Wednesday, 2 November 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Burr,Mr Drummond,Dr Everingham,Mr Free,Mr Goodluck,Mr Keogh,Mr Simmons,Mr Spender,Mr West and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide and environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Free and Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia that the Motor Vessel 'Krait' remain as a Dedicated Operational War Memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia; and that: your petitioners consider that the moneys raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the 'Krait' for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service. Your petitioners therefore pray that the current proposal to remove the 'Krait' from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra, A.C.T., would, if implemented, seem to represent a breach of faith upon which the aforesaid moneys were raised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of residents of Mount Riverview: Respectfully showeth that there is a genuine need for a Post Office Agency selling stamps, money orders, letter and parcels registration and all business of a normal suburban Post Office, to serve the needs of a large and growing area placed approximately three and a half kilometres from such nearest facilities. The area has many aged and invalid people who cannot reach Blaxland to transact business. The local chemist, situated in Mt. Riverview Shopping Centre, is eager to handle such an agency, and is a competent and reliable person to do so. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will give earnest consideration to our request for such an agency at a very early date. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. Petitions received. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to sack the Minister for Finance in view of the Minister's insulting statements about Tasmanians, his inept and incompetent handling of the Tasmanian compensation negotiations, his improper action in by-passing the Premier of Tasmania and dealing with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Wriedt), and his shameful attempts to mislead the public on this issue. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) deplores- (a) the United States invasion of Grenada as contrary to Article 51 of the UN Charter, and Articles 9 and 15 of the Charter of the Organisation of American States, and (b) the loss of life resulting from the invasion; (2) rejects the suggestion that military intervention was justified by the threat to the lives of Grenadan and US citizens posed by the internal faction fighting on the island; and (3) notes the similarity of the terms in which this intervention has been justified and the 'Brehznev Doctrine of Limited Sovereignty' of states in the Soviet sphere of influence invoked to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and pressure on Poland in the 1980s. Mr Sinclair-The Leader of the House is not here, but we would be quite happy to give leave to the honourable gentleman to move his motion forthwith. It is a matter of some importance and we are quite prepared for him to take that course of action. Mr Dawkins-It is all very well for the Opposition to try to play these sorts of tricks. A debate has been held on this matter and the Government is not interested in calling on this notice of motion. Mr Peacock-This is a matter of great contemporary moment. The Opposition wishes to debate the motion proposed by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin). If the honourable member actually believed the terms of his motion he would accept the offer of the Opposition to debate it immediately. Mr SPEAKER —Are there any further notices of motion? I call the honourable member for Denison. Mr Peacock-I move that so much of Standing Orders be suspended-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison has the call. Mr HODGMAN —I defer to my Leader. Mr SPEAKER —Well, you had the call. I assume it was for some purpose. I suggest you proceed. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will second: That this House calls upon the Hawke Government to honour both the spirit and the letter of the Tasmanian compensation agreement and to forthwith pay the balance of the $30m promised to Tasmania for 1983-84 on page 20 of the Treasurer 's budget speech, and to cease hypocritical political grandstanding against the people of Tasmania. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.37) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Sydney from moving forthwith the motion of which he has given notice for the next sitting. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will supply that motion in writing. Mr PEACOCK —Yes. I have not taken down the full terms of the motion of the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), because it has just been read to the House. The first element of the motion was that the honourable member for Sydney , I assume in association with all members of the Australian Labor Party, deplored the invastion of Grenada. I am very pleased to see the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) shaking his head. I assume that he is rejecting the motion of the honourable member for Sydney. Is that correct? Wrong ? He therefore is supporting it. The first point, as I understand it, was that the Labor Party through the honourable member for Sydney deplores the United States invasion of Grenada. I accept the introduction to the second point which deplored the loss of life as a result of the invasion. Any member of this House would do that. It is legitimate that we should debate-that is why I moved the suspension of Standing Orders-the reason given in that second point, because the honourable member, as I heard him , went on to reject the explanations given for the invasion, not only those given by the United States but also those given by the six Caribbean countries. I have before me statements by the Grenadan Governor-General Sir Paul Scoon, the Caribbean-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that, while there is some latitude in pointing out the nature of the notice of motion, at the moment he is debating the reasons for the suspension of Standing Orders, not the definitive motion itself. Mr PEACOCK —I understand that, Mr Speaker, and I will keep reminding you of the reasons why Standing Orders ought to be suspended. Mr SPEAKER —I will listen intently. Mr PEACOCK —A fundamental reason why Standing Orders ought to be suspended to allow debate on this motion is because the honourable member for Sydney has rejected in his motion the reasons that have been given by the Governor-General of Grenada and by the leaders of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries involved in the mission currently being undertaken. We asked for the suspension of Standing Orders in order to point out the reasons which to us justify both the United States involvement and the involvement of the Commonwealth Carribbean countries. We can do this only if we suspend Standing Orders. Mr Cunningham —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is debating the issue rather than debating the matter of the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I am listening intently to the Leader of the Opposition. I have offered him some comment on the matter raised, but so far he has not transgressed. Mr PEACOCK —A further reason for suspending Standing Orders is that the third point of the honourable member's notice of motion directly challenges the conditions as stated within Grenada. The reality is, as we would point out if we were given the opportunity to suspend Standing Orders, that the Prime Minister of Grenada was assassinated, the Foreign Minister and other Ministers were assassinated, and the Governor-General was under house arrest. As a consequence- - Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to try to use this device to reopen debate on an issue that was debated yesterday. He is trying to debate a motion the contents of which he is not even aware. He has already admitted that. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition ought to confine himself to the question of why this motion should be debated at this time of the day rather than at some other time of the day. That does not go to the merits of the motion, which he does not even know about. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that he should give the reasons for seeking the suspension of Standing Orders. I think he is starting to stray a little. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, you may be assured that, if that was the case, it will not happen any longer. The reason for suspending Standing Orders and bringing on this motion is the view of members of this House that it is of such importance that it ought to be taken immediately, not only because of the terms of the motion itself but also because of the decision of the Government to reject playing any constructive or positive role. So we ought to suspend Standing Orders to discuss each element of the honourable member's motion. The notice of motion deplores the United States invasion; it deplores the loss of life, which we would agree with; but we reject his view as to the cause. If we suspend Standing Orders we can then point out in detail why we support the United States view that its civilians in Grenada were under grave threat and why the Caribbean countries followed the request of Governor-General Scoon and not, as is alleged in the notice of motion-- Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to carry on like this we will sit him down. What he can do-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister of Finance must either raise a point of order or take a definite action. Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, I am taking a point of order. The point of order is simply this: You have invited the Leader of the Opposition to address himself to the question of why the Standing Orders ought to be suspended. He has continued to flout your ruling and has tried to debate the issue. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Finance should not reflect on the Chair. Mr Dawkins —We will listen to him for not much longer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PEACOCK —A further reason for the suspension of Standing Orders is the honourable member's alignment of the United States and Caribbean countries' intervention with the Brezhnev doctrine. I would like to hear him on this matter because I have read this utterly fatuous argument about an extension of the Brezhnev doctrine by the United States. It is important that we address that issue by suspending Standing Orders. If we so suspend Standing Orders-- Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The point has been made on several occasions. We are now having a debate about the merits-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Burke will resume his seat. Dr Theophanous —of the Brezhnev doctrine. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Burke. The honourable member should be quite clear that there must be no reflections on the Chair. I have given a ruling and that ruling stands. The Leader of the Opposition will resume the debate as to the suspension of Standing Orders. Mr PEACOCK —A further practical point on the suspension of Standing Orders is that honourable members opposite either move motions in this House wanting to debate them or they do not. If they are prepared to debate this matter we are prepared to call it on immediately by this motion to suspend Standing Orders. I find it extraordinary that they run not only from the opportunity to debate the motion they put down-which I have to assume they want to debate, and we are giving them the opportunity to do so-but also that they are taking points of order seeking to run away from the debate. Either motions are put in this Parliament to be debated or they are not. This is a matter of great contemporary importance, and we want to call it on forthwith. I have a statement from the Governor-General that I would like to read to the House; I have statements from the Jamaican Prime Minister, from the Dominican Prime Minister and from the Chairperson of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States-those who are critically and vitally involved and those who would treat with disdain the terms of this notice of motion. There is a need to suspend Standing Orders, therefore, to allow the honourable member to develop the views contained within the notice of motion-to put up or shut up. What is this Parliament, apart from a legislative body, if it is not a forum for public debate by the people's representatives? The honourable member has given the notice of motion and he does not have the guts to go on with it. The honourable member thought he could appeal to his left wing mates and get by by putting the notice of motion on the Notice Paper, but he will not put up and argue the case, and nor will Ministers. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is asked a question on this matter he reads the Press statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). He will not back it up with argument. That is why we wish to call on the motion now so that the honourable member can put up or shut up. Does the honourable member mean what he says or does he not? Let the honourable member substantiate the terms of the notice of motion or be regarded as one who seeks to deceive every member of this Parliament by giving a notice of motion but having no courage to carry it forward. This motion to suspend the Standing Orders gives the honourable member the opportunity to back up the puerile, distasteful and dishonest remarks contained in the notice of motion. He does not have the courage to do it, if he opposes this simple procedural motion. I have not even been able to get on to the substance of the matter because I have to talk to a procedural motion, a motion whereby those opposite and we can address the substance of the notice of motion. Give us the opportunity to do it. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr MacKellar —The motion is seconded. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Warringah. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.48) —Mr Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That the honourable member for Warringah be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Morrison, W. L.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Bowen, Lionel Millar, P. C.Brown, John Cameron, IanFry, K. L. Fife, W. C.Brown, Robert Tuckey, C. W.Darling, E. E. Newman, K. E.Kent, L. Cadman, A. G.Mountford, J. G. White, P. N. D. In division- Mr SPEAKER-Order! The honourable member for Sydney will remain where he is now. I remind him that he should know from his experience that movement is not allowed during divisions. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion. It has been seconded. I must now put the question before the House. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question just put before the House was that the honourable member be not further heard. There is a matter before the House. It is the suspension of Standing Orders-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The matter is not before the House. I ask the Deputy Leader of the National Party to listen for a moment. I am about to put that question before the House, the motion having been seconded. The question is that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Sydney moving forthwith the motion of which he has given notice. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(10.56) —The Opposition is attempting to delay and frustrate the business of this House. In the normal course of events honourable members from both sides have given notice of issues which they would like the House to debate at some time in the future. There are currently 236 notices of motion on the Notice Paper. The Government, when it wants to and when it thinks it appropriate, will bring on for discussion some and perhaps all of those issues. The Opposition, of course, would like to pick and choose which motions are to be debated. Mr McVeigh —You are shaking. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs will cease the chatter across the table. Mr McVeigh —I am worried about him. He is shaking. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs has a habit of answering back when he is requested to desist from certain action. I ask him to pay more respect to the Chair. Mr DAWKINS —Mr Speaker, the Government has been extraordinarily indulgent with the Opposition over the last few weeks. It has provided the Opposition with numerous opportunities to pursue its own little hobby horses and to pursue its own little rabbits down any little hole. But on this matter the Opposition is attempting to frustrate the forms of the House and to delay the Government's important legislative program. This issue was debated as a result of the Opposition's raising a matter of public importance yesterday. It is always open to the Opposition to raise matters of public importance on any day on any issues which concern it. Yesterday it raised a matter of public importance on this issue. It was debated by the Government and the debate was concluded. If the Opposition wants to raise the issue again it will have until 12 o'clock in which to do so. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It is clear that the Minister is going to allow us time to debate a motion if, he says, we put one forward. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr Peacock —The point of order is that it relates to the Notice Paper. Notice of motion No. 3 given for today, Wednesday 2 November, reads: MR COLEMAN: To move-That this House welcomes the action of the United States and 7 countries of the Organisation of East Caribbean States- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to-- Mr Peacock —I refer to that. The Minister has indicated that he will debate it. I assume he will wind up his remarks and allow us to debate this motion immediately. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr DAWKINS —This preposterous phoney, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), knows exactly what I have said. I have said that matters of public importance arise every day. The Leader of the Opposition proposed a debate on this issue yesterday. The Government debated the issue with the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to pursue this matter again it can propose it as a matter of public importance today and, of course, it will be debated. The point is that the Government does have an important legislative program. This is not the time of the day when these matters are supposed to be capriciously brought forward. Important matters are before the House. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. There is too much interjection from the front bench on my left. Mr DAWKINS —There are Bills to be introduced. There are reports from committees to be dealt with. There are debates to be had in relation to a number of matters including amendments to the Constitution. The Government will not have its program distorted in this way. The Government will not have the business of the Government taken out of its hands in this way. Mr Peacock —We want to debate your motion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the front bench on my left to cease interjecting. This is the second time I have made the request. I will have to take action. Mr DAWKINS —This is a childish attempt to try to frustrate the program of the Government. As I have indicated before, if the Opposition wants to debate the Grenadan issue it can again propose a matter of public importance which will be debated at the appropriate time. But we will not have the business of the Government taken out of the hands of the Government. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes 63 Noes 40 -- Majority 23 -- AYES Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Johnson, Les Beddall, D. P. Jones, Barry Bilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Child, J. McLeay, Leo Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, Allan Duffy, M. J. Morris, Peter Edwards, Ronald Morrison, W. L. Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F. Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Simmons, D. W. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P. Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. NOES Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C. Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A. Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R. Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T. Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M. Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C. Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L. Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S. Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R. Edwards, Harry Robinson, Ian Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M. Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F. Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. PAIRS Bowen, Lionel Millar, P. C. Brown, John Cameron, Ian Fry, K. L. Fife, W. C. Brown, Robert Tuckey, C. W. Darling, E. E. Newman, K. E. Kent, L. Cadman, A. G. Mountford, J. G. White, P. N. D. Question so resolved in affirmative. The bells having been rung- Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Could you ask the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) to advise the House why he is voting against himself? Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Question put: That the motion (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Anthony, J. D. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T.Coleman, W. P. Macphee, I. M.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. O'Keefe, F. L.Dobie, J. D. M. Peacock, A. S.Drummond, P. H. Porter, J. R.Edwards, Harry Robinson, IanFisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Morrison, W. L.Everingham, D. N. Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Reeves, J. E.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Steedman, A. P.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Millar, P. C. Bowen, LionelCameron, Ian Brown, JohnFife, W. C. Fry, K. L.Tuckey, C. W. Brown, RobertNewman, K. E. Darling, E. E.Cadman, A. G. Kent, L.White, P. N. D. Mountford, J. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(11.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I have great pleasure in bringing before the House this Bill which will finally, after eight years of neglect by our predecessors, enable us to establish the Inter-State Commission. It has been a long standing commitment of the Australian Labor Party to establish the Inter-State Commission. We see the ISC as an important vehicle for promoting the rational development of national transport policies. The Government's action today fulfils an important election promise in the transport field. As honourable members know, the Inter-State Commission Act was passed with bipartisan support in 1975 but was never proclaimed by our predecessors. Proclamation of the Act was arranged by this Government and the Act came into operation on 27 September 1983. The purpose of the Bill I bring to the House today is to update a number of provisions in the Inter-State Commission Act 1975 to take account of legislative developments since 1975. The proposed amendments are necessary to enable the Commission to become operational. They are essentially of a technical nature and the purpose and powers of the Commission will remain the same as those embodied in the 1975 Act. An Inter-State Commission is provided for in sections 101 to 104 of the Constitution. When the ISC we propose to establish is seen in its constitutional context, it is clear that its purpose is to assist in the improvement of interstate transport-and certainly not to hinder it through undue control and regulation, as has been inferred in some quarters. Establishment of the Commission will complete the constitutional coverage on interstate transport matters. Section 92 of the Constitution protects freedom of trade among the States. In a complementary way, the Constitution provides for an inter-state commission to watch over and advise this Parliament on such matters. The Commission we shall establish will in fact investigate and advise government on allegations of discriminatory practices, inequalities, inefficiencies and anomalies in interstate transport. Governments and the Parliament have frequently been advised to establish the Commission. The most recent occasion was the report of the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania, which recommended such action. A similar recommendation was made by the Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania in 1976. The Commission provided for in the ISC Act is an investigatory and advisory body with royal commission-type powers. Its reports and recommendations will be tabled in the Parliament. It has no regulatory or judicial powers and will investigate only those interstate transport matters referred to it by the Minister for Transport. The Commission will be required to carry out wide ranging investigations covering economic, social, institutional and legal- constitutional issues affecting interstate transport. There is no other existing organisation that is equipped, or empowered, to carry out such inquiries. The ISC meets the need for an ongoing independent body that performs these functions . While in certain circumstances there will be a need for ad hoc inquiries to handle matters falling outside the scope of the ISC in general, ad hoc commissions and inquiries are expensive to establish and lose all the expertise gained when they are disbanded. The Commission will accumulate and retain such expertise. In conducting its investigations the Commission will operate, in many ways, like a transport users tribunal. It will consult with and examine the submissions and evidence of the private citizen, unions, business, the community , employees, transport users and suppliers and governments. Users of transport have no single entity in Australia to which they can take any problems they encounter with anomalies, discriminations and inequalities that exist in our national transport system. At present they can only appeal to operator- controlled organisations-both government and private-whose own interests are generally paramount. The Commission will be a major vehicle for getting the facts out into the open when it examines interstate transport problems. It will have a significant role in keeping each transport system 'honest' and will develop a fund of expertise that will be invaluable to the development of national transport policies. I now turn to some of the specific provisions of the Bill. Section 6 of the 1975 Act, which excluded any examination by the Inter-State Commission of matters relating to the operation of the former airline agreements, is to be updated to exclude matters covered by the new 1981 Airlines Agreement and the related Independent Air Fares Committee Act. The objective, as previously, is to exclude the Airlines Agreement from the ambit of the ISC, together with fare determinations. However, as domestic air freight is no longer regulated through the Airlines Agreement, it will now come within the ambit of the ISC. Other sections of the Act need amendment because of changes since 1975. The salaries of the President and members of the Commission are adjusted to present day equivalents. Penalties are updated and sections 22, 23 and 24 are replaced to take account of legislative developments in the field of retirement benefits and the Public Service Act since 1975. There is also a number of minor amendments included so that the Inter-State Commission Act will conform with current administrative procedures and legislative drafting practices. As I have mentioned, the powers and scope of the Commission provided for in the 1975 Act remain unchanged. The Commission is expected to be established very early in 1984 and action is already underway to make appointments to the Commission. It is important that we appoint people of the highest calibre to perform this important constitutional role. In accordance with its status as a national body with constitutional authority, the Commission will be located here in the national capital. It will have a relatively small body of supporting staff to assist in the running and administration of inquiries and to provide analytical and technical advice. The cost of running its operations in 1983-84 is estimated to be of the order of $ 250,000. In a full year, when fully staffed, the amount would be approximately $ 1.5m to $2m. More precise figures will depend on the administrative requirements of the President, when appointed, and discussions with the Public Service Board and other provisioning departments. It is not generally appreciated that for nearly every $10 of gross national expenditure $1 is spent on transport infrastructure and services. The transport and storage industries employ about 350,000 people or about 5.5 per cent of the workforce. This excludes the large number of people employed on their own account, or for companies whose transport operations are incidental to their main operations. Transport is clearly a significant part of our economy. The value of benefits to be gained by transport users from the ISC's role in bringing about a more rational, effective and efficient national transport system will vastly outweigh the very modest cost of the Commission. Government decisions in the transport area consequently have a wide ranging effect on most areas of Australian economic and social activity. One of the first tasks of the Commission will be a review of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. Before the final terms of reference are determined I will be consulting industry associations, unions, interest groups and the Tasmanian Government. More generally, and in keeping with the Government's policy of consultation and reconciliation, I shall be consulting relevant State governments and other organisations that may be affected by any proposed reference to the Commission. As honourable members will be aware, it is the policy of the Government to ensure that the functions and efficiency of Government authorities are regularly reviewed. It is the Government's intention that the Inter-State Commission's operations will be reviewed within the first seven years of its life. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lusher) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to continue bounty assistance during 1983-84 to the manufacturer in Australia of certain refrigerated room air conditioners. The Temporary Assistance Authority, in its report No. 62 of 7 June 1983 entitled ' Certain Room Air Conditioning Machines' recommended that bounty assistance continue during 1983-84 at the same rates and limits that applied in 1982-83. The Government has decided to continue bounty assistance on locally produced room air conditioners for a further 12 months to 30 June 1984. An additional $1, 500,000 is to be made available for bounty payments during this period. Bounty will be paid on room air conditioning machines of a portable or fixed window type designed primarily for use without ducting and having a nominally rated cooling capacity of 5.4 kilowatts or less. The rates of bounty are $60 for smaller units not exceeding 3.528 kilowatts cooling capacity and $90 for larger units. The Email Ltd owned Kelvinator Australia Ltd plant in Adelaide has been subjected to severe import competition, and the extension of the bounty is designed to assist the company to secure sales of its locally produced air conditioners. However, given existing high levels of imported stocks, the bounty may do little to assist Email contain competition from new imports in 1983-84. Accordingly, the Government has also introduced import restraints for 1983-84 by a tariff quota limiting imports for that period to 55 per cent of the 1982-83 level. These combined temporary measures-bounty and tariff quota-are considered essential if the local industry is to regain economies of scale to ensure its future viability. Without them there would be a significant risk that local manufacture could cease and thus the bounty already accorded and production investment made by the company would have been wasted. The cost of the additional bounty is $1,500,000 in 1983-84 and there are no direct offset savings. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(11.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, the main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to enable the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to give effect to principles agreed between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments relating to the day to day management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Honourable members will be aware that comprehensive protection of the Great Barrier Reef has long been our policy. It was a Labor Government which put in place the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act in 1975. Since coming to power in March this year the Government has given life to the provisions of that Act. Zoning plans for the Cairns and Cormorant Pass sections of the Marine Park were tabled in May 1983 and I expect them to come into operation later this month. In August three further sections of the Marine Park were proclaimed, with proclamations for two further sections coming into effect on 30 October 1983. The addition of these sections means that this Government has increased from 14 per cent to 98.5 per cent the portion of the Great Barrier Reef region included in the Marine Park. Approximately 344,000 square kilometres of the region is now marine park. This makes the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park the world's largest marine park. It is thought that the island in the Torres Strait should be regarded as an integral part of the reef. In ecological terms there is merit in this proposal. However, it is not possible to examine this until the question of the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea has been resolved. This is a matter which is being actively considered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Once this question has been resolved, we will be able to look at the ecological aspect of the Torres Strait Islands in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. In addition to proclaiming areas of the Marine Park, the Government introduced in September 1983 regulations to prohibit oil drilling in those small parts of the Great Barrier Reef region not included in the Marine Park. Recovery of minerals, including oil drilling, is prohibited in the Marine Park by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. In 1981 the Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation World Heritage List, thereby bringing international recognition to the importance and uniqueness of this vast complex of coral reefs and their associated life forms. While these initiatives are vital to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, a significant action the Government must take to guarantee the reef's protection is to strengthen the management arrangements with the Queensland Government. It is with this intention in mind that this Bill has been introduced to Parliament. The basis of agreement between the Queensland and Commonwealth governments for day-to-day management of the Marine Park provides for the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service to undertake management of the Marine Park subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Commonwealth is to fund 100 per cent of an initial capital works program for each section of the Marine Park , with all other capital and recurrent costs of management of the Marine Park being shared equally between the two governments. With regard to Queensland national and marine parks within the outer boundaries of the Marine Park, Queensland is to fund 100 per cent of the costs of the capital works, with the recurrent costs for management being shared equally between the two governments. The agreement also provides for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to administer funds from both governments for these purposes. Under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act as currently drafted the Marine Park Authority cannot administer funds for the purposes described in the basis of agreement. This Bill will enable the Marine Park Authority to fully implement the agreed management and cost sharing arrangements. In addition clause 3 (b) of the Bill ensures that the Marine Park Authority will be able to contribute to complementary management of Queensland national and marine parks adjacent to or near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and other areas judged to be intimately associated with the Marine Park. Such areas are inseparable from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The additional cost to the Commonwealth from this extension is estimated to be $200,000 per annum. The Bill also contains minor amendments with regard to tabling and disallowance of zoning plans. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for two amendments to section 33 of the principal Act. The first is to ensure that zoning plans are tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the plans have been accepted by the Minister. This amendment, while not precluding early tabling of zoning plans, will guarantee there are no undue delays. The second of the amendments to section 33 is to reduce the disallowance period for zoning plans from 20 to 15 sitting days. This amendment brings section 33 into line with tabling provisions in other legislation and provides for adequate time for the Parliament to consider zoning plans while enabling the plans to come into operation earlier. Mr Deputy Speaker, it gave me great pleasure earlier this week to bring to fruition the initiatives taken by a previous Labor Government some eight years ago when the then Minister for the Environment, Dr Cass, introduced the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill. The first section of the Marine Park, the Capricornia section, was proclaimed in 1979, followed by the Cairns and Cormorant Pass sections in 1981. Proclamations were announced on 31 August 1983 of three further sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, namely the far northern, central and southern sections. These three sections of the Marine Park cover that area of the region north of the Cairns section and the main reef structures south of the Cairns section not covered by the Capricornia section. The Townsville and in-shore southern sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were declared by proclamation of the Governor-General on 30 October 1983. These declarations now complete the establishment of Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The two new sections cover an area of approximately 68,000 square kilometres and include waters in-shore of the central, southern and Capricornia sections, between the Cairns section in the north and the Great Barrier Reef region boundary in the south. The criteria used to determine the inclusion of areas in these sections were as follows: Areas where there are significant fringing or in-shore reefs or areas of coral growth; areas adjacent to land areas which are subject to conservational management, such as national parks; critical habitats of endangered species, such as major dugong feeding areas and turtle nesting areas; areas which are important to the conservation of species of the Great Barrier Reef region, such as breeding or nursery areas of fish, or of prawns and other invertebrates; and heavily used tourist areas associated with the natural resources of the Great Barrier Reef region. Existing or potential port areas and areas adjacent to significant agricultural , industrial or urbanised areas were excluded from the Marine Park. Unless there are overriding conservational reasons, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority did not seek the inclusion of port areas in the Marine Park because the involvement of the Authority in port administration would not be practicable and the use of the western boundary of the Great Barrier Reef region as a boundary for the entire length of the Queensland mainland could have placed unnecessary restrictions on Queensland local authorities and involve the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in minor administrative matters. The total prohibition of other activities, such as the commercial extraction of sand or gravel from close to the shore, may not be warranted on ecological grounds. Common sense dictates that this would be an excessive Commonwealth Government restriction on normal State activities. Some concern has been expressed that parts of the Great Barrier Reef region left out of the Marine Park may be unprotected. A major fear was that drilling for oil could occur in these areas. As I said before, to ensure that this does not happen, by regulations effective as of 1 September 1983, we have prohibited oil drilling in these areas. Should there by any proposals for developments in these excluded areas in the future which might adversely affect the Great Barrier Reef or the Marine Park, we will act quickly under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to ensure control of the proposed development. The Great Barrier Reef region has been acknowledged by the Commonwealth Government as a priority research area. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has responsibilities for carrying out or arranging for research relevant to the Marine Park; for co-ordinating research in the region and for reporting the findings to both the Australian and Queensland governments, through the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. The Authority also participates in the Australian marine research in progress program and conducts programs which complement research by other organisations and individuals. The Authority will be funding about sixty research and monitoring projects in 1983- 84 costing about $360,000. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 requires the Authority to prepare zoning plans for areas that have been declared to be parts of the Marine Park and to recommend regulations that should be made under the Act. On 26 May I tabled in this House zoning plans for the Cairns and Cormorant Pass sections of the Marine Park-an area of some 35,000 square kilometres. These zoning plans are to come into operation on 7 November 1983. The existing regulations applying to the Capricornia section are to be repealed and replaced by general regulations applying to all the zoned sections of the Marine Park. The Authority began on 1 September 1983 a public participation program seeking representations regarding the zoning for the far northern section-approximately 80,000 square kilometres or 24 per cent of the reef region. I urge all interested individuals or organisations to respond to this invitation. As soon as is practicable, the Authority will be developing zoning plans for the areas south of the Cairns section. As part of Authority policy to review zoning plans every five years, the zoning plan for the Capricornia section will be reassessed in 1986. The zoning and management plans developed by the Authority are derived from the belief that opportunity for human enjoyment and use of the reef should be maximised, consistent with the conservation of the natural qualities of the reef which give it its unique value. The Marine Park is also an excellent example of Commonwealth-State co-operation. The officers of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service carry out management policy for the Authority and a number of Queensland agencies contribute in the development of policies for the region. Tourism is a significant growth sector in our economy. The Great Barrier Reef region and adjacent mainland centres currently attract approximately two million visitor trips per annum with 150,000 of these to the island resorts. Recently, there have been a number of expressions of interest by companies and individuals in establishing additional tourist facilities directly on the Great Barrier Reef , providing tourists with alternative access to the reef. The Government is aware of these proposed developments and recognises the need to facilitate access to the reef. Accordingly, this is a matter being examined by the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. An extensive commercial fishery, largely for prawns, is dependent on the living resources of the reef region as is the recreational fishing, mainly for reef fish and mackerel. The commercial fisheries catch in the Great Barrier Reef region in 1979-80 was estimated to be of the order of $30m for approximately 8.5 million kilograms of product. The recreational catch in the same year was estimated to be of the order of seven million kilograms of product. To impart knowledge of the reef and to create a caring attitude to this unique natural wonder are among the challenges of the program of management. A balance must be struck between the various interest groups which make proposals concerning the use of the reef, and conservation of the reef's natural qualities . The underlying philosophy is management by education. It is recognised that there must be rules and regulations, and penalties for breaches, but ultimately the success of the park will depend on people accepting the need for management and co-operating by regulation their own activities themselves. The Authority places great emphasis on establishing and maintaining liaison with the many and diverse user groups that depend on the resources of the Great Barrier Reef. Intensive public participation programs have been conducted in connection with the zoning of each section of the Marine Park. The Authority recognises that regular users of the reef have a wealth of information which can supplement that of scientists and managers. Daily aerial surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef is conducted in order to protect the reef from illegal activities and marine pollution. Mr Wells —Hear, hear! Mr COHEN —The Great Barrier Reef is accorded a well deserved place as one of the great wonders of the world. I thank the honourable member for Petrie for his interjection. Both he and the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth), who are sitting in the chamber, are known for their deep and abiding interest in the Great Barrier Reef. It is the largest and most complex expanse of living coral reefs on earth. Encompassing many unique forms of marine life, over 1,500 species of fish and more than 400 species of coral, the reef has for ages been a rich part of the environmental heritage of all Australians including the Aborginal peoples who have fished its bounty for thousands of years. Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is truly an outstanding achievement in the world- wide attempt to establish a balance between our use of natural resources and the conservation of the environment upon which our very existence and the quality of that existence depend. I take this opportunity, in drawing attention to this significant landmark in the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef, to pay tribute to the many individuals and groups throughout Australia who, over the years, by their interest, concern and support, assisted in the development of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Among those whose efforts must be remembered I include the former Liberal Prime Ministers Harold Holt and Sir John Gorton and, of course, the former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, under whose government the Act was brought down, and a former Minister, Dr Moss Cass, who introduced the Bill. Judith Wright's book Coral Battleground is an example of her dedication to the reef. John Busst, Eddie Heggerl of the Queensland littoral society, Patricia Mather, Don McMichael, the permanent head of my Department who is a marine biologist, and Graeme Kelleher, the present Director, all deserve special mention. From the work of the Great Barrier Reef Committee, founded in 1922, to promote scientific research and conservation in relation to the reef, to the numerous individuals and groups who are today involved in the zoning of the Marine Park through their representations, the Australian community has had a very active involvement in the development to date of the Marine Park, one of the world's most ambitious undertakings in the area of nature conservation. To those individuals who have battled hard over many years I pay a special tribute. In concluding, I wish to emphasise that while the Government has made the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park a reality, the tremendous task of managing the Marine Park lies before us. The provisions of this Bill will give strength to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with regard to complementary management arrangements with Queensland and streamline procedures for bringing into force zoning plans for the Marine Park. I invite honourable members, senators and the Press to view a display on the wonders of the reef at 5.00 p.m. this evening in Senate Committee Room 3. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned. Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(11.45) —Shipping services are of fundamental importance to Australia. As a major exporter of agricultural and mineral products, it is essential that Australia have access to efficient shipping. Australia exported products with a gross weight of 180 million tonnes and a value of $18 billion in 1981. Freight costs are a part of the total cost that must be deducted from the price purchasers can afford to pay for Australian products. For the most part, our producers are price takers and efficient shipping is a fundamental requirement for viable export industries. After the Second World War the Commonwealth found itself in possession of a flotilla of merchant ships. In the early post-war period these ships continued to be operated by the Australian Shipping Board under the National Security (Shipping Co-ordination) Regulations. At the same time the parlous financial state of the private shipping companies made it very dificult for them either to purchase government-owned ships or to have new ships built. In order to maintain Australian shipping services, the Menzies Government decided in 1956 to establish the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, the Australian National Line, to operate its ships as profitably as possible. Although the 1956 legislation imposed Public Service obligations on the new Commission to provide developmental and other services at ministerial direction, this would not appear to have been the major rationale for establishing the Commission. The circumstances under which the Commonwealth acquired a shipping line were, therefore, extremely pragmatic. Nevertheless, from that pragmatic start the ANL has been allowed to exist and expand without any meaningful review of its role as a government enterprise. One is reminded of the comments made by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in its first report in 1979 on statutory authorities of the Commonwealth: There has been no systematic approach in the past to the creation of non- departmental authorities. Over a long period, they have been established on an ad hoc basis to meet perceived needs at the time of their creation. It may well be that some authorities have continued when the need for their creation has passed, or at least where there is no longer a need for them to exist as a separate entity. From its humble beginnings the ANL has developed into a coastal and overseas operator with a total shipped tonnage of almost 1.2 million tonnes. In his extensive analysis of the Australian maritime industry, Peter Stubbs says that the financial record of the ANL is unenviable. He say that no commercial enterprise could have survived such an experience but, like many other state instrumentalities, the ANL has not been subject to market criteria. The paucity of available information is an indication of the unsatisfactory nature of the position. Australian users, customers of the ANL, the taxpayers and the Parliament do not have the information necessary to determine whether the provision of ANL services is warranted. It is difficult to be definitive on the profitability of coastal services because of subsidies paid in respect of the Darwin and Tasmanian services. All we can say is that in a totally protected Australian coastal trade the ANL ought to be able to operate profitably. In the overseas bulk trade the ANL made losses in each of the years since 1978. The overseas liner trade has made profits in four years and losses in four years since 1975. Stubbs says that the plain fact is that across the 1970s the ANL's surplus of revenue has been inadequate in commercial terms to meet either its loans interest or any acceptable return on equity. He generously concedes that the ANL has the potential to be a profitable operator. It cannot match the performance of the more commercial and internationally-oriented shipping companies, and the most realistic hope is for a continual, gradual improvement in efficiency, reasonable freedom from strike losses, and a revival in world trade. That is Stubbs, view, tenuous though his caveats may be, as he expressed it in 1982. I wonder whether he would have the same view in light of the $20m loss for 1982-83 that ANL will announce shortly. Two-thirds of the Government's new capital injection of $30m was devoured by the losses before it reached the ANL's bank account. It is my belief that ANL can make profits only behind the protective walls of the coastal trade and international conferences, and then only sometimes. Losses far outweigh profits. In the 10 years to 1982 the ANL made profits totalling $23.5m and losses totalling $32m for an overall loss of $6.5m. This is overshadowed, of course, by the 1982-83 loss of $20m that we will shortly hear about. The Government has given no justification as to why it should continue to shovel taxpayers' dollars into ANL furnaces. However, in response to the ANL's unsatisfactory performance the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has developed a five-point plan for the ANL. Firstly, there is the injection of $30m of new capital and the conversion of $60m in debt to equity. This should have a significant effect on ANL's balance sheet and gearing ratio, albeit at the taxpayers' expense. Secondly, management has been streamlined by the change to a part-time chairman and the creation of a position of managing director, who will be the chief executive as well as a member of the Commission. Thirdly, there is the establishment of the ANL Shipboard Practices Committee under Charlie Fitzgibbon, who is also an ANL Commissioner, and other initiatives designed to improve labour relations. Fourthly, there is to be greater freedom from ministerial and bureaucratic restraints which the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill we are now debating is designed to achieve. Fifthly, legislation will be introduced later this year to implement the recommendations of the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping to provide a climate conducive to stability and growth which will enable an equitable share of Australia's trade to be carried in Australian ships. This is also achieved at taxpayers' expense by the provision of more generous depreciation allowances for ships. The real question is whether this five-point plan will overcome the long term structural problems which are part and parcel of the ANL operation. My view is that it will not. The plan is cosmetic and hungry for taxpayers' dollars. Without heavy taxpayer support it will not work, and there is no guarantee that, even with that heavy taxpayer support, it will succeed. The taxpayers will be disadvantaged and the users will be disadvantaged. Who, we may well ask, will be advantaged? Only the ANL itself and the unions concerned. Is this good enough? The fundamental question to be answered is whether Australia should have a national line. The case against the ANL is compelling. The case for it is not argued by the Minister in any deliberate way. He is accepting the ANL as a fact of life and trying to patch the leaks. I challenge the Minister to justify this Government's retention of the ANL as a government-owned authority. The Minister should address at least four questions: One, is the ANL a commercial operation? He should demonstrate how the ANL is to restore profitability and operate commercially, free of taxpayer support and without disadvantage to users. Two, if the ANL is to be commercial, why does it have to be government-owned? The Minister should make it clear why the Government needs to be involved in the ownership of a normal commercial operation. Three, if the ANL is not to meet normal commercial criteria, what justification is there for asking the taxpayers to underwrite it? The Minister owes it to the taxpayers to explain why they should finance a non-commercial operation. Four, if the ANL is to fail the commercial test, is it fair to expect the consumer to pay the cost? The Minister needs to explain to exporters and importers why they should have higher conference freight rates imposed upon them because of the ANL's involvement with conferences. Several arguments have been put forward to justify the establishment of a public enterprise. The more important arguments are as follows: One, to improve economic efficiency and resource allocation; two, to promote redistribution of income; three, to provide government revenue; four, to provide a service which the market would not provide. The economic efficiency argument applies where it is argued that society would benefit from one large enterprise, but that if it were a private enterprise it would engage in monopoly pricing to the disadvantage of the community, and so it should be a government enterprise which will provide the benefits of a natural monopoly without the disadvantages. This argument does not apply to the ANL. The redistribution of income argument would apply if a decision were made to run a service at a loss in order to provide a benefit to a particular group. However, if this is the intention it is not necessary to establish a public enterprise. It can be achieved through subsidisation of private operators or through government transfer payments rather than through pricing policies, cross-subsidisation and so forth. In any event, the ANL is expected to operate profitably. This argument does not apply to the ANL. The source of revenue argument means that government may wish to involve itself in some activity simply to make money. However, the record of government in this area is not good, and it is a better argument that government should leave enterprise to the entrepreneurs and tax their profits. No one would argue that ANL was set up or continues because of its potential to contribute to revenue. This argument does not apply to ANL. It is often necessary for Government to provide a service that would not otherwise be provided by the market. National defence is a good example. However, shipping is a service for which the provider can charge, and from which the provider can earn profits. It can be, and is provided by the market, whether or not government is involved. This argument does not apply to ANL. ANL's existence is not justified by any of the four traditional arguments that are put forward as reasons why government should involve itself in commercial enterprise. Why then should the Government own a shipping line? The Opposition, as part of its policy review process, has asked that question. It has not been able to decide in favour of the continued existence of ANL as a government-owned statutory authority. The Opposition can find no compelling reason why Australia should continue to support a national line which is a drain on taxpayers and results in Australia's exporters and importers paying more for their shipping services than they should. The Opposition has no objection to an Australian- owned line and would be pleased if a commercial line could operate under the Australian flag and offer benefits to users. It simply cannot find reasons why such a line should be owned by the Australian Government at a cost to taxpayers and users. On our return to office we would dispose of the ANL as a statutory authority of the Government. The National Farmers Federation estimates the cost of shipping Australia's overall exports at $500m for liner exports and $250m for bulk exports per annum. NFF makes the point that these costs are part of the total costs which must be deducted from the price the overseas buyer can afford to pay for Australian products. The higher the freight costs the less the overseas buyer can afford to pay for the product itself. Exporters ultimately pay the freight bill and for this reason have a strong vested interest in shipping issues. As a major exporting group the views of the agricultural industry, expressed through the NFF are illuminating. The Chairman of the Shipping Committee, Mr R. J. Lane, in his annual report to the NFF was critical of ANL's manning scales and conditions of employment which are regarded as being quite unrealistic by other shipping nations. He said that ANL's managerial efficiency had been called into question in recent times. He was critical of the reported manning reductions from 70 to 65 on a two crew per ship basis when international standards can be as low as 18 with far less than two crews per vessel. Mr Lane instanced a European line that had estimated it would cost an additional $1m per year per ship if it had to meet Australian manning levels and conditions. He was critical of the scandalous situation in the Christmas Island rock phosphate trade. When the phosphate trade came under the coastal shipping regime in 1975, there was an increase of 60 per cent in the freight rate. Stubbs estimates the total cost at $6.4m and the number of jobs created at 220. This implies a cost per job created of $29,000. Mr Lane was also critical of the unsatisfactory Australian Enterprise episode, as well as the privileged position of the conference lines. The NFF at its recent conference, condemned the recommendations of the Crawford Report on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping. It has also expressed serious concern of the trans-Tasman shipping arrangements, and wants the Government to keep out of negotiations between conference and non-conference lines which is believes should be matters for commercial resolution. The Australian Mining Industry Council, representing the other major exporting group, is also critical of the present situation. Like NFF, AMIC argues that Australian producers ultimately pay the shipping costs and believes that Australian shippers must have guaranteed access to competitive and economic shipping services. AMIC says Australian shipping costs greatly exceed internationally competitive levels and it is unlikely that they could be brought in line even with major reductions in crew size and significant government capital subsidies. I offer two examples of the type of stupidity that applies in ANL's manning arrangements and the effect it has. One example is the situation in the galley where one man bakes a roast and another cuts it-the cost of that extra position being assessed at $70,000 a year, or $1 a tonne more in competitive freight rates for a ship moving 70,000 tonnes of coal. Another is the prohibition on stewards doing laundry work which results in a dockside laundry bill per ship per annum of $150,000 or an extra dollar a tonne for the ship proposing to shift 150,000 tonnes of coal. On Japanese vessels, a laundry, manned by the crew, is installed as standard equipment. AMIC quotes the 1981 average annual operating cost of 100,000 to 130,000 tonne vessels as being $US1.8m for open registry flag vessels, $US2.4m for British flag vessels and $US3.8m for Australian flag vessels. This is more than double the cost of operating an open registry vessel. Dr Keith Trace from Monash University says that Australia's comparative advantage clearly lies in the efficiency of its agricultural and mineral production. Efficient, low cost shipping services are of paramount importance, both to the rural sector and to the mining industry, the more so because Australia is a price taker in many markets. How the expansion of a relatively high cost Australian flag fleet will aid shippers in their quest for an efficient and economical service is not apparent from the Crawford report. Australia is not today a maritime power, nor has it been so historically. There is no evidence which suggests that Australia possesses a comparative advantage in the provision of shipping services, according to Dr Trace. The Australian Shippers Council is apprehensive that ANL's manning levels and crew conditions are still far in excess of international standards and that failure to achieve a competitive operation will continue to impose unwarranted freight costs on Australian trade. The ASC suggests that ANL's membership of the conference system will always obscure from the community the actual costs to users of the services it provides, thus denying the community the opportunity to judge whether the provision of ANL's services is warranted. The ASC argues that on the grounds of accountability and economic efficiency ANL should withdraw from the conference system. The Minister, in his five point plan, takes no account of these significant criticisms of ANL and Australia's shipping regime. Neither does the Minister deal with the arguments that are constantly raised about the conference system and ANL's membership of conferences. A shipping conference is a group of ship owners who operate liner ships on a specific route and agree on a policy towards their customers. They are cartels, but they give certain assurances about their services to their customers. They fix rates for cargoes and they agree to provide scheduled services, calling at specific ports at regular times. In 1966, the Trade Practices Act was amended to exempt shipping and in 1972 an Australian Shippers Council was established under the Act as the body designated to negotiate on behalf of shippers. In order to obtain security of service through both good and bad times shippers, and for the most part governments, accept the cartel arrangement. The shipping industry is allowed to operate in a way which would be forbidden in other industries. Because of the reduction in competition that normally follows the formation of a conference, it is inevitable that conference rates will vary from market rates struck between shippers and non-conference operators. The experience in recent times when there has been a serious shipping recession in sympathy with general world economic difficulties and a wind back in world trade, has emphasised the extent of the difference between market rates and conference rates. The recent wool negotiations, which started with a previous conference rate of $2,109 per container and has seen the rate negotiated down to $1,465 per container compared with the non-conference rate of $1,355 per container, is a case in point. ANL is a member of seven shipping conferences in relation to Australian trade. In perspective, there are about 500 ships servicing Australia in the import- export trade and about 100 ships around the coast. ANL carries about 3 per cent of Australia's total trade, including bulk trade, although the percentage of the liner trade carried by ANL is close to 10 per cent. Peter Stubbs reports the common assertion that ANL is the most marginal high cost line in a number of the conferences. The implication of this is that conference rates are negotiated taking into account the high cost nature of ANL's operation. This leads to higher rates than might otherwise be the case and also results in the more efficient operators taking advantage of the higher rates and making excess profits at the expense of Australian exporters and importers. It is clear that ANL's membership of conferences disadvantages Australia because freight rates are higher than they would be if ANL were not a member. Another conference- related difficulty is that because ANL operates behind the screen of conferences and non-market freight rates the actual cost of its provision of services is not available for scrutiny. It is simply not accountable. Events during the earlier months of this year provided yet another reason for serious concern about ANL's membership of conferences. The so-called Australian Enterprise affair showed clearly what can happen when a conference is able to collude with unions. The Australia Northbound Conference was suffering reduced volume and increased competition from non-conference operators and decided that one of the ships in the trade had to be laid off. By chance-or was it by design? -the ship selected was the Australian Enterprise. Predictably, the unions reacted against the laying up of the ship and put bans on the non-conference operators. There followed a series of negotiations chaired by ANL in which strong-arm tactics were applied to the non-conference lines-Zim, the Israeli line; Fesco, the Russian line; and the Hong Kong and Island line. In effect they were told to raise their rates and reduce their tonnage or the union bans would continue. Ultimately the non-conference lines capitulated to the threat of continued union action and the Australian Enterprise went back into service. I think this episode is one of the most outrageous cameos of industrial relations reality played out in Australia in recent times. ANL played a vital role in the whole sorry episode, acting on behalf of the Conference. Indeed, the Minister himself sanctioned the whole disgraceful process. It has been estimated that the cost of the deal to users will be $20m a year. The final irony is that there are now suggestions that other non-conference operators may step in where Zim, Fesco and the Hong Kong and Island line left off, unconstrained by the effective extended conference arrangement negotiated by ANL using the threat of union muscle. The Australian Shippers Council says the episode demonstrated the ease with which normal commercial processes can be put to one side in favour of a solution completely favourable to the conference lines and, in important respects, disadvantageous to shippers. The Council believes that the extension of the Conference across all operators on the East Asia, Japan and Korea trades is further evidence that ANL's inadequacies must ultimately be at the expense of exporters and the wider community. These developments reinforce the Australian Shippers Council view that the threat to exporters' interests inherent in ANL's commercial inadequacy has been compounded by ANL's membership of conferences. The Australian Enterprise affair demonstrated clearly that ANL's loyalty is more to the conference structure than to the Australian user. The reality is that ANL causes disadvantage rather than advantage to Australian shippers. I have referred to a number of serious difficulties regarding ANL's membership of conferences, none of which has been addressed by the Government. On any or all of these grounds the Government should not sanction the taxpayers' shipping line continuing in the conference system. The Minister puts great store on the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping. It is part of his five point plan which he intends to introduce legislation to implement later in the session. For that reason I do not want at this stage to go into a debate about the Crawford report. There are other matters that I wish to deal with. It is the Opposition's view that ANL should withdraw from conferences. This would advantage Australian users who would be free to choose between conference and non-conference operators without the complication of the necessity to protect an Australian government authority which was an integral part of the conference system. I do not expect the Government to share my opinion about ANL' s role in the conference structure. As the Australian Shippers Council puts it, there appears to be an entrenched reluctance in some quarters to subordinate the cartels to the wider interests of the Australian community. The Government would appear to be in one of those quarters. Whether ANL would survive outside the conference structure is another question. The Opposition shares the view of the Australian Shippers Council that where purposes other than commercial purposes are to be served by the existence and operation of ANL the additional costs should not be borne by those who are commercially dependent on ANL's services. The Government appears to support this stance also, if the words of the Minister in speaking to the Chartered Institute of Transport on 6 April are to be taken seriously. I quote him: Where there is a requirement for services that cannot be provided on a commercial basis, then Government policy is that the losses incurred should be fully identified and separately funded. Only by having the actual cost of services can the community be in a position to judge whether the provision of such services is warranted. The Government's actions fall far short of the mark in ensuring ANL's accountability and exposing its cost of services provided so that the provision of those services can be assessed by the community. I now turn to the Bill. The Opposition does not cavil at any of the provisions of the Bill. It is obviously desirable for a public commercial undertaking to be operated on a basis comparable to that of private enterprise. However, even though the legislation aims to give greater autonomy to ANL in its day to day operations, it would still be impossible to equate fully a new look ANL with private business. For example, ANL is still eligible to receive government guarantees for its borrowings, an advantage not available to private firms. On the other hand, it will still have less flexibility than private enterprise has in raising equity capital. Its capital requirements are more likely to be looked at within an overall budgetary context than in terms of its real financial needs . Perhaps the major difference between public and private enterprise lies in the fact that it is unlikely that the Government would ever allow one of its statutory authorities to go broke. As such, the authority is relieved of many of the pressures of surviving in the market place. It must also be difficult for governments to avoid any conflict of interest when they are in a position to make the rules of the game while being one of the players. It remains highly likely that the Government will accept a lower than commercial rate of return or a loss rather than allow the enterprise to go into liquidation. Unless the Government is prepared to allow its authorities to stand on their own and compete in a completely independent fashion it cannot be argued that its enterprises are strictly commercial. The only other alternative is for the Government to dispose of the enterprise to the private sector. The Opposition takes the view that if ANL is to remain a statutory authority it should operate within its charter and be accountable to the Parliament. The minimum number of ministerial and bureaucratic restraints should apply to ANL. To the extent that the Bill enhances the operational freedom of ANL it is welcomed by the Opposition. The Bill provides for the Commission to develop a corporate plan. There is bipartisan support for the proposition that ANL should operate commercially, that it should not be hamstrung by constant referral of matters to the Minister or the Department and that to the maximum extent possible it should get on with the task it has been given in its charter, that is, to operate a shipping service and to pursue a policy directed towards making profits. The difficulty that arises is that we must ensure that there is no loss of accountability on the part of ANL as it is freed from many of the ministerial and bureaucratic constraints that have shackled the Commission in the past. This is particularly so when taxpayers' funds are involved. The taxpayer currently has $126m invested in the capital of the ANL. There is also all or part of $147m in loans from the Government, on-lent to ANL. I imagine that the taxpayer has more than a passing interest in the affairs of ANL. The need for accountability is emphasised by the fact that ANL lost of the order of $20m in the financial year ended last June. The Opposition argues two things in relation to this matter: First, that ANL should produce a corporate plan as provided for in the Bill; and, secondly, that ANL's accountability should be enhanced by discussing the corporate plan each year with the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I should explain why the Opposition wants the corporate plan discussed with a Senate committee. To do that I need to draw on the experience of the Australian National Railways Commission. Australian National was told by the then Minister that it was a government directive that AN should break even by 1988 and it should produce a corporate plan demonstrating how this would be achieved. Australian National produced the plan as requested and it has been updated since then, but every year there have been further departures from the original. The problem with the AN corporate plan is that it is unrealistic. It simply produced figures designed to satisfy the Minister of the day that Australian National would break even by 1988. In my opinion Australian National has no hope of breaking even by 1988 and I expect that very soon we will cease hearing about that objective. So much for the corporate plan. That is why the Opposition believes there should be increased accountability. There is a certain arrogance in an organisation that goes its merry way, doing what it needs to do to keep its political masters happy, and knowing that it has no hope of doing what is expected of it. Ministers come and go; we all know the story. No doubt the present Minister has been given minutes, submissions and papers outlining the reasons why the performance of Australian National has fallen short of what it predicted in the corporate plan. No doubt there are plausible reasons but the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure, of which the present Minister was a member, outlined two years ago what was wrong with the corporate plan. The Committee made Australian National account to the Parliament. History has shown, and will continue to show, that in relation to the achievement of its objectives and targets Australian National is both incompetent and arrogant. A Committee inquiry showed how unrealistic Australian National was in its corporate planning but the House does not have the mechanism to conduct inquiries of this nature regularly. The Senate has the mechanism. Because the need for ANL to be accountable is compelling, the Opposition will move an amendment that ANL produce its corporate plan, keep it up to date and present it to the Parliament at least annually. The Opposition is concerned that the Government is seeking to maintain a high cost shipping industry that is unlikely to operate profitably despite all the cosseting available. It is equally concerned that so little accountability is required of ANL. The Opposition believes that its amendment will ensure that reasonable consideration will be given to the industry on a regular basis and that the accountability of ANL will be dramatically improved. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(12.16) —I am pleased to speak on this important Bill, the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill, which will amend the Australian Shipping Commission Act of 1956. Australia is a major trading nation but not a major maritime nation. We carry less than 4 per cent of our total overseas trade . It is therefore important that the Government place the Australian National Line on a sounder commercial footing. It is particularly pleasing that the Government is doing this so early in its term of office. It is this Government's policy, different from that of our conservative opponents, to maintain and improve publicly owned business undertakings to provide air and surface transport services in Australia and overseas. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) tell us what the conservatives would do in the unlikely event that they ever regain government. I have no doubt that they would sell off public enterprise business; that is part of their policy. It is a policy we do not go along with. The Australian Shipping Commission, which operates the Australian National Line , is an integral part of Australia's coastal and overseas shipping services. The primary function of ANL is to provide efficient services at the least cost to users commensurate with sound financial practice. The Government wants ANL to be able to compete with private enterprise on an equitable basis. In recent years ANL has suffered from a shortage of capital funds. This has led to it being required to cope with heavy interest charges, especially in a period of economic downturn, lack of government leadership and clear policy guidelines, excessive government control over its operations-that coming from the free enterprise Government-and difficult market conditions. The policies of the previous Government did nothing to expand the share of Australia's trade which is carried in Australian flag vessels. As I have already stated, this is a dismal figure of less than 4 per cent. In the short space of about seven months since taking office this Government has acted decisively to resolve the problems faced by ANL. It has injected $90m capital into ANL by means of $30m in cash and $60m in conversion of outstanding Treasury loans. It has obtained the agreement of ANL management to examine its internal structures and efficiencies and obtained the agreement of sea-going unions to crewing reductions and to the establishment of an on-going committee to examine shipboard practices and improve productivity. All these measures should reduce the Line's crippling dependence on borrowed funds and reduce its operating costs, thereby at least making it more competitive, even in these days of severely depressed conditions where a massive surplus of tonnage exists. The legislation introduced by the Government will be another positive step by it to improve ANL's competitive position. It will give the Commission clear guidelines as its responsibility over the line's operation and administration. It will bring into the open any government requirements for complying with policies not directly related to a shipping organisation. It will allow the Commission to respond more quickly to the demands and pressures of the market-place. The ANL has a most efficient terminal operation at Port Kembla. This operation involves the supply of slab steel to Western Port in Victoria. Over the years there has been consultation between the unions and the Line at Port Kembla. This has been a conscious approach by the trade unions at Port Kembla, recognising that the National Line is a national asset. The facts do not justify the false stories about industrial actions at Port Kembla. There have been no major disputes for a number of years. The unions work consultatively with management. Port Kembla suffers from an unjustified reputation for industrial disputation, peddled by people such as the person who represented my electorate before me. A concern in the Port Kembla area is that the port has been under-utilised. All too often cargo destined for this area has been unloaded in Sydney and transported by road to Port Kembla, while the local berth has been readily available. This often has led to serious accidents in the Illawarra region. A few years back a truck carrying container cargo destined for Port Kembla was involved in a severe accident on Bulli Pass. There have been accidents on Mount Ousley. This often has occurred because cargo destined for Port Kembla and which could have come to Port Kembla has been unloaded in Sydney. Port Kembla is being bypassed. Of course, this happens in the opposite direction also. Cargo leaves the Port Kembla area by road to be loaded in Sydney and the berth at the local terminal is left idle. The rostering arrangements at Port Kembla cater for 24- hour operation but rarely is the midnight shift used by the employers. I know of instances of ANL waterside workers not having worked the midnight shift for over 12 months. But it is true that ANL has lost money. This is because of the past poor management caused through the previous Government's lack of guidelines and unnecessary meddling in the affairs of ANL. This Bill is intended to improve the management of the Australian Shipping Commission and to provide it with more autonomy in its day to day control of the operations of the Australian National Line. It will also make a number of amendments to the Act which are of a machinery nature and it will repeal some sections of the Act which are redundant . While the Bill will provide the Commission with more autonomy, it in no way reduces the Commission's accountability to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs and the operation of the Australian National Line. Unlike the last Government, which believed in a continual, dogmatic wrangle of regulation versus deregulation and which sought to hamstring public enterprise, this Government wants efficient public enterprise able to compete with the private sector to the benefit of all Australians. This Australian Labor Party Government has already in its brief period in office put ANL in a position to expand its carriage of overseas trade by becoming more commercial. It is up to management and the work force to make this work. As part of the agreement reached in May by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), ANL, the sea-going unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have all agreed to implement measures to improve ANL as a public enterprise. The five sea-going unions agreed to reduce sea-going manning levels as a first phase of their undertaking. They have also agreed, in an on-going committee, to examine further possibilities for improved shipboard efficiencies which will examine ship board practices, organisations and productivity. The Minister chairs regular meetings with the unions and the Commission together with this committee. In this way the unions now have a greater chance to contribute to the improvement of ANL than was ever possible under the irrelevant policies of the previous Government. On taking office this Government found ANL in a mess, financially and managerially. This Government, and especially the Minister, recognised that if the process of ANL's decline were to be reversed some very necessary steps had to be taken. These steps are now being taken by the Minister for Transport. The Labor Government's policy is for Australian flag shipping, which includes ANL as the national flag carrier, to carry a greater amount of trade which this country generates. This Bill will give ANL an opportunity to gain its fair share by operating more commercially to the benefit of Australian exporters and importers and to the benefit of its own work force. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(12.26) —The Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill is of particular concern and interest to me because I represent a region in which a number of sea ports are situated including the ports of Devonport, Burnie, Stanley, Grassy on King Island and smaller ports such as Currie on King Island and Strahan on the west coast of Tasmania. The latter two ports mainly cater for fishing vessels and smaller commercial vessels. Our shipping services are very important for a Tasmanian member and it is necessary for us to take a special interest in shipping services. Our interest and concern is perhaps greater than the interest and concern shown by members on the mainland because we depend so heavily on our shipping services. The Bill that we are now debating amends the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956. It was under that Act that the Australian Shipping Commission was first established and given a charter by this Parliament. It appears that this Bill attempts to make the Australian National Line a more commercial entity. If one looks through the history of the ANL one sees that it has not really fulfilled its original promise, that is, that it was to be a commercial shipping enterprise able to compete effectively with private enterprise and to provide a service to the community at reasonable rates. It has had a difficult history because of many pressures brought to bear upon it, particularly by the union movement, the maritime unions and the demands that those unions have made. Mr Hollis —Liberal Government meddling. Mr GROOM —I noted some of the remarks that the honourable member made in his speech and I thought that he showed a lack of understanding of the history of the ANL and the problems that it has faced. The honourable member has made a broad statement about meddling but he did not particularise it at all and indicate where he thought the meddling had taken place. The ANL operates cargo services around Australia, some international cargo services and it also operates Australia's one and only interstate sea-passenger service between Melbourne and Devonport in Tasmania. I take this opportunity of commenting firstly, on the general operations of ANL, make some remarks about those operations and secondly, direct some particular remarks to the urgent need for an improved sea-passenger service between the mainland and Tasmania. I make one or two points about the general operations of ANL. I think that ANL has been subject to the usual bureaucratic restraints to which any kind of public organisation is subject. It has also been able to isolate itself from the normal commercial pressures and competition which would normally force a private commercial enterprise to either increase its efficiency or to go out of business . However, I point out that I am not one who believes that private enterprise is always to be preferred to a government enterprise, especially in transport areas . I think there is often a need for the Government to be involved in providing a transport service where there are high cost factors involved in transporting goods or people to a particular area. I also believe that sometimes it is necessary to provide subsidies so I am not one of the driest members of my Party on this issue. I do recognise that the Government must sometimes be involved in providing this kind of service and I do not object to the ANL continuing to be involved. I am not one who would agrue that ANL should necessarily be sold off to a commercial organisation, a private enterprise organisation, because it sometimes does not provide the same kind of service and sometimes provides it at a higher cost particularly when it might become a monopoly. We have seen this in some areas. One thing that does concern me is the recent decision by the Government after it took office to provide such a substantial amount of money to ANL. This is referred to in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Morris). He states: When this Government came to office ANL was in a parlous financial situation. It had a gearing ratio of 15:1 as at 30 June 1982. This worsened with the unprecedented losses being incurred during 1982-83. In effect, the cupboard was bare. This Government responded by converting $60m in loan funds to equity and injecting a further $30m into the enterprise to put it on a proper commercial basis. It did so on a conditional basis. It called for a determined commitment by management and unions to greater productivity and joint action to improve ANL 's performance. Those are the remarks that the Minister made in his second reading speech on this Bill. It is the old answer, is it not, that when a public body runs into some trouble and cannot make ends meet it approaches the Government and the Government makes a generous handout. In this case it was $30m which is a very large amount of money by any standards. However, in addition to the $30m the Government really wrote-off $60m which it had provided to the Shipping Commission by way of loans and that now becomes a grant upon which no interest will be paid. This is a dangerous step for the Government to take. It is not dissimilar from the step taken as far as Trans Australia Airlines is concerned. I believe that it leads to inefficiency, it leads to waste and it leads to a careless approach by the organisation which receives the money from the Government. If a company or ANL ever gets into problems in the future, as no doubt it will, it will look for the same kind of solution. The precedent has been set. It will say to the Government: 'You did it in 1983 so what about providing some more money for us?' Money does not grow on trees. This money has to be provided by the taxpayers and it is suggested in the original charter and in statements made by the then Minister responsible for ANL that this was to be an organisation which would compete on the same footing, on the same basis, under the same arrangements, in relation to taxation and in other respects, as an ordinary commercial private enterprise. However, an ordinary commercial private enterprise does not have the chance to go to the Government for a handout when it has some trouble. I hope that this sort of action will not occur in the future and that this organisation will become a true commercial organisation. I welcome some of the steps that have been taken in this Bill to put the line on a commercial footing. I think that to a very large extent it is window dressing and we will see what effect it has. The organisation has to improve its game. It is essential that this Parliament put pressure on the ANL because it does not have shareholders. Sometimes Ministers have a nice, cosy relationship with senior people in these public organisations. Therefore, it is essential that we put pressure on ANL to make it more efficient. I say to people from ANL who might read the record of this debate that they are living in a fool's paradise if they believe that there is not widespread criticism of their operations. Of course, it is easy to attack a public body. I think that sometimes public officials are attacked to often. There is not always recognition of the important role they play in the scheme of things and in the operations of government. That is not to say that we should not criticise where criticism is due. Certainly, the ANL has not operated as efficiently as it could have operated and has not provided the sort of service that the community demands. So it has to lift its game and provide a much better service at lower cost to the community of Australia. That is particularly important for my own State of Tasmania. I turn to the question of the passenger service to and from Tasmania. At the moment I believe that the service provided by the Empress of Australia and by ANL is a second rate service. It cannot be compared with similar kinds of ferry services operating in other parts of the world. Now that the Empress of Australia is reaching the end of its operating life, we have a unique opportunity to replace that vessel with a much more suitable vessel and to improve the real quality of the service provided to passengers travelling across Bass Strait. Mr Goodluck —Private enterprise could look after it. Mr GROOM —The honourable member for Franklin says that private enterprise could look after it. I do not totally agree with him there. We do not often disagree, but I think that ANL can provide the right kind of service if it lifts its game, becomes more efficient, and understands some of the concerns being expressed by the community. I have travelled quite recently on the Empress of Australia. I travelled on the Empress just to have a first-hand knowledge of what it was like to travel on the ship. I had travelled on it some years ago, and I had been on many other ships across Bass Strait, including the old Taroona and others. I must say that it was a bad trip; the weather was bad. However, I was not impressed by the service that was provided. I would like to see a few more female crew members on board. That might seem a funny thing to say. It might seem like a sexist statement, but I think that women can provide a quality of service different from that provided by the male crew members, the stewards on board the ship. I had the impression, and others have made the same comment to me, that the ship is being run for the crew. I had a bit of a peep at some of the facilities provided for the crew, and there is a bit of truth in what is being said. The impression is that the ship is there to serve the crew. I do not think the food is good enough. Mr Hollis —Is it better than here? Mr GROOM —The food is much better here in Parliament House. The food is better on trains. I have travelled to Canberra on the train. Has the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) been on the train to Canberra? Mr Hollis —I have. I came down on it to protest last year. Mr GROOM —I remember what the honourable member did when he arrived here. That was a disgraceful act, yet he is proud of it. Mr Goodluck —What did he do? Mr GROOM —He led a mob into this House, chanting. They broke down the door of Parliament House. This man is proud of it. He laughs about it. It was disgraceful conduct for a member of this place. Mr Hollis —I was not a member then, though. Mr GROOM —It was very undemocratic conduct. He says that he is a member now. That is because he had the support of the mob. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member should return to the subject matter of the debate. Mr GROOM —I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was misled by the honourable member opposite, led down the wrong path. I was saying that I believe that the food provided on Australian trains is of much higher quality and much tastier than the food provided on the Empress. I admit that that conclusion is drawn from only one recent trip and that maybe one should take a number of trips to make a fair comparison, but that was the distinct impression I had. I support that comment by saying that others have made similar remarks to me. Some people sit up all night; some have a cabin. If one is in a cabin there is no radio, no music. I hope that the ANL will look to providing the best possible service for people crossing the strait either way. I hope it will look around the world to see the standards that operate elsewhere and really do the best it can here. When people are coming to Tasmania we hope that their first impression will be very good as they get on the boat and have a comfortable trip across Bass Strait . People want to be entertained, so there has to be some kind of entertainment on the voyage across the strait. Mr Reeves —Lusher is going to close them down. Mr Peter Morris —He is going to sell them. Your policy is to get rid of them. Mr GROOM —I do not care what he says. I am here as the member for Braddon. I am a private back bench member of this Parliament and I am expressing my point of view. Mr Peter Morris —Aren't you in the same party? Mr GROOM —We are a coalition. He wants a service provided across Bass Strait. I did not hear all of his speech, but I would be very surprised if he were suggesting that there should not be a service across Bass Strait. We are not like the Opposition blokes. In our Party we can have differences of opinion. We will stand by our opinions. No one will persuade me, unless the reason is logical, that my opinion on this issue is wrong. We have to get this replacement . Someone is talking about refitting the Empress of Australia. That is just not good enough. We have to get at least one new ship. There is a real demand. There is a real demand for increased capacity across Bass Strait and we need to have a new ship, or possibly two new ships. One of the questions, of course, which is always critical in Tasmania is where the ship should go. Should it go to Burnie? Should it go to Devonport? Should it to to the Tamar? I say to the Minister for Transport that there are parochial pressures in Tasmania, but the ship should go to one port or another. I live up on the hill at Burnie, and when I look down from my home I can actually see ANL trader vessels coming into the port of Burnie. I am close to it and I know a lot of the people involved in the port of Burnie and in the port of Devonport. We have to look at this whole question objectively. We have to decide what is best for Tasmania. We must look at a lot of issues, such as the convenience of passengers, where they should arrive, and the cost and time factors involved. Devonport involves probably the shortest travelling time across the strait, and the cost factor might be reduced for Devonport. The question of convenience is important. The facilities that surround the town where the people arrive are important. Mr Goodluck —Hobart. Mr GROOM —The honourable member's suggestion about Hobart is just not on. There is no way the ship could possibly go to Hobart. It obviously has to be one of the northern ports. One of the problems in governments is that it can take too much notice of the rather articifial pressures and arguments that are applied. I hope that ANL will look at this issue very objectively, look at all the criteria that should apply, listen to the people and communicate with the people, certainly, but make a decision that is best for the community at large and particularly for the Tasmanian community, because we want people to come to Tasmania safely and conveniently at low cost. Mr Goodluck —That is important. Mr GROOM —That is terribly important for the whole of Tasmania, and that should be the objective of ANL. I will put my point of view for the ports I represent. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) will put his point of view for the port he represents. We will have our arguments. ANL should look at this issue objectively and wisely and think about what is best for the State of Tasmania and for all of those people who travel across Bass Strait. As I said before, there is a good deal of criticism of ANL. There is criticism amongst business people in my electorate, who are not particularly happy. There have been some shocking instances of delay, of cargo being left around for a long time and of damage being caused. ANL shakes its head and says that it wants to wash its hands of it, that it is not its responsibility, but these are concerns. I think that the approach to unions has not always been as it should be. Again, there has to be a strong approach, not weak-kneed, not going along on bended knees and saying-- Mr Hollis —Go on, do a bit of union bashing now. End up with a bit of union bashing. Mr GROOM —I will bash the irresponsible unions. If I think it is in the interests of the people I represent, I will bash them as hard as I can; do not worry about that. That is the job that we have to do. I will not kowtow to anybody. I am responsible to the people I represent. If I do not do the right thing, they will kick me out next time. But I hope that ANL will respond to those criticisms, particularly the objective criticisms that people are making. Here is a chance for a new start, a fresh start by ANL, a chance for it to lift its game. I hope it does so in the interests of the community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! It being after 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The chair will be resumed at 2 p.m. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the allegations made by Mr Bob Bottom that Australian Federal Police information indicates that a New South Wales magistrate was induced to dismiss certain charges and that another person is confident of being similarly discharged. I refer also to Mr Bottom's allegations against a senior officer of the New South Wales Police. Is the Minister aware that New South Wales magistrates have invested in them the authority to hear charges on behalf of the Commonwealth? Has the Minister requested the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to make available to the New South Wales Police Commissioner and the special judicial authority all information suggesting possible corruption in New South Wales by New South Wales State Government Ministers and officials and not just that relating to the early release scandal? If the Federal Government refuses to make the information available to the New South Wales Police Commissioner and the special judicial authority, as has been reported today, will it be independently investigating allegations against any magistrate empowered to hear Federal charges? Mr BEAZLEY —On the question of the allegations made by Mr Bottom on Friday, which were not related to the other matters that have been raised in this place and elsewhere, when they were made I requested the Federal Police Commissioner, and I received a request from the Attorney-General to approach the Police Commissioner, to find out whether in his knowledge there was anything in any Federal investigation which could sustain what had been claimed by Mr Bottom. At that stage the Federal Police Commissioner quickly conducted an inquiry of his officers and advised me that as far as he was aware that was not the case. He has subsequently looked at the matter in more detail and as far as he is concerned that continues to appear to be not the case. I am advised by him that no material is in the possession of the Federal Police which would sustain the type of suggestion which was put forward by Mr Bottom. I am aware of reports that Mr Bottom has discussed his allegations with the New South Wales Police Commissioner and also that Mr Abbott is reported as saying that Mr Bottom was not able to provide him with any concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations. However, Mr Abbott has not indicated that the allegations involve Commonwealth offences which would fall within the investigative jurisdiction of the Federal Police. On the other matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition-the question of the extent of the Commonwealth co-operation in any public inquiry or judicial inquiry set up by the New South Wales authority-it would be our objective to co- operate as fully as we possibly could within the framework of our own legislation, with such an inquiry on any of the matters that come before it, where there is an appropriate Federal involvement and where we have information to provide. We would also do so, as I said, within the framework of the constraints imposed upon us by our own legislation. We will not know whether there is a requirement for us to do so until we have full details of what exactly is the nature of this judicial inquiry, what it is considering and what type of information it may wish to get from us. Should we find that there are impediments in our legislation, to the extent to which we could co-operate with the inquiry I would ask the Attorney-General to have a look-at our legislation I am sure he would do so-to see whether anything could be done to remove those impediments in a way which in the future would not compromise the value of the legislation to our own investigative activities. We will not be able to give anything like a firm answer on that matter, one way or the other, until such time as we have had a chance to have a detailed look at what is being proposed. But I assure the Leader of the Opposition that if at all possible we would wish to co-operate with the New South Wales authorities in their investigations as far as we possibly could. Mr FREE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I preface it by noting that the Leader of the Opposition stated yesterday that the Government had abused and denigrated the Commonwealth in its reaction to the recent events in Grenada. I ask the Prime Minister: Has the Commonwealth Secretary-General responded in any way to the Australian Government's position? If so, what was the nature of the response? Mr HAWKE —The pathetic performance of the Leader of the Opposition has become a matter of much comment around Australia. Although honourable members no doubt thought it impossible, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition even plumbed new depths of hopelessness. In his attack upon our excellent Foreign Minister who, as everyone other than the members of the Opposition knows, is doing an outstanding job, he succeeded in achieving the almost impossible by saying that we had attacked the Commonwealth and we had put ourselves out of step with the Commonwealth. So that all Australians can understand yet again the hopelessness, the inaccuracy-indeed, the pathetic nature-of the Leader Opposition's comments, let me inform the House of what the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth has said since, as I say, the pathetic observations of the Leader Opposition were made. A letter to me from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth has come in over night. Mr Keogh —Read it. Mr HAWKE —I cannot read it all, but if the House insists I will read part of it. In the latter part of the letter, the Secretary-General says: I shall try to speak to you directly by telephone but you should know that your positive action in calling for the withdrawal of the American forces has been much admired around the Commonwealth. This is the organisation that the Leader Opposition said we were departing from. The Secretary-General says what we have done is much admired. He also says: I am sure there are going to be roles for Australia to play in helping to get the situation back on track in Grenada. As though that is not enough, let me quote to the House what Sonny Ramphal had to say on this issue on AM this morning. I quote from the transcript: The Secretariat itself is not thinking in terms of a peace-keeping force as such. So said the Secretary-General: The Secretariat is not thinking of a peacekeeping force as such. As I have said, no one really takes any notice any longer of the Leader of the Opposition. The Commonwealth Secretary-General was then asked: So has the Australian Government perhaps acted prematurely in ruling out a participation in a particular type of force. The answer from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth was in these terms: I wouldn't have thought that. What the Australian Government has perhaps done is indicate to me that they didn't think a peace-keeping force is the kind of force we needed. That happens to square with my own thinking. Those are the words of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. He went on to say: No, I won't be inhibited in going to Australia and asking for assistance by virtue of anything in the statement. In fact, the statement was very supportive of Commonwealth efforts to help Grenada back on the tracks. There are the facts. The action of the Foreign Minister on behalf of the Government has been completely in line with the sentiment, the hopes and the expectations of the Commonwealth. The action of this Government is totally in line with and is admired and respected by the Commonwealth and its Secretary- General. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I ask that the honourable gentleman table the document from which he was quoting. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party has requested that the document be tabled. I have to ask two questions of the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr HAWKE —I was quoting from two documents, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Are the documents confidential? Mr HAWKE —Yes. The second one is not confidential. The second one is a transcript of AM. We have not reached the stage where we want to make that confidential. Mr SPEAKER —Is the first document confidential? Mr HAWKE —Yes, the first document is confidential. But let me say this- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is a request that the papers be tabled. If one of them is confidential it cannot be tabled but the other, the transcipt of AM, can be tabled. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that the Commonwealth force that he and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have denigrated so much has been proposed in the Canadian Parliament by Prime Minister Trudeau? Has he held discussions with Prime Minister Trudeau on this matter? Is he aware that Prime Minister Muldoon is also in support of the Commonwealth force? Has he held discussions with him on the matter? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first two questions is no. I am informed that the position of the Canadians is that they would not be in a peacekeeping force but they would contemplate involvement in a Zimbabwe-type monitoring operation. That position is clear. As I have said, I have not had any conversations with the Canadian Prime Minister. We do not talk about every issue. He has not spoken to me about it. I am looking forward to speaking not only with Mr Trudeau but also with all heads of the Commonwealth in New Delhi on 23 November. I repeat to the House, and through the House to the nation, that in terms of the communication which I have had from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth I look forward to those discussions. Clearly, the position of the Australian Government will be directly in line with the sentiment and attitude of the rest of the Commonwealth . Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Finance, concerns the great State of Tasmania. Does the agreement to provide interim financial assistance to Tasmania following the cessation of work on the Gordon below Franklin Dam provide for payments of financial assistance to be made by the Commonwealth to the State from time to time at 'the request of the State'? Can the Minister explain the delays in making the first payment under the agreement? Mr DAWKINS —I appreciate the opportunity that I have to set this matter straight. It ought to be known by the House and, indeed, the people of Australia that the Commonwealth, having decided to take the action it did in relation to the cessation of work on the dam, always accepted its responsibilities flowing from that action. It has been made perfectly clear by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that there was no intention on the part of the Commonwealth to dodge in any way its responsibilities to those people who were adversely affected as a result of that decision. The Prime Minister made certain very clear undertakings about what the Commonwealth was going to do immediately following that decision. In fact, the Prime Minister handed to the Premier on 31 August the draft of a financial agreement which would have allowed for the first payments to be made to the State of Tasmania so that those people who were formerly employed on the dam could be provided with alternative job opportunities. The Premier of Tasmania decided not to sign that agreement for a period of six weeks. When he did sign it he returned it to the Commonwealth with certain changes. As soon as the Prime Minister had an opportunity to study those changes he then signed the agreement. The agreement has been in force for some ten days. One of the provisions of the agreement-one assumes that the Premier is as aware as I am of what is in that agreement-states that the Commonwealth will provide non-interest-bearing, non-repayable grants to the State of Tasmania. The agreement states: 'Subject to the provisions of the agreement, payments of financial assistance shall be made by the Commonwealth to the State from time to time at the request of the State'. I, not unreasonably, thought that as soon as the agreement was in force the Premier would make a request and payments would be made to the State of Tasmania. Instead of making a request the Premier decided to take out very expensive newspaper advertisements in which he abused the Commonwealth for not having made any payments to the State of Tasmania. I repeat: First of all he sat on the agreement for six weeks. Then, once the agreement was in force, he declined to make a request. The Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, Mr Wriedt, contacted me and said that he did not think a request would be forthcoming. Therefore I decided that I would act under another section of the agreement and make an advance to the Government of Tasmania. But let me make it perfectly clear that those advances are made only on the basis that requests will be forthcoming. Indeed, if no requests are forthcoming, we would have the power to ask for the repayment of those moneys. Members of this House would be concerned about the fact that I should be responsible to this House for my obligations in relation to those expenditures. I am accountable to this House to ensure that moneys appropriated by this House are spent in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. That agreement indicates that requests will be made in respect of certain projects. Once the State of Tasmania provides us with details of those expenditures we will provide the funds. But I was not going to sit idly by while the Premier dilly-dallied and the people of Tasmania were disadvantaged as a result. Therefore I have arranged for $10m to be provided. But I want to make it perfectly clear, as I have directly to the Premier, that that is an advance payment. It will be a deduction against any further payments which become available to the Tasmanian Government as a result of requests which the Premier will be required to make under clause 5 of that agreement. It is important to recognise that the Commonwealth has been absolutely dinkum, absolutely sincere and absolutely generous and prompt in dealing with the question which it recognises was not popular with the Tasmanian Government. But I think the very least about which we all ought to agree is that the people who were disadvantaged as a result of that decision should not become the playthings of people who want to make cheap politics out of this. We want to co-operate and we have made it perfectly clear that we will co-operate with the Tasmanian Government. I look forward in the future to the reciprocation of that co- operation from the Tasmanian Government. Mr CONNOLLY —I direct my question to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I hope that he was listening carefully to the answer just given by his colleague the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment no doubt agrees that the Hawke Government has a clear responsibility to protect the South West Tasmanian world heritage area. If he accepts that, would he please tell the House what he has done to ensure that the Minister for Finance is representative of the Government when explaining why he has delayed the provision of interim funds requested by the Tasmanian Government on 13 October to cover possible search and rescue operations, fire protection, rangers and back-up support to protect the area during the summer? He will note that the Minister for Finance specifically said that no request had been made. Mr COHEN —Not long after the High Court decision I visited Tasmania and spent some time with Mr Pearsall, the Minister for Tourism who is in charge of wildlife down there. Some weeks later I went there again with Mr John Brown, my colleague the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and officers of the Department. During those proceedings we had discussions with the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife people and the Minister, and agreement was reached about the sorts of things needed to be done in Tasmania. Mr Groom —Answer the question. Mr COHEN —The honourable member should contain himself. The Opposition has asked a question and I will tell it the answer. For some six or seven weeks in that period we were unable to get financial agreement with the Premier, Mr Gray, and that is the reason that no payments were forthcoming. If honourable members opposite will contain themselves a little longer, later this afternoon there will be an announcement about funds for the rangers in Tasmania. Mr MILTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Science and Technology. In view of the rapid international development of silicon chip technology, how far has Australia gone in developing a chip making capacity of our own? Is it too late for us to be internationally competitive? Mr BARRY JONES —The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has set up a VLSI-very large scale integrated-circuit chip laboratory for the design of silicon chips in Adelaide. It was established in 1982, and it is co- ordinating the design and fabrication of Australia's first multi-project silicon chips. These are custom chips which, in contrast to general chips, are designed for an absolutely specific purpose. I always carry one with me in case the opportunity arises to talk to people about it in the plane. On this square of silicon, six millimetres by six millimetres, there are five different custom- designed chips. They are not general chips, which are flexible and are used for any kind of purpose; these are absolutely specific. One of the five is the chip that is the central part of the bionic ear for the profoundly deaf. Mr Lusher —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr BARRY JONES —Spoilsport. Mr Lusher —I ask the Minister whether he can incorporate the chip in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr BARRY JONES —If our chip technology in Australia were more sophisticated, we could do it. We have the chip design facility but as yet not the fabrication capacity, and that is the important thing. One of the five chips contains 18,000 transistors and it will be used in the Australia Telescope. These custom chips are very important for uses where size and energy use are critical, for example in microelectronics. It is estimated that, by 1985-86, world-wide sales of chips will be of the order of $32 billion, of which general chips will account for $26 billion and custom chips for $6 billion. We would be crazy to move into the general chip area because it is overwhelmingly dominated by two areas, the United States and Japan, where there is an enormous volume of production with low unit cost. With these highly specific chips, the volume is very small because the chips are individually designed and the unit cost is very high. It is not an unreasonable expectation to aim at 10 per cent of the world market-$600m a year-for the custom chip area by 1985-86, because our chips are equivalent to the best in the world. The tragedy at the moment is that they have to be fabricated in the United States. But the design has been done here. So far nearly 200 different chips have been designed in Australia. Time is running out for us. Those who sit opposite are entirely responsible for this. We can be internationally competitive, but we do not have a very favourable lead time. Fortunately the Government has the drive and the determination to succeed on world markets, and I am confident that we will do so. Mr ROCHER —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is about a package of award increases for certain building trades workers which has been refered back to a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Is the Government aware that this package, if awarded, will almost certainly commence a new wage round with immediate flow-on to other unions which have already put employers on notice that they intend to claim building increases, if granted? In light of the Minister's statement of 6 October that 'the Government would give conditional support to the package', will the Minister advise what conditions must exist for the Government to be satisfied and therefore to give its support? Finally, if the Government is to support any of the momentary parts of the package as against the supposed peace objectives, how does it reconcile that with its position stated during an earlier hearing, that it would oppose disguised and/or sectional wage increases? Mr WILLIS —I realise that the honourable member has a close personal interest in this matter. The matter which he has raised is important. It is before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission today. As he would be aware, the building agreement came before a Full Bench of the Commission today in an anomalies hearing. I am not aware whether that matter has yet concluded but it is expected to conclude today. The Commonwealth is represented at that hearing and will be making submissions there along with the employers and the unions. As I have indicated previously, the Commonwealth supports the building industry agreement, with various conditions. The honourable member asked what those conditions are. I do not have a complete list in front of me, but an important condition is that there be no flow-on outside the building and construction industry. Certainly a key factor in the anomalies principle which the Commission laid down as part of its national wage decision on 23 September is that an anomaly cannot be found if it is likely that granting an increase would create a general wage increase. So there is no way in which the Commission could find that an anomaly applied in this case if it believed that the matter would flow on all over the place. We certainly will be saying to the Commission that there is no way in which the Commission should do anything to destroy the principles it laid down on 23 September. So, we would be saying quite clearly that there would be no flow-on outside the building and construction industry. There would also have to be on the part of the unions involved a commitment to the principle that, where there was a flow-on outside the particular award within the building and construction industry now before the Commission, the conditions in the package, apart from the money amounts, would also have to flow on. Industrial relations procedures are extremely important in our view in trying to bring about some sanity in what has been a highly volatile and disrupted industry in the past. It is a matter not just of there being increases in allowances within other elements of the building and construction industry but also of the whole industrial relations package going on. Those are the main conditions, but there are one or two others which I cannot directly bring to mind. The honourable member asked how we could support the matter now when we did not support it in the previous hearing. The fact is that when the matter came before the Commission previously it was not an anomalies procedure. It was brought to the Commission as an application to vary the award. We said then that it had to be looked at under principle 9 of the Commission's principles, which relates to allowances. It is quite clear that under principle 9 there can be only a very limited implementation of the agreement. We also said then that it was open to the parties to take the matter to the Commission through the anomalies procedures. The parties have subsequently done that. They have been to an anomalies conference in front of Mr Deputy President Williams, who was Acting President of the Commission. He found that there was an arguable case. It has gone from there to the Full Bench and the matter is before the Commission today. It is a different procedure. The anomalies procedure is quite different from what was before the Commission previously and it is thoroughly in line with our previous submission for us to be supporting the agreement before the Commission today. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In view of recent media speculation and public disquiet in north Queensland, will the Minister advise the House of the future of the Townsville based North Queensland Army Band? Mr SCHOLES —I thank the honourable member for his question and at the same time acknowledge his extraordinary efforts on behalf of the North Queensland Army Band. Knowing that he is as tenacious on other issues of importance to his electorate as he has been on this one, I can assure his constituents that their interests are very well represented indeed. I also acknowledge the strong representation made on behalf of the Band by Senator Reynolds. It is, therefore, all the harder for me now to advise the House that the Army has made an administrative decision to disband the North Queensland Band from 27 January 1984. The Army is under a continuing obligation to the nation to see that its resources are used as effectively as possible for high priority defence tasks. With no foreseeable growth in the manpower levels under which it has operated for a number of years, the Army has recently made a detailed study of its manpower priorities and has found it essential to deploy a number of positions to tasks which occupy a higher defence priority. The annual cost of maintaining the North Queensland Band is close to $1m. This represents a sizable outlay of defence funds which, in large measure, go to support the north Queensland community. The Army decision to disband the North Queensland Band recognises that these manpower and financial resources are now required for tasks which basically are of more importance to the defence of Australia. Community leaders in Townsville have strongly supported the band's retention, although I note that Townsville, unlike most other cities of its size, has not established a municipal band of its own. I should also point out that there are two other military bands in Townsville which, subject to the usual constraints, will meet civic requirements. Should the occasion warrant it, the 1st Military District Band from Brisbane could be made available. The Army is confident that the people of north Queensland will continue to be served well by military bands. In concluding my answer, I assure the honourable member that I appreciate the valuable service given to the civilian community by the North Queensland Band and I expect that the military bands which are now to take up its functions will exhibit no lesser standard of professionalism. In view of the comments from the other side of the House, I should also say that it is the aim of this Government to spend the defence Budget on the defence of the nation, not on public relations. Mr ANTHONY —Is the Prime Minister aware of comments yesterday by Mr Collins, the Leader of his Party in the Northern Territory, that to allow Roxby Downs to proceed without approving new contracts for Ranger and Nabarlek would be intolerable and entirely without logic? Does the Prime Minister expect to see Mr Collins today or at any time before Caucus meets to decides Labor's uranium policy? Will he endorse Mr Collin's remarks? Will he further advise Mr Collins and this House that the only logical course open to his Government is to approve Roxby Downs, the approval of new contracts for existing uranium mines and the development of new mines in the Northern Territory and elsewhere? Mr HAWKE —I have seen reference to the remarks attributed to the Leader of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory. According to my recollection of today's timetable, I do not understand that in that busy schedule I am seeing Mr Collins nor, as I understand it, is anything scheduled between now and Monday, when the Caucus of the Party will consider the recommendation of the Government. As I said yesterday, I believe it is appropriate that in a matter of this dimension, where there are such deep feelings, not merely within my Party but throughout the community, it is appropriate that there be the widest possible discussion. I have taken steps over the last couple of months to try to ensure that there be the basis of such a considered discussion. I believe that that will take place, and the views that are attributed to the Leader of the Party in the Northern Territory no doubt will be reflected in some of the contributions that are made in that debate. I am confident that these processes that this Party follows to arrive at decisions on matters of grave public importance are, as I said yesterday, infinitely superior to the hotchpotch process which is followed on the other side. Different processes in the Party represented by the Leader of the National Party are followed in this place. Mr Peacock —You told a lie to the Business Council of Australia. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, you heard what the Leader of the Opposition said about telling lies. That is passable, is it? I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the allegation against the Prime Minister. Mr Peacock —The fact is that the Prime Minister told the Business Council of Australia that uranium mining should be allowed to proceed. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw. Mr Peacock —I withdraw. Mr HAWKE —It comes as passing strange for the Leader of the National Party in this place to talk about possible differences in policies between the national organisation of a party and the party in a State. I remind him that there is a National Party in Queensland. I remind him that the Leader of the National Party in Queensland, his Party, made some observations recently about the Leader of the Opposition in this place and said that he was worse than a lost sheepdog, or something to that effect. I simply say in respect of the proposition he puts that there should be an identity of view between branches of the Party and the National Party. I ask the Leader of the National Party whether he shares the view of the Leader of this Opposition which has been put by the Leader of his Party in Queensland? Mr SNOW —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the potential damage by feral pigs on farms and in national parks? Does he agree that the recent Darwin scare of foot and mouth disease in feral pigs could become a reality and devastate the rural economy, perhaps stopping many rural exports? Keeping in mind the huge and increasing numbers of feral pigs, with their rapid movements through properties and national parks, will the Government consider introducing a program leading to feral pig eradication? Mr KERIN —First of all, I congratulate the honourable member for Eden-Monaro on the close interest he is paying to the feral pig problem. As he well knows, in his electorate the feral pigs are destroying fences and sheep and ruining national parks and in a recent incident many sheep were killed by a herd of feral pigs. The brief answer to the honourable member's question is yes, but it is not a simple matter. The Government, through its dollar for dollar matching arrangements with industry, has supported a number of research programs funded through the Australian Meat Research Committee. The Leader of the National Party , of course, also has a close interest in pigs. I inform him that the programs that have been developed by the Research Committee have developed our understanding of the ecology and the biology of feral pigs, and we have evaluated a range of control techniques. Nevertheless, there is still no simple, inexpensive method known to eradicate feral pigs. The New South Wales Government and the Queensland Government are trialling various-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I realise that most of the noise is good humoured but honourable members are using up Question Time. Mr KERIN —I thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. Pigs are very important. As I was saying, there is still no simple, inexpensive method known to eradicate feral pigs. The New South Wales and Queensland Governments have been trialling various methods. In the event of an outbreak of exotic disease in an area containing feral pigs their destruction would depend on a knowledge of their movement patterns and methods including trapping, poisoning and shooting. The honourable member raised the hypothetical question of what would happen if we had a major disease outbreak and pointed to the recent Darwin incident. I say here that the Darwin feral pigs did not have foot and mouth disease and the scare headlines at the time did no service to the industry. Three or four other diseases resemble foot and mouth disease in pigs and the feeding of green papaws to pigs can also provoke some of these symptoms. It has to be recognised that the control over the keeping and movement of feral pigs by man is an important element in limiting the potential for exotic disease outbreaks and the potential spread of any such outbreaks. The matters the honourable member raised are serious matters and I will certainly take them up on his behalf. Mr RUDDOCK —I ask the Minister for Territories and Local Government: Is it true that Mr O'Dea, a prominent left wing union official is to be appointed to the Parliament House Construction Authority? Is this appointment in return for his services rendered to the Government, in particular his arranging to have lifted the bans on the National Library arising from asbestos presence? Mr UREN —No. Mr STEEDMAN —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of reports of calls for the unemployed to be made to carry identity cards and to work in return for the unemployment benefit? Will he inform the House of the Government's policy on these matters? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I am aware of the reports to that effect, which said that the honourable member for Darling Downs had advocated such measures at a National Party conference. Let me say first that the Government totally rejects such policies and that those who advocate them are totally lacking in compassion for the unemployed. The implication seems to be that the unemployed are a lazy, shiftless lot who are to blame for their own condition. The absurdity of that surely is demonstrated by the fact that at present the ratio of unemployed to job vacancies is 42:1. With a ratio of that order it is absurd to blame the unemployed for their own condition. People who advocate policies which have as a basis for their rationale the proposition that the unemployed are in some way to blame for their own condition I think are completely at odds with the facts of the situation. Such callous attitudes to the unemployed are not surprising from a Minister in the former Government, which Government clearly showed a lack of compassion for the unemployed. Apart from creating about 450,000 of them, the previous Government reduced the real expenditure on labour market policies by about 38 per cent. It also froze the level of unemployment benefit for under-18-year-olds at $36 a week for seven years. Over the same period it allowed the unemployment benefit rate for a single adult to fall by 27 per cent in real terms, and it tried at one stage even to abolish the community youth support scheme. So much for the concern and compassion for the unemployed from honourable members opposite. They clearly did not have any and it is not surprising, therefore, that they come up with these sorts of policies in opposition. The Government completely repudiates the suggestion that the unemployed should have to carry ID cards and work for the unemployment benefit. The idea of their having to carry ID cards is clearly objectionable because it woud stigmatise the unemployed. That is probably one of the reasons for its having been advocated. Perhaps the Opposition would like to suggest that the unemployed should have a stamp on their forehead or even a tattoo on their arm. Let me make it clear that working for the unemployment benefit is against two International Labour Organisation conventions which this country has ratified; that is, ILO convention 105, which precludes any form of forced or compulsory labour, and convention 29, which precludes labour extracted under menace of penalty. The honourable member for Darling Downs was quoted as saying that the ILO does not matter and that we should not really be perturbed by the fact that the ILO has some conventions with which we do not agree. If that is Opposition policy we would like to hear it. Up until now we thought we had a bipartisan policy of support for the ILO. If in fact it turns out that we do not have, let us get it clear on the record. Is the honourable member for Darling Downs speaking for the Opposition on this matter? If not, let us hear from the Leader of the Opposition about that. Let me also say that the argument that the unemployed should work for the unemployment benefit is totally illogical. The point is that there simply is not enough work to provide jobs for the unemployed. That is why they are unemployed. So it is a complete non sequitur to say that they should have to work for their unemployment benefit. It is especially illogical for a member of the previous Government, which for years refused to consider job creation programs on the basis that they would be make-work and not real jobs, to say now that every person who is unemployed should be put on some make-work project. That is what is being advocated and it is totally illogical on the part of the Opposition. Our view is quite clearly that we need to do everything we can to provide jobs for the unemployed and to provide as high a level of unemployment benefit for them as we can in the period that they are unemployed. When they obtain employment they should be paid at least award rates and not be made to work for any rates less than award rates. The community employment program which we have introduced is clearly a major step in the direction of providing work for the unemployed. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, our employment policies are working and we are certainly creating jobs at a rate of knots which, if it continues, will mean that our employment targets will be achieved. Finally, I repeat the Prime Minister's challenge to the Leader of the Opposition: Will he repudiate the remarks of the honourable member for Darling Downs? If the Leader of the Opposition refuses to do so we can only assume that the honourable member for Darling Downs was expressing an Opposition point of view on policy and that the National Party is not only taking over the conservative forces in Queensland but is also doing it in the national Parliament. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BLANCHARD —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BLANCHARD —This arises out of a notice of motion given yesterday. I note that on page 2083 of the daily Hansard I am recorded as being the seconder of a motion of which notice was given by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I assure the House that I will not second that motion and I do not subscribe to the spirit of the motion. I wish to make that known to the House. I understand that the confusion has arisen because the honourable member for Denison had asked the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), whose name happens to be that of my constituency, to be the seconder of the motion. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —In the course of an answer to a dorothy dixer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) asked whether I speak for the Government. The answer is no; I draw the line somewhere. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HAYDEN —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —Yesterday I inadvertently made a statement in the Parliament that was inaccurate. I referred to 5,000 Grenadian troops who have taken off their uniforms and merged into the mainstream of the civilian population or into the jungle. My attention was drawn to this when I heard a newscast last night citing that figure. I immediately recalled that that figure should have been 3,000. For the sake of accuracy I want that figure in the record. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The growing concern and alarm in the community at the continuing Government attacks on, and neglect of, the small business sector. 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 SHIPTON(Higgins)(2.52) —I raise the following matter of public importance: The growing concern and alarm in the community at the continuing Government attacks on, and neglect of, the small business sector. I propose this matter today because of the growing concern and alarm in the community and amongst small businesses in Australia at the continuing Government attacks on, total neglect of and negligence towards small and medium sized businesses in Australia. This Government has ignored small business. Its neglect of and disregard for small businesses in Australia is momentous, consistent and continuous. It is continuing today. The Government does not understand small business. In fact, the Government's policies threaten small business. The Minister in charge of industry and commerce and small and large business in Australia, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) in fact has threatened the investment and creation of capital in small business in Australia . The Minister in charge of industry and commerce, the Minister responsible for small business in Australia, proposes a capital gains tax for small business. The Minister for Industry and Commerce persists in promoting the idea of capital gains and wealth taxes. He continues to speak strongly in favour of capital gains and wealth taxes. He speaks in that way in the Senate and in public. The Minister responsible for business has advocated a strengthened capital gains tax to apply when people sell businesses, in return for the Australian Labor Party's election promise of taxation concessions for small business. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister in charge of small business, has said that if we do not strengthen the capital gains tax which applies when people sell their business we will be creating another taxation rort in Australia. Those are the views of the man responsible for the administration of small business in Australia. In the Senate the Minister said: It is my view that there should be a capital gains tax in Australia and I will continue to advocate it both publicly and within the Government. That is the view of the responsible Minister of the Hawke Government towards small business in Australia. It is reprehensible and appalling that the Minister in charge of small business in this country has such an attitude. Since this Government came to office we have had continuing threats from Ministers and members of taxing wealth and capital and imposing death taxes. Labor clearly wishes to tax capital in every way it can-through capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death and probate taxes. Labor does not understand that capital is created by profits. Labor does not understand that capital is savings, profits and funds invested by owners and families in businesses. Labor does not understand that today business, including family businesses, investors and entrepreneurs are short of capital for investment and that what we ought to be doing is putting into place policies that encourage the creation of profit, savings and capital. The ALP Government should be encouraging small business to make profits and to generate capital for investment, but its policies are not doing this. It is not acting. Only through capital investment can we get growth. Only through capital investment and profits can we get jobs. The key to this is the development and growth of the small business sector. The Government completely fails to understand this. It is beyond doubt, it is clear, that Labor wants to tax capital. Labor politicians want and advocate death duties. This would be calamitous for the family business in Australia, the strength of the small business sector. Labor fails to understand the importance of the small and medium sized family business in this country. Labor proposes an inquiry into wealth. The Hawke Government's proposed inquiry into wealth is Labor's way of examining how to set up a structure to impose newer and higher taxes-the capital taxes, death taxes and wealth taxes I have mentioned. An inquiry into wealth, as proposed by the Government, will mean examining and establishing a mechanism for Labor's reintroduction of capital gains and death duties. Labor fails to understand that a capital gains tax does affect people's homes and businesses-their capacity to invest in the business sector. Death duties strike directly at family small businesses, at people who want to start businesses and at people who have worked hard to invest their savings in new businesses. Labor fails to understand that the small family business is starved of capital for investment, that the private sector generally is starved of capital for investment. Labor fails to understand that the expansion of small business is the key to economic recovery in Australia today. Large business is under pressure. In large part it is shrinking. Small business lends itself to growth. I plead with the Government to put in place policies to create a climate for small business to grow, for investment to take place and for small business to generate profits so that profits and savings can be reinvested by way of capital rather than talking down small business, which is what this Government is doing. Let us look at the ALP's small business policies. Let us look at its pre- election promises. Labor promised to implement immediately an Australian small business program. We have not heard one single, solitary word about that since the Government came to office. Mr Hodgman —Socialists. Mr SHIPTON —They certainly are. They do not understand the private sector. Labor promised to allow full retention of profits. We have heard not a word of that. Labor promised to provide full quarterly provisional tax payments. There has been not a word about that in the Budget or anywhere else. Labor promised to extend the time permitted to pay sales tax. It would be a great relief to small businesses if that time could be extended from 21 days to 60 days. No, we have not heard a word of that from Labor. Labor promised to create real jobs in manufacturing. Since this Government came to office we have seen a continual fall off and retrenchment in the manufacturing sector. Labor has not lived up to one of its promises towards small business, and that is reprehensible. Let us look at the Budget and small business. The Budget expands the public sector. It is a big government Budget. It squeezes private enterprise. It is a big government Budget and it hits the competitiveness of Australian industry. It hits small business hardest of all. Cost increases in that Budget are to be perpetuated by regular indexation of excises. Let us look at what it has done to petroleum and diesel costs. The Budget put up the cost of that valuable raw material that is used at every level of production, distribution and servicing in Australian industry today. Those excise increases in the Budget fuel inflation. Transport costs, which are vital to business and delivery of goods in Australia, have been put up by the Budget and will continue to be increased automatically. Transport costs are up for every Australian business. The Budget virtually wipes out the fortified wine producing industry that we have talked about in this House on previous occasions. The Budget must be condemned; the ALP must be condemned. Every major small business organisation has criticised the Government. The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia stated in its recent newsletter that the Federal Budget snubs small business. I will look at the combination of the mini-Budget and the Budget and what has been done to the small business sector. Let us look at all the actions which are detrimental to small and medium size business, to family businesses in Australia . What do the lump sum superannuation proposals do? They stop people investing in small business. They mean that employees of small businesses will be taxed because they rely on lump sum schemes. The Government has failed to understand the small business sector and how small business works. Through the lump sum proposals the Government has created a new capital gains tax that discriminates against small business in particular. Wage earners are exempt from redundancy payments but similar payments to the owners of small business are not. Members of the Labor Party and socialists do not understand the nature of small business . The Government proposed an assets test for pensioners. It does not understand that pensioners' savings form an important part of the investment process. It does not understand the importance of savings and the accumulation of savings by institutions, life assurance companies, banks and investors. Those bodies gather small people's savings and lend them out in lump sums to businesses. The proposal to tax assets hits at and discriminates against pensioners and small businesses. Pensioners with existing businesses and investments in existing businesses may be forced to withdraw their capital. In future people who are retiring will be discouraged from investing in the small business sector. The Government has introduced the withholding and prescribed payments tax system. It is a complete administrative shambles. It shows the complete and utter failure of the Government to understand how business works and to understand how business is being choked and throttled in Australia today. The Government, rather than getting government off the back of business, is putting more government on the back of business every day. The Government has abolished the dividend rebate for individuals. It has failed to understand that one of the good things that should be done is the encouragement of people on the shop floor to enjoy ownership and have shares in the company in which they work. The abolition of the dividend rebate completely negates this. Let us look at the Government's wages policy. The 4.3 per cent wage increase is disastrous for small business. Small business cannot afford it. Small business has to absorb the over award payments in Australia today. The accord that the Government is a party to with the union movement hits hard at small business because it does not allow market forces to operate and to fix wage levels according to the capacity of small and medium business in Australia to pay. The continuation of the former Government's wages pause would have helped small business. It would have been the best thing for small business in the wages policy area today. The wages policy of the Government is disastrous for small and medium size business enterprises in Australia. I turn now to government support for the job protection case that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is bringing forward. The Government has approved generally the ACTU's job protection case in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We want to know where the Government stands on that case. It supported the case going forward. Does it support the case in toto? That job protection case has the potential to wipe out nearly every small business in Australia. The claim by the unions before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission provides for enormously stringent terms and conditions for employers. It provides for three months notice to be given, four weeks pay, an additional two weeks' pay for completed years of service, relocation expenses , et cetera. What is the Government's attitude and policy towards the ACTU's job protection case? The combination of its wages policy and its potential policy in respect of the job protection case-it is supporting the job protection case which is going forward-is disastrous for small business in Australia. On other occasions I have advocated in this place that 1984 be the year of small business in Australia. The Council of Small Business Organisations has advocated it; it has written to the Government. I propose a year in which governments, politicians and bureaucrats listen to small business. They should understand its needs. It would be a year that would highlight the importance and significance of the small business sector in Australia. By concentration of effort it would be a year in which impetus would be given to the creation of capital, to profit making, to investment and to job creation. In the year of small business a program of action could be developed by the Government. However, the Government has ignored my call; it has ignored the call of the Council of Small Business Organisations. I ask the Minister for Communications ( Mr Duffy) who is in the House today: What is the Government's attitude towards a year of small business in Australia in 1984? The Government has totally abdicated its policies on small business. The Government fails to understand the nature of profit. It fails to understand that profit is important to pay wages; that profit is important to pay dividends; that from dividends one gets savings and from savings one gets investment; and that wealth creation is the key to the survival of the free and private enterprise system as we know it in Australia. Unless there are policies in place to create profit and to accumulate wealth for investment in this country, it will not continue as a private enterprise economy . This Government has forgotten the entrepreneur; it has forgotten how to encourage the entrepreneur; it has forgotten the self-employed; and it has forgotten the family business. The entrepreneur, the self-employed and the family business in Australia must be given a fair go. Because there is a crisis of capital investment and a crisis of investment confidence, what we need in this country today more than ever are particular policies to make the small business sector grow. That is the main area for job creation in this economy. If every small business in Australia could take on one more employee our unemployment problem would be helped greatly. We need policies to create a healthy, dynamic and growing small business sector. We need a climate for enterprise, for wealth creation, for profit, for innovation, for investment and for growth. This Government stands condemned for its failure to small business in Australia. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.07) —Before moving to the positive elements of the Government's achievements in this area, I will deal with a few of the matters raised by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). Mr Peacock —It was a good speech. Mr DUFFY —That is a matter of opinion. The honourable member started by attacking the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, because of the views expressed by Senator Button in relation to the imposition of a capital gains tax. I would like to deal with that matter because the honourable member referred to Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. He referred to it somewhat loosely but that is what he was referring to. Senator Button would have expressed the need for a capital gains tax for two reasons. The first one is that this Government believes that Division 7 should be looked at from the point of view of small business. Clearly that should be done. It is something which honourable members opposite, after seven years of total inactivity in respect of that matter, now appear to agree with. Opposition members could have done plenty about the matter if they had wanted to. Unless one has strong provisions in respect of capital gains there is no way that one will be able to deal with the problems of Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. It ill behoves those opposite to start talking about capital gains taxes which were introduced-- Mr Peacock —You started talking about them. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member started it. It ill behoves those opposite to start talking about capital gains taxes which were introduced in this country as long ago as about 1930. The capital gains tax worked well until the Fraser Government came into office and neither section 26 (a) nor section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act were enforced. We saw the greatest explosion of tax avoidance, through the capital gains tax, in the history of this country. Let us think about how this issue affected small business. Pay-as-you-earn taxpayers in this country were contributing 46 per cent of the total revenue received by the Government. Over 80 per cent of personal income tax came from the PAYE area. This was partly because the Government of the day, the Fraser Government-its remnants now sit opposite-did not have the guts to enforce section 26 (a) or, for that matter, section 26AAA. So honourable members opposite should not start talking about capital gains taxes. Those provisions were always there and they did not enforce them. The next matter the honourable member for Higgins dealt with was withholding tax. Let us look at the question of withholding tax. Withholding tax is a system for the collection of tax by a deduction at the source from certain payments for work not subject to existing pay as you earn arrangements. The basic rate of deduction is ten per cent. It is limited to prescribed payments. An outline of that system-the system of withholding tax-was introduced by the previous Government and has been available since August 1982. Taxpayers were doing their best to comply with the system. Of course there will be administrative difficulties. We have admitted that. The Opposition, even in government, would have understood that, but because of a misunderstanding or an honest mistake, as stated by the Treasurer, (Mr Keating), people in this area will be given every assistance. The system will be monitored in six months' time to see how it is operating. But it is a tax evasion measure and demonstrates the determination of this Government to combat both tax evasion and tax avoidance. Australians on wages and salaries who pay tax through the pay as you earn system have been forced to bear a grossly inequitable burden which was inflicted on them by the previous Government. It is about time that we made quite clear that that is what it is about. That is what the previous Government knew it was about too, somewhat belatedly. After all, the outline of that system was introduced by the Fraser Government and was available from August 1982. The other matter which the honourable member for Higgins raised was the proposal for a year of small business. I am aware of that proposal. The Government believes that it deserves to be examined. However, before any responsible government could indicate its support for such a proposal, it would need to have a firm estimate of the extent of the financial commitment being sought. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is writing to the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia-the proponent of the idea-seeking more information on the type of activities envisaged and how these would be funded as between the Commonwealth, the States and industry. Mr Peacock —The honourable member for Higgins was the first to propose it here. Mr DUFFY —The Leader of the Opposition says it was the idea of the honourable member for Higgins. God help small business if the ideas are coming from him. My understanding of it was that it was the idea of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. Mr Shipton —What are you doing about it? Mr DUFFY —I have just told the House. If the honourable member will listen, I will repeat it for him. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is seeking the views of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia-the proponent of this idea, not the honourable member-seeking more information on the type of activities envisaged and how they will be funded as between the Commonwealth, the States and industry. When that is ascertained, that matter will be looked at . This Government recognises the crucial importance to Australia of maintaining a strong, viable and diverse small business sector. We are conscious of the role which small business plays in generating investment and employment opportunities . Ninety per cent of Australia's enterprises are small businesses. One out of every two people in private sector employment is employed in small business. Mr Gibbons, the President of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, attended the last meeting of the Economic Planning Advisory Council as an observer. This Government has recognised the importance of small business. That has been demonstrated by the decision to include small business representation on our Economic Planning and Advisory Council. It is noticeable that the honourable member for Higgins did not bother to advert to the fact that that is a step taken by this Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Ministers of this Government have met with the Australian Chamber of Commerce. That organisation-although the honourable member might not be aware of it-makes representations on behalf of both small and large businesses. All businesses, regardless of size, have to cope with the depressed level of economic activity which has intensified competition and reduced profitability. All around this country it is true to say-it is certainly true when one talks to people in the area we are now discussing, that of small business-that the last three months is the best three months, as far as future prospects are concerned, that small businesses have had for two years as a result of policies implemented by this Government. Confidence is starting to come back. They are now starting to look forward to the future with some hope, something that they were unable to do under seven years of government by those now sitting where they ought to be sitting-on the Opposition benches. The growing indications of economic revival are therefore good news for small business. It is about time that those opposite understood that. Decisions announced in the 1983-84 Budget reflect the determination of this Government to establish a solid base for the establishment and growth of small business in the emerging recovery phase. The program encompasses initiatives in the areas of finance, taxation, education and training, information and research, competition and government purchasing. Access to finance has always been of critical importance to small business. Numbers of recent studies have highlighted the problems faced by small business. particularly as regards access to equity and venture capital. I want to deal with the question of venture capital. In September, this Government announced details of a scheme to encourage the development of a substantial venture capital market in Australia, something that did not occur to or cross the minds of those opposite-despite all their bleatings today-in the seven years that they were in office. Under this scheme, investors in licensed management and investment companies will be able to claim a 100 per cent deduction in the year of subscription. The establishment of mature industrialised companies will, in turn, lead to some $40m being available for investment and high risk industry ventures. The scheme will contain criteria designed to limit its application to smaller companies with high growth potential. We have heard plenty from those opposite about what is needed for small business. Not one positive contribution came from the honourable member for Higgins, other than the inane criticisms which were directed at the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The honourable member should have a think about that venture capital and see where that gets him. The terms of reference of the review of the Australian financial system announced by the Treasurer in May contain specific reference to the need for an adequate supply of finance at reasonable cost for the small business sector, that is-the honourable member for Higgins ought to take note of this-there is a specific term of reference in that inquiry. That specific term of reference is to inquire into the financial requirements of small businesses. That review will clear the way for consideration of further initiatives in the small business finance area. We believe that the Commonwealth Development Bank's close relationship with the banking system and its experience in handling development proposals for small business will make it the ideal instrument for a broader role in the area of small business finance. We have already freed the Commonwealth Development Bank's borrowing program from Loan Council control so that its borrowing entitlements can be widened more easily. We will be looking at the question of allowing the Commonwealth Development Bank to provide equity as well as debt finance. As a further move to increase the flow of equity finance to small businesses, we are investigating the establishment of an over- the-counter market in unlisted shares in small public companies. We have announced positive steps to encourage the development of a venture capital market as I indicated before. I want to come back to this point because I think it is of tremendous significance. That venture capital market will be enlarged by providing 100 per cent tax deductibility for shareholders in management and investment companies. This will be of particular significance to the people the Opposition claims to be concerned about. It will be of particular significance to small firms which play a major role in developing and diffusing new technologies and innovations, a matter, again, which did not occur to any of the members of the Opposition when they were in a position in government to do something. Small and medium firms will benefit from decisions announced in the Budget and those made more recently concerning the Australian Industries Development Corporation. These include-the honourable member raised this a moment ago, so let him listen to them-a capital injection of $12.5m; an increase in the Corporation's gearing ratio from 8:1 to 15:1; provision of a formal Commonwealth guarantee for the Corporation's borrowings and increasing the Corporation's statutory capital from $100m to $150m. The growth and development of technology- orientated small firms will also be enhanced by the support provided in the Budget for research and development, including technology transfer, productivity improvement and innovation. It is widely recognised that the lack of management expertise is probably the single most important cause of small business failure. We have therefore decided in this Budget to enable upgrading of proposals specifically directed towards small business management, education and training. Funds provided in this year's Budget will enable the Department of Industry and Commerce to expand the range of business publications, management training courses, films and audio-visual productions. It should also be noted by honourable members opposite that the Minister has approved the continuation of the highly successful small business awards program. In the current financial year we will be consulting with the States and small business representatives on proposals to expand further extension services for small business. More and better information on the small business sector is essential for the identification of problems and the development of appropriate policies. The Government will act to upgrade official statistics and encourage more research into small business. Work has commenced on the form of an annual report which will focus on the prospects and performance of the sector. As a start in implementing this program, funds have been provided in the Budget to expand departmental resources. A small business council will be established to advise the Minister on small business issues, including needs and priorities from program development. This Government believes that small businesses are inadequately protected from abuse of economic power by big businesses under the present Trade Practices Act, a matter which again the honourable member for Higgins did not bother to mention during his speech. We are examining many ways of strengthening the Trade Practices Act so that it can provide a more effective means of dealing with unfair competition. This Government is investigating other aspects of competitive behaviour, including the need for legislation governing franchising and the desirability of standardised lease agreements for tenants in shopping centres. Not one positive contribution was put forward by the previous speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! the Minister's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(3.23) —The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has already clearly illustrated that small business is the lifeblood of Australia's economy. Let me quote some statistics from the Chamber of Commerce in Sydney: Small business makes up 99.4% of the enterprises in Australia; employs 42% of the work force (almost twice the number employed by big business or the public service respectively); provides 60% of Australia's gross domestic product. In total, almost 1.6 million people are employed in small business. Small business is a major factor in leading the way in economic recovery, as renewed small business activity is essential in spurring on any economy after a recession. Small business generally, with its tremendous capacity for imagination, flexibility and growth, serves as one of the major stimulants to a competitive and efficient free enterprise system. In short, for Australia small business is big business. Furthermore, in the wider social sense the maintenance of a viable small business sector is imperative if Australia is to remain basically the same sort of free society that it is now. Developments in the United Kingdon since the Second World War have been such that there has been an alarming tendency for a smaller number of large corporations to control a greater and greater proportion of production. In addition to the unhealthy concentration of economic power that this can involve, these corporations were, under Labour, increasingly subject to direct policy control by the United Kingdom central government and became highly vulnerable to trade union pressure. It could therefore be said that it is far easier for both government and unions to bring undue influence to bear on a small number of large corporations than it is for them to influence similarly a large number of small businesses. A disillusioned Mr Paul Johnson, former editor of the British Labour weekly, the New Statesman, who resigned his long-standing membership of the British Labour Party stated: . . . it is the essence of corporation that the units must be large. And it is of the essence of modern union bureaucracy that workers are easier to control in big factories, where the organised militant clique rules all. So Labour ministers and union bosses are united in their up-ending of Labour's old posture . Both loathe the small business and the little workshop and penalise them viciously; both exhibit a positive hatred for the self-employed, who cannot be unionised or corporatised at all. This is where the Labour Party is heading. It has already embraced corporatism, which ultimately must mean the end of parliamentary democracy. This Australian Labor Government is also moving towards embracing corporatism. At the much publicised National Economic Summit Conference, where was small business represented? In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) saw no need for small business; rather, he concentrated on big business and big unions. Why did this Government fail to have small business representation on the Economic Planning Advisory Council? It was only through pressure from the Opposition, particularly by the honourable member for Higgins, that a few weeks ago the Government caved in to Opposition pressure and accepted small business representation. This Government does not give a damn about the small businessman. In February this year in Perth the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) launched 'a new deal' for small business. It was Labor's small business action program. At that time Labor claimed that this policy would 'revitalise small business'. Where is that program now? The Government has not fulfilled any of its promises to small business and there has been no legislation as promised. There has been no legislation to allow small business firms full retention of profits. There has been nothing to allow small business the option of paying provisional tax in quarterly instalments. Nothing has been done to the sales tax Act to allow a longer time to meet tax due by those businesses that have to pay up in 21 days, even when they collect only after 60 or 90 days. Both the mini- Budget and the Budget held little joy for the small businessman. The Melbourne Sun, on the day after the Federal Budget was brought down, stated: The Federal Budget is to all intents and purposes a non-event for the business community. The Budget may have been a non-event, but the Government's grabbing of Liberal legislation and twisting it into the withholding tax has hit the small businessman squarely between the eyes. This Government's attitude contrasts sharply with that of previous Liberal governments. Over the last decade or so several major studies of small business were commissioned by Liberal governments. The first of these was the Wiltshire report of 1971 and the most recent one was by John Bailey on small business education and training. Emphasis and conclusions vary somewhat between the major studies, but most highlight three major national needs: The need for adequate finance for small business; the need for practical training, especially in management and financial matters; and, finally, the need for small business men and women to have access to accurate and expert information on realistic new business opportunities. This Government would be well advised to take up these points, especially the need to further develop counselling and training. Current statistics show that 64 per cent of small businesses fail due to the lack of management expertise. The acute need for sound training materials therefore becomes most apparent. As a former chairman of a government back bench committee on small business, I strongly urge this Government to take up the significant initiatives introduced by the previous Liberal Government. I know that Labor's policy has already copied many aspects of the previous Government's initiatives, but let me remind this House that it was the Fraser Government that moved that the Division 7 retention allowance for private companies be increased three times, to its present level of 80 per cent. It was the Liberal Government that improved access to finance through the Commonwealth Development Bank. It was the Liberal Government which introduced tax deductibility for tax contributions by self- employed people to a qualifying superannuation fund. It was the Liberal Government which abolished Federal estate and gift duty to facilitate the easier passing of a family business from one generation to another. Liberal Federal Budgets provided generous depreciation provisions, a continuation of industrial research and development schemes and a strengthening of the export market development scheme. Our record in this area is good. To show that this Government is genuine in its concern for small business, it should declare 1984 as the year for small business. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffiths)(3.28) —As we heard, the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) had such a small contribution to make to the discussion that he only spoke for five minutes about the Liberal Party's policies for small business. We have just been subjected to the most hypocritical speeches I have ever heard in my life from the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Bruce. As I put forward my argument, I will prove to all honourable members how hypocritical the Liberal Party really is. We know how great the Liberal Party's policy is. We saw what happened to the Liberals in Queensland the other day. They were annihilated because of the Liberal Party's great policies for small business people in Queensland. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was a small businessman for 15 years before entering this Parliament, and for five years after that. I happened to survive for all those years; I had to struggle under the policies of the Liberal Government. I can assure you that the three years we had under the previous Labor Government, whilst I was in business, were the best years for small business ever experienced in the history of this country. Let us have a look at the Fraser Government's record as it was when our Government took office. Mr Shipton —We want you to tell us what you are doing. Mr HUMPHREYS —Let us just have a look at the previous Government's record. The honourable member has been saying how good we are. Let us have a look at how bad the previous Government was. When the Labor Government took control of the Treasury bench in this country, it took over the highest deficit in the history of this nation.-$9.6 billion. For those who do not understand, I will repeat it: It was $9,600,000,000. The members of the previous Government were great managers, great business people! They had great policies for this country! Let us have a look at how many people were unemployed under the previous Government. There were 600,000 unemployed men and women in Australia who were looking for work, under the previous Government's beautiful policies. They were great policies! The honourable member for Bruce knows all about it. He could not even speak for longer than five minutes on his Party's policies for small business. Mr Shipton —What about your policies? Mr HUMPHREYS —I well know what the honourable member's policies are and all the business people in Australia know what they are. Mr Shipton —I want to know about yours. Mr HUMPHREYS —The Minister for Communications and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Duffy) pointed out to the honourable member what our policies are. Let us keep going on the previous Government's record-double figure inflation, soaring interest rates and bankruptcies. It had the highest incidence of bankruptcies in the history of this nation and the honourable member sits there and says that the Australian Labor Party has no policies for small business. What hypocrites the members of the Opposition really are. I will just remind honourable members opposite of the history of the previous Government. We have to look only at the figures of new bankruptcies for the years 1979 and 1980. They show the drastic effect of the stringent policies towards small business from the previous Government. The total number of bankruptcies for the year 1979-80 was an astonishing 4,979. Mr Duffy —How many? Mr HUMPHREYS —It was 4,979, a 29 per cent increase over that of the previous year. In real terms that means that bankruptcies during the time Fraser first took office until 1980 represented an increase of 162 per cent. How do honourable members opposite like that? Where were their policies for the small business people? There is no other way to describe these figures but as an absolute and abject failure, and a failure to maintain the commitment to the small business people of this country, who are well aware of the previous Government's great policies! I remind the honourable member for Higgins and the honourable member for Bruce of the time of Malcom Fraser's term of office. They were both in parliament at the time. The honourable member for Bruce did not last too long under those policies, but he has come back in the seat of the previous Speaker. Mr Shipton —Yes, with the swing in his favour. That is how he came back. Mr HUMPHREYS —I know about the swing. We have seen what happened to the swing in Queensland. Do not worry about the swing as far as Liberal Party policies are concerned. Well over 15,000 bankruptcies occurred during Malcolm Fraser's term of office. And the honourable member for Higgins was there supporting Malcolm Fraser all the way. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not really want to keep going on the subject of bankruptcies because, as I read on, the figures, as you can imagine, get worse and worse. Let us look at the previous Government's taxation policies. Honourable members opposite say that we have a high taxation policy. I remind the honourable member for Higgins of the 20 per cent sales tax on small boats. What did his Government do to the boat building industry of Australia, especially in my electorate? It put a 20 per cent sales tax on that industry. Let us see what happened to employment in that industry whilst honourable members opposite were in government. Norman R. Wright and Sons Pty Ltd is a very big and famous boat building firm in Australia. Norman Wright was one of the skippers of Gretel. Honourable members would all remember the Wrights of Queensland. In 1981 his firm employed 32 people. In 1983 after the previous Government's policy was implemented the number of staff was down to 20. Millkraft Thompson Boatyards Pty Ltd is another famous small boat builder in Queensland, in my electorate. In 1981 it employed 28 people. After the imposition of the 20 per cent sales tax it employed three. B. J. Flanigan Engineering Pty Ltd employed 24 people. That figure is now down to 13. H. Morris Boatbuilder Pty Ltd employed 14. That is now down to eight. This does not just involve the boat building industry. One can imagine all the industries associated with boat building. I refer to the engineers who are associated with boat building and all the motors which have to go into those small boats, all the sails and all the other side industries which the previous Government crippled as a result of its small business policies. And honourable members opposite talk about us taxing small business. What about the 20 per cent sales tax on those boats? Let me get back to the lies here today. Let me put finish to the lies of honouable members opposite today. The honourable member for Higgins said we did not do anything. Opposition members told this Parliament that the Labor Government did not do anything. What happened to that 20 per cent sales tax on those boats? Did we as a government remove that innocuous 20 per cent sales tax, which the previous Government had put on the boat builders? Of course we did. I will read from the notes of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) in this House. Honourable members opposite waited till he was overseas. Like a thief in the night they sneaked in here and waited until he was overseas to bring this matter on. That is what they did. They were not game to take him on and they thought we would let them get off scott free. The small business people of Australia know what frauds they are. They waited till he left the country and then came in here to attack him. Let me remind honourable members opposite of what they are and what they represented before. They should not worry about not sneaking in and taking on the great Minister for Sport, Recreation and tourism and Minister assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House. He would have had a picnic with Opposition members today. We are just having a little picnic with them, but it is hurting and I am glad they are singing out because we know we are hurting them. I refer to the notes in which the Minister stated: With the 20% tax on the top of the established price, the Boat Building Industry in Queensland and, perhaps, throughout Australia is no longer a viable industry. This is a result of the policy of honourable members opposite. I have quoted from the notes I have here. Mr Lindsay —The Liberal Party ruined the Australian boat building industry. Mr HUMPHREYS —Exactly. The Minister continues: The Tourist Islands are all building boats as 'ferries' or 'tug boats' and not as tourist boats for charter cruises because of the tax levy. Does the honourable member for Higgins see what he has done to the tourist industry? He is the spokesman for the tourist industry. Those involved in the industry well know what he has done to their industry also with his total nonsense. Mr Shipton —Tell us about the shambles of the diesel fuel subsidy. Mr HUMPHREYS —Never mind about the diesel fuel subsidy or anything like that. The Minister continued: Any vessel, regardless whether it is for Tourism or recreation, or private use, has to pay the tax irrespective of what they are used for in reality. It is simply presumed that they are all luxury vessels. I appreciate why the previous Government had to introduce the legislation for the 20 per cent sales tax. It was because all the tax dodgers and the friends of honourable members opposite were defrauding the boat building industry by building those luxury boats and by saying they were going to have them only as hire vessels. They hired them to their friends for three days and then they said : 'Well, we fulfilled our obligation to the Government'. They then had all the subsidies. We understand why the previous Government introduced that legislation . The previous Government's policy showed a total neglect of what the industry was all about. Mr Aldred —Hurry up and get on with something concrete. Your time is almost up. Mr HUMPHREYS —It is hurting. I know what the previous Government did. We all know. The people around Australia know what was done to that industry. This is only one industry which I have mentioned today. Mr Aldred —You have used your speech on trivia. What happened to your promises of 13 February? Mr HUMPHREYS —Do not worry about what happened to our promises. What did the honourable member's Government do to the industries of Australia? Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I have proved conclusively today what the Liberals are all about and what their policies for small business represent. We have the policies . We have been in government for seven months and the small business sector of this country is accepting our Government everywhere I go. All my friends whom I have had in small business over the many years are saying what a great job we are doing. We will continue to do that great job. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson) —I present the 207th Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts relating to a Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 192nd report on the collection and dissemination of statistics. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr O'KEEFE —The 207th report contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's 192nd report, which was a discussion paper on the collection and dissemination of statistics. The Department of Finance minute is the formal documentation of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations which were contained in the 192nd report, tabled in Parliament on 10 November 1981. The Committee considers that timely and accurate statistics are an essential requirement for both public and private sector management. In particular, such information is required for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of policies and programs across the full range of governmental activities. Similarly comprehensive and up to date statistics are required as a basis for advice on prospective new policies and programs. If comprehensive and relevant statistics are not available it is possible for government policies and programs, formulated on the basis of incomplete information, to be directed away from the areas of greatest need. Even though the benefits that can flow from statistical information are great, so also are the costs of obtaining them. By any measure, the quantity of official statistics now collected is immense. Subject groups range over demography, education, health, welfare, national accounts, employment and prices , all industry groups, transportation and communications. The 1981-82 Budget appropriations for the Australian Bureau of Statistics-ABS-total about $111m, of which $76m was for salaries of Bureau staff. Furthermore, the Confederation of Australian Industry claims that the cost of complying with Federal and State government regulations on the provision of statistical information was $3,700m in 1978-79. Consequently, the Committee considered that it was important to produce a discussion paper covering such issues. This resulted in the 192nd report which discussed a number of problem areas associated with the collection and dissemination of statistics by the Commonwealth Government, and made suggestions aimed at effecting improvements in the quality of statistics. It also considered more economical ways of carrying out the task which, in turn, could have the added advantage of freeing resources for the collection of needed, but as yet unavailable, information. The Committee's main recommendations were made in the following areas: The strengthening of the power of the ABS to co-ordinate statistical information; the establishment by the ABS of a central statistical register; the appropriate use of taxation data; the encouragement of consistency in standard data concepts , definitions and classifications; the amendment of the Census and Statistics Act to allow for maximum utilisation of statistics; the examination of overseas initiatives to reduce the paper burden imposed by governments on citizens; the possibility of charging users for some statistical publications; and the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to advise governments on urgent matters relating to statistical programs and priorities. As indicated in this finance minute, several of the Committee's recommendations have been accepted. Consequently the Committee is generally satisfied with this response. The main policy revisions effected as a result of the Committee's recommendations are as follows: The introduction of new measures designed to strengthen the co-ordination role of the Australian Bureau of Statistics; the amendment of the Census and Statistics Act to allow maximum use of available data; and the introduction of charges for a much higher proportion of ABS publications. However, the Committee does have some reservations about this response to its 192nd report. In particular, the Committee considers that the Australian Bureau of Statistics should further explore the possibility of making better use of taxation data. The Committee will continue to pursue with the Australian Bureau of Statistics this area and several others which emerged from the 192nd report. I commend this report to the House. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —I present the third and fifth reports of 1983 of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the development of facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force Base, Williamtown, New South Wales, for the FA18 Tactical Fighter Force and the construction of the Australia Telescope, New South Wales, respectively. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —by leave-The need for a new Australian radio telescope, a laboratory among the southern stars, is now urgent if Australia is to maintain its excellent reputation as a leading nation in world radio astronomy. Australia 's main radio telescope at Parkes is now over 20 years old. However, the requirements of modern radio astronomy cannot be satisfied by the existing generation of Australian telescopes. New radio telescopes with enhanced capabilities have been built in the northern hemisphere. It is clear that a new radio telescope designed for future needs is essential to preserve the vitality of Australian radio astronomy, to maintain Australia's reputation as a leader in world astronomy and to ensure that Australian astronomers continue to make significant astronomical discoveries. The Australia Telescope will be constructed by the Hawke Labor Government-an authentic Australian government. Australian industry will construct the antennas of the total project, nearly 80 per cent of which will be of Australian content. Australian industry will gain valuable experience in the field of satellite communications. In addition, Australian industry will make advances in high speed digital techniques, particularly those involving optical fibres. The development of very large integrated circuits will have an impact on signal processing techniques. Both the hardware and the software developed for image processing on the Australia Telescope will have widespread applications in biomedicine and industry. Importantly, Australian radio astronomy had its beginnings in the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Division of Radio Physics in the development of radar during World War II. We Australians will appreciate that should there be another comparable national emergency our nation will possess a ready-made research team in electronics and signal processing which is as good as any in the world. The Australian Bicentennial Authority has accepted the Australia Telescope as a worthwhile bicentennial project. I know that the Federal Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) will pursue this project. He will give leadership to ensure that this national project will receive every impetus from the Australian Government so that this Australia Telescope will be ready and in operation for the celebration of our bicentenary. I thank my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Works for their intelligent and diligent application to the work during the hearings and investigations of the Australia Telescope proposal. I know that they will join with me in commending this proposal to the House and to the efforts of the Australian Government. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest) —by leave-I believe the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) has quite adequately done the job of putting the point of view of the members of the Public Works Committee, so I will speak very briefly to express my real pleasure at being associated with this project as a member of the Committee. It has been wonderful to be associated with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation team headed by Dr Frater. I am sure that the honourable member for Herbert would agree with me that Dr Frater and his team fired the imagination of the members of the Committee regarding this project. It was a great eye opener to me. I remember it being pointed out to me as a child that the light we see from the stars takes hundreds of years to get to Australia. That was very hard to comprehend. This new radio telescope will pick up signals which are something like 5,000 million light years from Australia. When one thinks that light travels at about 1,860 miles per second, one can do the sums and visualise how big our universe is. I was not really aware of its immensity and, I suppose, its certainty. To think that light comes from that distance makes one feel really humble. I will make a couple of comments on the telescope itself. The last 20 years at Parkes have seen many discoveries that have led to new sciences not suspected when the telescope was designed and built. With each generation of new telescopes new sciences emerge to challenge and add to our understanding of the cosmos. With the new telescopes planned for the 1980s and into the 1990s, there is no sign of any abating of the rate of new discoveries. The Australia Telescope is designed to be sufficiently versatile to cope with the new modes of operation which future discoveries will demand. In the Australia Telescope, Australia should have the most versatile telescope array in the world. Planned for operational start during the bicentenary year, 1988, it is a scientifically and technologically demanding project. With the telescope we can look forward to the solving of some of the most exciting problems in astrophysics today. Without it, one of Australia's most eminent branches of science will wither. The technology developed for the Australia Telescope will have a wide application in industry and other research areas. The Australia Telescope project is timely in that its developments are directly applicable to satellite communication at a period when Australia is preparing to enter this field of radio communications. The technology that must be developed for the telescope will have applications across a whole range of endeavours from medicine to mining. Once again I compliment the Government on carrying on this initiative started by the previous Government. Mr Barry Jones —With a bit more vigour. Mr DRUMMOND —I trust the Minister for Science and Technology, as urged to by the honourable member for Herbert, will direct his renowned vigour towards the project. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation, Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence)(3.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The last occasion on which there was a substantial increase in the size of the Parliament was 1948. In the 35 years since then, Australia's population has doubled approximately. The tasks of government and of individual members have grown profoundly and people's expectations about what their representatives can achieve have increased markedly. It is essential that our Parliament is able to cope with these changing demands and to meet the needs of the 1980s and beyond. Past practice suggests such adjustments are rare and therefore it is necessary for legislators to consider problems in the future as well as their immediate circumstances when considering an increase in the size of the Parliament. The importance of this principle was not lost on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. In a detailed and reasoned response to the submissions it received, the majority of the Committee recommended that the number of senators representing each original State be increased from 10 to 12, with a corresponding increase in the size of the House of Representatives of 23, and the Government has accepted that recommendation. The reasons given by the Committee for its recommendation are compelling. First and foremost is the question of our increased population. In 1947, the census year prior to the last major increase in the size of the Parliament, the population was 7.5 million; now it is over 15 million. Since 1949, average enrolments for House of Representatives divisions have risen from 39,948 to the current figure of 74,989 . But of greater significance is the fact that Commonwealth Government activity has grown enormously in the last 35 years, without a corresponding increase in the number of senators and members. There is now more legislation passed with a flow on need for more committees, and more Ministers. The Ministry has increased in size by 70 per cent since 1949. The annual volume of legislation has grown almost fourfold in the last 60 years. For example, in 1924, 65 Bills were proposed, and in 1978 the figure was 240. There has been a great expansion of Federal Government responsibilities since World War II through the regulation of the national economy and the creation of a welfare state. The role of Parliament, the duties of parliamentarians and the expectations of the electorate have changed dramatically during this period. Today the Parliament through the ordinary back bencher is expected to be conversant with these new policy trends, and to be a watchdog holding the Government accountable to his or her constituents. In particular, Parliament has set up a wide range of committees which can function effectively only if there are sufficient parliamentarians to be called upon to perform the committee tasks . Yet the pool of members and senators available for these assignments has been eroded over the years through the increase in the size of the Ministry and shadow Ministry. Furthermore, under the present arrangements the ordinary member has difficulty coping with the flood of constituent problems which have escalated with the growth of poverty and unemployment. No wonder people become cynical about their politicians when so many of their Federal representatives are placed in the position of not being able to serve their constituents, let alone play an active legislative role in their national Parliament. The increase in government business that has occurred in recent times has significantly altered the balance between the Executive and the back bench. It has meant that Parliament's independence in relation to the Executive has suffered. It is interesting to note when considering the increase in government business since 1949 that the numbers of those who report on it in the parliamentary Press Gallery have increased fourfold since then. There are those who argue that Australia is already overgoverned, that there are already too many politicians. This is a simplistic view. Nevertheless, it is superficially appealing. I reject the approach which adds up all the members of parliament in Australia and divides that number into the population and then produces some overseas country to prove that we have too many MPs. The functions of our parliamentarians differ too much from overseas to make such contrasts valid. For example, if we were to use that technique to compare ourselves with the United Kingdom then we would rationally have to ask whether local authorities and county councils which perform functions in education, social welfare and housing , here the function of State governments, should be included. For those who are fond of such comparisons, however, I should point out that in the United Kingdom , the 650 lower House representatives have an average 65,692 electors in their constituencies. In the case of the Canadian lower House, the number of electors per member is 56,349. New Zealand's 92 constituencies average only 22,117 electors each. In Australia, the 125 members of the House of Representatives have on average 74,989 electors in their divisions, well ahead of the others. The real question is: Do we want the members and senators to be able to carry out their two tasks, of representing their constituency and making a real contribution to the formation of national policy? The Bill before this House will provide more adequate and more realistic representation for all Australians. It will redress the ludicrous situation that has developed whereby twice the population since 1949 are governed by the same number of representatives. It will allow more time to be spent by members on representing their constituents. It will train more adequately our future Ministers. It will permit the improving committee system to become more effective in improving the legislature's oversight of the Executive. It will increase the relevance, not just the numbers, of back benchers. Mr Deputy Speaker, there will always be some public opposition to increasing the number of parliamentarians. This is as inevitable as it is, in some ways, unfortunate. However, this does not constitute a valid reason for simply putting off what must eventually come. The time is appropriate to make these changes now-now that we are updating and consolidating our electoral legislation and now that we are preparing to move into the new Parliament House. As the Committee recognised, this is a matter of principle, and as such, must eventually outweigh any short- term unpopularity that may attach to the legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation, Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence)(4.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. About 200 years ago the great English artist William Hogarth drew a series of six cartoons showing a typical election day. With a limited franchise, some of the rotten boroughs had less than 10 voters and bribery was rife. Open voting meant that the candidate and his agents were able to be assured that their bribes had paid off. The candidate had to get his money for the campaign bribes from some rich patron and secret subsidies from the King or his Opposition were an essential part of the politics of the day. We have advanced some distance from the eighteenth century. But, there is still a potential for the corruption of candidates and parties, who just like the politicians of other days, must have money to campaign even if today it does not go on bribes. Australia in the nineteenth century showed the way to the world in electoral reform in making democracy work. As early as 1856 Victoria turned away from the violence and corruption of open voting as shown by Hogarth to a secret ballot for its new parliament. Four other States, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, followed within three years. Western Australia dragged the chain a little, but by 1877 the secret ballot was in operation throughout the whole of Australia. We were also the leaders in abolishing the property vote and establishing payment for members, both crucial democratic reforms which took powers away from the rich cliques and gave it to the people's representatives. In female suffrage, while New Zealand was the first to give women the vote in 1893, South Australia followed within two years. After Federation women were able to vote, in the first elections under Federal law in 1903. Compulsory enrolment came in 1911 and compulsory voting in 1924. While Australia once led the world with such reforms we have had a patchy record since. There has been no substantial overall review of Commonwealth electoral law in over three quarters of a century and no major consolidation since 1918. Despite the many fundamental changes which have occurred in society since the turn of the century most Australian governments have not attempted to amend our electoral legislation to reflect those changes. Their failure to act has usually stemmed from a perceived partisan advantage resulting from the decay of the system. One vote, one value was eroded by manipulation of electoral boundaries, people were disfranchised by excessively complex voting systems, by rigid and complicated enrolment procedures. For example, even the introduction of proportional representation in the Senate while conceived as a stabilising, fair system has, in practice disfranchised up to 10 per cent of the electorate through a tendency to encourage informal voting. The size of electorates and the increasing complexity and weight of demands on members have denied the electors the services they deserve and have a right to demand. The sky-rocketing costs of modern election campaigns have threatened to create a situation where the national government can be delivered to the party with the best bagman. It is essential for public confidence in the political process that no suggestion of favours returned for large donations can be sustained. However, it is not only the potential for corruption in the financing of multimillion dollar campaigns that should be a matter for concern. A serious imbalance in campaign funding threatens the health of democracy. My Party pledged itself to electoral reform before the last election. We have been anxious to work towards co-operation and agreement. All parties are diminished when democracy fails to function. It was because of this that my predecessor the Hon. M. J. Young, MP, moved to establish a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and obtain the agreement of this House and the Senate in May of this year. This reflected his long-standing concern about the quality of democracy in this country. His confidence in the value of such an inquiry was well justified by the result. The inquiry was most comprehensive. There were 212 submissions considered by the Committee, not only from political parties, but also from large and small organisations, academics, local government bodies and individuals. The scope of the inquiries covered not only questions of major public policy, but also topics like the problems of handicapped persons and the disenfranchisement of the members of the Australian National Antarctic Research expeditition, both topics to which they were able to propose solutions. What was impressive about the deliberations of the Committee was the concern of all members, of whatever political party, to produce an effective report. Inevitably in the end there were differences. However, I would like to quote the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). He stated: In view of the highly political questions involved, where every party would be expected to look to its own advantages, the Committee's deliberations were examples of rational discussion. I especially thank the Opposition members for co-operating in helping to design reasonable methods for introducing public fundng of elections and in reaching a voting system designed to reduce the large number of unintended informal votes for Senate elections, two questions which might have been expected to produce extreme polarisation of viewpoints. Mr Hunt —He was a good chairman. Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I think he was. There were pretty good members on the Committee too. I believe the proposals contained in the Bill are of a non-partisan nature. The Government in considering the Committee's report has been able to adopt it in full except for some largely mechanical changes in relation to the proposed Electoral Commission and its procedures in relation to redistributions. On our side we in the Australian Labor Party were prepared to give ground. On the question of Senate voting we accepted a compromise. On Senate voting, the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Committee to provide, firstly, that a voter may mark one square indicating the adoption of his preferred party' s how to vote ticket and, secondly, for the validation of any person's vote up to the point where the voter's intention remains clear. It has been a matter of notoriety that the complexity of the ticket has contributed to a substantial informal vote and also just as significantly to the throw-away vote, known as a donkey vote. The Joint Committee had before it material from the Australian Electoral Office which showed how the most trivial mistakes were the major factors in the Senate informal vote. The figures were taken from an analysis of the 1977 Senate and House of Representatives vote. The Senate informal vote was 9 per cent nationwide compared to 2.5 per cent for the House of Representatives. Of the Senate informal votes almost eight out of 10, 78 per cent, had been disqualified on one or two grounds, that is incorrect numeric sequence, or some squares left blank. This meant the disfranchisement in that election for the Senate of almost 600,000 Australians, more than the population of Tasmania. The situation is palpably absurd and this legislation will go a long way towards correcting it. In addition, never again will a political party be able to influence the destiny of a nation by cynically cluttering a State Senate ticket with dummy candidates. Other reforms-party affiliations of candidates on ballot papers, mobile polling for people in remote areas and hospitals, provisions for itinerants-will restore votes for many previously disfranchised. So soon after the Queensland election it is hardly necessary to remind the House that the gerrymander is alive and flourishing in Australia. Research undertaken by the Australian Electoral Office shows that widespread cynicism about gerrymanders in Australia is a significant factor contributing to apathy and reluctance to enrol, particularly among young people. We can do something here about meeting and dispelling that scepticism at a national level. According to the Joint Select Committee, there is 'great merit in the existence of an Australian Electoral Commission with a statutory basis and which is seen to operate independent of political influence'. The Bill provides for the establishment of a truly independent Electoral Commission to be made up of a judge of the Federal Court of at least three years standing appointed by the Governor-General in Council from a panel of three nominated by the Chief Judge; The Electoral Commissioner, a position replacing the Australian Electoral Officer; and a permanent head of the Public Service or a person of equivalent status in a Commonwealth statutory authority. The Electoral Commissioner would be a full time executive officer of the Commission, while the other two members would be part time. The Commission's areas of responsibility will be the current functions of the Australian Electoral Office; the conduct of educational programs for voters and potential voters; the implementation and administration of public funding of election campaigns; the implementation and administration of legislation governing disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates, and of electoral expenditure of candidates, parties and organisations; periodic redistribution of electoral boundaries; and the day to day administration of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. An independent commission is needed to take the drawing of electoral boundaries and the general operation of the Electoral Act out of the control of the whims of the current government, of whatever political complexion. A crucial part of the legislation provides that the final determination of electoral boundaries and names is not to be subject to parliamentary veto, but it may be reviewed by the Federal Court, through a prerogative writ, if prima facie the criteria set out in the legislation are not followed. It will not be subject to any process of approval by Parliament or any disallowance motion by either House. This has been done deliberately and after the fullest consideration of the Joint Committee's recommendation. This Government is determined once and for all to establish fair and impartial procedures for honest redistributions. We owe this to the Australian people. There will be no need for any royal commissions on this topic in future. Within a State the Redistribution Committee under the Australian Electoral Commission will consist of: the Electoral Commissioner; the Australian Electoral Officer for the particular State; the State Surveyor- General; and the State Auditor-General. Under the legislation, regular redistributions will take place. Their timing will be beyond the reach of governments. Redistributions will, in general, occur in each State and the Australian Capital Territory at least once every seven years, when one-third of the divisions within a State deviate from the State average enrolment by more than 10 per cent, or when population shifts require a change in the number of divisions in a State. The Government believes that the independence of the Commission must be reinforced by a similar faith and trust in the integrity and independence of our political parties. The cost of electioneering these days in any of the Western democracies would have been unthinkable to the politicians of, say 1949, let alone the founding fathers of Federation. The estimated cost of the Federal election campaign earlier this year was $12m. It is simply naive to believe that no big donor is ever likely to want his cut some time. The price of public funding is a small insurance to pay against the possibility of curruption. The whole process of political funding needs to be out in the open so that there can be no doubt in the public mind. Australians deserve to know who is giving money to political parties and how much. I might say that the fear of potential corruption is by no means confined to members of the Labor Party. According to a final point of the Joint Committee, even the National Party Federal body ' accepted in principle that large undisclosed donations could provide the potential to corrupt the political process'. The move to public funding and disclosure is not as radical a step as has been suggested by some sectors of the community. Indeed, the list of countries which have taken up public funding and disclosure shows that Australia will simply be catching up with the rest of the democratic world in this important area of reform. Austria, West Germany, France, Finland, Denmark, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada and the United States of America have all embraced this so-called radical step. It is time that Australia also recognised the essential reasons for supporting public funding. Public funding ensures that different parties offering themselves for election have an equal opportunity to present their policies to the electorate. Without it, worthy parties and candidates might not be able to afford the considerable sums necessary to make their policies known. In this way, public funding contributes to the development of an informed electorate. As well, it helps counter the problem created by the mounting costs of political campaigning due to the increased use of television as a medium of communication between the people and the politicians seeking their endorsement. An allegation often thrown about by our opponents is that public funding would serve to assist the government of the day more than those parties in opposition. Overseas evidence suggests that this is just not so. American figures show that during the 1980 presidential elections, the Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan, received $29.4m by way of government subsidy. This was exactly the same amount that the incumbent, Jimmy Carter, was given. In our own proposal, funds will be distributed strictly in accordance with votes received. It has been a long time in Australia since one party polled more than 50 per cent of both the Senate and House primary votes combined. In the specific provisions for public funding, the Government has been prepared to go to substantial lengths to meet the Australian Democrats and the Liberals. The Australian Labor Party's submission to the Joint Committee sought 10 per cent as the minimal formal vote target before a registered party candidate or group became eligible for assistance. The Democrats proposed no threshold and the Liberals one of 5 per cent. The legislation before this House provides a figure of 4 per cent. The rate of public funding is to be as follows: At a double dissolution, or a combined House of Representatives and half Senate election, 60 cents per House of Representatives vote and 30 cents for each Senate vote; for a House of Representatives election and by-elections, 60 cents per valid first preference vote; for a half Senate election, 45 cents per valid first preference vote; and these amounts to be indexed to the consumer price index. An essential corollary of public funding is disclosure. They are two sides of the same coin. Unless there is disclosure the whole point of public funding is destroyed. The legislation lays down that donations for Federal election purposes of $200 or more to a candidate and $1000 to a party be disclosed and the donor identified. Radio stations, television stations, printers and newspapers are required to report electoral expenditure to the Electoral Commission. These organisations must identify the source of the funds. Anonymous donations above the set limits cannot be accepted by candidates or parties. If such donations are received, a matching amount must be paid by the recipient to the Commonwealth. The Joint Committee of Electoral Reform will closely monitor the effectiveness of these provisions. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I said, the Bill before the House is the first major overhaul of our electoral legislation since 1918. Amongst other things, it seeks to consolidate the various pieces of legislation which up till now have governed the electoral process; to remove or bring up to date many outmoded provisions; to remove certain anomalies; to extend the right, and in the case of Aboriginals , the obligation to enrol and to vote; to make it easier for electors to get on the rolls and stay on the rolls; to alter polling procedures to make voting more accessible to previously disadvantaged groups; and to make the voting process simpler. For example, the Bill provides that there must be a sufficient time between the announcement of an election and the close of rolls for that election . I am afraid that the previous Prime Minister demonstrated only too well that without this sort of provision the cynical exercise of the strict terms of the law could effectively stop many thousands of people enrolling and voting. There will be new provisions enabling Australians living temporarily overseas to retain their enrolment whether or not they have a current permanent address in Australia. I add that in doing this the Bill at last makes proper provision for the families of servicemen overseas so that they do not lose their entitlement to vote. Special arrangements are being proposed for such handicapped people as quadriplegics, for electors in the Antarctic who previously have been disenfranchised, and also for itinerant persons who up till now have not been catered for at all. The Bill will also seek to make the voting process easier. In future, for example, electors will be able to vote as an ordinary voter at any polling booth within their division instead of only within their subdivision. Mobile polling facilities will be provided in the outback and for patients in hospitals and similar institutions. A register of postal voters will be established so that people in remote areas or people unable to attend polling booths can be sent an application for a postal vote immediately an election is announced. I would also add that the Government has accepted the proposition that the polling hours for Federal elections should be 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. This will bring our polling arrangements in this regard into line with the majority of the States and make it less confusing for electors. As I have mentioned, the Bill also proposes that the party affiliations of candidates can be shown on ballot papers. Additionally, new procedures are proposed for the marking of ballot papers which will make it harder for a voter inadvertently to vote informal. It is proposed that it will be possible for an elector voting for the Senate to indicate his choice of candidates by reference to a registered party ticket. We are confident that not only are these proposals intrinsically fair and reasonable but also they will act significantly to reduce the informality rate in Senate elections in the long run. Honourable members will be aware that in recent months the Government has demonstrated its concern for and interest in electoral matters. We have already taken steps to ensure that the Australian Electoral Office is provided with adequate funds and resources. Provision has been made to increase significantly the Aboriginal electoral education program; funds have been provided for the development of a substantial computer installation; and just recently we provided over $3m dollars to enable the Office to conduct an education and enrolment campaign. Honourable members will be well aware of the concern which the Government expressed when the results of the Electoral Office research showed how many eligible people were not on the electoral rolls. The legislation which I am now putting before honourable members should be considered against this background of our deep and demonstrated concern. Australia must have an electoral system designed for the people it serves. The Government believes that the changes proposed to our electoral machinery are both timely and sensible, yet at the same time they preserve the basic elements and broad principles which are already at the heart of the current system. On the other hand, the major overhaul undertaken will, we believe, improve the electoral administration; make the whole electoral process of enrolment and voting easier and simpler for the elector and ensure that we have an electoral process which is modern and free from any allegations or even possibilities of corruption or political pressures. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(4.23) —I never cease to be astounded by the statements the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), makes in this House about transport. Mr Hodgman —When are they going to build the railway? Mr REEVES —We will get to the railway in a minute. A few weeks ago the shadow Minister came into this House and said that the $5m this Government had allocated for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway route identification study should be withdrawn. In other words, the Opposition's spokesman on transport does not want the Alice Springs to Darwin railway to go ahead. That is what he said in this House not two or three weeks ago. Today he said in this House that the Australian National Line should be and would be closed down once the Liberal and National parties got back into government, if that ever happens, and along with that, of course, that the Darwin east coast shipping service would be closed down. In the past two to three weeks we have seen the shadow Minister for Transport in this House suggest, firstly, that the Alice Springs to Darwin railway should be scrapped and, secondly, that our other transport link with the other States- the Darwin east coast shipping service-should be closed. We have not yet heard what he has planned in the areas of air and road transport but I am quite sure that he will have some hare brained scheme in mind for them too. If by some misfortune the Liberal and National parties ever manage to get back on to the Treasury bench we would find the Northern Territory left with no transport links at all. The shadow Minister has already suggested that we close two of them right now. I suggest that the people in all remote areas of Australia, not only in the Northern Territory, who rely on these public transport enterprises should take heed of those statements that the shadow Minister for Transport has made in the past few weeks about transport services in remote areas such as the Northern Territory. Earlier he spoke about the continued Liberal-National Party theme over the past seven years about public enterprises. Public enterprises in Australia have been the subject of seven years of neglect and abolishment under the regime that purported to run this country before us. That so-called Government had a manic fixation against all public enterprises. The honourable member for Hume confirmed in his speech this morning that that is still its attitude towards public enterprises. The previous Government's vendetta against all things public reached ridiculous ends. It set about giving away profitable public enterprises to its cronies in big business and it destroyed any sign of enterprise or morale in the remainder of the public enterprises it did not give away as though these characteristics in public enterprises are some sort of cancerous disease. At the same time the previous Government milked dry just about every public enterprise in this country. It took away their surpluses and capital and expected them to continue to operate while interest rates were going through the roof. Having turned these public enterprises into emasculated wrecks the previous Government stood back and said: 'See, public enterprises can't operate; they just can't make profits. The only people who can do that are private enterprises'. Telecom Australia was under seige and in its death throes by the time this Government came to power. Australia Post had its profitable limbs dismembered. The Australian Broadcasting Commission was strangled to death by a lack of funding. In the public transport sector Trans Australia Airlines, Australian National and ANL were being buried under years of neglect, lack of leadership and abuse. When the Hawke Labor Government arrived on the scene these previously great public enterprises were in various stages of advanced decay. After months of intensive care we now see them returning to their better selves. They have the new lease of life that they deserve. Talking about ANL, I believe that ANL, along with the other public enterprises, has to do its part. I am sure that it will, given the leadership the present Government has shown, and that it, along with the other public enterprises that have been the subject of this vendetta over the past seven years, will start to come good. This Bill is a part of the rescue operation for the Australian National Line. Before I deal with the Bill in detail I would just like to describe what happened to ANL under the previous regime. Mr Lusher —You did not misunderstand me. Mr REEVES —The honourable member is the shadow Minister for Transport. This is one of the major pieces of transport legislation before the House and he was not even present for the debate on it. If he had been doing his job he would have been in this House and heard it. He should get the Hansard and read it tomorrow since he did not have the time to come into the House and listen to it earlier. Under the previous regime, ANL had been subject to the process I have described, a process of neglect and abuse. It seems that in about the middle of last year ANL decided that it would give up trying to do the job under trying circumstances and it applied the old adage: If you can't beat them you join them . So it started to play the game by the Liberal Party rules. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that at about this time-that is, in September 1982-the Liberal Party rules were that one did not have to pay Customs duty, especially if one were a Liberal Party Minister returning home with a colour telly. The ANL thought that that must be the way to do things under a Liberal-National Party Government. So it got hold of four second-hand cranes and brought them into Australia. Following the rules as ANL thought they applied under the Liberal-National Party Government, ANL did not pay any duty on them. It soon discovered that under Liberal-National Party governments what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me remind you that this was going on against the backdrop of the MacKellar-Moore colour telly affair. Of course, two other scandals broke at about the same time. Let me quote from a Sydney Morning Herald article of 1 September 1982 which states: The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, dismissed suggestions yesterday that a senior Federal politician had been involved in a car importing scandal, but later two ministers revealed other potentially embarrassing incidents. The Australian National Line had brought four cranes into the country without declaring them to Customs, and police had investigated-and found no action was necessary-the purchase by a Federal minister of a Gold Coast home unit. Four members of the Liberal-Country party were involved in scandals at about this time. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), the person who was importing cars without paying duty on them, and a Minister who was involved in a scandal concerning a Gold Coast home unit. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I respectfully submit-and I respectfully submit that you should accept this on the basis of fairness-that attacks on the honourable member for Warringah and the honourable member for Ryan have nothing whatever to do with the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill. If the honourable member has any complaint about the honourable member for Warringah and the honourable member for Ryan he should move a substantive motion. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr REEVES —Madam Deputy Speaker, I can understand why honourable members opposite are so concerned about the matter. I am relating how they used to treat ANL. Four scandals were going on about this time and ANL managed, as it later explained, by some- Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I asked for your ruling. I respectfully submit that a personal attack on the honourable member for Warringah and the honourable member for Ryan has nothing to do with the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill. I ask you to rule in my favour on that point of order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order, but I suggest to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that he should make his remarks relevant to the Bill before the House. Mr REEVES —Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is that the four Ministers who were involved in these scandals were not prosecuted; they were not taken before any court at the time. ANL was prosecuted by the then existing Liberal- Country Party Government. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I respectfully submit that the Standing Orders are quite clear. If an attack is to be made on a Minister or a former Minister it shall be done by substantive motion. The honourable member is clearly flouting the Standing Orders. He does not have to attack the honourable member for Warringah or the honourable member for Ryan to make his points about the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I respectfully ask you now to rule that his remarks are out of order. They ought to be disallowed. Mr Peter Morris —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak to the point of order. I submit that the comments being made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory are most relevant. What the honourable member is doing is detailing to the House the record of events that are recorded in Hansard, events that occurred in respect of two Ministers of the previous Government. He is comparing the action of that Government in respect of those two Ministers with its action in respect of a similar incident involving the Australian National Line. There is a direct comparison; there is a direct relevance. I submit that the comments are in order. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, there is no point of order. I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to resume. Mr REEVES —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, ANL was prosecuted on 7 September, less than a week after the whole incident had been raised. A prosecution was launched against ANL by the former Government for importing four cranes. ANL had got down into the muck with the Liberal-Country Party at that stage and had its head cut off. ANL found that it could not win, whichever rules it played to. If it played to the correct rules-the rules that it though were right-it got kicked in the teeth; if it played to the Liberal-Country Party rules it got its head cut off. When the Hawke Labor Government came to office in March this year it found that ANL was in the same condition as most other public enterprises in this country: Milked dry, demoralised and bitter. It was dying slowly. The first thing that we did was to give ANL a blood transfusion. We injected $90m worth of capital into it and put it on a proper financial footing. The Liberal and Country parties seem to think that public enterprises, unlike private enterprises, can operate without capital. We have heard the honourable member for Hume talk about the losses that ANL has incurred over the past 20 or 30 years. It should be remembered that the Liberal and Country parties were running this enterprise over about 90 per cent of the last 20 to 30 years. If ANL was making losses it is the Liberal and Country parties fault, not ours. Let us look at what it did. It milked ANL dry and, according to the last balance sheet of the Australian Shipping Commission, the Liberal and Country parties left ANL with capital reserves of $35.8m. It had total loans of $210.1m outstanding. Last year when ANL made a profit of $2.5m, it paid interest of $22.4m. That is the problem that ANL was faced with. The previous Government took all its capital reserves away. It had to go out into the market and pay enormous interest rates. Of course on that basis it made losses. It was too highly geared. The ANL rescue operation, which involves this Bill, encompasses the following proposals. Firstly, the streamlining and modernising of its management. This Bill contains a section requiring the Commission to undertake a corporate plan. Secondly, we have established a process of consultation with the unions. We are setting out to achieve good industrial relations. That is something that the Liberal and Country parties would not know about. All they wanted to do with any employer-employee relationship while it was in power was to apply confrontation to the situation. Thirdly, we are providing ANL with more autonomy. In particular this Bill will do that by lifting from $500,000 to $2m the limit applying to contracts by allowing the Minister to approve a contract or class of contracts, thus allowing ANL flexibility with operational contracts for oil or insurance. Further, we are freeing the Commission from the requirement to adhere to Government administrative policies and practices. Finally, we are giving the Commission power to select staff and establish salaries, terms and conditions and so on. One would expect that any operation, whether it is public or private, would have all of those things as a matter of course. But under the previous Government ANL was hampered by all these sorts of restrictions. We are removing them with this Bill. A revitalised Australian National Line is a very important matter in the Northern Territory. ANL operates the east coast-Darwin shipping service and since 1956 it has done so at a loss. ANL has lost approximately $20m on this service since 1 July 1969. As a result ANL informed the Government in 1979-80 that it intended to withdraw from that service. In 1980-81 the previous Government agreed to provide a temporary subsidy of $1.5m to enable the Northern Territory Government to consider proposals for introducing an alternative service. The previous Government extended that subsidy in 1981-82 and in 1982-83 . On each occasion that the subsidy was extended the Government, and in fact the Prime Minister of the time, made it quite clear to the Northern Territory Government that the subsidy was temporary and that the Northern Territory Government was expected either to take up the provision of the subsidy itself or to find an alternative service. The Northern Territory Government sat back and did nothing, as it does in most matters, until this year. The Minister for Transport announced earlier this year that the subsidy would be increased to $2m, but more importantly that that was the last time. It was only when the message finally got through to the Northern Territory Government this year, after the current Minister for Transport made it quite clear that this was the last time that the subsidy would be provided, that it finally got off its backside and did something about the matter. It must be remembered that it wasted three years before that, when it could have been promoting the ANL service or finding an alternative service. Instead it sat back and did nothing. It continued to waste time. It should be noted that earlier in the piece, after the Northern Territory Government had finally discovered that the Minister was serious about not continuing the subsidy, it said that it was not interested in taking up its responsibility to provide the subsidy. The Northern Territory Government also refused to join the Commonwealth Government and share the costs of maintaining the service while officials of both governments explored the possibilities of developing a viable service. After that shilly shallying the Northern Territory Government finally agreed to start talking sense. More recently, the Northern Territory Government has accepted responsibility. It appears that every now and then it has to accept some responsibility. After all, that is what responsible self-government is supposed to mean. On 19 September the former Chairman of ANL, Mr Jenner, pointed out to the Northern Territory Minister for Transport, Mr Steele, that ANL requires support from the Northern Territory Government and Northern Territory shippers if it is to maintain the service. This Government is doing its part by revitalising ANL and turning it into a good, efficient, competitive service. It is up to the Northern Territory Government to do its part to ensure the future of the east coast shipping link. It is interesting-in fact, very interesting-to note that the Northern Territory Government's use of this service that it says is so vital is almost negligible. It does not use the service to transport any goods in and out of the Northern Territory-or it does not use it to any appreciable extent. Its use of it is negligible. It has given no support to the Line over the past few years when the Line has been in so much trouble. Specifically, it has given no support to that particular shipping service. The ball is at the Northern Territory Government's feet. Considering its performance over the past years on a number of issues, it will probably fumble it. Let us hope that it does not. As I have already said, this Bill will provide for a revitalised ANL, a good public enterprise which has been destroyed by years of Liberal-National Party treatment. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MacKELLAR —Yes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MacKELLAR —In the course of the speech by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), I believe an imputation was made that somehow I had not paid proper duty or penalty in relation to the importation of a colour television set in 1981. I point out to the honourable member-I realise that he is a new member in the House and therefore inexperienced-that in fact, when it was made known to me that duty was chargeable, I paid the required amount of duty, plus the penalty that applied. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(4.43) —I rise to support the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1983. I hope to lift the standard of debate above the gutter politics I have just been disappointed to witness from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves). I start with a quotation. The quotation comes from the Country Life magazine of almost 50 years ago-6 May 1932 . The editor of Country Life wrote: If our wool and wheat had wings, our graziers and farmers would not have to worry so much over shipping freights and port charges and harassing conditions along the waterfront. Things have changed all too little since that time. I rise to support this Bill and, more directly, to support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) which calls for even more parliamentary accountability in supervising the affairs of the Australian National Line. I remind the honourable member for the Northern Territory that it was, in fact, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the former Minister for Transport, who set up the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping that resulted in the present review of ANL's activities. Whilst it has been all too easy for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to sit here passing judgment on what has happened in this House and what has happened to ANL, he would do well to remember that when in government the Opposition recognised the same difficulties and were the people who set up the Crawford Committee to produce a report. The Crawford report pointed out that there were two major difficulties facing ANL. The first, of course, was that in some instances competitive shippers enjoyed preferential financial arrangements to those experienced by ANL. The second and most significant difficulty was that the manning-perhaps we are required to say 'personing'-levels of ANL vessels were far too excessive. I address my remarks first to the financial arrangements under which ANL works. Those financial arrangements are the hallmark of some of the dilemmas that public enterprise faces. A number of complications faced ANL. The first was that the world market in bulk cargoes was falling as a result of the world-wide recession. The second complication, closer to home, was the fact that Australia was in the grip of a drought, so there was less raw material available to be transported. What has been recognised is that the financial problems facing ANL were a result of the high interest rates it had to meet as a result of its high borrowing. As has already been pointed out in the House, the decision was taken to convert $60m in loan to capital and to give ANL a $30m grant. This provided an effective $90m handout to the Australian National Line and gave it what ought to be a decided advantage over any other similar competing line. So let there be no mistake about it; the financial arrangements have been made. Furthermore the need for financial arrangements to be made had been recognised by the Opposition , when in government, as a result of its Crawford report. In spite of that, ANL's inability to be competitive remains scandalous. Here we live in Australia with 19,000-plus kilometres of coastline, with a population largely centred on our seaboards, with 1,000 million tonnes of domestic freight in excess of being moved annually and with only 50 million tonnes of this freight being moved by coastal shipping because ANL ceased to be competitive. ANL has effectively failed to capture the coastal shipping trade in Australia in tonnage terms. If the picture were simply as bleak as that, we in Opposition would not be supporting this Bill. We would be moving for the abolition of ANL. But in reality, there is some light on the horizon. There is the opportunity for ANL, properly managed, to be profitable. That opportunity exists when we look to the potential for the movement of bulk haulage. If we look at bulk haulage in Australian transport terms and compare our various transport modes, we have to face the fact that, in terms of a tonne-kilometre basis, coastal shipping carries over 50 per cent of our tonnage per kilometre. The average length of haulage by a coastal vessel is 2,104 kilometres, compared with 36 kilometres by road and 253 kilometres by rail. So there is opportunity for ANL to be profitable if properly managed. It has to throw off the historic shackles of inefficiency that are unfortunately so much a part of public enterprise, a part of public enterprise simply because public enterprises know that when the worst comes to the worst they can go cap in hand to the government and seek some relief. Far from ANL having been milked dry by the Government, as was claimed by the honourable member for the Northern Territory, the reality is that ANL failed to let down the milk it ought to have let down to the taxpayers of Australia and instead chose to milk dry Australian taxpayers. It is because of this that the Opposition has proposed its amendment and has called for greater accountability by ANL at Federal government level. The second difficulty faced by ANL which was highlighted by the Crawford report was the difficulty of crewing. I realise that comments about crewing involve a difficult and controversial arena. I do not want to allow political prejudices on either side of the House to hide the truth. The truth is that high-cost Japanese and European vessels, effectively have five to eight persons less per vessel than do ANL vessels. Let me illustrate this point. I mention three sister ships of the Japan-East Asia Line, the Hyogo Maru with a Japanese crew of 26, the Australian Searoader with a Japanese crew of 28, and the Australian Enterprise with an Australian crew of 35. These three are sister ships, but it is the Australian Enterprise that has the additional eight men to man it. Union insistence on large crews and on each ANL vessel needing two full crews has priced ANL out of the market and made crewing so difficult. The lesson for Australian maritime unions is that they must overcome their insistence on large crews in few ships to save jobs. Instead, we need more ships manned by smaller crews, creating more work. I acknowledge that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has recognised this point. On page 4 of the original typescript of his second reading speech he said: While there may be fewer jobs available in the short term, I stress that this process is essential to ANL's survival, to its growth and to its providing more jobs in the future. In other words, what the Minister has acknowledged and what my Party in Opposition has been saying, is that what is good for the employer is good for the employee. In this debate the honourable member for Hume has already illustrated the dilemma that faced the vessel Australian Enterprise. No less scandalous is the situation that faced the vessel River Boyne when in October 1982, as the first coal fired freighter in 30 years, chock-a-block with brand new technology, was tied up for seven weeks in Gladstone over a demarcation dispute, costing the charterer of the day $3m. It is not only crews on ships who have not been as responsible as they ought to have been in terms of Australian maritime services. We must recognise that ANL and private contractors have been made less efficient because of the action of shore crews. Shore unions in Australia load the Australian transport bill by 47 per cent, while shore unions in European countries load the bill by 15 per cent, making a total bill attributable to shore unions of 62 per cent for the transport of goods from Australia to European countries. Nor is it only the actions of crews at sea or in port that have been of concern to the Australian National Line. The ship repair area is something of an embarrassment. The report of the Australian Shippers Council for this year states: The ACTU campaign to require foreign shipowners to carry out a significant proportion of their ship repairs and maintenance in Australian yards disrupted trade and has the potential to add significantly to the cost of shipping services into and out of Australia. The campaign has been conducted more recently on the basis of direct ACTU/shipowner negotiations, and as a result it is difficult to asses the overall extent of compliance with union demands. The ASC expressed its concern publicly about the cost to exporters from forced use of Australian ship repair and maintenance facilities. The advice of ship owners has been that with few exceptions most lines are well placed to effect regular maintenance in yards at rates well below those applying in Australia. Where this is not the case, and other considerations being equal, ship owners are prepared to use Australian facilities. Repairs should be effected wherever circumstances dictated. The result of the interruptions on shore and in ship repair facilities to the ANL program are estimated to have cost ANL $11.5m last year. ANL suffered more than any other ship-owner, because ANL, as the national line, made more use of Australian ports and its program as a result was interrupted more than that of any other ship-owner. Why should I, as the member for Wakefield, be greatly excited about what happens to ANL? I am concerned about what happens to the taxpayers in my electorate. But even more directly, I am concerned about what happens to the exporters of wheat and wool in the seat of Wakefield. It is the farmers in my electorate who are directly affected by the policies that influence ANL, just as the mining companies are affected. The Government and the Opposition-this Parliament-agree that Australia needs trade and exports. All I can do is to repeat as briefly as I can the statement by the honourable member for Hume, the statement endorsed by the National Farmers Federation, which stressed the additional cost to farmers of the present shipping lines and the bind in which we as primary producers currently find ourselves. Let us not see a repeat of the situation that existed when the Labor Government was in power in 1975 and then Minister Jones chose in effect to make Christmas Island a part of Australia's coastal islands and to ignore the 1,800 kilometres of ocean that exists between Christmas Island and Australia. As a result of the reservation for ANL of superphosphate cargo from Christmas Island to Australia, the cost went up by between $6 to $10 a tonne. The end result of that action is curiously Gilbertian. The Government and the taxpayers of Australia pay the farmers of Australia $12 a tonne as a superphosphate subsidy, and the farmers of Australia pay back that money directly to the shippers in order to subsidise ANL to the tune of $10 a tonne. Mr Hawker —It is scandalous. Mr ANDREW —Of course it is scandalous. I thank the honourable member for his comment. In addition, this subsidy is being paid to the farmers and the farmers make the money available to pay Australian seamen. It is a Gilbertian situation because the money is simply going around, doing a job which, according to a large firm of international bulk ship operators, could be carried as a back load for 48 per cent of the current freight rate. As the honourable member for Hume mentioned earlier, an amount of 640,000 tonnes of superphosphate is involved, which is, at $10 a tonne, $6.4m or $29,000 for every job that has been created for ANL in order to have access to the Christmas Island phosphate deposits. The Opposition has no difficulty with encouraging open competition. We have no difficulty with encouraging ANL to run its affairs on an appropriate commercial basis. We think it is essential, as the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) said earlier in this debate, that the Parliament be required to put pressure on ANL. Because we think that that is essential, the honourable member for Hume has foreshdowed an amendment which would make ANL accountable to the Parliament. I support the foreshadowed amendment. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(4.57) —in reply-I thank the honourable members who have participated in the debate. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory ( Mr Reeves) made positive and constructive contributions. They are both hard working members for their constituents. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) seemed a little ambivalent. I will refer to his comments later in a little more detail. At least I think he meant his comments in good faith. He made some study of the problems facing the Australian National Line as did, similarly, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). I will deal with those contributions in detail during my response. I say at the outset that the condition of ANL and of other public transport enterprises on 5 March, was solely the creation of honourable members opposite. Today has been very much like listening to a confession as they traipsed in here one after the other and listed all the difficulties and problems faced by ANL and some of the other public transport enterprises, to which they were blind during their seven years in government. This Government in no way intends to accept responsibility for the disasters, mismanagement, bungling and incompetence of the previous Government which was in office for the last seven years and which comprised principally those who now sit opposite. In listening to the debate it was quite obvious that the Opposition does not have any clear or definitive policy about the role of public transport enterprises. The National Party of Australia seems to want more free trade, with a blend of some sort of public sector involvement, as the honourable member for Wakefield recognised in his comments. But the Liberal Party section of the Opposition has a contrary view. The comments by the honourable member for Braddon were in direct conflict with the Opposition's policy as stated by the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). As I said, in listening to the Opposition, it has been confession time for it this afternoon. It has suddenly discovered after seven years in government and after seven months in Opposition that there are difficulties facing the public transport enterprises, in particular ANL. It has confessed to the failure of its policies and its management and to its sheer incompetence. As members of parties which profess to represent the private sector and to know something about business, they are abysmal failures. I doubt that any of them would last long outside this building in the real world of private enterprise. We have seen their mismanagement in government and we now have the results of it. The honourable member for Braddon, a former Minister who is from Tasmania, claimed in a somewhat enlightened fashion that ANL had not fulfilled its promise . It was supposed to be a commercial enterprise. Sure, if we go back and read the 1956 Act it was intended to be a commercial enterprise. We must remember that ANL has been around for 27 years under one description or an other, but for 24 of those 27 years it has been under the superintendence of Liberal-Country Party and Liberal-National Party governments. So whatever the failures, whatever the lack of policies from which ANL suffers, they are the result of policies imposed on it by the Liberal-National Party governments during those 24 years. There is no escaping that fact. It is no good after seven months the Opposition members getting up here and saying that it is the fault of the Labor Government and asking what is being done. This is the Opposition's creation. This is the Opposition's creature, and all its problems are a result of its development and its policies in operation. The honourable member for Braddon said that the service on the Empress of Australia is second rate. He said that the food is not good enough, that the ship is operated for the crew. Effectively, he said: 'There are no girls on board, either; we ought to get some girl stewardesses'. Mr Groom —Oh, come on. Mr PETER MORRIS —They are the honourable member's words. He was a Minister, he was a member of the Ministry. He has represented the seat of Braddon for quite a number of years. Yet this afternoon, on 2 November, after seven months in Opposition he finds that there are some deficiencies with ANL. The obvious question Tasmanians ought to be asking is this: Where have you been all these years? Why did you not do something about the deficiencies? In regard to the replacement of the Empress of Australia, everyone knew when it came into service in 1965 that it had a 20-year survey life. For seven years the honourable member 's Government fiddled and fiddled with the proposition for replacement of the Empress of Australia. Let us look further at the Liberal Party. I accept the genuineness of the plea put to me by the five Liberal members in this chamber from Tasmania that there should be a replacement for the Empress, or a replacement by the same kind of vessel configuration-a passenger-ferry-cargo-type combination. The fact is that the Tasmanian Government changes its policy and attitude usually month by month. Presently it is on a course in which it wants passenger car ferries, not cargo vessels. The Tasmanian Government is in conflict with the Federal representatives from Tasmania in this chamber. So the Opposition has problems in trying to work out what it wants. By interjection the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) gave the best answer. He said, 'Well, private enterprise will do the job', to which the honourable member for Braddon said: 'No, no, no'. The shadow Minister, the honourable member for Hume, who is at the table, said that he believed private enterprise will do the job. Mr Lusher —Hear, hear! Mr PETER MORRIS —'Hear, hear', the honourable member says. He has said that the policy of the Opposition parties, now that they have been in Opposition for seven months-although it was not so during the 24 years they were in government- is that ANL should be sold, the Darwin service abolished and the Tasmanian service abolished. I suggest that the Opposition and the Liberal Government in Tasmania ought to do something about consultation. They should sit down together and work out what their policy is. Mr Cunningham —The conservative Liberals or the National Liberals? Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, they have varying titles but, whatever their nomenclature , let them get together and work out something. We will know then what we are debating in this chamber and the people of Tasmania will know whether there is a prospect of improving the services. We want to see their services improved, but the policies of the Liberal Party here are in direct opposition to those put forward by the State Liberal Government in Tasmania. I pose the question: Just what is the Opposition's policy? Is it that put forward by the honourable member for Hume or is it that put forward in a mixed way-a bit of two bob each way-by the honourable member for Wakefield? Is it that put forward by the honourable member for Braddon, or is it that put forward by the honourable member for Franklin? I think it is to the continuing handicap of Tasmanians in particular that there is such confusion in the ranks of the Opposition about its policy. It goes further, and I will deal now in detail with the remarks of the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume. He said that ANL should withdraw from the conferences. I say: His Government put the ANL into the conferences and had it there for 24 years. It could have been withdrawn at any time in that period. How is it now that after seven months in Opposition the honourable member suddenly thinks that that is the appropriate policy? It was a Liberal-Country Party Government which provided the initiative for ANL to go into the Australia-Europe Conference and allowed it to continue to expand into other conferences. It is not a simple matter for a government to instruct a commission or an authority to withdraw from a shipping conference. Strict conditions attach to membership of those conferences, and there is a very long procedure. It can be two or three years before a decision is taken. A government does not have flexibility. If the honourable member is talking about withdrawing from the conferences and about the current state of the shipping industry, withdrawing from a conference will not affect the current situation. I repeat the point that the current situation is of the previous Government's making and this Government will in no way accept responsibility for the problems that have been created. If ANL, for instance, were suddenly able to pull out of the conference arrangements next week, say, ANL would not have sufficient capacity available to provide a frequency of independent service that would meet shipper requirements. I think that really what the honourable member means is that ANL should pull out of the conference. Later in his comments he referred to the costs involved in the operation of ANL, costs that his Government imposed. He really means when he suggests pulling ANL out of the conference that ANL be disbanded, that it be got rid of, because it cannot survive in the short term. It does not have sufficient capacity because the previous Government did not provide it. As I said earlier, successive Liberal Party governments have supported the conference system for 24 years. I again pose another question: What does the Opposition want? Does it want the conference system? Listening to the honourable member for Wakefield, I would think the answer is yes. Listening to the honourable member for Braddon, I would think the answer is yes. Listening to the shadow Minister, who expounds policy, the answer is no. What does the rural sector want? I think what the rural sector needs more than anything else is stable, scheduled, competitive services. They are not always compatible, but they ought to be the objective. What is the answer? Does the Opposition believe that there should be a continuation of the single rate for Australia, the pan- Australia rate? It was not mentioned. The pan-Australia rate is a fundamental of the conference system, as are the scheduled services provided and scheduled capacity as required. What is the Opposition's view on these matters? I think it is time that the primary sector and the National Farmers Federation in discussions with the shadow Minister should explain what it is that it wants of the Opposition. The Opposition can then develop its ideas and decide whether it wants pan-Australia services, conference services, schedule services or just a straight open market-catch-as-catch-can. The suggestion that conference rates are inflated because of ANL costs is completely wrong. The rates for shipping, as anybody who has been watching the financial columns over recent months would know, are determined by the market as a matter of commercial negotiation. Commercial negotiations have been conducted in all manners of ways for well over a century. In regard to rates, the case quoted by the shadow Minister demonstrated that the market determines the rates for wool and other commodities. So it is not the cost of a shipping line such as ANL that pushes up the rates. I refer now to the mention made by the shadow Minister for Transport of the Australian Enterprise dispute. Mr Lusher —Ah, yes. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member says: 'Ah, yes'. I will give him 'Ah, yes ', all right. He should just wait a bit. Mr Lusher —Very interesting. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is very interesting because the Australian Enterprise problem had been around for about 18 months. It did not happen on 5 March. It did not suddenly erupt a few days after we came to office. It was a problem of over-capacity of that conference service for well over a year-in fact, 18 months . But the shadow Minister for Transport, who is seated opposite, and those now in Opposition knew about it. They did not act upon it. It was too hard like all the other problems associated with public transport enterprises. This problem was too hard. Honourable members opposite put them away and had a Micawber-like policy: Just let us keep going and maybe something will turn up and all the problems will go away. That is the way they were managing national transport and international transport in this country. So the Australian Enterprise was a problem again of their creation, a problem which they ignored, with the result that, when we came to government, ANL had laid up the Australian Enterprise. That was followed by bans being imposed by the seagoing unions on outside operators. Mr Lusher —Surprise, surprise. Mr PETER MORRIS —To have to listen to the honourable member's infantile comments and those of some of his colleagues in the private sector who suggest that there was some kind of Machiavellian arrangement between the conference-- Mr Lusher —Why was it made out? Mr PETER MORRIS —It was because the honourable member's Government did naught about it. The question I want to ask is: Why did the former Government not deal with it? It knew it was a difficult problem. It knew what the conditions were. It knew that there was an over-capacity. It knew what the outcomes might be but it did nothing about it. So the question I ask is: Why? I just want to state the facts. On 22 March I convened a meeting to seek solutions to that problem. We did not wait for 18 months and do nothing; I convened a meeting. Mr Lusher —You sooled the unions on to them. Mr PETER MORRIS —I think that is quite infantile really. I would have expected better from the honourable member. Mr Lusher —I think it is; that is what happened. Mr PETER MORRIS —I think the honourable member is infantile. Mr Lusher —It might be infantile, but that is exactly what happened. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Chair would appreciate no interjections. Mr PETER MORRIS —On 22 March we convened a meeting to seek solutions. It is a matter of record that that meeting between the federal officials of the seagoing unions, myself, my Department, the Chairman and the General Manager of the Australian Shipping Commission provided some resolution to the situation in respect of ANL. It resulted in agreement to improve ANL's viability. Following that initial meeting this Government, because of the difficult situation which ANL had been left by the previous Government, resolved to inject $90m into ANL to increase its equity capital, to ease its interest burden and to improve its gearing ratio. As part of that agreement and as part of that decision there was an undertaking on the part of the unions to improve shipboard productivity, on the part of management to improve management efficiency and on the part of the Government to convene continued consultations in the overall interests of ANL. Those actions and decisions have resulted in an improvement in the competitiveness of ANL. It has enabled subsequently the Australian Enterprise to be re-employed. The fact is that, in respect of the Australian Enterprise, I understand that the unions and the ship-owners met quite separately to discuss gross over tonnaging and predatory pricing. That is not unusual. If honourable members go back and read their history books, Jack London and all the stories of the sea from the day of the first shipping service competition, they will find that there were discussions and there have been discussions in all manner of fashion between competitive ship-owners and ship operators. Under the Trade Practices Act introduced by the previous Liberal Party Government it is not unusual for shipping owners and conference operators to have discussions. The protection provided under Part X of the Trade Practices Act is in respect of conferences. To suggest that I sanctioned the resultant arrangements I find quite offensive and I reject it utterly. I would have expected something better from those people advising the shadow Minister for Transport. If that is the way they think and if they pursue this theory of some Machiavellian plot I see little prospect for them in their handling of these very difficult matters involving the shipping industry. I have no power of approval in relation to agreements reached between ship-owners. Mr Lusher —You knew what was going on and you encouraged it. Mr PETER MORRIS —That is a lie. The honourable member knows it to be a lie. I do not propose to say any more about it. Mr Lusher —You must have known. Mr PETER MORRIS —It is a deliberate lie and it is meant that way, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the Minister had best withdraw that remark. Mr PETER MORRIS —Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the remark. The statement made by the shadow Minister for Transport is a deliberate falsehood. The shadow Minister for Transport referred at length to the study of ANL by John Stubbs. I have read the summary of John Stubbs's report. It is a very negative critique of the operations of ANL. It was published during the time of the previous Government. I do not recall any member of the previous Government rising to respond to it, even the Minister at the time. But I should say in respect of John Stubbs's work that it offers nothing positive as an alternative. It does not offer any solutions. It runs through a list of complaints. But complaints are not enough. Having identified problems it is a matter then of offering the alternatives. The next matter which was dealt with was accelerated depreciation allowances for vessels. Those allowances, when implemented, will put the shipping industry on a basis something similar to that available to shore-based industry. There is nothing special about them; there is no advantage about them. It will still leave Australian shipping, whether it is ANL or private sector shipping, in a less advantageous position than shipping abroad. I have to make the point that the report of the Crawford Committee on Revitalisation of Australian Shipping, which was introduced in this Parliament on 18 February last year, was supported by us in opposition. It was developed by the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), who is in the chamber. I am concerned to hear that report and those recommendations, for which the previous Minister for Transport worked and fought so hard, being denigrated by the present shadow Minister for Transport. As far as this Government is concerned we will persist with the introduction of that legislation later in this parliamentary session to provide for accelerated depreciation allowances. I come now to the matter of ANL manning levels and management efficiency. Again that was mentioned by the shadow Minister for Transport and the honourable member for Wakefield. This is not a new problem. It has been around since the beginning of shipping. What is not new either is that the former Government did not do anything about it. We do not propose to carry responsibility for the shortcomings of the previous Government. We have adopted a policy with three objectives: To improve productivity, to improve efficiency and to improve the competitiveness of the Australian National Line. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(5.19) —I move: Clause 8, page 13, at the end of proposed section 19B add the following sub- section: ' '(6) The Minister shall cause a copy of every report furnished to him by the Commission under sub-section (3) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him.'.'. The Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1983, as it is printed, includes a provision that, in effect, the Australian National Line produce a corporate plan. The Bill makes provision for the Australian National Line to make that plan available to the Minister for Transport. We do not have any objections to that. The purpose of the Bill as a whole, as I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, is supported by the Opposition. We take the view that whatever can be done to assist the ANL process, as long as it remains a government-owned statutory authority, has our support. The Bill, as honourable members will understand, is virtually identical to a Bill introduced by the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I am pleased that the Government has accepted the thrust of the former Government's approach to the question of ANL. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is following that course. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in the process of providing greater freedom to the management of ANL to operate the line commercially and not to be subject to a lot of nitpicking checking with the Minister and/or the Department, we do not lose the accountability of the ANL to the Parliament. It is important to understand in this situation that a rather large amount of taxpayers' money is involved in the ANL and that for years and years it has done nothing as far as the Parliament is concerned other than to put in an annual report. The Minister will say that for the last 24 years that has been a Liberal government problem. I accept that. I do not resile from the fact that that is the way in which it was handled under the previous Government. Now in 1983 the Opposition is engaged in a total policy review process. I would have thought that any reasonable person would expect the Opposition, having been rejected as a government, to go through a policy review process and to get its act together so that it can offer itself to the people as an alternative government at a forthcoming election. That policy review process is necessary. In much the same way, the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations said back in 1979 that there had never been a proper review of why so many statutory authorities-not just the ANL-existed and there had never been proper justification as to why they should continue to exist. We have gone through that process. We have given serious consideration to all the reasons why a national shipping line should be government-owned. We feel at this stage that there are no compelling reasons for that and that there are very good reasons why it should not be government-owned. In the meantime, the reality is that it is a government -owned authority and that, to take a line from the approach of the Minister, it will continue to be so, at least during the term of this Government. Our concern is about the accountability of the Australian National Line to the Parliament and, through the Parliament, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will keep reminding us, to the people of Australia. The effect of this proposed amendment will be simply to cause a copy of the corporate plan which the Australian National Line will furnish to the Minister to be tabled in turn by the Minister in each House of the Parliament. It is my belief that the corporate plan, having been tabled in each House, should then be picked up by the appropriate committee and that the ANL should appear before that committee to justify its existence and to discuss the corporate plan to see whether it continues to carry the confidence of the Parliament which, particularly this year and in earlier years- no doubt it will be the case in future years-has appropriated fairly hefty amounts on behalf of the taxpayers to keep the ANL afloat, and that is not intended to be a pun. To my way of thinking, this is an appropriate job for the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. It is not my intention to include that specific wording in the amendment simply because that Committee exists under the Standing Orders of the Senate and because I do not believe we should amend legislation to take into account something which exists under the Standing Orders of another place. As long as the corporate plans are made available in the Parliament, there could be an arrangement for that Senate Committee to look at them annually. The management would give evidence as to the performance of the ANL and would be accountable in the general sense for where it thinks the ANL is going under its corporate plan. I will not get off the subject, but it is important to make a comparison. The Australian National Railways Commission was examined by the Expenditure Committee, which reported on this subject in February 1982. By chance both the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, and I were members of that inquiry into the Australian National Railways Commission. The whole question of the corporate planning undertaken by that authority was very seriously criticised by the Expenditure Committee. I will raise here a couple of figures because they give some indication of the sorts of things that happen and because they show why, if there is no accountability, things can easily get out of hand. I am not suggesting that this would happen in respect of the Australian National Line, but it is what happened in respect of the Australian National Railways Commission. It is the sort of thing from which the Parliament should be trying to protect the taxpayers. The Australian National Railways Commission, up to the inquiry, produced four corporate plans because it had been told by the Minister that it had to break even by 1988. It is quite interesting to look at what the results should have been in June 1983 under each of the successive plans. The first plan projected that by June 1983 the ANR would have reduced its deficit to $60m. The second plan, which was the first plan revised, said that it would be reduced to $50m by that date. The third plan stuck with the $50m. The fourth plan increased it to $ 60m. I think I am right in saying that, in fact, the subsidy which will be made available by the Government for the year ending June 1983 is $85m. Mr Peter Morris —June 1984. The June 1983 figure is $106m. Mr LUSHER —I thank the Minister. Even though we have not seen the deficit figure yet, it is apparent that it will be way beyond any of the four figures projected in the four corporate plans. For the year ending June 1984, the first corporate plan showed a $55m deficit. The second showed a deficit of around $48m. The third had it down to $30m. The fourth had it back up to $50m. As the Minister tells me across the table, the amount that will be provided by the Government for the present financial year will be $85m. All those plans still show the Australian National Railways Commission breaking even by 1988. It will be very interesting to see where we are by June 1988 and to compare that with the corporate plans. The point is that there is a need for accountability. As long as the Australian National Line continues to be a government-owned statutory authority we ought to do what we can to remove the problems caused for management by constant intervention by the Minister and the Department and we should try to have it operate as commercially as possible. But in the process of freeing it up, we should not lose any more accountability. In view of the serious situation that has developed, I think it is arguable that there be some reasonable additional accountability. For that reason, the Opposition has moved this amendment to require that the corporate planning reports furnished by the Commission to the Minister under sub-section (3) of this part of the amended Act be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the report being received by the Minister. I commend the amendment to the Committee and I hope that the Government will be able to support it. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(5.29) —I support the amendment but I do so with some reservation because we need to be sure that, if the corporate plan is tabled or made available in the Parliament, it does not expose all the commercial information of the Australian National Line to its competitors. For the ANL to be effective as a national line it must be competitive. I give some credit to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and to the Government for having faced up to the equity problem of the Australian National Line. I do not think there is any purpose in governments being involved in transport business undertakings, or any business undertakings, unless they are properly capitalised and unless they are able to compete in a proper fashion with private enterprise. Unless they are able to do that they become a burden upon those who are forced to use their services and a burden on the general freight and cost structure. This was one of the real problems I had with Trans Australia Airlines, with the Australian National Line and also, to some extent, with the Australian National Railways. To a large extent our freight rates in the shipping area and also in the air passenger area have been somewhat blown out because none of these transport business undertakings were properly capitalised by the shareholders. The shareholders in this case happen to be the Government. For instance, I always felt that TAA was flying with one wing behind its back. In effect, the two- airline arrangement was a pipeline to the mint for the other competitor. There is no doubt that there is a useful role for the Australian National Line provided it is able to compete effectively with its competitors. The Crawford formula-I defend it vigorously-was designed to help achieve that. I thank the Minister at the table for the compliment he paid to me. In fact, I think he did it on two or three occasions. He may be demoted if he keeps doing that. The Crawford formula was designed to improve the productivity of the Australian National Line, and also Australian shipping generally, and impose a qualification upon the Australian shipping industry that no other industry has in order to be eligible to receive the investment and depreciation allowance. So if we can put this sort of imposition upon industry generally in Australia we may get some benefit from the high costs of all these sorts of programs. The other thing it achieved was a strike or a dispute settling procedure which no other industry has had imposed upon it. In all, I think it was a thoroughly good objective. I paid Sir John Crawford great credit for it at the time. As I said earlier, the other important matter was the need to ensure that the Australian National Line had a sufficiently satisfactory capital structure in order to operate commercially. I refer to a report associated with the corporate plan of 1980 that came into my hands when I was the Minister for Transport. It states: The unrealistic high debt structure which the Line is bearing has a serious effect on profitability through the interest burden. Ability to repay the outstanding loans raised for past expansion and to borrow externally for future projects is impaired also. There is no doubt that ANL laboured under extreme difficulties in having to meet its high interest rate repayment. Nonetheless, if we are to capitalise any transport or any government business undertaking to the extent to which the Government has done, I think it is essential that they be accountable to this Parliament. We need to give consideration to the way in which they are to be accountable. Honourable members will see that I have the 1982 corporate plan. It happens to be the 1980 corporate plan. I can assure honourable members that if it were presented to this Parliament in that fashion no people would be more pleased to get their hands on it than competitors in the coastal and international trade. So if they are accountable to the Parliament they would need to be accountable in a form that did not completely expose the material that is in this document. If the Government is to give consideration to this matter it needs to give consideration to the form in which such a corporate plan should be made available for scrutiny in this Parliament. I think the idea has some merit. The Minister, when he was the shadow Minister, also had a feeling when he undertook the inquiry into the Australian National Railways that there ought to be some accountability. The way in which accountability is performed will be critical to any such proposal. Clearly, if we are to continue with transport business undertakings owned by the Government, government business undertakings and, if they are to be properly capitalised, there needs to be accountability. The form of that accountability is something to which the Government will have to turn its mind should it accept this amendment. I believe the amendment has been moved in good faith so that accountability is a fact of life in respect of these types of undertakings. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(5.36) —I support the amendment. I would like to say from the outset that I had a fair bit to do with the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) when he was the Minister for Transport. I always found him to be practical . He realised the problems that we had in Tasmania. So, therefore, shipping came to the fore quite often. This has been a constructive debate. Judging by something said today I think I was misunderstood. It is relative to the amendment and may be relative to clauses 3, 7 and 8. I said that private enterprise was having a look at the Tasmanian run. That remark was misunderstood by my very good colleague the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) and by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table. I said that there is a gentleman or a consortium in Tasmania looking at the possibility of constructing a vessel, costing approximately $6m, capable of making a 12-hour run across the channel. That will be in competition with the Australian National Line vessel. ANL will have to fight off that competition and will have to come up with something that will be better and more useful for the people of Tasmania and more useful for the people of Australia who want to go to Tasmania to enjoy its scenic beauties. We in Tasmania realise that we have to be sensible and have to realise, once and for all, that we cannot be continually propped up by the mainland. We know the problems we had with the Australian Trader. The Minister for Transport and I have had our difficulties, but sometimes he has misunderstood what I have been trying to say. We are aiming to be independent of the mainland, but we cannot do it overnight. The Minister misunderstood something I said about the Australian Trader. I wrote to him and said: 'Is there any possibility of getting another vessel on the run between Sydney and Hobart?' I said it in a constructive way because we need to get passengers to Tasmania. We need to have a link. Mr Peter Morris —I raise a point of order. I am in a very relaxed mood this afternoon but even being generous I feel the honourable member is being a little bit wide on a very narrow clause. I ask that my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Franklin, returns to the point. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Since the Minister has raised the matter, I will have to ask the honourable member to come back to the point. Mr GOODLUCK —I thought the Minister was enjoying it. I was coming to the point. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I am sure the Minister was enjoying it but I think the travel talk has to come to an end. Mr GOODLUCK —Coming back to the point of accountability we would not like to see a repetition of what occurred with the Australian Trader. It ran at a loss of $1 .3m a year. There were 17 unions represented on board the boat and they fought with each other. There was a bad ticketing- Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Will the honourable member very quickly come back to the clause? Mr GOODLUCK —Certainly. We want accountability. We want the ANL to be competitive. We do not want a repetition of the past. The people of Tasmania lost a very good service because of the inefficiency of, firstly, possibly the ANL, secondly, possibly the ticketing arrangements; and, thirdly, the greediness of the trade union movement. There were 17 unions represented on board that boat and people were falling over each other. Mr Lusher —How many? Mr GOODLUCK —There were 17 unions represented on board the one boat, all working in different little spheres and all creating problems. As a consequence, we lost a wonderful service. I do not want to fight with the honourable member for Braddon as to where the boat docks-whether it docks in Devonport, Burnie or Hobart. All we want is a constructive service. Mr Peter Morris —I am trying to take a point of order. Mr GOODLUCK —The Minister has been very helpful. It has been very nice of him to give me the time. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! Has the honourable member for Franklin concluded his remarks? Mr Goodluck —Yes, I have. Mr Hodgman —He was gagged; socialist gagging. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(5.40) —That kind of comment will keep my friend in Opposition for a long time, so he should keep it up. I say first in respect of the comment by the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) that he left a bit of the story out. He forgot to mention that the government of the day was his government and there was a Minister from Tasmania. The problem was that of his Government. The honourable member cannot offload his Government's mismanagement and inability to lead an enterprise on to the fellows who work on the job. In fact, the honourable member went to Tasmania and championed the cause of the stewards. I suggest he ought to get in touch with the stewards and tell them what he told us this afternoon. Mr Goodluck —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. I believe that the Minister is misrepresenting what I said at the time. He is distorting the facts and I would like-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. If the honourable member wants to make a personal explanation at a later time he may do so. Mr PETER MORRIS —Mr Deputy Chairman, the comment was allowed, a charge was made and I think I am reasonably entitled to respond to it. The situation was that the honourable member went to Tasmania, had himself photographed with all the stewards, got extensive publicity, said he was on strike but continued to draw his parliamentary salary throughout and championed the cause of the strikers, yet he complains about-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I believe the Minister is going too far now. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am just putting the record straight. That emphasises the hypocrisy of the comments being make in respect of that subject. I emphasise this point: There is no restriction on the provision of shipping services to Tasmania. It is simply a matter of judgment for those parties or those people who want to be involved. It is their decision whether or not to provide the service. I repeat for the benefit of Tasmanians that there is no restriction. If the Australian National Line finds there is a competitor in the service, so be it. It has to respond to that situation. If the Tasmanian Government wants to operate services it is up to that Government to do so. It is simply a decision for that Government or for any other interested party. I shall deal with the comments of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). Again we see the division within the Opposition. He supports the amendment, but with reservations. One has to respect his reservations. As a Minister for Transport in the previous Government he has good grounds for his reservations. In fact, I think if it were not a party decision he would not support this amendment at all. He has recognised the dangers of breaches of commercial confidentiality. The catch cry is that ANL has to become more commercial. We are determined that it will become more commercial in its operations, its efficiency , its productivity and its management objectives. But does being more commercial mean bearing one's all to one's opposition? There is no way in which the corporate plan of ANL could be tabled in this place and not be public knowledge, and there is no way in which it could be presented in a form that would be meaningful without disclosing ANL's financial objectives and commitments and, working back, its rates. No one seriously suggests that we should ask any of the other national line operators, operating into this country, to table their annual budgets in this Parliament. It is not a commercial practice and it is not part of making ANL commercial. The honourable member for Gwydir mentioned also the capital deficiency of ANL. At last he has put the record straight. As we pointed out in opposition the public transport enterprises were starved of capital, denied leadership and denigrated by members of the then Government who were responsible for their superintendence and their management. It is no wonder that the work forces of those enterprises were demoralised and lacked drive and that people with any ability got out of them because they were not going anywhere. I come back to the comments of the shadow Minister for Transport. He said that ANL had done nothing to report and he recognised that ANL was deprived of capital. I have reinforced that. But ANL's reports were those submitted under the previous Government. As I have said so many times this afternoon, why is it suddenly pertinent after seven months in opposition when it was not of interest during seven years in Government? It is the Opposition's policy, according to the shadow Minister, that ANL should not be government-owned. I wish to make it abundantly clear that it is the policy of this Government that ANL will remain in full public ownership. I can only confess puzzlement at this new-found interest in accountability from the present Opposition. It is something that it scrupulously avoided when in government. A comment was made in respect of ANR and its corporate plan. The House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure looked at a form of the plan. It was sanitised. We got it very late in varying forms. It was considered not in the Parliament upon its tabling but by the Chairman and some members of the Committee, and its confidentiality was protected. There is no way in which the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition could be carried out meaningfully and provide protection of confidentiality to ANL but the comparison with the case of the Australian National Railways Commission is not a reasonable one. As we said at the time, the Commission could not achieve the objectives set out in the corporate plan. I think the point has to be made, as the honourable member for Gwydir made it, that corporate plans are simply a set of targets and that those financial targets are adjusted according to changes in circumstances. Such a plan does not become a bible; it becomes an annual objective. Such plans ought to be there and government authorities should have them. That is why a corporate plan is provided for in this legislation and we have supported it and carried it through. The thrust of the Bill that we dealt with earlier this afternoon was to deregulate ANL to allow it to react quickly to the demands of market placement services and to improve productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. But to introduce into ANL a tabling process of its corporate plan for examination by a Senate committee would do the opposite of what this Bill is trying to do. It would bog ANL down in decision making, remove its flexibility-the kind of flexibility we are looking for-and constrain ANL in its ability to react to the demands of the market-place. Whilst not wanting to criticise the Senate committee system I have to make the point that the time taken by the Committee to consider ANL's corporate plan would hinder ANL's commercial abilities. As I pointed out, the plan would contain ANL's commercial judgment of future objectives, strategies and policies. Handing that on a platter to one's opposition would be lunacy. No government could responsibly allow that information to be provided to its commercial competitors. Mr Lusher —Its competitors are its partners. Mr PETER MORRIS —I speak of competitors in the sense that the information tabled in the Parliament is public information available to all and sundry, everybody within the shipping industry. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member for Hume will cease interjecting and the Minister will stop responding to him. Mr PETER MORRIS —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Chairman. For all the reasons I have outlined we believe that the amendment would hinder the operations of ANL. It is an amendment that we cannot accept. I repeat that whilst we have set out a five point plan in respect of ANL and are determined to carry that plan through, I have also emphasised that it is not a foolproof plan. This legislation is part of it. I do not promise that Labor will overcome all the problems of the industry and I do not promise that shipping problems will not occur in the future, but at least for the first time in seven years there is a comprehensive program designed to place the industry and ANL on a more efficient, productive and competitive basis and so provide the opportunity for growth and security. The Government rejects the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Lusher's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Anthony, J. D. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fisher, P. S. Ruddock, P. M.Goodluck, B. J. Shipton, R. F.Groom, R. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Johnson, LesBeddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, T. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, D. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J.Hurford, C. J. Cameron, Ian Brown, JohnFife, W. C. Fry, K. L.Tuckey, C. W. Brown, RobertNewman, K. E. Darling, E. E.Cadman, A. G. Kent, L.White, P. N. D. Mountford, J. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris)-by leave-read a third time. Report on Living Away from Home Facilities for Isolated Children [COGNATE DEBATE: COMMONWEALTH TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION Report for 1982-84 Triennium COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSIONReport for 1984-Response to Government Guidelines COMMONWEALTH EDUCATION COMMISSIONSFunding Guidelines COMMONWEALTH SCHOOLS COMMISSION1982 Annual Report] Debate resumed from 1 November, on the following paper presented by Mr Dawkins: Report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the study of living away from home facilities for isolated children. and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the paper. upon which Mr Moore had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House calls on the Government to implement, without delay, the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission to provide necessary additional funding for boarding schools and for hostels to meet the needs of isolated students'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Before the debate is resumed in this order of the day, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this matter and orders of the day Nos 3 to 6, Government Business. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(6.00) —Prior to the debate being interrupted yesterday I was expressing my delight, and I hope the delight of most honourable members, particularly those who are interested in the question of rural education, on the decision of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to grant corporate advanced education status to the Orange Agricultural College. I made the point that following assurances that co-operate arrangements would be established between the Orange Agricultural College and the Mitchell College of Advanced Education in Bathurst, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission would recommend to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) that separate funds be provided for the college in 1984. I understand that such funds will be provided in the States grants legislation that will be coming before this House shortly. This decision ends years of indecision as far as the College's future is concerned. I take this opportunity of commending both the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs for their acceptance of what I believe is educational reality as far as the Orange Agricultural College is concerned. I am sure that the new governing council which will replace the present board of management from 1 January 1984 will ensure that the college's reputation for excellence in farm management courses and other courses that have been demanded from time to time over the last 10 years by the rural industry will continue into the future. The decision is good news for the Orange Agricultural College and, as I have said, it does end years of indecision about the institution's future. The college has a well-deserved reputation for excellence in rural-based courses throughout Australia and this decision allows the college to continue unimpeded its fine record of achievement . Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(6.03) —I think it is worth our recalling the state of play when this debate was interrupted. My colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) had moved one amendment and had foreshadowed two others covering a number of education papers which are now the subject of this debate. The amendment which has been moved relates to children's education and the other two relate to aspects of tertiary education and living away from home facilities for isolated children. Each one of those amendments seemed to me to personify my concern at the present state of play of the policies that, to my mind, have been an absolute disaster as far as the present Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) is concerned. The House will recall that the first amendment is a statement of principle. It states: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: this House reaffirms the need for (a) all children in non-government schools to receive a basic grant of assistance for their schooling, and (b) grants to non- government schools to be calculated on a predictable percentage of standard costs in government schools. I will address that subject specifically in a moment. I will refer to the other two amendments in this order. The second, reversing the order that I referred to a moment ago, relates to the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission on living away from home facilities for isolated children. The second amendment, again a statement of principle, of which notice was given states: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House calls on the Government to implement, without delay, the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission to provide necessary additional funding for boarding schools and for hostels to meet the needs of isolated students'. As one who represents a country electorate and whose children for so long have had to spend time in boarding schools and in colleges at a university, I know how difficult it is for those who live away from the capital cities to receive an adequate education. Indeed, there is absolutely no possibility of children who live away from the centres where particularly secondary education is available receiving education. It is of great concern that there should be, within the policies of this Government, an opportunity to provide funds to ensure that children, wherever they live, will receive an adequate education. The problem in New South Wales has been made somewhat more acute because of the changes to school bus timetables. This has meant that many children who previously were able to receive some assistance when travelling to school from remote homesteads to a central location are no longer eligible to be assisted. This means that many of them are now receiving their education at home by correspondence and that puts many of them at a significant disadvantage. The third amendment to which I will refer briefly relates to tertiary education. Again, it is a statement of principle. It states: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'This House calls on the Government to ensure that (a) adequate funding will be provided to maintain first enrolment levels in Australian universities and colleges of advanced education and (b) TEAS allowance is maintained against unemployment benefits'. I will begin first of all with the question of education at the primary and secondary levels. An increasing concern is being expressed in the community at the consequences of the policies that the new Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has already introduced. The school funding year for 1984 is, of course, the subject of the papers which we are debating. Those funds will significantly prejudice many children. Perhaps it is not as great an immediate problem. Certainly we learn that only 41 schools will be affected. But quite properly those parents whose children are at those 41 schools and those who are responsible for the operation of those schools are concerned to know just why they should have been prejudiced. I want to speak a little of those. However, the other two problems bear consideration. The first is that for those schools which now are not included in that list there must be a total uncertainty as to which schools will be affected next, to what degree other schools will be included, when they will be included and what will be the effect on their future funding arrangements. The Minister has already expressed publicly a philosophic commitment to change the support levels as they apply to independent schools. The consequence of that is the introduction of uncertainty in the planning of future education programming, of planning for the schools and the facilities that should be provided in those schools, whether they be boarding accommodation or whether they be education facilities per se. It is quite unsatisfactory to introduce in so many areas a total factor of uncertainty which I believe will prejudice future education development in the independent school system. The Coalition supports the maintenance of a base grant for schools. At the moment we have not adjusted the formula that applied pre-March when the Government changed but we believe there needs to be within that formula adjustment to accommodate inflation and also adjustment to accommodate some of the different pressures that exist within the school system. We certainly believe that all schools should be entitled to a base grant. We can see no basis for their exclusion in the papers before the House. I draw honourable members' attention to a pastoral letter on education matters from the Bishop of Victoria which has been quoted before in this place but which to my mind sets out quite graphically the difficulties that beset a very significant number of independent schools. I will quote only one paragraph from that letter: However, while there was an increase of 5.6% in the money for Government schools, the increase for independent schools was only 1.5%. But what is more important, and alarming, is that the Commonwealth Schools Commission guidelines have broken the automatic percentage link between Government school standard costs and the per capita grants to non-Government schools. This can be seen as the prelude to further assaults on the basic grant and an attempt to foster division among independent shools. The Catholic community feels strongly about the principle involved in the present substantial cuts to the basic grant. Catholic schools, as indeed every independent school, will henceforth be prejudiced in any certainty that they may have in knowing the direction of forward planning for those children who today are or, in the future, may be accommodated within their schools. Of course, it is not sufficient to look only at those restraints. We are all aware of that other policy statement by the Minister which laid down for future implementation that there are to be no capital funds for future independent schools in places where a public school is already available. From the coalition parties' point of view that is an unacceptable statement of principle. We believe that there needs to be choice for all parents and that that type of exclusion will deny a large number of children that type of alternative education. Of course, as far as the parents are concerned, it means that they must contribute at an extraordinarily generous level-well beyond the capacity of most citizens in this country-to enable such schools to be established were they to be so, and if they were the product would certainly be to have schools of a standard which would exclude by far the largest percentage of young Australians. That would make those schools even more exclusive. Frankly, to my mind it would not preserve that alternative quality of education in which we, in the coalition parties, so strongly believe. I mention that 41 schools are immediately to be denied in part or entirely the funds to be provided by the Commonwealth for 1984. In most cases, I believe, it is only some part of the past recurrent grant. I quote from a letter signed by Dr Ian Paterson, who is the Chairman of the New South Wales Branch of the Headmasters Conference of the Independent Schools of Australia, dated 20 October and written to the New South Wales Premier, Mr Wran. I quote from it because, while today we are debating a Federal grant, it needs to be remembered that the Australian Labor Party around Australia is unanimous in its desire to remove this opportunity for choice. Mr Lloyd —Victoria too. Mr SINCLAIR —Victoria too, as my friend, the honourable member for Murray, says. Our difficulty is that at present there seems to be a deliberate attempt by the Labor Party around Australia to reduce the opportunity for parents' choice and to significantly prejudice education in those schools that have in the past depended on some level of recurrent grants so that school fees could be kept at a reasonable level. I quote from Mr Paterson's letter: We are alarmed at the inequitable discrimination against those parents in 'Hit- list' schools who can least afford to pay fees; the consequent inequitable subsidy to similar parents whose children attend similar schools not recognized on the 'Hit-list'; the consequent reduction in parental opportunities for choice ; but most of all at the savage break with the established practice of standard basic funding for all parents through the various schools and school systems. While that letter might have been addressed to Premier Wran, how applicable it is to the education policy of the Labor Government at the Federal level. In the tertiary field there are similar concerns. I mentioned the resolution very briefly a moment ago. I have two concerns within the tertiary sphere. One is in part related to the resolution from which I quoted with respect to isolated children, which, of course, applies not only to secondary schools but also to tertiary institutions. I also have a concern relating to student intake in universities and colleges around Australia as a result of the policies of this Government. With respect to isolated children, I think we need to remember that there is to be a significant cut in the funds to be provided for collegiate residences. The product of this 25 per cent cut is to make equal educational opportunity for country children no longer a fact. Already there are significaant additional costs for parents in country areas trying to educate their children, as a result of the necessity for their children to travel long distances to receive education, to board away from home and so on. These cuts will both reduce the standard of accommodation for children in such centres and increase the costs to those students receiving education. For those who have no parents and who are trying to receive an education the product of that cut is even more severe. In the University of New England and in the College of Advanced Education at Armidale there is particular concern that those cuts in recurrent funding will prejudice their ability to provide the educational opportunity that has been traditional in those two very excellent centres of education. It concerns me greatly that there is likely to be that cut in educational opportunity in a centre such as Armidale, which has provided a very high level of education in the past. One factor with which I find myself in rare agreement with the Government is that I certainly support the continued operation of the CAE at Armidale and the University of New England as separate tertiary education institutions. I believe that it is essential that they should remain in that fashion. I believe that the two institutions provide a different kind of education and that the product of that different kind of education is better education for all those throughout Australia who attend either of those institutions. I might add that the CAE has very significantly broadened the range of courses available. In nursing, for example, it has provided a type of education that I believe is excellent, given the need for nurses to upgrade the tertiary theoretical education component. I believe that the courses there for migrants and for those teaching Aborigines and any other extension of the traditional educational pattern have provided excellently for the community. In my view it is necessary that they remain separate institutions and are funded as such. However, the cut of recurrent grants to collegiate residences by this Government will significantly deny each institution the opportunity to recruit adequately students for the future. It also seems to me a problem that this Government policy is designed to increase student intake but not to provide any funds for additional capital. The product of that is that the universities and colleges of advanced education are expected to take more students, but not to have the funds to provide the facilities to meet proper educational standards. I do not believe that that is an appropriate course. I believe that it is essential that more people be educated at the tertiary level. I regret that this Government has not adequately provided in this way. I might add that Labor has also failed to deliver its promise to provide 300 postgraduate awards, to introduce any type of student loan scheme and to establish the adult migrant education service on a permanent footing. In all, the product of this Government 's policy is to reduce the number of students who can be given a tertiary education in 1984. It will certainly prejudice those who need to travel in order to receive a tertiary education. I believe that the amendment moved and the two foreshadowed by my colleague, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), should receive the support of all members of this House. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(6.18) —We really have heard some fantastic speeches from the Opposition during this debate. It is so full of fantasy that Walt Disney could have scripted a really great film from the Hansard on this occasion . I look at many of the schools in my electorate of Diamond Valley and see the years of neglect-in fact the decades of neglect-of the Liberal State and Federal goverments. At Eltham High School, for instance, I see school rooms that do not have proper floors in them. I see window frames that do not have glass in them. I see buildings that have not been maintained for years because the funds just have not been provided. Eltham East Primary School is a school full of portable classrooms that fill the play yard. I ask: Where has been the planning and the capital funding all those years? At Hurstbridge High School, my son's school, I look at a library that is so small and so inadequate that one just about has to take the books outside to open them. A decade ago, the Karmel Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission found that there was a resource gap of about 25 per cent between the poorest of the non-government schools and the general standard of government schools. It found that the gap between the general standard of schools and that of the wealthiest minority was even greater. The Whitlam government set out, despite the conservative Opposition, to close that gap. The fact is that after seven years of Liberal-National Party administration-really I think that should now be called National-Liberal Party administration-more than 80 per cent of non -government schools still operate at levels of resources about 25 per cent below the government school level standard. The fact is that in that very same period that National-Liberal Administration chopped the grants to government schools from $143 to $123 per pupil-a real decrease of 12 per cent. At the same time it set about increasing from $189 to $509 per pupil the per capita grants to the wealthiest group of non-government schools. That represented an increase of more than 250 per cent, while we had a cut of 12 per cent in grants to the government sector. These facts prove something that should never be forgotten by the Australian electorate. The National-Liberal Opposition is not there to protect the vast majority of resource-poor, non-government schools. Their lot in life has not changed much in seven years. It is clear that the National Party-Liberal Party Opposition is not interested in protecting government schools and the education system that was entrusted to its administration. The Opposition parties clearly want to enrich a very small minority of the non-government schools that operate with resources which are, on average, about 63 per cent higher than those available to the community through the government school system and to the majority of non-government schools. One of the greatest achievements of the Whitlam Government-there were plenty of them-was the perspective and direction given to the total education system of this nation. After seven years of the regressive education policies of 'bad King Malcolm', we are now leaving those dark ages and embarking on a program that will allow the maximum opportunity for participation and equity in education for all Australian children, regardless of their wealth, their position and their IQ . Since it has been about seven years since we have had a real occasion to see some true participation and equity beginning to take place, it is worth while for me to use the time of the House tonight to refer to the Labor Government's four broad policy objectives of its education program. They are: To assist schools to give a positive and effective education to all children and to make substantial progress towards more equal outcomes of education, such as access to paid employment and higher education; to assist schools to respond effectively and appropriately to the diversity of Australian society; to assist and help shape economic recovery and development; and to restore the community's confidence in the Government's determination to give all children access to properly staffed and equipped schools. That is the theory. I am sure that members of the former Government used many of those phrases-if honourable members will pardon the expression-at times in their speeches in this House over the last seven years. Let us look at the difference between the former Government and this Government , and the difference is between theory and practice. Let us look at a few of the ways that this Labor Government will put that theory into practice. By restoration of retrospective cost supplementation in respect of wages and salaries for Commonwealth education commissions programs, the Government has injected a large degree of stability into educational planning. The computer education program, while clearly only a first step at this stage, provides the basis for greater participation and modern skill development for all Australian children. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) earlier chastised the Government for not spending enough on the computer education program. Computers did not come from outer space last week. They have been around for much longer than seven years. The former Government did not spend a dollar, let alone $6m, in that time. I cannot see it now spending $125m, the sum that they are chastising this Government for not spending. Children in secondary schools throughout Australia will clearly have the opportunity that has been until now the privilege and advantage of those schools with the most abundant community and parental resources. The reactivation of the Curriculum Development Centre, in consultation with the States, clearly indicates the concern of the Government to have a much broader education base, while the very fact that it has had to be reactivated and brought out again points the finger at the former Government for its neglect of the education system. The work of the Curriculum Development Centre will be available to non-government and government sectors alike, and that is an important point. The CDC will play a major role in the development of the arts, Aboriginal studies, community language, and programs to assist education of girls. It will play a vital role in the development of curricula which will make years 11 and 12 much more attractive and which will make late-secondary and post -secondary education much more meaningful and desirable to our young people. Mr Wells —Fraser tried to abolish it. Mr STAPLES —That is right; he tried to abolish it, but he does not have that opportunity any longer. The fact is that the Fraser Government did nothing to counter the declining participation rate in post-compulsory education. That is a national disgrace which will not be erased by a train-load of America's Cups. The Fraser Government set about fabricating a self-fulfilling prophesy that government schools were inferior to non-government schools. It was able to do so by starving the government schools of resources and recurrent funding. It starved the government schools and the education system in general of curriculum development and professional development. It starved the schools by limiting access to a national comprehensive computer education program. It only paid token attention to discrimination against girls and other disadvantaged groups in education. It did little to assist girls and the disadvantaged to gain the confidence and skills that are so necessary if all people are able to participate equally and take up opportunities. The Australian Labor Party has always recognised that education, equality and the economy are inextricably bound together and that education will give all individuals access to a wider range of employment options and to a world with a higher standard of living. Adaptability is very important in times of changing employment patterns. The ALP has recognised for a long time that we cannot develop as a self-sufficient nation and as a self-sufficient economy without a much broader and a much more sustained education base than we have now. That is why the Labor Government's education policy is needs based. It is true that Australian teachers support the ALP. They support the ALP because the ALP's policies support as equitably as possible the total education system. Most Australian teachers know this and that is why we have their support. The Opposition in this argument has put the cart before the horse. The Labor Party and the Labor Government has had a long commitment to needs based funding and it will continue as long as those needs exist. The policies are needs based because we cannot have a system that provides abundant resources for a wealthy minority group and expect the benefits of that expensive subsidised education to drip down into the lives of millions of other school children who are being relatively ignored and left to fade out of education completely. As the Opposition is so fond of quoting assorted individuals from the non- government sector, let me add a few quotes from that sector as well. The Independent Teachers Federation of Australia, in welcoming the guidelines, said that the guidelines could provide a more coherent and equitable national pattern of education in Australia. The Independent Teachers Federation also said that the greater scrutiny of fringe non-government schools was particularly welcome. The Association of Independent Schools of Victoria said that there were several good things in the guidelines, particularly the Government's intention to help low income groups and to increase school retention rates. The Catholic Education Office of Victoria commended the general thrust of the guidelines. The Director of the Office, Father Tom Doyle, is reported in the Age on 30 July this year as saying that the significant increase in money to the most needy schools was particularly important and that it was consistent with the Government's aim of providing equal opportunity to children and so decreasing divisions within the community. The honourable member for Wentworth went on for all he was worth through his litany of rejection of recommendations. The Opposition rejected years ago the importance of education as an integral part of our national development. If we want to look at some of the comments of the Schools Commission, which he did in his speech, let us look at some of its comments in response to the Government's participation and equity program. It stated: The Commission welcomes the emphasis in the guidelines on the allocation of resources to schools on the basis of need. This emphasis is consistent with the Commission's charter. It continued: It also welcomes the introduction of the participation and equity program, special support for Aboriginal education, and the initiatives in respect of capital funds for government and non-government schools, special education, arts education and the education of girls. The Commission believes that the restoration of retrospective cost supplementation and the agreement to triennial funding and forward commitment arrangements for some programs will markedly improve planning at the State level and the effectiveness of these Commission programs. The proposal to re-establish the Curriculum Development Centre within the framework of the Commission was also strongly supported by the Schools Commission. It welcomed the introduction of the computer education program and other initiatives. The Commission quite correctly pointed to some deficiencies in general levels of funding. But those deficiencies only exist now because they were not faced by, and they clearly were not funded by, the former Government- the present Opposition-in its years in office, when it had plenty of opportunity to do so. There is a long way to go but one does not have to be much more than a fourth rate prophet or more than seven years old to know that the members of the Commonwealth Education Commissions would be renting their garments and wearing sackcloth and ashes if the former National-Liberal Government had another chance to hand down a Budget. Bearing in mind the deficit that Government produced, its well known restrictive economic and selective educational attitudes, I think we would have seen a much harsher situation. In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, the participation and equity program outlined in the Government's guidelines for 1984 is clearly a framework upon which to build a much more broadly based and equitable education system. It is through that broadly based and equitable education system that we will not only enhance the opportunities for a full life for all Australians but also lay the framework for sustainable economic growth and development well into the twenty-first century. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.31) —The Hawke socialist Government is diabolically committed to destroying freedom of choice in education, as through Medicare it has destroyed freedom of choice in health. This is a socialist government whose bitter hatred of non-government, and particularly church schools has now reached manic proportions. This Hawke socialist Government, in its commitment to destroying freedom of choice in education and in sending into oblivion church schools makes the bitter sectarian Defence of Government Schools organistion look positively mild. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has brought fear into the hearts of hundreds of thousands of Australian parents who cherish and have cherished for many years their basic and fundamental right to see their children educated in the manner of their choice. Implicit in the cognate debate on the reports of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Commonwealth Education Commission before this House today is the clear division which the people of Australia will see between us and those on that side of the House who occupy the Government benches, whose atheistic, socialistic and republican commitments have put them in a situation whereby they will impose upon the people of Australia one system of education. Mr Gear —That is not so. Mr HODGMAN —One does not need to be Mandrake the Magician to know which system of education will fall under the axe if this Government remains in office and if its diabolical policies are put into effect. Contrary to the remarks of the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear), who seeks to interject, I believe that it is a basic and fundamental right for parents to choose the type of education for their children. Under the present Government's policies and under some of its foreshadowed policies to be implemented in the Australian Capital Territory, that basic and fundamental right of choice will be taken away as deliberately and as maliciously as similar rights have been taken way in other totalitarian regimes long distances away from Australia. I speak in support of the amendments moved and foreshadowed by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and supported by other Opposition speakers who do stand up and are prepared to be counted on the right of parents to choose. I want to take some little time in the context of this cognate debate to refer to nine solumn promises made by this Hawke socialist Government prior to its election on 5 March, all of which have now been dishonoured, torn up and thrown to one side. I will take them in this order: Firstly, a clear election commitment was given that the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance would be brought to the same level as the unemployment benefit. What has really happened? Under the Government's Budget, the gap between students who are receiving TEAS and students who are on unemployment benefit has widened. Far from bringing the two together, it has dishonoured its promise in a shameful and disgraceful manner. Secondly, the Australian Labor Party promised faithfully in its policy speech that it would institute a new program for primary schools at the cost of $9m per annum. It actually put a money level on it. The Labor Party thought about it, it went to the electorate, made that solemn promise and has dishonoured it. It gave a clear and fundamental commitment. This is the third broken promise: The Government promised that it would provide an additional $37m for recurrent resouces for government schools. Mr Deputy Speaker, we on this side of the House are prepared to be and always have been even handed because we recognise there are two streams of education in this country-government and non-government. It is part of our basic Liberal and National Party philosophy that parents have the right to choose. This Government got into office, amongst other things, on a litany of broken promises. This is a fundamental one which the Government has dishonoured. It said specifically that in its first year of office it would provide an additional $37m for current resources for government schools. It has dishonoured that clear fundamental election promise. Fourthly, the Government promised that it would provide $16m for needy non-government schools in the first year of its program. It has dishonoured that promise. Fifthly, the Government promised that it would provide $24m over three years for computer education. Let me say across this chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am a not unenthusiastic supporter of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I think the Minister is a very committed Australian. I am certain my colleague the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards), who is also a very committed Australian, would be dismayed that the Government tore up and dishonoured that promise to provide $24m over three years for computer education. The Government has now said: 'We are going to discount it. We are going to cut it back to $18m'. Mr Shipton —That is right. Mr HODGMAN —That is shameful. I acknowledge the comment of the honourable member for Higgins whose heart is with small business in this country, and who recognises the role of computer education. He joins with all from this side of the House in condemning in the strongest terms the Government's blatant and flagrant dishonouring of a clear election promise. I might just say that it adds up very well when one considers that the Commonwealth Schools Commission recommended $125m. The Government bought votes on a false promise of $24m, which it has now slashed to $18m. I turn to promise No. 6, Mr Deputy Speaker. This would never have happened in your time when you were a Minister. Promise No. 6 was torn up, dishonoured, callously breached and cast aside. The Government had promised to establish a revolving loan fund with an additional contribution of $5m for the construction of planned new non-government schools. That promise has not been honoured. The seventh promise is in regard to the area of technical and further education . Long serving members of this House and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because of your very good memory, will remember that I was one of the few who got up in this Parliament in 1976 and said that there must be more spending in the area of TAFE and if that meant a cut in funding to universities and colleges of advanced education, so be it. I said that at the University of Tasmania because I happened to believe it was the truth. The Hawke socialist Government made a clear commitment in relation to technical and further education. It promised a special triennial program costing $30m to upgrade equipment and facilities in the least technologically advanced schools and to stimulate employment in Australian manufacturing. Again, this promise so strongly supported by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Higgins, has been dishonoured. If honourble members were to go to the Hobart Technical College they would see the students there working on machines, the majority of which still use the imperial measurement system. I see from newspaper reports that the Government is about to bring in a final piece of legislation to wipe out the imperial system and turn to the metric system. Yet students at that college and other colleges throughout Australia are working equipment with imperial measurements. There are more broken promises to come. The eighth one was the Government's basic and fundamental promise. It said that it would maintain existing funding for non- government schools. It made a clear and unequivocal fundamental commitment, a promise of enormous importance to the parents of all children attending non- government schools in Australia. Mr Shipton —And the children. Mr HODGMAN —And indeed the children. We in Opposition, as we are now, said to the parents of those attending non-government schools: 'Look, be careful. This promise is probably going to be dishonoured'. I can remember there were newspaper reports about a secret list of schools which were going to be hit. They called it the hit list. I can remember speaking, indeed being on the platform, with my Labor opponent for the seat of Denison, whose husband is a teacher at a non-government school. She said-I believe she said it in good faith -'Look, it is not going to happen. It is just not going to happen'. Yet within a short time of this Government coming to office, having bought votes on false promises, 41 schools in Australia have found that their funding is to be cut. Mr Shipton —That is just a start. Mr HODGMAN —It will not just be cut once, as the honourable member for Higgins has said, it will be the first of many cuts. It will be the first cut of the death of a thousand cuts for non-government schools in Australia if this Government remains in office beyond the next election. Mr Gear —Which we will. Mr HODGMAN —Quite frankly it will not. This Government has broken more promises in seven months than Malcolm Fraser broke in seven years. The people of Australia now recognise that the promises upon which this Government got into power were used to effect a purpose, Mr Deputy Speaker, a purpose to which you would never have been a party, that of bribing the electorate. Having got its votes, this Government turns its back on the electorate and dishonours those promises. This Government has broken the fundamental commitment it made that funding of non-government schools would not be cut. It has destroyed the principle of a basic grant to every Australian school child, with variations and increases in the case of needy schools. That, I thought, was a bipartisan approach up until the election. Mr Shipton —Kim Beazley Sr would be distressed, I am sure. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed. The honourable member is so close to the problem. Tasmania did not get hit on this 1983 hit list, but I have no doubt at all that there will be schools in my home State of Tasmania which will be hit. Mr Deputy Speaker, the extraordinary thing is that parents of children attending government schools were polled as to their views on funding of non-government schools. Three out of four said that they believed the funding of non-government schools should be increased, not cut back. Mr Shipton —Freedom of choice. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed, the freedom of choice. Having attended both government and non-government schools in the course of my education-some years ago, admittedly- the plain fact is that reasonable, rational parents of children attending government schools appreciate that justice in education requires that funding of non-government schools be increased and not cut. I turn now to broken promise No. 9. What did this Government promise when it was in Opposition? It said: 'We will pay attention to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. We will act upon its recommendations. We will respect what the Schools Commission says. We will show you in the Liberal and National parties how a Federal government will do the right thing by the Schools Commission'. What has happened? The Schools Commission in its reports made 55 recommendations , nine of the most important of which this Government has already rejected. Let me just go through the list. This Government rejected the recommendation that the total amount of general recurrent funds to government schools in 1984 be increased by 2 per cent in real terms. It rejected the recommendation that the enrolment basis for the allocation of funds in the government schools general recurrent grants program in 1984 be the 1984 school census. It rejected the recommendation that in relation to non-government schools general recurrent funds be provided on the same general basis as in 1983. It rejected the recommendation that capital grants for non-government schools be increased in real terms by 5 per cent. The Schools Commission itself recommended that capital grants for non-government schools be increased in real terms by 5 per cent. This Government has rejected that recommendation. Callously, it has rejected the recommendation that funds for severely handicapped children's programs be increased by 25 per cent in real terms. That recommendation has been tossed out the window posthaste. This Government rejected the recommendation of the Schools Commission that the general support element of the English as a second language program be increased by 2 per cent in real terms in 1984, to be used specifically to enable Aboriginal children to participate. This Government says in this Parliament and out in the world that it has a commitment to the Aboriginals of Australia, yet it does a thing like that. In my area as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs I am appalled that this Government has rejected the recommendation of the Schools Commission that the ethnic schools program be known as the community languages teaching program. I am appalled that it has rejected the recommendation that the professional development program be provided with the same level of funds in real terms in 1984 and the recommendation that the country area program be provided with a funding increase of 18 per cent in real terms. This Government has rejected all these recommendations, and another 12 of the 55 recommendations -Mr Deputy Speaker, this would never have happened when you were a Minister-have simply been set aside. They have not been rejected; they have not been accepted. There has been no response at all. I conclude my remarks by quoting a letter from Bishop Kelly to the Editor of the Melbourne Age in which I think Bishop Kelly sums up the feelings of many Australians, Catholic and non-Catholic, parents of kids at government schools and non-government schools. This is what Bishop Kelly said: It has been announced that cuts will be made from the so-called 'wealthy' independent schools. But note the cunning inbuilt contradiction, the money from these cuts will not be given to indigent government schools, rather it will go to 'poorer' independent schools, i.e. mainly Catholic schools. In the face of that blatant sectarian tactic I challenge any Catholic independent school to accept this Judas money. Bishop Kelly has hit the nail right on the head. The policies of the Hawke socialist Government in education are divisive, bitter, sectarian and unjust, and should be condemned by the overwhelming majority of right-thinking Australians. Ms FATIN(Canning)(6.46) —Yesterday when this matter was debated the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) said that this Government has a terrible record in regard to education. This is not so. I should like to remind the House that total direct outlays on education are estimated to increase by 10.7 per cent in 1983-84 to $4,210.5m. The Labor Government's commitment to education in Australia is known, acknowledged and applauded by Australians generally. Through a variety of budgetary and other measures the Government has vigorously set about restoring purpose and progress to Australian education. I rise today specifically to comment on the tabled report titled 'Living away from home facilities for isolated children-Study'. This report looks into the current provision of living away from home facilities for isolated children. It provides advice to government about the four categories of such facilities, that is, government hostels, government boarding schools, non-government hostels, and non-government boarding schools. Of the four categories mentioned, the non- government boarding schools are the most numerous. They get capital funding for accommodation facilities from the Commonwealth and some minor assistance from the States and are far better off financially than those in the other three categories. Government boarding schools, the second category, are found only in two States, New South Wales and Western Australia, and are fully supported by State and Commonwealth grants. Government hostels, the third category, are in Tasmania and Western Australia only. These are very good facilities without the apparent needs of the fourth category, that is, the non-government hostels. This latter category has limited State government support and no Federal support. The study to which I am referring was undertaken by the Commonwealth Schools Commission in response to a request from the Government to undertake a further study of a recommendation in the Commission's report for the triennium 1982-84 that student hostels be made eligible for non-government schools capital grants program. The Commission set up a working party which considered the written and verbal submissions from interested groups. It visited a representative sample of 54 boarding schools and hostels and distributed a comprehensive questionnaire to boarding schools and hostels. Fifteen major submissions were received from all States and Territories in Australia. These were supplemented by letters from individuals, from parents and others associated with the welfare and education of children from isolated areas. The submissions contained a wide cross-section of views of community groups, education authorities, parent associations and church organisations. All the submissions were concerned with the personal difficulties confronting rural parents who wished to provide a sound education for their families. It was pointed out that State governments are committed to providing free secular and compulsory education for children but that this goal cannot currently be achieved for those living in isolated areas. When one looks at this report one can see that the response to this inquiry was very great indeed. As one who has lived in isolated areas at times during the last 20 years, I can attest to the fact that the parents of such children have difficulties; and it is very good to see these sorts of difficulties beginning to be put together in this form. Following the Schools Commission's establishment in 1973 and its obvious concern about rural education, the parents of children in isolated areas set up the Isolated Children's Parents Association. This Assosciation was very active in its submission to this study. The main findings of the study are that the majority of students who live away from home to complete their schooling attend boarding schools or schools with boarding elements and that 89 per cent of those children attend non-government boarding schools and 4.9 per cent attend government boarding schools. The continuing need of isolated students in all States to have access to educational opportunities, particularly at the secondary level of schooling, has been met essentially through the non- government boarding sector. Most non-government boarding schools are run at a loss and a significant number have closed over recent years, causing a shortage of places for isolated children, particularly girls, especially in New South Wales and Victoria. There is a need for a more integrated relationship between tuition and hostel accommodation facilities for children who have to live away from home for their schooling. These are the sorts of findings that the study group actually made. It also found that hostels in some States are not the most appropriate living environments for young people who must live away from home to complete their schooling; that poor living environments can prevent students in country areas from completing their schooling to year 12, contributing to a low retention rate in many country areas; and that many isolated families select non-government boarding schools, despite their high fees, for their children's education because poor pastoral care and quality of environment are not conducive to learning and personal development. The study also identified important issues which need to be addressed if children in isolated areas are to have reasonable access to an appropriate range of educational opportunities. Some of these issues are: The continuing long term needs of isolated children for proper access to educational services, and that such services should be available through home-based educational services and through school-based services in local rural centres and larger, often urban, centres; the provision of appropriate standards of accommodation, pastoral care and supervision and living away from home facilities for isolated children; the continuation by education authorities of present policies to improve and enrich educational services for rural and isolated communities; the implications for parents in isolated areas of educating their children away from home in terms of both financial hardship and limitations on the types of educational services selected; the regular review of the assistance to isolated children grants scheme to ensure the maintenance of funding levels appropriate to the cost of educating an isolated child and the regular review of criteria for access to additional grants; the demand from overseas students for places in the context of the already limited number in boarding schools; the co-ordination of educational provision for children of itinerant families, and the increased provision of services and resources to meet the needs of particular groups of students in isolated areas such as handicapped children. This report, which I consider very valuable indeed, contains a number of recommendations concerning the funding of future studies of educational services in rural areas. It has just been tabled in the Senate and in this House. The recommendations have yet to be considered by the Government. I consider them very important and I know that the Government will consider them to be such. Mr FISHER(Mallee)(6.55) —In the few remarks I will be making this evening about this large number of education reports and responses under discussion, I wish to make it quite clear that the Opposition's policies of these issues relate very much to the freedom we all value to choose the type of education we want for our children and to the support of that freedom of choice by government action. I make it quite clear that I am not judging the present Labor Government on its response to the totality of recommendations in these reports under discussion. No government can be expected to meet all the demands in any area of government responsibility. But I wish to bring to the attention of the House the absolute deception in the Labor Government's record of broken promises and dishonoured assurances on education. In the education porfolio at least 15 promises and assurances given during the election campaign have been broken. It is no wonder that both non-government and government authorities throughout Australia are at present reacting quite violently to the actions of the Labor Government, in particular the actions of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), and of education Ministers and governments in New South Wales and Victoria. I have here a Press cutting from a paper in my electorate, the Swan Hill Guardian of 24 October. I would like to quote the words of the local branch president of the Technical Teachers Union of Victoria. The report states: . . . Mr Ron Stanton said on Friday afternoon about 60 teachers at Swan Hill Technical School would stop work tomorrow. He said Swan Hill teachers were most concerned with the educational and economic repercussions for this area. 'Not only has the Pioneer Settlement lost one of its education officers, but the slashing of $10m in the emergency teacher fund will practically wipe out school excursions to such places' . . . He said this would certainly have a serious effect on the economic viability of the Swan Hill tourist industry. Mr Stanton was also critical of emergency teaching proposals. 'Schools are not only limited to one emergency day per staff member, they will also not be able to use any emergencies until they have taken all steps to cover the classes themselves . . . Mr Stanton concluded by saying: This is educationally disastrous and totally unworkable. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you understand that Mr Ron Stanton was a Labor Party candidate in the last State election I am sure you can only agree with what he is saying about your Government and the Government in Victoria. I am also sure that it is not a coincidence that at the time debate is taking place on two of the most significant Bills in the portfolio of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs-the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the Sex Discrimination Bill-the Minister has chosen not to be in Australia. She will probably be overseas while the major part of these important pieces of legislation is being discussed. It is now clear that the Labor Party has absolutely no intention of honouring its pre-election undertakings. Therefore, I think some of them are worth recalling, even if only to demonstrate the cynical and expedient exercise the Hawke socialist Government entered into in the election campaign. Just six months ago, for instance, the Labor Party's policy on non-government schools stated: Funding at present levels will be maintained during the period of time required to allow the Schools Commission to determine the community attitude and to allow schools, in the light of that determination, to make that decision. It also promised: Adjustment assistance will be provided for at least two years to ensure that no disruption occurs to the learning program and that the rights of employees are protected. I believe today we could well ask the 41 schools which have been severely affected by the Labor Party's policy just what has happened to those promises. We should ask ourselves what the future is for any non-government school when the Minister states: We intend to provide a capacity sufficient to enable the individual to resist manipulation by massive institutions of capitalism and to make autonomous decisions. Her intent is obvious; it is to destroy the dual system of education in this country. I assure the House that tonight I am not referring just to funding for non-government schools. In the Schools Commission report for 1984 we find that the Schools Commission itself is extremely critical of Government funding decisions, particularly in respect of government schools. The Commission states that the provision made by the Government falls far short of funds sought by the Commission in its earlier report with recommendations for 1984. It also argued strongly in that report for an increase of 2 per cent in the level of general recurrent grants for government schools in order to assist systems to maintain existing operating standards. In that report the Commission indicated that it believed that the circumstances on which its recommendations were based were valid and that unless an adequate general resource base existed for all schools the effectiveness of the special purpose initiatives of the Commonwealth would be jeopardised. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples) suggested that we were against a needs based policy. We certainly are not against a needs based policy. In fact, my Party supported the development of the Schools Commission and agreed entirely that education policies, as with all other policies, should be needs based. What we believe is that all students have needs. We believe that each student has a right to a share in the education facilities and to have freedom of choice in the school they attend. In the report that I have been referring to the Commission went on to say that it regretted also the significant reduction which has occurred in the general allocation for the professional development program. While the Commission supported the decision to focus this program on specific Commonwealth objectives and priorities in education and the foreshadowing of a comprehensive view of Commonwealth-State responsibilities in this area, it also believed very strongly that reductions of the order determined in the Government's guidelines have dislocative effects on existing in-service education programs. I believe the Australian Teachers Federation should direct its next donation of $750,000 not to the Australian Labor Party for election campaigns but to its own organisation so that it can examine why parents in droves are choosing non- government schools, often schools that have lower resources and poorer facilities than government schools have, but schools that have different values, a different ethos and different attitudes towards discipline. I believe that the Teachers Federation could well give support to the vast majority of teachers and principals in good government schools who are responsible, talented and dedicated and who are being unnecessarily maligned by a few people in their union. I wish now to turn to one or two specific areas in the education funding program that are clearly of disadvantage to people and students in country areas . I refer to the country areas program. The Government has provided $9.34m for 1984 right across Australia. This is the same level of funding in real terms as that provided in 1983. I applaud that. I am concerned that the Commission, in bringing forward a phasing-in of a changed funding index with a distant loading factor-about which I have no complaint-has not provided adequate funds to ensure that those States which will be disadvantaged under this new formula are compensated at least to the level of their existing programs. I am extremely disappointed to see that Victoria, which has a very successful country areas program, will see a major reduction in its annual grant in 1984 terms. The previous Government set up the country education program in 1977 to look at new ways of delivering education experiences to isolated rural schools and communities. The major aims of the program were to develop a clearer definition of the nature of rural disadvantage and rural education. This program was set up to involve local schools and communities in assessing their educational needs, determining their priorities and particularly in developing and implementing programs based on those needs and priorities. It was also set up to encourage the process of co-operation and sharing between all schools and communities in designated rural areas-this has been a major success of the program-as well as looking for new ways of bringing these education experiences to isolated rural schools and communities. It is, therefore, a great disappointment to me to find that funding to Victoria-a State in which tremendous success and advantage have been gained through this program-has been reduced in a year when overall funding across the board for education at both State and Federal level has suffered major cutbacks. The other issue I wish to raise in the education debate is the widespread concern that now exists for country people throughout Australia, particularly in Victoria, who have students wishing to further their tertiary education in the metropolitan area. The honourable member for Canning (Ms Fatin) spoke of the study on living away from home facilities for isolated children. Obviously she agrees with it. But I wonder why she did not acknowledge the fact that the Government in Victoria, in combination with the Federal Government, has now taken action to ensure that country students seeking to obtain accommodation in metropolitan areas will be further disadvantaged. I raise this concern because of two recent actions: The first by the Victorian Government through its Minister of Education and the second by the Federal Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. The Victorian Government has proposed the closure of a number of student hostels which presently house tertiary students. Unfortunately, combined with this the Federal Government, through its Minister, has taken a decision which will reduce the small amount of assistance that residential colleges and halls presently receive. It has reduced by 25 per cent the $9 received per student a week, which will of course increase the cost of these colleges and halls by some $2.50 a week for all students. I have already asked the Federal Minister to clarify the situation and to explain to country people why the Government is attacking students who are already disadvantaged in endeavouring to obtain tertiary education. At this point the honourable member for Canning has not responded to this call. Young people from country regions have few alternatives. The few hostel places available are not available to many, particularly the important group of first year students. These young people often do not know of their acceptance into institutions until February and, naturally, hostel places have already been taken up by second and third year students. The halls of residence and hostels in the past have provided a necessary transition to urban life for first and second year tertiary students. They provide parents with security in the knowledge that their children are living in satisfactory environments with good meals, accommodation and supervision. The sad part of this decision is that the State and Federal governments, who I believe have taken this action in a desperate attempt to save or obtain further money for their high spending programs, have not responded to this report by the Commonwealth Schools Commission on the study of the living away from home allowance for isolated children. This report acknowledged the many efforts on the part of education authorities over recent years to improve and extend educational services in rural areas. It has assisted students and children moving away from home for educational purposes. At present some 14,000 students are receiving a boarding allowance as assistance towards furthering their education. We all know the cost of upgrading and refurbishing this accommodation is increasing more quickly than many other costs. It is most inappropriate that the Government has taken this decision at this time. When parents are looking for increased provision of boarding places in both government and non-government schools for secondary students in regional centres and for tertiary students, particularly in the metropolitan areas, it is important that the quality of pastoral care and the extension of students' aspirations be given encouragement. Hostels do fulfil an important need in rural communities, yet the Hawke Government has not responded to this need. It has not responded against the Schools Commission report, which has acknowledged the right of children who live in rural and isolated areas to have reasonable access to an adequate range of educational opportunities. The report recommended that this should be recognised and facilitated and indeed has recommended to the Government that the states grants Act should be amended to permit students hostels to receive capital and special purpose funds for projects which assist in the provision of living away from home facilities for isolated children. It is ironic that a government engaged in a rhetoric that indicates a concern for the education of the disadvantaged is reducing support in so many areas. The breaking of these promises and the injustice being wrought on students and parents in restricting their freedom of choice and their right of access to tertiary education is a condemnation of the Government. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(7.10) —The matters I wish to discuss today concern the non- government funding part of the Commonwealth Schools Commission report for 1984. The matters regarding this which have been raised most frequently with me are the rights of parents under the United Nations declaration to send their children to a school of their choice, the reduction of per capita funding to 41 schools, and the accusation of sectarian divisiveness in the determination of per capita funding for non-government schools. The rights of parents to send children to the schools of their choice is a right supported by this Government. The United Nations declaration does not require governments to fund schools-it simply requires them not to debar the right of choice-but this Government has accepted its responsibility to the extent of providing per capita grants on the basis of the needs of the school of choice. We believe that the quality of education of children should not be solely based on the depths of parental pockets, but on the standard which allows children the best possible opportunity to make use of their talents and qualities. Because of our belief in giving that opportunity, we have increased the per capita funding to most of the non-government schools and retained present funding for many, thus enabling parents to make a real choice. Across- the-board funding giving the same amount to schools regardless of the income of the schools is not supporting the United Nations declaration but, in fact, reducing choice of school to those who can choose to spend large amounts of money on their child's schooling. As far as parental choice is concerned, not only is the choice more open, but also those 41 schools which have had a reduction of 25 per cent in their per capita funding have a choice also. They can simply pass on that reduction to parents by increasing fees, or they can pare expensive programs without reducing the quality of education as government schools have had to do many times. The real commitment of those schools to their client body will be genuinely tested. The nexus about which so much has been said was a nexus of unfairness. We wish to establish a new nexus, a nexus between need and funding. We do not wish to have government funding in education underline the differences in society and the consequential differences in educational opportunity, but to provide funding for parental choice on a basis which will assist that choice. I turn now to the argument that parents are taxpayers and therefore should have tax money returned to them at their choice. In no other area is such a proposition acceptable. All taxpayers pay for the defence capacity of this country whether or not they are pacifists. All taxpayers pay for public transport whether or not they choose to use it. All taxpayers pay for hospitals regardless of their need for hospitals, and so it is with education. All taxpayers pay for education, whether or not they choose to use the facilities provided by the Government. If they choose not to do so, it is arguable that that choice should be at the cost of the chooser. However, this Government is prepared to give a practical reality to parental choice. It is because we do not want children's education to be handicapped by parental choice made on bases other than education that we support non-government schools, most of them at an increased level. Something has been said about the mystery of the choice of the 41 schools which received a reduction. I draw the attention of the House to the news release from the Schools Commission which gives the formula for that reduction. It has been readily available to everybody who wanted it-it was sent to every school-and any pretence of not understanding the basis of that reduction is simple nonsense, not to mention propaganda. It does not take into account the nature of the ownership of the school. It does not take into account anything but the private disposable cash income and the resources required to operate at the national average government school standards. That is what it takes into account. If that is divisive and sectarian, we have a very odd definition of those words. The questions which have been raised in regard to the Government's decisions on funding for non-government schools have consistently ignored two main factors. The first is that the Government has provided the same funding for 1984 for 179 of 210 group 1 schools and increased funding for nearly 2,000 group 2 and 3 schools. That this increase can somehow be seen as a threat to those schools requires a somewhat strange sort of twisted logic, and is more a triumph for scare tactics than for clear thinking. That so many school principals and religious leaders have associated themselves with this kind of logic raises some concern about the nature of the education offered in some non-government schools . The second factor is the acknowledged need for restraint in all government spending. The expenditure by the government on education is larger than on any program other than social security and defence. In every area of expenditure we have had to make decisions which we would not have had to make had we not come to government burdened with a huge deficit and the necessity to restore the economy to reasonable health as quickly as possible. Out of 2,200 schools, 41 have been asked, because they can do so without damaging the quality of their educational offering, to share the restraint, to be mindful of the rights of students in other non-government schools and to demonstrate their commitment to the ethic upon which they are based. Have these schools taken the opportunity to provide an example, provide the leadership they claim? Unfortunately, no. Instead we have a minority of schools attempting to use all non-government school communities in their selfish search for every cent they can squeeze out of the taxpayer. If those people took the trouble to spend some time in both government and non-government schools in working class and deprived areas and see the needs of the schools in those areas they would wonder what sort of government allowed, or even encouraged those inequities to exist. This Government is committed to the reduction of inequity in education. It values the child of the poorest parents no less than the child of the richest and we do not want any child to be denied educational opportunity because of the income of the child's parents. I know that many parents are deeply concerned by the response to the funding guidelines. They do not wish to be associated with the noisy protests because they take their Christian values seriously and are concerned for the well being of children other than their own. They are deeply worried that church leaders appear to be protecting wealthy schools at the expense of the poorer ones. They have taken the trouble to inform themselves of the facts-such as the fact that 2,169 schools out of 2,200 are as well or better off under this Government. They are well aware that, if the 41 wealthiest schools in Australia pass on the whole of the reduction in recurrent funding to parents as fees, the cost will be $84 a year for a primary school child and $134 a year for a secondary school child. All the noise is about $134. It is about $ 134 worth of pastoral letters, accusations of sectarianism, angry people up in arms-$2.50 a week's worth of sound and fury. It is not $2.50 a week from those people who would find that difficult, but $2.50 a week from people who can already find up to $3,000 a year for school fees. I do not doubt that many parents choose to do without things they would otherwise have in order to pay school fees, but that is the choice of all parents. We all do without something in order to provide for our children. We all appreciate the sacrifices that parents make in order to send their children to the school of their choice, but those sacrifices fall differentially now. To close the education gap, we are asking 41 schools to find $134 a year for each secondary school child-41 schools which now charge up to $3,000 a year for their services. In conclusion, I repeat the facts: In 1984, 2,169 non-government schools will receive the same or increased recurrent funding and 41 schools, on the basis of their cash income, will receive a reduction of $83 a year for primary school children and $134 a year for secondary school children. That is the cost of two packets of cigaretts a week. The reduction was based on a formula having nothing at all to do with the ownership of the school. These facts simply do not support criticisms which have been made. They are a clear implementation of announced policy and evidence of our commitment to a fairer education system for all children. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance)(7.19) —I close this debate by thanking those who contributed to it. The debate has obviously been wide-ranging . It has been fascinating to see so many members of the Opposition making what I suspect is their first contribution to an education debate-and my, how it showed ! However, many of the contributions from those opposite had a disappointing aspect. They revealed a determination on the part of those honourable members to further inflame the State aid controversy which they had meticulously rekindled during their period of office. One of the basic thrusts of the approach that this Government has taken has been to try to quell the passion in that debate which everyone will recognise has been a great diversion in relation to sensible discussions of the funding of schools throughout Australia. Indeed, the policies we have pursued have been designed more than anything to heal that rift and to ensure that we are able to pursue a policy which is fair and equitable and which addresses the needs of children and schools throughout Australia. Our policy is not designed to advantage particular classes of schools. It is not designed to disadvantage any class of school. Yet, particularly the contribution of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) really revealed how miserable this debate can become when it is pursued in the way he chose to pursue it. I do not think the interests of school children, schools or parents are advanced by honourable members of this House deliberately deciding to inflame passions on either side of that debate. Because a number of quotations were used by honourable members opposite I will briefly quote from a letter from the Catholic Education Office of Victoria. It states: It is my hope that a major achievement of the guidelines will be to forestall the divisive debates that have occurred in the education community over recent years. The reasonable balance of funding for government and non-government schools should ensure that result. I think that is a very important accolade the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has received from a very important element of the school community. The basic proposition the Government starts from is that all schools are eligible for funding, whether they be government or non-government schools. But the Governments sees no justification, particularly at a time of great budgetary restraint, for providing substantial subsidies to a small group of schools whose resource standards and facilities vastly exceed that standard which we support in government schools or which we tolerate in the vast majority of non-government schools. As a result of the policies of our predecessors we have seen a growing gap between those schools which have excellent resources and the vast majority of schools, whether they be government or non-government, which have quite unacceptably low standards. The whole approach of the Government's funding of schools this year has been designed to close that gap and to provide a very real and important increase to those schools which have the poorer circumstances. It is worth noting that group 3 schools, which are the most disadvantaged of all schools in the country, in fact have received $5m under this Government's policies than they would have received under the policies of our predecessors. I think that has to be kept in mind when people are assessing the criticisms that have been levelled by honourable members opposite. There have been a number of important new initiatives including $9m in 1983 for new places. A new computer education program has been introduced. There has been a return to restrospective cost supplementation which will be of enormous advantage to education administrators because it will restore the notion of certainty in the level of funding which has been absent over the last few years. The important point is that the Government had less than four months to review and reform the funding policies for schools because of the time at which the election was held and the time when we came into office. Notwithstanding the very constraining budgetary circumstances, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has really taken giant strides in terms of extending the notions of equity and fairness into the funding of schools and restoring a sense of purpose and progress into the education policies throughout this country. I think that as a result of these policies we will see more kids staying longer at schools and the schools they stay in will, by and large, be better schools. Surely that is an objective about which we can all agree. I want to address a couple of points. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) particularly made much of the fact that my colleague, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, is absent. He ought to be aware that she is attending very important conferences including one of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in Paris. He will be delighted to know that she will in fact be returning on Sunday and will be able to participate actively in the debate on those important funding Bills to which he made reference. Mr Ruddock —She was supposed to go to a parents' meeting in Sydney. Mr DAWKINS —I am sure she will have time to go to even those sorts of meetings as well. She has no qualms about attending those kinds of meetings. Most of the parents who have kids at those non-government schools will very quickly realise that those schools will improve much more rapidly under the policies of this Government than they would have under the policies of our predecessors. I thought it was fairly fatuous for honourable members opposite to raise the question of enrolments in tertiary education. We have seen participation rates fall in tertiary education. In fact, 25,000 kids are missing from universities and colleges of advanced education around Australia as a result of the policies of our predecessors. This year we have provided an additional $10m to take the first steps towards opening new places in universities and colleges. It is true that many colleges and universities have been over-enrolling-that is , they have more students than they have been funded for. Part of these additional funds will assist the circumstances of those universities and colleges. But by and large we will see an increase in enrolments next year and I am sure that will be a very welcome development. Of course, we have not had the opportunity to provide much additional funding in the form of capital assistance for universities and CAEs but that is largely because in many universities and colleges there is an unused capacity which can be used to take up these new enrolments. The development of capital programs, which the Government acknowledges are very urgent and have been sadly neglected in recent times, will be addressed in future Budgets. The other fatuous point, I think, is to criticise the moves the Government has made in relation to tertiary education assistance scheme allowances. For three out of the last five years or so our predecessors made no changes to the level of TEAS and for a long time TEAS languished in a state of ever-reducing allowances. We have been able more or less to maintain the value of TEAS and, indeed, to extend the eligibility so that nobody who received TEAS last year would be denied it this year. Clearly we have not gone as far as we would like to go but the circumstances of the Budget and the priorities of the Government were such that we decided to give greatest priority to support for kids in secondary schools to encourage them to stay at school so that there is a greater capacity to increase tertiary enrolments thereafter. On the matter of isolated students and so on the Government is giving full consideration to the report on living away from home facilities for isolated children and will be making decisions in due course. However, in the meantime, there has been a 7 per cent increase in the boarding allowance and also some increase in relation to the eligibility or the means test arrangements for it. All in all, I think we have seen the beginning of a very great deal of progress, a great deal of reform in the area of education, which will mean that the opportunities for all kids will be greatly enhanced regardless of wherever kids live and whatever schools they go to throughout Australia. To claim that this in some way inhibits or limits the capacity of parents to choose is just quite untrue. What will happen is that the vast majority of kids in poorer quality schools will see the circumstances of their schools improve in a way which will vastly improve educational opportunities throughout the country. I indicate that the Government does not accept the amendment that has been moved and the amendments that were foreshadowed by the Opposition. I suggest that we move to deal with the matter now. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Report for 1982-84 Triennium Consideration resumed from 18 October, on the following papers presented by Mr Dawkins: Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for 1982-84 triennium, volume 4-Recommendations for 1984-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report for 1984-Response to Government Guidelines Consideration resumed from 18 October, on the following papers presented by Mr Dawkins: Commonwealth Schools Commission report for 1984-Response to Government Guidelines-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Funding Guidelines Consideration resumed from 25 August, on the following papers presented by Mr Dawkins: Report entitled 'Participation and Equity-Funding Guidelines to the Commonwealth Education Commissions for 1984', together with a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. and on motion by Mr Scholes: That the House take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. 1982 Annual Report Consideration resumed from 23 August, on the following paper presented by Mr Dawkins: Commonwealth Schools Commission-1982 Annual Report. and on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the House take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority: Minister for Territories and Local Government-Technical and Further Education-Slaughter and Export of Frozen Lamb-Tertiary Education-Government's Road Program-Philippines-Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(7.30) —I am compelled tonight to raise in this House an important question concerning the involvement of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in the day to day management of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority in discipline of employees found to have misused or misappropriated Authority resources. On 22 August 1983 investigations by the Authority established that resources used for the Authority's works were diverted to the home of a senior leading hand, Mr Julian Powell, and were used to undertake earth works to enable the installation of a swimming pool. The Authority's resources were a hired back hoe and operator, a hired pickup truck and driver, the senior leading hand and his vehicle, and a lines assistant cable layer. All were absent from the Authority's work for several hours. All charges for hired equipment and staff were to be charged to the Authority's account. Evidence was also available that the acting foreman failed to supervise adequately the Authority's work and was not aware of the absence of these resources. Later when he became aware of the misuse of resources, collusive action between the acting foreman and Mr Powell adjusted some of the time sheets and charges. Records of the Authority suggest that on a prior occasion Mr Powell had used some landscaping materials of the Authority for work on his private residence. The Authority took action on the matter involving Authority staff, contractors and Mr Powell. The latter was asked to reimburse the cost of misappropriated resources and his employment was terminated. No criminal charges were brought against Mr Powell, although in my view such a remedy was clearly available. After this action had been carried out there was some union reaction involving a stop work meeting complaint of alleged severity of disciplinary action. In September it became apparent that the Minister had become involved. The Chairman of the Authority, Mr Bolton, was called to the Minister's office to meet with him and an Electrical Trades Union of Australia organiser. Later a series of bans were applied to work on new Canberra building projects and new constructions. Union representatives pressed for Mr Powell to be re-employed, although with loss of some seniority and a reduction in pay. Similarly, disciplinary action against the senior leading hand was modified. As a result of these pressures from the union and the Minister's involvement, the Authority acceded to these demands. This matter raises numerous questions in relation to the Minister's involvement in the day to day management of statutory authorities. Does the Minister condone misappropriation, that is, the theft of public resources, not once but twice? Should the Minister be involved in placing pressure on a statutory authority to modify penalties imposed in the matter of a day to day management question? How many other private deals or arrangements involving theft or misappropriation of public resources has the Minister been involved in or is he likely to be involved in in the future, which have not been brought to public notice? How do the unemployed feel when a thief is reinstated in public employment with the complicity of the Minister, while they as law abiding citizens are denied employment? How can authorities of the Commonwealth maintain proper supervision of their resources if proper disciplinary action can be so easily overturned? Mr GEAR(Tangney)(7.35) —I was to have participated in the education debate that has just finished. My area of interest is technical and further education, and I suppose that in some ways it is symbolic that again TAFE missed out. It has missed out in many education debates around Australia and there are a few reasons for this. Firstly, the TAFE student body is transitory, that is, they have never established a national body to argue on their behalf. In places such as this and in higher education institutions where education debates are held, TAFE has not been represented. I come from the TAFE sector, where I used to teach before I was successful in the last election, and therefore I hope to redress that balance in some small way. The Labor Government from 1972 to 1975 and also this Government have been committed to the TAFE sector. The previous Labor Government, the Whitlam Government, initiated the Kangan report to look at TAFE and some of its problems . It was the first time that the TAFE problems had been addressed, and we came to grips with some of the issues that were involved in that vast expanse of educational offerings. The report was widely accepted by the Government, mainly because its philosophy was in sympathy with that of the Government. The main recommendation of the report was that the educational offerings should focus on individuals rather than on large employers. They are not mutually incompatible, but the report certainly argued that the needs of industry would never be satisfied unless the needs of the individual were satisfied first. The report also recommended the removal of some academic barriers that stopped people from getting into TAFE. There were distance barriers that stopped people from getting to TAFE and also some barriers for those people with physical disabilities. The report recognised all these matters. It was an excellent report which went much of the way to improving the offerings in the TAFE sector. Not only did the report make recommendations on aspects such as these but it also recommended a large infusion of money into TAFE, which the government of the day accepted. Since then Liberal-National Party governments have increased the TAFE funding but not by as much as is needed. As I have said, TAFE is very diverse. It has been asked to respond to a number of challenges not only in the work force but also in leisure activities. From my experience I can focus on one example. Back in the 1980s, when we were supposed to have the big boom, TAFE was asked to come up within a short period of two months with a course that would turn out tradesmen. It did this, mainly because of the efforts of the teachers involved and certainly not because of the resources it was given. As an example of this starving of resources, this year, even with the increased funding that we have been able to give TAFE, only $74.3m has been allocated for about 700,000 students. On a cost per student basis, that comes to $105. Compare that $105 per student in the TAFE sector with universities and colleges of advanced education, which spend $5,000 per student. I do not have to point out the imbalance or the injustice done to those students who rely on the TAFE sector to increase their education in the hope of getting skills that might equip them to take their place in the work force or to others who are taking up leisure activities. The funding shortage has also led to TAFE being unable to accommodate all the students it would like to accommodate. This year in New South Wales it had to turn away 35,000 students and in Victoria 10,000 students. The TAFE capital works program has a sorry history of neglect. This year we are giving $126m to TAFE. It is not enough because it is estimated that in New South Wales alone $ 500m worth of works would need to be taken into account if we were to bring TAFE colleges up to a suitable condition to service adequately the people in them. Sometimes the colleges are in an unsafe condition, and that problem must be addressed. I conclude by congratulating the TAFE members of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, a body that has done a lot for education in the TAFE sector and education generally. I wish to mention a few of its members, particularly Cassandra Parkinson, Lesley Hodsdon and Rex Hewett, who give up a lot of their time to try to enhance the objectives of the TAFE sector. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(7.40) —Whilst countries in the Middle East purchase millions of our sheep for meat purposes-of course, in those areas they are killed in the Moslem manner-the population in the Middle East likes warm mutton. However, over the years Australia has developed a valuable trade in chilled and frozen lamb which is air freighted to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Abu Dabi, Dubai, Oman and, of course, some other Arab areas. This trade has developed to such an extent that over $200m per annum of Australian meat is exported to this area. It is making a very valuable contribution to our trade. It is very important to export abattoirs and the meat trade generally that Moslem halal meat, that is, stock killed in the Moslem manner, should operate without interference from any outside source. There are export works in the Paterson electorate which I represent at Gunnedah, Mudgee and Aberdeen which are all export licenced works and which kill meat in the Moslem manner for this chilled meat trade in the Middle East. However, problems exist as present in the supply of halal slaughtermen. Halal slaughtermen are Moslems and can issue certificates that the sheep or lamb has been killed in the Moslem manner. Apparently, at present, there are two Moslem organisations that have clashed and that are operating in this area. They are known as Affic and Queerishi Moslem. They have clashed with the result that the export of our chilled and frozen lamb has been interfered with very seriously. This past week has witnessed a hold-up of valuable export meat which was to be consigned to Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, and other Eastern states. I have much pleasure in stating that during a visit to Saudi Arabia and these Eastern states last year, it was possible to arrange for some supplies of meat to be sent to particular traders in those areas. So the argument that has developed between these Moslem halal operators is certainly causing me great concern. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is aware of the situation. On Monday and Tuesday of this week he had discussions with both those organisations . They are Moslem in religion, of course. Although they are opposing one another in the meat trade, they worship at the same mosque in Sydney. News has just come to hand to me this evening that the Queerishi organisation, which has been in trouble at Mudgee-Affic would not let it operate there-has now gone to South Australia. I understand that it has a licence from the Moslem people there to kill halal meat at Mudgee for which certificates will be given. The situation is very serious, but I know that the Minister is doing all that he possibly can to settle it. It is serious because our frozen and chilled meat is being stored in these abattoirs and is not getting on to the markets overseas . So I can say only that I hope that the Minister will continue to view it in a serious manner. I know that he will, because we do not want to lose this extremely valuable trade which, as I have mentioned, represents over $200m a year. We want to continue killing these animals in the Moslem manner. I hope that the situation is soon settled. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(7.43) —The education debate this afternoon concentrated mainly on primary and secondary education. This is perfectly appropriate. The major areas of contention in that debate, as raised by the Oppostion, concerned primary and secondary education. It is perfectly appropriate that Government speakers should have addressed themselves primarily to the questions which were raised by the Opposition in the debate. However, my own background is in tertiary education. I would like to make some remarks about that, particularly as it affects my own electorate of Petrie. In that context, I am very pleased to announce that the Carseldine campus of the Brisbane College of Advanced Education in my electorate of Petrie is to receive $650,000. The Tertiary Education Commission has recommended that $650,000 be provided to the Brisbane CAE, specifically for the Carseldine campus-an excellent campus of that CAE-for a resources centre and teaching facilities. I can also say that that recommendation has been accepted by the Government and will be brought to this Parliament in the near future. This funding is part of a total Commonwealth contribution of $5,100,000 for Brisbane CAE Carseldine campus . Having said that, I would like to point out that this funding is part of a general overall increase provided to the tertiary sector by the Hawke Labor Government. Funding for tertiary education has increased by $10m in the current period. Three thousand new places will be provided in the tertiary sector at universities and colleges of advanced education. The increase in funding is 1 1/ 2 per cent in real terms, that is, a real term increase. So in the area of tertiary education this Government is not merely holding its own with the universities and the CAEs, it is making a real increase. This record compares very well with the shody performance of the Opposition when it was in government. If we look at the figures for the funds made available to tertiary and post-graduate students under the previous Government they do not look too bad because of a massive increase in the 1982 Budget-a Budget which was designed specifically to buy votes. I would like to remind students at universities and colleges of advanced education and post-graduate students at Australian universities-people in that pool from which we hope in the future to draw our Albert Einsteins and Bertrand Russells-of the conditions that they suffered under the previous Government. Between 1977 and 1982, which was roughly the period in which I was concerned with students and the lives and appalling conditions that they suffered, the maximum tertiary education assistance scheme allowance increased from only $2,236 to $2,583-a pathetic increase for a period of so many years. During those years students were suffering, living in squalor and discomfort as a result of the paucity of funding and the poverty of generosity of the present Opposition in this place. A similar pattern can be seen in the post-graduate awards provided to Australian post-graduate students under the Commonwealth post-graduate award scheme. In 1977 the funding was $4,000 a year as a stipend. In 1982 the funding had increased to only $4,620. There was, of course, a massive increase in 1982, as I said, but that was specifically for the purposes of buying votes, unless it represented a massive conversion to Keynesian economics of the Opposition parties, and this we doubt. The Government has moved to rectify that situation. The number of tertiary awards and TEAS positions has been increased. The interests of students and the interests of tertiary education will be looked after by this Government. I am very pleased to have been able to announce the funding to the Carseldine campus of the Brisbane College of Advanced Education. It is an excellent institution of its kind. I am sure that it will use those funds to prosper and go on to produce even finer graduates. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(7.48) —I would like to use the adjournment debate tonight briefly to inform the House and, I trust, the Government, of a major area of neglect in the Government's road program. I want to draw attention to the fact that the road running between two relatively small towns, only one of which is in my electorate-the towns of Burra and Morgan-is, in fact, the only stretch of unsealed road between Sydney and Perth. Anyone choosing to travel west from the city of Mildura towards Perth would have to make the difficult choice at the town of Morgan as to whether to negotiate this unsealed stretch of road. It is the only major unsealed stretch of highway between Sydney and Perth. I draw the attention of the House to this fact in a bipartisan sense. Only one-third of the road runs through the seat of Wakefield. The remaining two-thirds runs through the seat of Grey. I know that the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) will join me in stressing to the House the need to have that particular stretch of road sealed. Honourable members might well ask: Where are the towns of Morgan and Burra situated? I can easily identify Morgan to the chamber. The town of Morgan is situated beside the River Murray, at the point at which the river no longer travels west but travels south. Eighty-five kilometres to the north-west of that town lies the copper mining town of Burra in South Australia's mid-north. Road transport must choose at Morgan either to take this hazardous, lonely, unsealed track through the station country and so come to Port Pirie and Highway One, bound for Perth, or avoid this track and then negotiate an additional 64 kilometres of winding sealed road through the lower north of South Australia. This 85 kilometre stretch of road has had 15 kilometres of its length sealed as a result of subsequent grants to the Morgan District Council over a period of 15 years. The difficulty is that we are now asking transport operators to move further into the populated areas of South Australia because of this stretch of road which continues to be unsealed. It is an indictment of the present Government that, until this year, in every year since 1975 there has been an annual grant for sealing a portion of this road. Every year since 1975 an additional portion of the road from Burra to Morgan has been sealed. This year for the first time there will be no sealing or reconstruction program. Sixty-five kilometres of this lonely, hazardous dirt track will remain unsealed as a result of the action of the present Government. The transporters, the overnight bus operators and the individuals who arrive at Morgan must choose either to set out at night over what is a genuinely hazardous piece of road or to negotiate an additional 64 kilometres. The District Clerk of the Morgan District Council, in a letter to me, stated: Further information has been received in relation to Rural Arterial Road Funding throughout the State for 1983-84. There has been a decrease in available funds of $670,000 from the 1982-83 year; from 1.8 million to 1.13 million-a decrease of around 37 per cent. Mr Hawker —How much? Mr ANDREW —There has been a decrease of around 37 per cent. The letter continues : The District Councils of Morgan and Snowtown have been cut of all funding and many other Councils reduced on previous year's allocation. This action will not only deprive people travelling west of access to the most direct route to the west, but also deprive my mid-north residents of immediate access to the River Murray. The Government must face the question of how a government supposedly concerned about conservation and supposedly concerned about tourism can cut out road funding for such a road, which not only would allow people to be fuel conscious, but also would attract additional tourists to some of the prime areas of South Australia. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(7.53) —I have recently received representations from the Philippine Action Support Group, an organisation supported by the Australian Catholic Relief, the Australian Council of Churches, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, Community Aid Abroad and Action for World Development. The information that it sent to me should be of concern to all Australians, especially to those honourable members opposite who recently praised our neighbours in the Association of South East Asian Nations and who have attempted to denigrate this Government for taking an independent line in relation to its foreign policy-a policy that has us as equal partners in treaties and not as sycophants, as we have been under successive governments whose members now sit on the other side of the House. The Filipino people today live in desperate and growing poverty, while a small elite live lives of dazzling extravagance. Since President Marcos declared martial law in 1972 the living standard of the poorest 80 per cent of the people has been slashed. As the poverty increases so does the dissent. However, this dissent has not been met by much-needed social and economic reforms. Rather, it has been met by increased militarisation and increased repression. Since martial law commenced, the armed forces of the Philippines have increased in number from 60,000 men to over 300,000 regulars. If reserves and paramilitary forces are also included, the number is well over 900,000 men, or almost 2 per cent of the population. During this time, over 72,000 political prisoners have beeen detained. According to the Amnesty International report of 1981 the majority of these prisoners are first taken to safe houses which are non-recognised, unofficial places of detention while they undergo what is euphemistically known as 'tactical interrogation', which we know as torture. While the number of detainees has declined from approximately 16,000 a year during the early years of martial law to about 1,000 a year today, this has not been a cause of great joy for the people. While the number detained by the military is dropping, the number of extrajudicial killings by the military has grown at an alarming rate. People are no longer imprisoned, they are just taken out to a lonely spot and killed. The Government's use of death squads is also on the increase. These squads usually consist of ex-soldiers discharged for flagrant violations, long term prisoners or religious fanatics. Some of the more infamous death squads are the Lost Command and the Rock Christ. The Lost Command was responsible for more than 80 deaths in the province of Agusan de Sur in 1980 -81, as it cleared the local farmers off the land to make room for a foreign- owned palm oil plantation. It was also responsible for the massacre of a whole village of 45 people in Northern Samar on 15 September 1981. The Rock Christ is active in the mountain regions and, after the lifting of martial law in 1981, was responsible for at least 16 deaths with mutilation and another dozen disappearances in just four months. Australia has major aid projects in these provinces. Another government policy that ignores the basic rights of the people is that of hamleting, or live-ins. If the military decides that an area is a suspected rebel stronghold it forces the local population to leave their homes and farms and to sleep at night in a central, army-guarded village. For some this entails walks of 10 kilometres or more each morning to return to their farms, and again in the afternoon to return to the live-in site. Besides wasting the most valuable working hours in a tropical day, no one is left to care for their farm animals, or mind their crops or farm animals at night. Despite the Defence Minister ordering the disbanding of all such hamleting on 2 March 1982, the process has not only continued but has been extended. As of January 1983 there were more than 300,000 victims living in more than 225 centres on the island of Mindanao alone. There have been many other violations of the people's basic rights which, while not as spectacular, are nevertheless, common occurrences in the Philippines. They include such things as limited freedom of the Press, the banning of assembly, the banning of the right to strike in the majority of cases and the average person's total helplessness in the face of injustices because the legal system is only available to the rich. Whether the oppressor is the military, a factory manager, an unjust landlord or a usurious middleman, the poor have no legal recourse; not only because of the expense but also because of the corruption of the legal system. However, perhaps the most serious violation of all is their most basic right, the right to eat. Since martial law began, the number of people who live below the government-recognised poverty line has increased from 43 per cent to 84 per cent of the population. Some 80 per cent of the population sufers from malnutrition. This in a land which exports food. This is a very brief summary of the human rights abuses taking place in the Philippines today. I believe that Australia's defence and security should not be built on the oppression of others. In the long term, we should be more secure were we to support the majority who seek justice, rather than the minority who rule by force. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(7.58) —I want to make a couple of brief remarks in relation to the attitude that has been taken by the Opposition on the issue of immigration and ethnic affairs. I express my extreme disquiet at its failure to put forward any positive or progressive suggestions. Instead, it completely and continuously attacks the Government and its policies, which have been well thought out and developed over a period, so as to apply the principles of equality in the difficult area of immigration and ethnic affairs. The record of the previous Government in relation to these matters leaves a great deal to be desired. Indeed, some of the accusations that it has made against the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and against this Government have been outrageous, because those sorts of accusations are often based on rhetoric which is unsustainable. We keep hearing about lurches to the left et cetera. In fact, the situation in this area, especially with the family reunion program, with its new points system, is to apply a program in a fair and just way-in a way in which it has never before been applied in Australia. That program is based on a set of principles which are applied universally and independently in relation to all ethnic groups and countries. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8.00 p.m. the debate is interrupted. Dr Blewett —I require that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 8.10 p.m. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government)(8.00) —Earlier this evening the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) raised a question which involved me. This is what he said in his opening remarks: I am compelled tonight to raise in this House an important question concerning the involvement of the Minister for Territories and Local Government in the day to day management of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority . . . He then talked about the actions of certain workers who had misappropriated certain equipment and carried out certain work in the time of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority. Then the honourable member said: In September it became apparent that the Minister had become involved. The Chairman of the Authority, Mr Bolton, was called to the Minister's office to meet him and an Electrical Trades Union of Australia organiser. By that, I am charged with interfering in the internal affairs of the Electricity Authority. The facts are these: I cannot give the exact time, but several months ago a Sydney organiser by the name of Mr Keith Challenger, whom I know well, when in Canberra asked me whether I would see a delegation of workers from the Electrical Trades Union in Canberra. The workers came and saw me and put their point of view. They said that they thought that one of their workers had been dealt with harshly. I listened to their case. It was arranged that at a later date the union members could make an appointment with me. By that stage I would have heard the other side of the story as well. I made arrangements for Mr Bolton, the Chairman of the Electricity Authority, to put the other side of the story. I can assure the honourable member that when I heard the facts I said clearly that I would not interfere in the internal affairs of the Electricity Authority. It was the Authority's responsibility and it had to deal with the matter in its own way. In no way did I interfere in the internal affairs of the Electricty Authority. I wish that the honourable member for Dundas, although he may have the right to raise this question, had not made accusations and charged that I was involved, or condoned in any way the action of those workers. In fact at that time I spoke quite sternly to the workers on the subject of the misappropriation of certain equipment of the Electricity Authority, which they had used in the time during which they should have been working for the Electricity Authority. I will make my position quite clear: As far as I am concerned, particularly in regard to workers in a public authority, they have a responsibility to make sure that they serve that authority in the interests not only of the authority but also of the people that we represent. That is a very deeply instilled principle which I stand by. I say this to the honourable member: Until he knows more facts and not just half truths, he should not start making charges that I in any way condoned the action of those workers or interfered in the internal affairs of the Electricity Authority. I wanted to hear the two sides of the story. Mr Ruddock —After the meeting the statutory authority changed its decision. Mr UREN —Well that is the Authority's business. That involves its relationship with the union. In no way did I influence the Authority. If the honourable member wants to have a personal-- Mr Ruddock —I accept your word. Mr UREN —If the honourable member wants a personal interview with Mr Bolton he may, or if he wants to put a question on notice I will answer the question in detail in any shape or form. I can assure the House that in no way did I interfere with the working of the Electricity Authority and in no way did I condone any actions of the workers in regard to what they did and were disciplined for. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 8.05 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Duffy to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Routine of BusinessStanding order 101 be amended to read- 101.The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Tuesday: 1. Giving notices. 2. Questions without notice. 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday: 1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices . 3. Notices and orders of the day. 4. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 5. Presentation of papers. 6. Ministerial statements, by leave. 7. Matter of public importance. 8. Notices and orders of the day. General business-priority to notices Standing order 109 be amended by omitting ' for 2 hours after the meeting of the House' and substituting 'until 9.30 p.m.'. Mr Hurford to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Garden Island, N.S.W. Modernisation Stage 2- surface preparation and preservation facility and oily bilge waste treatment plant. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 November 1983: Commonwealth Electoral Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules, Nos 236, 237, 238, 239 Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 233 Defence Act-Determinations-1983- No. 18-Separation Allowance and other allowances No. 19-Settling in and Settling Out Allowance and another allowance No. 20-Higher Duties Allowance, other allowances and Additional Compensation for Members of the Reserve No. 21-Flying Allowance, Language Proficiency Allowance and Recreation Leave No. 22-Service Allowance No. 23-Recreation Leave and War Service Leave Departure Tax Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 245 Family Law Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 243 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 232 Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos 230, 231 Life Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 240 Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 244 Public Service Act-Determination-1983-No. 19 Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 234 Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinance-1983-No. 52-Mental Health Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 2 November 1983 Trade Practices Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, No. 241 Wireless Telegraphy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983, Nos 229, 242 The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 415 Mr Ewen Cameron asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) With respect to the Army dwellings located in the Albury-Wodonga area of New South Wales and Victoria, what funds were (a) allocated and (b) actually expended for the repair and maintenance of these dwellings in each of the years 1980-81 to 1982-83 and what is the estimated allocation for 1983-84. (2) How many of the dwellings were repaired or maintained and to what Army units were the dwellings attached for each of the same years. (3) How many residences in the Wodonga area, owned by the Victorian Housing Commission or any other Victorian Government authority were (a) reserved for use by or (b) actually occupied by, Army personnel for each of the same years. (4) What Commonwealth funds have been (a) allocated and (b) spent for the (i) maintenance, (ii) repair or (iii) upgrading of residences owned by (a) the Victorian Housing Commission and (b) any other Victorian Government authority, for each of the same years. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is the practice of the Department of Housing and Construction, in relation to the repairs and maintenance programs to allocate cash to an overall appropriation item rather than on an individual project basis and consequently specific allocation figures for groups of housing cannot be provided. Commonwealth expenditure and estimated expenditure, to the nearest thousand dollars, on repairs and maintenance of Commonwealth owned Army housing in the Albury-Wodonga area for the years in question are as follows: 1980-81, $57,000; 1981-82, $80,000; 1982-83, $265,000; 1983-84 (est.), $142,000. (2) At present there are 609 Army controlled Commonwealth owned houses in the Albury/Wodonga area. The allocation of these houses is under the control of the Defence support unit Albury. Houses are allocated on a needs basis and the number on allocation to each of the twelve Army units represented in the area varies from month to month. Records held within my Department do not identify the actual unit to which houses were on allocation at the time maintenance was carried out. The records of the Department of Housing and Construction reveal that the total number of Commonwealth owned houses on which programmed maintenance was carried out during the years in question were: 1980-81, 62; 1981-82, 41; 1982-83, 27; 1983-84, 25 (programmed). (3) The number of houses provided by the Victorian Government for use by the Army, and actually occupied during the years in question were: Allocated Occupied 1980-81 443 438 1981-82 443 435 1982-83 430 430 (4) The allocation of cash to various locations for the upgrading of housing provided by the States under the Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement ( Servicemen) (CSHA(S)) is under the control of the relevant State authorities. Records of actual expenditure in each location is also maintained by those authorities. Total allocation of Commonwealth funds to the Victorian Government for the upgrading of housing provided under the CSHA(S) during the years in question are : 1980-81, $400,000; 1981-82, nil; 1982-83, $467,000; 1983-84, $979,000 ( available for allocation). No Commonwealth funds are allocated for the repair and maintenance of housing owned by the Victorian Government. Question No. 424 Mr Wells asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In reference to categories (i) of the question, amounts received by the Queensland Government are contained in Budget Paper No. 7 for the relevant years in question. In the matter of categories (ii), amounts returned or refused by the Queensland Government, my Department has no record of any Commonwealth funds being returned or refused. Question No. 427 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following supplementary information to the honourable member's question: In addition to the grants (totalling $84,540,000) provided to the Queensland Government from 1972-73 to 1982-83 and detailed in my earlier reply to this question, two additional grants have been identified. These are: Amount Grant Details of contributions $'000 type* Grant towards the development by the Geological Survey of Queensland of an enery resource database 174 C Grant towards a case study for the electricity supply industry by the State Electricity Commission of Queensland 40 C * Note: Grant type C-special purpose grants. Question No. 430 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the form of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a)-(e) The only Commonwealth funds received by the Queensland Government from my Department or statutory authorities associated with my portfolio from December 1972 to August 1983 are the following grants to voluntary and community based legal aid centres: 1972-73-Nil. 1973-74-$296,000. 1974-75-Nil. 1975-76-$131,000. 1976-77-$131,000. 1977-78-Nil. 1978-79-Nil. 1979-80-$12,000. 1980-81-$11,000. 1981-82-$33,000. 1982-83-$37,000. 1983-84-$21,000. No subsidies, special purposes grants, dollar for dollar contributions or other contributions have been received by the Queensland Government from my Department or statutory authorities associated with my portfolio in the period from December 1972 to August 1983. In this period, no Commonwealth funds have been returned or refused by the Queensland Government. Question No. 498 Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: (a) What are the prices of (a) liquefied petroleum gas and (b) natural gas for (i) household and (ii) commercial purposes in each of the States. (2) Are any supply and price arrangements with companies sanctioned by State Governments or the Commonwealth Government; if so (a) with which companies; (b) what are the contracted prices; and (c) what are the conditions of supply. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) As retail prices of gas, both bottled and reticulated, are affected by the volumes purchased, a simple comparison of price schedules can be a cumbersome and misleading exercise. To reflect the varying consumption levels that occur in the different States and to facilitate comparisons, prices for household consumption in the following table have been calculated from published price schedules on the basis of average household consumption in each State. The country centres listed have both bottled and reticulated gas available and the prices quoted are considered typical for each State. Cents/megajoule Household Commercial users (a) users (b) Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)- Bathurst (N.S.W.)- Reticulated 1.75 1.13 Bottled 1.75 1.13 Victoria- Reticulated 0.49 0.59 Bottled 1.02 0.88 Bundaberg (Qld)- Reticulated 2.22 1.65 Bottled 2.19 1.62 Mt Gambier (S.A.)- Reticulated 1.28 1.07 Bottled 1.46 1.00 Albany (W.A.)- Reticulated 1.17 0.84 Bottled 1.41 1.18 Launceston (Tas.)- Reticulated 2.35 2.04 Bottled 1.45 1.16 Natural gas- Sydney (N.S.W.) 0.84 0.69 Melbourne (Vic.) 0.49 0.59 Brisbane (Qld) 1.20 0 .97 Adelaide (S.A.) 0.81 0.58 Perth (W.A.) 0.94 0.73 Source: Gas distributors. (a) Typical consumption levels assumed to be 14,800 megajoules per annum (MJ pa ) in New South Wales, 52,470 MJ pa in Victoria, 9,560 MJ pa in Queensland, 25, 630 MJ pa in South Australia, 18,500 MJ pa in Western Australia, and 11,540 MJ pa in Tasmania. Consumption levels are based on data published by the Australian Gas Association. (b) Based on estimated median consumption for Australia of 40,000 MJ pa. (2) The wholesale price of LPG sold by petroleum refineries is subject to surveillance by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority. Under arrangements introduced in April 1980, the Authority sets the price for LPG on 1 January and 1 July each year at the lower of either the export parity price or the April 1980 LPG price of $205 per tonne indexed to movements in the price of domestic crude oil since that time. Producers of naturally occurring LPG have agreed to supply the domestic market at the same price. Price and supply arrangements for natural gas are traditionally the responsibility of State governments. In the cases of Victoria and Western Australia, the utilities reticulating natural gas are owned by the State governments. In the other States the utilities are mainly privately owned but operate under State legislation which invariably provides for comprehensive controls including prices charged to domestic consumers. As there are a very large number of supply arrangements involving Commonwealth and State government organisations and companies for the supply of gas it is not practicable to catalogue all such arrangements. Question No. 501 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 September 1983: What action is his Department taking in relation to the industry allegation that canned ham from Spain is being dumped in Australia. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: None. This matter is being dealt with by the Department of Industry and Commerce. See reply to Question No. 499. Question No. 550 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Is it the intention of the Government to establish a Law Reform (Imperial Acts) Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory; if so, have drafting instructions for such an ordinance been completed. (2) By what date is it anticipated that (a) a draft ordinance will be submitted to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly and (b) the ordinance will be proclaimed. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Government does intend to make a Law Reform (Imperial Acts) Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory and drafting instructions have been prepared. A consultant, Mr J. Monro, a former Second Parliamentary Counsel, has been appointed to undertake the task of implementing the Australian Capital Territory Law Reform Commission's Report on Imperial Acts in force in the Australian Capital Territory (on which the proposed ordinance will be based) and the Commission's complementary Report on the Review of New South Wales Acts in force in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) (a) It is anticipated that a draft ordinance will be submitted to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly in the first half of next year. Priority is currently being given by Mr Monro to draft ordinances relating to New South Wales Acts in force in the Australian Capital Territory. (b) The date of making of the Law Reform (Imperial Acts) Ordinance will depend on the time taken by the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, and other interested bodies in the Australian Capital Territory, to consider and comment on the draft ordinance. Question No. 558 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 September 1983: (1) How was the decision reached between the South Australian State Government Insurance Office and Australia Post to allow insurance policies to be sold through Australia Post. (2) What consultations were held with the insurance industry before this decision was made. (3) Is he concerned at the lack of expertise of postal staff in their knowledge of insurance matters. (4) Will this practice interfere with the usual business of postal staff such as handling and dispatching articles for postage. (5) Does he intend to allow expansion of this practice of Australia Post to (a) other States, or (b) other authorities such as Telecom Australia. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: (1) The South Australian State Government Insurance Commission and Australia Post have entered into a normal commercial agreement for the performance of certain work at post offices on behalf of the Insurance Commission. This agreement is pursuant to section 12 of the Postal Services Act 1975, which provides, iter alia, that the Australian Postal Commission may act on behalf of an authority of a State when the action concerned can conveniently be done in conjunction with the performance of the functions of the Commission. (2) As the agreement is a private business arrangement, it would not have been appropriate to consult the insurance industry on the matter. (3) Appropriate training in relevant insurance matters has been given to staff at the post offices concerned. (4) No-see (1) above. (5) (a) Arrangements for the conduct of government business in post offices are of benefit to the public as well as to Australia Post and the principals concerned. Proposals for agency agreements between Australia Post and other State insurance offices would be considered in that light and having regard to the provisions of section 12 of the Postal Services Act. (b) If other authorities seek similar extension, then such applications will be considered on their merits.