Mr JENKINS (4:40 PM) —Often I advise my colleagues that they should not be provoked by comments from those opposite, but tonight I have to admit that in reading the Hansard of Tuesday, 15 March I have been provoked and distracted by the contribution made by the honourable member for Fisher in the adjournment debate. This contribution was in regard to Hansard’s use of the Macquarie Dictionary. Unfortunately, as part of this contribution, the honourable member for Fisher, I thought, used intemperate language in regard to Hansard’s decision to use the Macquarie Dictionary when he described those that had made the decision as being ‘thought police’ or ‘word nazis’.

I have had a look at why the Macquarie Dictionary is possibly being used. If we go back to the fifth edition of the Australian government’s Style Manual published in 1994, it says in the chapter ‘Spelling and usage’:

It then goes on to say that if an agency wished to use the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, whilst that was supported, the Managing Editor of the Australian Government Publishing Service should be advised of that decision. The sixth edition of the Style manual, which was published in February 2002, now gives the option of the two dictionaries that can be used by Australian government agencies. It says:

I think that this is integral to the direction that Australian government agencies are expected to take as recommended by the Style manual.

Regrettably, if you look at lists of programs on different sites that are available on the web, you will find that there is an array of use. If you look at the subject heading ‘Environment’, you will find that on seven occasions ‘program’ is used and on one occasion ‘programme’ is used. If you look under ‘Health’, there is one where ‘programme’ is used and one with ‘program’. It looks as though the government is in a little disarray over the appropriate use and spelling of the word ‘program’, which was one of the examples that the honourable member for Fisher exemplified.

He recommends that we should use the Oxford Dictionary. I have taken from the opposition lobby the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary but I have also looked at the Oxford English Dictionary over in the library. Under ‘program’ the first spelling used is ‘program’ with one ‘m’. Usually in a dictionary the first spelling is the one that is recommended. But it goes on to say in the Oxford Dictionary that the first spelling was ‘program’ with one ‘m’ and it dates from 1633. In his defence of the use of ‘programme’, the honourable member for Fisher says that this is the proper English version. But the point is that that is the French version that came into usage throughout the English-speaking world. So to just consider that ‘program’ is an Americanisation does not acknowledge that English is a living language. Just as political affiliations can be a changing feast, as exemplified by the honourable member for Fisher in his movement from the National Party to the Liberal Party, we should look at English as a developing language. His use of expressions like ‘thought police’ and ‘word nazis’ are inappropriate, and if you were to go to the dictionary you would not get the essence of what he is trying to convey. So I hope that he takes those things on board and I hope that he can be more accommodating with the way in which we approach the English language.

In conclusion, I see that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism is at the table. Minister, I note the recent article in the Financial Review about transition funding under AusLink. One of the projects mentioned is the Yan Yean Road improvements. The minister knows that I support those improvements, and I am a little concerned that in the lead-up to the election some doubt was cast on the project proceeding. I say honestly that I support the project, but I am concerned that, because proper procedure was not followed—there is some question about it—as was outlined by a Senate report. (Time expired)