Thursday, 1 December 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services 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 chiropratic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cross,Mrs Darling,Mr Dobie,Ms Fatin,Mr Free,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodgman,Mr Les Johnson,Mr Keogh,Mr Lusher,Mr Maher,Mr Newman,Mr Tuckey,Mr Punch,Mr Willis and Mr Young. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: 1. We deplore the unprincipled and self-interested attacks being orchestrated by minority sects and groups against the policies and person of the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Senator Susan Ryan. 2. We fully support the Federal Government's actions in reducing funds for the wealthiest private schools, and in breaking the nexus between government and non -government school costs. 3. We endorse the Federal Government's principled opposition to the provision of 'base grants' to all non-government schools, as a position step towards fulfilling their commitments of primary obligation to Australia's government schools. 4. We call upon the Federal Government however to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special program and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 5. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mrs Child,Mr Cross,Mr Fisher,Mr Hawker,Mr Newman,Mr Saunderson and Mr Young. 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 Cross,Mr Kent and Mr Scott. 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 Hodgman and Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of territorial government or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to territorial or local government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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: Holders of the Health Care Card and Pensioner Health Benefits Card cannot receive any level of free dental care from private dentists, as they can medical care from private doctors. The existing network of private dental practices will need to be the principal mode of dental care delivery. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Holders of the Health Care Card and Pensioner Health Benefits Card should be provided with free dental care through private dentists, immediately. Dental care be included in the formulation of Medicare. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we request that the Government take steps to ensure: (1) The construction program of Radford College, Bruce, proceeds immediately. (2) Parents' freedom of choice in education is fostered by continuing to provide a basic grant for all Australian children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That Australia's meat exports are being placed in an uncompetitive position by the imposition of substantial export meat inspection charges whilst Australia 's competitors receive free inspection plus considerable subsidies. 2. These charges are causing substantial loss of business for export abattoir operators and loss of jobs for their employees due to the disparity in inspection costs of export and non-export works arising from a 200 per cent increase in Federal Government charges at export works. 3. That immediate steps should be taken to end serious injury being done by these charges to export abattoir operators, their employees, livestock producers and all others dependent on the Australian meat and livestock industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will act to immediately suspend all export inspection charges for a period of three years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. 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 passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill will reaffirm the commitment of the Australian Government in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women through: 1. Recognition of the dignity of all people through equal rights for women and men. 2. Supporting the rights of women to choose education, employment and lifestyles beyond stereotyped concepts of the roles of the sexes in society. The legislation in no way denies the validity of any particular role, including traditional parental roles. Instead, it recognises the democratic right of all Australians to fully participate in the life of the community. 3. Providing legislative protection against discrimination to women living in States which have no existing anti-discrimination legislation. In this way, it recognises that many Australian women are disadvantaged by discriminatory practices, and particularly recognises the problem of sexual harassment. We, the undersigned, believe that passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 will provide a legislative base to honour the principles of equality incorporated in the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and will thus contribute towards making ours a more truly democratic society. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable members of the House of Representatives will support the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, object to the new ruling occasioned by Telecom's '' Countrywide Callings'' innovation whereby all rural subscribers in excess of a 32km radius of a telephone exchange no longer have this local call access to their commercial centre, which previously existed. Accordingly, we petition you request the Minister for Communication to direct it be restored immediately to those recently deprived. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Katter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: (1) That the Macedonian language be used by Government Departments in multi- lingual publications. (2) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language as a Higher School Certificate (H.S.C.) subject in Secondary schools. (3) That the petitioners urge the introduction of the Macedonian language in tertiary institutions and that a course be introduced at Monash University in the Department of Slavic languages. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to implement the above measures. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACs, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped, if we are to survive. Your petitioners pray that Members of the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. 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 Government should stop the import of fully built up cars, trucks and agricultural equipment into Australia. We believe that this along with realistic Government monetary policies will create jobs and reduce the unemployment level which is at it's highest since the Depression. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia ( electors of the division of Grey) respectfully showeth: That controls preventing Adelaide commercial television stations from extending full-strength coverage to the Iron Triangle cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are contrary to the concept of free competition which is the basis of our economic system. That such controls prevent citizens of this important and populous group of decentralised industrial cities from enjoying a freedom of choice in television programs which is in any way comparable to that applying in the metropolitan area. That television is the only form of audio-visual entertainment within the financial scope of a large proportion of the population of this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: Any restrictions limiting television coverage of this area should be removed and market forces be permitted to stimulate a broader program choice and better quality. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. 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: We as members of a school parent club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the bank debit tax by voluntary organisations working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of bank debit tax will be granted to school parents clubs in government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. Petition to the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Re the deep and urgent concern being experienced as a result of the decision not to proceed with the Alice Springs-Darwin rail link, whereby employment security in the Iron Triangle cities of Port Pirie, Port Augusta, and Whyalla is adversely affected, and in some cases seriously threatened; and further, that the rail link is regarded as vital for Australia's defence security; and also that the tourist potential of Darwin and the Northern Territory in consequence is gravely hampered. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will readdress itself to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway project as a matter of paramount priority in the light of the manifest detrimental consequences to employment prospects in the Iron Triangle, the necessity for stabilising the State's economy, the significant requirement to add to national defence capability, and the express need to develop Northern Territory tourist opportunities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Serbian National Committee in Victoria, The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia in the State of Victoria respectfully showeth- That Australian citizens of Serbian origin, residents of the State of Victoria, whose relatives live in the Serbian province of Kosovo-Metohija (Yugoslavia), are gravely concerned that their people are subjected to brutal and incessant persecution, by the primitive malevolent Albanian elements who are in clandestine collusion with the oppressive communist regime of Yugoslavia; concomitantly we are no less discomforted by the irrefutable evidence now forthcoming, that Serbian ancient holy shrines: monasteries, churches, monuments and Serbian Orthodox cemeteries, are to the same degree and extent, exposed to blasphemy and destruction. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that in accordance with the United Nations charter regarding fundamental human rights, we respectfully request the Commonwealth Parliament to initiate and effect, via the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to lodge, a strong protest and representation to Yugoslav government asking for protection against inhumane persecution which is bordering on genocide of Serbian autochthon population in this ancient Serbian province, and wilful damages, various sacrilegious acts and destruction of mediaeval Serbian holy shrines, and guarantee the basic human rights so brutally denied. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, New South Wales respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned have great concern because of the Bill that is before the Parliament of our great nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House protect the rights of all citizens of our country by rejecting the United Nations Convention for Discrimination. We believe that the implications of such a Bill will have harmful effects upon the heart of society, that is the family. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Punch. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia. We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australian uranium. We urge the Government not to permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to Australian Labor Party policy; and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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,Mrs Child,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Duffy,Mr Fisher,Mr Hawker,Mr Kent,Mr Saunderson,Mr Shipton,Mr Street and Dr Theophanous. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decisions which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of inprovements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Maher,Mr Allan Morris,Mr Mountford,Mr O'Keefe and Mr Snow. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition from certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2% in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2%, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8%, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. Community Employment Program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976 to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fisher,Mr Katter,Mr Millar,Mr Rocher,Mr Tuckey and Mr White. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition from citizens of Queensland respectfully shows: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully show: Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamourous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to Ban the Advertising of Alcohol from Commercial Television and Radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Tasmania respectfully show: A Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads B Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths C Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol D Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to Ban the Advertising of Alcohol from Commercial Television and Radio. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Mirboo North and adjoining districts in the State of Victoria respectfully showeth that following the introduction of Medicare in February of 1984, and in the light of the McClelland Report, all Victorian Private Bush Nursing Hospitals will be detrimentally affected. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government recognise and support the vital role played by Victorian Bush Nursing Hospitals in the Health Care of rural communities and in particular that the Government ensures that the impact of Medicare is not such as to cause the decline and loss of the basic general medical services that these hospitals provide. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cunningham. 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 Australian Citizenship Act contains provisions for an Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance, to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors. That the said Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled will ensure that the present Oath of Allegiance and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained, and will strongly oppose any attempts to remove all references to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance and any attempts to remove all references to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Toowoomba, Queensland, respectfully show that- 1. Hearing impaired children from isolated centres who cannot receive an appropriate education live in Toowoomba with Host Families under the Queensland Department of Education Private Accommodation Scheme and attend school at the Special Education Unit, Wilsonton, for significantly hearing impaired children. 2.1 As Host Parents we were advised by Miss Eunice Feil, a Child Care Officer on 25th May, 1983 that ''Mr Nick Flitner (Department of Social Security) on 24.5 .83 confirmed that it is quite in order for the Department of Social Security to pay host parents and natural parents the Handicapped Child's Allowance and that they are already doing this in the case of retarded children who alternate between institutional care and the care of their own parents''. 2.2 Subsequently, Host Families applied and their application was refused and we were informed that under Section 95 (i) the Social Security Act requires that a person have custody, care and control of a child to qualify for Family Allowance and that as we do not have custody of the child therefore we are not entitled to receive the Handicapped Child's Allowance. 2.3 Children placed in our care are done so only after an agreement has been signed between the Parents, Host Parents and the Minister for Education. That agreement states ''WHEREAS in the interests of the child's education and social welfare it is desirable that the Minister provide private accommodation for and care of the child''. A copy of this contract is attached for your information. 2.4 The allowances as set out are intended as payment for board and related expenses. The Host Families still have a duty of care which is as significant as the natural parents who receive the Handicapped Child's Allowance. 2.5 Regrettably some natural families do not accept their responsibilities. Some Host Families provide clothing and generally are forced to assume financial responsibility as they are not prepared to see their Host child disadvantaged. 2.6 In one case we are told, a child who stays with her paternal grandmother has been granted Handicapped Child's Allowance even though her placement is under and subject to the Private Accommodation agreement which we all must sign. 3. The Private Accommodation Scheme allows for significantly sensorially handicapped children to be educated closer to their home and not have to attend a boarding school and miss out on the many important benefits a home environment provides. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Department of Social Security reconsider this decision and make the payment of Handicapped Child's Allowance to Host Families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth that your petitioners are outraged and disturbed by the inhumane slaughter of baby harp seals off the coast of Newfoundland and in particular, the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Magdelen Islands. 1. That, as a people of a democratic society, we urge the Australian Government to halt all imports of seal products. 2. That we can be assured that the murdering of harp seals be discontinued in all forms at the real and perilous threat of the extinction of yet another arctic animal species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government take heed of their petitioners' protest, and give seals the right to life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the Citizens of the City of Woodville and supported by the citizens of South Australia, being deeply concerned over the threat of closure of the Woodville plant of General Motors-Holdens, respectfully show- 1. That the management of General Motors-Holden's has failed over a period of more than two (2) years to give any assurances that the Woodville plant would continue in operation. 2. That a recent statement attributed to the GMH Managing Director, states: 'The overall objective of our South Australian rationalisation plan has been to eliminate all productive activities on the Woodville site'. This statement has not been refuted. 3. That the elimination of the Woodville plant will cause enormous social dislocation, hardship and misery to the citizens of Woodville and South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament of Australia will condemn this callous disregard for the citizens of Woodville and South Australia, and do all in its power to force General Motors-Holden's to retain its operations at the Woodville plant. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Baldry pray that the Public Telephone at Baldry be retained for emergency use following the conversion to S.T.D. after the 25th January 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) calls on the Prime Minister to hold immediate discussions with the Premier of New South Wales so that the assets test can be changed immediately; (2) calls on the Premier of New South Wales to lead the campaign against an assets test as he has promised; and (3) castigates the Government for creating many inequalities where- (a) pensioners live in nursing homes; (b) pensioners live on more than the normal housing block; and (c) pensioners with savings have had the initiative to supplement their income by part-time work or superannuation. Mr Speaker, I believe this matter ought to be debated immediately. We will go on debating this matter to prove how badly the Australian Labor Party has treated the pensioners of Australia. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the successful conclusion of the latest competitively bid $1.2 billion Commonwealth Bond tender; (2) notes that the conclusion of this tender resulted in further falls in interest rates for bonds across the market, and that these trends are in line with trading on the secondary market; (3) recognises that this result reflects confidence in the Government's overall economic strategy; and (4) calls upon financial institutions to consider reductions in housing mortgage interest rates where they have not already done so. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes the vital importance of the Wynyard Airport to the people of the north-west and west coast regions of Tasmania; and (2) expresses its grave concern that the Government's failure to honour its promise to upgrade the Wynyard Airport will inevitably lead to its downgrading and closure. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Federal Government chose the day after the Federal Parliament rose for a 10-day adjournment, and after the Prime Minister left the country, to impose a total ban on the historic Queen's Medal which has been awarded annually to the best rifle shot in the Australian Army since 1924; (2) notes that the Government's heavy hand was applied only a matters of hours prior to the annual competition being held; (3) deplores this pandering to the whims of the socialist left and the use of such an historic trophy to speed up the Government's new apparent intention to sever all connections with the Monarchy and Great Britain; and (4) calls on the Government to reinstate the Queen's Medal as the top honour for the Army's champion shot and abandon its now known plan to place a similar ban shortly on Australians being issued with the Victoria Cross for valiant service in a theatre of war, because it carries the name of a former monarch. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the difficulties caused to members of the Australian travelling public by failures and uncertainties with respect to the operation of travel agents; and (2) calls upon the Federal Government to give early consideration to the appropriate licensing of travel agents in order to ensure stability and predictability in performance. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern that the price of super petrol in Canberra is averaging at 47c a litre when in fact the average price of super petrol in Hobart is 52c a litre; and (2) calls on the Government, as a first priority, to request the proposed Prices Surveillance Authority to inquire into the variation in the price of petrol throughout Australia. Mr Ian Cameron having given notice of a motion, it was later ruled out of order . Mr GORMAN(Chifley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House commends the students, staff, parents and the friends of the Whalan High School for the high quality of academic and sporting results attained for the year 1983 and thanks them all for their efforts. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House again condemns the Government for its shameful cowardice in refusing to call on for debate in this House, before the Northern Territory election, General Business notice of motion No. 261 to refer to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee serious allegations of threats, harassment, improper pressuring, intimidation, actual blackmail and bludgeoning against, and of, Australian Labor Party members of parliament prior to the ALP Caucus vote on uranium mining. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its shameful action in negotiating with Moscow, and behind the back of the Tasmanian State Government, the exploitation of Tasmania's fisheries resources; and (2) calls upon the Deputy Prime Minister to publicly reveal what other resources of the States and the Northern Territory were discussed with Soviet foreign trade Deputy Minister Nikolai Smeljakov at the Australia-USSR mixed Commission on Trade and Economic Co-operation meetings in Moscow in September and October 1983. Mr Hand-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The people trying to negotiate the agreement with Australia were from a commercial bureau. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Goodluck-I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to refer to notice No. 2 on the Notice Paper. Mr SPEAKER —I take it that the honourable member for Franklin is raising a point of order on the similarity of notices of motion. Both notices of motion are allowed. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House notes that although certain limited changes have been made to rectify the matter, the Government take immediate action to eliminate the gross disadvantages imposed on rural subscribers in the system of country wide calling . [COGNATE BILLS: AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1983MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 9 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill 1983, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1983 and the Management and Investment Companies Bill 1983 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.18) —The three Bills before the House, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill and the Management and Investment Companies Bill have a variety of purposes but they share in common the aim to promote high, advanced or new technology industrial development in Australia, particularly new so-called sunrise industries, that is, new science and skill based industries. The most important of the three measures is the Management and Investment Companies Bill. Later I will have more to say about the first two measures but I will start with the Management and Investment Companies Bill. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) in the opening sentence of his second reading speech said: This Bill proposes to promote the establishment and development of a private sector venture capital market in Australia. He continued: The Bill provides for the establishment of management and investment companies (MICs). The Government will encourage investors to participate in these management and investment companies by providing a 100 per cent tax deduction in the year in which the capital is subscribed. I repeat for the benefit of the House the opening statement of the Minister. He said: This Bill proposes to promote the establishment and development of a private sector venture capital market in Australia. This will be by means of the 100 per cent tax deduction. Since the dearth, the virtual absence, of venture capital has been arguably the major proximate obstacle to the development of new high technology business in Australia, the importance of this measure is clear. The first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, which was prepared under the aegis of the Minister, states: The purpose of the Management and Investment Companies Bill is to encourage the formation and development of Australian businesses which utilize innovative technology, have the potential for rapid growth, are skill intensive, export oriented, internationally competitive and are significant generators of employment in Australia. Those objectives and this Bill have the support of the Opposition. If it were still the practice, as it used to be, to have a clause explicitly setting out the objective of the Bill, that opening paragraph of the explanatory memorandum which I have just read would undoubtedly be the objective of the Bill. In the event, that purpose is embodied in clause 29 (6) (f) of the Bill which, via the provisions of clause 29 (7), becomes a sort of override clause in the definition of the nature of an eligible high technology business in this context. I will return later to the general framework of the Bill. Eligible businesses are defined in clause 29 (6). Paragraphs (a) to (e) refer to a variety of characteristics which were proposed by the Espie report. But even if some of those characteristics do not apply, a business is eligible provided, according to clause 29 (6) (f), it is a business that: (i) utilizes innovative technology; (ii) is export oriented; (iii) is internationally competitive; (iv) has the potential for rapid growth; and (v) has the potential for creating significant skilled employment in Australia. In that sense the opening statement of the explanatory memorandum is given effect in the Bill. I am pleased to see that the Bill is framed in that way. To inject a personal note, I have been associated with a new high technology enterprise in my electorate which could not yet satisfy paragraph (d) as to a 20 per cent growth in sales because the product has yet to come on to the market. But when it does come on to the market I am confident the rate will be not 20 per cent but 100 per cent per annum or even higher. So, as paragraph (f) provides, the enterprise has 'the potential' for rapid growth-and certainly the enterprise utilises innovative technology, is export oriented, is potentially internationally competitive and has the potential to create significant employment. Unfortunately, this measure is too late for that enterprise. The entrepreneur inventor, in order to arrange venture capital, got in debt up to his neck, even I suspect succeeded, where many would fail, in mortgaging his mother-in-law's house as well as his own. With no certainty about where the next meal was coming from, it was necessary to conclude a deal with an overseas based company. So unfortunately much of the action accordingly has been lost to Australia. I think that case underlines the importance of a measure of this nature. I think it is important to say something about the background of this measure. It had its origins in a reference by the former Minister for Science and Technology, the Hon. David Thomson, in March 1981 to Sir Ian McLennan, the then President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences. Sir Ian was asked to institute steps to inquire into ways of assisting, particularly financing, high technology industrial development. The High Technology Financing Committee of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences was appointed, headed by Sir Frank Espie of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd. That Committee presented its final report, which I have in my hand, to the House in April 1983. This measure implements in very close detail the recommendations of that report. It is building on an initiative by the Hon. David Thomson who was a member of the previous Government. I pay tribute to him in that matter. I also congratulate the Government for following through and implementing the measure. In broad outline the purpose of the measure is to provide this tax deduction as a means of encouraging the supply of venture capital. It does endeavour to set up a mechanism with a view to limiting the total amount of money which attracts the deduction and hence the cost to the Government, and also to minimise exploiting the proposal for tax avoidance purposes. The mechanism involves a procedure to establish a board, primarily of businessmen, to licence management and investment companies, hence the title of the Bill-the Management and Investment Companies Bill. Investment in these companies will attract the tax deduction. These companies, in turn, will seek out and invest in eligible, small , often high technology and potentially high growth companies-as a guideline a growth rate of greater than 20 per cent is envisaged. That, in outline, is the shape of the scheme. I stress in passing that the emphasis on management as well as investment is envisaged because not only would the MICs provide finance but also they must possess adequate management, technological and marketing skill to provide that sort of assistance to small fledgling companies. The criteria in respect of the licensing of the investment companies and the eligibility of small businesses are very broad. In this way the scheme gives effect to the tax deduction while minimising Government involvement and leaving to the private sector and the market place where it belongs, the picking of winners and losers in this area, the selecting of investments and the risk taking. That in broad outline is the scheme. There is a provision in the form in which it comes before the House for the licensing board, established under the legislation, to certify eligible businesses prior to the MIC committing the investment. The Espie Committee provided for this to be done on request in terms of the board expressing 'a non-binding opinion.' This would hardly have been a satisfactory procedure if it had left the way open for the Commissioner of Taxation subsequently to judge that investments had been made in businesses which were not the target of the legislation, and from that for the tax deduction for the MIC to be disallowed. Consequently the Bill provides for the Board to certify, in effect in a binding way within the terms of the Bill, the eligible companies according to the very broad criteria laid down in clause 29, particularly in clause 29 (6) (f). I stress that this certificate is not-repeat not-an expression of opinion by the Board that the investment is a good one, a commercially viable one. That is a key point. Commercial judgment about the investments to be made, the selection of investments and the risk-taking, rests with the management and investment company. It rests in effect with the private sector, where it belongs. There are a couple of other aspects of this Bill upon which I will touch briefly. The total amount that the Government envisages to be provided for licensed MICs is of the order of $40m. There is a provision that each should have a minimum of $5m. I think this implies that a rather limited number of such licences will be issued. A question arises as to how effectively an MIC could operate with capital of the order of $5m. It certainly would be necessary, if an adequate spread of risk is to be achieved, that something of the order of 10 or 15 investments would need to be made in eligible businesses. Out of 10 businesses, we are likely to get at most one or two that will be any sort of roaring success, and many of the others will be complete failures. I mention that point. I provide the answer to the Minister in case it does not occur readily to him: I suspect that it is a reasonable view that the Government, in this measure, is attempting to seed the development of this private venture capital market; then, of course, it is up to the MICs themselves to acquire other resources and to create the potential for an enlarged portfolio. Mr Barry Jones —There is a symbolic element in it too. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Perhaps the Minister might comment further on that later. I think the only other point I would perhaps make is that the legislation came into the House only yesterday. It is not easy, therefore, to have fully absorbed the legal and accounting fine print, though of course, there will be an opportunity to comment in that respect in the other place. The one other aspect to which I wish to draw attention is this. I believe that, if there is not, there should be provision for capital payments to existing shareholders in eligible businesses. Supposing $1m goes into an eligible business where the founding entrepreneur finds himself mortgaged to the hilt, as is typically the case in these areas. Is it acceptable that, in respect of financing by an MIC, with the $1m injection, $100,000 or $200,000 be made as a capital payment to the founding entrepreneur to relieve him of his debt and the balance to go into the future development of the business? I only raise that matter as a query. The final point I make is that this Bill requires complementary tax legislation . We have not seen the colour of that legislation as yet. I think it is pretty important that that legislation come along expeditiously from the point of view of those anxious to proceed to the establishment of management and investment companies. I can see problems in one particular area. Since gains from investment in this very risky area accrue in a significant way from the appreciation in the capital value of shares of a successful eligible business, in the event of the disposal of the shares how are such gains to be treated for tax purposes? I suggest only that the Minister reflect on that. As I have said, the Opposition supports this measure. The second measure before the House is the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill, which also is designed to have an impact in this area . In fact, the Minister said in his second reading speech that it is: . . . the Government's intention to use the Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme as its primary instrument in directing investment to the development of 'sunrise' industries. I would have some reservations about the wisdom of that. Before going on to that , let me say that the principal provision in this amending Bill is to extend the ambit of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act to include research and development undertaken in relation to the production of computer software as an end product. Hitherto only computer software in the course of the development of a project or a process in manufacturing, mining or certain areas of construction have been eligible. The situation is, of course, that software- that is, the tape or package which embodies the program which instructs the computer, so to speak, as to what operation to perform-has burgeoned as an industry in itself. This represents a significant and necessary extension of the Act. What concerns me about the Minister's statement that this should be the primary instrument for the development of so-called sunrise industries is the point that I have stressed in this House before and stress yet again; that is, that high, new or advanced technology is important not only in respect of the emergence of new industries producing high technology products as such but also in the upgrading, the revitalising, the renewing of existing industries. After all, for many years yet existing industries will be providing the bulk of employment in industry. That is an important area in terms of the potential impact of emerging high technology. It is common ground that the level of private sector expenditure on industrial research and development in Australia is too low. At about 0.24 per cent of gross domestic product it would be the lowest among advanced countries in the world. It is an agreed objective that a substantial rise in private industry research and development activity should be encouraged in Australia. The Australian industrial research and development incentives scheme-the AIRDIS, as it is called-which this Bill is amending, is indeed an instrument to that end. There are some very real constraints on industrial research and development in Australia. It is not a matter of chance that it is so low. One can cite the small scale of Australian industry, the generally very high cost of developing modern new products and processes, not to mention the cyclical factor of the low profitability of businesses in recent years. Those are quite fundamental factors contributing to the relatively speaking, very low level of industrial research and development in Australia. That having been said, I come back to the assertion that it is a sound view that a substantial rise in this level should be encouraged and that a higher level of industrial research and development would nourish production and sales and, in turn, would be driven by market success, in both the areas to which I have referred. One is in the area of so-called sunrise industries-in the context , in effect, of matching the Australian national effort in science and research, which by and large stands high in international terms, with a corresponding effort to produce indigenous new technology. We often speak of science and technology or research and development as hyphenated; as if they were one thing. In fact, it is important to distinguish between science and research on the one hand and technology development on the other. In the area of science and research, Australia ranks high by any quantitative or qualitative measure. But we lag behind in the area of technology development carried through into production and sales in the market place. It is important that we match the Australian effort in science and research and innovative ideas with a corresponding effort to produce indigenous new technology and thence, new Australian industries. But it is also important-the other area-to adopt in existing industry, state-of -the-art or more nearly state-of-the-art technology. Even if we succeed in matching the national scientific and research effort with a corresponding technology development effort, we will still, and we always will, be dependent on technology developed overseas as the principal source of new technology in Australia. After all, if we match our science effort of the order of 2 per cent of world science, the other 90-odd per cent will be done somewhere else. That is not just 'colonial dependence on overseas' or any other such pejorative term that some may choose to use. It is simply stating the fact that even if we do pull our weight in terms of our skill and resources a lot of new technology will still have to be derived from overseas. I believe that what is important in this area is that a lively research and development effort in an existing firm is highly correlated with the adoption of state-of-the-art, or more nearly so, technology in those companies to the benefit of the companies' international competitiveness and thence long term sustainable employment in Australia. It is in that context that I go back to the Minister's statement in his second reading speech that the industrial research and development incentives scheme is to be the Government's primary investment instrument for the development of sunrise industries. If that statement were to mean some curtailment of support for industrial research and development in existing industries-the second area to which I have referred-that would lend added weight to the view which is advanced by the Australian Science and Technology Council and many other prestigious bodies that the industrial research and development incentives scheme needs, by way of a complement, another measure in the form of a tax-based incentive. The ASTEC proposal is that there should be a write-off premium for industrial research and development of the order of 50 per cent which would involve the same order of subsidy for industrial research and development as AIRDIS itself. Such a tax-based incentive would be more market oriented. It would avoid the inevitable delays and difficulties that arise with a centralised grants scheme such as the AIRDIS. It would facilitate business planning and decision-making and also encourage a greater private sector involvement with universities and other public sector research and development activities. The third Bill in this area is the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill on which my colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) will speak in more detail. That Bill contains a number of modifications which were largely the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. But in particular, there is also the suggestion that the Australian Industry Development Corporation should become involved in this venture capital area. I do not know that the AIDC has had a very impressive financial record though it has been much improved in recent times. Its established role is in the raising and lending of sizable amounts in the medium and long term area. The venture capital area which is the early provision of equity capital at a very high risk in the early or start-up phases of a business is a very specialised function calling for an entrepreneurial approach and close knowledge of the technology market, for speed and personal involvement on the part of venture capitalists and also for that judgment which is developed in the private sphere from the necessity to select and nuture winners on which the investing company's very survival depends, as will hapen in the case of the MICs . In that particular aspect of the proposals I suggest the AIDC does not fit that mould too well. I would like to conclude essentially on this note: Before that, in respect of the Management and Investment Companies Bill, I wonder why, in the list of industries for eligible businesses, something like mining equipment and processes is not included because I think that is an area closely related to one of our major industries where there could be a good deal of innovative activity. Mr Barry Jones-How would you go with $5m? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —I am not referring to the development of mines. I am not talking about that. Mr Barry Jones —How would you go with $5m? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —That is one company only; we are talking about $40m all told. I mention the point only in passing. I conclude on this note: We have been discussing the management and investment companies, AIRDIS and the possible measure proposed by ASTEC for a write-off premium. None of these measures will succeed unless the overall climate of the economy is appropriate and unless we get the macroeconomic settings of the economy right and address other structural difficulties and rigidities in the Australian economy. I think that is the most important consideration. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(10.48) —The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill and the Management and Investment Companies Bill that we are discussing here today constitute, as a package, the most significant industry measures that have been put before this Parliament for a decade. Certainly they are more significant than anything that has ever been done by the former Government in this industry area. I will come back to that later. I will begin by referring to the condition in which the Government found Australian manufacturing industry when it came to office on 5 March. It was in a state of absolute crisis, a situation that was deplorable. The Government had been responsible for an industry policy that had resulted in the loss of 100,000 jobs in one year alone in manufacturing industry. This crisis situation had to be faced immediately and the way to go forward was to reverse the incoherent approach which had been taken by the former Government. We had a situation, on the one hand, with the dries in the former Government talking about laissez- faire, leaving it all up to the market place, no government intervention and allowing a situation in which more and more of our industries were going to the wall. We had that tension. On the other side there was some government involvement but not a coherent planning process and certainly not a positive or constructive process. When we came into government the Ministers involved and the Government's Industry Committee began the lengthy process of putting into place a coherent and planned policy. Many people ought to be thanked for the policy that is culminating here today, in particular the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, and also the whole of the Industry Committee, the Secretary to the committee, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall), and the convenor of the sub-committee on the financing of industry, the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh). I thank them for their work in this very important area. Our approach is a positive approach of enlightened government intervention in order to achieve the rational development of Australian industry. Let me outline why each of the three measures before us are of such enormous importance. The Australian Industry Development Corporation has been an outstanding success in its investments and in the way in which it has proceeded with its decisions in the industry area, and it has proved that public enterprise and public investment can not only work but work well. The profitability of the Corporation leaves for dead many private enterprise companies, which just goes to show that with rational public investment in industry we can stimulate industry and at the same time make profits which, I can assure the House, are very useful to the whole Budget process. Nevertheless, under the Fraser Government the Australian Industry Development Corporation was severely constrained and was not allowed to exercise its potential as it ought to have done. The reports of various chairpersons of the Corporation called for an extension of its powers and its capital base. But no; the previous Government, although it could see, week after week, industries going to the wall and thousands of people becoming unemployed, was not interested in expanding the role of the Corporation. the only reason for that was its ideological blinkered approach in refusing to allow a role for the public sector in industry policy. The Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill will be of enormous importance in turning industry around in this country. The capital base of the AIDC will be expanded by $50m, bringing it up to $150m. Equally significantly, the gearing ratio of the Corporation will be expanded to 15, which means that it will be able to borrow up to 15 times its capital and assets . So it will have a very significant capital base which it can use to invest in enterprises. Its procedure will be to invest on a joint venture basis with equity and loans. This Bill is directed towards the area of greatest need, namely, the manufacturing sector. Previously the Corporation tended to involve itself in other sectors such as mining. It will now be oriented towards the manufacturing sector and, I am pleased to say, because of the intervention of the Minister for Science and Technology, the sunrise industries. Companies will be able to approach the AIDC, and I urge them to do so, for assistance in getting a capital base and in building venture companies as the basis of industry development. Why is this measure of crucial importance at present? It is of crucial importance because the policies of the previous Government have resulted in a reduction in the capacity and willingness of the private sector to invest in manufacturing industry. Even the Budget predictions for this year indicate a reduction of 14 per cent in private sector investment. If we are to be rational, if we want to develop our industry, we must look for a role for the public sector when private sector investment has been reduced in this way. As I have said, we want to encourage joint companies which provide for some private investment together with the AIDC. The projects that have been undertaken in this way in Australia have been an enormous success and I am very hopeful that these measures, together with other measures which we will put into place-we will have a positive industry policy, not the negative nonsense of the previous Government-will help to turn around industry development in Australia. I now turn to the other major Bill, the Management and Investment Companies Bill. Again, this Bill is an innovation that the previous Government could not even have dreamt of. It did not even think about these matters. For years and years it was asked: 'Why don't you get into high technology?'. The present Minister for Science and Technology lectured all around the country for many years saying 'We are missing the boat'. He was not the only one. People who know something about high technology and high technology involvement know that the previous Government, which in its seven years allowed Australia to get so far behind in the development of high technology, committed an unforgivable sin for this country. when we came into government we had to try to turn this situation around. We had the skills and the trained people and we could have developed a large number of industries in this country. Instead, what was happening in research and development? Various bodies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other research bodies were developing inventions in Australia which were being pinched. Inventions were being taken and produced overseas because the previous Government refused to put in capital investment to assist Australian companies to develop them. Inventors were saying to the Government: 'Please, give us a bit of assistance'. They were told: 'Find some private enterprise that will do it for you, because we will not do it for you'. That was the strategy of the previous Government. Australian invention, Australian creativity, was destroyed as a consequence of its approach. We have taken a completely different approach. We have been resolved from the very beginning to become involved in venture capital proposals to assist these enterprises. The Management and Investment Companies Bill is designed to assist the provision of a productive base for Australian inventions and creativity so that skilled people, and there are many of them, who are developing these products can have a fair go. They can go to one of these management and investment companies and ask for assistance in producing their goods in Australia. Unless we go forward with measures of this kind this country's future is bleak indeed. As the Minister has said on many occasions, we have to get into the new high technology industries, and we are already far behind. These measures are welcome because they provide a substantive process whereby we can get into these industries. There is no question that, as the Opposition shadow Minister mentioned earlier, not all inventions take place in Australia. Of course they do not all take place in Australia. Not all research and development takes place in Australia; of course not. But where we have the upper edge we should be prepared to put our forces, including our capital, behind our processes and develop them in this country. We have not been doing that. Other nations borrow research and development from one another and then develop high technology industries. We ought to be looking at that. We ought to buy patterns from areas where research and development has been done and bring them here so that we can manufacture high technology products. This has not been happening, which is an absolute disgrace. We are determined to ensure that the turnaround takes place. The manufacturing and investment companies will not be based on public capital. The public capital area will be the Australian Industry Development Corporation. However, the management and investment companies will receive a 100 per cent tax write off. That is a very substantial concession to industries. To those persons who are reluctant to get into the high technology areas and into new industries, we are saying: 'Take advantage of these very generous concessions and get involved because, unless you do so, we will not be able to effect the kind of turnaround in technology development that we need in this country'. That is the reason the Government has provided the very generous tax concessions for these management and investment companies. I also commend the Government on the way in which these companies will be structured. They will be required to involve themselves in a variety of products rather than one narrow area. That is very important. It means that if a significant number of these management and investment companies are formed they will be involved in a variety of product areas and, in so doing, we will be able to get a large number of high technology products into the market place. I will conclude my comments by making a couple of further observations about manufacturing industry in Australia, but before I do that I want to say something about the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill. It is a very important further development and will provide a further stimulation to research and development in Australia. In research and development we have not had the kind of stimulation which ought to have been the case, given the capacities and skills we have. Many universities, institutes and companies have approached our industry committee to ask for more research and development funds. Why was this not taking place? Why was there not a massive effort in this area in the seven years in which the previous Government was in power? I admit that within the last year or two there was some attempt to do something, but for most of the period a pittance was given to industrial research and development. Australia's record of expenditure on industrial research and development is pathetic compared with that of other nations, especially our major competitors and the advanced countries. As soon as possible we have to get more involved in this area. Even these measures are only a beginning. We need further measures in industrial research and development and other areas of industry if we are to ensure that, firstly, our manufacturing base is protected, secondly, that we get into high technology industries in a big way and, thirdly, that we employ a substantial number of people in this growing area of research and development. In conclusion, the unemployment situation facing this country obviously requires an overall solution. No single area, not even industry, will be a solution to the problem. Nevertheless, industry is one of the fundamental economic bases of our employment program. Unless we strengthen our industrial and manufacturing base we will not have the kind of flow-on effect required for a healthy economy overall. The previous Government fell for the mythology that Australia could sustain itself basically on primary industry and mining and the flow-on effect to the rest of us from those basic industries. It allowed a continuous rundown of our manufacturing enterprises. These measures are historic in that they turn the situation around. They signify to the Australian people our determination to change completely from the previous philosophy and to support, defend and extend our manufacturing base, especially in the new industries, so that we can look forward to the future with confidence, instead of the disastrous approach taken by the previous Government. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.06) —The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) is always an enthusiastic advocate of matters he puts forward here. But he being a dedicated socialist and a leading member of the left wing, I found his treatise on industry policy quite amusing. Not the least part of an industry policy is an understanding of the concept of investment, of which a left wing socialist would have no understanding because it is based simply on risk taking. A socialist would not embrace an understanding of risk taking because risk requires acknowledgment of reward and reward requires a determination to invest. With that investment goes management, and with that goes productivity. We do not hear about productivity from the left wing. That is a no-no, because productivity requires constraint on wages and an ability to get the manufacturing to which the honourable member for Burke was referring out and going. I quite agree that research and development is an area which Australia has not been right behind. Some companies have done a very commendable job in some areas , but generally we have not done as much as we ought. It is a requirement of taxation policy that we reward those corporations involved in research and development by allowing them to write off such investments by taking current expenditure out of profits. On top of that, there is a tremendous need to recognise the role of depreciation. For far too long we have not granted to corporations in this nation the level of depreciation necessary for capital investment to replace machinery and to maintain a degree of research and development and a level of contemporary technology. It all requires capital. Because of that the taxation policy becomes all important. When the honourable member for Burke attempts to rewrite history the way he was rewriting it previously, those factors must be recognised. They comprise the real world of investment, not the theoretical one of the left wing socialists. I will restrict my comments this morning to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Dr Theophanous —Your theories worked very well for seven years, didn't they! Mr MOORE —They would work a lot better if the left wing forces in the Australian Labor Party would recognise the role of capital in industry. Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) acknowledges that even if the honourable member for Burke does not. Dr Theophanous —I recognise it better than you do. Mr MOORE —The honourable member does not practise it as well as I do. The amendments to the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act will bring about an increase in capitalisation, require the Corporation to pay 50 per cent of its operating profit by way of dividend to the Government and increase its gearing. On top of that, certain restrictions to areas of investment have been removed and certain priorities have been written into the Act which will require the Corporation to direct its investment policy towards those priorities . I do not find these matters to be of any great earth shaking consequence but I will point out the general history of the AIDC. The honourable member for Burke- he is now about to depart-commented that the return on investment of the AIDC has been as good as any private sector company. That does not tally with the facts. Until 1975 the AIDC investment programs were a disaster. The amount of write-offs was huge. I think $25m was written off in one period in exchange losses. I think an amount approaching $10m was written off in business losses in the same period. It is understandable that a socialist would not acknowledge losses in a public corporation. The honourable member for Burke might think that is good but in reality the AIDC's comparison with private sector operators is abysmal. Even its current report indicates that its return on paid-up capital and all the retained earnings-until now it has never paid a dividend to the Government-represents 11 per cent. That would hardly shake the world and only equals the inflation rate. In effect, it has not been a great success. Mr Chynoweth —It is better than the results some people get through losses on the stock exchange. Mr MOORE —The honourable member would not know much about the stock exchange. Mr Chynoweth —I have a few shares, do not worry. Mr MOORE —I thought the honourable member was a left winger. Mr Chynoweth —No. Mr MOORE —The honourable member is not. Dear me, he has a few shares! The interesting reason for the establishment of the AIDC was to encourage Australians to invest in Australia. There was a feeling in the 1970s that inadequate opportunities were there. Because of that the Corporation was set up and because of the shortage of capital in the Australian market it was encouraged to borrow abroad. Large amounts of money were brought in in that way and lent into the industry circuit. However, it was fairly well known in the financial world that if a person was turned down by all the normal banks he could go to Canberra to see the AIDC. Because of that, the Corporation's opportunities in the first five or six years were second pickings rather than the prime objectives with which it set out. I am bound to say that in the last three years in particular-some credit must be given here to the role of the Chief Executive, Mr Bob Thomas-the Corporation' s results have improved enormously. It has handled its foreign borrowings much better. It has hedged its exchange risks and it has covered large areas of commodity and metal prices in a very commendable and professional manner. Its results have certainly shown a remarkable turn-around. Its concentration on the development of new industry, particularly the way in which it has supported Wormald International Limited's joint venture and some other joint venture operations, is commendable. That is the Corporation's purpose. It has authorised capital of $150m, of which $62.5m is currently paid and another $12.5m is on the way, and it is dealing in substantial sums of money. I put forward the point of view that the role of the AIDC is bordering on that of a bank in a country which is over-banked. There are more banking institutions in this nation than can possibly be found a role. The advent of commercial merchant banks, particularly in the last 10 years, has added enormously. They have survived in the Australian scene for two reasons. One is prestige. They have a great desire to get commercial bank licences and therefore presence and track records seem desirable. Secondly, they have used their capital funds in the money market. Their profits from dealings in the money market have maintained their corporate position and their corporate advice area has been very much hit and miss. The AIDC has to be rolled in no small measure into that general area. As a matter of philosophy, I would say that the AIDC is competing in a vastly over-catered for capital area. The Opposition has some doubts as to its future role in that area. However, its role in supporting the development of industry, its joint venture capacity, its new start-up industry capacity, is commendable. There is a distinction between those two roles which I think is very important. I notice the question asked of the Chairman, Sir Gordon Jackson, at a Press conference. He said that nevertheless all the Corporation's decisions would be made on a commercial basis. That in itself is heartening. In view of the vibes thrown around by the honourable member for Burke there is the temptation to think that the public sector will rush in and reconstruct the manufacturing sector and I can see some sort of new great government bureaucracy roaring in to reorganise industry with AIDC capital funds. Fortunately, the Act requires the government of the day, if it deems to be acting in the national interest, to pass through both Houses of Parliament a Bill to support both the action and the money requirement for it. The position is clear. The AIDC therefore cannot be used as some form of back door nationalisation route which I am sure some of the lefties would love. Its role and what we should be doing in that area are quite clear in my mind. Briefly, I will look at the balance sheet of the AIDC which I have with me. I must commend the Corporation for it. It is clearly presented. It shows, over the last few years in particular, some very substantial growth in its operations and its profitability. In the period ended 30 June 1979 its net profit before foreign exchange charges and tax was $10.4m. The net profit after those charges went down to $2.5m. By the end of June 1983 that amount had gone up to $15.2m. However, I point out that that is against a total investment of $115m. So its overall result is still only of the order of 11 per cent. Nevertheless, that is a vast increase on what it was in previous years. On top of that, as we go through the report we see the many areas in which the Corporation has become involved. It has gone into the infrastructure of coal imports. It is involved with the timber industry, the aluminium industry, the motor vehicle industry and the diamond industry. In other words, its interests are widely scattered. Its most important and potentially profitable area appears to me to be the Australian Biomedical Corporation Ltd in which it is involved in a joint venture with Wormald. I understand from market contacts that it has a sizeable potential . The areas in which it has directly invested are certainly leading in the right direction. I refer now to the breakdown of the percentage of funds invested in various areas. Eleven per cent went to food and beverages, 10 per cent to building materials, 12 per cent to chemicals, plastics and petroleum and 14 per cent to other manufacturing. The areas to which the honourable member for Burke referred , I think, were heavy industry, light engineering and electrical. In those areas the Corporation invested one per cent, 0.7 per cent and 6.2 per cent respectively. It invested 4.6 per cent in transportation distribution and 10 per cent in industry infrastructure. The pattern of investment tends to have been fairly heavily into some of the industries which are success stories in Australia. Investment in the food and beverages area has assured prospects. The building materials industry is certainly cyclical but at the moment would be the right area in which to invest. The chemicals and plastics area, which requires huge amounts of money, received 12 per cent of investment funds. That shows that the commercial sense of the Corporation is certainly well oriented at present. I do not find fault with that at all. The AIDC's illustration of its activities shows that it provides finance in loan form, foreign currency, leasing and equity participation. All of those activities are commendable. But they are all completely in line with what happens in regard to any merchant banking operation and any major commercial operation. So we raise the question: What is the purpose of going into the areas for which the Australian market is heavily over-catered? A future Liberal government would certainly review the role of the AIDC, not in the area in which it can make a major contribution, but in the area in which it is just one of the mob. I draw that distinction. I will leave it to other speakers to mention aspects of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill and the Management and Investment Companies Bill. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(11.21) —I rise to speak on the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill. This Bill will amend the Industrial Research and Development Act 1976. The industrial research and development incentives scheme was introduced in 1976 in order to stimulate industrial research and development and so increase the competitiveness of Australian industry in the world scene. One of the major elements of the new legislation is to enlarge the capacity of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board-known as AIRDIB-in order to provide moneys for the development of computer software, providing that there is some evidence of originality, an industrial research and development component and a marketing plan; that is, something that is sold as a new product, not just a further in-house development . It will be appreciated by honourable members that possibilities of computer software application and development are infinite. The enlarging of the capacity of AIRDIB in this area further reinforces the computer software industry as a sunrise industry. Australia has already produced many novel programs which have been sold throughout the world. The Australian Computer Equipment Suppliers Association has strongly endorsed the Federal Government's moves in this area. Another element of the legislation is the declaration of approved research organisations other than manufacturers. In this regard organisations that design machinery or systems for a wide variety of industries but do not actually manufacture their design also need to be given incentives to carry on their important think-tank operation. Approved employees with practical or academic experience will be able to attract grants to their companies for the first time. At present the Act as it exists makes grants to those who are members of the mutually exclusive club who hold academic qualifications. They are the only people who are eligible to apply for grants. Therefore, at present the Act disadvantages employees who have had only practical experience but who lack formal education. This part of the amendment Bill, to me, is crucial. It works at righting a wrong that has existed for far too many years. After all, would we be complacent enough to sit here and state that only those holding formal qualifications are able to think and design innovatively? Does holding a degree in engineering guarantee that a person will suddenly be able to contribute in a creative and meaningful way to breakthroughs in engineering? I admit it certainly gives that person a good start. But it would not transform that person overnight into an imaginative design engineer. Let us cast our minds back. Where would aviation be without the Wright brothers ? Their persistent and devoted trial and error approach to the pioneering of aviation has culminated in air travel for all. Did those men have a proven track record in the world of academia? I think not. Rather, it was their vision and persistence that enabled their breakthrough in aviation design and the subsequent influence on all our lives. Within Australia we have many examples of practical people without formal education improving greatly the quality of life for all. One of those great inventors, Walter Hume, was born in Melbourne in 1886. When he was 12 years old he obtained the princely sum of half a crown a week for providing the leg power for a treadle lathe. He then went into the building trade. When he was 18 he and his brother started a business as carpenters. But they soon went broke due to the land boom of that time. Penniless, he went to Moorooduc on the Mornington Peninsula, which I am sure all honourable members are aware is in the beautiful electorate of Flinders. For two years he caught rabbits, cut wood and collected honey. Hume had seen honey being removed from wax combs by centrifugal force. From this idea he designed an excess paint removing machine and from that a centrifugally spun concrete pipe. Hume started factories all over the world. Before he died in 1943 he wrote: My success in life has been due perhaps more than anything to my persistence in carrying out my purpose. My many inventions have been brought to successful conclusions in nearly every instance by a most persistent effort, and what scientific faculties I have seem to be centred in the power to discern and note simple and important things and put constructions on them as please my scientific sense, totally ignoring anything in the way of orthodox theories. Perhaps we need not think back so far. The victory of Australia II at Newport a few weeks ago was the culmination of hard work by the skipper and crew, but most importantly the contribution of many years of hard work by one man, Ben Lexcen. The revolutionary winged keel was not the dream of a man who had spent many years in educational institutions and held formal qualifications; rather, it was the synthesis of a man's dream of designing a revolutionary keel and years spent in sailing yachts. It was the practical experience that Ben Lexcen had, and the vision and conviction to try something new and revolutionary that resulted in the extraordinary design that carried Australia II to victory and the America's Cup to Perth. Therefore, I reiterate that I do not deny or try to detract from the abilities of those who have formal qualifications. But I am attempting to say that brilliant imagination and innovativeness is not their domain alone. We must allow employees without formal qualifications to contribute to and participate in attracting grants for their companies. As a person who is a tradesman and also an inventor and has applied for several patents on various novel ideas, I speak from experience. I feel that this amendment Bill is important. It has been long overdue. It allows a more fair and equitable sharing of and participation in applying for grants and can only better serve the industrial research and development sector. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has once again demonstrated his zeal for stimulating research and development for the benefit of all Australians. He is without doubt the best Minister for Science and Technology that Australia has ever had. I therefore commend this Bill to the House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(11.29) —I address my remarks to the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware, AIDC was set up by an Act of parliament in 1970, its objective being to provide finance for Australian industry with the aim of promoting Australian ownership. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would also be aware that a very great Australian, Sir John McEwen, played the most vital role in setting up the Australian Industry Development Corporation, and the need for the Corporation was clearly set out over a decade ago. His perception should be noted because it ought to be contrasted with that of the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is sitting at the table. Sir John realised well over a decade ago that there was a need to promote and develop Australian industries. Yet often the Minister speaks as though it is a new-found revelation. I will quote briefly from what Sir John said about the AIDC. In explaining the reasons for the Corporation's establishment, he said: There are opportunities in world markets for more and more manufactures produced in Australia, from raw materials at present exported so competitively in unprocessed form. There are pressing needs for Australian industry to expand, and in the process to improve its efficiency, and become highly competitive at home and overseas. There is no institution or facility in Australia which has the primary purpose of encouraging and aiding industrial undertakings to achieve a dimension by which they will be capable of competing in world markets, and of competing with imports in the domestic market. It is to our national advantage for Australian industry to be able to develop, and grow, with minimum resort to foreign ownership. In the years since Sir John outlined his vision of the role of the AIDC the Corporation has indeed demonstrated a growing ability to realise his vision. As its current Chairman, Sir Gordon Jackson, pointed out in an address on 10 November, the Corporation's return on capital and reserves for 1982-83 was 14 per cent, an extraordinarily good figure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. Profit per employee before tax was almost $200,000, total assets were just short of $1 billion, and earnings after tax were $15m. Those results were achieved in a prevailing difficult economic climate and it is to the credit of the Corporation that it has been so successful. It has financed such diverse projects as a hotel in Adelaide and a coal-loading facility at Newcastle, and it has further provided finance in a whole range of development projects within the resource sector. The Corporation has been able to achieve such good results because it is highly admired for the way in which it shops around the world for cheap funds, consistently obtaining funds at well placed interest rates in the Eurodollar market and the Japanese and American financial markets. In other words, the Corporation is working very well. I and the Opposition welcome several of the amendments in this Bill as they will assist the Corporation to work even better in the future. However, there are two points of concern to me. The first is the timing of this Bill. I believe it is unfortunate that the Bill is before the House at this time because it again indicates this Government's clear lack of policy cohesion, particularly in this vital area of assistance for the development of this extremely vital industry. During this session we have seen a number of Bills introduced which have implications for industry development. Several of them have aims which are supported by the Opposition. However, it has been a piecemeal, ad hoc process with no evidence of a co-ordinated government policy, let alone a clear policy direction. This weakness of the Government is highlighted by the fact that recommendations involving the Corporation were an important part of the recent report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. Those recommendations and many others are currently being studied by the Martin Committee, which was appointed by this Government. The Martin Committee report has not yet been received by the Government, yet the Government is introducing major legislation affecting the Corporation. I believe the people of Australia and the industry deserve better. It is very likely that after receiving the Martin report further changes will be needed to the Corporation's standing as well as expanding or contracting its range of functions. We have seen this sort of approach a number of times from the Government since it took office on 5 March. It seems to jump to decisions, jump ahead of a clear-thinking process, and introduce legislation which quickly rebounds on it. There are other examples of this. The assets test and superannuation are prime examples. The Government can blame only itself if retired people are fearful and concerned. Similarly, in this area it can blame only itself for the growing concern in Australia towards its industry policy. I do not oppose this legislation, in fact I welcome several of its provisions, but I believe the Government ought to have waited for the Martin Committee report and then put before this House a cohesive, balanced package of measures on industry policy rather than jump from stepping stone to stepping stone as it has been doing. The Government stands condemned. That is my first concern. My second concern is the future use of the Corporation by this Government. As I said earlier, the Corporation is working extremely well and has a vital role to play in the development of this country's resource, manufacturing and other types of industry. It concerns me that the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), the Chairman of the Caucus Industry Committee, in a paper he has circulated dated November 1983 and headed Towards a Socialist Industry Policy, subtitled 'The Need for Substantial New Measures' is unambiguously calling for nationalisation of many of our industries . More particularly, on page 7 of that report the honourable member for Burke, who holds a senior position within the Government, deals with the AIDC. He has this to say about the Corporation: It is our view-- I can only assume the 'our' to be the Government. If not the Minister may chose to disassociate himself from the honourable member's views. Mr Lloyd —He would be wise to. Mr McGAURAN —He certainly would be wise to, but I do not believe that the Minister will disassociate himself from the views I am about to describe. I have a suspicion he is in great sympathy with them. The honourable member for Burke stated: It is our view that most of the AIDC investment should be in the form of equity investment. The honourable member gives one reason for that: . . . gradual building up of government control in these (normally) basic industries will increase annual government revenue, therefore relieving future budget deficit pressures. Another reason the honourable member for Burke gives for suggesting equity investment is this: . . . public equity will give the federal government a greater stake in important decision-making that, either directly or indirectly, ultimately affects us all. He goes on to say: A problem is that, at the present time, the AIDC appears to have a policy of largely avoiding equity finance and concentrating on commercial lending for projects in the resources sector. I ask the Minister: Is not this a call for nationalisation by way of the Corporation? Is not equity investment, to use the honourable member's words, really just a camouflage for nationalisation? I warn this House that the Opposition will be watching very closely the way in which the honourable member for Burke, in his senior position, and the Cabinet guide the AIDC. I place that warning on record. The honourable member for Burke goes on in this delightful paper on page 11 under the heading 'The Socialisation of Industries': The principles of democratic socialism are based on the general Socialisation Objective of our party which since 1921 has provided a general direction for labor policy. According to this objective the aim of the A.L.P. is to achieve ' the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange to the extent necessary to eradicate exploitation and other anti-social features in those fields'. The author of that statement is the Chairman of the Caucus Industry Committee. Those words are unambiguous; they are clear. They mean that this Government is working towards the nationalisation of some of the most vital, important industries in this country. Mr Lloyd —And using the AIDC as their stalking horse. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Murray has so wisely interjected, the Government is using the AIDC as its stalking horse. That will not be tolerated by this country. We will not have government ownership to such a large extent and nationalisation of our most vital industries. The Opposition is committed to assisting, wherever possible, the development of those industries. The Opposition does not seek government ownership of those industries. The Minister ought to repudiate strongly, and without any doubt, his colleagues' call, which is to use the AIDC improperly. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.42) —It is indeed a pleasure to rise to speak in support of these three Bills, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill and the Management and Investment Companies Bill, which are before the House today. The Bills are, in my mind and in the Government's mind, enormously significant in terms of the future direction of Australian industry and particularly high technology industry. The large number of speakers listed in this debate demonstrates the importance of the legislation. I shall keep my remarks reasonably brief. Prior to the 5 March Federal election this year, the Australian Labor Party released a very detailed policy paper entitled 'Reindustrialising Australia'. I refer in particular to the policy stated in that paper on manufacturing industry . We said on page 8 of that paper: More than 60 per cent of the export earnings of Japan, France, Sweden and Italy are directly attributable to intellectual skills (research, design, invention, products innovation) and less than 5 per cent of Australia's. Their skill based earnings will grow. Ours will contract, reducing our capacity to generate more wealth so as to maintain and develop our living standards. The new technologies are high risk areas. We cannot promise success in any of them. We can, however, guarantee economic regression if we fail to take up the challenge. We went on to say: A priority for a Labor Government will be the identification of the 'Sunrise' industries for the 1980s and 90s, and-- most importantly- the channelling of investment to them. These three Bills today in total provide those opportunities for support in industry in general and, in particular, support for high technology industries. I want to make some remarks particularly about high technology industries and their place in our economy. In doing so, I rely to a great degree on an enormous amount of work that has been done in this area by my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is well acknowledged as a great leader in this area and who is showing us all the great importance of technology to our society. There is no question that Australia is now a post-industrial economy where services, under a variety of definitions, comprise somewhere between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of the total labour force. Indeed, the history of our nation over the last 90 years shows that between 1891 and 1981 employment in farming and mining has fallen from 33.3 per cent to 7.4 per cent. But because that fall has been steady and protracted it has not been a cause for alarm and, of course, neither did we starve. Farmers have been able to adjust to those changes over a generation or so. But we have been slow as a nation to learn that there has been a paradigm shift in our economy away from a shaky, industrial base to an equally shaky, post-industrial one. The minerals will no longer carry the lucky country-an expression that has been used to describe Australia-as shifts in world markets indicate. In 1970, we had 1.69 per cent of total world trade. By 1980 that figure had fallen to 1.18 per cent. We should examine also in the context of this general area and in the context of these Bills how technology affects and changes work. In 1980, the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia, which was entitled 'Technological Change in Australia', was presented to the Parliament in four large volumes. The Myers report, as it was known, sank somewhat like a stone on its day of publication. In more than 1,500 pages, the report, which was on technological change, devoted only a single sentence to the critical issue of the impact of technology on employment. Paragraph 4.57 of that report stated: The Committee . . . does believe that the available historical evidence shows that technological change has in the long term created wealth and employment and that future technological changes will continue to have that effect. That was the sole sentence in that 1,500 page report. There was no further elaboration or, indeed, historical analysis. Amazingly, the report made absolutely no reference at all to foreign ownership of high technology and the role of multinational corporations as the primary agents of technology transfer in Australia. The issues of ownership and control of technology were totally and completely ignored. So, too, was the development of a global economy and the international division of labour. The significance of miniaturisation in microelectronics and its role was not referred to at all. The computer revolution, based on the principles of miniaturisation, has certainly overturned our whole relationship between the value of inputs and outputs in a manner for which there has been no precedent in our known economic history. At this stage in our history we are showing clearly that the value of inputs are falling while the value of outputs are rising. In addition, computerisation and telematics make the location of economic activity less relevant. Information transactions can be carried out anywhere in a different city or continent far from the producer and, importantly, far from the end user. Robotisation will also make enormous inroads into employment and process work in the 1980s. In Japan, the Nissan company requires only 67 production line workers to manufacture 1,300 cars a day. In 1984, the Kawasaki company will open the largest machine tool factory in the world at Florence, Kentucky. It will employ six people. I repeat: That will be the largest machine tool factory in the world. In 1985 the Japanese will open the first completely automated factory with no labour force at all. It has been said that, in the United States of America, certain union leaders have made the comment in general terms that if we robotise in our factories we might stand to lose 75 per cent of the work force. However, if we fail to robotise we lose 100 per cent because the firm goes out of business. I think the fears we have in our community are justified, particularly the fears that those people who lack specific work skills have that the impact of technology will cost them jobs. Equally there is absolutely no comfort in the view that rejecting technological innovation will preserve jobs. It certainly will not. We cannot rely on an obsolescence-led recovery. It is therefore up to the Government and up to this nation to provide leadership and scope so that we are able to develop in those areas where we have been so seriously lacking in the past. As it might have been said by one famous author: Technological change may destroy jobs; lack of technological change will destroy jobs absolutely. A related factor to these Bills and to other aspects of technological change is to look at the question of education and skills. If Australia is to be successful in supplementing its traditional industries with high technology ones it will need to adopt a fundamentally different attitude to the education of our work force and the development of our skills. In Japan the attitude to skill acquisition and development is reflected in the fact that, at the age of 17 years, 88.1 per cent of Japanese people are still at school compared with only 31.7 per cent in Australia. I repeat those figures: In Japan the figure is 88.1 per cent; in Australia it is 31.7 per cent. In 1950, 3.5 per cent of Australia's labour force entrants had degrees or diplomas. By 1980 that figure had doubled to 7 per cent. But Japan had less than one per cent in 1950, rising to 39 per cent in 1980. In percentage terms that is an increase of 4,000 per cent. By comparision, I repeat: Australia's increase in percentage terms was 100 per cent . South Korea's rise is even sharper. The mean skill base in Australia is undoubtedly declining at a time when that of the world in general and the Pacific rim in particular is rising. That means that our blue collar workers in particular are disadvantaged. Our white collar workers are also disadvantaged but somewhat less so. By way of further comparison, in the United States of America there are pro rata three times as many young people studying science as there are in Australia. Of these 28 per cent go on to take out PhDs, compared with only 5 per cent in Australia. We need certainly and essentially to revolutionise the level of technological skills in the Australian work force as a matter of urgency. It is relevant also to look at how we compare in the overall economic and world scene. We have a population of about 15 million people. We have one of the richest natural resource bases of any nation. We have abundant cheap energy and a very strong agricultural base. Our gross domestic product in 1980 was $140 billion, or $9.59 billion per one million of population. By comparison, the Netherlands has a population of 14 million, which is 93 per cent of Australia's population. It has very limited access to raw materials other than some North Sea oil and gas. However, its GDP in 1980 figures was $169 billion, or $12.07 billion per one million of population. Its GDP was 26 per cent higher than that of Australia. The case of Sweden is even more notable and striking. It has a population of 8. 3 million, very limited raw materials and a very short industrial working week of only 30.2 hours. Nevertheless, its 1980 GDP of $123 billion represented 88 per cent of ours. That figure represented $14.8 billion per one million of population, 54 per cent higher than that of Australia. Sweden has penetrated world markets, including our own. It has done it with brand names. Just some of them which immediately come to mind are Volvo, Saab, SKF, Ericsson, and Electrolux. The Swedes sell us $5 worth of finished goods for every $1 in raw materials that we sell to them. It is true, of course, that Sweden is close to the European market and relatively close to the United States, but I think the important point to be drawn from that is that equally Sweden has to compete with those markets-those very developed markets-at much closer hand. In the period between 1955 and 1980 there was a striking change in the per capita order of GDP in the technologically advanced world. The resource rich nations such as the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom fell in ranking while resource poor nations such as Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan and Singapore rose extremely rapidly. The major factor in the rise of the resource poor nations has been the proportion of export earnings directly attributable to intellectual input: Invention, research and development , product innovation, design, patents, royalties and copyright. More than 60 per cent of the annual export earnings of Japan, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy depend on 'brain based' industries, while Australia's figure in comparison is less than 5 per cent. The skill based earnings of our industrial contemporaries will grow. Ours will contract-of that there is no doubt-unless we have a fundamental change in economic direction. The three Bills before us-the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill and the Management and Investment Companies Bill-are all a start, a very important start, in redressing the fundamental manufacturing and industrial base in Australia. I hope that in my comments I have emphasised the absolutely essential and fundamental need for this nation to address these difficulties. We as a government started to do that. We are honouring our commitment to the Australian people in our manufacturing and industrial policies, but I emphasise that given the scale of the problems we face this is just a start. We have a long way to go, and not just in the area of taxation incentives for high technology industries; we still have a long way to go in the education and skills area. I know that we as a government will work wholly towards achieving the necessary objectives, with the interests of the Australian people at heart. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.55) —In the debate today on the legislation before the House-the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill and the Management and Investment Companies Bill-I wish to focus on the role and the nature of the small business, the medium sized business and enterprise in Australia-the small firm. Mr Barry Jones —Hear, hear! Mr SHIPTON —I get 'Hear, Hear!' from the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I shall focus on the role of the small firm in the Australian economy because it is vital to the future of our economy and the future of the free enterprise, private enterprise system. Let us debate the issues. At the outset, I have two reservations about the legislation in respect of management and investment companies. Firstly, the Management and Investment Companies Bill is set out by the Government as having an essential purpose of attracting investment by offering a tax deduction of 100 per cent for equity invested in licensed management investment companies. Of course, we do not have before us the legislation to amend the tax Act and provide for the tax deduction. It really serves no purpose to have this Bill before us without the accompanying tax amendments. I think the Government has let the community down. We are getting only one half of the package and I believe we should have the full package before us before the House decides on the issues. My second reservation relates to government intervention. I was very concerned when I heard one of the former speakers from the Government side in this debate talk about the role of intervention and rationalisation of industry. I do not believe that government intervention helps industry. We do not want to create bureaucracies to control industry. I have some concern about the powers the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board will have to issue, suspend, revoke and renew licences . Here we are setting up another authority administered by bureaucrats who will tell small and medium sized businesses what to do. Having indicated those two reservations, I move on to focus my comments on the role and nature of small business. Small business is innovative and flexible. As the Minister said, perhaps the role of small business in the community is not understood. In fact, small business is able to take advantage of technological and technical change-perhaps more readily than the Minister recognises. It is often thought that only large enterprises, large businesses, can take advantage of technological and technical change, but that is not so. I invite honourable members to look at what is happening in the large corporate sector. There are takeovers day by day. Another one was reported in the paper this morning-the takeover of Carlton and United Breweries Ltd. There are mergers and rationalisations. Jobs are being lost in the large corporate sector. The growth will come from the small firms, from the small businesses. The large corporate sector will not have the capacity to generate many job opportunities as we move on through the decades to the year 2000. Job opportunities in society will be generated in small business and through the small firm. The role of the small firm in technical and technological change is not understood. Perhaps the Minister does not mean this to be so, but when he talks I think people believe he is talking about high technology all the time. It is not necessarily high technology; new technology that can be adapted to existing manufacturing processes might be as important or even more important than high technology in creating job opportunities in the community-creating the opportunities for private enterprise to create profit and wealth. Technical change that can be adapted by the small firm might be as important as high technology; certainly in many respects it is more important than high technology for the large firm. As we know, technological change and technical change is going on in the market place, in the community, in the business sector today, without the need for large government bureaucracies to decide where it ought to be and ought to go. New technology does not necessarily mean huge sums; it does not necessarily mean large corporate production; it does not necessarily mean large production runs. Similarly, high technology and new technology do not necessarily have to be capital intensive. I think it can be proved that small businesses are in fact more innovative and flexible than larger corporations and that small business is often able to take advantage of technical change better than and before large firms. One of the interesting things-I will be interested in the Minister's reaction to this-is that modern technology favours the small enterprise and the small firm. The Minister nods his head in agreement. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) almost got to that point in his speech. He understands what is going on in the technical revolution in society but he did not pull out that answer and recognise that it was the small business sector in which it is occurring. Let us look at the computer and the word processor. Those items are being reduced in cost day by day and can be used by the smaller firm to great advantage. One can see the growth not only in the manufacturing sector but also in the services sector-solicitors, accountants, advertising agents, and public relations consultants; the lot. They all have the advantage of being able to use these new technologies. But let us look at a case study in the manufacturing sector which I think is quite interesting. It is an example of new technology being used in an existing manufacturing business that was a large scale production business but which is now a small scale production business. I refer to the bread baking and pastry industry-a basic industry to us all. I do not think people recognise that Australia is the inventor of the hot bread kitchen. All electorates would have hot bread kitchens in them. People go to those hot bread kitchens. But let us stop and look at what lies behind the hot bread kitchen. What has happened is that technological change has been taken advantage of. New types of baking ovens with low and small batch productions can be used to produce individual, specialised bread that the consumer wants and needs. If one were to go to Glenferrie Road in my electorate on any morning, one would see people queued up at the hot bread kitchen to take advantage of this technological change being used by the bakers and pastry cooks. There is a machine called a prover. A prover is in fact a refrigerator by night and an oven by day. The bakers and the pastry cooks, taking advantage of the modern technology and technological change in a basic industry, make up the dough by day and put in this new machine. They are using these new developments. It is a refrigerator at a certain time in the morning and it becomes an oven. It bakes the bread and when the baker arrives at the hot bread kitchen in the morning the bread is ready for the consumer to buy. That is an example of technological change. It shows how a small firm, an owner-operated, self-employed family business has a vital and important role to play and how it can take advantage of a technological change for profit, for the betterment of society as a whole and for the betterment of the consumer. The nature of the manufacturing process is, I believe, working in favour of the small firm. Today, we have to question the concept with which I was brought up at school and at university that scaled up plants bring cost reductions ever onwards. Mr Barry Jones —You have not mentioned CAD-CAM, and that is a perfect example. Mr SHIPTON —Well, let us go back to the bread industry. A few years ago there were takeovers of bakeries and massive production runs of bread; it was all the same. It was all in plastic wrap and the consumer bought it all at the supermarket. The consumer and the community as a whole got totally sick of the situation. We wanted a change; we wanted to use our freedom of choice. The market place reflected that wish and, taking advantage of technological change, introduced the hot bread kitchen. So the concept that economies of scale will increase forever is not necessarily so. Of course, economies of scale are important but they are not the complete answer and in society today there is a backing away from them. Of course, big business and small business are related but we have to look at what is happening in the corporate sector. I was going to talk about the three areas of technological change-electronics, automation and biotechnology-but time will not allow me to go into them. What I will say is that there have been dramatic reductions in the cost of electronic components and the miniaturisation of chips that make it feasible and possible for individual small firms and for entrepreneurs to take advantage of this electronic circuitry in base equipment to start new businesses and to change the nature of existing businesses. The new modern generation of small batch production plants based on flexible modern machinery is giving great opportunities to the small and medium firms. This is happening in the market place today without the necessity for any government intervention or legislation . Small firms can and will have, as they go into this decade, the advantage of a strong technological base because of what is happening in society. Let us look at the printing industry-a traditional industry. Metal typesetting was hot, dirty work. It has been replaced by photo composition. There is a revolution going on out there in the printing industry. Photo composition gives small firms, small businesses, the opportunity to grow into larger and bigger businesses and to take advantage of technological change not only for the betterment of the businesses and the creation of profit but the creation of new job opportunities. The honourable member for Bendigo recognises the technological and technical change that is going on in society but he should also recognise that it gives opportunities to the small firms to grasp those opportunities and to grow. I am an optimist about the future. I believe Australia has a great future and that it can lead the way. We tend to undersell ourselves. I gave honourable members the hot bread kitchen example. Through using innovative ideas, we led the world and we exported the idea of the hot bread kitchen around the world. It will be small businesses that take advantage of technological and technical change, not necessarily involving large sums of venture capital, that will grow and create a new society of small firms if only we as governments create the climate for them to do so. I fear that as a society we are placing enormous burdens on these small businesses. I will not go into the various constraints in detail, but there are things such as permits, regulations, payroll taxes and financial taxes-everything to stop the small firm from growing. But fortunately for society, the small firm has not to this stage been stopped. If we are to have a future as a private enterprise system, a free enterprise system, it has to come from the small firm and small business sector. That is the only chance we will have for job opportunities in the future. If we are to create the climate in which to create profit-I fear we are squeezing that day by day; I believe this Government is squeezing it day by day-what we need is a new attitude towards the small firm and its role in creating profit and wealth in society. We need to create a climate for the growth of a dynamic, virile and growing small business sector because small business is big business. I say to the Minister that I worry because day by day his Government is throttling private enterprise. Later in the session we will discuss price surveillance legislation. That legislation will have a strangling effect by trying to control the profits and prices of every business. That is the last thing we need. But let me return to small business. I believe this Government has consistently failed small business. It has not implemented any of its small business action program. I conclude by calling on the Government, as I have done on so many other occasions, to declare 1984 the year of small business in Australia so that the small business, the self-employed, the entrepreneur, the family business, can be encouraged to grow and to create profits and wealth for the betterment of society as a whole. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(12.09) — I take some interest in the knowledge of small business of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). His Government certainly was knowledgeable about small business! In the last seven years the escalation of bankruptcies of small businesses has been horrific. The Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill, the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill and the Management and Investment Companies Bill introduced in the first six months of this Government will do more for small business than was ever done for it in the last seven years. I will come back later to how this legislation affects small business. In a changing world we must address ourselves to the fact that technological change has been a continuum since the days of the cave man. The movement through stone, iron and copper-the various metals-and the various warfare skills and the development of steam engines are all part of a continuum. The continuum has moved along picking up new things on a leading edge and dropping off old activities on the trailing edge. For example, the farrier and the coach builder gave way to the tyre manufacturer and the panelbeater. That continuum has gone on since time immemorial, since man has been on earth. In the last 30 or 40 years the rate of change has compounded dramatically. In fact, the rate of change has become so profound as to question man's capacity as individual humans to absorb and adapt individually to that rate of change. That is obviously a separate issue. The continuum has been there. We, in this country, have picked up and dropped off new activities. We have initiated a number of those activities. We have led the world in a number of fields. Until the last 10 or 15 years most countries were relatively equal. In fact, Australia is well endowed. With our natural resources and our primary industry we had a fairly excellent base. However, in recent times a number of factors have come forward for the first time in history: Firstly, the change in transport methods; secondly, communications; and thirdly, miniaturisation. In previous decades and previous technologies it was easier to transport manpower, to transfer knowledge to a country and develop the skills and industry there. Right now it is easier to keep the knowledge resident and transport the results. That is what we are facing. In effect, in that context, Australia is vastly disadvantaged because we have a small population and large distances; we have a small local market and a long way to the nearest large markets for our products. We are the victims, if you like, of technological change in its broadest sense- the change in transportation, miniaturisation and communications. Mr Shipton —It gives us great advantages too. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I will get to that point. That is what the previous Government did not recognise and that is what this legislation is addressing. In that context, how do we react to technological change as a community or as a society? If we look at how capital reacts, capital will react conservatively. In Australia we have enormous capital skills and enormous investment skills. Let us take a company such as the Australian Mutual Provident Society. It would know more about finance and economics than most members of parliament and most specialist organisations. It has enormous management, investment, financial and entrepreneurial skills, but they are applied in conservative ways because of a lack of understanding of the creative and the leading edge end of technology. The fact is that it will invest in real estate, commercial buildings-good, safe, solid things which will not return a high dividend but are secure. Even though Australians are supposed to be gamblers, with our technology we are certainly not. We are enormously conservative because we are, essentially, a small population and it is that smallness which tends to give us a narrowness of vision. One of the earlier speakers talked about the Australian Industry Development Corporation being developed and established by a previous Country Party Minister and said that its intention was not to allow nationalisation. This narrow-minded attitude towards the Government's role in the community and in industry has been a choking influence on the development of technology in Australia. Whilst we have this black and white, fairly mindless attitude that the Government does not know anything about it, it eventually reinforces the conservative nature of Australian capital. The fact is that Australian capital has maintained a very narrow, very tunnel-vision outlook into the very secure industries. It, therefore, has not been able to withstand the intrusion of foreign capital. So most Australian large businesses are not in fact Australian, they are owned by somebody else whose skills are imported and whose management is largely imported . The example I mentioned earlier was one of the exceptions to that general rule . The Government has recognised that to develop the continuum or to maintain Australia's place in the technological continuum we have to change the climate, we have to change the context in which it operates. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and other Ministers, whilst in opposition, highlighted areas of possible change and they coined the term 'sunrise industries'. Unfortunately that has been interpreted as meaning sunrise companies, and that is very different. Sunrise industries do not necessarily mean that there will be new companies for sunrise industries. The Government has been attempting to identify areas of fertility, to suggest that if the Government does not change the financial climate in which our industries operate the industries will not change either. In other words, there has to be a recognition of the difficulty of technological change in manufacturing terms and of the need to change the climate and the context to encourage that experimentation. The most likely thing is that sunrise industries will develop from old companies, not necessarily from in-house development but from their picking up and marrying smaller, more creative, more leading-edge companies. Leading edge is by its very nature small, totally flexible and, in many cases, maverick. It almost invariably lacks a depth of management and financial skills. The weakness in Australia has been that the creative skills of the small companies have not been matched by a financial depth or by a management depth, so the failure rate in those areas has been much greater than it should have been. We talk about large companies in Australia, but in world terms those large companies are very small. So, in effect, it is all relative. Companies the size of our largest companies are seen in world terms as being relatively small companies who should be in leading edge. In the Australian context they are seen as being large, conservative and unable to adapt quickly. The intention of these three Bills is to stimulate the potential development of new activities and to get us back into the mainstream of technological change, back on to the continuum so that as we drop off the older activities we also pick up newer ones . Since I came back to Australia in 1970 my regret over that last 13 years has been that the computer industry has not employed the people it could have employed. In my mind, the Australian computer industry should be a net employer of people rather than a disemployer, but the fact is that our computer industry is a dumping ground for other companies and for other countries. The Government is trying to change the climate and the context in which technological change can occur. Let us look at individual industries, for example, the software industry for the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board . The fact is that software is not an industry. Companies have been coming to me over a long time and have said: 'If we apply for an industrial grant or a State decentralisation grant to develop software, we are not recognised'. Software is not recognised as an industry. To anybody who has been in the computer field, that is obviously nonsensical. That partly reflects the inability of the Government to react to what is happening, and the very long lead time in Australia required to understand and to respond to what is taking place in the world. The amendments to this legislation play a major part in ensuring that software is recognised as an industry. That is an important change because it will not just affect those grants, it will also flow down into the State systems . The decentralisation grants, the industry grants, the assistance and co- operation available from State governments will now include software, which has not been done previously or the changes have been occurring only at State levels in very recent times. The Australian Industry Development Corporaton Amendment Bill will allow the AIDC in a joint venture and in conjunction and co-operation with Australian companies, either small or large-I expect a mixture of both-to venture into areas that are difficult for us to handle and to display the innovation and flexibility required of leading edge technology. That is what we are talking about. That is a risk area and it is an area of great uncertainty. The AIDC can offer to small creative companies the depth, the back-up, and the management skills that they so desperately lack. If we are looking for a reason for lack of change, that is mainly it-the lack of depth in our creative companies. Let me take as an example the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. and the orbital engine. BHP, for the first time, after 60 or 70 years, picked up an innovation in a new field. It was a world first; it was not just a matter of picking up gas and oil, which was obviously a well known and well established technology. In fact, BHP now has a very large section that is looking constantly at new developments. I do not think it has done that particularly well. I do not think it has developed enough skills to do that, but I can see that in years to come BHP could well be a major generator of management investment companies, AIDC developments, linking up with small, creative companies or individuals to generate new activities, not as part of BHP, but as spin-offs. The third factor-the MICs-is a fundamental change. This change heightens my bewilderment in this Government's first six months at finding how little the previous Government understood business. I have been absolutely amazed in talking to business people all over Australia to find that they did not understand the previous Government and that that Government certainly did not understand them. There was an assumption that they knew each other's situation and understood each other's roles, but the fact is that neither did. The widening gap between government and industry in Australia has been a major component of our industrial demise or emasculation. This Government in its first six months is giving leadership and saying to industry: 'We understand the situation. We are prepared to try to help to change the climate and we will play an active role in that change.' I am sure that industry and business will respond very strongly. I think that this Government, rather than being condemned by industry, will be applauded by it because for the first time we are getting out into the real world in real ways. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.21) —The Management and Investment Companies Bill, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill and the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill, which extends the financial base of the AIDC, are of considerable importance to the development of Australian industry. I think it is fair to say, from the point of view of the Opposition, that the Bills probably represent the first major initiatives by the Government in the context of its industrial and development policies. We support the broad thrust of all three pieces of legislation. However, in a number of areas we naturally have some concern and there are questions which need to be raised with the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and on which I trust he will be advising the Parliament. I congratulate the Minister for his long interest in the question of technological development. I think it is fair to say that in political terms he probably played along with the previous Minister in pioneering a role in generating major interest in the Parliament and in the nation in this most significant area. It is a sad reality of life that there is a strong Luddite tendency in much of the Australian industrial system and certainly in the trade union movement. Mr Barry Jones —And management. Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, and in some management. It is based upon a fear that change must be bad because it involves taking Australia and its people into realms which we perhaps do not understand in the full sense. It also demonstrates that some believe that we can isolate and hermetically seal Australia off from the developments taking place in the rest of the world. For that reason I wish to refer principally to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Amendment Bill. The amendment to the legislation, which was introduced by the Fraser Government, is significant because it extends the scope of the Australian Industrial Research Development Incentives scheme to increase its effectiveness. I think the following words of the Minister in his second reading speech are relevant: There can be few who fail to recognise the significance of advanced technology. It is the key to the establishment of an internationally competitive industrial sector. It is crucial to the maintenance and growth of real national wealth. Both directly and indirectly it provides the means to create new employment opportunities and to maintain activity in traditional industries. In terms of my earlier observations it is a very sad fact that at times of high unemployment in particular the Government must face a very real community concern. I have not seen yet in the development of Government policy an acceptance of the reality that they must do their best to identify to management and the trade union movement the need to be prepared to make changes in this area. I think the Minister will be well aware of the attitudes that have been adopted by the bank employees unions, for example, which have effectively turned their face against automation in banking despite the fact that their industry is one of the few which in net terms have increased their labour force in recent years. The reality is that a return to Ludditism will solve nothing and cannot be the basis for economic recovery for Australia. Technological change is causing job opportunities to change with it and in many industries these changes are very radical, but our failure to develop in this direction will most certainly cause massive retrenchments as industries become less and less competitive in the face of greater efficiency and cost-competitive imports from overseas. Tariff walls and other protective devices cannot reverse this trend, regardless of how much some people may wish it to be so. Therefore the Government must, together with technological development and the application of innovative financial policies, work towards a more flexible wage system. This Bill provides incentive grants, for example, to manufacturing, mining and certain on-site construction companies, to reimbursement of specified eligible expenditure-effectively a commencement grant. We are also told that the membership of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board that has been established to administer this legislation has been made up of people who have pre-eminence in technology and commerce. I am very pleased to notice that Dr Kevin Foley, a previous colleague of mine and a person with whom I have had a great deal of contact in recent years, has been appointed by the Minister as chairman of the incentives board. I am sure that he will do worthy work in that field. The Government has also foreshadowed action to stimulate the venture capital market. The first indication of that is the introduction today of the Management and Investment Companies Bill. We must wait to see its effect. Leading on from that, I wish to make some general observations on the other side of the Governments political coin. I refer specifically to the report produced some months ago by the Chairman of the Government's Caucus Industry Committee, the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous). It is entitled ' Democratic Socialist: A Report from Canberra-Towards a Socialist Industry Policy : The Need for Substantial New Measures'. In this document the honourable member for Burke has told us that the long term strategy of the Labor Government is to 'have controls over the behaviour of large national and multinational firms'. He states that this can be achieved only through the socialisation of part or whole sections of strategic industries and direct investment by government in potentially profitable industrial areas. This will become part of the Government 's total industrial policy and will involve the Government not only in propping up existing industries but also in 'establishing new profitable companies in various areas of manufacturing industry, especially high technology'. This is the essence of one of the difficulties which the Opposition has with this aspect of the package. Frankly, we are suspicious about the capacity of government to choose winners and losers in this field. The honourable member for Burke continues in terms of the role of the AIDC. He sees it as an ideal weapon to increase governmental involvement in and control of industry. He recommends increased public equity which will give the Federal Government a greater stake in important decision-making. Again we see this intrusive attitude of members of the Labor Party who believe that as members of parliament, regardless of their background and of their ability to be involved in the decision-making process, that by osmosis they are more qualified to second guess decisions of management than the board of directors of a company which has the legal responsibility. All I can say to that proposal is that we cannot reinvent the wheel. This formula has proved to be unsuccessful in most, if not all, of the Eastern European bloc countries and I fail to see how it can be suggested, at a time of high unemployment in Australia, that the Government will be able to encourage capital investment-that is one of the principal objectives of this legislation-if at the same time the honourable member for Burke persists in allowing members within the policy-making machinery to disseminate, views which will clearly have exactly the opposite impact. That would lead to a strike of capital, not an opening up of the capital markets, which is the objective of this legislation. The honourable member for Burke went on to advocate the expansion of the AIDC. He stated: . . . funds must be dramatically increased-a five fold increase . . . and its extended powers to borrow overseas be fully exploited . . . The legislation before us today effectively goes down that road although perhaps not far enough for the honourable member and the left wing, the Marxist element of the Labor Party. Nevertheless, we are told in the amended legislation that it is proposed to increase the statutory capital of the AIDC by $50m, bringing it up to $150m, and that the Corporation will be able to call upon this additional capital in amounts of up to $12.5m per annum. We are also told that the gearing ratio will be increased to enable the Corporation to borrow up to 15 times the level of its capital and reserves. I ask the Minister why the figure of 15 has been chosen. My view is that it can often be very dangerous to lock into legislation provisions such as that which do not given the management of AIDC the degree of flexibility it may require from time to time. Furthermore, we are told that the legislation will provide Commonwealth guarantees of all borrowings by the Corporation. Here again we see the tendency to ensure that a governmental body will have a definite edge in the market place . Overseas loans will probably attract a net interest rate of half a per cent lower than the market rate available to other commercial borrowers. Those inconsistencies in the market place can cause major difficulties elsewhere. Generally the Opposition supports the legislation. In conclusion the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's table on research and development investment, for which I thank the Minister, shows that Australia ranks in the middle with respect to government-funded research and development. In regard to privately-funded research and development we are twenty-third out of 24 nations. In Sweden for every krona spent by government on research and development, industry spends eight. However, in Australia for every dollar spent by government, industry spends about 50c. Clearly the situation is quite unsatisfactory. Therefore, the Opposition supports the objectives of the Government's policy in this regard. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(12.32) —In the very limited time I have available this afternoon I would like to address remarks solely to the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill, as I am sure that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) in his closing remarks will address the other two Bills before the House. It is with a feeling of pride that I speak in support of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill, for this legislation gives effect to the clear policies of this Government in its approach to assisting Australian industry. The expanded Corporation will enable the AIDC to help the reindustrialisation of Australia. The Government has increased not only the capital of the AIDC but also its gearing ratio. The statutory capital of the Corporation will be increased by $50m to a total of $ 150m but, more importantly, it will be able to borrow up to 15 times its capital and reserves and, therefore, will have at its disposal in excess of $2,000m. This strengthening of the AIDC will prove a very relevant, powerful and flexible instrument in the regeneration and growth of a more viable Australian industrial base. Another significant decision of this Government is to provide Commonwealth guarantees for the borrowings undertaken by the AIDC. This will enable the AIDC to attract not only more domestic market funds but also more international market funds. In closing, I congratulate the Government on its decision to enable the AIDC to expand its charter to assist the more non-traditional aspects of Australian industry such as the tourist industry, which really does need great assistance. I commend the Government for this decision. It is something which the Government's Caucus Industry Committee stressed very hard and I am very pleased that Senator Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has included these amendments in the legislation. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.35) —It is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate, albeit briefly. It has been an excellent debate. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has been very properly commended for what he has done in the past and for what he has done since taking on the portfolio. Australia is doubly fortunate in that the excellent shadow Minister, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), has applied himself assiduously to his role. Whilst I am on the subject, I would like to say that the former Minister, the Hon. David Thomson, MC, did a lot to set in train what is now coming to reality. Mr Barry Jones —I said that yesterday. Mr HODGMAN —I appreciate that the Minister said that. It is great that on this vital and critical element which will affect the future of Australia we are seeing this great bipartisanship. I have only two minutes in which to speak, but I join the Minister and the shadow Minister in making a brief comment in relation to the Industries Assistance Commission report. The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris), whose expertise in computers is well known to both sides of the House, asked the Minister on 3 November what effectively was the Government's reaction to the IAC draft report on computers, machine tools, robots, et cetera. The Minister replied in characteristic form: I regard the three draft reports as extremely disappointing and rather lacking in intellectual vitality. I agree with every word he said. With the greatest of respect to the majority of the IAC, I take the view that the Minister takes. The shadow Minister said very strongly that the IAC report is disappointing in that it does not give a very clear picture of what the industry is about or where it is going. The IAC report was criticised by both sides of the House. As an unashamed protectionist, as a humble lawyer fascinated by technology, and as one who wishes that he had done more science at school, I say that the message to the Hawke Government from both sides of the House is clear: Reject the IAC report and get up and go. Australia will be the greater if the Government is prepared, as the Minister has invited, to let the sleepers wake and the graspers grasp the nettle. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for permitting me to make that short comment on a bipartisan basis, urging that the IAC report be rejected and that the Government get on with the job. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(12.36) —in reply-This has been a bipartisan debate. I thank honourable members on both sides for their support. Mr Hand —The honourable member for Denison must be a socialist. Mr BARRY JONES —The honourable member for Denison is receiving some unexpected support from an unusual quarter. Before I talk about general matters, let me refer to some of the specific matters raised in the debate. The honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) asked whether it was possible to use management and investment company funds to buy interests of existing shareholders in eligible businesses; in other words, to enable the classic mother-in-law to be repaid. The short answer to that question, alas and alack, is no. Before he suggests that we have been unduly restrictive in drafting clause 31 (2) of the Management and Investment Companies Bill, I advance two reasons for the position we have taken. First, allowing MIC funds which have attracted a tax concession to be used to buy existing shares in eligible businesses is considered to be too open to potential abuse or rorting. It would be difficult to prevent MIC funds being used to make relatively low risk investments in existing companies. We are aiming by this Bill to assist growth and new business opportuntiies. Secondly, MIC shareholders are not prevented from using other funds, that is, funds that have not attracted a tax deduction, to purchase the interests of existing shareholders in an eligible business. Therefore, they can alleviate the position of entrepreneurs with debts of the sort mentioned by the honourable member. Another matter raised by the honourable member for Berowra was whether MIC funds could be used in companies involved in mining equipment and process technology. If these companies are undertaking manufacturing activities, they are covered by the provisions of clause 29 (6) (a). If this is not the case, the provisions of clause 29 (7) would still permit the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board to allow an investment if the Board was satisfied that the provisions of clause 29 (6) (f) applied, that is, that the company is substantially involved in utilising innovative technology, is export oriented, is internationally competitive and has the potential for rapid growth and for creating significant skilled employment in Australia. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) commented favourably on the Australian Industry Development Corporation's investments in the Australian Biomedical Corporation Ltd. I had the pleasure of launching ABCL at a Press conference here in Parliament House earlier this year. The ABCL is a genuine sunrise industry. My Department recognised the opportunities for Australia in this area and commissioned the business plan on which ABCL is based. The company will soon be marketing a number of products developed by medical research workers in Australia. The AIDC's investment in ABCL and other projects such as Interscan demonstrates its commitment to developing new technology-based industries in Australia. Essentially it is a taxation measure. Clause 7 (3) provides that members of the board are to be appointed on the basis of their knowledge of or experience in industry, finance, commerce, marketing and management or a field of technology. Further, I must emphasise that investment decisions in eligible businesses will not be taken by the licensing board. They will be taken by the management and investment companies. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) expressed concern that the amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act is not yet before the House. I assure him that it will be brought forward by the Government early in the autumn session. Essentially it will carry out the claw-back provisions that are referred to in the report of the Espie High Technology Financing Committee. It is fairly clear what the substance of the Bill will be. The honourable member for Higgins was also concerned about the powers of the Licensing Board. In expressing these concerns he seemed to equate the Board with the bureaucracy. A careful examination of the Bill reveals that this is not the case. The decision on licences will be taken by an independent, eight-member Licensing Board reporting to me. Only one member of this Board will be a bureaucrat. Finally, I make some very brief references to other contributions. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) asked why there is a 15:1 gearing in the AIDC legislation. The Government has decided to retain a fixed gearing ratio as a matter of prudential control. However, it recognised that the previous ratio of 8:1 was extremely conservative compared with other financial institutions and decided that a ratio of 15:1 would assist the AIDC to meet its expanded role while maintaining a sound prudential position. Further, on the question of whether equity investment is a way of nationalising industry, it has to be stressed that the AIDC is encouraged to take an equity where necessary to help develop efficient industries. This was the case under the McEwen legislation. This may support the view strongly held in the Liberal Party that members of the National Party are just rustic socialists, admittedly of a very unsophisticated nature. Dr Harry Edwards —No comment. Mr BARRY JONES —'No comment' says the shadow Minister. However, the AIDC is still required to act on a commercial basis and review its equity holdings regularly with a view to diversifying where it can. Also the AIDC cannot 'take over' an enterprise. It must retain partners except for temporary reasons and it must not acquire a controlling interest where this is held by Australian residents except to prevent foreign takeovers. I am exhilarated that we have been able to get this package of three Bills through today. They are complementary. All are tremendously significant. In the couple of seconds remaining I say that I am very much preoccupied with the fact that overseas Australia has no reputation at all as a supplier of manufactured goods. It is not that we have a bad reputation; we have no reputation at all. We should recognise the enormous significance of brand names. When we buy a Volvo or Mitsubishi car, a Canon camera or a whole variety of branded technological devices it means something. Nobody ever buys coal by a brand name. Nobody says: 'I have to buy half a tonne of Cessnock coal' or 'I must have some iron ore that comes from a particular area'. Dr Harry Edwards —They are standardised commodities; it will never change. Mr BARRY JONES —That is precisely the point. We will develop a reputation only when that reputation is linked with quality control. Only then will we start to penetrate world markets in selective areas. That was confirmed by the experience I had in Korea last week. I will not have time to tell the House about it. The Koreans have adopted the fast track in quite an astonishing way. I am more sceptical than ever about the conventional economic wisdom and the idea that we can not pick winners and losers after going to the Hyundai shipbuilding works. Conventional economic wisdom in 1972 told the Koreans that they should get back to the trees because there was no possibility of setting up a shipbuilding industry. By 1983 that shipyard is the first in the world. They have built it up from a zero base. I thank the House for its support and I look forward to a speedy passage of these Bills. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Mr MacKELLAR —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer him to the exercise carried out at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne last night. I ask: Who authorised the exercise? Was any member of the Government informed in advance? What consultation was there with other Commonwealth authorities? Were the hotel security staff informed? Why were the Victoria Police not notified in advance? Mr HAYDEN —The following comments, which would have comprised a short statement to the Parliament later, will adequately respond to the honourable member's question. If he seeks further information which I can supply at this point, of course I will respond. Honourable members will be aware that last night a particularly nasty and, as far as I am concerned, intolerable incident occurred at the Sheraton Hotel, Melbourne. That incident arose from an Australian Secret Intelligence Service training exercise. I should make clear from the start that that incident took place without my knowledge, without my authority, and certainly without my consent. This applies to all other members of the Government. I have promptly put in train action to have a high-level investigation conducted into all aspects of this matter. I will come back to that point in a few seconds. The scenario for the exercise I refer to entailed the lodging at the Sheraton Hotel of a 'hostage' under guard by two supposed strongarm men. The trainees in question had been instructed to rescue the supposed agent and take him to safe custody, meanwhile neutralising the two supposed guards. The emphasis of the exercise was the use of deception and subterfuge to gain control of the supposed hostage. Instead, the trainees chose a violent attack on the room of the hotel in which the supposed hostage was held under guard. There followed involvement of the trainees with the hotel management and guests at the hotel, including use of force on the part of the trainees. It is clear to me that the exercise was either poorly conceived, poorly put into operation, or both. The trainees were not authorised to use, and should not have used, force or pretended force against hotel property, members of the public or hotel staff. The explanation provided by the Director-General of ASIS shows that no prior arrangements were made with the Victoria Police or the hotel mangement. I believe that the exercise should not have been conducted without such arrangements being in place with the approval and full knowledge of those two authorities. I have expressed in the clearest terms imaginable my extreme condemnation of the exercise to the Director-General of ASIS. I make no excuses for-in fact I have only the sternest condemnation of-the conduct of the exercise to the point of the hotel manager's intervention. Nonetheless, at that point of intervention this unjustifiable behaviour should have ceased. Certainly the hotel management staff or bystanders should not have become involved in the exercise and the trainees should have desisted from further participation and asked for the police to be called. The Victoria Police were called to the scene of the incident last night and subsequently arrested several of the trainees, who were later released after questioning. I have been in contact with the Victorian Premier, Mr John Cain, and have apologised about this incident. I continue to maintain contact with him on this matter. I have been in contact with the New South Wales Premier, Mr Neville Wran , to seek approval for an immediate and full investigation to be conducted into this matter by Mr Justice Hope, who is currently conducting the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. The New South Wales Government has given its approval for Mr Justice Hope to conduct that inquiry. Mr Justice Hope has been contacted and has undertaken to commence investigation into this matter promptly, and tomorrow the first initiatives of that investigation will be under way. I hope for an early report on the matter and, of course, bearing in mind any obligations about classified security matters which might come up, the report will be made available to the Parliament. Mr Justice Hope has been asked to explore all aspects of this exercise, including the way in which it was prepared and developed, the manner in which it was put into operation, the general conduct of all people associated with it, and whether any person exceeded his proper authority in relation to this matter. It is my understanding that the current terms of reference for the Royal Commission which Mr Justice Hope is conducting are sufficient to allow him to conduct this inquiry. Mr Justice Hope has ensured that this inquiry will be dealt with with the greatest dispatch. In a more general way, I have instructed that the whole question of ASIS training be reviewed without delay. Quite clearly, specific guidelines need to be drawn up laying down firm rules, including a requirement for prior consultation with other authorities or other people likely to become involved in or have some proper concern about particular training projects. The matter of firearms, which the trainees were carrying during last night's exercise but without live ammunition, will also be attended to. On a more substantial level, Mr Justice Hope has also been asked, as part of the more extensive inquiry he is conducting into ASIS, also to consider those matters. I should point out that apart from not being aware of this exercise and my approval not having been sought and certainly not being provided, I have also established today that there has been no other such exercise during the time that I have been Foreign Minister. Let me conclude by saying that the Government regards last night's incident as thoroughly inexcusable, in no way seeks to excuse it, and certainly will not condone it. Naturally I have been in close contact with the Prime Minister on this matter and will continue to report to him on developments. As a matter of courtesy I will ensure that the Opposition Leader is also advised of any relevant developments in this matter. Mr PUNCH —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the nature of the deliberations over Cyprus at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in New Delhi? How will Australia participate in future Commonwealth activity in Cyprus? Mr HAWKE —I believe that all members of the House share with me pleasure at the positive outcome of the CHOGM deliberations on Cyprus. The Commonwealth heads of government unanimously condemned the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriot authorities on 15 November and the purported creation of a seccessionist states in northern Cyprus. The Commonwealth heads of government endorsed the United Nations Security Council resolution 541, denounced the purported declaration as being legally invalid, and reiterated the call for non- recognition of the declaration by member states of the United Nations and for the immediate withdrawal of the UDI. The assembled heads of government pledged their support for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and expressed their solidarity with President Kyprianou, who was present at our meeting, of course. I intervened to argue strongly that the Commonwealth should do all that it could to restore the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, as well as safeguarding the legitimate interests of the two communities on that island. I indicated the support of our Government for the efforts of the United Nations in that regard and indicated the particular reasons that Australia had for this position. In addition to our general considerations, the reasons were twofold: Firstly, the very large community in Australia comprising people of Cypriot origin; and secondly, the long-standing Australian participation in the police force contingent as part of the United Nations effort on Cyprus. I entertained President Kyprianou to lunch on Tuesday of this week in New Delhi. I am pleased to inform the House that he was effusive in his expression of gratitude, not merely to the Government of Australia but also to the people of Australia, for our position in this regard. Specifically, at CHOGM a Commonwealth action group of five countries was established. I am pleased to say that Australia is one of those five countries, together with India, Guyana, Nigeria and Zambia. Together with the Secretary-General that action group has been set up to act alongside the good offices of the Secretary- General of the United Nations. Shortly before leaving New Delhi that action group met. I met with Mrs Gandhi, President Shagari, President Kaunda, Prime Minister Burnham and President Kyprianou. As a result of that meeting contact will be made shortly by Secretary-General Ramphal with the United Nations Secretary-General. I have indicated that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, will be available to go to New York and, if necessary, we hope to Ankara with the action group to pursue whatever we can do alongside the United Nations to bring an end to this unhappy and potentially tragic situation. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the threat of the Australian Council of Trade Unions revealed in the minutes of the Economic Planning Advisory Council meeting tabled in this Parliament a few days ago that it would not continue to support work on economic projections if that work were put to what was described as an improper purpose and in fact included merely argument before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As the Government in the past has been willing to reveal economic scenarios which have suited its case at the time, will the Treasurer give an assurance that work done in the future by the Government to further update or vary the suppressed projections of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be made public and will be referred to EPAC despite the ACTU's standover tactics on the matter? Mr KEATING —I do not know whether this is what one calls flogging a dead horse. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not seem to ever learn. The views which the ACTU expresses from time to time are its own views. The Government has made a lot of economic advice available to the public of Australia, something the Government of the former Treasurer never did. I refer to the publication for the first time early this year of the forward estimates, the publication of the econometric modelling of the economy under projections A, B and C and also the provision of information to EPAC. That information which has been provided to EPAC under projections A, B and C is the property of EPAC. Could we ever imagine the honourable member for Bennelong, as Treasurer, pumping an econometric model of the economy he had stewardship over? He would not have done so at any stage because we would have seen the disaster which was occurring. Rather than do that , we had the celebrated occasion in 1977 of the falsification of Treasury Statement No. 2 by the former Prime Minister and the situation in the 1982-83 Budget when the former Treasurer had a staff member go to the Department of the Treasury and scratch out paragraphs of Statement No. 2. I did not doctor Statement No. 2. In every respect this Government has come clean with the public in terms of economic information, and we will continue to do that in the future. Mr Chynoweth proceeding to address a question to the Minister for Science and Technology- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question is out of order. Mr PEACOCK —Is the Treasurer aware that projection 2 by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet shows that a wages catchup will lead to 150,000 more unemployed in 1985-86 than if there were no catchup? Will the Treasurer therefore assure the House that the Government will strongly oppose any catchup whatsoever or will it be prepared to support 150,000 more unemployed? Mr KEATING —Do we have to go through this again? The Leader of the Opposition has stopped about half a dozen punches on this matter already. Apparently he wants to take more. Projection 2 is for a wage breakout; projection 3 is for the collapse of the world economy. As I said yesterday, projection 3 is disagreed with by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund. Projection 2 is not something which we believe will occur under the operation of the prices and incomes policy. It may be to the eternal chagrin of the Leader of the Opposition that the accord with the trade union movement is holding together very strongly. Indeed there was great support for it at the Congress of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We have no reason to believe that some of the dire projections of projection 2 will come to pass. Quite obviously, if there were a significant wage breakout and if there were a high movement in wages that would have its effect upon inflation, upon investment and therefore upon employment. However, it is not something that the Government believes is likely to happen in the circumstances. For that reason the Government is not alarmed by what the projection obviously shows, that a higher wage input will produce more inflation and less growth. Mr HUMPHREYS —Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the substance and outcome of his intervention on Lebanon at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in New Delhi? Mr Hodgman —Are we to get it in chapters? Mr HAWKE —No, this is the last one. Mr Peacock —Will you make a statement? Mr HAWKE —Yes, I am going to make a statement as well. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It has been the tradition of this House that on the return of a Prime Minister from an overseas visit he makes a statement and that statement is debated. I invite him to do so. Mr SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. Mr HAWKE —Let me say that I will be following that tradition but, in regard to the question that has been addressed to me by the honourable member for Griffith , it is important that the matter be clarified because of misrepresentations on this issue in today's Canberra Times. I want to make it clear that the questions of the Middle East and Lebanon were not discussed by the heads of government until the final day of the meeting, Tuesday, 29 November. I expressed concern, when the draft communique was presented to the heads of government, at the quite inadequate representations in the final communique on Lebanon and on the tragic events in that country. I moved that there should be added to the words of the draft communique a sentence which effectively called for the withdrawal of the armed forces of Israel and Syria while recognising that the multinational force, comprising elements from Britain, France, Italy and the United States of America , was in Lebanon expressly at the request of the Lebanese Government. When Mrs Gandhi suggested that that proposed sentence be deleted or emasculated I strongly insisted that if the communique was to talk about Lebanon it should talk about that country in relevant terms. I made the point that while we did not believe it was appropriate for Cuban forces to be in Angola, it was the case that they were there at the request of the sovereign government of Angola. I made the point that if we were going to be consistent and say that the Commonwealth was a Commonwealth of principles we could not have one principle in respect of Angola and not apply it in respect of Lebanon. If we did not apply that principle and had a divisibility of principle we were not credible. I received very strong support for that statement of principle from a wide number of countries, from the Caribbean, United Kingdom, Papua New Guinea, Asian countries and African countries. Indeed the great majority of heads of government at New Delhi agreed with the point that I was putting. The strength of the support was reflected by the fact that there was then added these words: Many heads of government called for the withdrawal of all armed forces from Lebanon other than those present at the express request of the government of Lebanon. I regard that as an appropriate outcome. It is necessary that I say this because there has been a misrepresentation in today's Canberra Times which carried the suggestion that I was calling for the withdrawal of only the Syrian forces and not those of Israel. Of course I specifically made it clear that the armed forces of both countries should be withdrawn. I believe this now reflects credit not only on Australia for taking this position but also more credit on the Commonwealth. Finally, I expressed the hope that as a result there will be a better international understanding of the tragedy afflicting the people of the Lebanon. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that local government in New South Wales has not received its share of the Australian bicentennial road development funds? Have ABRD funds been collected since August last year from a fuel tax of 1c a litre and now 2c? Can the Minister inform the House when local government in New South Wales will receive its share of these funds which will not only improve the road system but also increase employment? If funds are not allowed to flow freely, will the Minister review the mechanism of the system? Mr PETER MORRIS —We are waiting a claim for funds for local roads from New South Wales. When that is received it will be dealt with expeditiously. It is a fact also, as mentioned by the honourable member, that the ABRD levy that has been collected since August last year has been increased from 1c to 2c per litre from July this year. Let me also take this opportunity to compare the record of the honourable members and those who sit opposite on roads, for which they have a new found concern, particularly local government roads. Suddenly they have discovered, in opposition, that local government needs money for roads. If we look at the record of those who sit opposite, over their seven years of government, their great achievement on roads was to reduce Federal road expenditure in real terms by some $517m. Suddenly the honourable member for Paterson, who has some of the worst roads in Australia in his electorate, no doubt due to the quality of representation for that area, has discovered, very late, that local government in the Hunter Valley needs money for roads. This Government has put through legislation and allocated money for the jobs on local roads program to provide direct assistance for local government. If the honourable member had had a similar interest over the past seven years as he evinces today, local government in the Hunter Valley would be in much better position. Mr CHYNOWETH —Will the Minister for Science and Technology inform the House about his recent visit to Japan and Korea? Will this lead to a reordering of priorities with the sunrise industries? Are there realistic opportunities for scientific co-operation between Australia, Japan and Korea? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I point out to the Minister for Science and Technology that the second part of the honourable member's question was in order. Mr BARRY JONES —There are very obvious opportunities for scientific collaboration between Australia, Japan and Korea. I hope that we will have an ongoing program of collaboration between those two nations. I think it is fair to say that the most dramatic impact of my visit was to see how rapidly Korea has adopted fast track technological development. It has a very small technological elite-about 1 ,000 people, largely American educated. By comparison our technological elite is much larger-perhaps about 5,000. The difference is that Korea is working at about 80 per cent capacity and I suspect that we are working at only about 20 per cent capacity. Korea has undergone an educational revolution that we still have to go through. Of course, in terms of the standard of living, and overall levels of technological development, we are far ahead of Korea. But in selective areas Korea is doing extraordinary work. For example, in microelectronics, in my judgment, Korea is far ahead. I have with me a most remarkable specimen. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I just wonder how Hansard will record that specimen in the record of proceedings of the Parliament. Mr BARRY JONES —I can describe it. This is a synthetic crystal of quartz of extraordinary purity, 16 centimetres long by 2.3 centimetres. This is still regarded as strategic material in many countries because its implications in microelectronics applications are enormous. The longest synthetic crystal that Britain has produced so far is 5 centimetres. The extraordinary thing is that in Australia we found no one in this area who was even aware that South Korea was into this technology at all. Korea is developing it extraordinarily quickly. In the case of Japan, from our point of view the most important development is the enormous demand by the Japanese for our software. That is clearly an area where we can export a tremendous amount-millions of dollars worth each year. The Japanese say that their traditional industries are dependent on oil. Their information industries are absolutely dependent on software. Australia is in an excellent position to sell them that software. I am very eager that we should pursue that. But we should recognise just how dramatic the achievement has been in Korea and how inadequate much of the conventional wisdom about economic rationalism has been. In 1972 the Hyundai shipbuilding works did not exist. The World Bank said: 'Get back to the trees. You have no possibility of succeeding'. But 11 years later it is the biggest shipping works in the world. It has two dry docks, one of which will hold a one million tonne dead weight tanker. So there has been a most extraordinary development. I think we ought to be well aware of this and we ought to have much closer co-operation with Korea. Mr WILSON —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Government propose to introduce a national superannuation scheme? Will it be universal and provide all retirees with income in retirement? Will full income entitlement be available to the retired from the introduction of the scheme or will it take 30 or 40 years to phase in? Will the introduction of the scheme coincide with the imposition of the assets test on social security pensions? Mr HAWKE —The Government has made no decision about introducing a national superannuation scheme. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HAWKE —I do not know why the sighs of ignorance should well up because that is a well known fact. No decision has been made to introduce a national superannuation scheme. What has been done, sensibly, is that work has been initiated to look at the possibilities of such a concept. Anyone who knows anything about the concept of national superannuation should well know that such a scheme could take a variety of forms. Therefore, what we are doing, without any great splash, is simply getting the relevant departments and Ministers to examine the range of possibilities. As with most of what we do, if we reach a point where it can be seen that certain alternatives would appear to represent the best interests of the future of Australia, then an opportunity will be given to all people, including any members in the Opposition who have a real interest in it, to make a contribution so that what is finally done, if we make a decision in that area, will represent the best possible range of input that is available to this Government throughout the country. Mr LEO McLEAY —The Treasurer will recall my recent representations to him on behalf of Ashfield Council in my electorate regarding the disallowance of the banking debits Act that was allowed-- Mr Howard —Can't you get your dorothy's right? Mr LEO McLEAY —It is not a dorothy dixer. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member get on with his question . Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Treasurer aware that Ashfield Council and, no doubt, other local government authorities have had their exemption from the bank accounts debits tax taken away from them on the basis that they conduct trading operations-to wit, in the case of Ashfield Council, a municipal swimming pool? Will the Treasurer advise the Parliament what action the Government will take to ensure that those exemptions are restored so that local government authorities which provide assets to their constituents are not required to pay this tax? Mr KEATING —I was not aware that a local government body could lose its exemption by virtue of the fact that it was running an enterprise or providing a service for a fee as part of its operations. If that is the case, as I have informed the House recently, we are in the process-as we said we would-of reviewing the bank accounts debits tax. If it pleases the honourable gentleman, in respect of his own municipality that he mentions, I will include in that review or make subject to that review the operation of the tax in respect of local government bodies as it applies to those bodies which operate certain categories of business. Mr COWAN —I ask the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that I have made representations to him concerning main road 518 at Medowie? Did the Minister and I inspect the road and also meet the Medowie Progress Association and representatives of the Port Stephens Shire Council? Is that road in very great need of reconstruction and surfacing? Does it also serve the port of Newcastle, the chip industry of the north coast, the Royal Australian Air Force Williamtown air base and also the local community? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should get to his question. Mr COWAN —If the New South Wales Government is prepared to give it a No. 1 priority under the Australian bicentennial road development program, is the Minister prepared to approve finance for that road? Mr PETER MORRIS —The answers to the questions are: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. In respect of the last question, I would be prepared to give it early consideration if it is brought forward by the New South Wales Government. Mr HOLLIS —Has the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the spread of the noxious weed known as fire weed in New South Wales? Mr Steedman —Not Paterson's curse? Mr HOLLIS —It is not Paterson's curse I am concerned about this time but fire weed. What steps are being taken to control the spread of this weed? Mr KERIN —The honourable member for Macarthur comes from the beautiful hills of Jamberoo. For a moment I was concerned that he might be talking about a local fire water. As you know, Mr Speaker, you have made representations to me about the problem caused by Chinese scrub. There seems to be a proliferation of weeds at present and many of those have been provoked by an ending of the drought. The problem of fire weed has been drawn to my attention. It is an introduced annual free-seeding plant that has appeared in epidemic proportions following the excellent rains that have fallen throughout eastern Australia as a result of the change in government. This weed is not as bad as Paterson's curse, which I understand Mr O'Keefe disowns, but it is a serious pest in pasture areas throughout eastern New South Wales by virtue of its being poisonous to cattle and horses and its ability to compete strongly with production pasture types. There are only two methods at present available to control fire weed. They are chemical spraying, which of course is very expensive, and competition by other pasture species. With regard to the longer term solution-we are on to it-I understand that the New South Wales Government will be applying to the Australian weeds committee to have the fire weed declared a candidate for biological control. If that is successful we will ask the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to survey the weed in southern Africa for biological control organisms. I take this opportunity to say that, as honourable members will know, at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting in Port Moresby on 1 August the Agricultural Council took the decision that joint Commonwealth and State legislation would be introduced for biological control, not just for Paterson's curse but for all these weeds that are coming up. The Department of Health and the Department of Primary Industry have been working on that. A Cabinet submission will come forward and this matter will again be discussed at the next Agricultural Council meeting in February. Mr HODGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Why did the Minister permit his appointed delegation to the Australia-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics mixed commission on trade and economic co-operation, meeting in Moscow, to negotiate the exploitation of Tasmania's fishery resources without any prior consultation whatsoever with the Premier of Tasmania? Is the Minister prepared publicly to contradict the admission by the Soviet Embassy on 25 November that 'Russian interests are negotiating with the Federal Government on a joint fishing venture off Tasmania', that 'trawling techniques would probably be used' and, lastly, that 'a Russian feasibility study is presently under way into the fishing potential of the waters off Tasmania's coast'? Is this yet another example of the Hawke socialist Government's manic determination to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people of Tasmania and is the Prime Minister personally involved in this scandal? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Prime Minister is not involved and there is no scandal. I am amazed that a member on the front bench of the Opposition is prepared to so belittle his own position as to make a farce of his question. Mr Hodgman —It is a very serious matter. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member should listen to the answer- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If it is a serious matter the honourable member should hear the answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a serious matter. The honourable member has been trifling with the procedures of this House in an attempt to get some publicity about a matter that does not exist. Certainly there was a meeting of officials in Moscow and certainly there were representatives, I would say, from Tasmania but not the Tasmanian Government. Mr Goodluck —Who were they? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not have to name them because they went in a private capacity. Mr Goodluck —Was there one bloke by the name of Sinclair? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member might not be far wrong. Those discussions related to trade and covered many matters. By the way, I might add that during the term in office of the Party of the honourable member for Denison trade with the Soviet union went down by about 60 per cent. Of course, it did not go down in respect of wool because his former Prime Minister had a vested interest in selling it. Nor did it go down in respect of a few other commodities. Certainly that Government stopped a few athletes from going to the Olympic Games in Moscow and paid them off. The honourable member for Denison should not shake his head because it hurts to hear this. I want to tell him the facts. The minutes of those meetings were tabled on 13 October. Obviously the honourable member did not bother to address his mind to them. If he had he would have found that the Soviets raised the question of a joint fishing venture off Tasmania. By the way, the same venture has attracted a lot of publicity and interest, not the least of which would have been the very keen interest of the Leader of the Opposition last January when there was a meeting with the then Soviet Ambassador. But we will hear more about that in respect of another matter . Tasmania has always had an interest in this matter concerning fishing resources. I am aware that Mr Gray sent me a telex, I think a couple of days ago . I replied in terms of what I was told by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry, who virtually has carriage of the matter. Never at any stage had there been negotiations with Moscow on this and no negotiations have been held on it since. But the Tasmanians have always had some concept of having a joint fishing venture for their resources. I am aware of correspondence-this can be confirmed- between the Minister for Primary Industry and Mr Beswick, the Minister in Tasmania. Mr Hodgman —Not about Russia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, about fishing resources and asking whether the Tasmanians would put forward a Tasmanian fishing plan. That appears in correspondence. Mr Gray knew all the time that that was the position. Mr Goodluck —We do not want the Russians down there. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member will not have any Russians down there either. The biggest trouble he will have will be getting some intelligence down there. That is the problem. I make the point that the present position is, I am told, that the Tasmanian Government has all the time been in frequent consultation with the Australian Government on this issue. Tasmania-I suggest the honourable member for Denison should listen to this carefully-has advised the Commonwealth of its adoption of a fisheries development plan which has implications for foreign involvement in local fisheries. Mr GEAR —Has the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to reports of calls for a two-tiered system of wage fixation which would allow unions and employers to opt out of the arbitration system? if so, what is the Government's attitude to this proposal? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I have seen reports that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last week was calling for a two-stream system of wage fixation. This, I think, is further evidence of his desire to be seen as the alternative shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, which fact was made even more obvious by his recent appointment of an officer of my Department to his staff. As I understand it, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is advocating that we should have an opting out system in which employees and companies can opt out of the arbitration system. We would thus have two streams, the arbitration system and beside it those who had completely opted out. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that the argument for that is that we need to have more flexibility in the wages system, especially for paying less than award rates, and we have to have a wages system which allows a sustained economic recovery. In regard to the flexibility aspect, it is not true to say that there is no downward flexibility under this system as it has operated to this day. The fact is that in the last couple of years we have seen evidence of companies which have been able to persaude the Australian Conciliation and Aribitration Commission that wage increases which have generally applied should not apply to them. Indeed, in the food preserving industry last year some four food preserving companies persuaded the Arbitration Commission not to grant their employees the second part of the community round which everyone else enjoyed. The other group which was similarly affected comprised employees under the pastoral industry award, who did not get the second part of that community round and who still have not done so. So they have been some 18 months without that second part of a wage increase which flowed to everyone else. That was done by the Commission on the basis that the pastoral industry was going through bad times because of the drought. So there is, under the existing system, some element of downward flexibility. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to have a wholesale move of companies being able to pay less than award rates, of course he then faces a different ball game. Undoubtedly if there was to be a substantial move in that direction there would be enormous resistance. There would most certainly be a tremendous amount of industrial disputation if that were the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's intention. The more likely event is that we would not have that kind of thing happening. Rather, if we allowed that opting out, we would have the other side of the equation; that is, in the strongest areas of the economy those companies with the greatest capacity to pay and which were willing to pay anything for a quiet life would be the ones which would be prepared to opt out of the system and pay wage increases well above those which were coming from the arbitration system. We would then have a system where for a time a section of the work force would be getting wages increases which were well above those being provided under the present system. That would put enormous pressures on the arbitration system to grant increases of a similar kind; otherwise there would be more opting out from the arbitration system and the Arbitration Commission would face an erosion of its jurisdiction. This two-stream approach has enormous dangers. It would almost certainly lead to a substantial wages blowout, which would ensure that we would not have the sustained economic recovery that we believe is absolutely and totally essential if we are to overcome the unemployment problem. Our wages policy is, completely, designed to enable us to have that sustained economic growth. That is the whole basis of the present Government's wages policy. In addition, it has the element of absolute equity for wage and salary earners because they are assured that their wages and salaries will be protected against inflation. It also has the enormous benefit that we will have a lower level of industrial disputation because wages are largely being taken out of the industrial disputation system. I noticed on the weekend that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that wages policy had been the weakest part of the Fraser Government's policies. I suppose that was one way of absolving himself as Treasurer from the responsibility for the mess that was created under the previous Government. Let me say that the policy he is propounding at present does not give us any reason to believe that, should we be so unfortunate as to have a Peacock-led government or a Howard-led government in this country at some future date, its wages policy would be any more successful than that of the Fraser Government. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Science and Technology aware-of course he would be aware-that the total of outstanding offset 'obligations' of major overseas suppliers to Australia is now of the order of $1,500m, with this total growing so that it will be upwards of $2,000m in a few years time? As it is now accepted that it is within the spirit and the terms of the offset program for these same corporations to meet their obligations by placing orders for Australian products outside the narrow area of what Australia has purchased- aircraft or what have you-will the Minister press for such corporations to direct orders to internationally competitive Australian high technology industry with the possibility of generating a large number of new and substantial jobs at no cost to the Australian taxpayer, which would be a more effective way of creating jobs than the $300m of taxpayers' money which has been spent on the community employment program? Mr BARRY JONES —Without arguing about the actual amount with regard to offsets- it may be somewhat less than $1.5 billion-we certainly recognise the principle of the need to ensure that overseas suppliers meet offset obligations. However, we have to qualify that by recognising that a great deal of that amount is committed to ongoing work such as the aircraft industry and the support of defence equipment. Dr Harry Edwards —How much? Mr BARRY JONES —That is a question which should more appropriately be directed to my colleague the Minister for Defence Support, who is responsible for this area. Nevertheless, we would all concede that there is an opportunity to promote the export of Australian high technology products through the offset program. The Department of Trade is arranging a trade mission to the United States of America in early 1984 to promote the sale of Australian high technology products through the offset program. This is a new initiative and the results will be watched with great interest. In addition, we are looking at new ways of using the offset program to transfer overseas technology to Australian firms. Dr Braemer, the Director of the Technology Transfer Council, is currently in the United States having discussions with some of the companies with offset obligations, such as Boeing. We certainly want to arrange an increased transfer of technology in Australia. To sum up, there is certainly a need to improve on the existing situation, and the examples I have outlined suggest ways of achieving this. In addition, there is a great deal we need to do in government purchasing. Government is itself the largest single purchaser in Australia. It can do an enormous amount. It is not just a matter of money for grants; we must look at ways we can organise the whole economy to our best advantage and ensure that, in those matters where we have technology dealings with other countries, we try to improve the leverage we have. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to sub-section 34C (G) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, as amended, I table a statement outlining the reasons for the delay in tabling the Australian Overseas Project Corporation annual report for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the Family Law Council annual report for 1982 -83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present the Attorney-General's Department and Office of Parliamentary Counsel annual report for 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report of the proceedings of the symposium on statutory interpretation held in Canberra on 5 February 1983, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965, I present the annual report for 1982-83 on the operations of the Act. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 67 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, I present the annual report of the Australian Federal Police for 1982-83. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1982-83 of Qantas Airways Limited. Mr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 122 (3) of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, I present the annual report for 1982-83 of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Pursuant to section 107VZZA of the Repatriation Act 1970, I present the Repatriation Review Tribunal annual report for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Architects Ordinance 1959, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Architects Board for 1982-83. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for 1981-82. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973, I present the report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for the year 1982-83. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for the year 1982-83. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LEO McLEAY —I do. On Monday of this week the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure of which I am the Chairman held hearings in this House relating to Commonwealth payments to athletes for the 1980 Olympic Games. Two witnesses gave evidence at the public hearing of the Committee. They were Mr John Coates, who was the New South Wales delegate to the Australian Olympic Federation, and the Secretary of the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. It has been incorrectly reported in the papers that I revealed confidential information that was given by Mr Coates to a private hearing of the Committee. That is, in fact, not so. Mr Coates gave public evidence at a public hearing of the Committee that, in his opinion, those athletes who received those payments would have breached the International Olympic Charter. That evidence was not given at a private meeting of the Committee and it was quite proper, in my view, for that information to be communicated to the public. I stress once again that the accusation that that evidence was given in private is in fact incorrect. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. In answer to a question the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) claimed, in reference to a statement I had made over the weekend about wages policy under the former Government, that that particular statement was an attempt by me to shift blame for any deficiencies in that area to colleagues of mine in the former Government. I inform the honourable gentleman that that was not my intention. To the extent the wages policy has always been an integral part of the economic policy of any government , any failings in that area under the former Government were as much mine as any other member of that Government. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —I do. In the debate on the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill last evening on page 3087 the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) is reported in Hansard as having said the following about me: . . . had the audacity to tell us that the Government did not introduce the legislation in the Senate because it did not want to obstruct the then Government's Budget measures. I did not make that statement. I do not think the statement makes sense. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie might like to take it up with Hansard to ascertain what he did say and have it corrected in the weekly Hansard. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, this House elects Mr Cross to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia and to continue as a member for a period of 3 years from and including 4 December 1983. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The total lack of real consultation by the Government with those most vitally affected by its decisions on the uranium industry and related issues. 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 ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.55) —This Government's uranium policy is founded on confusion and built of deceit. It is a disgrace to Australia, and the rest of the world questions how our national Government could be so ludicrous and so stupid. It marks the Government's complete and utter abandonment of its responsibilities to the nation. It shows with bitter clarity just how ruthless, dictatorial and relentless this Government is prepared to be to buy off its opponents within the Australian Labor Party at the expense of the Australian people. Australians should be very clear about this. This is not a policy that gives direction to the nation. It is not a policy which has anything to do with the issue of nuclear proliferation or nuclear war, nor is it a policy that takes into account the interests of the Aboriginal people or gives guidance to our vitally important mining industry. It is a policy cobbled together behind locked doors to save the Bannon Labor Government of South Australia while appeasing the hysterical left wing opposition to the world's single most important energy mineral. There could be no greater contrast between the way the Liberal-National Party Government arrived at its policy on uranium and the path that is being followed by this Government. Our consideration of uranium policy was one of our first moves when we were elected to government in 1975. We fully supported the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry under Mr Justice Fox. This was the most exhaustive inquiry of its type ever conducted in Australia. Mr Hunt —Initiated by the Whitlam Government. Mr ANTHONY —It was. The report has become recognised internationally as the most comprehensive document on the subject of uranium mining. When the Fox report was released we examined it minutely and we encouraged wide public discussion on the issue. Then in 1977 the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, announced in this House a detailed, precise and completely consistent policy on uranium which embraced all the issues involved, such as protection of the environment, consultation with Aborigines, safety, our international energy responsibilities and international safeguards. How has this Government dealt with the same issue? Last year the national conference of the Australian Labor Party arrived, after coming close to self-destruction. Its uranium policy is one of the most confusing and contradictory documents ever presented to Australians as an excuse for a policy. I remember reading about the former Minister for Communications who was woken up early in the morning and told of the policy. He thought that he was a little befuddled by sleepiness, so he rang up one of his colleagues to find out whether it was his mind or whether it was the policy that was absolutely crazy. With all due regard to the former Minister for Communications, whose ability I respect greatly, it turned out to be not his mind but the policy that was absolutely crazy. Many Australians, not the least of them the majority of Labor Party members, were under the impression that the policy would halt uranium mining. That was the belief of Labor Party members. Those who now form this Government have made no attempt to correct that confusion. When they came to government-in fact, probably well beforehand-they realised that the policy with which they were saddled was completely unworkable. Out of that realisation came uranium policy mark 2. Admittedly, it was not as stupid as the first one-it could not possibly have been that bad-but it came pretty close to it. It would require more time than I have today to explore all the contradictions and hypocrisy of Labor's mark 2 uranium policy. I draw attention to the scornful way in which this Government has ignored those who are most vitally affected by its decision on uranium. Three groups in particular have been affected. They are the mining industry, the people of the Northern Territory and, especially, the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. There can be no doubt that those who have most clearly seen the yawning chasm between Labor's promises and its actions are the Aborigines. We have all listened for years to members of the Labor Party pouring out their hearts about Aboriginal welfare, Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal health-all the matters involved with Aboriginal affairs. I know they have done it with sincerity. But this Government, which claims to govern for all Australians, has sold out the Aborginal people of the Northern Territory. It has sold them out to buy off the armchair socialists and the vegetable plot conservationists who oppose uranium with all the blind fanatacism of Ayatollah Khomeini's suicide squads. That is how far honourable members opposite will go. Nothing will stop them. The Government, in selling the Northern Territory Aboriginals down the drain, has also sold the Northern Territory and the Australian mining industry down the drain. The bitter irony in all of this is the performance of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). This Minister has set new records in self- righteousness and arrogant assertions that he alone knows what is best and right for the Aboriginal people of Australia. Yet he stood by while this Government sold those people for whom he is responsible down the drain. He has even actively participated in this disgraceful action. One of the major components of the previous Government's uranium policy was the requirement that companies seeking development approval for new uranium mines had to reach agreement with the Aborigines affected by such mines. This happened with the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory and with the Nabarlek mine. The two proposed new mines- Jabiluka and Koongarra, both in the Northern Territory-have also reached agreement with the Aboriginal people. It is estimated that if these four mines were all producing at full capacity the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory would receive in excess of $100m a year in royalties and benefits from the mining industry. Yet all of this has gone down the drain under Labor. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs stomped round the Territory earlier this year telling the Aboriginal people: 'No compensation'. Then, following the decision on the uranium policy, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment ( Mr Cohen) precipitately declared Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park in an attempt to pre-empt debate on this matter, locking up further mining opportunities and depriving the Aboriginal people of the further benefits that might have been received from well designed, carefully developed mining projects in that area. Has there been any consultation with the Aboriginal people about this decision or about any aspect of the uranium policy? Of course there has not been. On this question honourable members opposite have totally ignored the Aboriginal people and their benefits and concerns. The Aboriginal people's hopes for a secure future, a steady income and a degree of independence have been taken away by this Government. The second group to suffer as a result of the arrogance and the ruthlessness of this Government is the mining industry. The discrimination that is part and parcel of the current uranium policy is clear for all to see. What is perhaps less obvious is the severe blow that has been struck at many mining companies as a result of the declaration of Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park. Before this decision was taken, the Government received protest after protest from some of our biggest mining companies, which had spent millions after millions exploring the area for mineralisation. Of course, the Government's decision has closed off all of that. Millions of dollars have been lost by Australian companies. Their protests did not matter; the Government went blindly ahead and made the decision . This, again, is a transparent pay-off to the left wing of the Labor Party. It is unbelievably stupid. The Opposition fully supports the concept of the Kakadu National Park. Indeed, it was a Liberal-National Country Party Government that created it in the first place. There is clear evidence that the conservation zone we had implemented over the Stage 2 area was working and allowing a potentially very rich region of mineralisation to be explored and possibly to be developed in the future. The orderly process of exploration which was under way was fully consistent with the park concept. Orderly mining, under strict controls and with strict requirements for rehabilitation, would have provided at least part of the income needed to ensure that the park reached its full potential. The Government's decision on Stage 2 of the park and its policy overall have dealt a severe blow to the Australian mining industry and to Australia's international reputation. The brunt of all these blows has, as I have noted, fallen on the people of the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal people in particular and the mining industry generally. They are paying for the Government's effort to give some sort of warm inner glow to the left wing members of the Labor Party. The Government has tried to bury the truth of its decision under a flood of attempts to justify its policy. Most of these attempted justifications deserve to be treated with utter contempt. The only one with any pretence to rationality is the claim that there is room on the world market for Australia to sell only an extra 3,000 tonnes of uranium a year and that this amount would be supplied by Roxby Downs in South Australia. Yet if this were true, it would demonstrate again the Government's arrogance and its belief that the Government, not private enterprise, knew which mines to develop and how best to develop them. The companies managing the Jabiluka and Koongarra mines have been prepared to find contracts, the terms of which are acceptable and reasonable, but, of course, big brother has stepped in and squashed the opportunity for these companies to develop at all. The Government's figuring-that is, that there is a market for only 3,000 tonnes extra by the year 1990-is open to the most serious questioning. In the time I have available I will give the briefest outline of the best information that the Opposition has been able to get. It presents a totally different picture from that being presented quite dishonestly by the Government. Australia's share of unfilled demand for world uranium could be, at a conservative estimate, an extra 4,700 tonnes a year by 1990 and 11,200 tonnes a year by the year 2000. That is a far cry from Labor's claim that there is a market for only 3,000 tonnes extra. This is calculated on only 20 per cent of the world's market. As everybody knows , we have the richest and probably the most competitive uranium in the world to sell. There is a great opportunity and enormous promise for Australia. Mr Chynoweth —You mean profit? Mr ANTHONY —Enormous profit; enormous promise too. We will all benefit. All I can say is that in this whole policy area the Government stands condemned for its deceit, its dictatorial tactics and its arrogance. No matter what the Government says about uranium, we all know that it is a hotch potch of contrived excuses and reasons to cover up its hopeless policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The right honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(3.10) —It is on record that Darwin, one of the great scientists of the world, was once confronted with two small children who presented him with an insect-I think it was a little beetle to which they had glued wings-and who said: 'We have found this new insect. What sort of insect is it?' The good professor looked at it and said: 'I am inclined to think it is a humbug'. I submit that those children could equally have presented the Liberal- National Party for the professor's inspection. Never have I heard in this place the humbug that I have heard today from the right honourable member opposite. I am quite happy to address myself to that humbug. This man parades as a guardian of Aboriginal interests. Do honourable members think any Aboriginals in this country believe that? There is no doubt the right honourable member simply does not understand how the free market works. I had to mention this yesterday. Honourable members opposite really are slow learners. The right honourable member, who I think represents New England or one of the more obscure places- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The right honourable member for Richmond is being referred to. Mr CAMPBELL —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. He said that if the mines at Jabiluka and Koongarra go ahead, the Aboriginals will get $100m. That is simply not true. Under the terms negotiated by those Aboriginal people, they will get the money only if the uranium is sold. I would have thought that even the right honourable member would have understood that. Surely he will not deny that that is a fact. There is no doubt that in today's market Jabiluka and Roxby Downs are mutually exclusive. It may not always be so, but at this time that is probably the case. The Government has to make a decision. In Liberal Party parlance, the Roxby Downs mine is supposed to employ 30,000 people. In typical Liberal Party style that figure has probably been exaggerated dramatically and the correct figure is probably somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000. I will use the figure of 30,000 people. I will also use the Liberal Party figures for Jabiluka of from 400 to 500. I ask the right honourable gentleman: Which of those is in the best interests of Australia? His assertion is nonsense, and he knows it. It is humbug of the highest order, and he knows that too. Yesterday in this House he spoke in the most obsequious terms about how we ought to have co-operation and how the Government ought to consult all the parties. Today in this House he adopted a totally opposite attitude. He is a Liberal chameleon, another creature, and another humbug too, I might add. The right honourable gentleman, when the responsible Minister, refused to give Jabiluka a licence to sell because he said the price was not high enough. He said that there was no facility to negotiate prices on a forward basis. That was a very wise decision. I applaud him; he makes the right decisions very occasionally, as he did then. Today he is trying to ignore that decision in this place. Why should Jabiluka have more priority than Yeelirrie? Yeelirrie is a mine that is ready to go. The studies have all been done; it is an excellent mine. Why should the right honourable gentleman go into bat in this House for Jabiluka? It would not have anything to do with the Northern Territory election! I am sure nobody in this country would believe it had any relevance to that! You , sir, are a humbug. Mr Anthony —Why don't you tell us about Yeelirrie? You are supposed to be the local member, but you have sold out on Yeelirrie. Mr CAMPBELL —With all respect, my views on the subject are well known. The Western Mining Corporation would be more grateful to me than to the right honourable gentleman. I am concerned about the plight of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. I am also concerned about the fact that when I visit some of these places in the Northern Territory there seems to be a big disparity of wealth between those who have mineral rights and those who do not. I say that as an unabashed socialist. Let us remember that all of us in this House are socialists. Honourable members are rural socialists and national socialists. We, of course, are democratic socialists. If the people of Australia have to choose, they will choose democratic socialists rather than national socialists. That is a very real choice that the people of Australia will have to make in years to come. As a socialist I am concerned about mineral rights. I have a deep and very profound concern about individuals owning mineral rights. I believe mineral rights belong to the whole nation. I believe we should be taking back mineral rights from those people, including people in my own State, who own them, because as a socialist I believe mineral rights belong to individuals. You, sir, are on record and you parade in here as a great champion of Aboriginal rights. You must think Aboriginal people are completely stupid. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman is not referring to the Chair, I am sure, but I ask him to address his remarks through the Chair. It would save a great deal of confusion. Mr CAMPBELL —I will certainly try to avoid that confusion. The right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) has said that there is some confusion in the Government's policy. The Government's policy on uranium was enunciated on 7 November 1983. I will read it very slowly: If a commercial decision were to be made by the joint ventures in the Roxby Downs project to proceed with development, the Government would permit the development of that project subject to whatever safeguards requirements apply generally to uranium at the time of export from that mine. That is very reasonable. I am sure honourable members opposite will agree. To continue: With the exception of Roxby Downs, if commercially feasible, the Government will not permit the development of any new mines. I do not think even the right honourable member opposite will argue with that so far. It is by no means sure that Roxby Downs is commercially feasible. I read a recent statement in the Senate by a colleague of those opposite, Senator Kilgariff, who asserted that Roxby Downs is viable in gold alone. That shows the depth of understanding of those opposite. It is very superficial and they certainly know very little about mining. They are the people who think high technology is butter. Our policy goes on: An inquiry will be conducted by the Australian Science and Technology Council under the direction of its Chairman to inquire into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle and is to report to the Government no later than mid-May 1984 . Its examination will include Australia's nuclear safeguards arrangements-- that is very sensible, I am sure honourable members will agree-- the opportunities for Australia through the conditions of its involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle to further advance the cause of nuclear non-proliferation-- That is very laudable, I am sure honourable members will agree. The cause of nuclear non-proliferation is very important and I do not think too much attention can ever be given to it. I am on record as saying that the danger to the world today is 60,000 nuclear weapons, not 300 nuclear power stations. My views on that are quite clear. The Government's policy goes on: . . . the adequacy of existing technology for the handling and disposal of waste products by consuming countries. That also is a very important matter to be addressed. This Government has a clear cut policy. It is easy for those opposite to have a clear cut policy because it is so broad and blanket that it means anything. I remember one of my constituents showing me a double page spread of the National Party platform on defence. He said: 'This is the straightforward policy we want on defence', and he showed it to me. It was a double page spread. It showed tanks leaping off hills, soldiers with bayonets and planes everywhere. It stated: 'The National Party believes in defence.' That is the sort of policy the National Party enunciates. It is true that the Labor Party tends to get into trouble because it tries to give too much detail. We are a democratic party. We try to have policies into which everyone has an input. There is no doubt that there will be an element of confusion, but it is confusion that in the name of democracy I am prepared to live with. What else did the Government say on 7 November? It said: All future exports of Australian uranium will be subject to the most stringent supply conditions which will be determined by the Government following the Inquiry. I would not argue with that. I cannot see how any reasonable person would. It seems to be to be eminently suitable. The Government continued: A permanent Commission will be established to examine on an ongoing basis the full range of issues relating to the nuclear fuel cycle and will report regularly to the Government. That seems a very reasonable and sensible proposition. I am surprised that the right honourable member for Richmond takes umbrage at it. We also said: No new contracts will be approved from existing mines until after the Inquiry with the exception of two contracts negotiated for the supply from the Ranger mine to US utilities. The conditions attached to exports under these contracts will be determined after the Inquiry. If we are to have an inquiry it would be the height of stupidity to allow uranium to be sold until we have received the results of that inquiry and the benefit of that study. To reasonable, rational people that would seem a very responsible attitude to take, but the right honourable member for Richmond and his camp followers are not interested in a rational debate. They come into the House to score petty points. Yesterday the right honourable member for Richmond in a speech in the House asked us all to get together and co-operate. He asked the Government to talk to people. Now he is saying we should do quite the opposite. He has a consistently inconsistent approach to these matters. We also said: The existing suspension on uranium exports to France will be further considered in the light of the report of the Inquiry or on any progress towards cessation of French nuclear testing in the Pacific. Many people in the right honourable member's own Party wish the French would not drop bombs in the Pacific. That is not limited to us dreadful socialists. It is a response which I think the overwhelming number of the Australian community appreciates. I do not think that even the right honourable member for Richmond's most red-necked members endorse the dropping of French bombs in the Pacific. We say that we will consider the suspension on uranium exports when the report comes in or when the French stop nuclear testing. That seems to me to be a course of action which would be applauded by the great bulk of Australians. The right honourable member for Richmond also kept reiterating his view about the dreadful left wing of the Party. I have come to my position on uranium after careful study, and I have come to it from the other side of the spectrum. I know that uranium is not a left wing issue. For the Opposition to come into the House and try to say that there is some sort of plot or clandestine position of the Left to stop uranium mining is an absurd notion. The right honourable member for Richmond knows it is. In the affluent electorates in Australia he will find the greatest opposition to uranium mining. I have figures available and I know the information is available to the right honourable member as well. I would like to give some definite information on marketing, if I have time, because this is an aspect which I think is very important. It has become abundantly plain that the right honourable member does not understand the free enterprise system and how it works. I will give some details so that, hopefully, he will have some idea of where the real potential lies. I think there is an argument that some companies in Australia will be able to gain markets that are not readily available to other companies. For instance, the Total Oil Company has- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. [COGNATE BILL: AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 as they are related measures. Seperate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(3.26) —The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Australian National Railways Commission Bill 1983 or the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. In fact, it is the intention of the Opposition to be as supportive as possible of the Australian National Railways Commission. The Commission faces enormous problems. It has faced enormous problems from the outset. The system that was taken over by Australian National was losing, as I recall, $1.7m a week when the Commission started to operate. That has obviously created all sorts of difficulties and problems for management right from the inception of the Commission as the manager of the Australian National network as we know it at the moment. I think it is largely because of the extent of the problems that the Commission faces that the Opposition wishes to be as supportive as possible of Australian National. The Opposition also recognises that there is no alternative to the Australian National Railways Commission. It is not one of those enterprises of government which can be sold. There is obviously no buyer for a network of that nature. Equally, the network cannot be closed down. Again, we recognise that there is no alternative to the Commission, and that is another reason why one must be positive about the Australian National Railways Commission. One must approach any legislation, any debate, any government decisions, any Opposition policy which relates to it in a positive way. It is my firm belief that a commission of the nature of the Australian National Railways Commission must have top-flight management. It is one of the difficulties of any government business undertaking, because of the nature of comparisons and the structure that exists within the Public Service, even with those structures which are set up outside the Public Service Board, that conditions, salaries and the like will always be matters of some sensitivity. The reality is, and we all accept it, that the commercial market rates probably cannot be paid to the management that should be paid if it is to attract the sort of people it needs. However, within the constraints that apply, it is the view of the Opposition that the Government should ensure that the best possible management is attracted to the Commission. Secondly, all possible encouragement should be given to that management. For its part, the Government must be prepared to accept the Public Service obligations that it as a government imposes upon the Australian National Railways Commission and not use the Commission as some sort of rag-bag or pork barrelling operation in such a way that the losses and what have you finish up in some unaccountable mishmash that nobody can unravel. I think that is important. The Commission will never operate as a commercial proposition if the Government does not take a positive attitude to it. If the Government is not prepared to accept the Commission's community service obligations and to fund those obligations, as properly being requirements placed upon the Commission by government as services that would not have been provided if the commercial test had been applied, the morale of the Commission will be extraordinarily low. The management will know that regardless of what efforts it might make, the number of uncommercial ventures it is required to undertake will mean that the Commission will always perform badly in financial terms, if not in other terms. That is an important factor that needs to be understood. I know that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) acknowledges it and that there is provision in this legislation for it. The Commission in my view must also be encouraged to do those things that it can do well, to expand its operations to the maximum in areas where it has the advantage and to operate in such a way that it achieves the best financial results that it can at a minimum cost to the taxpayer. The Bill which the Minister has introduced is very similar in nature to a Bill introduced by the former Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). It does differ in some respects and I will deal with those aspects a little later in the course of my remarks. It is the intention of the Opposition to support the legislation. I say that in the context of the remarks that I have made so far. But there are enormous problems. It is a reality that we have the rail network. There is no alternative other than to continue to operate it and we must therefore attack it in a positive way, be supportive of the Commission and ensure that all things that can be done are done to make sure that it is as commercial an operation as possible. The next thing that needs to be said is that it has not been an easy time to be operating rail systems. I cite as examples some recent results. In 1981-82 the Victorian rail system lost $233m, which is equivalent to a subsidy of about $11, 100 per employee. The New South Wales rail system lost about $670m in 1981-82, if the total subsidies paid by the Government to the New South Wales rail system are taken as being a measure of its loss. That equates to about 16,200 per employee. In the same year the Australian National Railways Commission lost $73m . I think I am right in saying that that is about $6,000 per employee. The reality, as I say, is that things are not easy for railways. There are common problems facing all of them in terms of the state of the networks-the track and rolling-stock-and obviously things such as drought and general economic climate as well as the nature and extent of competition. Australian National must compete with the road transport industry and the passenger coach industry. It also must compete with airlines at least in regard to passengers, if not freight . It also must compete with the coastal shipping network. Australian National does not find itself in any sort of a privileged or monopoly situation. It operates in a commercial and competitive environment and it must operate as best it can within that environment. Honourable members will be aware that the Commission was set up in July 1975 to take over the minor Commonwealth rail network that existed at the time and also to take over the recently acquired Tasmanian system and South Australian rural system, of which the then Government, under the prime ministership of Mr Whitlam , negotiated the purchase from the respective State governments. But it was not until 1978 when the transfer agreements were finalised that Australian National took effective operational control of those networks. Since that time its performance has been disappointing. Regardless of how supportive one might wish to be, one must take account of the fact that even though the systems that were taken over were loss-making systems, the result really has not improved a great deal over that period. In 1977-78 the Commission lost $88m and received a government subsidy towards that loss of $64m; in 1978-79 it lost $72m and the subsidy was again $64m; in 1979-80 there was a $65m loss with a subsidy of $58m; in 1980-81 the loss was $63m and the subsidy was $56m; and in 1981-82 the loss was $73m and the subsidy was $68m. So over that period of five years the Commission has achieved operating losses of $361m and has received from taxpayers through the Government $310m in subsidies. The Minister has indicated that the subsidy element this year will be about $105m and for the previous year it was $106m. Since its inception the Australian National Railways Commission has been paid a subsidy approaching $500m from taxpayers funds. The legislation that we are considering today requires the Commission to conduct its operations in a manner which accords with sound commercial practice. That provision, which is proper, is made in clause 18 of the Bill. There were similar provisions in the legislation which is being repealed. But we need to acknowledge that the Government has a role to play in relation to the operation of the Commission. There are essentially three revenue sources for the Commission from the Government. Those are: Capital works and services payments that are made available; the operating loss subsidy to which I have just referred; and also the money which is made available in the form of reimbursement of concessions. In addition to those sources of funds from the Government, the Commission has the option-if in fact it is an option; I would like to think it is probably more of a requirement-to make claims upon the Government for the payment of those losses incurred at the direction of the Government. Such provision was made in section 44 of the Act and is contained in clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill. The other matter that is of some relevance in this regard is that the Commissioner also has the authority to borrow at semi-government rates and with a government guarantee. I think that there is still reasonably extensive Government involvement in the money that flows to the Commission and the role that it has to play even though the Commission is expected to operate in accordance with some commercial practice. I believe that in all these areas of financial involvement the Government must show sensitivity. It should act in such a way as to assist the commercial objective of the Commission and not act in a way which will constrain the Commission or cause adverse effects on its ability to achieve profits and, generally speaking, to operate in a commercial fashion. I believe the role of government ought to be to set objectives, to ensure that the best available management is employed by the Commission and perhaps to play the role of a banker to the Commission. Otherwise it should keep its involvement to a minimum. The Parliament, for its part, needs to satisfy itself that the interests of the taxpayer are being protected. As I have indicated, over the last seven years the taxpayer has contributed something approaching $500m. That is no mean contribution. It may well be that in another environment one might wish to consider whether there are other ways in which the services of the Commission can be provided at less cost. However, accepting things as they are for the moment, the taxpayer is making a reasonable contribution to the provision of those services and does have some interest in ensuring that things are being run in the most effective fashion. The other point one should note in relation to this matter is that the situation is unlikely to change, at least in the medium term. That may be fair enough. Maybe things are beyond the control of the Commission and losses will continue to be recorded for some time to come. Regardless of that, this just emphasises the point tht the taxpayer does have an interest in the Commission. Bearing that in mind, the Commission needs to be accountable to the Parliament for its commercial operations. The Government ought to be accountable to the Parliament for the community service obligation element because essentially that arises from government decisions. If the Government takes the view that Australian National Railways ought to operate a particular service, or ought to operate a particular branch line, or ought to operate somewhere where the Commission does not believe it ought to operate because of the commercial test, the Government needs to be accountable to the Parliament for that element of the Commission's funding. The Commission ought not be accountable in the same way. But certainly, in relation to those elements of the Commission's operations which are commercial, it needs to be accountable to the Parliament. I think that is one important reason why the community service obligations need to be separated from the commercial operations of the Commission. I do not think it is news to anybody who takes an interest in these matters that I have been critical of Australian National's management. I think it is reasonable to say that over a period the management has left a lot to be desired . That is not to say that I am in any way censuring the management or taking any drastic approach of that nature. But things have not been good and I do not entirely attribute that to the present management structure because obviously a lot of the problems were inherited. The system was losing money at a very heavy rate when the present management took it over. It would be unfair to lay the blame on the present management for the results that we have seen over the years and for the claims that have had to be made upon the taxpayers to keep the system running. It needs to be said that up to about half of the losses recorded by Australian National are due to the community service obligations; the other half are largely management-related losses. As I say, those management related losses refer to past management as well as present management. When I say 'past' I include the period before the transfer agreements were entered into with the Tasmanian and South Australian governments. There is no doubt that a lot of bad business decisions or bad management decisions have been taken since then in relation to a number of factors and these have been responsible, at least in part, for some of the losses that have been made. I have made the point, and I repeat it, that it is essential that the Commission isolate and itemise those losses which are due to the community service obligations and make a claim upon the Government for those funds. The management has not separated the community service obligations and made those claims. I believe it should have. The sooner it gets around to getting its systems into order so that that can be done the better. I think that over the period the management has preferred to keep the figures muddled because this has obscured the extent of the losses that probably are properly attributed to management itself. I have expressed the view on earlier occasions that the management, even though it probably could not, down to the last dollar, accurately split overheads and attribute costs to different operations, should have made claims through the Department of Transport on the Department of the Treasury and let the Treasury or the Department challenge it and query the figures. I am sure that as a result of that process payments, not necessarily of the original amount claimed, would have been made to Australian National in respect of those community service obligations. I think that by that means the morale of the whole Commission would have been much improved. Instead of having to acknowledge losses of the order of $60m, $70m or even $100m year by year, a lot of that money would have been made available in the form of payments by the Government for the services that it requires the Commission to undertake. The losses that would have been attributable to the other operations of Australian National would have been significantly less and in my view that would have been a far better situation for everybody concerned. The other matter which I have been critical of is the corporate planning performance. At least four corporate plans have been prepared and probably a couple that I am not aware of have come through in recent times. All of those corporate plans show a deficit for 1983 of between $50m and $60m. In fact the 1983 deficit was closer to $100m. For 1984 the corporate plan shows that the losses should be reduced to something in the order of $35m and $55m, depending on which of the corporate plans one looks at. The anticipated loss for 1984 will be in the order of $85m so it is apparent that the performance of the corporate plan has been way off. I know that claims will be made, because of the drought, the economic recession and a number of other factors, all of which are quite proper, that performance has not been as good as had been anticipated. However, it also has to be acknowledged that that in itself is an admission that the corporate planning has been bad. Anybody who is concerned with corporate planning acknowledges that one must make provisions for the unexpected. We cannot produce corporate plans, forward Budgets and other things on the basis that everything will be ideal every year. We must take account of the fact that all the different factors that make up the corporate plan can vary, and vary dramatically. Anybody who is involved with commercial market corporations will acknowledge that. The difficulty and the difference between those sorts of corporations and the Commission is this: The Commission was required by the Minister back in 1978 to produce a plan that would demonstrate how the Commission would break even by 1988. Accordingly, that is what the Commission did. The four figures that have been produced show one common thing; that is, that the Commission will break even in 1988. I think that is probably one of the difficulties there is when there are political involvements in a structure which is supposed to operate commercially. This plan does not take into account the unexpected. It does not take into account the sorts of contingencies that can arise. As a result of that it has been way off target. Maybe it cannot afford to take those things into account. If it did it probably could not show a break-even figure by 1988. As I have said, perhaps this is one of the problems that relates to the political directive of having to break even in 1988. I think it needs to be said that, even in relation to its commercial operations, and accepting that the Minister for Transport will be prepared to arrange for the payment of community service obligation moneys, the Commission would probably have trouble breaking even on its commercial operations by 1988. I want to touch on the question of public funds and the need for accountability . I acknowledge that there is an enormous problem in this area. It is very difficult to have a situation on the one hand where an organisation is expected to be a commercial operation but, on the other, it must have a government and a parliamentary aspect to it. The parliamentary scrutiny of an organisation such as this is important; I say that in a positive way. It ought not be the intention of the Parliament and it is certainly not the intention of the Opposition to arrange the parliamentary scrutiny that we would have in mind in such a way as to deny the freedom from management. But it is essential that accountability should be there. For that reason we will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage of the legislation to ensure that there is some accountability beyond the tabling of an annual report. I accept the criticisms of the Minister in relation to the amendment that I moved in relation to the Australian Shipping Commission. We would be seeking to have the Commission or the Minister put before the Parliament a corporate plan that has been sanitised, to the extent that there was nothing commercially sensitive in it, and made available for scrutiny. This I believe is essential. I also have some queries about the targeting of the loss subsidy and the way in which the Commission is expected to meet any shortfall between what the loss might actually turn out to be and what the agreement before the beginning of the financial year had been with the Government. I think it is an area which may provide some difficulties as we get further down the track-if honourable members would excuse the pun. One of the things I have been pleased about is that the common carrier provisions have been taken out of this legislation. I think the common carrier provisions provided all sorts of problems for Australian National . They might have been appropriate provisions at the time when competition and alternative forms of transport were not as available as they are now. But I think today it is not sensible to have a situation where Australian National is a common carrier. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) has raised with me and also with the Minister the question of statistical information which is not available, particularly in relation to a splitting out from the operations of the Commission's statistics that relates specifically to the Tasmanian operations, to accidents and the safety record of the Commission. The Minister might like to turn his attention to those matters because it seems to be a reasonable request to make. It is the sort of thing that could be easily accommodated within the annual reporting structure of Australian National, if he so required it to be. As I have indicated, the legislation has the support of the Opposition. We will be moving the amendment, as I indicated, in relation to the corporate plan and accountability to the Parliament. I am pleased to see that the Government is taking a positive attitude to the Commission as a whole. As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, it is a reality. It is something to which, in any practicable sense, we do not have any alternative. I think it ought to be the role of government to support it to the full to ensure that it operates in such a way that it does not become any more of a drain on taxpayers than it needs to be. For all those reasons the Opposition will not oppose the legislation. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(3.56) —I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on railways. My predecessor, Mr Laurie Wallis, who represented the seat of Grey for 14 years, made many fine contributions in this House on behalf of railways and railway workers. I bring to the attention of the House the fact that Laurie Wallis, the former member, is not well. I am sure that all honourable members in this House will wish him a speedy recovery. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr O'NEIL —I thank honourable members. As the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) has said, this is not an easy time to be operating railway systems in Australia. We, on this side of the House, are very fortunate indeed to have such a dedicated, positive and constructive Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in this position. Members of the Australian Labor Party's transport committee in particular must pay tribute to the Minister for Transport for the support he has given us in helping to formulate our policies, and our ideas in promoting railways. I am sure that the railway system throughout Australia will expand. It will expand very greatly and quickly under this very positive Australian Labor Party Government. Mr White —What about the one you have just knocked back? Mr O'NEIL —One of the members of the Opposition mentioned the Alice Springs- Darwin railway. I would be quite happy to comment on that. I quite firmly support the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. However, the situation is that we are in harsh economic times. The Hawke Government has taken a positive approach to this and it has set up a committee of inquiry to which I have certainly made submissions. The committee of inquiry will shortly hand down its report. If the railway is viable then it will proceed. The Australian National Railways Act 1917, which the Australian National Railways Commission Bill and the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill are designed to replace, came into effect at a very interesting stage in the development of Australian railways. The year 1917 was the year when , on 22 October, the first train to cross the Nullabor Plain on the newly completed transcontinental line left Port Augusta for Kalgoorlie. That event was very relevant to the concerns of this new legislation because it represented the first major achievement in terms of both national thinking and national action on railways. It was not achieved easily. The barriers to concerted national action were of a kind that are not entirely unknown today. For instance in 1904, when the Deakin Government moved for an appropriation to finance a railway survey between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie, the issue of State versus Commonwealth development began to loom large. Interstate rivalry was another delaying factor. A Queensland senator echoed the sentiments of many when she said that, since every other State had borne the burden of its own public works, it would be unjust for the Commonwealth to build a line which should be the reponsibility of the Western Australian and South Australian governments. I think we have come a long way since then, even if it did take until 1969 to get the standard gauge through from Sydney to Perth. The greatest obstacle today to a truly comprehensive and uniform national railway system would be less likely to be State rivalry than lack of financial resources to invest in a national system. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, in tight budgetary situations a careful and responsible assessment of priorities is necessary as a guide to any further investment in rail programs. Mr White —He never would have built a railway in Australia. Mr O'NEIL —It is priorities I want to talk about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Grey will resume his seat. The honourable member for McPherson will have his opportunity to address the House. I suggest that he should reserve his comments until that time . Mr O'NEIL —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is priorities I want to talk about. I have already mentioned the early association between Port Augusta and the Transcontinental railway. At that early stage of federalism it was a highly innovative step to Commonwealth resources, to fill in a gap left by unco- ordinated State railways. The young Commonwealth railways organisation became very closely associated with this new line spanning the Nullarbor, with Port Augusta, already well established and well placed to become a communications and logistics hub for most of central and north central Australia. That was the start of an era. The national standard gauge rail system, linked by necessity to State systems using broad and narrow gauge, became the mainstay of a railway support industry existing mainly to cope with the complexities of the multi- gauge system and on the spot maintenance of the varied kinds of rolling stock. Railway workshops which thrived at Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Peterborough, where lines of various gauges met, also had important roles to play in the system. As isolated industrial centres they all, to a greater or lesser extent, came to depend on railways for their existence. To be more precise, they came to depend on the peculiar style of railways demand dictated by the proliferation of gauges and the great distance from any capital city competition. We are now seeing some element of threat of an end of that era of railway-based decentralisation. This has been brought about largely by progress in the standardisation of track, resulting chiefly from the transfer of main-line South Australian railways to ANR by the former Dunstan Government. That was very desirable progress, but the element of irony that seems to be inseparable from most kinds of technical advance has had its usual effects. Many jobs have disappeared, others are destined to go. With the multiplier effect operating in reverse, at least one whole community is under threat in the old railway town of Peterborough. I said earlier I wanted to talk about priorities. Perhaps it would have been more exact to call it value judgments because I want to stress here what I see as the greatest responsibility involved in change-the preservation of what is worth preserving or, if you like, avoiding the trap of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Minister made it clear that he would expect ANR to operate efficiently along commercial lines to predetermined targets. It was acknowledged that railways sometimes had to take in functions of a non- commercial kind which may be socially desirable. These must be separately identified and submitted for Government approval. In this way independent checks could be kept on the railways' degree of success in operating as a commercial- type entity and, on the other hand, as a community service where considered necessary. My first concern, of course, is with my electorate. I have seen plenty of need for tempering economic judgments with human understanding and tolerance in the process of rationalisation of ANR's resources which is under way and will continue for some time yet. I am sure that ANR is already very conscious of a responsibility to merge the old with the new to the best possible advantage of both. I hope that if any areas of doubt do arise the benefit might be given to those who have served the railways long and well. It is gratifying to note that ANR is getting $1.6m in 1983-84 from the Commonwealth's share of the community employment program and that this will be put into employing 130 people on resleepering and other railway projects in South Australia and Western Australia . So much, then, for the social effects of imminent change and the tasks of adjusting to meet it. The foreseeable future for our national railways is going to be just as closely identified geographically with the area around Port Augusta as it was in the past. This will become increasingly so as north-south traffic from Adelaide continues to grow as more standard gauge lines come into use. The Tarcoola-Alice Springs link, which was started under the last Labor Government and completed in 1980, has had a considerable boosting effect on traffic in the northern region. It is not unreasonable to expect that when the new standard gauge passenger terminal at Keswick, Adelaide, comes into use in May next year and it becomes possible to board either the transcontinental or the Ghan at that terminal for a straight-through trip to Alice Springs or the West, this will considerably enhance ANR's role in the tourist industry that has been making great strides, especially in the near north. All this spells out to me that it would be in the interests of the Australian National Railways Commission, as well as in the interests of Port Augusta, if the Commission were to acknowledge in its future treatment of that northern Spencer Gulf city that it is going to be just as much the hub of national railways future development and activity as it has been from the start. There will have to be some changes of function as a result of all the progress in gauge standardisation. The transcontinental and the Ghan, which normally have had their rolling stock based at Port Pirie and overhauled at Port Augusta, will logically be attended to in Adelaide when they become based there from next May. I understand it is ANR's intention to have all Indian Pacific rolling stock maintenance carried out at Port Augusta. This I applaud. A further boost to this decentralised workshop complex will come from looking after the increasing number of trucks bringing coal from Leigh Creek for the new power station, as well as from servicing ore trucks from the Broken Hill line. South Australia generally may be expected to be a very live area for railways advancement for some time to come. The standard gauge conversion from Adelaide to Crystal Brook has been working successfully on freight carriage for several months now. We know that conversion of the Adelaide-Melbourne link is on the drawing board somewhere, and it is quite obvious that this cannot be held up indefinitely when the line becomes the only non-standard stretch between Brisbane and Perth. I am quite sure that when the standard gauge linking Adelaide with Alice Springs and Perth becomes fully functional for passenger traffic this will have a marked effect on patterns of tourist travel to the central areas of the continent and to the Northern Territory. What I would like to see is a concentrated publicity campaign coinciding with the opening of what could be a new and exciting era in Australian rail travel. Admittedly Australia still has, as the Minister pointed out, five separate rail systems using three different gauges, but repeated efforts by various Federal and State governments have reduced the backlog of our original legacy from the State colonial administrations to a level where there is light at the end of the tunnel. If Lord Kitchener were able to visit this country now, as he did in 1910 , to assist in drawing up schemes of local defence, he would be somewhat less likely to say, as he did then: Railway construction has, while developing the country, resulted in lines that would appear to be more favourable to any enemy invading Australia than to the defence of the country. The terms of the Australian National Railways Commission Bill need, for maximum effect, the backing of a more consistent and innovative national transport policy than previous administrations have had the advantage of. I believe ANR has just this. For its own part ANR, as well as its employees, will need to accept the challenge of the opportunity being given to have a hand in re- creating the nation's own railway system along sound and efficient lines. I believe that the changes to financial policy incorporated in this Bill will help significantly in this task. The measurable separation of AN's activities into those that can be judged against broad commercial criteria and those which can be categorised as community services provides a necessary plank in the platform for improvement. In keeping with the broadly bipartisan nature of this legislation, those measures are in line with the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in its 1982 report on the Australian National Railways Commission, and also with the Government's social audit policy in transport. Although this Bill contains many of the features of an earlier Bill introduced by the former Minister for Transport, it differs importantly in its application to the accountability of the Commission for attaining financial targets. In advance of each financial year AN will be required to set out its financial target, which will be subject to consultation between the Minister and the Commission. This will decide the level of the annual revenue supplement decided in the Budget as the Government's contribution to the Commission for the year. AN will be expected to review progress at agreed intervals so that if it is off course it can make whatever corrections are needed to get back on target for its predetermined financial objective. Should it be decided that this cannot be attained AN may borrow with the Treasurer's approval, but will have no further recourse to Budget funds. Much of the practicality of this approach to AN funding will depend on the ability of the Government and the Commission to agree on a realistic annual revenue supplement. The financial target will become the yardstick against which AN's performance is measured, and it will have the benefit of any achievements it may make above that level during the year. The Bill will give AN a great deal more commercial freedom and responsibility. This ranges from the setting of fare and freight rate levels to the determining of the principles to form the basis of charges for prescribed services. There are, however, clearly defined and reasonable provisions for oversight by the Minister. These require ministerial approval for contracts valued at more than $2m, for participation by AN in the formation of companies, or in agreements for lease financing. A notable departure from the old order is that AN will have power to construct small extensions to its railway network. This previously required an Act of Parliament. Such legislation will be needed in future only for railways more than 25 kilometres long. Given the new expectation for AN to display more competitive commercial awareness in the conduct of its affairs, this freedom of action will be significant. It will, for instance, allow AN to construct sidings or spur lines to clients' premises as a valuable aid to competition with other transport operators. The keynote of increased independence and streamlining of procedures that runs through this legislation has been extended also to personnel practices. Rights of employees of the Commission, including those transferred from the former Tasmanian Railways and South Australian Railways have not been changed. But there have been improvements. AN staff will no longer have their conditions of employment decided by the Public Service Board, and salaries for senior positions will not in future need ministerial approval. In character with the new attitude towards AN, it will have matters of this kind left subject to its own commercial judgment. By giving AN the responsibilities and powers it needs, this Bill opens the way to levels of progress and competitiveness that should set new standards for our national railway services. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(4.15) —I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate on the Australian National Railways Commission Bill and the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill because it gives me a chance to talk about a vital national project which is in danger of being well and truly sunk. I refer particularly to the Alice Springs- Darwin railway line. This is one of the reasons why the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory is going to win and win well on Saturday. Other reasons are the absolutely chaotic mess over uranium in the Northern Territory and the land rights decision imposed on that State by the Federal Government. It is interesting to note that the Australian Labor Party was fully committed to this project during the last election. It took up a commitment made by the previous Government and rightly so. It is worth while repeating some of the statements that have been made from the time of the last election up until the time this project was abandoned. On 15 March the current Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) said to Mr Collins, the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory that this is not a parochial project. He said: It is a project of national and international significance which the Labor Party will honour. On 15 March the Treasurer (Mr Keating) branded a media report that the railway would go in Budget cutbacks as 'pure speculation'. He said: 'We are horrified that the railway has been singled out by the media'. On 4 April the Minister for Transport said: The Government has a long-standing commitment to the railway and legislation allowing it to go ahead could be passed in the May Parliamentary sitting. We know what happened in May; the project was abandoned. The Minister went on: The railway does not have any relationship to the losses being incurred by the various rail systems at the moment. It is a development project and a project of significant defence importance. I will repeat that latter statement because later I want to come back to the defence implications of this railway. The Minister said that it was 'a project of significant defence importance'. On 8 April, the Minister said: . . . legislation is being drafted and a Budget submission is being prepared. Preparations for the construction of the rail link are proceeding on schedule. On 22 April the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) who represents the Minister for Transport in the Senate said: No steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) devoted half his maiden speech to the railway and said, amongst other things: 'The railway is the linchpin in the development of the Northern Territory'. That will be remembered for a while. He said: 'The railway can be justified as a national development project. It will pay for itself as a national development project. It is the sort of project that Australia has pursued in the past when times were tough'. On 19 May, having made all those commitments without qualification or reservation, the Treasurer, in a mini-Budget, successfully torpedoed the whole project by trying to insist that the Federal Government would pay only 60 per cent of the cost and that the Northern Territory Government would have to pay the other 40 per cent. He did this, of course, without saying how in the blazes the Northern Territory Government was going to get its hands on that 40 per cent . So this Government successfully killed the project. Subsequently, of course, because of pressure from various directions, not the least being the South Australian Government which this Government is desperately trying to prop up, the Federal Government used the classical parliamentary ploy-it set up another inquiry, namely, the inquiry into transport services to the Northern Territory which I understand is sitting at this moment in Darwin. The Government says that if the recommendation of this inquiry is favourable it will undertake to build the railway and, if we could believe it, that would be a fair commitment. Mr Hand —What is wrong with that? Mr WHITE —I will tell the honourable member for Melbourne. First of all, this Government has broken another election promise. If the honourable member has not seen the terms of reference of this inquiry I think he should read them. I will quote just one paragraph from the terms of reference. It states: The inquiry should not seek to evaluate the defence implications of proposals. The Commonwealth Government will take account of these factors when considering the findings of the inquiry. How can the Government possibly set up an inquiry into a railway from Alice Springs to Darwin without taking defence implications into account? It is a farce. This is symbolic of the Government's attitude to defence and the assault that has gone on in the services for the last eight months. I will quote the attitude towards defence and to this railway in particular of a senior member of the Government. On 17 November Senator Button was asked a question by Senator Harradine about this very question of the terms of reference. Senator Harradine asked: What is the Government's attitude? Why is it setting these restrictions on the terms of reference? Senator Button stated: I do not in 1983 share the sort of assumptions which are implicit in Senator Harradine's question about the need for a large transit system-- as though it is something that is new- such as a railway to move defence equipment and personnel. I doubt very much that that is relevant in contemporary defence terms-- he doubts very much if the railway is relevant- and in the circumstances of a potential war with some other country. Senator Button was not content to leave it there. He continued: I express my own opinion only when I say that I would attach doubtful weight to the importance of a railway of that kind for defence purposes in the current defence environment. He is right about one thing; in the current defence environment we might as well forget a railway and we might as well forget the defence forces of Australia. The Government is decimating them. The current Minister said in his introductory statement that it is a matter of road or rail. That is his approach. The Minister is completely wrong. It is not a matter of road or rail; it is a matter of both road and rail as the honourable member for the Northern Territory quite correctly said when he was commenting on the Minister's statement. To come back to the defence implications, the railway to the Northern Territory , to Darwin and to the north west and north east, is a vital part of the defence infrastructure of this country. We have only to look back as far as exercise Kangaroo 83 in the last few months to see the difficulty of lodging and sustaining a force in the north-west of Western Australia by sea and by air without a proper heavy transport facility, such as rail. If we are to be committed to a rapid deployment procedure in the north and north-west of this country, as distinct from having troops stationed in that area, the only way to get our heavy equipment there-in some cases quickly-and the loads that are required is by rail. Exercise Kangaroo 83, if it proved nothing else, proved the massive cost and difficulty of lodging heavy equipment in that part of the world . It also proved that reliance on sea logistics in a hostile environment, considering what the Government has done to the Fleet Air Arm, is almost impossible. One of the lessons of that particular exercise is that no land based air force such as we are capable of putting into the field can possibly react or possibly give the amount of air cover that is required for a sea-borne force. It is interesting that by the end of 1944 when there was a rail and road link of sorts to Darwin, as there is now, 147 trains per week were going into Darwin. That was in 1944 when the heat had been taken off. The fact is that Labor members, and other members too, I guess, from that part of the world screamed because not enough defence was placed in that area. It is unlikely that there will be another exercise let alone deployment in that area for some time because of the massive cost of getting equipment there by road, air and rail. In Darwin the Royal Australian Navy base has been considerably expanded. The harbour is in the process of being upgraded. The Navy presence in Darwin will require massive supplies. As I said before, it is hazardous in times of war to rely on a sea-borne force. More to the point, there will be a massive air force build-up in Tindal. It is estimated that by the year 2000 as many as 10,000 people could be living in and around the town of Katherine. The fuel requirement alone for that force will be massive. If there is no railway and as the roads are subject to flooding, obviously that base will have problems as a permanent part of our defence structure. Leaving defence aside, we have to ask: 'Is the Government serious about some of the other benefits that would have accrued from this development'? A total of 150,000 tonnes of steel, 100 bridges, 1,000 culverts, bores and air strips and 2 1/4 million sleepers will go into that railway line. Something like 2,000 people are to be employed on the railway stations, sidings and stockyards. Here is a government that says it is concerned about getting industry back on its feet and employing people yet a project that has traditionally-as one of the Government's own members has said-been undertaken when times are tough is thrown down the drain. It is very difficult to understand. I am quite sure the people of the Northern Territory will not be able to understand it. The other benefits are considerable. The railway would open up vast tracts of country for a properly developed and structured cattle industry. People will have a chance to send their cattle to ports in the north or south. The mining industry in the Northern Territory is relatively untouched. Of course, the Government has just finished off uranium mining for the time being. It is okay to mine in Roxby and prop up a government in South Australia, but it is not okay to mine in the Northern Territory. Despite all the rhetoric that has gone on about uranium mining in the last few weeks, no one has satisfactorily explained how we can mine at Roxby but mining has to be cut out in the Northern Territory. The surveys have revealed the massive-- Mr O'Neil —I can. Mr WHITE —Yes, the honourable member probably could explain it but not to my satisfaction. The mining potential of the Northern Territory is tremendous. Here again we have a government saying 'Yes, let us develop this country', but it is going flat out to cut out jobs and cut out any reasonable development aimed at increasing the potential of this country. If we were to develop that railway, the agricultural industry in the Northern Territory would have a chance of succeeding because all the fertiliser that is badly needed in the north could be taken there relatively cheaply by rail. There are proposals to bring coal from the south and proposals to bring goods in through Darwin for southern and eastern ports so that they do not have to go all the way round by sea. The potential for tourism is enormous. One has only to look at what has happened since the standard gauge was completed to Darwin from Tarcoola. There was a massive increase in passengers last year. The traffic increased by 58 per cent. The growth of population in the Northern Territory is the highest of any State in Australia. Darwin harbour is being upgraded. Having said all that, no one denies that it is a very expensive project. If the Government bases its decision purely on a cost benefit analysis of that particular railway it will never be built. No railway in Australia would have been built. Development and benefit usually comes after a railway is built. In any part of Australia where a railway is built, the railway precedes the development. Whichever government is in Canberra, it has a commitment to develop the north and, more particularly, to defend this country. It is not possible to defend the north properly without proper internal lines of communication. That is why I am so concerned about the present inquiry into transport services in the Northern Territory. It will be a farce if defence considerations are not included in its terms of reference. I urge the people of the Northern Territory to take all those factors into account when they are casting their vote on Saturday. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(4.31) —This is a very interesting debate. I intended to talk on the Australian National Railways Commission Bill but I find that we are actually talking about defence. I am very happy to address a few remarks to defence. Having listened to the colonels in this House I am reminded very much of Brazil. I gave an address to a defence seminar the other day. One of the colonels at the conference asked: 'What has the Government done for defence? No government has been serious about defence. In the last 30 years no government has built a railway north of Meekatharra'. He was talking about Liberal governments. Liberal governments have not built a railway north of Meekatharra for defence purposes for the very reason that such a railway would have very little relevance to defence. If the military and the colonel want a railway built I suggest they fund it out of the defence appropriation. This Government did not give the Hill inquiry the power to look into defence matters because we believe quite properly that defence is a responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. It is too important to be left to a committee. We say that the Government will make those decisions. Let us look at the record of this Government and the colonels in relation to railways. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) might not remember just what has been done for defence. One of the greatest things that has happened to defence in recent times is obviously the honourable member's election to this House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie, in proceeding with his remarks in relation to defence, is reminded that unless they are linked very demonstrably to a railway line he will be out of order. Mr CAMPBELL —Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to your wishes, I will keep my remarks as relevant as did the previous speaker. The previous Government held office for many years yet today it is not possible to take heavy military equipment across the transcontinental line. The honourable member for McPherson- this proponent of defence-does not even know that. The railways today cannot take the largest military equipment across the transcontinental line because of guaging problems. Honourable members opposite are the people who have been in government all these years. If defence is such a vital thing, why did they not do something about it? They did not do anything because the railways are basically irrelevant to defence. The honourable member for McPherson knows that it is irrelevant. He grandstands in this House trying to make an issue of defence. It is a sop. As I said previously, the greatest contribution by the honourable member for McPherson to the defence of this country was entering this Parliament. He created a gap in the Army which we might be able to fill with somebody who has some vision and some understanding of what the game is about. Mr Lusher —Back to the Bill. Mr CAMPBELL —I shall get back to the Bill. Unlike the honourable member for Hume who led for the Opposition in this debate, I will not need quorums to help me. Honourable members opposite, labouring through their speeches, would have been very grateful for the quorums because they had nothing of substance to say on the matter. This Bill has the consent of both sides of this House. It contains nothing that is particularly controversial but in my opinion a few things ought to be addressed. I am not happy with the management of Australian National. I think some of its top management has been disastrous. The Commonwealth railway terminates at Parkeston in my area. Unionists have come to me on many occasions saying: 'These things are happening. There is enormous wastage and horrendous costs are involved; can't you do something about it?'. It is due to union initiative and prompting that I have taken this matter up and some of those problems have been addressed. We have the absurd situation, for instance, that in a country that desperately needs an industry such as tourism the National Railways Commission has been most obstructive in this area. A person who boards the train at Perth for the eastern States can take his car with him but a person cannot tour the State, board the train at Kalgoorlie and take his car with him because that is impossible, it is said. It was done as a matter of course 10 years ago but today, with all our vast technology it is said that it is impossible. Union representatives and the tourist bureau personnel in the Goldfields told me: 'This is a nonsense situation. We know that this can be done. We believe that it will enhance tourism'. Of course it will enhance tourism and I am pleased to see that today the National Railways Commission decided that it can be done after all. Last week I was involved in trying to get a boring plant from Adelaide to a station on the Nullarbor. It was to be used to bore a hole for an Aboriginal community. The railways, on which the colonel wants to cart all his supplies to places that do not even exist yet, found this to be a very difficult task. Railway personnel said that they would have to take the wheels off the plant because it was too big. Then they said that they could only get it to within 200 kilometres of its destination because there was no dead end where I wanted to send it. We said: 'That is not the problem; there is a dead end there and you will be able to unload the plant'. The railway personnel said 'No, we have looked at the book. There is no dead end at Nurina', Nurina being the site in question. The people involved tried to tell the railway personnel that they had actually stood on the dead end at Nurina, but the book in Adelaide did not say so and the railways were unable to come to grips with that complexity. The boring plant was delivered to its destination by truck. That is the sort of thing with which we have to come to grips. One of the interesting things that this Bill will do, I hope, is to return some sort of decentralised management to the railways. The people at Parkeston knew that the plant could be unloaded at its destination on the Nullarbor but the railway administration did not. I am a little hesitant about giving Australian National the power to make decisions and commercial judgments. I believe that some of its commercial judgments have been very astray. The tourist industry to which I have alluded has enormous potential yet Australian National has done nothing in this regard. It is a consistent hinderer of the situation. There has been a tremendous growth in bus tourism from eastern Australia to the west and from the west to the east. Anyone who knows the condition of the Eyre Highway would be alarmed at the prospect of semi-trailers passing buses on that very narrow stretch of road where people are often inclined to go fast. It would seem to me to be eminent common sense for Australian National to do everything possible to encourage those semi-trailers back on the railway. The railways seem less than willing and less than able in this regard. I think this is the sort of thing that ought to be addressed. Buses arrive in the west almost full. Australian National, after a lot of prodding-it was not an executive initiative; it was the sort of thing that was put forward by the unions long before the railways administration became involved-put sit-up cars on the rail. Those cars have been very well patronised but not enough of them are provided. I hope that Australian National under this new system will take the initiative and will consider competing with the buses not only for safety but also for the convenience of the travelling public. I can assure honourable members, having used both modes of transport, that it is much more confortable to travel by train. I think Australian National ought to give consideration to abandoning entirely its economy class, upgrading its first class carriages and enlarging its sit-up travelling facilities. That is the way in which it will maximise its business. So often the railways executive has seemed to be locked into historic concepts. The honourable member for McPherson, who scurried out of the chamber as soon as I started to speak, alluded to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. He asked how the Northern Territory could be expected to contribute 60 per cent of the cost of construction. The Northern Territory Government was lauding the program and telling us how profitable it would be, how viable it was. If it is so viable, it can afford 60 per cent. If it is so viable, it can afford 100 per cent. The situation, of course, is that that is not true. That railway would not be a goer or be economically viable. That is not to say that there are not other reasons why it should not be considered, and the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) understands this extremely well. I know that he has given a lot of consideration to this matter. No one in this Parliament has fought harder for the building of that railway than the honourable member for Grey. The total lack of credibility of those opposite is illustrated when in this House they give us this nonsense on defence, a subject of which they have limited understanding and on which the top military planners of the day would contradict them. They seem to think that defence today hinges around building railways. Mr Bilney —They are fighting the last war. Mr CAMPBELL —Probably the Boer War in their case. Most of the provisions of this legislation have been addressed. It is fairly uncontroversial. I hope that the Commission shows more initiative than it has in the past. I notice that the General Manager is available to be appointed Deputy Commissioner. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Those two functions should be kept separate. That certainly seems incestuous to me and I hope that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) will not consider making such an appointment. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.42) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Hollis —Another socialist tirade? Mr Hand —You want to speak on everything. Mr HODGMAN —I am surprised that members of the Hawke socialist Government would respond with such fervour when I rise to speak in a fairly non-contentious way about railways and about the future of this country and the need for a railway system. Having heard both the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the speech of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who is winning very great plaudits around Australia for the way in which he is applying himself to his position of shadow Minister for Transport, I believe the future of this country will be assured only if people come to realise that railways are on the way back. For my part, I believe it inconceivable that we could have in the twenty-first century an Australia without a strong and efficient railway system. I make no apology for the fact that I am a railway buff. I believe in railways. Furthermore, I believe the cost of transportation by rail within the next 20 years will be considerably cheaper than transportation by road or indeed by sea. Unlike those on the other side of the House, or indeed a few on our side of the House, I am not fazed by the extent of assistance required to maintain Australian railways. I put to the House and to the people of Australia that subsidies in the order of $300m in a Budget with total outlays of $55 billion put the matter into proper perspective. That is not to say that I am not conscious, as are the honourable member for Hume and those on our side of the House, of the cost of maintaining railways. The reason I want to put down these facts is that people should realise that beyond doubt no government-run railway system in the world can operate at a profit. Whilst I recognise that clause 18 of the new legislation requires the Australian National Railways Commission to operation in accordance with commercial practice, I strongly support the remarks made by the honourable member for Hume about national obligations. In the limited time available to me, for which I am grateful nevertheless, I wish to speak about two areas of national obligation. I want to talk about railways at both ends of Australia. How many members of this chamber know that Tasmania is the only State which does not have a passenger rail service? My colleagues the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) will confirm that it is now accepted in our State that one of the greatest mistakes made by a Tasmanian government was made in 1974 when it fell for the three-card trick and, for a sum which in retrospect was an absolute pittance, agreed to the overtures of Mr Whitlam to sell the Tasmanian railways to the Commonwealth Government. This had a secondary effect in relation to Tasmania's finances. For about five years after the transfer in 1974 Tasmania was concerned , when it went to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, about how much it would get. The Labor Government at that time was petrified that the $50m paid for the Tasmanian Government railways by the Whitlam Government would be taken into account and would bring about a reduction to the grants in our State through both the Grants Commission and the Premiers Conference. It was not until 1979, when according to my recollection the Hon. W. A. Neilson was Premier of Tasmania, that the Chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission , Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, made it clear to Tasmania when it came before the Grants Commission that the moneys which had been paid under the Whitlam railway transfer agreement would not count to its detriment. As my colleague the honourable member for Braddon will confirm, it was unfortunately during the time of the previous Government that the Australian National Railways Commission took the decision, based largely on information supplied to it by the Transport Commission of Tasmania, that it would terminate passenger rail services in our State. Mr Groom —Disgraceful. Mr HODGMAN —It was a disgraceful decision. Notwithstanding the fact that we were in power at the time, it has to be honestly admitted that the way in which the State Transport Commission presented the figures made it almost impossible to argue in favour of continuing a passenger rail service. I speak with some small degree of bitterness on this matter, along with my colleagues, because less than 10 years earlier the Tasmanian Labor Government had done away with the east coast shipping service, a small shipping service operated by the Tasmanian Transport Commission up the east coast of Tasmania to Flinders Island. I am not 100 per cent sure whether it went to King Island. When we had an inquiry into the costs of that service we found that part of the operating losses of the Bruny Island ferry were being tacked on to the operations of the east coast shipping service, a totally different operation. On that basis, the Commission was putting up fares and restricting the service of the Bruny Island ferry. I was then the State member for Huon. That Bruny Island ferry service was actually slugged. When the State Transport Commission put forward the figures to the Australian National Railways Commission, it quite frankly had no alternative. The honurable members for Bass, Braddon, Franklin, Wilmot and I appealed to the Australian National Railways Commission not to terminate the Tasman Limited, the service which operated between Launceston and Hobart and up the north-west coast . Three of us-the honourable members for Wilmot and Franklin and I-actually travelled to Adelaide and argued before the Australian National Railways Commission the case for the Tasman Limited to be maintained. Mr Hollis —Not very successful, was it? Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for Macarthur for his helpful interjection. It was partly successful. The Commission decided to continue it for a further six months. I hope that the honourable member for Macarthur, as one of the few on that side of the House who do not hate Tasmania, would share the feeling of disappointment we had when ultimately the service was terminated. What does this mean? It means that Tasmania is the only State in Australia without a passenger rail service. That is a lunatic situation. I am being quite non-political when I appeal to the Minister, who has his good points, to look at Tasmania and to recognise that Tasmania for a pittance-I am talking of a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars; it was not even millions of dollars-does not have a passenger rail service. The old railway adage-'If it moves do not take it by rail and then you might have a profitable railway service'-is very much applicable to Tasmania. The amount of moving goods-people and animals-travelling on Tasmanian trains is now nil. The idea is that goods have to be non-moving. The honourable member for Bass has tried assiduously, including in a recent letter which he wrote to the Minister for Transport, to get some detailed information as to the real cost of operating the service in Tasmania. I appeal to the Minister and remind him of the letter by the honourable member for Bass, dated 30 November. He can see that it is a very recent letter. It asked him to give us the information upon which we can make a proper assessment of the position in Tasmania. Because the letter is important I will read it. It is in the following terms: My Dear Minister, I am writing with reference to the Australian National Railways Commission ( Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill which is to be debated in the House on Thursday 1 December. I have received representations from my electorate concerning the lack of statistics which are publicly available concerning the operation of the Australian National Railways in Tasmania. You will be aware that over recent times there has been a number of derailments in Tasmania. Efforts to obtain statistical information concerning these accidents have not been successful. This has led to some disquiet about the safety of the rail system in Tasmania. An example of this concern is a letter written to me by Mr K. G. Partridge of Launceston on 25 November 1983, and copied to you. (I have attached a copy of this letter, for your convenience). I intend to raise this issue in the second reading of the Bill and would appreciate your examination of the proposition to see if action can be taken to improve the situation. Yours sincerely, K. E. NEWMAN Member for Bass Tasmania does not have its own passenger rail service. Once again, our State suffers. I ask the Minister, across party lines, to ask the Australian National Railways Commission why it is that of all the States in Australia Tasmania does not have a passenger rail service. Secondly, I ask the Minister to let us have the actual cost of operating the service. I do not want to see Tasmania once again given the wrong steer simply on the basis that it does not have the necessary information. The third matter I raise is one I feel strongly about and I thank the honourable member for Braddon for his assistance. He made the point that it would certainly help Tasmania's relations with the Australian National Railways Commission if we had this information, co-operation and assistance which I think is so necessary. Mr Groom —And from Mr Maddock. Mr HODGMAN —And from Mr Maddock. For two days earlier this year Tasmania had its own private railway. Through the munificence and the beneficence of the ANRC, after literally four years of negotiation-I was directly involved in part of this-Mr John P. Meehan of 46 Dunstan Street, Preston, Victoria was able to arrange a trip down the main line from Launceston to Hobart and return. Approximately 200 people from many parts of Australia and overseas came to Tasmania for that trip. The paperwork Mr Meehan had to go through to get permission to operate on the line was absolutely incredible. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would know, with all your ministerial experience, that the insurance was astronomical. The trip was a great success and I hope that it will happen again. The railway line from Launceston to Hobart, upon which the Fraser Government spent so much money in getting the track re-established, should be used and people should be able to travel on trains on that railway line and see the beauties of the most beautiful State in Australia. I come to my final comment. It might surprise honourable members but it is a fact. I can point to Press statements going back to 1973 when I first visited the beautiful city of Darwin as it then was. It is even more beautiful now. It is not because of the Northern Territory election or for any political purpose that I again say in this Parliament that I believe the Adelaide to Darwin rail link is an absolute necessity for the nation. In fact, I believe, along with the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), that it should have been a firm unequivocal Australian Bicentenary project. Mr Lusher —It was. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member points out that it was. What a tragedy it is for the marvellous people in the Northern Territory to find, within a few months of the election, that the Hawke socialist Government has repudiated an honest fundamental commitment, an election promise made without any equivocation whatsoever. I do not want to be political. I believe in the railways of Australia. I believe this nation requires a rail link from Adelaide to Darwin. It looks as though it will be our Government when it comes back into power at the next election which will honour that commitment. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(4.56) —As a former railway man and a member of the Government's transport sub-committee I am pleased to speak on the Australian National Railways Commission Bill and the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. They are another example of the Hawke Labor Government enacting legislation that is appropriate for transport in the 1980s and the coming decades. I was pleased to hear today the sudden interest of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) in railways. It is a pity he is not in the House now. He was very interested in the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. In fact, as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) said, most of his speech was devoted to defence and this railway. Honourable members might be interested to know that he used to have a railway in his own electorate. It ran to Brisbane. The Liberal-National Party closed it and sold off the land-most likely to its mates to whom it usually sells land. Now those parties are screaming for a new railway. Perhaps the electors of McPherson would be more interested in knowing why the party of which the honourable member for McPherson is a member sold off the railway, now he has some interest, not in the railway in his electorate but in a railway from Alice Springs to Darwin. This Government accepts that it has a major role to play in improving the efficiency of railways in Australia's national transport system. It is a tragedy that past petty State rivalries have resulted in Australia now having five separate rail systems using three different gauges. Indeed, the Australian National Railways Commission itself operates three different gauges. The past State petty rivalries were lucidly explained by my friend and colleague, the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil). Railway performance can and must be improved. This can be done by the introduction of more flexible and commercial management and a more consistent national transport policy than in the past. The long term viability of rail systems depends not only upon adequate infrastructure but also upon effective pricing, marketing, organisation and personnel policies. With this legislation, the Government is providing AN with the powers to operate in this manner. The legislation will enable invigorating thought to be given to looking at new areas of business. It is not expected that railway operators should concentrate solely on traditional areas of business; they should be looking at new traffic to expand business. AN is expected to operate in a commercial manner but, at government direction, it is expected to operate efficiently services which may be socially desirable but not commercially rewarding. In recent years all Australian rail systems have suffered large operating deficits. ANRC is no exception but this Government, on taking office, had to face a 50 per cent increase in loss subsidy. Although the Commission had made steady progress from the late 1970s to the early 1980s in reducing its deficit, this deficit has risen substantially in the past two years because of traffic downturn due to the drought-which we broke-and the overall depressed state of the economy. ANRC has also been hampered by problems in integrating three separate rail systems. Other hampering factors have been the legacies of past government policies and the problems presented by a network of five different railway systems operating on three different gauges serving one country. As I have already said, AN itself operates three different gauges. It is this Government's intention to enhance AN's ability to operate commercially in a competitive market. To do that it is essential to provide a sound legislative base attuned to today's and tomorrow's environment. Part of this naturally must be an improved industrial relations environment, better management and rational investment plans that will reduce transit times, improve reliability and increase the opportunity for real growth in rail business. To realise its potential fully AN needs better corporate planning and financial discipline, greater autonomy in day to day decision making; an improved industrial relations environment; aggressive pursuit of new business, including diversification into non-traditional areas of business; and continued government support for major projects. The legislation which is now being debated will improve the Commission's competitive position. It will clearly define the Commission's rights and responsibilities. It will remove some of the outdated constraints on the Commission's ability to operate as a commercial undertaking. It will place the responsibility for commercial and marketing initiatives squarely with the Commission, in this way improving its ability to be responsive to the demands of the market place. The legislation will also impose on the Commission a greater degree of financial responsibility and accountability. As a trade unionist I accept that a healthy working relationship between labour and management is as important for railways as it is for any industry. As the public is well aware, co-operation and consultation are the basic working principles of this Hawke Labor Government. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table, has worked tirelessly in the area of co-operation and consultation. He initiated regular meetings with the unions and AN to discuss issues of mutual concern. This process of consultation and co-operation is being expanded both at ministerial level and within AN. I have said in other speeches about transport-and I repeat now-that this country is extremely fortunate that we have a Minister who understands transport, and also someone who can and will work co-operatively with the trade union movement. Because of this co-operation and consultation, AN's employees have a greater opportunity to contribute to improvements in AN and have an input into policy. This consultative approach, this legislation and this Government stand in stark contrast to the confused, pitiful and irrelevant so-called policies of honourable members opposite. A comparison between the excellent Minister for Transport and his pale shadow on the other side of the House clearly shows that this is so. For seven years honourable members opposite weakened public enterprise by conscious neglect and total incompetence. The shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), during the debate on the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill, called AN both incompetent and arrogant. I was pleased that in his speech today he changed his tune from his speech of 2 November. He told us today that we must give as much encouragement as possible to management and be supportive of the Commission and of present management. I wonder why he does not want to sell Australian National Railways? Certainly, a month ago he wanted to sell the Australian National Line. We on this side of the House welcome conversions, regardless of how late they come. The previous Government had control of AN for seven years. The description ' incompetent and arrogant' that I mentioned before, better fits the honourable member and all of those who sit opposite. They have no concern for efficient public enterprise providing competitive services to the Australian community. Honourable members opposite have no consistent transport policy. They are individual members defending their individual constituencies. They and their policies are irrelevant to the real transport problems facing Australia today. The ANRC Bill has as one of its objectives the establishment of a unified organisation dedicated to operating a sound and efficient railway system. The Government is doing its part. It is now up to AN and its employees to grasp the chance for success and work to achieve it. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the Government can set the climate but management and unions together must accept the challenge, and I am sure they will. Indeed, in AN, the Australian Government's own railway system, these things are happening. For example, the Commission is upgrading its marketing efforts to ensure that it wins its share of available freight and is seeking to improve the information available to management. The Minister has asked the Commission to identify those services which it believes should receive government support so that they are maintained. Over the years it is clear that the railways have undertaken tasks that they would not do if they operated solely on commercial criteria. In order that the Commission can operate efficiently in terms of both its commercial and non- commercial activities, it is clear that this latter group must be identified, so that the costs can be seen and taken into account. It is then for others, rather than for AN, to determine whether those services should be maintained and, if so , to be prepared to meet the costs associated with their provision. Obviously it is incumbent upon government to fulfil this role. In this manner AN's performance can be judged against broad commercial criteria and community services can be undertaken without detriment to the Commission's overall financial performance. This approach accords with the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in its 1982 report on the Australian National Railways Commission. It also accords with the Government's social audit policy on transport. This social audit is akin to social cost- benefit analysis. The aim will be to determine the most socially effective method of performing new tasks. Another aim will be to guide policy on cost recovery mechanisms by determining the full cost attributable to each mode and type of service. This will lead to a more socially effective transport system, a system balanced in terms of modal division of tasks, industrial diversity, urban , regional and rural development. Most importantly, it will be a transport system that is nationally based and co-ordinated. The social audit's advantage is that it would keep the market honest by ensuring that the total costs of providing a service are considered along with total benefits. The division between AN's powers and responsibilities and those of the Minister is clearly distinguished in the Bill. This arrangement emphasises the need for AN to operate as a commercially oriented transport authority. The responsibility for commercial initiatives rests squarely with the Commission. AN's greater commercial freedom will be evident in relation to day to day matters, such as the fixing of fares and freight rates. AN is obliged by the Bill to determine the principles which it proposes to apply in order to fix rates of charges for prescribed services. These principles are to be determined by AN and advised to the Minister, who may accept or redetermine the principles that are to form the basis of AN's charges. The Bill enables the Minister to direct the Commission to undertake non- commercial activities which may be socially desirable. If the Government requires AN to engage in particular activities for social or other reasons, the Minister will issue a direction to the Commission. AN would then be reimbursed for any loss involved in carrying out the Minister's directions. Such directions are required to be tabled in Parliament. This Bill is another example of the Government's commitment to providing Australia with a transport system compatible with the 1980s and the coming decades, and to revitalising public enterprises. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(5.07) —I grieved when I heard the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) say a little while ago that we on this side of the House hated Tasmania. We on this side of the House love Tasmania. That is why we saved it when members of the Opposition wanted to submerge it. If they had had their wicked way with the island State, they would not be asking for better railways but for submarines and hydrofoils. The Australian National Railways Commission Bill and the Australian National Railways Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill give effect to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure dated February 1982. The legislation is therefore bipartisan. It incorporates the best recommendations from that report and also some other facilitating provisions. The Australian National Railways Commission operates a number of lines, including those which were very wisely handed over to the Commonwealth by the State governments of Tasmania and South Australia, as well as certain other lines established by the Commonwealth. Additionally, in the area of railways the Commonwealth provides financial assistance to the States for their rail systems, particularly for main line upgrading. The lines which the Commonwealth runs in its own right are mainly in South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Those lines are a bewildering mass. There are three separate rail gauges and a morass of interstate systems. It is very difficult to co- ordinate those systems and it is very difficult to make them run at a profit. But this legacy is the rich tapestry of federalism which we inherited from the different colonies which set out on their own ways and made their own rail gauges of differing sizes. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has the difficult task of making the best of this rather invidious situation. The Bill which has been introduced will provide the Commission with more autonomy and with more incentive to marketing. A greater degree of responsibility will be placed on the Commission for raising its funds and making its own arrangements for the future. The views it implements are largely bipartisan in this House. What we have heard so far in the course of the debate involves a fair amount of speculation as to what should happen in particular areas of the country and what should be the general future of railways. I would like to say a little about what the future of railways in this country might be. It will not be mere speculation; it will be comparison. I would like to show how we can learn from other countries' rail systems and improve our rail systems along the same lines. The present nationwide shambles which we have, the diversity of gauges and the diversity of administrations in the various unnecessary State governments which intervene in the railway systems, means a massive loss of economies of scale and no overall railway strategy. This is the point that I would like to emphasise. We do not have any overall national railway strategy. The Minister who is sitting at the table will be remembered, as far as railways are concerned, for the development of an overalll national railway strategy. The public pays the price for the diversity of gauges, the shambles and the diversity of administration. The price it pays is massive. Let us consider that at the moment to travel from Brisbane to Sydney by rail takes 17 hours. Over a distance of 986 kilometres, averaging out stops, that is travelling at a rate of 58 kilometres per hour. It takes 14 hours to travel by rail from Sydney to Melbourne-that is a distance of 961 kilometres-travelling at a rate of 69 kilometres per hour. If one is unfortunate or unwise enough to travel by train from Brisbane to Cairns-a distance of 1,685 kilometres-it takes 37 hours at an average speed, including stops, of 45.6 kilometres per hour. I want to compare this with some other systems. I have had the privilege of travelling on some other systems including the Bullet train from Tokyo to Hiroshima and the British rail system from Wales to London. If one compares these figures one will be astounded at what could be achieved if one used this technology. From Tokyo to Okayama, a city just outside Hiroshima-for those who are interested in Japanese literature it was the home of Momotaro, the great dragon and demon slayer-is a distance of 894.8 kilometres. It takes five hours and eight minutes travelling at an average speed of 174.42 kilometres per hour. Recently the Japanese speeded that up. It did take a little longer than that, but when the French introduced its fast train system, which it said would be the fastest in the world, the Japanese Government, for reasons which are best known to it, instructed its drivers to travel a little faster. The Japanese have now overtaken the French. Mr Groom —What speed is that? Mr WELLS —The average speed of a train travelling between Tokyo and Okayama is 174.4 kilometres per hour. Mr Groom —That is not faster than the French. Mr WELLS —The honourable member says that it is not faster than the French but it is faster over the same distance when one takes into account stops. Also, if the rail systems were matched against one another over a distance, the Japanese train would be faster. The British rail system is, in my experience, even more impressive because there are no stops between Cardiff and Reading. A few years ago when I was working over there for a few months I remember getting on a train at Cardiff, which is near the border of Wales, to go to London. Exactly one hour and 35 minutes later I heard a voice saying: 'This is Reading'. If it had not been for the accent I would have believed that I was still in Wales. I had travelled a distance of 283.2 kilometres, that is 176 miles-I got the miles figure from the British High Commission-at an average speed of 179.2 kilometres per hour and British Rail will say proudly that for part of the trip the train exceeds 160 miles an hour. That is a very remarkable speed but, of course, it does not take stops into account. If we were to do this in Australia, if a train were running at British speeds between Melbourne and Brisbane it would cover the distance in 10.87 hours compared with the present 31 hours. It would take 5 1/2 to travel from Brisbane to Sydney. That compares pretty well with air travel if one counts the travelling time to and from the airport. It would be a cheap and cost effective way of travelling. Of course topography would have some influence. If the land were not flat or if it were not suitable it might not be possible to travel quite as quickly. I am trying to point out that what we have here is something which is perfectly feasible. It is not impracticable. Mr Groom —How much? Mr WELLS —The honourable member opposite asks how much. If he could hold his tongue for half a second I will get to it. The upgrading of the main line systems so that they can take express passenger trains would be a very sound investment. They would carry goods and they would carry personnel. They would carry them very efficiently and most cost effectively. The Sydney to Brisbane link is the most cost effective. Mr Groom —How much? Mrs Darling —Quicker. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Lilley points out that it would also be quicker. If one took into account loading it would be just about as quick as air travel. The Sydney to Brisbane link is the most cost effective in the country. From inquiries I have made I have been informed that the cost of such upgrading would be- Mr Goodluck —What about Tasmania? Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) just asked how much it was going to cost and I am just about to tell him. If the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) would shut up for a minute he will hear. From inquiries I have made I have been informed that the cost of such an upgrading would be $76m. That is the possibility but the reality is a much less exciting world. We have a miasma of absurdities. We have a main grid which goes only as far as South Brisbane if we are talking about the Sydney to Brisbane route. To travel from South Brisbane to the port of Brisbane, which is on the north side just like my electorate of Petrie, takes about 10 minutes. However, one cannot get there on a standard guage train. So if a train load of goods came up from the south and one wanted to put them on to a ship at the port of Brisbane one would have to change trains. This is the absudity of the system which we have inherited. This is symptomatic of the system which the Minister, who is sitting at the table, has to sort out. He has to sort it out not only in the area of rail transport but also in all other areas of transport. This Bill is a step in the right direction to making the Commission cost effective, efficient and making Australia's railway system approach what it could be. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(5.18) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) for their contribution to the debate which has been fairly wide ranging. I noticed some sudden expressed new interest in defence and the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. But in the main the contributions have been of a constructive nature. They have certainly set out the difficulties that face this Government with the shambles that it has inherited from the previous Government in respect of the railway system and of trying to put it together. It does give some encouragement that there is a bipartisan approach to the legislation and there is so much in transport that we can achieve if we can maintain a bipartisan approach to the national integration of the network. I hope that we can develop more along those lines. I thought that the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) made a constructive and thoughtful speech and that is in keeping with his record as a great fighter for the people of Grey and for the railway towns in Grey. I say to the honourable member for Grey that Port Augusta has a very great future as a major centre for the Australian National Railways Commission. It is rather difficult that from time to time, even under the previous Government, there were those who for reasons of, I think, only public mischief, seemed to get some pleasure from destabilising people in that region and workers of the Commission with arguments and rumors that some degradation was in mind for Port Augusta. Port Augusta has a great future. I heard the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who represents the colonels, make what can be described only as a tongue in cheek contribution to the debate. Really, it is not a debate about defence; it is a debate about the future of the Australian National Railways Commission, about improving its efficiency and accountability. I will take a moment to state again that the plight of the railways around this country today is evidence of the failure of conservative governments over the years since World War II to give a priority to financial investment in railways. The railways suffered under Liberal-conservative managements. The achievement of the Liberal Country Party Government in the Northern Territory was to close down the Darwin-Larrimah railway line. That was the first thing it did in 1976. It is rather ironical that the honourable member for McPherson made these comments when in his electorate it was the Queensland Government which tore up the railway from Surfers Paradise to Brisbane in the mid-1960s. It is now looking for Federal funds to try to rebuild that railway. It is the arch irony of all Liberal party utterances on this issue. In respect of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line, it is simply a matter of what the Government and this country can afford. We have said that it is an important development. It is something that a lot of us would like to see go ahead. I do not resile from the statements I made earlier this year or from the commitments I made during the election campaign. However the simple fact is that it is what the taxpayers of this country can afford that is important. We can afford 60 per cent of the cost of that project. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory Government can afford only rhetoric. It is the top political priority of that Government. This project is its bottom financial priority. The Northern Teritory has not been able to put forward one dollar in support of the project. History will show that, as far as the Northern Territory Liberal Country Party Government is concerned, its exercise has been one of cynicism, point-scoring and rhetoric. Mr Groom —Who is going to win? Mr PETER MORRIS —I am not concerned about winning; I am concerned about what is best for the people of this country, what is best for the people of the Territory and what we can afford. Honourable members opposite have put to us today that there is no limit to what we can afford. They want us to return to their squandering days, seven years of squandering which virtually bankrupted this country. Nobody on the Opposition side of the House seriously believes that , if the Opposition had been returned to government, it would be proceeding with the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is mute; he has not uttered a word. He would be the Treasurer if the Liberal Party were still in government. He has made the point, though, that the Budget of this Government ought to be several billion dollars lower this year. That effectively screens out any commitment that the former Government might have had. I have rasied this question before, and I have raised it in the Territory, and no one has responded. They know in their hearts that, if there were a conservative government in office today, that project would not be going ahead. As far as we are concerned, we have no intention to carry on the same irresponsible approach to financial management in this country or the same rifling of taxpayers' pockets that occurred under the previous Government. We are doing what we can afford to do in a responsible and sensible fashion. I want to read into the Hansard the points the honourable member for Denison raised. First he raised the question of the transfer of the Tasmanian Government railways to the Federal Government. He first called it a confidence trick. Then he made what I thought was a rather incredible contribution. He said that the railways should not have been transferred. I noticed that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) said on several occasions: 'We will get it back'. I interpret that contribution from the honourable member for Braddon to mean that the Tasmanian Government is interested in the Tasmanian Government railway system being transferred back to the State Government. If that is the case and the five Liberal members are speaking as one on this issue, as I was told by the honourable member for Denison they were, then I suggest he ought to put a proposal to the Government. This guilty gang of five from Tasmania now want a passenger service restored to Tasmania. They closed this service down, as they ripped up the railway in the electorate of McPherson. Now they say: 'Please, Mr Hawke's Government, give us back a passenger service'. They are the guilty gang of five. Mr Groom —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The term 'the guilty gang of five' is offensive. I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) — Order! I am dealing with a point of order . I would not have thought that the term was offensive, but if the honourable member really insists I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Mr PETER MORRIS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. I was describing how the five Liberal members for Tasmania were those guilty of agreeing to the closure of the Tasman Limited passenger service during the term of the previous Government. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Unfortunately, the Minister is misleading the House, as he so often does. The decision was taken by the Australian National Railways Commission and was opposed by all five members. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —The statements I have made are absolutely accurate. They can be vouched for from Hansard and from public records. I say no more. I am just repeating the record. This can all be read in the parliamentary record and in the records of the Commission. Honourable members opposite are really asking me to undo the great damage and the great wrongs they have done to the people whom they were elected to represent. Be that as it may, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), who has remained silent throughout this episode, raised with me earlier in the day- Mr Groom —What about Wynyard Airport? Mr PETER MORRIS —Can the honourable member not tell the difference between a train and an aeroplane? One runs on rails and the other flies in the air. Earlier in the day the honourable member for Bass raised with me the question of statistics and information on the performance of the Tasmanian section of the Australian National Railways. This matter was raised on his behalf by the honourable member for Denison. In response to both honourable members, I do not accept that we should be disaggregating the financial results of the Commission in their published form across regions that are not really relevant now that equipment is moved between sections and the operations are exchanged. Mr Hodgman —That is a disgraceful way to describe Tasmania-'a region that is no longer relevant'. Mr PETER MORRIS —That is the honourable member's comment. I do not agree with him. Tasmania is absolutely relevant. Tasmania is vital to this country. If the honourable member sees it as irrelevant, that is his statement. He made a statement that Tasmania is irrelevant. I do not agree with him. Mr Goodluck —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. In a calm, organised fashion we, the Tasmanians, want to be part of Australia. We want to make absolutely certain that the Minister gives us a fair go. He does not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PETER MORRIS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was responding to the request made of me earlier in the day by the honourable member for Bass. As I explained, I am not prepared to see those figures presented in that disaggregated form. Mr Hodgman —You hate Tasmania. You are a disgrace and you ought to be dismissed from office. Mr PETER MORRIS —If the honourable member does not mind I would like to continue . If the honourable member for Bass wants information on the separate financial results of a particular section, I would be quite happy to make that information available at a later stage. There were two matters raised by the honourable member for Bass. He presented a letter to me from Mr Partridge which dealt with the financial results, and that is what I am responding to. The second matter he raised concerned accident statistics. No one is more concerned than the Government that Australian National should operate in a safe manner, that it should have the best safety record in railways. There are provisions in the legislation with which we are dealing to ensure that I must be informed of all significant accidents involving Autralian National. Given those provisions, I see no difficulty in providing to this House, possibly on an annual basis-we can discuss that later and decide upon it-a statistical summary of the accidents reported to me. We could then summarise that report on a regional basis to show where the accidents occur and the nature of those accidents. This concern and the number of recent accidents involving Australian National have prompted me to write to the Chairman of Australian National suggesting that a review of level crossing safety in Tasmania be undertaken. I expect that the results of the review will be available early next year. In addition, I have received representations from the Tasmanian Minister for Transport on the issue and I have proposed to him and the Chairman of Australian National that the Tasmanian level crossing committee be reconvened. So we are very conscious of the issue that has been raised. We have acted upon it. We are prepared to look at the other matters raised at a later stage. I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Let me say in conclusion that when we look at the performance of AN its achievements ought to be seen in the perspective of what is happening to the rest of the private sector in transport service. There have been difficult times and AN, along with other major transport operators, has experienced those times. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(5.31) —I move: Clause 22, page 14, after sub-clause (5) add the following sub-clauses: '(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. '(7) Notwithstanding sub-section (6), if the Minister is of the opinion that a report furnished to him by the Commission under sub-section (3) contains a matter the disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on the financial interests of the Commission, the Minister shall cause the report to be amended to exclude the matter, and shall cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by him, the report as amended, together with a statement that the report has been amended in accordance with this sub-section.'. The Australian National Railways Commission Bills states at clause 22: (1) The Commision shall- (a) develop objectives, strategies and policies for the purpose of ensuring that it fulfils, on a long-term basis, its duties under this Act; . . . . (3) the Commission shall, in accordance with sub-sections (4) and (5), furnish written reports to the Minister concerning the objectives, strategies and policies developed by it under sub-section (1). Those sub-clauses relate to the corporate plan of the Australian National Railways Commission and reporting of the corporate plan to the Minister for Transport. The purpose of the Opposition's amendment is to have the Minister bring to the Parliament a copy of the corporate plan which has been made available to him by the Commission. But the Opposition notes the comments of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in the debate on the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill a month or so ago when a similar amendment was moved and the Minister drew the attention of honourable members to matters of a commercial nature which could be included in those corporate plans and which it would not be appropriate to disclose. I and the Opposition generally accept that. When that legislation is debated in the Senate a different amendment will be moved which takes into account the fact that matters of a sensitive commercial nature ought not to be made available. In relation to the Bill before us, we are taking into account the comments made by the Minister in relation to the shipping legislation. The purpose of the amendment I have moved to the Australian National Railways Commission Bill is to bring before the Parliament the corporate plan of the Commission, but if the Minister believes that there is any material in the corporate plan the disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on the financial interests of the Commission the Minister can cause the plan to be amended and presented to the House in an amended form. I think that if we approached it in that way and if, in effect, a sanitised corporate plan the release of which would not be commercially damaging to the Commission can be provided the interests of the Parliament in meeting its responsibilities in relation to accountability, scrutiny and the protection of the taxpayers' interests will be covered. I do not want to say any more than that because I think I made it perfectly clear in the remarks I made during the second reading debate the reasons for our moving the amendment and the necessity for it. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(5.35) —The Government rejects the amendment. We dealt with this issue at some length in the debate on the Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill, as the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) pointed out. At that stage I said that exposing the corporate plan to public view exposed sensitive financial matters. But there is nothing magical about the corporate plan. At best it is a set of objectives to be adhered to. In actual practice it is a changing, living document that sets out objectives. It does not, and it cannot, take into account things of an unexpected nature that may occur, be they a natural disaster or a man-contrived disaster. I appreciate the attitude behind the amendment, but I think what is sought to be achieved by it already can be achieved within the legislation. If one were to sanitise the corporate plan to the extent that I think the amendment suggests I or my successor should have complete freedom to sanitise it, again it would become meaningless. It would not have any value because it could be sanitised in such a fashion at a Minister's whim that it would not really say anything. Within the legislation there are provisions for proper budgetary processes, for setting financial objectives, for achieving targets, for setting revenue supplement. There are the controls and balances and limits within the legislation. For those reasons, we are not prepared to accept the amendment. But I am prepared later in the ensuing year to look at the issue of the corporate plan. When we see the corporate plan that comes forward for the following financial year there might be some way by which we can look at it in the context in which the Standing Committee on Expenditure looked at corporate plans and financial objectives of trading authorities. I am quite happy to look at it and see whether the idea can be developed at a later stage, but we are not prepared to accept the proposition as an amendment to the legislation. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(5.37) —I thank the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for the undertaking he gave about his possible preparedness to look at the concept at a later time. But the Opposition believes that it is not enough for simply the Government to be concerned about the financial matters of Australian National. In this instance in the period from 1977-78 to date an amount approaching $5000 in taxpayers' contributions has been involved to keep the Australian National Railways Commission in business. The Opposition believes that there needs to be some sort of scrutiny at a parliamentary level of a commitment of that nature by taxpayers. The belief of the Opposition is that by bringing the corporate plan, even in a sanitised form-the Minister might say in a meaningless form-before a committee of the Senate at least the objectives, the plans and the way in which the Commission thinks it should go about and says it is going about carrying out its charter under the Act can be brought up and scrutinised. For that reason, we seek to pursue the matter. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(5.39) —I say again: There is nothing magical about the corporate plan. I am all the more confirmed in my mind now that the Opposition sees some magic in the corporate plan. It had seven years to sort out the accounts, financial planning and organisation of the Australian National Railway Commission. It had an abysmal result. I do not want to go back to the political side of the issue. I simply say that there are provisions within the legislation that are far more important and will be far more effective in achieving the financial objective. For those reasons the Government cannot accept the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Lusher's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Anthony, J. D. Katter, R. C.Burr, M. A. Lloyd, B.Cadman, A. G. Lusher, S. A.Cameron, Donald 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. Newman, K. E.Dobie, J. D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Street, A. A.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Johnson, LesBeazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, Robert Keogh, L. J.Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C.Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E.Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J.Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J.Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Everingham, D. N. Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Fry, K. L. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Braithwaite, R. A. Brown, John 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. Consideration resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 213th report of the Committee, relating to the administration of income maintenance programs, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mrs KELLY —Report 213 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts documents the Committee's investigation of the administration of a wide range of income maintenance programs. Income maintenance programs were taken to be those programs transferring cash to individuals or organisations for the purpose of social welfare. The Committee considered aspects of the administration of 127 programs as operated by 10 Commonwealth Government departments in 1981-82. The programs considered included income replacement programs, for example, unemployment benefits; income supplement programs, for example, tertiary allowances; and programs subsidising expenditure, for example, free medical services. This report has two volumes. Volume 1 is a discussion paper. It presents, in a fairly compact form, information and comment on the many programs considered and also lists a number of reference sources to assist further investigation in the area. Volume 2 is a reference document which has extensive descriptive material on each program considered. By way of methodology of the Committee's inquiry, material was sought from departments on how the particular income maintenance program was initiated; the direct and administrative costs of the program; the number of beneficiaries and the extent of program evaluation. These submissions were supplemented by public hearings with officers of three departments surveyed ; namely, Social Security, Veterans' Affairs and Employment and Industrial Relations. The Committee also received information from four agencies whose activities span more than one functional area. These agencies were the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance, the Public Service Board and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. The Committee examined the information with three guiding principles in mind. These principles were: 'Mandate'; 'management'; and 'evaluation'. These three concepts capture the questions: 'What is the program's objective'? 'How well is the objective being achieved'? and, finally, 'When should the program be modified'?. The three concepts of mandate, management and evaluation provide the framework for volume 1. They establish a structure for the presentation of information on departmental programs, provoke comment about specific aspects of a department's administration and influence the discussion of general issues. While the Committee has made a number of findings from its inquiry-these are set out in the final chapter of volume 1 of the report-the Committee emphasises that the findings should be addressed, appreciating the nature of the document. Volume 1 is a discussion paper, and the Committee's conclusions and findings are presented to stimulate further discussion and analysis of the issues. The Committee sees its proposed task force composed of representatives of the Department of Finance, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Public Service Board and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, very much in this light. The Committee suggests that the task force consider improvements in current administrative practices, bearing in mind the Committee's findings in respect of mandate, management and evaluation. The Committee also finds that the task force should consider alternative approaches to social welfare administration, including that of a guaranteed minimum income. The Committee hopes that the two volumes of report 213 on the Administration of Income Maintenance Programs will provide a basis for further exploration of this area both within and outside Government circles. I will comment, briefly, regarding responses by departments to the conclusions and findings of report 213. As my colleagues would be aware, the Department of Finance minute procedures are designed to ensure that appropriate action is taken in response to comments contained in the Committee's reports. The Committee realises that the format of this report may require a somewhat different approach. While the Committee appreciates the challenge this discussion paper may present, it is reasonable to expect that the members of the proposed task force would address the tasks set out in volume 1 and prepare the responses to the Committee. Finally, I put on record my appreciation to the members of the sub-committee who worked on this report. It was a very difficult report to compile in the light of the great amount of material that was presented to the Committee. I say a special thank you to the members of the secretariat of the Public Accounts Committee, especially the seconded officer, Mr Tom O'Brien, who put so many hours into the preparation of the initial draft for this report. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-This discussion paper on income maintenance programs was commenced by the thirteenth Joint Committee of Public Accounts when I was Chairman of the Committee. For that reason I would just like to place on record my deep appreciation of the excellent work which members of the sub- committee have done over the intervening period in bringing this report to fruition. In particular, I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and my colleague the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). The work of this Committee is of great significance because I believe it is the first time in Australia's Federal history that a comprehensive review has been undertaken by a committee of the Parliament into effectively all income maintenance programs. When we decided to take on this investigation it was for the simple reason that , in financial terms, it represented one of the largest single budgetary elements of the Federal structure. For example, total pension commitments during the period 1983-84 were $8,362m, an increase in 10 years alone of 415 per cent. When one is looking at those statistics, therefore, it is quite clear that a parliamentary committee, especially one set up such as the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts had a vested interest in ensuring that money was not just wisely spent, but that departments would be recommended to initiate programs and control procedures as this report does, such as the establishment of a task force to ensure that in future over 127 individual income support programs or schemes will be continually reviewed and maintained in an effective system. I should also like to place on record my personal appreciation of the work of Mr Tom O'Brien, the seconded officer from the Department of Social Security whose role it was during my period as chairman and subsequently to bring together the vast amount of material which is contained in these two reports. For the record, this particular document runs to no less than 631 pages which I am sure is a record for the various reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I refer also to the question of income maintenance programs in this context. The report in chapter 1 notes that they represent transfer of cash to individuals or organisations for the purposes of social welfare. The types of programs considered in this report included income replacement programs, for example, unemployment benefits; income supplement programs, for example tertiary allowances; and programs subsidising expenditure by individuals , for example free medical services. The Committee believes, as I do, that there is very much value to be gained in periodically undertaking a comprehensive review of the social welfare system to ensure that individual departments are primarily concerned with the mechanics of administering their programs. They may not appreciate that the relationship of programs across departments or the overall effects on those sections of the community to whom they are directed are necessarily achieving policy objectives. One of the most interesting observations made in the report was that very few of the 127 income maintenance programs are effectively covered by existing legislation. One of the recommendations made by the Committee in chapter 7 was that in areas of major expenditure it would be preferable to have a legislative basis for programs of that type. Paragraph 7.6 reads: The Committee observes that legislation has the advantage that it delineates clearly program parameters and administrative authority. I think this is a fundamentally important thing and it surprises me that, with the growth of outlays in the social welfare area, so much dependence has been placed on departmental administrative procedures and regulatory arrangements and so little emphasis has been placed over the years on legislation. Consequently, the Committee has recommended that departments operating major programs that have a budget of at least $10m and an expected life of at least five years should ensure that specific legislation is drafted for these programs. One recommendation which the Committee did not make, and I am rather surprised because I know that it is part of the White Paper provisions currently being examined by the Government, relates to the question of program budgeting. It seems to me that there is a very close relationship between the legislative program controlled through the Parliament and program budgeting, making it possible on an annual basis in the context of the annual Budget for the Parliament to review effectively the actual expenditure being initiated for specific programs. This is an excellent report. We now have in place the basic information and material upon which the task force which presumably will be established by the Government will be able to work. I think it also will be of tremendous benefit to organisations throughout Australia which are interested in the effectiveness and efficiency of income maintenance programs, and I would certainly recommend to university institutions and others involved in this work that now they have a basis of information on which they should be able to develop programs and recommendations for the future. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee's report entitled 'Australian-United States Relations: the Extraterritorial Application of United States Laws', together with the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr CHARLES —by leave-Mr Deputy Speaker, the report I have tabled is the second report of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee's inquiry into Australian-United States' relations. It deals with the extraterritorial application of United States laws, an issue which has been of concern in recent years and rose to prominence in what is known as the Westinghouse case. The question of the extraterritorial application of United States laws came before the Committee late in the last Parliament, when it arose during the general reference of Australian-United States relations. On the commencement of this new Parliament, the Committee decided to focus its full attention on this important and complex issue. The inquiry identified this issue as one which could affect the existing close relationship between Australia and the United States. This is not to suggest that the relationship is on the point of breakdown. Rather, Australia's relationship with the United States is basic to Australia's involvement in world affairs. However, the extraterritorial application of United States laws has the potential to obscure the major issues in our relationship. To summarise this complex question it may be appropriate to quote Professor Kevin Ryan, Professor of Law at the University of Queensland, when he stated in evidence before the Committee: The extraterritorial application of United States law is a matter of serious concern for two rather different reasons. The most obvious reason is its impact on our sovereignty and our capacity to make decisions on matters of national interest. But there is also the impact which it has on individual Australian residents and particularly individual Australian companies. One thing that is clear from the settlement of the Westinghouse litigation is that these two interests may not necessarily coincide . . . This is a a very comprehensive report on what I believe is a very important subject. The report includes chapters on potential threats by United States extraterritorial legislation, United States anti-trust laws, the Westinghouse case, the Australian-United States' bilateral agreement and responses of foreign governments, thus covering the whole question of the extraterritorial application of the United States laws, including anti-trust matters. The Committee, after consideration of the issues involved, has reached a number of conclusions and made five comprehensive recommendations. The Committee concluded that the extraterritorial application of United States laws has important potential by prejudicial implications for the Australian Government and Australian business over a broad range of economic and political issues. The Committee also concluded that attempts by the United States to extend the extraterritorial reach of its laws are inconsistent with international law and international comity. International concern at the extraterritorial reach of the United States laws was in response to anti-trust suits against Australian uranium companies. However, as noted in the report, the issue is wider than anti -trust. In the report the Committee has identified a number of Acts which could be of concern to Australia. The most immediate one is the Export Administration Act. However, there are also the Trading with the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is appropriate to note that the Australian oil and gas group, Santos Ltd, was seriously affected when the United States Administration used the Export Administration Act to attempt to block construction of the Siberian pipeline in 1982. The Committee was also informed that the United States Trading with the Enemy Act could have, and has had, direct implications for Australia's trade. Mr Deputy Speaker, perhaps it is a sign of the strength of the Australian- United States alliance that Australia has been able to achieve more in having the United States temper its application of laws extraterritorially than have other countries. In June 1982 the Australian-United States Bilateral Agreement relating to co-operation on anti-trust matters was signed. The Committee has commented at length on this Agreement and has concluded: It is a significant step towards resolving numerous difficulties that have arisen between the Australian and US Governments in the enforcement of US antitrust laws. However, the Agreement relates only to anti-trust matters and, as the Committee has concluded, there are other United States laws which have not been affected by the Agreement. Private anti-trust litigation is another concern for Australian businessmen and while that comes under Article 6 of the Australian- United States Bilateral Agreement, it has only restricted application within that Agreement. In the Attorney-General's Department submission to the Committee , Attachment C, it is stated: The obligation on the United States Government under Article 6 to report to the court on the substance and outcome of the consultations goes much further than did the letter Mr Shenefield sent to court in the Westinghouse proceedings. But Article 6 still falls short of an obligation to inform the court of the possible effect upon foreign relations if the court exercises jurisdiction and grants relief. Thus Australian businessmen still face the threat of private treble damage suits . Therefore private anti-trust litigation, plus the other Acts I have mentioned, could have the potential for future irritation in our relationship with the United States. Therefore the Committee has recommended the introduction of legislation to protect Australian residents or those doing business in Australia from the extraterritorial application of United States laws. Dissents have been lodged to these recommendations. However, the weight of evidence overwhelmingly supports the Committee's recommendation for the introduction of a complete range of legislative measures to protect Australian business and Australia's sovereign interests. With the exception of one witness, the introduction of such legislation was supported by all witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The Foreign Affairs Department noted that something like the British legislation, that is, the United Kingdom Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980, is just a sensible piece in a country's defensive armoury. In fact, in evidence Mr Nicholson, representing the Foreign Affairs Department, stated quite clearly that the United States would understand legislation in the terms recommended by the Committee. It is best summarised by quoting one short piece from evidence where in part Senator Hill, when asking Mr Nicholson a question, said: 'Do you believe the Americans are under the impression that the Clawback Bill will not proceed pending that in practice the Agreement is found to work satisfactorily?' Mr Nicholson replied: 'No, I do not think they are under any apprehension of that sort.' All departmental witnesses supported the introduction of legislation. The Australian Industries Development Association noted that there were no simple solutions to the problem of extraterritoriality. The legislative measures which had been introduced by the previous Government were seen as useful means and the Bilateral Agreement was a welcome addition to the machinery available for Australia to deal with problems arising in this area. The Association recommended passage of the 1981 Bill as a further step in establishing a comprehensive range of options. These options would be available should the need arise in the future. Let me briefly comment on two aspects of the dissenting report. The dissenting report relies heavily on a press release by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, released on 29 June this year, which states, in part: On behalf of the then Australian Government I assured the US Government that we would not proceed with any future blocking legislation unless the Agreement proved less successful than we hoped. It seems odd that Senator Durack should say this now he is in opposition, as there is no public record, statement, Press release or public comment, within or outside the Australian Parliament, to that effect when he was Attorney-General. On the contrary, Senator Durack at the signing of the Bilateral Agreement, said: The important matter of United States Government participation in private suits is dealt with in the Agreement and the provision included is significant but it cannot provide a complete answer to the difficulties which may arise from those proceedings. I should say that in regard to those difficulties we remain concerned. The dissenting report further comments: The Committee argued that the Bilateral Agreement will prove unsuccessful because previous attempts at such agreements, and the Committee particularly deals with the experience of Canada, have proven unsuccessful. That statement is wrong in fact. Taken in the context of the whole report, especially the comprehensive chapter on the Bilaterial Agreement, it will become clear to honourable members that the Committee does not argue that the Bilateral Agreement will prove unsuccessful per se and the dissenting report's statement is incorrect. Rather, as I have already stated, the Bilateral Agreement is a significant step forward. However, it does have limitations and, in preparing for the future, legislation to complement the Agreement is only sensible; and that legislation is better introduced now, considering we have a relatively calm atmosphere surrounding these matters. The Committee has also commented on the need for more effort to be made at the international level. We have concluded that the long term solutions to the problem of extraterritoriality will probably be achieved at the multilateral level and have suggested that the Government give high priority to representation at such negotiations. A further avenue would be a change in the United States laws themselves and whilst such a change is unlikely, it should not be overlooked. The Committee has suggested that wherever possible diplomatic efforts should be maintained and Australia's concern ought to be brought to the attention of the American authorities. Businessmen can also play a role in this matter and I would suggest that the Australian businessmen and their associations continue and strengthen their efforts to seek changes in United States attitudes. This is a very important and complex issue and I believe the report now before the House will stimulate debate and assist in resolving irritations that may occur from time to time and any future problems that may arise in anti-trust matters and other related United States laws. I have great faith in the friendship that exists between Australia and the United States and it is that relationship and goodwill that should overcome any potential difficulties. In conclusion, I would like to thank members of the Sub-Committee on the Pacific Basin who conducted the inquiry both in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament, particularly the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the previous Parliament. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the former Secretary of the Sub-Committee, Dr Andrea Edvi-Illes, for her dedicated work on behalf of the Sub-Committee. Finally, I say a special thank you to our present Secretary, Mr Phil Bergin, for his tireless work, his assistant, Mr Ian Booth, and our specialist adviser, Dr Gillian Triggs whose assistance to the Committee throughout this complex inquiry was invaluable. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —by leave-I welcome this opportunity to comment on the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The subject matter of the report, the extraterritorial operation of United States laws, was referred to the Sub-Committee on the Pacific Basin during the last Parliament. It was necessary for the present Committee to conclude the work commenced by the Committee of the Thirty-second Parliament. However, I do not consider the subject matter of this report particularly appropriate for consideration by a joint committee of the Parliament. A good yardstick for determining whether a subject is one for consideration of a committee is whether the issue is of interest to the general community or whether it is a matter which is likely to have important consequences for the general community. A brief glance at the report will quickly indicate that the subject matter of the report is highly technical and of limited political consequence for the vast majority of those we represent. Of course, that does not mean that the issues involved should not be debated in this House. Without reflecting on the Committee or its advisers, I must say that this report reads like a text book for law students rather than genuinely reflecting the considered views of honourable members. This has resulted from the nature of the reference and not from the competence of those responsible for the report. I indicate my general reservations about the report and my uneasiness in endorsing views on such a complex matter involving important principles of international law and business practice on which I do not pretend to be an expert and on which I heard only limited evidence. Honourable members will see from a reading of the report that I have dissented from one recommendation of the majority. That recommendation is that the Attorney-General introduce legislation 'to prohibit compliance by Australian residents or those doing business in Australia with orders of a foreign country which might damage Australia's trading interests'. I do not believe it is appropriate at this point to introduce legislation of this kind. I refer briefly to part of my dissenting report: The introduction of legislation of the type suggested would conflict with clear assurances given to United States authorities by the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack. In a press release on 29 June 1983, Senator Durack said: 'On behalf of the then Australian Government, I assured the United States Government that we would not proceed with any blocking legislation unless the Agreement proved less successful than we hoped.' The bilateral agreement entered into between USA and Australia in 1982 was a positive constructive attempt to overcome the problems which are the subject matter of this report. The agreement should not be undermined by hasty legislation but should be given a reasonable opportunity to work. That is a quotation from the dissenting report I have lodged. I trust that the Government will not rush in and legislate, as has been recommended in this report. I conclude my comments by commending the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), for his very fair approach. I commend also the staff members who did so much good work for the Committee, particularly Mr Bergin, the present secretary, other staff members, and Dr Gillian Triggs of the University of Melbourne who acted as specialist legal adviser to the Committee. All those people gave very valuable assistance to the Committee. Mr MORRISON(St George) —by leave-I will make one observation on the speech of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom). It is a matter of interest to the House to know that this matter flowed from discussions of the Sub-Committee dealing with Australia-United States relations. The Sub-Committee believed that extraterritoriality was an area in which conflict had arisen between the United States and Australia and that it should be considered in full detail. I submit that the difference between the report and the dissenting reports is one of emphasis rather than of substance. The dissenting reports, including that of the honourable member for Braddon, emphasise the role of the anti-trust co-operation agreement. It sees no reason for further legislation at least at this stage whereas the report itself has some doubts about the capacity of the agreement to meet its objectives and points out that in any event the agreement is confined to anti-trust matters. What is clear is that the potential for conflict in the national interest between Australia and the United States remains and I believe it is the responsibility of the Australian Government to protect our national interest in exactly the same way as the United States, by its legislation, protects its national interest. The basic question we have to face is whether we should wait until a matter is before the courts, as we did in respect of the two previous Acts that this Parliament considered, before rushing through legislation to meet the exigency created by activities in the United States or whether we should have in place defensive legislation which can be called upon as a last resort. My view is that the anti-trust co-operation agreement and the consultation approach involved is the preferable course of action and, hopefully, future conflicts can be resolved in that context. Nevertheless, it would be a dereliction of responsibility if we did not have in place legislation that could be called on in last resort. I trust the Government will pursue this course of action. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-I believe the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) made a very useful introduction to the report of his sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which was presented this afternoon. In paragraph 8 he referred to the Westinghouse case when extra- territorial application of United States anti-trust laws in fact caused deep embarrassment to the Australian and United States governments. The executive heads of four Australian companies were, under the application of the processes of enforcement of the United States courts, subject to arrest at ports of entry into the United States. This difficult situation was overcome only by the settlement in 1981 costing the companies $11m. As the honourable member said, Australia's companies in this way have been involved in high administrative and legal costs. As he also says: . . . so much so that they may feel obliged even in unmerited litigation to seek an out-of-court settlement rather than risk incurring treble damages and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs which are not recoverable under US law against unsuccessful plaintiffs. It was the Westinghouse case which brought this matter to the surface as a serious irritant in United States-Australian commercial relations. The dissenting reports accept the description of the issues but they considered that the workings of the agreement on co-operation in anti-trust matters may be adequate as a mechanism to obviate the undesirable situations which have arisen in the past. I think due weight should be given to that view and I take into account the remarks of the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) who suggested that the Government should not rush into legislation. But I am persuaded by the argument that legislation is best put into place when there is no existing problem and that this is a good basis to ensure the cordial management of the problem should the consultative agreement fail in its operation. Given the full range of the situation, it is best to deal with the matter when there is no irritant or problem rather than waiting for one to arise . The problem has been faced up to by a number of America's European allies, including, of course, the United Kingdom. In that context, and given the recent history of deep unwanted embarrassments to both governments and to commercial relations between Australia and the United States, I have accepted the majority recommendation whilst, at the same time, paying tribute to the former Attorney- General for his very successful efforts in smoothing over a difficult situation. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —by leave-The matter that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has examined, the extra-territorial application of the law of the United States, is right at the forefront in the clash of national interests. It has created tense and difficult situations where trading takes place between the the United States and its trading partners. Discussions have been held at heads of government level between the United States, the Australian Government and other governments, particularly those of the United Kingdom and Canada. I want to make only brief remarks in this regard because I believe an issue of this moment ought to be discussed by the chamber over a period in a free ranging debate so that honourable members can express their views at length and the political issues can be dealt with. I am somewhat disappointed with the report following the brief analysis I have made of it. I look forward to reading it in detail. However, I notice the Committee called witnesses only from Australian government departments, one business organisation and two private citizens. I find that somewhat disappointing. There was no effort evidently by the Committee to contact foreign governments which have been involved and to seek a detailed and deep political understanding of the issues involved in the vexed problem of extraterritorial application of United States laws. Mrs DARLING(Lilley) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, I present the report of the Committee on the Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety, together with the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs DARLING —by leave-Death and injury on our roads is not something we should ever decide to live with. Each year in Australia over 3,000 people die on the roads. More than 30,000 people annually suffer injuries serious enough for them to be admitted to hospital. The total economic cost is estimated at over $3,000m every year. The cost in massive physical pain and emotional suffering is immeasurable. This scenario is intolerable, and when one considers that while 17 per cent of the population are under 25 they account for 41 per cent of deaths or injuries on our roads, it becomes clear that the Australian adult society must pursue with vigour any potential means of relieving the problem. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem does not exist. Nor can we give up and say the solutions are too difficult to find or to implement. Many factors contribute to crashes, and few are due solely to one cause. This makes it extremely difficult to find easy solutions which will have dramatic results. One of the major factors is the human element-the attitude and behaviour of the driver, the cyclist and the pedestrian. In almost all crashes human error plays a major role. Too often crashes result principally from the poor attitude of drivers who perceive the roads as a playground and their vehicles as toys. They must be brought to realise that today there is simply no place for exuberant, careless or selfish behaviour on our roads. The most selfish behaviour of all is that of the drunk driver who willingly impairs his ability to drive and puts other people's lives in danger. Alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of crashes involving a fatality. Clearly, it is time to look into the influences which shape the attitudes of drivers. Of course there are many such influences. The media undoubtedly plays a prominent role. Many people appearing before the Committee have expressed concern that negative influences on road safety are being pushed through the media. Complaints about advertisements in particular were made to the Committee. Those complaints concerned the perceived encouragement of unsafe behaviour by drivers or passengers in car advertisements, and misleading advertisements concerning the fitting of unsafe parts to vehicles. In July this year the Committee decided to hold an urgent inquiry into advertising standards to see whether the standards properly serve the interests of road safety and whether they are being enforced adequately. The Committee has unanimously agreed to a number of conclusions and recommendations as a result of its inquiry, and these are set out in the report just presented to the House. We found that some advertisers display a lack of understanding of, or perhaps lack of concern with, the potentially damaging effects of the advertisement on road safety. The Committee believes certain advertisements can and do affect the attitudes of viewers, particularly those who are impressionable or who are still forming their views of what kind of behaviour is acceptable in society and how dangerous that behaviour is likely to be. In short, if affects the young driver. The young are particularly vulnerable . Existing advertising standards in Australia serve the interests of road safety only in a piecemeal way. The separate advertising codes which partially cover road safety issues could be tinkered with and improved, but Australia urgently needs a national road safety code. Such a code should cover all products advertised in all media. It would also serve to indicate to the advertising industry the extent of their social responsibility to consider the possible impact on road safety when trying to sell products. Mrs DARLING —I continue my comments on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. I have commented on the urgent need for Australia to have a national road safety code. We hope that advertisers will respond by promoting positive driver attitudes whenever possible. There is no justification for advertisements which in any way may promote dangerous behaviour on the roads. The Committee's report recommends that the Office of Road Safety, in conjunction with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the advertising industry, develop a comprehensive code relating to road safety. The Committee is content to see self-regulation continue provided a firm road safety code is introduced and is properly enforced. We are not satisfied that the current codes have been stringently enforced in all cases in the past. We are particularly concerned that on occasions the codes have been interpreted narrowly in favour of the advertisers, allowing advertisements to be used which glamorise the handling characteristics of vehicles at high speed or other dangerous practices. Even if this means advertisements which are a little less entertaining, it is surely not an unreasonable request in the interests of saving lives. A number of suggestions are made in the report for improvements in the operation of self-regulation in the industry and for changes to the composition of key bodies such as the Advertising Standards Council. The Advertising Standards Council needs to be, and to be seen to be, independent from industry dominance. Provision should be made for a more direct involvement by consumer interest groups. We would particularly like to see at last one member of the Council with road safety expertise. Self-regulation has much to recommend it, but it must operate in the public interest. It must be open at all stages to public scrutiny. It must give a full public reporting of its activities and detailed reasons for its decisions. The Committee trusts that its suggestions on these matters will be picked up by the industry and fully implemented. Many who gave evidence to the Committee called for the total abolition of television advertisements for alcohol. There is a well-established association between drink driving and deaths on the roads. The Committee believes that an attack on this problem should be part of a comprehensive government policy to deal with all aspects of alcohol abuse. Australia has a drinking problem, and deaths caused by drink driving are just one way in which that problem is made manifest. Drug driving is another area of concern outside the terms of this particular inquiry. Community attitudes to drinking must be changed. Action is necessary to decrease the accepted level of consumption, as well as fighting the widely practised habit of driving while affected by drink. It is particularly important not to encourage the young to adopt the undesirable habits of the adult community. The Committee believes that advertising of alcoholic beverages on television must not be allowed during hours when significant numbers of young people are viewing. We therefore recommend a greater restriction on the hours allowed by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for the advertising of alcohol. Some witnesses called for a total ban. The Committee will keep this option in mind when monitoring the effect of the new, restricted viewing times. As I indicated at the beginning of this speech, many factors are involved in causing death and injury on the roads. If we can remove from advertising the negative influences on road safety, then we are taking one step in the right direction. In this context, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the concerned participation and plain hard work of Committee members who have severed party lines to work together on this important issue. I would also like to acknowledge the co-operation of the Department of Transport, of Mr Bill Upton and officers of the Office of Road Safety, and the many members of advertising and related industries. Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —by leave-I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) for accommodating me and one or two others, so I will be very brief. I should make it clear to the House that regrettably, through the conspiracy of circumstances, I was not able to sit in on hearings conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety. However, I did have the opportunity of going through the draft report, and I was one of the members who finally approved the report as it is. Presenting a report, as the Chairman of the Committee has done this evening, is an important milestone. If we achieved our objective of coming one step nearer to saving even a few lives on the road we would think that our work had been well worth while. This Committee has worked extremely hard and with great intensity to produce the report that was tabled here today. Mr Dobie —And for many years. Mr KATTER —I appreciate the remark of my colleague the Party Whip-I will give him his prestigious title. The Standing Committee on Road Safety has had one objective which has had to absorb the dedication, the intensity and the interest of those associated with it, and that is to save lives. Any other element that comes into it is purely consequential. The Committee can get the reputation of being hung up on something. For instance, I am a fanatic on random breath testing, hence it is presumed that I am the strictist teetotaller in all of Australia. I think a few of my colleagues might be in a position to dispute that . The same thing applies to advertising. We are not stupid enough to believe that all advertising of alcohol should suddenly cease, just disappear off the scene. Of course, I speak mainly from the experience I gained on other inquiries . I have to be honest about that. I have read the evidence which came before this inquiry. Members of the Committee were not unmindful of the fact that the advertising media, whether it be newspaper, radio or television advertising, is an extremely important adjunct to our social activities. I think that a great part of the success of campaigns that have been conducted over perhaps the last 10 years has been due to the participation of the media. I am referring to the advertising of various road safety measures, road safety agitations, and anything applying to this all-important subject. What we are concerned about is the sort of advertising that glamourises and makes the drinking of alcohol something that is exciting, something that young people will grasp on to. This is what worries us. What we ask is very simple. We ask that the content of advertising be modified. We ask that those people who plan the advertising campaigns make them as attractive as they like but always keep in mind this element of road safety. We are not foolish enough to say: 'It is the advertising that is killing everyone on the road'. I have learnt over the years that some people drink alcohol without much concern for others or for themselves, and if that is stimulated by one element it is our sacred and responsible duty to look to that particular element. I make this appeal to all those involved with the media and with the advertising of beer particularly. I ask that they try to present the product in such a way that it will not excite young people to drink for the sake of being glamorous, then get into a car and drive madly along the road, full of grog, not knowing what they are doing, potential killers. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the present inquiry is just another step nearer to achieving community participation and community understanding of what we are doing, and I think that is terribly important. In that community participation is the all important co-operation of the media advertising of this nation. We appeal to the media to confer with us and to seek our guidance. We are not a number of wise people who have all the answers-not one bit of it. But the message I would like to get across is that we have gained a lot of experience. We have consultants who are of the highest possible calibre. We have advice and guidance channelled to us nationally and internationally. We are using that advice and we are basing our particular judgment on it. This is what we ask the media. Mrs Darling —And other people. Mr KATTER —Yes, and other people. We need evidence from the people who have suffered the agony of losing people and so on. This is what we ask and this is what we hope to achieve. Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Mr John Griffin-Referenda-El Salvador: Human Rights-Television Services- Occupational Health and Safety-Proposed Assets Test on Pensions-Australian Taxation Office-Cyprus-Ayers Rock-School Playground Areas-Air Services in Isolated Areas-Telephone Charges-Coal Industry-Lebanon-Oath of Allegiance Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(8.11) —In a number of speeches in the adjournment debate in this chamber I have tried to highlight to the Government and to the House the difficulties that have been faced by Mr John Griffin in his attempts to be admitted as a permanent citizen to this country. I will not go through all the details that I have previously explained to the House. As a result of pressure from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Mr Griffin returned to the United Kingdom earlier this year. Immediately upon his return to England he filed an application to be readmitted to this country as a permanent citizen. That matter has been under consideration both in London and in Canberra for some time now. I would like to draw attention to a letter dated 18 October 1983 from Mr W. R. Young, for the Secretary to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Young states, in part, in that letter: I wish to advise that following a Ministerial decision the sponsorship documents have been forwarded to the Australian High Commission, London for further action. In the meantime, as Mr Griffin lacks skills in demand here it will be necessary for you to locate employment for Mr Griffin before approval can be given for his entry to Australia. Confirmation that employment has been arranged is made on the enclosed employment offer form (Form M61) which should be completed by the prospective employer and returned to this office in the first instance. That requirement of the Department has most certainly been complied with. On 22 October the appropriate form was lodged with the Department offering employment to Mr Griffin. That offer of employment was made by Mr Brian Frankcombe, a very well-known and well respected farmer in the northern part of Tasmania. I can personally vouch for the honesty, integrity and uprightness of Mr Frankcombe. I have known him for many years. Certainly this is not a frivolous offer of employment; it is a very genuine offer. I am quite sure that, if Mr Griffin is able to return to this country, the offer will be satisfied and Mr Griffin will prove to be a very satisfactory employee for Mr Frankcombe. In making that offer Mr Frankcombe is very conscious of the engineering skills that Mr Griffin has, particularly his qualifications as a fitter and turner and mechanical engineer. That is part of the reason why Mr Frankcombe is keen to have Mr Griffin in his employment so that those mechanical skills can be used in the wide range of farm equipment that Mr Frankcombe has employed on his property. Mr Griffin presented himself for an interview at Australia House on 4 November for the application to be further considered. It worried me greatly that , at that particular interview, a claim was made by the interviewing officer that Mr Griffin had never been enlisted and had never served in the Australian Army Reserve. This is a claim that has been made by other officers in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Australia, not just those serving in London . For the life of me I cannot understand how, in all honesty, the Department or any officer of the Department can make such a claim. As I pointed out to the House earlier, it was at the instructions of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that Mr Griffin was arrested at the Brighton Army camp while he was on parade with the Army Reserve. Officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Hobart, Canberra and London are fully aware that Mr Griffin was arrested while on Army parade. I can also verify the fact that Mr Griffin was a very conscientious participant in the Army Reserve because on a number of occasions I inspected him on his various parades. I also bring to the attention of the House a letter signed by his commanding officer in Australia in which, in part, he said: I am writing to keep you informed of military developments appertaining to Pte Griffin, presently domiciled in Britain. Unfortunately I must discharge Pte Griffin until such time as he returns to Australia and makes an application to become an Australian citizen. I have asked Capt. T. Chugg from Longford to visit his parents. I should also point out that we look forward to him rejoining the unit, and also that we hope he will continue with his application to join the Officer Cadet Training Unit, on returning to Australia. Not only was this man a member of the Australian Army Reserve, but also he was so highly thought of in the Army Reserve that he had been selected for officer training. I can only suggest to the officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that they look far more seriously at this matter and stop making slanderous statements about this man, accusing him of never being a member of the Army Reserve when all the officers, from the very senior officers in Canberra to those in Hobart and in London, know full well that this man participated very actively in the Army Reserve. Both Mr Griffin and the Army Reserve are keen that he should resume his service with the Army Reserve. Mr Hodgman —You showed me that letter. Mr BURR —I did indeed. I showed my colleague this letter and I intend to remind him of it regularly. In the brief time that is available to me I wish to raise another matter. It worried me greatly, following a question that I asked the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) yesterday at Question Time regarding the moneys to be allocated for the promotion of the referenda campaign, that the Minister dismissed any prospect of an even-handed approach to the promotion of that campaign quite out of hand. I remind the Minister that, in part his answer said: The referenda campaign enjoys very wide support in this House on a bipartisan basis. The decisions will stand to benefit the Australian community considerably in reduction of the cost of election campaigns by reducing that element of instability which has come to exist in our political system. They are very desirable for the general public. It is necessary that the general public has the information placed before it, and that will require a campaign. That is a very overbearing, jackboot type tactic where the Government is saying: 'We are the only ones who are capable of putting a point of view before the public'. As we all know, there are two points of view that could and should be put. But what the Government is saying is: 'We are only prepared to use taxpayers' money to promote one side of the argument so that the public will be left in the dark as to what the other side of the argument may be'. Mr Hodgman —Is this the Soviet Union? Mr BURR —I sometimes wonder whether we may be moving to some sort of totalitarian state in Australia. The Hobart Mercury of 1 December said in its editorial: What sort of democracy does the Australian Labor Party think it is running in this country? Now it seems that even the outward forms are to be sacrificed for the sake of political expediency. Further down in the editorial it said: Its attitude represents a travesty of democracy which would do justice to the prevailing virtues in the worst of this world's banana republics. That is the conclusion that the Hobart Mercury has reached on the decision by the Government not to adopt an even handed approach to the referenda campaigns and allow the public to be properly informed of both sides of the argument. I fear that perhaps the Mercury is correct in its editorial and that my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) may well be correct in suggesting we may well be moving towards a totalitarian form of government in this country. I urge my friends on the other side of this chamber not to take that in jest. We all remember what happended in Nazi Germany when Goebbels used the media and the power of propaganda in order to promote that totalitarian regime and to keep the public of Germany in the dark. That is precisely what this decision is leading this country towards. I strongly put the view that this country is based on democracy and the decision by this Government is going a long way towards undermining the democratic freedoms we have come to cherish. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(8.21) —My grievance tonight is the tremendous suffering and horrifying violations of human rights which are a daily reality in El Salvador. In 1982 Amnesty International reported that it continued to receive reports of arbitrary arrests, abductions and subsequent disappearances, torture and illegal executions. After sending a fact finding mission to Central America it found that in El Salvador, in a context of widespread civil conflict, the rural population in areas contested by military forces suffered indiscriminate violence in reported attempts to clear such zones of all potential support for the opposition. People trying to flee from such military operations were also killed. Reports in Time magazine of as late as October this year give similar reports of civilians killed in such fighting. Amnesty concluded: Throughout the year the grave human rights situation in El Salvador led Amnesty International to continue to submit information to relevant regional and international bodies. In October and interim report to the United Nations General Assembly on the situation of human rights in El Salvador, prepared by the Special Rapporteur appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights, concluded that there had been a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights in El Salvador since the ruling junta took power in 1979, and that the executive and judicial branches of El Salvador's Government had adopted an attitude of passivity and inactivity toward the violations. According to an Amnesty report of February 1981, teachers and professors are singled out for special treatment by the military regime. This same Amnesty report goes on to say that many educators are gaoled and 85 per cent of the schools are closed. Education is regarded with suspicion and fear by the ruling oligarchy. Teachers are seen by the rulers as encouraging 'subversion' and their punishment is harassment, torture and death, not only for themselves but for their families as well. Thinking and questioning, which are fundamental components of any free and democratic society, are stifled as thoroughly as possible. Since 1932 El Salvador has had consistent military rule. As this Parliament well knows, in 1979 a group of army officers, with the approval of the United States of America, successfully launched a coup against the internationally discredited regime of General Romero. During this time Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and Communists participated in a junta which they hoped would lead to the country's first elected civilian government in 50 years. But within that time it was apparent that the land-owning oligarchy and hard line military retained effective control. The coalition ultimately collapsed, leaving the right wing group of the Christian Democrats supporting the military and the Democratic Revolutionary Forces having the support of the majority of the population in an alliance of Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, Communists, left wing parties, mass organisations, trade unions and guerilla organisations. El Salvador is the most densely populated country in Latin America, its economy entirely based on agriculture, yet only 2 per cent of the population own 60 per cent of the cultivated land and 60 per cent of the rural population have incomes which fail to reach subsistance level. A report by the Food First Action Alert organisation entitled 'El Salvadore. The hungriest people in Latin America' states: Salvadorians have the lowest average caloric intake in Latin America. Seven out of ten Salvadorian children go hungry. The report continues: El Salvadore has the worst income inequality in Latin America. The wealthiest two percent, known as the Fourteen Families- that is what they are- has long controlled over half the farmland, where they produce coffee, cotton, sugar cane, and beef-all exports, not crops to feed the hungry in El Salvadore. Logically, land reform is the key to social stability but it is a price which the ruling elite of El Salvador has been unwilling to pay for 50 years. Back in 1932 demands for land reform were savagely crushed when 30,000 peasants were massacred, destroying the labour movement for 40 years. The San Salvador military junta and the United States Government still claim that the regime is caught in the crossfire of a vicious war between supporters of the extreme right and the extreme left. The Western media almost invariably has reflected this claim. However, all independent evidence-for example, from the international aid agencies and from Amnesty itself-points to a very different interpretation. The United Nations General Assembly, since its 35th session in 1980, has reiterated each year its appeal to all states to abstain from intervening in the internal situation in El Salvador and to suspend all supplies of arms and any type of military assistance to El Salvador that will serve to aggravate the situation in that country. In fact, the United Nations General Assembly decided to appoint a special representative on the situation of human rights in El Salvador and for him to report to the 37th session of the United Nations General Assembly which he did. I shall read from that very report, which is dated 18 December 1982, to the thirty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly, the report of the Economic and Social Council on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in El Salvador. That report states that the General Assembly: Taking note . . . of the interim report by the Special Representative, which confirms the unabated continuation of a climate of violence and insecurity in El Salvador with armed clashes, acts of terrorism and unbridled, large scale and grave violations of human rights, as well as the failure of the judiciary to fulfil its duties to uphold the rule of law . . . The United Nations report states then that the General Assembly: Expressed its deepest concern at the continued and unbridled violations of human rights and at the resulting suffering of the Salvadorian people, and regrets that the appeals for the cessation of violence made by the General Assembly, the Human Rights Commission and the international community in general , have not been heeded . . . The report then states that the General Assembly: Reaffirms the right of the El Salvadorian people to freely determine their political, economic and social future without interference from outside and in an atmosphere free from intimidation and terror from all parties. . . Finally, the report indicates that the General Assembly: Decides to maintain under consideration, during its thirty-eighth session, the situation, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in El Salvador, in order to examine anew this situation in the light of additional elements provided by the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council. Australians can be ashamed that we could not support that resolution in the United Nations. It should shock every one of us that out country could not support that resolution. We are justified in feeling shame. A similar resolution will come before the thirty-eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly in the next couple of days. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden ) referred in his recent United Nations speech to the fact that tensions in Central America had increased and that Australia believes that the solutions to the problems of this region lie in the maintenance of the principle of non- intervention in the internal affairs of other states and in the efforts directed towards domestic reforms and reconciliations. Now that a resolution similar to the one not supported by Australia is about to come before the United Nations again, I appeal to the Australian Government to give that resolution its support . This month the European Parliament saw fit to support unanimously a resolution forcefully demanding the release of Mr Amilcar Martinez Argueta, a prominent Christian Democrat and a high ranking official in the Department of Foreign Affairs of the El Salvadoran Government, and all of those kidnapped or disappeared by the death squads in El Salvador. Mr Argueta has been kidnapped; he disappeared recently. The European Parliament could support a unanimous resolution authorising the President of that Parliament to transmit the present resolution to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the Government of El Salvador. I sincerely hope that Australia will support a resolution coming in the United Nations shortly. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(8.31) —My grievance is that isolated Australians are not going to be able to receive the commercial television signal from the forthcoming satellite. Before I continue on to that subject, I would like to support the stand of the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) in regard to the disgraceful fact that the present Government will not be spending equal funds on promoting the forthcoming referenda. The honourable member for Wilmot spoke very well on that subject. In our democratic society a government ought to be prepared to spend equal amounts to promote both sides of the argument. As I said, isolated Australians will not receive the commercial television signal. When I talk of isolated Australians, I do not mean just outback Australians because there are plenty of places in Australia, even in the electorate of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman), behind mountains and down hollows, where the people cannot receive television. Of course the Australian Labor Party has just announced its decision on the Aussat Pty Ltd configuration for the domestic satellite and people in isolated Australia will not be receiving a commercial signal. Aussat has been told by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) that the spot beam configuration that we had hoped to receive will no longer be. Those beams will be spread on a national footprint which means that people in isolated areas who would have received a signal will now have to be within range of an existing commercial station to do so. Of course, we know that once Aussat is given the responsibility to let out the use of this space on the satellite, the big three stations-7, 9 and 10-will be the ones which receive most of the use of the satellite. The Hawke Government announced before it came to office that it would give Television Australia Satellite Systems Ltd the use of the second system-the second Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service system-to give isolated Australians a commercial television beam. Not only is commercial television involved but also educational and other television is involved. But of course they have been sidestepped and the use has been given to the big commercial networks. Mr Fisher —Big business and big unions. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is right. To my mind, there was never any need for the 30- watt transponders to be used by the big networks. They could have used the existing 12-watt transponders. The 30-watt transponders are being spread over the whole of Australia. Taken off the spot configuration the beam has been weakened down to 12 watts. The only people who will be able to pick up the signal will be the commercial stations which will put up dishes. The signal is to be coded, therefore, nobody outside that system will be able to receive the signal unless he has a decoder. Of course we know now that only certain commercial stations which have to pay the big three to receive their commercial programs will receive the signal. We were hoping that we would get direct broadcasting from the satellite. This will happen on HACBSS 1 because the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be able to broadcast direct to isolated Australians in homesteads and other places from the 30-watt beams. There will be one ABC television channel and two radio channels. Of course we are all looking forward to mid-1985 when the satellite will be launched and people will be able to receive those signals. But as I mentioned, unfortunately, the signals will be coded and that means people will not be able to pick up the signal on the small dishes that will be used with HACBSS 1. HACBSS 1 will have the 30-watt beams; it will have a meter dish and it will pick up the spot beam. The second commercial channels that will be broadcasting will not be able to be picked up by this dish. I think it is a great pity that the Government has not seen fit to allow direct receival of the commercial channel. There are 300,000 people in isolated Australia who do not receive any television signal at all. I would have thought that they would be the people to be looked after first, not those already receiving a commercial signal. Those already receiving a commercial signal will not only be able to get their existing signal but also will be able to receive a complement of the three stations that will be broadcasting to them. One of the good things to come out of this matter is that the previous Government had in place supplementary licences and the present Government will carry that on. It was announced only yesterday that supplementary licences will be issued. I do not doubt that some people in the areas of commercial television in isolated Australia will receive a second signal. Furthermore, Telcom Australia has now found that there is some spare space on its microwave links and this will enable a number of commercial stations to extend their coverage to places that do not already have commercial television. In my electorate of Maranoa, it is expected that places such as Roma, Charleville and Goondiwindi will receive a commercial signal for the first time. Most of those places now receive one ABC television signal. I also ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to use the existing dishes that are in place throughout Australia that are receiving an ABC signal through the Intelsat satellite to receive the commercial signal that will be broadcast from the domestic satellite. I only hope that this is possible, although I have been told it would be very difficult . But I ask the Minister to look into that matter for me. The other suggestion that I make to the Minister is that he look very closely at launching the third satellite. Presently, we have two satellites that will be launched in mid-1985. A third one is on stand-by in case the United States of America space shuttle that will be launching our satellites fails. I am asking the Minister to look to the future and to book some launching space. Apparently, should our launch fail we will have to wait until mid-1986 to get another launch . There are no free spots available until 1988. So I am asking that space be booked for that satellite's use. Of course, if that happens, HACBSS 2 will come into operation. Hopefully, we will be able to get some direct broadcasting from that. We will be able to get a direct commercial signal that will be picked up by the meter dishes that will be in use in isolated Australia with HACBSS 1. But it looks as though we will have to wait some years for that. There will be a problem in Western Australia. A spare 30-watt beam is available and I ask the Minister to allow the Western Australian Government and the Western Australian people to use that spot beam for direct broadcasting even if it is only for an experimental period. If it proves impossible to operate then I believe this is the track we will have to go down if we are to receive signals, either ABC or commercial. The other matter I would like to mention and object to strongly tonight is the fact that Telecom has been able to buy into 25 per cent of Aussat. I believe this is a gross waste of public funds. It will cost Telecom between $13m and $ 19m-I have no doubt that this is a payoff to the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association-which could be used to help isolated Australians under the countrywide calling program. We were the first Australians to be put on timed local calls. I would have thought that it would be a good idea to give Telecom a bit of competition and to keep Aussat apart from Telecom. But oh, no, we have to have Telecom buying 25 per cent of Aussat, costing, I would say probably $15m to $16m. Surely that money could have been used for giving Australians badly needed telephone facilities and reducing the cost of calls that they have to make. I should also like to mention the fact that the Minister has announced that he is very keen to see national sports coverage. We had a lot of trouble in the previous Government in trying to get the Melbourne Cup, rugby league football, rugby union test matches and things of this nature televised throughout Australia. We find that only the privileged people who live in capital cities see these sporting events. We have had a tremendous problem in the electorate of Maranoa in receiving the Melbourne Cup and rugby league football coverage. In summing up, I commend the Minister for his efforts to ensure that the television stations are made to provide coverage. I should also tell the sporting bodies how greedy they are because they let themselves out to tender and the biggest tenderer grab what is being offered. I think that sporting bodies should be condemned for their attitude towards some of these programs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(8.41) —In the grievance debate tonight I should like to talk about the knowledge in our community of some of the dangers that not only our work force but also our society in general have to live with. The health of our working population is an immense problem and it costs this country vast sums of money each year, not including human misery. This matter has been brought up recently in Victoria because once again a couple of local councils have decided to use the spray 2,4,5-T. One of the councils is in my electorate of Casey, and the other is just outside the electorate in the Diamond Valley Shire where I live. I was very pleased to see that the Victorian Government Caucus yesterday decided to overrule the Minister of Lands and put a ban on that product until they could test it further. Many people in the rural areas see the use of 2,4,5- T as a cheap and effective way of spraying blackberries and things of that nature, and it is, but they do not consider the long term effects. The substance 2,4,5-T has a certain base element that is in agent orange, which we all know was used in Vietnam. A Vietnam veteran, when he heard it was being sprayed in his area, talked about how he had suffered brain damage and how his two children , who have been born since the Vietnam war, have heart murmurs, eye trouble and constant rashes. I recall down in the Gippsland area several years ago the effect that this substance had on animals. A lot of stock were aborting, miscarrying, and the animals that were born were strange. They had too many legs or heads, or things like that. The people who say there is not enough evidence to sustain this are living in a bit of a fantasy land. The Municipal Employees Union in Victoria has put a ban on this substance and it cannot be used by their members. Scab labour is brought in, and I can only say to those people who come in as scab labour to spray this stuff around that it can get in through the skin as well, it is not necessarily inhaled. Perhaps their wives and families would not be too happy when they go home with that in their systems. On the broader issue of occupational health and safety as such and the loss to the work force, an article which has been put out in Sydney entitled 'Health and Safety at Work: A review of Current Issues' states: Every working day (on average) one Australian is killed and 1,500 suffer significant personal injury. I should like to talk briefly about occupational health and safety, and I will refer several times to an article by Michael Quinlan in the Journal of Australian Political Economy dated July 1980. It is slightly outdated in view of some of the reforms that have occurred, especially in Victoria, but the basic facts are still the same. The article states: At a joint meeting held between the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization in 1950, health was defined to be a state of complete physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or deformity. . . . The issue of health has been surrounded by considerable ideological mystification which obscures the incidence and underlying causes of illness. . . The value system of western society has ensured that health is perceived largely as the concern and responsibility of the individual. I believe it has a much broader base than that. The article continues: Contrary to popular belief, there is no objective irrefutable definition of illness. Account must be taken of the underlying interest groups such as employers, the medical and legal professions, workers and the state which influence the definition. . . . . Little attention has been directed at the considerable health risks arising out of industrialization including the release of noxious chemicals-- I spoke of that matter at the beginning of my speech- and pollutants. The industrial process has endangered not only workers but the public in general. That is my point. Workers are the public in general, unions are the public in general, and when we have minority groups using toxic substances and foliants purely because it suits their economic purposes, they put the whole society at risk. The article continues: . . . the propagation of the view that injury is an accident of fate visiting upon the individual legitimates the existing socio-economic structure and medical profession which serves it. In spite of this, a growing body of evidence indicates that the absence of health is not random but linked strongly to economic class and the income, education levels, environment, housing quality and occupations associated with this. In particular, the working class, with its lower level of income and concentration in the most dangerous jobs, has suffered from higher rates of morbidity, mortality and mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. . . . . In Australia the major source of injury statistics are the Workers' Compensation Commission in each state. These figures exclude Commonwealth Government employees and self-employed persons including those working under sub -contract arrangements. At best, only rough estimates can be made of those minor injuries not involving a compensation claim. . . . . . . official statistics grossly understate the actual incidence of sickness at work. The reasons for this become apparent once the vested interests of employers, government, the medical and legal profession are considered. . . . A survey comparing absences resulting from industrial disputes to those due to work injuries in Victoria between 1960 and 1969-- these are slightly out of date figures- disclosed that injuries accounted for three times the number of days lost through strikes. This gap has widened over time. . . . With regard to injuries the pattern of incidence is far more predictable than that for strikes, and employers can take this into account in their planning. Nevertheless, the comparison with strike statistics is useful in demonstrating how much the negative impact of work on health is accepted or overlooked. It evokes little public controversy. Unlike the conscious revolt of workers against their conditions of employment, the toll of sick and maimed workers is seen as an inevitable, if unfortunate, cost of production or price of progress. . . . Prevailing explanations of workplace illness have tended to ignore the fundamental conflict of interests and propagate myths which legitimate the existing socio-economic structure. This bias is embedded in the very terminology used to designate injury. The term 'industrial accident', for instance, implies that the negative impact of work on health is dramatic and aberrant. However, many injuries are not random but develop gradually as a direct consequence of the work process. They are not abnormal. Nor do they result from a single identifiable event. A workers back may deteriorate through prolonged exertion. Disease may occur through the slow absorption of poisons, fibres, dust and be exacerbated by accumulated stress and resort to drug palliatives. . . . . Workers and specific groups of migrants in particular have frequently been accused of malingering or exaggerating their injuries in order to obtain a larger compensation settlement. We have heard a lot of this from the other side of the House over the years. The article continues: Available evidence indicates, however, that the bulk of workers suffer severe financial hardship and emotional stress as a result of illness. The heated discussion of compensation rackets, fraud and neuroses has acted as a smokescreen which obscures human suffering, suggests workers gain from sickness and excuses the absence of effective rehabilitation facilities for those workers unable to carry out their previous job. It is in the interests of employers and insurance companies to minimize their liability and legitimate this by accusing workers of malingering, fraud, and deviance. . . . . Trade unions have often been at the forefront of demands for better safety standards at work. This has been particularly so for those with members in the metal trade, building, construction, abattoirs and mining where hazards are most apparent. . . . . The direct industrial demands of unions in the area of occupational health have been generally restricted to the provision of make-up pay, sickness benefit claims, less taxing jobs for incapacitated workers, establishing guidelines for early retirement, the presentation of members' cases (through union paid barristers) before the Workers' Compensation Commission and at common law, and the extension of employer liability for specific injuries such as deafness. By and large, these demands are directed at the consequences of illness rather than its causes. Some unions have devoted enormous space in their journals publicising the size of settlements obtained for crippled workers while failing to mention any action over the conditions which gave rise to such horrific injuries. Much of this is being cleaned up in Victoria at the moment. The Victorian Government is currently passing legislation relating to occupational health and safety. This is being serviced and put together with the assistance of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Victorian Trades Hall Council Occupational Health and Safety Unit run by John Mathews and Nick Calabrasi. I think they are to be congratulated for the guidance they have given to the Victorian Government. In the Federal sphere, we will soon be introducing similar legislation. I hope that it will be as effective as I perceive the Victorian legislation to be. The aim of the occupational health and safety legislation is, as I mentioned earlier, not to play up the illnesses and accidents, but to stop illnesses, accidents, loss of life and maiming of the workers and citizens of this country. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(8.51) —I have many grievances. I find it very hard to air them all in this place but I wish to talk about a couple tonight. Firstly, I refer to the sheer hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party in relation to the assets test. I know that members of the Labor Party are fairly clever and fairly good at being reported in the media and at working the media to their advantage. They are very sophisticated and they seem to be able to do so quite easily. I am not in the habit of knocking people, as honourable members know, or of making character assassinations; I just give people one straight jab. Last week Senator Coates attended a seminar on social security in Huonville in my electorate. Mr Cohen —It is his electorate too. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, it is part of his electorate but one would not know it. Huonville is the heart of the apple industry. After the seminar Senator Coates released a Press statement. He said that Mr Fraser was responsible for the introduction of the assets test. When I read it I could not believe it, firstly, because of its sheer hypocrisy, and, secondly, I could not believe that a senator would use an apolitical organisation such as the Department of Social Security to put out a Press release. I tried to have a Press release put in the Mercury but it was not published for some unknown reason. Today I picked up the Mercury again. I like to read the Mercury from front to back because my name might be mentioned in it somewhere. Goodluck is reported a lot. In today's Mercury, Paul Marsden, a representative of the pensioners union in Tasmania, said that the pensioners-plural-agree with the assets test. What a sheer turnaround that was. I have nothing against Mr Marsden. He is not a bad fellow who is trying to do a job, representing the pensioners, with very little money, et cetera. We have to be fair about it, but he said pensioners-plural-agree with the assets test. They do not agree with it. My colleagues on the opposite side of the chamber know that the pensioners do not agree with it. The pensioners in New South Wales do not agree with it. Mr Wran does not agree with it. I do not want to get stuck into Senator Grimes but I refer to a very fine speech by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle on 9 May 1979. I would like everybody to listen to this. Where is the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher)? He should come into the chamber tonight. He won the Lowe by-election because of what Sir Phillip Lynch said about the reintroduction of an assets test for pensioners over 70 years of age. That statement resulted in our being labelled penny- pinching, as being the worst people in the world and being mean and terrible towards the pensioners. But that is all forgotten now and the honourable member for Lowe is starting to get a bit of a rub-off in Sydney because his constituents have homes worth $120,000 and they are starting to complain. But he was elected. He strutted the streets of Lowe during the last election saying: 'I am for the pensioners, et cetera. The honourable member is not a bad fellow. He was elected, but he was elected on that basis. One has to face the music. My colleagues and I face the music every day. The honourable member for Lowe went around saying: 'We would not introduce such a test. That terrible Sir Phillip Lynch'. As a consequence, he was elected. I return to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's speech. I would like everyone to listen intently because this is terribly important. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said on 9 May 1979: Senator Grimes speculated about the concern that those who are over 70 may have with regard to future increases in their pension. Knowing they have a basic free of income test pension at over 70 . . . Rightly, those over 70 should receive a free of income test pension. The trouble is that many of these young fellows in this Parliament do not know what it is like to be old, to be 70 or over. They do not understand that as soon as we start to talk about means testing and assets the pensioners get extremely worried. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle continued: Knowing they have a basic free of income test pension at over 70 at the standard rate-that was the rate before the increases of last year-they are probably not as concerned about that aspect. They know that they have that regardless of their income. Pensioners must be concerned to know that it is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to introduce a means test on the over 70 pensions. Senator Grimes said 'Nonsense!' That is what he said on 9 May 1979. I know that Australia has an aging population and I know that we have to look after our elderly. I know that we have to do it in a respectable way but it is the way that honourable members opposite go about it that I object to. I have a very good memory. When I was involved in the half-yearly indexation I was scorned because I had a point of view about our being mean, et cetera. The pensioners, including Mr Marsden and the Tasmanian pensioners union said that half-yearly indexation should be reintroduced. Anybody who talked about assets testing and means testing was considered to be worst, most contemptible person. When we get back into government we should learn by what the Labor Party has done. We should get involved with the media, we should get involved in social security and we should put people in the right places to say the right things at the right time. Honourable members opposite do it and when we are in a fight we have to fight just as hard as the other person. That is what is wrong with us. We do not fight hard enough. Honourable members opposite fought us on the floor of the House, if honourable members remember rightly, and we lost. But now the boot is on the other foot and honourable members opposite are starting to get worried about it. Anyway, we will win out in the long run. The other matter to which I refer tonight relates to Mr Justice Michael Kirby. I would not say anything in this House that I would not say outside but I get a little sick of people trying to ram down my throat what they believe the family structure should be and certain sex information about children, et cetera. It is about time we all started to question it. Today I placed on the Notice Paper some very important questions which I am quite prepared to ask outside. Mr Cohen —You are sex obsessed, that is the problem with you. You ought to see a psychiatrist. You have a real problem. Mr GOODLUCK —No, I am not sexist. The Notice Paper reads: Mr Goodluck: To ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General- Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to comments allegedly made by the chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, reported in The Australian on 11 November 1983, (a) concerning the question of whether children aged 10 having sex together should be legally and socially recognised as a matter of genuine community debate and (b) that a survey has shown that 22% of children aged between 11 and 14 engage in regular sexual activity. We all know that it is rot, yet we allow this fellow to say those sorts of things and we do not question it. I say to honourable members that we should question those sorts of things because people are starting to think it is the norm. People are starting to think that 22 per cent of children have those sorts of relations. We know that it is not true, yet this fellow was painted to me as an authority in a debate with Wendy McCarthy. Mr Hicks —How does he know? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, how does he know? He does not know. Yet all over Australia-- Mr Barry Jones —How do you know it is not true? Mr GOODLUCK —Most of us know that it is not true, yet this fellow is reported in every newspaper in Australia and has his views made known. Mr Steedman —Is that what you are worried about? You get as much publicity as you want. Mr GOODLUCK —I get just as much publicity as he, but in a different way. What I say is valid. My question continues: Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to alleged comments by Justice Kirby when he launched a book edited by Mrs Wendy McCarthy teaching about sex; if so, does he agree with those comments. When Mr Justice Kirby launched the book-- Mr Cohen —Have you ever met Mrs McCarthy? Mr GOODLUCK —I do not want to meet the lady. I have a point of view. She has a point of view. But she is not expressing the view of the people that I represent . Therefore, I believe I had a right to question her. I said that I did not agree with that book. So I had the book analysed by several people. Mr Barry Jones —Somebody who could read? Mr GOODLUCK —Yes. The Minister organised today an Australian enterprise workshop . The Minister is always throwing mud at Tasmania. Does he know that Tasmania won it? There is the man who won it, Mr Michael Greig. We won. We are as smart as the Minister, and he should remember that. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(9.01) —It is difficult to enter this debate after having heard the rather erratic outbursts of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). We are used to those sorts of erratic outbursts in this House, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of matters of significance. They should be given somewhat more consideration than one would give to the matters raised by the honourable member for Franklin. I bring before the House tonight the problems some of my constituents are having with the Australian Taxation Office and the attitude of a number of constituents with regard to the recent unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriot Government which calls itself the Federated Turkish State of Cyprus. I will deal firstly with the problems confronting a number of manufacturers and small businessmen in my electorate in relation to the Taxation Office. Due to the economic difficulties caused by the previous Government and the unprecedented number of bankruptcies of small businesses in the seven years of the so-called free enterprise Liberal government in this country, small businesses found they were being forced rapidly to the wall. Although it is now some months since the election of the Labor Government, we are still experiencing the fallout from those rather draconian policies of the previous Liberal Government with regard to small business. One of the more draconian problems that those people faced was that the previous Government's restriction on credit for small businesses meant that they were unable to expand at the rate to attract different markets, had they had the chance to do so. Some of them also had a problem in meeting group tax payments. I know that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), who is at the table, is well aware of the problems of small business. When he was responsible for taxation he would have received many representations from people whose businesses had failed or nearly failed because of the economic policies of the Fraser Government. I would like the Government and the Commissioner of Taxation to take a more reasonable approach to many of these small businesses which are still finding themselves in financial difficulties. I have made representations to the Commissioner on behalf of a number of small manufacturers and clothing business people who unfortunately either have fallen behind in the payment of their group taxes or have found themselves in other financial difficulties and are unable to meet their taxation commitments. Unfortunately the Commissioner of Taxation is taking proceedings against some of these people, obtaining judgments and then issuing bankruptcy notices. That is a deplorable situation. There is no doubt that the Commissioner of Taxation has an obligation under the law to recover outstanding taxes, but in the current economic circumstances in Australia the Government, either by legislation or by direction by the Treasurer , if that is possible, should suggest to the Commissioner of Taxation that he take a more lenient approach to many of these small businesses and attempt to allow them to trade out of their difficulties. One manufacturer in my electorate at present facing bankruptcy proceedings brought by the Commissionner of Taxation employs 60 people. My electorate has one of the highest rates of unemployment in Australia. The number of people in receipt of unemployment benefits and looking for work through the Marrickville Commonwealth Employment Service office is double the statistic for elsewhere in the country. If this small manufacturer is put out of business those 60 people will go onto the unemployment rolls. They will not be able to find work. There are seven or eight applicants for every job available at the Marrickville CES. The chances of these people finding work if those 60 jobs are lost because of the action of the Commissioner of Taxation are negligible. It is important that government departments and instrumentalities be responsive to the economic needs of the country. While no one would say that the Commissioner was wrong to fulfil his statutory duties, it is necessary at present for the Government, either by legislation or by direction, to tell him that he should allow people to enter into schemes by which they can trade out of their difficulties with him. The manufacturer that comes to my mind at present has put to the Commissioner a scheme whereby he can pay back the money he owes the Taxation Office and can keep his business going. It seems to me absurd that the Commissioner should in effect be closing down his business. If he does that he might gain a short term benefit because there is no doubt that the company has sufficient funds to pay the Commissioner, but the Commissioner will not be getting income tax from the 60 people put out of work and the Government will not be getting all the other taxation benefits and charges it gets from a flourishing enterprise that employs 60 people. It is high time, in my view, for the Commissioner to be directed to adopt a more reasonable attitude towards small businesses which are only now finding that they can get on their feet again after the seven hard years of Fraser Government. That Government was not interested in the affairs of small enterprises. It was interested only in large organisations who were rather blatantly cheating the Government of tax. I feel it is now time for a fair go to be given to small businesses so that they can get back on their feet. The Commissioner of Taxation should be directed to be somewhat more lenient with regard to arrangements put forward by businesses which find themselves in difficulties with the Commisioner. I have no objection to the Commissioner saying to such people: 'We will give you a chance to come to an arrangement. The day you default on that arrangement we will issue bankruptcy proceedings against you'. The time to do that is when the people have defaulted, not when they have genuinely said: 'We will be able to work our way out of this. We want to keep our business going. We want to keep our employees in work and we want to work towards the recovery of the Australian economy'. The second matter I wish to address briefly tonight in the five minutes I have left is the present situation in Cyprus. Honourable members are no doubt aware of the unilateral declaration of independence some weeks ago by the Federated Turkish State of Cyprus. Cyprus is a Commonwealth country and this matter was raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Delhi this week. Australia must play an important role in the resolution of the Cyprus problem, mainly because of the very large Greek Cypriot community in Australia but also because of the relations that Australia has with both the Turkish Government and the Greek Government. There is no doubt that the role played by Britain in the initial partitioning of Cyprus and the invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish Government was deplorable. Britain, one of the powers which co-ordinated the independence of Cyprus, allowed the Turkish Government to invade Cyprus. It allowed the Turks to set up a de facto state in the north of the country while there were on the island British troops whose job was to protect the independence of Cyprus. I believe Australia should take a foremost role in resolving the situation between the Greek and Turkish people of Cyprus and call upon the Turkish Government to do all it can to ensure that there is a genuine attempt at approchement in Cyprus. I visited Cyprus some two years ago and was incredibly impressed with the goodwill of the people in the southern Greek part of Cyprus towards their Turkish brothers in the north. The problems that arose in Cyprus were caused not by the Cypriots themselves but by the Greek junta in Greece and the intransigence of the Turkish Government in Ankara. It is time the powers of the world, including Britian and the United States, allowed the Cypriots to get on with running their own country and stopped giving assistance to the federated Turkish state of Cyprus. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.11) —I raise this evening the necessity of getting permission to film and take photographs of Ayers Rock. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) who is at the table this evening confirmed yesterday that it was necessary to get permission to take commercial film of Ayers Rock. Mr Cohen —It has been for years. Mr SHIPTON —It is my clear understanding, in response to the Minister's interjection, that in recent months there has been a tightening of those conditions and a strengthening of the practice of getting permits. It has been much harder to get permits in recent months than it has been previously. Since I raised the question yesterday I have looked at the regulations. They are a bureaucratic nightmare. I have reached the conclusion on examination of the regulations that the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service has exceeded his power under the regulations in his claim that people have to get permission to take commercial photographs. I asked the National Parks and Wildlife Service and it willingly gave me copies of the regulations. I searched the regulations and there was no reference to permits or permission needing to be obtained to take commercial or any other sort of film. I asked the National Parks and Wildlife Service again what were the restrictions and regulations in relation to filming. I got a reply this afternoon and I am grateful for that. I was told that there are no restrictions on the taking of photographs at Ayers Rock per se. I do not know what 'per se' means. Access is restricted to certain sites of major Aboriginal significance around the rock and therefore specific sites may not be able to be photographed because of such restrictions. The reply does not say whether it refers to photographs by individuals or commercial photographers. The reply goes on to say that under the national parks and wildlife regulations-I believe these comments are those of the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service-consent in writing of the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service is required for the carrying on of a commercial activity in Uluru National Park. The Minister nods his assent. Therefore persons carrying on commercial filming in the park require the Director's consent. It seems inconsistent to me that the Director is, under the guise of a regulation, restricting commercial activity by people taking photographs of Ayers Rock and sites of significance to Aboriginals. Either he should stop people from taking photographs of Ayers Rock because it is of major Aboriginal significance-that is another argument-or he should prohibit people from carrying on a commercial activity. I cannot see the difference. I think it is inconsistent. If the argument that is put forward by the Director in relation to sites of major Aboriginal significance is consistent private photographers ought to be stopped. Let us turn to commercial activity. It seems to me that that ought to be defined. I do not know what 'commercial activity' means. Mr Cohen —And you represent private enterprise. Mr SHIPTON —Let us explore the term together. 'Commercial activity' might mean carrying on a kiosk to sell things to visitors and tourists at Ayers Rock. It might mean carrying on a business such as a caravan park. Mr Cohen —You are going well. Mr SHIPTON —It is not completely consistent. I say it is inconsistent. I thank the Minister for telling me that I am going well. The Minister or I may well take a film which we may or may not use for commercial purposes. It does not seem to me that as a photographer I may or may not be carrying on a commercial activity when I press the button and take a film. If we are to use these regulations to restrict the taking of commercial photographs or any sort of photographs the terms and conditions which photographs are allowed to be taken ought to be clearly set out. The third regulation qualifies the reasons for the consent that the Director can give. He has to be satisfied that the carrying on of a commercial activity will be to the benefit of members of the public using the park or reserve. If the Director is consistent in this regulation, if the argument put forward-I reject the argument-is consistent, under that regulation every permit is invalid . It would be virtually impossible to prove in any case the conditions of the third regulation. In other words, permission that is purported to be granted could not be granted if we adopt the interpretation that the Director adopts. I disagree with the definition of 'commercial activity' but it all points to the fact that it is a classic case of over-regulation and abuse of power. Mr Cohen —But your Government introduced them. Why do you not answer that question? Mr SHIPTON —It should be clearly known, enuniciated and spelt out and it is my understanding that in the last few months-I ask the Minister to tell me the dates of these regulations- Mr Cohen —Just answer the question. Mr SHIPTON —I am trying to answer the question. I understand that Paul Hogan and his film crew from the ATC channel had trouble getting a permit. The Minister said, I think in the House, that he was aware that someone-I assume it was the Hogan team-had trouble getting a permit and he intervened. The Minister knew about the regulations and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) knew about them and they did nothing. They accept the status quo. I believe it is an administrative shambles. Mr Cohen —I never mentioned Paul Hogan. Mr SHIPTON —No, he didn't. I am asking him to say whether Paul Hogan was there. I challenge him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —It might be helpful if the honourable member would address the Chair. Mr SHIPTON —It might be helpful if the Minister would stop interjecting and let me get on with my speech. I know that I am hurting him. Bureaucrats in Canberra are trying to tell Australians what they can or cannot do in relation to the filming of Ayers Rock. They have to get permission in Canberra from a Federal bureaucrat. We have a maze of bureaucratic regulations. No one has proved to me the need for controls. As I have pointed out to the House, I believe the very basis on which the Director purports to make the regulations is in fact invalid. The commercial activity provision is mutually exclusive of every other power I referred to. I ask the Minister what is the difference in his view between my taking photographs for commercial purposes and, as an amateur photographer, taking a good photograph, entering it in a competition and winning a financial prize. Is that a commercial photograph? Mr Cohen —Do you not know the difference between amateur and professional? Mr SHIPTON —The Minister is saying that every person who takes a professional photograph, still or moving, of Ayers Rock has to get permission. The Minister is accepting the regulations. Mr Cohen —I did not say that. Mr SHIPTON —He implied that. The Government accepts them. I believe the Minister and the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism would have known about Paul Hogan having trouble getting permission to film. I ask the Minister at the table to tell the House whether he did. He has accepted the current situation and has done nothing to change it. In fact he has endorsed the strengthening of these controls. It is absolutely ridiculous that the filming of one of Australia's great landmarks is subject to a regulatory and administrative nightmare. The Commonwealth bureaucracy is out of control and has gone mad. Mr Cohen —Why have you been silent so long? Mr SHIPTON —I will answer that question for the Minister. I have been silent because I have become aware that permission has just been refused. Mr Cohen —They did not give reasonable notice. Mr SHIPTON —There was no need because people got permission. Permission has now been refused. This very week an Italian television film crew had to leave without filming. It had applied for permission and gone to Ayers Rock. Permission was refused and it had to leave without filming. They applied on 17 November. They wonder whether they have to come to Canberra and go back. They gave adequate notice and were refused permission. What is the Minister doing to promote Australian tourism? He is making a mockery of it. It is hypocritical on the one hand to get Paul Hogan to make films and to try to advertise Ayers Rock around the world and on the other hand to deter a top Italian television film crew-- Mr Cohen —How do you know they are a top team? Mr SHIPTON — I believe it is the national television firm of Italy. The film would have been sold to Italian and other overseas markets. The Minister is preventing them from making the film because he is in charge of a Commonwealth bureaucracy that is out of control. It is totally inconsistent with the Government's preferred policy of promoting tourism in Australia. We have had living proof of it today because that leading Italian television film crew has had to leave Ayers Rock without taking any film. I am glad to see that the Minister is in the House because he recently announced that $36m would be spent on tourism in the Kakadu National Park. Mr Cohen —It was $70m. Mr SHIPTON —He says it is $70m. I ask the Minister to tell me when it will be spent, what it will be spent on, and whether it will mean any more than caravan parks and toilets. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.21) —Tonight I raise an issue which affects many inner city electorates, that is, the problem of school playground space. In the older suburbs the sites were acquired and the schools built many years ago, and playground space is totally inadequate in both government and non-government schools. My attention has been drawn by the Parliamentary Library to the United Nations International Charter of Physical Education and Sport, proclaimed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in 1978. The Charter states: Every human being has a fundamental right of access to physical education and sport, which are essential for the full development of his personality. The freedom to develop physical, intellectual and moral powers through physical education and sport must be guaranteed both within the educational system and in other aspects of social life. The Library was kind enough also to direct my attention to reports by a University of Queensland researcher, Mrs Carolyn O'Brien, that children who were kept quiet constantly lose out on developing important movement skills. I have raised in this House before the problem of some of the schools in my electorate which have very restricted playgrounds in which the children must be sedentary. There are boys' schools where boys are not allowed to run around because the playground area is so small. Tonight I wish to mention a few of those schools. I raise this issue in the hope that the Commonwealth Schools Commission can investigate the problem and come up with some sort of recommendation. Within my electorate the only organ of government that has been interested in the problem of school playground areas is local government. In several cases the local municipal council has acquired properties adjoining a school and sold them, particularly in the non-government sector, to a non-government school. In the case of the Burwood Council, it has sold a road. The Presbyterian Ladies College, Sydney, which is at Croydon, received great co-operation from the former Mayor of Burwood, Alderman Lutman, who arranged for a road around the college to be sold to this girls secondary school, which has a large number of boarders, in order to allow the school to increase the playground so that there would be sufficient room. Many of the buildings at the school were very old and the playground space was extremely restricted. When young girls are living in the college all week, there must be sufficient area for play and recreation. The same situation arose at Haberfield in my electorate in regard to a parish school, which had an extremely restricted site. The municipal council acquired properties and did a swap for some other church land nearby, and that school acquired a playground. For some reason, particularly in the non-government school section, neither the State nor the Commonwealth has publicly recognised the problem or come up with any solution. The State is not necessarily confronted with this problem because it has the power to resume properties to add to the size of a school, for the building of schools or for the extension of playgrounds. In one government school in my electorate at Homebush the school playground was surrounded by expensive blocks of flats. An ingenious architect devised an elevated playground at first floor level, which added about 20 per cent to the size of the playground and made a very stimulating area and some most interesting places for children to be taught and in which to recreate. I put it to the House tonight that the Commonwealth Schools Commisssion should be asked to investigate this issue because a school should be a place which is enjoyable and a place where children are stimulated. Often a school playground can be improved quite inexpensively by the planting of trees or shrubs. In this regard I congratulate the principal of the Croydon Public School. He beautified his school by carrying out the planting of shrubs and trees around the playground and nurtured them throughout the drought. There is no comparison between a school such as Croydon and Burwood Primary School, which has a barren playground. It is opposite the main railway line between Sydney and Parramatta and is adjacent to big shopping centres and access roads to the shopping centres . That is in stark contrast to the situation at Croydon. In many of the schools in my electorate children come from families in which English is not spoken, and in many of those families there is no tradition of children engaging in weekend sport or out-of-school activities such as Brownies, Guides or any of the activities that other children engage in. There is a tradition of close parental supervision and children not leaving the home. In many of these shcools children from ethnic families make up the vast majority of the pupils-50, 60 or 80 per cent, or perhaps even 90 per cent in some schools. So there is a need for the school to provide facilities for physical recreation, physical education and just simply for play-for ball games and other such activities. Schools within my electorate and in many of the other city electorates throughout Australia have playgrounds which cannot provide this basic facility. I have been told by the Library that the Adelaide Girls High School has extremely restricted play areas. To overcome this, a swimming pool was provided to the school at not a very substantial cost, but it made up for the lack of play facilities. The opportunity to swim would be a wonderful addition to any school. Meriden College in Strathfield in my electorate has a similar facility. A swimming pool was erected on a very restricted site. It has a very tiny playground, and the pool is essential for this school because the Strathfield Municipal Council provides no local swimming pool. One other problem has been brought to my attention in this area. A very large Catholic boys high school, St Patrick's College at Strathfield in my electorate, has 1,250 boys. This school is on four to five acres, which seems a lot of land, but it is not very much when one considers the number of pupils and the fact that part of the area is taken up by an oval. A local road, Edgar Street, which is owned by the council, goes through the school. For some reason that I cannot understand, and I am sure the school authorities cannot comprehend, the Council will not sell this road to the school. It is essential that the school increase its play areas. It is also essential for the safety of the boys and teachers who cross the road all the time. In other suburbs nearby there have been instances where councils have sold roads. I mentioned earlier that nearby at Burwood, in the neighbouring municipality, a very good arrangement exists. My hope is that the Commonwealth Schools Commission can identify areas where sites should be acquired to give a minimum area of playground space. Commonwealth moneys could certainly be made available to acquire sites to facilitate playground activities. The sites could be acquired by the State and even leased to the schools. If there were qualms about handing over land to schools, or any difficulties under the Constitution it could be designated as Commonwealth playground space or some such thing. I feel that the Commonwealth Schools Commission should enter this area of concern. Parents have raised with me the question of safety in restricted playgrounds, and the fact that children are often hurt on equipment, that unsuitable equipment such as metal seats are provided in playgrounds. In a country with a climate like Australia's such playground facilities are quite out of character. I am raising these issues tonight because the Government is doing much to encourage young people to stay at school and go on to complete their education. I have certainly applauded these moves. If schools are to be made places of interest, places of excitement for young people, places of community attention and the centre of the local community, they must be improved. The playgrounds must not only be beautified but also be adequate to meet the needs of people particularly those in inner city areas. In many cases these schools have vast enrolments of children who are encouraged in the school situation but perhaps out of the school situation receive little enthusiasm or little support from their families to take part in sporting activities or any other extra curricula activities. I recommend that the Commonwealth Schools Commission examine some of the matters I have raised tonight. Certainly in the electorate I represent there are many areas where additional school playground space is urgently needed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(9.31) —I commend the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) particularly on his comments regarding the necessity for additional school facilities. I ask him to take the matter a step further. There are many groups of schoolchildren in the more intensely populated urban areas. I have often thought that it would be wonderful if we could have a city children's health scheme, in other words a scheme which would get our kids from the slums and intensive areas of population out into the country. We could bring our underprivileged children from the bush and let them see the sea perhaps for the first time. I think the kids in the city are at a far greater disadvantage. The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) spoke earlier. I commend that forthright Australian for the many things he says which are so valid and probe deeply into the core of some of the ills of this country. At times I wonder about members of the Government. One gets to know them and one knows that in their heart of hearts they could not possibly be supporting some of the weird things that the State governments and the Federal Government have released on this nation. I do not want to start giving a sermon but have honourable members ever noticed that the standards begin to loosen up when the Australian Labor Party takes over? Yet a great number of its members do not agree with some of its policies. I know the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) would not agree. I know many people would not agree with some of the Labor Party's policies. The woman referred to earlier by the honourable member for Franklin commended the grossest sexual education. No-one in his heart of hearts could imagine his own child going into a class and having a lesson on masturbation. Who could commend that? I commend the honourable member for Franklin. He is forthright; he hits the nail right on the head. However, that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk tonight about some of the ills of the people whom I represent and who are spread over an area of 663,000 square kilometres. People from all parts of that electorate pour into the coffers of this capital city and this nation millions and millions of dollars. I do not know whether I will ever have the opportunity of asking God but I often wonder why He decided that sheep would grow and thrive hundreds of miles from the coast. The soil in the country in the far out parts of Australia, the Northern Territory and where I live in the far west of Queensland, is extremely rich. One blade of grass is full of nourishment . I do not know why God decided that. I do not know why God decided that the coal and the riches of this earth should be in far flung places. But it was necessary that a handful of people went to those areas under the most appalling climatic conditions and all the penalties of distance which are obvious to anyone who is a real Australian-there are some left. It is obvious that the people in those areas have the most unspeakable difficulties to contend with. Yet whenever a handful of us come forward and put the case for these people someone will say: 'Here are the galahs again! You represent a handful of people out in the scrub. Sit down and keep quiet'. We do not keep quiet because in order to make our voices heard we have to speak with much more emphasis and much more conviction, than many other people. Tonight I want to talk about the airlines. We struggle constantly. From the outback country came the famous Hancock report. What did it do to us? It said: ' The time has come when cross-subsidisation must cease'. That was accepted. What is cross-subsidisation? It means that people who live in areas where billions of dollars are readily available, where there is every possible amenity and comfort and where there is every possible assistance for life to be so much easier would no longer contribute, for their great wealth, a mere pittance per head of population-one could not even calculate it-to keep our planes running in a normal way. What do I mean by that? Am I talking about great, luxurious planes? Not one damn bit of it. I am talking about a Fokker, an F27. Mr Gayler —Who? Mr KATTER —An honourable member said 'who'. Some people do not even know what a Fokker is because they have all the comforts. They have Boeing 727s and Boeing 707s and occasionally they have to fly on a DC9. My heart bleeds for them! The subject has come up again. Are we going to continue to have F27s or will we be relegated to some tiny little aircraft? One could have commuter planes, to link with the big F27s. That is not good enough. I am serving notice on everyone concerned and I feel confident that I will get the sympathy of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). I hope he is human enough-I have served on committees with him-to understand the influence he might have in this matter. I admit that at the moment it is at the State level. I will ask every Cabinet Minister in Queensland, including my own son, to make sure that the continuity and standard of aircraft are not lowered in any way at all. Let me tell honourable members why I get a little steamed up about this matter. There is no economy fare on an F27; honourable members should not have that illusion. One pays a first class fare. One will be given a cup of tea and a couple of little biscuits in a packet . If one can hold the cup of tea still long enough one can drink it. If one gets on a luxurious aircraft, a Boeing 727 or a DC9, one will be served with sandwiches and savouries. Why are my constituents and the people who are producing the great wealth of this nation considered to be third class citizens? Why are we doing away with cross-subsidisation? That brings me to countrywide calling. I feel that the Government had the best of intentions when it introduced that scheme but it is a washout. Let me explain to the people who do not understand it what I am talking about. It means that people who have fought for years and years to get a local access call to their nearest business centre-an ordinary local call charge-suddenly found that because they were more than 32 kilometres from a concentrator or from whatever was the focal point they would now be charged for a trunk line call. Admittedly, it would be at a lower rate but it is still a timed call. I am pleading with the Government. I admit that there have been some revision of boundaries. A few crumbs have been thrown to my constituents. However, I suggest that this whole matter be revised, that a little responsibility come back into the whole of the system and that people who have enough to contend with be given a bit of a go. The final matter I want to raise concerns the coal mining industry. A number of towns have grown up in Queensland and throughout Australia. Some have been old, redeveloped coal deposits; many of them are new ones. People have gone there with great hope for the future. Admittedly young people went there to get a quick dollar but they have grown to love the place and want to spend the rest of their lives out there. We now have a feeling of complete insecurity. What does the future hold? Will Japan renew our contracts? What is the situation? No one seems to be able to define clearly the future of the coal mining industry. I am making a plea to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). He held a conference in Canberra to which all people involved in the coal industry were invited. The conference went well. We were able to exchange ideas. We were exposed to people at various levels in the industry who had various degrees of interest. There was an exchange of ideas; and expose by the unions, by the bosses and by all concerned. Finally, I make a plea to the Minister for Resources and Energy to hold a similar conference in the area where these people live and slave, the area where this great wealth is produced for the nation. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(9.41) —Tonight I wish to grieve for what I consider to be one of the most oppressed groups of people in the world, people being driven from pillar to post, people with no homeland. I speak of course of the people of Palestine. I was in Lebanon in September 1982, not long after the Israelis arrived there. I spoke to people in the camps at Shatila and Sabra. I visited the camp at Sidon of Ainel Helwesi and saw just how utterly destroyed it was. I have in my electorate some Aboriginal people who live in absolutely deplorable conditions but nowhere have I seen people living in the conditions under which some of those Palestinians are living in those camps. It was a scene of total and unbelievable devastation. While I was visiting one of the camps at Shatila I spoke to people who were involved in providing medical services there- Australians, New Zealanders, British people and Danish people who stopped there right throughout all the trouble. The views by those people made a lasting impression on me. I was visiting one of the hospitals run by the Amal people, the Shi'ite Humanitarian Organisation. I noticed a young lad of about seven. He would have been about the same age as my children. I noticed that his fingers were all missing, very neatly missing. It seemed to me that he had been involved in a very strange explosion. I have had something to do with explosives. I thought that it must have been a very strange accident. I asked the doctor how this had occurred. He said: 'Why don't you ask him?' So I put the question to this lad and he said that he was in a camp when the soldiers came. He said that the soldiers did not kill him because he was a Lebanese and not a Palestinian. I said: 'What happened?' He said: 'The soldiers cut my fingers off'. When I asked him why he said: 'They did not want me to carry guns'. That too made a lasting impression on me of man's inhumanity to man. I asked myself: How did this invasion occur? Why did Israel invade the Lebanon? It is my belief that Israel invaded Lebanon in search of territorial aggrandisement and quite probably for water. Israel has been mining its water resources. The water level has been dropping. Bores have to be sunk deeper and deeper. Its alternative source of water comes from the Jordan or perhaps the Litani or the Awali Rivers. Jordan is politically unacceptable at the moment. Israel cannot go there so its best option is to restore its own water supply from the Litani. I put this proposition to a colonel to whom I spoke in Sidon who was in charge of the garrison there. He said to me: 'That is an absurd notion. If we want their water we will buy it'. I then put to him the proposition: What would the Israelis do if Jordan did not want to sell it? One of his officers answered that question by patting his submachine gun and saying: 'They will sell to us all right'. This situation has been greatly misunderstood by the world. But what did happen to the Palestinians? In my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organisation is the true representative of these people. That organisation was not beaten by the Israeli army. It withdrew before overwhelming superiority. But once members of that organisation had dug in in Beirut they were unbeatable. The Israelis were reduced to pounding that city to rubble with their artillery and aircraft. They used weapons for which the Palestinians had no answer. But the people who were being killed, maimed and made homeless were the ordinary Lebanese people. They were not the PLO fighters; they were dug in at the bottom. When the PLO agreed to withdraw from Lebanon it withdrew unbeaten. Man for man, infantry soldier for infantry soldier, it was equal in every way to the much vaunted Israeli soldiers . What has happened since? Syria, another country with territorial aggrandisement ideas, a country that has long held views of a greater Syria, sees the Lebanon as an extension of Syria. This country is now trying to finish the work that the Israelis started. I spoke at length with people in the PLO. I noticed that quite a lot of the senior officers were Arafat sycophants, if you like. I can sympathise to a certain extent with Abu Musa. I guess that he did feel a little annoyed about this. Perhaps he felt that Arafat was too wily and would ultimately do some sort of a deal with Israel-a view that has some substance and one which I believe would have been in everyone's interest. But what did he do? His answer was to throw in his lot with the Syrians. The Syrians are using Abu Musa. This is known by the Palestinian people. For this reason the people of the West Bank and Gaza will have no part of it. My attention was drawn to a public opinion poll which was conducted some time last year by Time magazine. It commissioned a well known Israeli public relations firm to do the survey. It showed that 98.2 per cent of the people surveyed-this is Palestinians-wanted an independent Palestinian homeland. It showed that 50 per cent of those people supported Arafat. There was 25 per cent support for other people. Significantly, 25 per cent of Palestinians wanted nothing to do with any of the established Palestinian political leaders of that time. But beyond doubt these people had a regard and a desire for an independent homeland. Who gains by this destruction of the PLO? If we accept that the PLO is the representative of the Palestinian people then Israel has everything to gain by having the PLO destroyed. It will then have no one with whom to negotiate and, of course, it can never come to any conclusion. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that we see an unholy alliance today between Israel and Syria, backed by the United States of America, to destroy the Palestinian people. The Syrians, with their overwhelming forces, have driven the forces of the PLO loyal to Arafat into a very narrow enclave adjacent to the coast. Israeli patrol boats make it impossible for them to be reinforced or evacuated from that direction. They are trapped. The Israeli Government is ensuring, by its connivance with Syria, that the PLO is either destroyed or reduced to a level of total inability to a force of no substance whatsoever. If we accept that the PLO represents the Palestinian people and that those people need someone to negotiate when they are talking to Israel, what does Israel have to fear if Israel genuinely wants security behind its guaranteed borders? Surely it must be able to negotiate. It is to its advantage. What could an independent Palestinian state offer against the overwhelming might of Israel? It would offer no threat. In reality it would probably offer Israel greater security. But while the Israelis are prepared to extend their territorial area, to colonise the West Bank, there can be no lasting peace. I think it is to the eternal shame of the people of the Western world, nations that speak out so strongly for civil rights, that more is not done to bring these facts home to people. I believe that this country, which has shown a great compassion in bringing into Australia refugees from Vietnam should extend that same compassion to the people of Palestine. They are equally qualified. They are driven from their homeland. They have nowhere to turn to. They are today under a much more direct threat of extinction than are those people of Vietnam. I hope that the Government of which I am a member will give some consideration to extending its compassionate grounds for bringing refugees to this country to allow Palestinians to settle in this land. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.51) —I grieve tonight in this Parliament on behalf of millions of my fellow Australians who hold dear the traditional values which have made this country great and which will, if we continue to maintain these values, make Australia even greater. I warn my fellow Australians listening to this broadcast of the national Parliament and those who will read about this speech in the newspapers tomorrow that there are dangerous radical forces at work within this country, within this Parliament and indeed within the Hawke socialist Government to destroy forever many of the things which we hold dear. I use the words 'dangerous' and 'radical' advisedly for that is what they are. I should add that these groups are indeed powerful and, whilst they represent small minorities in the Australian community, they are weilding today enormous power within the ranks of the Hawke socialist Government. In my speech I want to have a brief look at the constitutional history of this country. When Federation occurred and the Commownealth of Australia came into being on 1 January 1901 the Constitution which was then and still is Australia's most important legal document, commenced with these magnificent words: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania- I interpolate that Western Australia came in later. It continues, and I ask honourable members to listen to this: humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established: So, Mr Deputy Speaker, there you see it: In the opening words of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia there are specific references to Almighty God and to the Crown. The Constitution goes on to guarantee a parliamentary democracy and a federation under the Crown-a constitutional monarchy. Back in 1948, under that great Australian the late Ben Chifley and with the full support of the Australian Labor Party, this Parliament passed the Nationality and Citizenship Act which contained within it and its regulations provisions for an oath of allegiance to the Crown, which was still at that time the British Crown. In 1973 another Labor leader, the Hon. E. G. Whitlam, was Prime Minister of Australia and he and his Labor Government brought into this Parliament-the Bill was passed-the Australian Citizenship Act, No. 99 of the 1973, which received the royal assent on 17 September that year and which Act commenced on a date fixed by proclamation which was in fact 1 December 1973, as evidenced by the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. 140 of that year. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948-73 commenced by Ben Chifley and carried forward by Gough Whitlam-both Labor Prime Ministers-contained in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 and oath of allegiance and an affirmation of allegiance. They are virtually identical in form except that, obviously, the affirmation of allegiance did not contain the words 'swear by Almighty God' but did contain the words 'solemnly and sincerely promise and declare'. The words of the oath of allegiance I now repeat: I, . . ., renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen, Beautiful words, fine in form and principle, acknowledging Almighty God, pledging allegiance to the Queen of Australia-not the British Queen but the Queen of Australia. What is wrong with that oath of allegiance? If the atheist- republicans in the Hawke socialist Government get their way we will see all references to God and the Queen removed forever from that oath. This will be offensive to the overwhelming majority of Australians, 81 per cent of whom believe in God and two out of three Australians being dead against moves to turn this country into a republic. What motivates these socialist-republicans in the ALP to hate the Queen and the monarchy as they do? Where does the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claim a mandate for these radical republican reforms? Did he utter one word about them when he delivered the ALP policy speech at the Sydney Opera House? Does anybody believe that the people of Australia who were conned into voting for the Labor Party on 5 March this year would have done so if they had known that within just a few short months this wretched Government would move to destroy the oath of allegiance; would move to alter the Letters Patent under which His Excellency, the Governor-General, operates; would move to scrap the Queen's Medal for the top rifle shot in the Australian Army; would move to ban the Victoria Cross, the most honoured decoration for courage and valour in the English-speaking world; and would launch a campaign spear-headed by none other than the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who is determined to see our present Australian flag-the greatest flag in the world-torn up by 1988? We all thought the Whitlam Government was bad enough. The present hot bed of socialist republicanism which is the Hawke socialist Government is far, far worse-far more radical and far more dangerous than the Whitlam Government ever was. These radical republican moves will be strongly resisted by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia in this Parliament. Unfortunately, the Hawke socialist Government has the numbers in this House but, hopefully, in the Senate the Opposition will find support within the ranks of the Australian Democrats and from the Tasmanian Independent senator, Senator Brian Harradine. These attacks on our traditional values-the things we love, the things which have made Australia great-have been accompanied by vicious attacks on important sections of our Australian community which constitute such a vital element in our Australian way of life. I refer of course to the savage and vicious attacks by the Hawke socialist Government on the senior citizens of Australia, the pensioners, the superannuants, the elderly. This wicked, unjust and iniquitous asset means test proposal, bludgeoned through Caucus by the strong-arm heavies of the ALP, will cost the Hawke socialist Government office at the next Federal election. I told the Government several weeks ago that it ought to pick on someone its own age. Grey power is fighting back and grey power will beat it. Those honourable members opposite who think that many of these poor old pensioners will be dead by the time of the next Federal election are in for a very big shock. They are going to stay alive so that they can enjoy voting against the Prime Minister and the Australian Labor Party at the next Federal election. Thousands and thousands of Australian pensioners who were conned into voting for the present Prime Minister on 5 March will turn against him and against honourable members opposite, and will throw them out of office when next they go to the polls. At the other end of the scale we have seen a wicked and vicious attack upon the school children of Australia through the misguided, twisted and sectarian policies of the Hawke socialist Government as expounded and articulated by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I think the Minister should be renamed the Minister for eradication because, if ever a government was hell-bent on getting rid of and destroying forever the non-government, independent and church schools of Australia, this Government most certainly is. The Hawke socialist Government has declared war upon those parents who choose to exercise their basic and fundamental right of choice as to how their children are educated. This Hawke socialist Government is so committed to the destruction of private schools that it makes the Council for the Defence of Government Schools look like a bunch of innocent kids on a Sunday School picnic. Other traditional values attacked by the Hawke socialist Government include the defence of this country, the reserve forces and the school cadets. What next? What further sinister onslaughts and attacks lie ahead? This is a oncer government. It came into power on promises which it has broken one by one. It is attacking the basic values which have made Australia great. It will be thrown out of office at the next Federal election. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Wool Industry-Youth: Political Processes-Palestine Liberation Organisation-White River Corporation Ltd-New South Wales Government-Ayers Rock Mr SPEAKER —It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.00) —Three weeks ago I asked a question of the Treasurer ( Mr Keating). Just to remind the House, I will read that question again: Is the Government concerned that, because the effects of the March devaluation have been totally eroded, there has been an alarming rundown in reserves of the Australian Wool Corporation, to the extent that the Corporation in the last month has had to intervene in the market to the tune of $90m? As the Government supported the Corporation lifting the wool floor price by 7.5 per cent following the March devaluation, what does it now intend doing, given that the continued appreciation of the dollar is placing the wool industry at risk? The Treasurer, in his answer, rambled on about exchange rates and said something about capital inflow, but he virtually ignored the question. I find that very disturbing, as I think a lot of people on this side do. It seems to me that the Treasurer just does not understand or, worse still, is not interested in the wool industry. To give honourable members a bit of background, I will outline why the question was asked. In the last month the Australian Wool Corporation has had to intervene in the wool market to the tune of $90m. In one week it had to buy $30m worth of wool. As honourable members will probably remember, in March the Government devalued the Australian dollar by 10 per cent. The Government also approved the raising of the floor price for wool by 7 1/2 per cent. Since the March devaluation successive revaluations have completely wiped out that devaluation. The true picture is worse than that, however, because when we look at the wool basket of currencies the Australian dollar has revalued by nearly 15 per cent. The wool industry-the one that the Treasurer does not seem to care about or is not interested in-is still one of the biggest export industries we have. Wool still amounts to 10 per cent of our exports, and this year these exports will be worth approximately $2,000m. Wool is still a very important export and it, probably more than any other export, has contributed to the growth of this country over the last 200 years. The reserve price scheme was started in 1974 at the request of wool growers. Mr Steedman —By a Labor government. Mr HAWKER —That is right. The money that was used initially was lent at commercial rates of interest. I emphasise that point because a lot of people were under some misapprehension at the time; but the money was lent at commercial rates. Five per cent was levied on all wool growers' proceeds to pay for this floor price scheme and continued to be levied every year until sufficient funds were built up to allow the fund to revolve. Last year the first contributions-those made in 1974-75-were returned to wool growers. This year those contributions made in 1975-76 have been returned. So it is an example of an industry that has helped itself. It has paid for everything itself, and that is something about which I think it can feel justifiably proud. While the reserves are strong, I think we should be rather concerned to see an industry having to fork out $30m in a week to support something because the Government has, by its revaluation of Australian dollar, forced it into a very difficult position. As I have said, this industry represents 10 per cent of our export income. I think we should all be very concerned when the Treasurer, in his reply to that question, showed that he not only is not interested in the industry but also probably does not even care. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(10.05) —I rise tonight to talk about the current disillusionment of the youth of this country about the political processes. I commend the Government for its current campaign to encourage the involvement of young people in this process and to highlight the rights and responsibilities which accompany citizenship in a democratic country such as ours. My major concern, however, is to examine the reasons why research shows such widespread and deep alienation amongst our young people. Between 500,000 and 600,000 young people are not on the electoral rolls, and a high proportion of this number indicated an almost universal lack of confidence that their vote had any significant impact on government, the bureaucracy or their own lives. When we examine the position of young people in this society it should perhaps be no surprise that they have voted with their feet away from the ballot boxes. Successive governments, State and Federal, have produced policies and strategies for this country which ensure that the most powerless and the most disadvantaged have the least to hope for from their elected leaders. Young people suffer the worst effects of unemployment, have the least access to adequate housing and endure an education system which only now shows signs of recovering from 27 years of neglect, unless of course they are in a position to exercise the so- called choice of private schooling, pork barrelled for years by conservative governments. I have been impressed during my visits to local schools in my electorate of Casey by the interest shown and the perceptive questions asked by the students. It is my strong belief that when young people are treated with the seriousness and respect that they deserve, they in turn have valuable contributions to make to political debate, especially in areas that concern them-employment, education , technology and recreation. What they do not tolerate gladly are attempts to patronise, to sidestep issues and to avoid honest discussion about their concerns. They are rightly cynical of 30-second grabs on television during election campaigns and they are equally cynical of unrealistic and subsequently broken promises. Therefore, whilst commending the Government's range of policies designed to reform and simplify electoral processes and practices and to encourage voter enrolment, I trust that the root causes of alienation amongst the young will be tackled with the vigour and commitment which the electorate expects of Labor governments. It is not difficult to understand why many of our young people today are disillusioned with the political system and fail to register to vote when we note at times the morality and ethical code exhibited by some members. The most recent example, of course, is the newly elected honourable member of Bruce (Mr Aldred), who is not in the chamber tonight. This coprophiliac, who degrades our Parliament by his mere presence, managed to sneak into this Parliament in a by- election after the good voters of Henty rejected him several years ago. Pity the poor people of Bruce, who are neglected and ignored by their representative as he sinks to new depths of mud-slinging and character assassination under the protection of parliamentary privilege. This man who so inadequately represented the people of Henty has now foisted himself on another unsuspecting electorate. I will not go into the file I have here on some of the actions of the honourable member for Bruce because that would only raise his status in this Parliament and I do not believe that that would be in any way useful to this Parliament or the Government of this country. I quickly point out that he is the great diplomat who, at a luncheon in honour of the King of Tonga in 1979, made a mountain of full wine glasses until at the seventh glass the lot smashed to the ground. This was well recorded at the time. He, being an insatiable publicity seeker and self-styled expert on crime, in August 1980 prepared with a Victorian member of parliament a 50-page document purporting to expose organised crime in Victoria. That document was dismissed by senior police as 'unfounded, based on rumour and conjecture and with no evidence to back up the allegations'. Unfortunately, he is still at the same old game here of smear, innuendo and unsubstantiated attacks under the protection of parliamentary privilege. Mr Carlton —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. If the honourable member for Casey is going to make charges against the honourable member for Bruce, I think they ought to be made in the form of a substantive motion. Mr SPEAKER —There is the question of a substantive motion. However, so far the honourable member for Casey has made criticisms of the honourable member for Bruce rather than charges of improper conduct. Mr STEEDMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I realise the stalling tactics of the members of the Opposition whenever one of their members gets his just desserts. I realise that they have cut my time down. It is interesting also to note that on the staff of the new member for Bruce there is one Mr Verbickis, who was a key political figure in the 1980 election campaign and was responsible for dirty tricks in the now disbanded Government Information Unit. Mr Spender —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Under no circumstances can those remarks be tolerated. It is perfectly outrageous that they should be allowed. The honourable member for Bruce is not here. The honourable member for Casey is abusing parliamentary privilege and he knows it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney knows that the matter raised is not one for a substantive motion. Mr STEEDMAN —He has achieved his aim by silencing me at this stage. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.10) —I came into this House just as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) was half way through his comments in the grievance debate. As I understand it, he was complaining about the position in which the Palestine Liberation Organisation presently finds itself. That is indeed a matter of grief and I would have thought a matter of great grief to the inhabitants of Tripoli. Let us look at the PLO because it is said to be the representative of the Palestinian people. It is an umbrella organisation and the major part of it is made up by an organisation called Fatah. Mr Arafat has been the head of this umbrella organisation and the head of Fatah for many years. It is said that the PLO is representative of the Palestinians. Who elected the PLO? Who elected Mr Arafat. Where is the Morgan gallup poll which tells us of the views of the Palestinian citizens? I have been to Syria. I have met with representatives of the PLO and I must confess that I had a different view then from the one that I have now. Let us look at the present position. It is put by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in a sort of tortured conspiracy theory that there is an unholy alliance between Israel, Syria and the United States of America to destroy the PLO-an alliance between Syria and Israel, an alliance between Syria and the United States. He should know, if he has the least understanding of the background of the PLO and what has happened in the Middle East in the last few years, that Syria has, to a very large extent, controlled the PLO and has done so by controlling the armoured forces of the PLO which largely have been stationed in Syria. Now we have a split in the PLO and apparently we are meant to sympathise with what has taken place. We are meant to sympathise with the civil war between two contenders for leadership in the PLO. We are meant to sympathise with those who have brought bloodshed, death and disaster to Tripoli. Who asked the PLO into Tripoli? Who asked Mr Arafat to go to Tripoli? Who were the people in Tripoli who said: 'Yes, we welcome you and we welcome your attackers and you may fight over us to the last drop of our blood'? It is incredible that in these circumstances the leaders of the PLO have shown themselves to be so ill-concerned with the lives of others that they are willing to have Tripoli reduced to rubble so that they can fight out their political differences. It is incredible that we in this House are asked to sympathise with those people. Let us ask the Government two questions. Perhaps it can come and give us the answer to those questions. First of all, does it support these actions? Does it support what has happended in Tripoli? Does it support the murder, the killing of innocent civilians? Does it support the destruction of that city? Secondly, are we going to have representatives of the PLO here? If so, who will they be and what purpose will they serve? What purpose for the Australian people will they serve? It is about time the Government faced up to these kinds of questions , and for the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to come in here with this futile left wing pap about the PLO and to say nothing about the people who have been harmed, to say nothing about the rights of the people in Tripoli, is to disregard the truth and to disregard present history. Whatever the PLO may have set for itself in the past it has disgraced and dishonoured its objectives by the way in which it has behaved towards the inhabitants of Tripoli just as the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) has disgraced himself by making allegations against a man here in Parliament who cannot answer. When he is making allegations against one of the members of this side of the House he should give him notice so that he can come back here and answer. In passing, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie said that the honourable member for Bruce had compiled a 50-page report which the Australian Federal Police had rejected. He obviously has a high regard for the police force and he obviously assumes that they are right at all times. I do not know. I did not read the document. The honourable member is obviously on the side of the police at all times. I have found sometimes the police err. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.15) —On 29 November I spoke in the adjournment debate and a lot of my time was taken up by interjections and points of order. I hope tonight to conclude what I was attempting to say. People can read both speeches. What we may have here is a very clever business exercise. Was the machinery of promoting and listing White River Corporation Ltd really only intended to create a purchaser of the timber business and to convert otherwise taxable accumulated profits in this business to a non-taxable capital receipt while at the same time retaining control of the business via the new listed vehicle and increased working capital available to it from public subscription? I would like to make some comments on questions asked in the New South Wales Parliament. Today, Question No. 455 on the Notice Paper reads: What was the nature and purpose of the transactions evidenced by the deposits of the following securities of the White River Corporation Ltd by the Nugan Hand Bank with Jewel Acceptance Pty Ltd after the death of Mr F. J. Nugan: $ 7 March 1980 . 150,000 21 March 1980 . 200,000 28 March 1980 . 100,000 11 April 1980 . 200,000 If one goes through the questions on the Notice Paper one finds there is a lot of information. Question No. 427 reads in part: Did the Corporate Affairs Commission give its approval to the arrangement whereby the Greiner family interests received cash while the corporation received no boost to its working capital from the public subscription? Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under the Standing Orders a reflection on a member of another parliament or the judiciary must be the subject of a substantive motion. It is quite improper in an adjournment debate for the honourable member to defame the next Premier of New South Wales. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAND —There is no point of order, and Mr Greiner is certainly not going to be the next Premier of New South Wales. In fact, when the inquiry into Mr Greiner's business transactions takes place he will be lucky if he is still in parliament. Question No. 428 states: (1) Did the Corporate Affairs Commission or the Stock Exchange question officers of the White River Group to ascertain whether or not the Corporation was floated to: (a) divert cash to the Greiner family interests from the public for part of the shares offered to the public; (b) achieve controlling interest for the Greiner family interests without leaving cash in the Corporation as equity:- There is question after question. Question No. 430 states: Is the undisclosed shareholder in the 1978 Accounts of the Corporation loaned an amount of $252,557, a member of the Greiner family? Large sums of money were milked out of this Corporation. We find now that the Corporation is verging on the brink of bankruptcy and owing nearly in excess of $1m more than what it has in terms of assets. At the same time, the Greiner family over a number of years has stripped the company and stripped the original company. The House ought to understand what has happened. It would seem that the Greiner family, led by the Leader of the Opposition, the man who charges around New South Wales talking about proper procedures, honesty and integrity and labelling everbody else in the State as- Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I believe that the spirit of standing order 75 is being offended. I submit it is cowardly- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Denison challenges rulings of the Chair in that rude manner he will suffer the actions of it. The standing order is quite clear. Mr HAND —We have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition, a person promoted by the Liberal Party of Australia as an alternative leader, has engaged in the stripping of companies, the manipulation of reports for the stock exchange and at the same time he has gone around and pointed his evil finger at other individuals in the community. I do not care what he does in his business, but I hate hypocrisy. It would seem that the Greiner family led by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales has avoided tax on business profits while at the same time achieving a de facto distribution of those profits as a capital receipt and still not surrendering control of the business. It seems to me that this is a pretty clear way of bypassing responsibilities as members of the business community. I am sure members of the House will ask: Was the listing of the Corporation merely a tax plan devised on the part of the Greiner family and led by the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.20) —We have just witnessed from the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) the latest example of the panic of the Australian Labor Party about the electoral prospects of Mr Neville Wran, the National President of the Party and the Premier of New South Wales. The honourable member for Melbourne, in an entirely innocuous, ineffective and desperate manner, has smeared under the privilege of this House a man who in a period of only six months has taken the fortunes of the Liberal-National Party Opposition in New South Wales to a situation where, come the next election in New South Wales, Mr Wran will be very seriously challenged as the Premier of that State. It is widely rumored in political circles in Sydney-- Mr Hand —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: Does he agree with the asset stripping that took place from that company? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWARD —It is widely rumoured in political circles in Sydney that immediately after the by-elections held in New South Wales in September, which recorded a swing of between 10 and 15 per cent in three rock safe Labor seats in the metropolitan area of Sydney, a private survey was carried out by the New South Wales division of the Australian Labor Party. The results of that survey were so bad that for the first time in about five years the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party refused to make them available on a selective basis to the Press as had always been its habit. The fact is that the electoral prospects of Mr Wran are now in very serious decline. He is put to the desperate tactic of trying publicly to bully men like Jack Ferguson and Mr Day. The more the back bench-and indeed the front bench-of the Labor Party in this Parliament attack the integrity and the ability of such people, the more we will be persuaded that we are on a winner with Greiner in New South Wales. Honourable members opposite bay and complain. If they have any complaints they can lay them before the Commissioner of Taxation. If they want to adopt the Dawkins tactic that was so totally discredited in this Parliament only a couple of months ago regarding the Leader of the New South Wales Opposition, they are very welcome to do it. Everybody knows that when it comes to smearing people under the cover of parliamentary privilege, there is no greater expert in this country, no person more worthy of condemnation, than the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, the Premier of New South Wales. The Australian Labor Party attempts in this chamber to cover up for the declining fortunes of the Wran Government in New South Wales, the absolute chaos of the prison system and the total irresponsibility of its financial management, the concern about education, the concern about public health, the absolute decay in public confidence in the Administration in New South Wales and the general belief that the Wran Government is on the skids. As far as I am concerned the more those matters are raised in this Parliament the happier we on this side will be. Any reading of Australian political history over the last 10 years will tell us one very interesting thing: Out of the ruins of the Labor Party's Federal defeat in 1975 it began on the road back by winning power in New South Wales in 1976. We will start on the road back by winning power in New South Wales in 1984. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(10.25) —Firstly, I thank the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) for making way for me. He wanted to raise a local matter and he has been kind enough to give me his time. I appreciate that. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has raised in the last couple of days in Question Time and in the grievance debate tonight the issue of whether or not the Government has imposed new restrictions to prohibit people from taking photographs at Ayers Rock. I point out to the honourable member that the power lies in regulation 7 under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which provides that any person wishing to carry on a commercial activity in a national park or reserve must obtain the permission of the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. That regulation was in place for the last seven and a half years of the Fraser Government. The honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) nodded assent and made it very clear that he strongly supported it. He, of course, was the Minister administering my portfolio before me. I am sure that the honourable member for Higgins does not object to the regulation which requires photographers to obtain permission to carry on a commercial activity. We have no problems, of course, with any amateur photographers. They can take whatever photographs they wish, still or life. Theoretically, the honourable member is quite right when he suggests that a commercial still photographer should seek permission. However, commercial still photographers do not cause any disruption. There are no problems with them. They do not disrupt the activities of the tourists or the Aborigines within the park. Mr Shipton —Where is that in the regulations? Mr COHEN —The honourable member has asked his questions. I am now answering them . Mr Shipton —You interjected on me all the time. Mr COHEN —That is right, but I have five minutes in which to speak and you had ten. The problem lies with some commercial film crews, quite large crews, who have come forward with some unacceptable requests for the sorts of films they wish to take. Mr Shipton —Selective regulation. Mr COHEN —Yes, it is. It is not so much selective regulation as selective departmental action in the case of objectionable activity. Some of the requests have been as follows: One was to put a car on top of Ayers Rock so that it could be filmed; another was to run a marathon up and down Ayers Rock for two days. Mr Shipton —We heard that the other day. Mr COHEN —You are hearing it yet again. You obviously did not listen. Another request was for a ballooning exercise to drop parachutists on Ayers Rock, and Pro Hart wanted to paint the rock. They are the sorts of things that have been requested. Clearly, they are unacceptable. They would disrupt the activities of tourists and of all the other people in the park and the applications have been rejected. Most applications are not rejected. All people have to do is to apply to the National Parks and Wildlife Service which in turn will consult the Pitjantjatjara Council or the Central Land Council, which in their turn will consult the Conservation Council of the Northern Territory. The honourable member mentioned in his speech that Paul Hogan was denied access to produce a film. Mr Shipton —Yes, you were going to answer that. Mr COHEN —I will answer it. On 19 November a crew involving Paul Hogan arrived with a few hours notice. This is what happens every time. Crews arrive at the Rock without having sought permission and demand to disrupt people's lives and the activites of the tourists. Mr Shipton —So Paul Hogan was going to interrupt some people's lives? Mr COHEN —The crew would have interrupted the activity of thousands of tourists there. In this case, there was frantic phoning around to get permission and within 24 hours permission was granted. A similar situation occurred some months ago. I was telephoned from Ayers Rock, told that a crew had arrived there and wanted permission to film and asked whether I could facilitate it. Within two hours, I think, I managed to get that permission. Film crews must go through that procedure. They must not just barge in and disprupt the activities of the tourists without seeking permission. Mr Shipton —Selective permission. Mr COHEN —Obviously the honourable member wants the restriction to apply to every photographer. We will do that if that is what he wants. The Italian crew did the same thing. They arrived at short notice. We did not have the opportunity to consult the Aborigines or the Conservation Council of the Northern Territory. The crew was told that there should not be any problem. They were given permission to film in Kakadu National Park. They have gone to Kakadu and we expect that if they want to come back to Ayers Rock there will be no problems. The honourable member is obviously trying to make an issue of this. Mr Shipton —We raised it; that is why they got permission. Mr COHEN —That is not correct. These things have been done over and over again without any problems at all. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next. House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 345 Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Is the Minister able to provide an analysis of claims for compensation resulting from repetitive strain injury in the Minister's Department for each of the years 1978 to 1983. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: A total of 22 claims have been made on my Department and the statutory authorities within my portfolio since 1978. An analysis of these claims is shown below: 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Number of Claims 1 2 2 3 5 9 22 Number Accepted 1 2 1 3 4 4 15 Number not Accepted . . . . 1 . . 1 5 7 Male . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 Female 1 2 2 3 4 9 21 Type of Work- Keyboard 1 1 1 2 3 9 17 Repetitive Writing . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 Repetitive Sorting . . . . . . 1 1 . . 2 Card Checking . . . . 1 . . . . . . 1 Tea Attendant . . 1 . . . . . . . . 1 Question No. 479 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a French proposal to the first special session of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament for an all-nation remote -sensing space satellite agency to monitor peacekeeping. (2) Is he able to say (a) whether the proposal had been adopted by the United Nations in 1982 and (b) what nations (i) opposed and (ii) refrained from supporting the proposal. (3) What steps has the Australian Government taken or planned to apply to joint United States-Australian space research facilities to this objective. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a) The proposal to establish an international satellite monitoring agency has not yet been adopted by the United Nations. At the 1982 Session of the UN General Assembly, France presented a resolution which took note of the Secretary -General's report and study on the technical, legal and financial implications of establishing an international satellite monitoring agency, sought the publication of the study as a UN document and requested the Secretary-General to report to the 1983 UN General Assembly session on the practical modalities for implementing the conclusions of the report. (b) The resolution (No. 37/78K) was adopted by 126 votes in favour, nine against with 11 abstentions. Countries which supported the resolution were: Algeria, Antigua and Barduda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belguim, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Burindi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China , Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Quatar, Romania , Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudia Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. Countries voting against were: Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic , Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Countries which abstained were: Afghanistan, Angola, Cuba, Cyprus*, Democratic Yemen, Grenada, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Mozambique, United States of America, Viet Nam. * Subsequently the delegation of Cyprus advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. (3) The Government has taken no steps to involve the joint space research facilities in Australia in this proposal. The Government does not believe the proposal has yet reached the stage where the Government would be in a position to consider whether the facilities could have a role in this concept. Question No. 540 Mr Spender asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: What specific measures, whether in relation to suspension of co-operation or otherwise, does the Government intend to take with respect to Aeroflot airlines to mark the Government's condemnation of the actions of the Soviet Union in relation to the destruction of the Korean airliner. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 15 September the Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley, issued a statement outlining the Government's civil aviation sanctions against the USSR in response to the Korean airliner incident. The text of the statement is as follows: Qantas and Trans Australian Airlines have been directed by the Government to apply sanctions against Aeroflot, and other domestic airlines have been requested to co-operate in the measures. This was announced today by the Minister for Aviation, Mr Kim Beazley, and followed yesterday's announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden , that measures would be taken because of continued unsatisfactory responses by the USSR. 'Qantas has been directed by the Government to suspend the commercial interline arrangements it has with Aeroflot', Mr Beazley said. 'These arrangements allow either airline to issue tickets or cargo documents for carriage in which both participate.' 'In addition, both Qantas and TAA have been directed not to honour tickets or cargo documents that have been sold by Aeroflot outside Australia, and not to sell tickets or cargo documents for travel or carriage from Australia, which include travel or carriage on Aeroflot.' 'Other Australian domestic airlines have been requested by the Government to take similar action.' 'As Aeroflot does not fly to Australia it is not possible to act directly against that airline through the powers of the air navigation regulations', Mr Beazley said. 'The Government is therefore requesting all travel agents that they voluntarily apply the intended sanction against the sale of travel on Aeroflot. The Australian Federation of Travel Agents has been advised of this request.' Mr Beasley added that, as already announced by Mr Hayden, the measures would apply for a period of sixty days unless earlier revoked because of more satisfactory responses by the USSR. Question No. 542 Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the article on page 31 of the Economist of 27 August entitled 'Even Worse at UNESCO'. (2) Is he able to say whether the allegations of incompetence, racism and anti- democratic bias are correct; if so, will he reconsider the value of Australia's membership. (3) What amount does Australia contribute to UNESCO on an annual basis. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Government has no plans to reconsider Australia's membership of UNESCO. It is aware that criticism has been made of aspects of UNESCO's recent performance, and in this context has expressed its own strong desire to see UNESCO concentrate on practical, useful programs clearly within its own area of responsibility. The Government nevertheless believes that UNESCO is continuing to perform an important role and is carrying out essential work to further international co-operation in the fields of education, science and culture. The secretariat of UNESCO, like that of other specialized agencies, includes persons from many different political, social and administrative backgrounds. This inevitably imposes particular strains and creates situations unlike those encountered in the administration of individual states. While the Government acknowledges that problems may have arisen within UNESCO because of these factors, it nevertheless believes that the UNESCO secretariat contains many persons of high integrity, dedicated to furthering the aims set down in UNESCO's constitution. (3) Australia's assessed contribution to UNESCO's regular program and budget in 1983 was $US3,604,796. Question No. 556 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether the United States of America regards any ban on nuclear-powered ships and nuclear-armed ships as contrary to the ANZUS Treaty. (2) Did he discuss the question of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed warships with the New Zealand Leader of the Opposition during his recent visit to Australia: if so, what was the outcome. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The United States clearly regards access to Australian ports for its naval ships, including nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships, as of importance for support of its operations in our region and for carrying out its Treaty responsibilities. For its part the Australian Government considers that such visits support important Australian strategic and defence interests. However, the question of how the United States would view any ban on visits by nuclear- powered or nuclear-armed warships in relation to the ANZUS Treaty has not arisen between the United States and Australian Governments. (2) My recent discussions with the New Zealand Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lange, ranged across a number of topics, including nuclear issues. The outcome, as intended, was that we are both better informed about our respective positions . Question No. 578 Mr Porter asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1983: (1) Is he able to say whether the 1981 census figures provide an accurate account of the Aboriginal populations in each State. (2) To what extent are these figures used in determining funding programs. (3) Is there a need for more accurate demographic figures for Aborigines. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) While there are some shortcomings in counting Aboriginals in the population census there is no better measure at present to replace it. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has said that movements in the figures for Aboriginal population counts between censuses can be affected by a number of factors. The wording of the racial origin question was basically the same in the 1971 and 1976 censuses but was changed in that of 1981; even small changes in question design can affect the response. Further the question is based on self- identification and responses to questions of this nature at different points in time may be affected by changes in community attitudes. Improvements in field techniques and editing procedures increased the accuracy of the 1981 Census compared with previous censuses. (2) Population figures obtained from the census play an important role in the distribution of funds. However, priority of need is the major factor considered and this is determined through extensive consultations with Aboriginal people and organisations. The National Aboriginal Conference plays a major role in this process as the principal adviser to the Australian Government in Aboriginal Affairs. The Government must be able to respond to competing needs on a priority basis and, therefore, strict adherence to disbursement of funds on the basis of population is neither possible nor desirable. (3) Yes, there is a need for more accurate demographic figures for Aboriginals. Improvement in statistical techniques for existing collections is a continuing process. The ABS has advised that it achieved a higher level of accuracy in the 1981 Census than previously attained through better field techniques and processing procedures and it is taking steps to further improve these procedures in the next census scheduled for 1986. The need for more accurate demographic figures is becoming more important as the comparative level of disadvantage between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals is reduced. Question No. 594 Mr Burr asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice , on 6 October 1983: (1) Did he state, in Hobart on 17 September 1983, that his Department was allocating more than $1.6m to Tasmanian Community Youth Support Scheme centres. (2) Is it a fact that (a) this amount only maintains the present level of funding for CYSS in Tasmania, (b) applications have been received from most centres calling for increased funding to allow the centres to operate on new funding levels, and (c) efforts are being made to obtain funding for the rural areas of Oatlands and Westbury, where 170 and 327 unemployed persons, respectively, are in the eligible age group. (3) Is it a fact that an extra $238,000 is required to cover the establishment of these new centres and also enable existing centres to operate at new levels. (4) Will this extra allocation for Tasmanian CYSS centres be funded in 1983-84. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have announced an allocation of $1.166m for CYSS projects in Tasmania for the 12-month period commencing on 1 November 1983. (2) (a) This amount represents a 25.3 per cent increase over the level of funds provided for the operation of CYSS projects in Tasmania in 1982-83. (2) (b) Ten of the existing 20 CYSS projects in Tasmania sought upgrading to higher standard grant levels. (2) (c) The local communities in Oatlands and Westbury applied unsuccessfully for CYSS funding for the period. (3) and (4) The allocation of $1.166m is sufficient for provision of substantial increases of 17-21 per cent in the grants provided to the majority of existing projects, the upgrading of projects at Burnie and St Leonards, and the establishment of new projects at Queenstown and Rokeby, both areas of very high relative need which were not previously serviced. Question No. 624 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 13 October 1983 : (1) Has his attention been drawn to the ABC television program Countrywide on 10 August 1983, dealing with arson. (2) Is it a fact that the program demonstrated how to set up a petrol bomb and advised what chemicals were required. (3) Does he regard this to be irresponsible considering (a) the repeated attempts by the Victorian Police to stop the program and (b) the concern of and action by the Victorian Standing Committee on Arson. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. The Countrywide story concerned a farmer who had suffered vandalism and deer poaching on his property. Later an attempt had been made to blow up his car with a home-made bomb. In telling the story Countrywide recreated the car scene and included some of the potentially explosive materials found in the car. However, it omitted the name of the chemical, which was understood to have been used to ignite the 'bomb'. The ABC was advised at the time that the description of the 'bomb' in the program was such that it would not constitute an explosive device without the addition of a further material, which was not named. (3) No. The original program went to air on Wednesday, 10 August. The following day the Executive Producer of Countrywide was contacted by a member of the Victorian Police Arson Squad who requested a private screening of the item. After consultation with the ABC's Legal Department, the Executive Producer rang the Arson Squad on Friday, 12 August advising that a viewing could be arranged. Although relevant pieces of the program transcript were read to the Squad representative, no objections were raised and he declined the ABC's invitation to view the film saying that he would watch the repeat telecast on the Sunday afternoon. There has been no further contact from the Victorian Police Arson Squad, although the ABC subsequently received a letter of complaint about the program from the Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police on 15 September. There were definitely no 'repeated attempts' by the Victorian Police to stop the program going to air. The concern of the Victorian Standing Committee on Arson was expressed by its Chairman in a letter on 14 September over a month after the program had gone to air. I must stress that the ABC has complete independence on programming matters . Question No. 635 Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 October 1983: On what percentage of total votes in the United Nations General Assembly did Australia vote with the United States of America in each of the years 1970 to 1982 and in 1983 to date. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: United Nations votes are of several types, including votes on resolutions as a whole, votes on individual paragraphs and votes on procedural matters affecting resolutions. Members may vote in favour, against or abstain. Some adopt the practice of not participating. The rules of procedure provide that voting may be by mechanical or non-mechanical means, and that it may be recorded or non- recorded. Many resolutions and other decisions are adopted by consensus (without a vote). It is thus not possible to provide information on the congruence of Australian and United States votes on many issues for the practical reason that voting details are not recorded. In 1982, the General Assembly adopted 452 resolutions many of which contained multiple parts requiring separate votes. On many more, there were individual paragraph votes. From this, it will be understood that a major commitment of departmental resources would be required to research every vote recorded over the last 14 years and such research of course would not cover the many non- recorded votes. I do not believe that such a use of the Department's resources would be warranted, given the many demands on the time of officers in the United Nations area. I am advised however that the Australian Mission to the United Nations in New York has been able to provide some material relating to Australian and United States voting in the United Nations in the years 1975-82. The material, which is not complete and is based on very small samples for the years 1978-80, relates only to: (a) roll call votes (b) votes in which both Australia and the United States participated affirmatively or negatively. Votes involving abstention or absence of either country are not covered. The following table sets out the percentage of votes in which Australia and the United States voted together. The figure in brackets after the percentage indicates the number of votes on which the percentage is based. It is, frankly, not clear that these statistics provide a reliable indication of the overall situation. 1975 87% (77) 1976 71% (64) 1977 98.7% (77) 1978 100% (4) 1979 84.6% (13) Selected 1980 90% (10) votes 1981 76.4% (157) only 1982 63.5% (178) There were insufficient complete voting records for the 1983 General Assembly available at the time of drafting this reply, to constitute a reasonable basis for comparison. Question No. 647 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 October 1983 : (1) Is it a fact that official Telecom Australia postage paid envelopes, bearing a Victorian postmark, are being used to send to parliamentarians material critical of Telecom management and alleging shortfalls relating to money, staff ceilings, apprentices, career opportunities and undue pressure, and contain as a return address 'What about Telecom Workshops'. (2) Will he investigate this misuse of Telecom time and facilities. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Telecom is unaware that material of the kind described has been sent to Parliamentarians. However, material of this kind, addressed to senior Telecom management, and in one case to a Victorian Commercial Broadcasting Service, has recently been received. (2) Enquiries are at present being undertaken in an attempt to identify the person or persons responsible for distributing this literature. Question No. 658 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the terms of directives, purportedly used by the Heng Samrin Government, on Vietnamese immigration into Cambodia. (2) If so, was one of the directives issued on 9 October 1982 signed by the Prime Minister, Chan Si. (3) What do these directives reveal to the Government about Vietnam's policy on the Vietnamisation of Cambodia. (4) Is he able to say what is the extent of the settlement of Vietnamese in Cambodia. (5) Has he seen estimates by the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Mr John C. Mongo, that the number of Vietnamese settled in Cambodia is, at present, between 150,000 and 200,000, and that as many as one-third are in a category of new immigrants; if so, can the Government confirm these figures. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The reported directive issued on 9 October 1982 is said to have been signed by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Chan Si. (3) The reports of these government directives and of an influx of Vietnamese settlers into Cambodia led me to raise that issue with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Nguyen Co Thach, during my visit to Hanoi earlier this year. Our information is that most of these Vietnamese settlers were in Cambodia before 1970 and have been returning under a resettlement arrangement. There were approximately 500,000 Vietnamese settlers in Cambodia before 1970. We would be deeply disturbed if reports of an influx of Vietnamese settlers in a deliberate and sustained program to disturb the balance in Cambodia's population were to be substantiated. (4) Estimates of the number of Vietnamese settlers range from 60,000 to 700,000 and even higher. It is impossible to establish a precise figure, but our information leads us to believe that it is still well below the figure of approximately 500,000 who constituted the Vietnamese community resident in Cambodia before the exoduses of the 1970s. (5) Yes. We note that the estimates put forward by the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs are significantly lower than the figure for the pre-1970 Vietnamese population. We are unable to assess the proportion of new settlers with any accuracy. Question No. 660 Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) Has the Government been informed of allegations by Khmer refugees, arriving in a refugee camp at Ban Sangae on the Thai/Cambodian border, that Vietnam has been conducting a repressive campaign in rural areas in north-western Cambodia. (2) If so, (a) what localities have been subjected to this alleged campaign and (b) do the refugees allege that Vietnamese have looted livestock and foodstocks, causing the exodus of a least one entire village of 700 people. (3) What credence does the Govenment give to reports that villagers have been tortured by having their heads put in plastic bags, whilst Vietnamese soldiers use knives and bayonets to sever ears and fingers to extract confessions. (4) Is he able to say whether these alleged incidents represent a change in Vietnamese occupation policies. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government is aware of the reported allegations. However, we do not have firm evidence to confirm the accuracy of the reports. (2) (a) and (b) Press reports based on refugee accounts claim that the alleged campaign has been conducted in the north and north-western provinces of Oddar Meanchey, Siem Reap and Battambang. Details of the alleged campaign vary from report to report. (3) The Government is aware of allegations of Vietnamese repression in these areas. To date, however, little information has been received that would lend credence to reports of extreme measures such as the use of torture. Should such reports prove to be correct, the Government would be deeply disturbed and would not hesitate to say so to the Vietnamese Government. (4) In the absence of firm evidence, it is too early to assess whether the occurrence of the alleged repression in certain localities can be taken as a change in Vietnamese policies in Cambodia. Question No. 708 Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: (1) Were question Nos 52, 55, 65, 66, 79 191 and 194 (Hansard, 1 November 1983, pages 2148-50) referred to his Department; if so, did he read the responses before approving them. (2) Are the replies plainly inadequate, and largely irrelevant, to the issues raised, if so, why did he approve them. (3) Do the answers display an obvious lack of interest in serious issues that fall directly within his portfolio responsibility; if so, why did he allow the answers to be provided. (4) Will he instruct his Department to study the questions again and provide further answers. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) The replies provided to the honourable member reflected the only sensible response that was possible. The questions were not seeking objective information but information on the progress of policy implementation, on the premise that within eight weeks of taking office a government will implement its entire policy. This indicates that the honourable member clearly lacks an understanding of the processes of policy formation, the need for consultation and co-operation with primary producers' organisations and the States and the necessity for appropriations and legislation, all of which take time. If the honourable member really needed the information sought in questions such as ''Is it a fact that Australian agriculture suffers severely from a shortage of water for plant and feed growth?'' (Question No. 194) I would suggest that if he doesn't know it is very wet in North Queensland and very dry in Western Queensland he should consult a primary school geography book. (4) No, but if the honourable member is seriously interested in the progress of the implementation of the policy points he has culled from the Australian Labor Party's pre-election document 'Policies for Agriculture' he can speak to me, write to me or converse with Departmental officers. Question No. 720 Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1983: What action does his Department take following the receipt of information that a separated person in Australia finds that his/her children have accompanied his /her spouse to another country on a passport containing a proven false signature of the person remaining in Australia. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Where, as a result of what officers of the Department considered may be prima facie a fraudulent application, children had been issued with Australian passports or had their names endorsed in an Australian passport and have left Australia, the following action would be taken: (i) The details of the application would be referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation: it would then be for the police to decide whether there was evidence which required prosecution of the persons involved, under Section 10 of the Passports Act and/or Section 62 of the Migration Act; (ii) The passport(s) might be cancelled under Section 8 of the Passports Act, and appropriate offices both in Australia and overseas informed so the passport( s) might be impounded upon presentation; (iii) The names of the children and of the person who made the application might be notified to appropriate offices, so as to prevent the issue of further travel documents without reference to the Department and (in appropriate cases as required) so as to inform those offices that the Australian Federal Police would like to interview the person concerned; (iv) In certain cases, there might also be grounds to inform the authorities in the country to which the children had gone of the facts of the case. In the circumstances postulated in the honourable member's question, it would normally be for the separated person to consider whether he or she could or should take any action by private legal means in the other country concerned so as to restore his or her access to the children. It would sometimes be possible for Australian legal aid to be given for this purpose, but that is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. Question No. 722 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 9 November 1983 : How many (a) official post offices have been (i) closed or (ii) altered to non- official post offices and (b) non-official post offices have been closed, in each electoral division since 5 March 1983. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Australian Postal Commission, is as follows: Because the statistics sought are collated by Australia Post on a quarterly basis, the answers below relate to the period 5 March to 30 September 1983. (a) (i) Nil. (a) (ii) Twelve official post offices have been changed to the non-official method of operation. The electorates in which these were located are listed below: Calare 1, Capricornia 1, Grey 1, Gwydir 1, Hume 2, Maranoa 1, Paterson 1, Port Adelaide 1, Riverina 1, Wakefield 2. (b) Thirty-four non-official post offices have been closed. The electorates in which these were located are listed below: Barker 2, Calare 1, Corangamite 1, Cowper 1, Curtin 1, Fremantle 1, Forrest 4, Grey 4, Hughes 2, Indi 1, Kalgoorlie 1, Kennedy 1, Leichardt 1, Lilley 1, Maranoa 2, Moore 1, O'Connor 2, Phillip 1, Shortland 1, Stirling 1, Wakefield 2, Wannon 1, Wide Bay 1. Question No. 757 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: No special arrangements needed to be made by the Department of Social Security for processing mail during the recent mail strike. Pension and benefit cheques processed through the ACT Regional Administration of the Department were not delayed, since postal workers at the Kingston mail exchange undertook not to delay this mail. No additional costs were involved. Question No. 778 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 November 1983. Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the agencies under my control did not establish alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike. Urgent correspondence was included in existing courier bags at no extra cost. In one case, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies used a courier firm to despatch an urgent briefing to its members; the cost was $300. Question No. 782 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 16 November 1983: Was the report entitled 'Australian Capital Territory Employment Task Force Report' presented to him in April 1983; if so, does he intend to make a response to the House on the recommendations of the report. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes; I will be addressing my response to the recommendations of the ACT Employment Task Force to the former chairman of the Task Force, to its successor the ACT Employment Advisory Committee and to my Ministerial colleagues where appropriate. Question No. 783 Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 16 November 1983: Did the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in its report entitled 'Planning in the ACT', recommend in favour of third party appeals to a land use tribunal; if so, will the Government, in considering the report of the Committee of Review of the role and functions of the National Capital Development Commission, note the views of the Joint Committee on these matters. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The Government will note the views of the Joint Committee when it considers the Report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission.