 1988 by Mr Vladimir Kamentsev, Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, the Australian Government advised the Soviet side that Australia was prepared to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union on the basis of the Soviet proposals in the context of a broader package of measures involving long term arrangements for commodities. The initial round of negotiations took place in Moscow in September 1988. Proposals in relation to the space activities referred to above have been initiated by commercial interests in Australia and Glavkosmos in the USSR. Any follow-up contacts by Australian Government officials have taken place in the normal course of events. I am unable to respond to the final part of the question regarding the timing for consideration of proposals in the absence of a definition of what is meant by ``such haste''. (Question No. 1139) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the glossy publication recently distributed to all nursing home residents by his Department which discusses, in detail, the implications and mechanics of the Resident Classification Instrument. (2) Are elderly patients with disabilities, some of whom are suffering from dementia, and who are currently resident in nursing homes, capable of reading and comprehending such publications; if not, what was the intention of sending out such material. (3) How many copies of the leaflet were published. (4) What sum did it cost the Government to produce the publication. (5) To whom was the publication distributed. (6) How was the distribution conducted. (7) What sum did the distribution cost. (8) Were multiple copies sent out to any individuals or organisations; if so, which individuals and organisations received multiple copies. (9) How many copies did each person or organisation receive. (10) How was the distribution list devised. (11) Who now has access to the distribution list. Mr Staples —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No such publication detailing the implications and mechanics of the Resident Classification Instrument has been distributed to nursing home residents. The honourable member is possibly referring to the Aged Care Update, about which he asked a number of specific questions on 23 August 1988, Question Number 1126-the reply to which was published in Hansard on 24 November 1988, page number 3326. (Question No. 1153) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 25 August 1988: (1) What sum of Government money from the (a) National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, (b) Department of Employment, Education and Training, (c) Youth Bureau, (d) Bureau of Consumer Affairs and (e) Office of the Status of Women has been devoted to funding the publication of Streetwize comics. (2) Is it usual to use taxpayers' funds to pay for the production of publications which many taxpayers find offensive. (3) How often has the Government funded literature for Australia's youth which extolled the benefits free enterprise provides the community and showed unions as gaining benefits for their members at the expense of the unemployed and other workers. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) $225,000 (b) $152,673 (c) $62,294 (d) $10,000 (e) $5,000 (2) There is no evidence that many taxpayers find the publications offensive. Workers with youth find them of great assistance. Government information presented in the Streetwize format has proved both accessible and acceptable to its target audience, disadvantaged young people who are otherwise extremely difficult to inform through printed media. (3) The Government does not produce such literature for young people. (Question No. 1173) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 1 September 1988: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 117 (Hansard, 2 November 1987, page 1869), how many courses in Australia at 30 June 1988. (2) What are the principal countries from which they come and how many come from each of those countries. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At 30 June 1988, there were 13,084 overseas students undertaking tertiary courses in Australia under the Private Overseas Students quota-controlled subsidised program. In addition, there were 2,641 private students undertaking tertiary courses on a full fee paying basis, and 1,441 tertiary students fully-sponsored by AIDAB. (2) The principal countries and the numbers of private overseas students undertaking tertiary studies under the quota-controlled subsidised and full fee programs at 30 June 1988 are as follows: Country Quota-con- trolled subsidised Full Fee Malaysia 7,065 785 Hong Kong 1,155 414 Indonesia 1,036 333 Fiji 755 39 People's Republic of China 743 79 Singapore 468 583 India 196 11 Japan 149 18 United Kingdom 141 40 Thailand 138 80 Republic of Korea 126 48 Sri Lanka 125 12 United States of America 107 10 Canada 85 - Tonga 68 5 Bangladesh 53 5 Federal Republic of Germany 50 - Papua New Guinea 45 13 Brunei 35 53 TOTAL 12,540 2,528 These figures represent more than 95 per cent of the total number of students in these programs. (3) The principal countries and the numbers of overseas students fully sponsored by AIDAB and who were undertaking tertiary studies at 30 June 1988 are as follows: Indonesia...368 Thailand...200 Philippines...98 Fiji...93 Papua New Guinea...86 Burma...59 Western Samoa...53 Tonga...46 People's Republic of China...44 Bangladesh...29 Ghana...26 Solomon Islands...26 Nigeria...25 Singapore...23 Tanzania...22 Seychelles...20 Sri Lanka...19 Mauritius...17 Zambia...16 Uganda...12 Kenya...11 India...11 TOTAL...1,304 This represents over 90 per cent of the total number of AIDAB fully sponsored students undertaking tertiary studies at that date. (Question No. 1187) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Which specialised agencies of the UN are examining the question of ships flying flags of convenience. (2) Has the South Pacific Forum discussed the question. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The question of ships flying flags of convenience has not been specifically examined in a UN specialised agency. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) provided the forum for the negotiation of the UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. That Convention prescribes minimum acceptable registration standards for ships irrespective of their flag of registration. In the course of its negotiation, registration issues posed by flags of convenience ships were addressed. The Convention was open for signature in New York from 1 May 1986 to 30 April 1987 and remains open for accession but has yet to enter into force. Australia has not acceded to the convention. At times UN specialised agencies have had to take account of the practice of flags of convenience in relation to other issues. The work of the UN Environment Program (UNEP) on transboundary movement of hazardous waste has involved some consideration of the practice of flags of convenience. Similarly, the issue has arisen peripherally in the course of discussions at the ILO's Maritime Conference dealing with working conditions of seafarers. (2) There is no record on this issue having been discussed at the South Pacific Forum. (Question No. 1188) Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 27 September 1988: (1) Was it stated in the answer to part (1) (c) of my question No. 644 (Hansard, 22 August 1988, page 49) that it is hoped that Australia will be in the near future in a position to ratify the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. (2) When Australia is in a position to ratify the Protocols, will it also be in a position to make a declaration pursuant to Article 90 of Protocol I, as New Zealand was when it ratified the Protocols on 8 February 1988. (3) What progress has been made towards establishing the International Fact-Finding Commission which Article 90 envisages. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) As a decision on whether Australia should make a declaration under Article 90 will require further consultation with the States, no decision on this will be made until after Australian ratification. (3) An International Fact-Finding Commission will be established when not less than 20 states have accepted the competence of the Commission pursuant to Article 90 (2) of Protocol I. To date only 11 states have agreed to accept the Commission's competence. (Question No. 1231) Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, upon notice, on 29 September 1988: (1) Has his attention been drawn to reports of Asian students being misled by promoters of private English language courses in Australia. (2) What steps are being taken to protect Australia's international reputation in this area and ensure that all such courses are required to provide an acceptable standard of service for a reasonable fee. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of recent reports. (2) The Australian Education Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for the marketing of educational services overseas and agreed to develop state based licensing arrangements for institutions involved in the overseas student program. At the same time several education sector groups have adopted more specific codes and enhanced accreditation systems. For example, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals have adopted a code of ethics for higher education institutions. Similar developments have occured for business colleges and English language training institutions. There has been quick investigation, in association with educational and trade practices authorities in the States, of complaints against institutions or individuals. Action has included suspension of institutions from the overseas student program. (Question No. 1252) Mr John Scott asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 13 October 1988: (1) Was the limit (a) for DDT in vegetables, except root vegetables, in 1976, 0.5mg/kg and (b) shown in the Commonwealth Gazette No. P 19 of 15 July 1988, for DDT in all vegetables 1.0mg/kg; if so, why is the limit shown in the Gazette more than double that of 1976. (2) Was lindane a permitted residue in vegetables in 1976; if so, (a) what were the limits recommended by the NHMRC in that year and (b) how do they compare with the limits shown in the Gazette. (3) If lindane was not a permitted residue in vegetables in 1976, why is it a permitted residue now. (4) Was aldrin a permitted residue in (a) eggs, (b) sugar cane and (c) water in 1976; if so, what were the limits recommended by the NHMRC in that year and how do they compare with the limits shown in the Gazette. (5) If aldrin was not a permitted residue in eggs, sugar cane and water in 1976, why is it a permitted residue now. (6) Is Maldison also known as Malathione and was Maldison a permitted residue in (a) water, (b) wheat bran, (c) nuts and (d) dried fruits in 1976; if so, what were the limits recommended by the NHMRC in that year and how do those compare with the limits shown in the Gazette. (7) If Malathione was not a permitted residue in water, wheat bran, nuts and dried fruits in 1976, why is it a permitted residue now. (8) Does the Gazette show the permitted limit for 2,4-D is (a) 5mg/kg in citrus fruits, (b) 0.1mg/kg in water and (c) 0.05mg/kg in milk and milk products; if so, why (i) are the limits different for the different foods and (ii) is the limit for water greater than the limit for milk. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) In 1976, the recommended maximum residue limits (MRLs) for vegetables were: leafy vegetables...7mg/kg root vegetables, tomatoes...1mg/kg all other vegetables...0.5mg/kg. (b) Yes. In 1986, the MRLs were altered to make the MRL for all vegetables 1 ppm DDT to accord with recommendations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. (2) Yes. (a) 2 mg/kg. (b) 2 mg/kg. (3) See (2). (4) Yes. (a) 0.1 mg/kg. (b) No. (c) No. In Gazette (a) 1 mg/kg. (b) 0.1 mg/kg. (c) 0.001 mg/kg. (5) An MRL for sugarcane, at the limit of analytical detectability, was recommended because of the use of aldrin as a soil insecticide in sugarcane production. MRLs for water were not recommended prior to 1979. (6) No. Maldison is the approved Australian name for malathion, not malathione. (a) MRLs for water were not recommended prior to 1979. The current MRL for Maldison for potable water is 0.1 mg/L. (b) An MRL for wheat bran was not recommended in 1976, although there was an MRL of 8 mg/kg for raw cereals. The currently recommended MRL for wheat bran was subsequently introduced to accord with the recommendation of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. (c) The 1976 MRL for nuts and dried fruits is unchanged. (7) See (6). (8) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (i) MRLs vary between different foods because of variations in agricultural practice which give rise to the residue. (ii) The limit for water is for potable water which could become contaminated following approved use of such chemicals. The limit for milk and milk products is at the limit of analytical detectability. (Question No. 1253) Mr John Scott asked the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 13 October 1988: (1) On what crops can 2, 4, 5-T be used in Australia. (2) Does the Commonwealth Gazette No. P19 of 15 July 1988 give the maximum level for 2, 4, 5-T in milk and meat as 0.05 mg/kg. (3) Was 2, 4, 5-T a permitted residue in milk and meat in 1976; if so, what were the limits recommended by the NHMRC in that year and how do they compare with the limits shown in the Gazette. (4) If 2, 4, 5-T was not permitted residue in meat and milk in 1976, why is it a permitted residue now. (5) What cattle and sheep feed crops can be sprayed with 2, 4, 5-T and at what levels can they be sprayed. (6) If it is not permitted to use 2, 4, 5-T on pastures or animal feed crops, how does the 2, 4, 5-T get into meat and milk. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In Australia, 2, 4, 5-T has clearance for use on sugar cane, pastures, rights of way and industrial sites. (2) Yes. The level defines the limit of analytical determination. (3) No. (4) The level in the Gazette defines the limit of analytical detection not a finite residue. (5) As I stated in (1) above, 2, 4, 5-T has clearance for use on sugar cane, pastures, rights of way and industrial sites. The recommended application rates are specified on the label registered by each State or Territory. (6) It is not expected that residues of 2, 4, 5-T will occur in meat or milk as the MRLs in the Gazette indicate. (Question No. 1285) Mr John Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 October 1988: (1) Does Collins Radio Company of South Australia, of 12 Currie Street, Adelaide, have a contract with his Department or any other Department or agency; if so, what is the nature of that contract. (2) Has the Government required that all personnel employed by Collins Radio Company receive a security clearance; if so, is the security clearance requirement in accordance with the (a) Standard Request for Tender Manual (DEFPUR) issued by the Defence Contracting Organisation and (b) Defence Industrial Security Manual (Sec Man 1) issued by his Department. (3) What level of security clearance is required for Collins Radio Company staff engaged in Government contracts. (4) Has the Government's attention been drawn to the requirement of the Collins Radio Company that its potential employees be Australian citizens by birth or naturalisation, in addition to having been continuously resident in Australia for the immediate past 5 years; if so, (a) does the Government support those requirements and (b) is he able to say why such requirements are set. (5) Is a requirement that job applicants be Australian citizens by birth or naturalisation, in addition to having been continuously resident in Australia for the immediate past 5 years consistent with Australia's obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as reflected in federal and State anti-discrimination legislation; if not, what action does the Government propose to bring Collins Radio's security requirements into line with those obligations. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Collins Radio Constructors Incorporated is contracted to the Government of the United States of America at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap (JDFPG). The Company has no contract with the Department of Defence. (2) Company employees who need access to JDFPG require clearance to the appropriate security level in accordance with the requirements contained in the Defence Personnel Security Manual from which the relevant provisions of the Defence Industrial Security Manual derive. The provisions of the Standard Request for Tender Manual are not applicable. (3) The level of security clearance is determined by the nature of the work undertaken and the requirement to have access to classified material and information. (4) Yes. Security clearance requirements for access to the JDFPG secure area contribute to Australia's national security. They are determined in accordance with government policy and are consistent with the Government's view of the value of Australian citizenship. In addition, for a security check to be meaningful the person being cleared must have spent a reasonable period of their lives in circumstances that are checkable. In relation to JDFPG, which is a Joint Australian/US facility, a security clearance is a prerequisite, by international agreement, for all employed within the facility, including staff engaged by private contractors, such as Collins. I might add that provision exists to waive the citizenship requirement should it be considered in the national interest to do so. (5) Yes. (Question No. 1303) Mr White asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1988: (1) What losses or thefts of (a) weapons, (b) ammunition and (c) explosives have occurred in establishments under the control of the (i) Australian Regular Army, (ii) Army Reserve, (iii) RAN, (iv) RAN Reserve, (v) RAAF and (vi) RAAF Reserve in each financial or calendar year since 1983. (2) In each case, what was the (a) quantity, (b) nature and (c) value of items lost or stolen. (3) Has any materiel been recovered; if so, to what extent in each case. (4) Has any person or persons been (a) charged or (b) convicted of offences connected with missing ADF materiel; if so, what are the details in each case. (5) What items of materiel are unaccounted for as the date of preparation of the answer to this question and what is their (a) individual and (b) total value. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (5) See following table which includes details of both losses and thefts. It should be noted that some of the losses may be accounted for in stocktaking discrepancies. Information regarding the value of every individual loss or theft of weapons, ammunitions and explosives from Australian Defence Force regular and reserve establishments is not held centrally and would need to be sought from a number of sources and then collated. I do not believe that the resources that would be required to provide an answer to this part of the honourable member's question should be so diverted particularly as the value of many individual items and parts cannot be easily determined. Service Items lost or stolen Recovered Legal/Disciplinary Action 1983 RAN 5250 rounds 7.62mm ball ammunition No See note (a) Twelve 81mm high explosive rounds No See note (a) Regular Army Self Loading Rifle (SLR) breech block Yes See note (a) 9mm pistol No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) M16 bolt No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) Claymore anti-personnel mine No See note (a) Illumination flare Yes See note (a) Three ground burst simulators Yes See note (a) 105mm inert projectile and casing Yes See note (b) Quantity of 7.62mm and 9mm ammunition Yes See note (b) 9mm pistol No See note (a) Smoke grenade Yes See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (b) Two SLR bayonets No See note (a) Casing of Claymore mine Yes See note (a) One bayonet No See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (b) 9mm pistol No See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (b) Three pyrotechnics Yes See note (b) M16 rifle No See note (b) Two hand grenade simulators Yes See note (b) .32 pistol Yes See note (a) Three ground burst grenade simulators and three grenade simulators Yes See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (a) SLR breech block Yes See note (a) SLR Yes See note (a) Five SLRs Yes See note (a) Trophy weapons (innocuous) No See note (a) .357 revolver Yes No disciplinary action taken Quantity of explosive material Yes Civil charges. Details not available Quantity of pyrotechnics No See note (a) 9mm pistol and two 9mm submachine guns Yes See note (b) Trip flare Yes See note (b) Army Reserve (cont) Five SLR breech blocks Yes See note (b) Quantity of small arms ammunition and pyrotechnics Yes Member charged. Details not available Trophy weapon No See note (a) Four SLR breech blocks No See note (a) exploder kit No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) 9mm sub machine gun barrel No See note (b) SLR No See note (a) SLR No See note (a) Quantity of 7.62mm ammunition Yes See note (a) Bayonet Yes See note (b) Anti-personnel inert mine No See note (b) Two M16 rifles and one grenade launcher No See note (b) .38 revolver, detonator cord and plastic explosive Yes See note (b) Ammunition, explosives, .38 revolver and a SLR Yes See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (b) M72 launcher (expended) No See note (b) RAAF Five 9mm rounds No See note (b) 1984 Regular Army M116A1 simulator Yes See note (a) M16 rifle Yes See note (b) SLR bayonet Yes See note (b) Small quantity of ammunition Yes See note (b) Anti-tank (practice) mine fuse Yes See note (b) Pistol No See note (a) SLR bayonet No See note (a) 9mm pistol and five 9mm rounds No See note (b) SLR bayonet No See note (a) Smoke grenade Yes See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (b) Regular Army (cont) Two signal pistols No See note (a) Two SLR bayonets Yes See note (b) M16 breech block No See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (b) M16 rifle No See note (b) Two grenade simulators Yes See note (a) Two 9mm pistols No See note (a) SLR bayonet No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) Grenade simulator Yes See note (b) Two SLRs Yes See note (a) M16 bayonet No See note (a) Blank small arms ammunition and weapon parts Yes See note (a) SLR No See note (a) 9mm pistol No See note (a) Pyrotechnics Yes See note (b) M16 bolt No See note (b) SLR No See note (b) Weapons parts and ammunition Yes See note (b) Inert ammunition Yes See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) Army Reserve SLR breech block No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (a) Four SLRs, three 9mm sub machine guns (less breech blocks), 209 9mm inert rounds and a samurai sword Yes See note (a) 9mm sub machine gun Yes See note (a) 9mm pistol No See note (a) M16 rifle No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) 9mm pistol No See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (a) Expended 66mm SRAAW No See note (a) Five practice anti-personnel mines Yes See note (a) Army Reserve M60 barrel No See note (b) (cont) 9mm Pistol No See note (a) 9mm sub machine gun Yes See note (a) 300 7.26 rounds No See note (a) 1200 7.62mm and 150 5.56mm blank rounds No See note (a) F1 machine gun Yes No disciplinary action Five SLRs Yes See note (b) 1985 RAN Two bayonets No See note (a) 9mm pistol No See note (a) Regular Army 2 bayonets Yes ADF member: 14 days restriction of privileges and $40 fine Pyrotechnic signal illumination flare Yes See note (b) Two SLRs and bayonets Yes See note (a) Two SLR bayonets No See note (a) 48 7.62mm rounds and weapon parts Yes ADF member: 28 days detention SLR Bayonet No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (a) M26 grenade, one 66mm anti-armour weapon and one 76mm high explosive round Yes Juveniles: civil court action SLR Yes See note (b) Trophy weapon Yes See note (a) SLR bayonet, 104 7.62mm blank rounds and seven 7.62mm live rounds Yes ADF member: fined $200 SLR bolt No See note (a) 1089 small arms rounds Yes ADF member: Court Martial, reduced in rank 35 5.56 rounds and an illumination flare Yes ADF member: severe reprimand SLR breech block No See note (a) Quantity of SLR parts Yes ADF member: not charged SLR bayonet No See note (a) 780 9mm and two 7.62mm rounds No See note (a) Smoke grenade and firing device Yes ADF members: two days loss of pay 9mm pistol and .38 revolver Yes See note (a) SLR bayonet Yes ADF member: no disciplinary action SLR bayonet No See note (a) Inert mortar round Yes ADF member: not charged Thirty hand grenades with fuses and thirty hand grenade fuses No See note (a) Stick of plastic explosive Yes ADF member: discharged Army Reserve 9mm sub machine gun No See note (a) M60 bolt No See note (a) M60 bolt No See note (a) Private weapon No See note (b) SLR minus bolt No See note (a) Electronic exploder No See note (a) 358 blank small arms rounds Yes See note (a) Fourteen 9mm sub machine guns and a flare gun (all without breech blocks), 5 sub machine guns, 1124 blank rounds, signal flare, smoke grenade and eleven blasting caps Yes ADF member: discharged 1986 Regular Army 60 5.56 blank rounds Yes ADF member: not prosecuted 141 7.62mm rounds Yes ADF member: reduced in rank Demolition kit No See note (a) 1200 7.62mm rounds No See note (a) 47 7.62mm blank rounds Yes ADF member: discharged SLR bayonet No See note (a) .38 revolver No See note (a) Practice grenade Yes See note (b) 300 7.62mm blank rounds Yes Juveniles: civil court action 9mm pistol Yes ADF member: fined $1000 SLR minus barrel Yes ADF member: fine and good behaviour bond Regular Army (cont) Thirty anti-personnel grenades and two anti-armour weapons No See note (a) Sixteen smoke grenades No See note (a) Sixteen machine gun barrels Yes See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) Two SLRs and an M16 rifle Yes ADF member and two civilians: fined $500 each 233 7.62mm blank rounds, 40 5.56mm rounds and a blank firing attachment Yes ADF member: five days' loss of pay 9mm sub machine gun No See note (a) 9mm pistol No See note (a) Quantity of ammunition Yes See note (a) 9mm pistol Yes See note (a) Smoke grenade Yes See note (a) 119 small arms rounds Yes ADF member: no disciplinary action 70 small arms rounds Yes ADF member: discharged Two practice grenades Yes ADF member: fined two days' pay, four days restriction or privileges SRL breech block No See note (a) M16 rifle No See note (a) 90 practice mines Two not recovered Juvenile: convicted Smoke grenade Yes Two ADF members: detention/fined $200 9mm pistol No See note (a) Two firing devices, two coupling bases and two explosive charges Yes ADF member: fined $100, restriction $60 and discharged SLR Yes ADF member: civil prosecution Seven coupling bases and two practice firing devices Yes ADF member: fined seven days' pay Four SLRs No See note (a) Regular Army (cont) Parachute flare, practice grenade and 84mm cartridge case Yes ADF member: discharge N26 grenade, signal flare, seven coupling devices and 3 firing devices No See note (a) 31 anti-personnel mines, 25 detonators, one trip flare, 37 414 7.62mm and 3 040 5.56mm blank rounds, 13 grenade simulator and one ground burst simulator Yes See note (b) Army Reserve Trophy weapon Yes ADF member: no action taken 395 small arms rounds Yes ADF member: fined $100 SLR and bayonet No See note (a) Four trigger assemblies from 105mm Howitzer gun No See note (a) 9mm pistol Yes See note (b) SLR breech block No See note (a) 1 M26 grenade and 760 7.62mm rounds Yes ADF member: fined $100 9mm pistol Yes ADF member: forty days detention and discharge Smoke grenade Yes See note (a) 9mm pistol Yes See note (a) 1330 9mm rounds No See note (a) 217 7.62mm rounds and 149 small arms weapon parts Yes ADF member: discharged from ARes for civil court action Stick of plastic explosive, blasting cap and 40cm of blasting fuse No ADF member: discharged Four combination booby traps, one sub machine gun, firing device, 1.3m blasting fuse, parachute flare, four anti-tank simulators and seven coupling bases Yes ADF member: civil prosecution pending RAAF SLR bolt No See note (a) SLR Yes ADF member: found guilty, no action taken 5204 7.62mm rounds and two Bren guns Yes ADF member: civil court action 10 SLRs and two Bren guns Yes Two ADF members: severe reprimand 24 7.62mm rounds Yes ADF member: conviction without punishment 1987 RAN Three trophy weapons (innocuous) No See note (a) RAN Reserve Three SLR drill weapons and one bayonet Yes Civilian prosecuted by NSW police. Result not known Regular Army SLT bolt No See note (a) Four parachute flares, smoke grenade, explosive coupling, firing devices and one trip flare Yes Two ADF members: discharged SLR bolt No See note (a) 66 small arms rounds Yes See note (a) Fourteen grenade simulators, signal flare and smoke grenade Yes ADF member: fined $150 Smoke grenade Yes Two ADF members: one fined $300, one finded $150 Signal flare Yes See note (a) 66 mm rocket launcher Yes ADF member: convicted of theft 800 5.56 mm rounds No See note (a) Small quantity of teargas powder Yes See note (b) Signal distress kit No See note (a) 9 mm pistol Yes ADF member: convicted of theft SLR bolt No See note (a) Forty practice hand grenade fuses Yes See note (b) SLR No See note (a) SLR bolt, M16 bolt and 10776 small arms rounds Yes ADF member: reduced in rank, fourteen days detention and fined $200 SLR minus bolt Yes ADF member: Civil police not proceeding Breech block No See note (a) SLR breech block No See note (b) SLR Yes See note (a) Signal flare No See note (a) Signal flare and 984 .22 rounds Yes ADF member: fined $100 first offence and $200 on a second charge Two 9 mm pistols, twelve weapon parts and four 9 mm rounds Yes See note (b) SLR minus bolt Yes ADF member: charged by unit Three signal flares Yes ADF member: charged by unit 120 7.62 mm blank rounds, four booby trap switches and six M16 fuses Yes See note (b) 2197 small arms rounds Yes Ex-ADF member: civil court action Fifty CS gas capsules No See note (a) Grenade simulator No Juvenile: civil police declined to prosecute Nineteen practice mines No See note (a) SLR bayonet No See note (a) 9 mm sub machine guns, two SLRs and eleven 9 mm pistols No See note (a) Two smoke grenades, grenade simulator and a trip flare Yes See note (b) Army Reserve .30 machine gun flex No See note (a) 3000 blank small arms rounds Yes Three ADF members: one member reprimanded, one member five months suspended sentence, one member $700 fine Civilian rifle, 170 7.62 mm rounds and two bayonets No See note (a) Three SLRs (innocuous) No See note (a) 9 mm pistol and 34 9 mm rounds No See note (a) SLR bolt No See note (a) Bayonet No See note (a) Five SLR bayonets No See note (a) Four trophy weapons (innocuous) Yes See note (b) SLR bolt No See note (a) Fifty CS gas capsules No See note (a) Four M16 rifles No See note (b) Army Reserve (cont.) SLR breech block No. See note (b) Claymore anti-personel mine (inert) No See note (b) .303 rifle and a Bren gun Yes See note (b) Practice grenade No See note (a) RAAF 9mm pistol No See note (a) 1988 Regular Army Two SLR breech blocks No Investigations continuing SLR and shotgun No Investigations continuing Flare Yes See note (b) 10 9mm pistols No See note (a) Eight bayonets No Investigations continuing M16 carrier and bolt No Investigations continuing M16 and SLR components Yes ADF member: Unit disciplinary action pending Smoke grenade Yes See note (b) SLR Yes ADF member: Unit disciplinary action SLR breech block No See note (a) Two smoke grenades Yes ADF member: fined $900 and 12 months loss of seniority Ammunition and explosives Yes ADF member: two months imprisonment and discharged Smoke grenade Yes ADF member: civil and military legal action taken M16 bolt No See note (b) SLR No See note (b) SLR No See note (b) Twenty 7.62mm tracer rounds Yes See note (b) Small arms ammunition and pyrotechnics Yes See note (a) .303 rifle No See note (a) Grenade simulator, two booby trap switches and four booby trap couplings Yes See note (b) Explosives, detonator cord and firing devices No See note (a) Eight 1.25lb blocks of TNT and two detonator caps No See note (a) Signal flare Yes See note (a) Green U.S. mask case, smoke grenade, dummy hand grenade, two M30 practice grenades, two anti-tank practice mines, one .50 calibre round, twenty-five 7.62mm and nineteen 5.56mm blank rounds, 110 7.62mm and 212 5.56mm live rounds Yes See note (b) Vickers machine gun barrel No See note (a) Weapon parts No Investigations continuing Quantity of .22 ammunition Yes See note (b) 9mm pistol No See note (a) Army Reserve .30 calibre machine gun No Investigations continuing Grenade launcher No See note (b) 9mm pistol Yes ADF member: on a summons to appear before a civil court 9mm sub machine gun bolt No See note (b) SLR (innocuous) No See note (a) SLR bolt Yes See note (b) RAAF Replica pistol No See note (a) Note (a): Investigations have failed to identify or apprehend the perpetrator(s) Note (b): Perpetrator(s) identified. No further details available (Question No. 1338) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) What was the Minister's Department's expenditure on international (a) air freight, and (b) shipping in 1987-88. (2) What is the estimated expenditure for those categories in 1988-89. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Expenditure in 1987-88: International Air Freight...-$38,133 International Shipping...-$30,704 (2) Estimated expenditure 1988-89: International Air Freight...-$44,718 International Shipping...-$48,911 (Question No. 1345) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 9 November 1988: (1) What was the Minister's Department's expenditure on international (a) air freight, and (b) shipping in 1987-88. (2) What is the estimated expenditure for those categories in 1988-89. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. It is not possible to give an answer where freight has been included in the cost of an item purchased internationally. (2) (a) $10,000. (b) $20,000. This is due to the triennial replacement of officers on overseas postings. (Question No. 1384) Mr Carlton asked the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business, upon notice, on 22 November 1988: (1) Is it a fact that overseas students proceeding to Ph.D. and Masters degrees by research in Australian universities make a substantial and largely unpaid contribution to Australia's research effort. (2) Has he received numerous representations from concerned scientists, engineers and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee to the effect that the application of the Overseas Student Charge to research students has the effect of seriously depleting this valuable source of scientific endeavour. (3) Has he drawn this matter to the attention of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, and if that Minister has replied, what was the nature of the reply. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. However, it must be acknowledged that there are considerable non-monetary benefits flowing to those overseas postgraduate students studying in Australia. (2) No. However, my colleague, Senator the Hon. John N. Button, Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, has received representations on this matter. (3) No. (Question No. 1386) Mr Smith asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 23 November 1988: What persons representing Australian (a) environmental, (b) mining industry and (c) other non-government organisations participated in any of the negotiations of the convention on the Regulations of Antarctic mineral resource activities. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The persons listed below, representing Australian environmental non-government organisations, participated in the following sessions of negotiations for the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: Bonn, July 1983- Dr J. G. Mosley Director Australian Conservation Foundation (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Tokyo, May 1984- Ms P. Eiser Project Jonah (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Rio de Janeiro, Feb-March 1985- Mr R. Scott Australian Conservation Foundation (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Paris, Sept-Oct 1985- Ms L. Goldsworthy Fund for Animals (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Hobart, April 1986- Ms L. Goldsworthy Antarctica Project, ECOFUND (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Tokyo, Oct-Nov 1986 Ms L. Goldsworthy Antarctica Project, ECOFUND (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Montevideo, May 1987- Ms L. Goldsworthy Antarctic Project, ECOFUND (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Wellington, January 1988- Ms L. Goldsworthy Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) Wellington, May-June 1988- Ms L. Goldsworthy Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (Representative of Australian Environmental Non-Government Organisations) (b) The persons listed below, representing Australian mining industry non-government organisations, participated in the following sessions of negotiations for the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities: Bonn, July 1983- Mr R. Evans Director Austral Development Western Mining Corporation Mr R. M. Williams UK and European Representative Broken Hill Proprietary Ltd Tokyo, May 1984- Mr M. J. Nesbitt Manager (Development) North Asia Conzinc Asia Holding Pty Ltd (Australian Mining Industry Council Representative) Hobart, April 1986- Mr D. O'Neill Australian Mining Industry Council Mr T. Morahan Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Wellington, May-June 1988- Mr K. McDonald COMALCO (Australian Mining Industry Council Representative) (c) The only other non-government participant in a negotiation session was Dr Gillian Triggs, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Melbourne and member of the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee, who participated as a special representative of the Minister for Science at the session in Montevideo in May 1987. (Question No. 1421) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 1988: (1) Who are the part-time members of the Council of the Australian War Memorial. (2) How many meetings of the Council were held in 1987-88. (3) How many meetings were attended by each part-time member. Mr Humphreys —The answer to the honourable members's question is as follows: (1) Dame Beryl Beaurepaire DBE (Chairman) Mr B P Bradbury AO Mr K L Fry Air Marshal R G Funnell AO (ex officio, Chief of the Air Staff) Mr H A Gordon CMG Vice Admiral M W Hudson AC RAN (ex officio, Chief of the Naval Staff) Sir William Keys AC OBE MC Vice Admiral D W Leach AC CBE LVO RANEM Mr V B McMullan AM Lieutenant General L G O'Donnell AO (ex officio, Chief of the General Staff) Mr C E Pugh AO Mr R W Saunders MBE Mr C M Wright. (2) 4. (3) Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, Mr Bradbury, Mr Fry, Sir William Keys and Vice Admiral Leach attended all meetings. The Chiefs or Staff of their deputies attended all meetings, with the exception of one meeting in the case of the Chief of Naval Staff. Mr McMullan, Mr Pugh and Mr Wright attended three meetings. Mr Saunders attended two meetings. Mrs E E Darling MP resigned her position on 30 October 1987 and did not attend any meeting in 1987-88. Mr Gordon was appointed from 1 July 1988. (Question No. 1435) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 1 December 1988: Why has the Minister's Department not answered (a) Question No. 582 which was placed on the Notice Paper on 10 December 1987 and (b) Questions Nos. 1079, 1081, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1086, 1087, 1088 and 1089 which were placed on the Notice Paper on 3 June 1988. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Answers to Questions Nos. 1083, 1084 and 1086 appear in Hansard of 1 December 1988, and the remainder await printing by Hansard. (Question No. 1438) Mr Spender asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 1 December 1988: What positions have been held in Government service, either in or outside the Minister's Department, by Mr M. Costello, presently Acting Head of Mission at Australia's Mission to the United Nations. Mr Duffy —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Mr Michael Costello, a senior officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who is currently Ambassador and Acting Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, has held the following positions: Temporary Clerk Class 1, Customs and Excises (1970); Joined the Australian Public Service (1971); Clerk later Foreign Affairs Officer, Legal and Treaties Branch (1971-73); Promoted to Clerk Class 4 (1972); Promoted to Clerk Class 5 (1973); Second Secretary, Australian Embassy, Belgrade (1973-75); Promoted to Foreign Affairs Officer Class 3 (1975); Post Liaison and Guidance Section (1975-77); First Secretary, Australian Embassy, Stockholm (1978-79); Transferred to Office of National Assessments as Clerk Class 11 (1979); Principal Private Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden (1981-86>; Reintegrated to ONA, SES Level 2 (1986); Seconded to Department of Foreign Affairs (1986); Promoted to First Assistant Secretary, SES Level 4, Americas and North Asia Division (1986); First Assistant Secretary, Americas and Europe Branch (1986-88); Acting Deputy Secretary (March-August 1988).