Wednesday, 28 March 1984 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 chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Gorman,Mr Hawker and Mr Porter. 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 Coleman,Mrs Darling and Mr Gorman. 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 we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton and Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities, e.g., boys' cricket team, boys' football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cohen and Mr Simmons. 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-west region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. Note that such a proposal will result in the destruction of the historic village of Pitttown, Longneck Wildlife Reserve, significant Aboriginal relics and the historic Scheyville Camp and will irreversibly alter the character of the five Macquarie towns. 3. Consider the resulting intolerable pollution of the Hawkesbury River. 4. Note that approximately 2,000 properties will be resumed, displacing over 5, 000 residents. 5. Consider the detrimental effects of noise, air and vehicular pollution on many thousands of residents in the surrounding districts of Hawkesbury, Baulkham Hills and Hornsby Shires and Blacktown and Penrith cities. 6. Give immediate consideration to finding a more suitable alternative site. 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 undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that i no jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; ii the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We have become the innocent victims of your Government's Medicare scheme. We are forced to pay 1% of our wages only to receive less per capita benefits than the people of other states. Without canvassing the rights or wrongs of the dispute between the Federal Government and the State of Queensland the fact is that because of it over one million Queenslanders, who contribute to health funds, are being blatantly discriminated against compared with people in the rest of Australia. Because of the dispute over the introduction of Medicare, Queensland public hospital bed charges are $120 per day compared with $80 per day in the other states. This is grossly unfair. As it was the Federal Government which decided to introduce Medicare, we believe it is their responsibility to take action allowing health funds' rates in Queensland to be kept at reasonable levels. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives assembled, should, use its influence with Government so as to avoid the discrimination (of $40 per day) against insured Queenslanders. 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 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 positive step towards fulfilling their commitment 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 source base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own Special Programs 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 agreement on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. 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 improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gorman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests that legislation be enacted to permit the biological control of the weed known as 'Paterson's curse'. The petitioners wish to express their most serious concern regarding the recent spread of this weed and the resultant loss in primary production. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That Bozlin Pty. Ltd. trading as John Bozic Automotive Services, have provided for many years good and reliable service to customers near Parliament House, and represent the only Automotive Service Station available in the Parliamentary triangle, convenient to visitors and persons working at, or near, Parliament House. That the National Capital Development Commission has indicated its intention to close the access road between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place. That access has existed in one form or another between Kaye Place and Coronation Drive for most of the last fifty years, and in the judgment of petitioners that access road is convenient, and represents no traffic hazard. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that the traffic link between Coronation Drive and Kaye Place is not closed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. 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: 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. 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 a voluntary organisation 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 Porter. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble 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 nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Speaker, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra. We call on the Australian Government to reverse the decision to proceed with the development of uranium mining at Roxby Downs because of; the destruction of aboriginal sites the irreparable damage to the environment the threat to the health and safety of Australian citizens especially aboriginals and mining workers and the undeniable link between uranium mining and nuclear weapons production and proliferation. We ask that all uranium mining and export cease. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully shows: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% 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 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia in Parliament assembled. This petition of the Assyrian community respectfully showeth that the position of the Assyrian Health worker be created on a permanent basis by the Health Department, to assist all Assyrians in health and social matters. The position has to date been funded for a period of nine months under the wage pause program. This has shown the very real need of the Assyrian community for a worker who can make Australian services and information accessible to the Assyrian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House create a permanent position of Assyrian Ethnic health worker based in the Fairfield area to assist Assyrians in need. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman. Petitions received. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the devastation caused by Cyclone Kathy to the town of Borroloola, Northern Territory; (2) commends the town people of Borroloola for their fortitude in the face of that disaster and Constable Mick Van Heythuysen for his courage in assisting people to safety so that there was no loss of life within the town; (3) extends its sympathy to the relatives of Peter Leenahan who lost his life in the cyclone; and (4) calls on the Government to co-operate with the Government of the Northern Territory to provide relief and assistance to the people of Borroloola as quickly as possible. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) unemployment is a major issue confronting the Australian community; (b) the Government has successfully pursued policies designed to deal with unemployment, and (c) unemployment is a major social tragedy for many Australians, and (2) regrets that the member for Hume has chosen so cynically to exploit the tragedy of many Australians. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its failure to proclaim the Wildlife ( Protection Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982, which would strengthen the protection of Australia's en- dangered native species; (2) notes the delay on proclamation will further threaten our endangered species as their survival is not adequately protected by existing export regulations and controls on the import of exotic species, and (3) demands that the Government immediately proclaim the Wildlife Act passed by the previous coalition Government in 1982. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) declares that the average family is now paying more for medical and health insurance cover, and in addition is meeting 15 per cent of medical charges from their own pockets; (2) deplores the additional $3 per week being paid by citizens with low income and who are also chronically ill; (3) condemns the Minister for Health for misleading the community by claiming that Medicare is simpler and cheaper, and (4) resolves that Medicare costs people more and is a far more complicated system. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney-General for failing to bring to the attention of the Parliament the judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Cosgrove, exercising Federal jurisdiction in the case of R v. Miglorini and others, 38 ALR 356, admitting in evidence in criminal proceedings tape recordings of telephone conversations obtained by a sergeant of police in breach of Commonwealth law. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for abusing his position by making a blatantly political speech at the Greek national independence day commemoration at the Sydney Opera House on 25 March 1984, and by wrongly informing the 25,000 people present that to become an Australian citizen you have to swear an oath of allegiance to a monarch living in a foreign country. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 1984 Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 1984 Assent reported. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Patents Amendment Bill 1984 does not make any dramatic policy changes. It does, however, reflect dramatic changes in technology which are taking place in the world. Those changes will continue whether or not Australian industry meets the challenge to take part in them. The role of government in meeting the challenge includes assisting industry to identify areas in which Australians can participate effectively and fruitfully. The crisis confronting Australian industry is that we are falling behind the rest of the world. To keep up we must concentrate on areas in which Australia can generate new technologies and take a fair share of tomorrow's prosperity. One such area already identified is biotechnology. The purpose of the Patents Amendment Bill is to encourage commercial realisation of biotechnology research in Australia. The Bill also makes possible Australia's accession to the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the purposes of Patent Procedure. These measures complement a program of government support for biotechnology including a Budget allocation for 1983-84 of $12.2m. Good research, but where is the development? Australia was once content to ride on the sheep's back, but the time came when the sheep was no longer moving fast enough to keep up with the rest of the world . The wool market was not enough to ensure national prosperity, so we eventually took an interest in manufacturing and mining. Now some of us are clinging to a new sheep's back in the form of out-dated technology. With its 15 million people , Australia has 0.3 per cent of the world's population. We perform 2.0 per cent of the world's scientific research, but originate only 0.7 per cent of patents and undertake only 0.1 per cent of high technology production. Australia is in the middle rank of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations in terms of government expenditure on research and development. But because of the very small contribution by industry we fall near the bottom of the list in terms of gross expenditure on research and development. Of a total of $1,054m spent on gross expenditure on research and development in Australia during 1978-79, government sources funded four-fifths. Business enterprise sources were responsible for only one-fifth of the funds. The poor performance of the Australian private sector in research and development finds its reflection in Australia's comparative standing as a technologically advanced country. The Australian Bureau of Statistics collects information relating to receipts and payments by business for technical know-how. Figures for 1981-82 show that, uncorrected for inflation, both payments and receipts decreased in the period from 1978-79 to 1981-82, payments by 8 per cent and receipts by 7 per cent. By comparison with other OECD countries, Australia's level of both import and export is very low. It may come as no surprise that the Netherlands had receipts for technical know-how of the order of twenty times as great as ours in 1978; but payments also were much higher-three times our level. On an expenditure basis, Australia performs about 0.9 per cent of the world's applied research and experimental development other than that performed by the United States, and over the period 1963-79 obtained 0.9 per cent of the foreign patents awarded in the United States. Nevertheless, on a per capita basis Australia was strongly outperformed in United States patents by the small developed European nations, specifically Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Denmark. My science and technology statement for 1982-83 presents the results of a collation of statistics relating to the import and export of goods with a high research component. This collation shows that in 1980 Australia exported $US81 per capita of such goods, which makes for a startling comparison with Switzerland, for which the figure is $2,584, a bare $2,003 ahead of us per capita; Netherlands $1,378; Belgium-Luxemburg $1,352; Sweden $1,087; Denmark $ 882; Austria $720; Ireland $589; Finland $509 and Norway $507. Patents Amendment Bill Mr Lloyd —What about the United States? Mr BARRY JONES —It is much higher than us. But it is not smaller than we are in population, and all of these other nations are. The figure taken over all OECD nations is $US468 per capita, with Portugal, Greece and Turkey having lower figures than Australia. Even the figure for New Zealand is higher. In 1980-81 Australia ran a trade deficit of some $A6 billion in goods with a high research component. The deficit for all manufactures was about $10 billion; overall there was a trade balance, with imports and exports each totalling about $19 billion. A deficit in goods having a significant research component has been a normal part of Australia's trade pattern, but in the last decade it has increased rapidly. Thus we find ourselves in Australia doing a great deal of pure research but not making much commercial or economic gain from it. Government funded pure research largely passes into the public domain and Australian industry clings to the technological sheep's back of the 1950s and 1960s. Biotechnology Radical change is needed to correct this imbalance. Australia must make a transition towards newly developing high technology 'sunrise' industries as wealth generators for our future, in addition to restructuring and revitalising our existing industrial base. Of these sunrise industries, biotechnology holds the greatest promise. It is parsimonious and efficient in its use of resources, and has almost unbounded applications in many areas of technology. There is nothing frightening in basing economic activities on the useful properties of living things. Agriculture has always been so based. Micro- organisms have been used for millennia to make cheese, wine, beer and bread. Industrial fermentations to produce antibiotics, citric acid and ethanol have been used for decades. That is not to mention that amazingly adaptable bacterium , E. coli, now famous in biotechnology, that accompanies all of us, which has been serving the alimentary needs of the human species throughout the entire peristaltic course of history. Modern biotechnology expands and refines the use of living organisms into new and marvellously exciting areas of activity. Human insulin produced by genetically modified micro-organisms is now on the market. Most important for Australia, we have biotechnology researchers who are world leaders in agriculture, plant and animal genetics, microbiology, biochemistry and medical research. We must take advantage of the leads we have. A symposium and a workshop arranged through my Department have identified the following priority areas: Plant agriculture, including genetic engineering to modify microbes, and tissue culture to improve plant species; veterinary research, particularly on diagnostic probes and vaccines; animal husbandry, including advanced breeding techniques and work on animal hormones; human pharmaceutical and medical research, particularly on hormones, immunoproteins, and diagnostic probes; biotechnology support, including equipment, instrumentation, and resources and processes; food processing, in cheesemaking and other dairy production, and baking and brewing; chemical industry, particularly water treatment. Mr Hand —You would think the National Party would be here for this. Mr BARRY JONES —Absolutely, but National Party members have deserted-all but one . Mr Lloyd —Hang on! Mr BARRY JONES —All but two. This list is only indicative and there will be worthwhile programs in other areas. Government support for biotechnology development These priority areas have been incorporated into the criteria for the national biotechnology program established by the Government in 1983. We aim in the national interest to broaden and strengthen the slender and rickety bridge between academic researchers and industry. Closer co-operation will help to make our best research findings available to commercially oriented and competitive industry. Research grants totalling $4.51m which I announced in December last year are the first given under the program. They span the years 1984 to 1986, and include $1.5m in 1983-84. Most of the seven projects involve special collaboration between researchers and industry. Research institutions include the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Flinders Medical Centre, various University departments and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation divisions, and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Firms and other organisations include Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd, Biotechnology Research Enterprises S. A. Pty Ltd, F. H. Faulding and Co Ltd , Gradient Laboratories, Disposable Products Pty Ltd, and the Sydney Blood Bank. The projects relate to veterinary and anti-malarial vaccines, plant virus detection, insecticides, laboratory equipment and diagnostic techniques based on monoclonal antibodies. Funds allocated under the program in 1983-84 also include $2.5m to extend the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme to encompass biotechnology projects. Apart from the program, $7.8m went to CSIRO for biotechnology research, and $400,000 to the Howard Florey Institute at Melbourne University. Other important Government actions include steps to improve the flow of venture capital to growth industries from the Australian Industrial Development Corporation and taxation incentives to encourage investment in specially established venture capital companies called management investment companies. Commercial and economic usefulness of patents Against this background of support, the role which patents might play as a stimulus to development may not be a major one. But the role is essential. Commercial exploitation is not possible without some form of protection in an area where huge amounts of money are needed. Patent protection is particularly important in assisting penetration by Australians into foreign markets. It would be tragic if Australia had to buy back products from overseas which were developed here or if we could only manufacture them here under licence. In 1980 the United States Supreme Court in the Chakrabarty case rules for the first time that living micro-organisms were patentable. Dr Edwards —What about software? Why do you not do something about that? Mr BARRY JONES —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has that matter well in hand. Chakrabarty was a landmark decision for American industry. In Australia , however, the Patent Office has long regarded biological processes and micro- organisms themselves as patentable, provided they satisfy the usual pre- conditions for obtaining a patent; that is, they must be novel and non-obvious, industrially useful, and fully described in the patent specification. This information has been widely disseminated-see, for example, a paper given in November 1981 by Philip Thomas of the Patent Office at a Sydney symposium on ' Genetic Engineering-Commercial Opportunities in Australia'. In October 1983 the Patent Office published a survey entitled 'Genetic Engineering-Patent Trends and Developments'. Based on that survey and later figures provided by the Office, the number of genetic engineering inventions for which patents were sought world-wide increased from 74 in 1981 to 109 in 1982 and 212 in 1983. They are currently running at about seven new inventions per week. Corresponding figures for patent applications lodged in Australia were 44 in 1981, 49 in 1982 and 67 in 1983. In 1979 there were only five. Biotechnology is, of course, broader than genetic engineering. But those figures give an indication of the rate of growth, not of basic research but of potential commercial applications of biotechnology. Yet, of 187 applications lodged in Australia in the years 1979-1983, only one was of Australian origin. Australians do perform research, but what do they do with it? We used to be satisfied with the high-flown notion that research findings do the greatest public good if they are given to the world. The difficulty is that the rest of the world is more entrepreneurial and less altruistic than that, with the result that Australia is falling behind. The patent system recognises both the desirability of publication and the commercial realities for the innovator. There is a common misconception that patents require secrecy. In fact , provided a patent application is lodged first, a researcher can publish the invention without jeopardising the application-although if it is too early, this may give away some of the lead held over industry competitors. The patent applications will be published in any event usually 18 months after lodgment. The purpose of patents is to promote economic development. The mechanism is by way of proprietary rights in the form of a limited term monopoly for new inventions. Their economic operation stems first from protection which gives an incentive to invent and innovate, and second from the disclosure of information which is required from the patentee in exchange for patent rights. For an Australian company, proprietary rights protect its local and foreign interests in research and development, and improve its competitive position in other countries. The availability of protection provides incentive for investment. Disclosure enables Australians to have access to information about the leading edge of technology owned by foreign patentees. Over 90 per cent of patents granted in Australia are of foreign origin. I am aware that the patent system has not been without its critics. I hope the current review by the Industrial Property Advisory Committee will yield constructive suggestions on how it can be made to operate more effectively in advancing Australia's technological development. Patents Amendment Bill In the area of biotechnology, however, it is already apparent that patent law is failing to meet the needs of patentees, industry and the public. It is not uncommon for the law to lag behind social and technological change, if the two can indeed be separated. It is up to government to make sure it catches up. In the case of biotechnology patents the lag has arisen from the virtual impossibility of carrying out an invention without access to a sample of the micro-organism used. Existing law requires a full written description of the invention. But where the invention involves the use of a micro-organism strain which is not available to researchers, a written description may well be next to useless. An antibiotic producing strain might have been isolated by unrepeatable fluke from the bottom of a lake in Scandinavia or from the soil in someone's backyard. The most thorough characterisation of the strain will not help anyone, apart from the patentee, to test the truthfulness of the patent specification or to make further developments on the basis of the invention. The information is good only if we can obtain the actual materials needed as a starting point for further work. What is needed is a sample of the organism. Ultimately a micro-organism could be defined genetically in terms of the nucleotide base sequence of its DNA. In standard code the four bases are represented by the letters C, G, A and T. The first chromosome completely mapped out for any organism reads: CCGTCAGGATTGACACCCT and so on for a total of 5,375 bases. That was for a bacteriophage-a type of virus which destroys bacteria- known as *X174. The full sequence may be perused by anyone who is interested but not keen to consult scientific literature in Douglas R. Hofstadter's book, Godel , Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, which won the Pulitzer Prize. Ms McHugh —Is it in the Library? Mr BARRY JONES —It is in the Parliamentary Library. It is a Penguin book, too. Far more fascinating reading could be had for E. coli DNA, which contains 4.5 million bases. The sequence would occupy about 1,000 pages of Hansard, if Madam Deputy Speaker would allow me to incorporate it. Even then the information contained in the base sequence would need to be interpreted into useful form, and the most skilled biochemist would be unable or certainly unwilling to attempt to re-create the organism. For practical commercial purposes all this information would be less useful than a single cell of the bacterium. In a standard culture medium, one cell would divide into two identical offspring in about 30 minutes. Commercial quantities of the organism would take only days to produce. The essence of this Bill is to complement the existing requirement of a full description by also requiring deposit, with a prescribed depositary institution, of patent strains of micro-organisms which are not reasonably available. That new principle is to be found in sub-sections 40 (3) and (5) of the Patents Act which are added by the Bill. As a result of the amendments, Australian industry will be guaranteed access to strains of all micro-organisms used in patented processes, just as access to information in written descriptions of inventions is guaranteed under the current law. In practice, depositary institutions hold a number of samples of each deposited strain. Most bacteria and fungi can be stored in freeze-dried form in small vials or frozen in liquid nitrogen in plastic ampoules or straws. Priceless samples can be readily reconstituted and turned to commercial purposes, provided that no patent is infringed. I dare say that I cannot table the samples. There are some cases where the specification itself describes how to make or obtain the new strain. If a person skilled in the art could reasonably be expected to be able to perform the invention without first having a copy of the micro- organism, then the requirement to make a deposit will not apply. A corollary to the deposit requirement is that if a deposit is required, then compliance with sub-section 40 (5) will satisfy the requirement of a full description of the micro-organism. That will also apply where the invention is itself a new micro-organism, relieving the applicant of the need to provide an excessively detailed description when a deposit, supplemented by relevant information on the organism's characteristics, is a realistic alternative. Mere deposit without some guarantee of access would not be enough. The applicant must therefore also give authority for the furnishing of samples of the micro- organism in accordance with the regulations and the Budapest Treaty. The terms of the authority to be required by the regulations will be discussed with industry to ensure that a fair balance of interest is struck. It is fundamental to the notion of patents that the patentee should be left with an enforceable monopoly. An unauthorised user of a strain can still be sued for infringement. The second aspect of the Bill is to implement the Budapest Treaty. That will ensure that the benefits provided by the deposit requirements will be available to Australians who patent abroad and to Australians seeking access to strains deposited by foreign patentees. The main idea of the Treaty is to enable a single deposit in any international depositary authority recognised by the Treaty to suffice for the purposes of the patent law of all member countries. To date 12 countries are members, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other major European countries, and Japan. Australia intends to accede to the Treaty when the Bill comes into force. The Bill recognises all international depositary authorities for the purpose of satisfying Australian deposit requirements. There are currently nine authorities. I visited one of them in November last year, the Fermentation Research Institute in Tsukuba, Japan-a very impressive institution offering a range of services to industry and research. The remainder of the Bill supports these essential features. For example, provisions are made to remedy an inability of a depositary institution to supply samples, and to require a late deposit where a micro-organism ceases to be reasonably available. To gain the full benefits of participation of the new provisions, we intend to establish an Australian international depositary authority which will be recognised under the Budapest Treaty. Australians wishing to patent abroad in order to protect exports will then be able to satisfy the deposit requirements of foreign laws in many instances with a single deposit made locally. Financial impact The direct financial implications of the Bill are minimal. This may be an anti- climax, Madam Deputy Speaker. No additional resources would be required by the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office in dealing with patent applications where a deposit had been made, and no direct contributions would be involved in acceeding to the Treaty. Establishment of an international depositary authority within an existing Government institution is not expected to exceed $10,000. It is small change. Mr Beazley —You would still have trouble getting it out of Dawkins. Mr BARRY JONES —That is possible. On- going costs of an authority should be recovered from fees levied on depositors. The user pays principle triumphs again . Fees charged by overseas authorities range from $300 to $1,000 for storage of deposits for the 30-year period required by the Treaty. The indirect implications for industry are very substantial. While the fees charged for lodging deposits are sizable, there will be a reduced need for expensive drafting of patent specifications. But far more important are the advantages from having access to deposited strains. Although the value of access will vary from case to case, it is potentially enormous. Conclusion Development projects based on Australian research are now causing great interest internationally. This was brought home to me in January when I visited two United States companies which are world leaders in biotechnology-Genentech in San Francisco and Agrigenetics in Boulder, Colorado. We must stay in the race and keep ahead in areas where we have the lead. This needs a vigorous approach from industry, research bodies and government, and I hope it will have the support of the Opposition. The Patents Amendment Bill demonstrates the Government's awareness of the need for commercial realisation of Australia's research and development efforts in biotechnology. Industry and researchers must continue to convert opportunities into advantages in this competitive field. The Bill offers improved ways in which that can be achieved. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Edwards) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(10.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the National Measurement Act by amending the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960, to create a hierarchy of standards consistent with both modern and international practice and to clarify the functions and powers of the National Standards Commission in the light of modern technology. The establishment and use of a common and uniform system of weights and measures has a long history which may be traced back in written records to the earliest civilisations. Today's high technology society requires a far more complex and extensive system and cannot be satisfied by standards for the measurement of length and weight only. A uniformly applied system of measurement is as essential to modern society as a common language or monetary system. Under Section 51 (xv) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth has power to make laws in respect of weights and measures and as a result it established the National Standards Commission in 1948. The Principal Act under which the Commission operates is the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960. In practice, and by mutual agreement, the Commonwealth has limited the application of its power to legislation covering uniform measurement standards whilst the States and Territories have legislated to regulate weighing and measuring practices in the market place. The activities are complementary and combine to give Australia a uniform measuring system applied honestly and consistently everywhere. The principles expressed in the Bill now before honourable members have been discussed with those Ministers of States and Territories who are responsible for weights and measures and have their support. The National Standards Commission is responsible for establishing and co- ordinating the use in Australia of a uniform system of units and standards of measurement of physical quantities and for approving the pattern of measuring instruments for use in trade to ensure accuracy and reliability in service. The term pattern is of technical significance which honourable members will pick up in the Act. In this era of rapid technological change, the States have looked to the Commission to play an increasing role in matters such as the promotion of uniform principles in State legislation relating to trade measurements and use of units of measurement in the packaging of goods. Trade measuring devices presented for pattern approval have increased in complexity and are often integrated with other devices such as computers. The Bill proposes to give legal effect to the increasingly important role undertaken by the Commission in the new technological age. This Bill increases the numbers of commissioners on the National Standards Commission from a chairman and four members to a chairman and six members. This is necessary in order to provide adequate representation of consumer and industry groups. Amendments contained in this Bill will permit units which are prescribed as being additional to Australian legal units to be used in specified classes of transactions and so modifies the requirement that contracts be made only in terms of Australian legal units. Mr Donald Cameron —Hear, hear! Mr BARRY JONES —This will be known as the Cameron clause. The Bill also puts beyond doubt the validity of existing contracts made in terms of Australian legal units which subsequently cease to be Australian legal units. This amendment has been inserted at the request of the States. As the official system of measurement in Australia is now the metric system this Bill proposes the repeal of the Metric Conversion Act 1970. The war is over; it has been won. The Metric Conversion Board was established under the Metric Conversion Act 1970 as a transitional body to promote, help and guide conversion from the imperial to the metric system of measurement. Conversion was substantially completed by 1980 and appointments to the Board expired on 30 June 1981. Remaining ongoing conversion activities relate essentially to industries reliant on long life equipment, such as heavy engineering; and those industries influenced by international agreement such as aviation. Mr Beazley —Do I have to make a speech on this again? Mr BARRY JONES —Why not? The Bill provides for the transfer to the National Standards Commission of responsibility for these residual metric conversion activities. In summary the Bill provides for: (a) An updating of the hierarchy of standards of physical measurement in accordance with modern practice; (b) a clear definition of the functions and powers of the National Standards Commission; (c) a definition of the objects of the Act including the continuation of the objects of the Metric Conversion Act 1970; (d) amendments permitting units which are prescribed as being additional to Australian legal units to be used in specified classes of transactions-for example, it does not seem very sensible to apply metric measurements to a dozen eggs-and the validity of existing contracts made in terms of either Australian legal units which subsequently cease to be Australian legal units, or of these specified additional units of measurement; and (e) an increase in membership of the Commission from Chairman and four members to Chairman and six members. The financial impact of this Bill relates only to the two additional Commission members and the transfer to the Commonwealth of residual metric conversion activities. The cost of the additional two Commissioners will be approximately $ 6,600 in 1984-85 and metric conversion activities will within a period of three years reduce in cost by an amount of $48,000. I am pleased to announce therefore that the Government anticipates total savings in this area overall of approximately $40,000 by 1985-86. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Edwards) adjourned. Debate resumed from 29 February, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.43) —I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that companies formed by, or participated in, by the Australian Telecommunications Commission and partnerships entered into by the Commission, should be subject to the same tax and dividend requirements, etc., as competing commercial companies'. Mr Moore —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.44) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 5, page 2, proposed section 10A, omit the definition of 'relevant business'. (2) Clause 5, page 2, proposed section 10A, omit sub-section (2). The amendments moved are consequential amendments to the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 and as the original amendment to which these amendments are consequential was defeated, it is now possibly all inconsequential. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.45) —The amendments are consequential. I am a bit mystified why they are being moved, considering that the amendments to the Satellite Communications Bill have already been defeated. I reiterate the Government's concern that the principal Bill and the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendment) Bill should be passed by both Houses of Parliament. They are very important pieces of legislation. As we saw yesterday, the majority of honourable members saw the good worth in the Government's intentions and its policy in regard to the ownership provisions and the third party provisions in the principal legislation. I am sure that those thoughts will be echoed in another place. The sanity of the ownership provisions in regard to the people of Australia and in regard to who should have a clear say for the benefit of Australia not only now but also in future generations is extremely important. While sanity has prevailed in this chamber I am quite sure it will prevail elsewhere when this Bill comes before another place. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.48) —The Opposition welcomes the introduction of the Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill which legalises the Advance Australia logo. Honourable members will recall that the Advance Australia campaign was established in 1979 and came about through discussions between the Australian Manufacturing Council and the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton. It was brought about in an endeavour to raise the public's perception of locally made goods. In Australia there was a time, and there still is to a degree, when the perception was that Australian made goods were not of the quality required by lots of purchasers, that goods made overseas were always better. I think the Advance Australia campaign has been largely a success. Originally the government of the day managed the program through the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Government established the Project Australia Committee with a number of leading alumni on it embracing not only Mr Jim Leslie and the former Secretary to the Department of Industry and Commerce, Neil Currie , but also another guiding light of Australia in the form of the current Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. Its initial efforts were limited to the promotion of shirts , beerholders and the like, of which I am sure the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will be aware. From there the project has spread widely and is now used in a number of areas including manufacturing and service industries. The regrettable feature of the early days was that no effort was made to register the design. Because of that there was a series of pirating operations on the use of this logo. On 13 October 1983 the decision to introduce the Advance Australia Protection Bill was announced. It was announced that action would be taken to protect that logo. Copyright has now been granted to Advance Australia Pty Ltd to which the rights of the logo have been transferred. This will confer on Advance Australia Pty Ltd 16 years copyright of that logo. I am quite sure that under the chairmanship of Ian Webber those who will be involved will be enormously comforted by their more secure position which will enable them to defend their position, marketability and copyright areas. The Government contributed $5.14m towards the funding of the program to 30 June 1983-a significant amount. To date the project could be considered a successful venture. From 30 June 1983 this proprietary company, which is wholly owned by the Government, has been on a self-supporting basis. Because of the user pays principle we now have the position where those who wish to use the logo have to apply to the company in the normal way for a licence, whether it be a non- exclusive licence, which must contain 75 per cent local content, or, in the case of exclusive licences, 100 per cent Australian content. Broadly, the areas fall into two categories; firstly, in service industries, where one finds such logos on letterheads, and, secondly, on various design and service presentations. I think most honourable members will have seen them in some form or another. They tend to be in the non-exclusive area and do not have the high profile which the exclusive licences have and which are visible in shop fronts in the form of the wares that the shop sells. The Advance Australia pamphlet illustrates the various areas in which the company has taken an interest. For example, the pamphlet refers to television and a co-pilot around the world balloon flight. In various States the Advance Australia project has made awards for excellence on various criteria and licensing has been taken up by people such as the makers of outdoor furniture, a range of Australian steel and the inevitable Australian cooler. We all seem to know a bit about that. Probably the best picture in this pamphlet is one of another sporting venture which the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism would well know. I am surprised that he is not featured, but how can we get away from it? I draw the attention of people to the costs involved in the licensing agreements. The non-exclusive licence is granted on the basis of 0.1 per cent of budgeted turnover of a specific product and an exclusive licence is granted on the cost of the standard industry royalty as payment on brand names. In some cases this can run to extensive amounts of money. It may be that the smaller users, smaller developments or smaller enterprises in Australia would find that sort of charge to be a little excessive in the early period. Some phasing-in period or some incentive may have to be given to people who are commencing a business or who have a relatively small operation in terms of cost structure and who wish to use this logo. Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Beyond that, I say that the Opposition supports the Bill in every respect. It has been widely recognised and accepted throughout the community. It has been associated with a number of successes, and with one or two projects that have not been quite so successful. But on the whole there is no doubt that this effort to advance Australia and to increase an awareness of Australian manufacturing and service industries helps to harvest the spirit of nationalism that is in Australia in terms of the commercial operations that we have today. For that reason the Opposition supports the Bill. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(10.57) —The Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill 1984 before us today is a study of a program in which private enterprise and government, working in partnership with the unions at some stages, were able to initiate a constructive contribution to the promotion of Australian-made goods that worked to the benefit of all parties. In my contribution today I would like to look at the Bill specifically and then develop some of the principles which underpin it. The Advance Australia logo, as has been pointed out, is currently used on a large number of items. If we look around we see the little logo on tee-shirts, jumpers, cars and numerous other items. Its basic appeal is to nationalism. I am sure that much of its success can be traced to that aspect. We have only to look at the America's Cup last year. I know of the nationalism which was displayed in my home State of Western Australia, where people sat up all night just to see that marvellous event. Also the turn-out for the welcoming of the America's Cup crew shows what nationalism there is in Australia. By using the Advance Australia logo on Australian-made products we were able to advance those products to the tune of $2,000m worth of items. I believe that since March 1983 nationalism has been enhanced by the arrival of the Labor Government whose Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has really lifted nationalism. I believe that we can only go from strength to strength. Mr Ronald Edwards —We were a divided society. Mr GEAR —That is right. As the honourable member for Stirling rightly pointed out, we were a divided society but certainly since March 1983 we have come a long way in lifting our nationalism. That is a good thing. It is also my opinion from my observation that when tourists come to Australia-they will be coming here in increasing numbers thanks to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) who is in the House today-they want something to take home which says something about Australia. The Advance Australia logo has proved very popular. I think that in the last couple of years most of us would have noticed the Australia shops which have sprung up around the place and which sell only Australian-made goods. If one looks around those shops one will see that the Advance Australia logo is very dominant. A brief history of the Advance Australia campaign shows that it was formed in 1979. From that time until 1981 the campaign was managed by the Department of Industry and Commerce through the Project Australia Committee which comprised private sector management, unions and the Department. The success of the campaign led to the establishment in mid-1981 of a public interest company, the Advance Australia company. This Bill will establish a wholly private enterprise company which will be funded by licensing fees for use of the logo. The total Government outlay to date has been $5.14m and the revenue generated from the private sector in that time is over $3m, with $1.75m coming from private sources in 1982-83. As I will point out later, that figure could have been substantially more if it had not been for an oversight in 1979. What it does indicate is a substantial growth in revenue from the private source and it leads the Government to the conclusion that with the protection of this Bill the campaign can be self-funding. The Bill is necessary because in 1979 at the launch of the campaign, due to some oversight, the design was not registered. Therefore there was no protection under the Design Acts or the Copyright Act. As a consequence of that, whenever we leave private enterprise with the option of either paying a bill or not paying it some will choose not to pay it. Many reputable companies in Australia paid the licensing fees, but by the same token some chose not to. Also, there were overseas companies that used look-alike logos. This also had an effect that was not intended when the company was set up, because when the company was set up it was thought that the Advance Australia logo would promote Australian-made goods, would identify them as such and would generate the sales which I spoke of earlier to the value of $2,000m which the official use of the logo generated. But certainly the overseas firms, in particular, by using that logo led a large number of people to think that those goods were made in Australia when in fact they were not. It also put the reputable firms at a disadvantage compared with those unscrupulous firms which chose to use the logo without paying the licensing fee. Even though the licensing fee was not a large cost to the reputable firms it nevertheless gave an advantage to those firms which chose not to pay it. Another aspect of it was that the Advance Australia campaign itself was denied funds which should have come to it by the use of the licensing fee. This Bill seeks to correct the situation involving companies which at present have no access to law and to protect the use of the logo without Commonwealth involvement. As a result of this Bill a licence-holder will also have the right to appeal to law. If he thinks that some companies are in the same line as himself and have an unfair advantage over him he can also appeal to the courts and get compensation. The Bill will protect the interests of the reputable Australian firms that did seek licences and will thereby contribute to the success of the campaign. It will protect the integrity of the campaign. As I said before, the idea of the Advance Australia logo was to promote the sale of Australian-made goods. Certainly, by having cheap imports which used look-alikes the integrity of that campaign was seriously undermined. The Bill will promote the sale of Australian- made goods by making the Advance Australia company the owner of the copyright. This is a significant departure from the original intention. The original intention was that the Commonwealth would own it. But under this legislation it becomes a purely private enterprise venture. Because of the significant contribution of taxpayers' money, the $5.14m, the Bill will also have safeguards built into the legislation. Firstly they provide for the ownership to revert to the Commonwealth if the company winds up. Secondly, when the Minister considers it no longer in the public interest for the company to own the logo the ownership will also revert to the Commonwealth. So a watchdog clause is set into the Bill whereby the government of the day can monitor the activities of the company and if it believes that they are not in the interests of the Advance Australia campaign generally directions can be given by the Minister. Accountability is also built into this Bill because the annual report that must come from the company must detail the licences issued, the amounts received from those licences and how the funds generated from the licensing fees were spent. I suppose that in clinical terms the Bill can be seen as legislation which puts restrictions on private enterprise. I would like to pursue that point because of the rhetoric that usually comes from the conservative parties when we talk of restrictions on private enterprise. This is an emotive term currently used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) as though we should get off the backs of business. In looking at this Bill clinically I suppose that we are actually putting a restriction on business. But as I said before, when we do not do that, unscrupulous companies take advantage of the fact that they do not have to pay the fee if they are given the choice. We do not know what the Leader of the Opposition is really saying, because the term is all-embracing. We do not know whether he means little or no regulation. This week a private industry-a car firm-wrote to me and sought my support for its submission to the Western Australian Government which sought to place restrictions on the amount of hours that car firms could open. As it rightly pointed out to me, the larger car firms could open for much longer because of the volume of sales they have and the amounts generated by those sales which means that they can quite properly carry much larger overheads. The smaller firms, of course, would be put out of business if they had to compete on an hourly basis, and the longer hours do not really generate any more business. I suppose that is just another example of governments being approached by private enterprise to limit the ability of larger private enterprise firms to take advantage of their size to disadvantage their competitors. I will develop a little further the point relating to private enterprise. The conservative parties, especially during elections, say that they are the parties of free enterprise. The recent Queensland election provides a classic example. The Premier of Queensland took the high ground and claimed for himself the sole responsibility for his party having the free enterprise principle. I suppose in the past the Australian Labor Party has defended public enterprise. I see this as a polarisation; really a reaction to what the conservative parties have done. Nowadays most people would recognise that the Australian Labor Party is a private enterprise party. We do support private enterprise. Mr MacKellar —Ha, ha! Mr GEAR —The honourable member might laugh. Mr MacKellar —I thought you were a socialist party. Mr GEAR —Of course I am a socialist. I have never run away from the term. I repeat: The Australian Labor Party today is a private enterprise party, but we are a little more than that; we are also a public enterprise party. We do not say that we can have one without the other. There must be a balance and a mix between the two. I think this Bill encompasses at the outset that there was that co-operation between public enterprise and private enterprise to get the Advance Australia logo off the ground. Once it is self-supporting, as it is now, private enterprise can rightly carry the burden. Certainly the polarisation that I spoke of earlier had the effect of the Australian Labor Party being seen-the laughter of honourable members opposite shows, I am sure, that they would like to continue this-as the defender of public enterprise. I will defend public enterprise any day. But I also make the point that private enterprise under the Australian Labor Party, especially under the Hawke Labor Government since 1983, has done very much better than it did under the conservatives in years gone by. Mr Moore —I reckon the executive in Western Australia would want to know your name and address. Mr GEAR —That is okay. I do not mind talking to it any time. We usually identify the main motive of private enterprise as profit. The public enterprise system has wider objectives. It has a social objective, and usually the social objectives do not make a profit. I notice that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who is the shadow Minister for Health, is present today. I think Medicare is a classic example of that point. I do not think anybody- Mr Carlton —Classic example of what? Mr GEAR —A classic example of the fact that Medicare does not have a profit motive. In fact, that was previously built into the private insurance schemes, when all the companies had to refrain from making a profit; they were supposed to be non-profit organisations. I say that the public enterprise system can handle the health insurance scheme more efficiently than happened before. Mr MacKellar —It costs more and you get less value. Mr GEAR —That is the honourable member's view. We will see what happens after a year. Mr Shipton —Do you want to expand it to all sectors? Mr GEAR —No. It is a good example, though, of how public enterprise can take over a role previously handled by-- Mr MacKellar —Aren't you paying more now for health than you were before 1 February? Mr GEAR —That is only because of my wage. But the majority of Australians are paying less. Mr John Brown —Ignore the ignorance. Mr GEAR —I will take the Minister's advice. Mr John Brown —I like your speech better than their contributions. Mr GEAR —I thank the Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member should return to the Bill. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In closing, I think the point must be made that the Australian Labor Party does stand for both private and public enterprise, and certainly for a mix of both. As I pointed out earlier, the Advance Australia campaign is a good example of public and private enterprise playing a significant role in developing a program that has benefited the Australian community and also the Australian taxpayer through the generation of the sales of goods using the Advance Australia logo, the taxation that the Government will obtain from it and the employment generated by those articles being sold in the Australian community. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(11.10) —I speak to the Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill as the second speaker for the Opposition and I support the comments of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who led for the Opposition in this matter . As he said to the House, the Opposition supports this legislation. The Advance Australia campaign was commenced under the former coalition Government. We do not get any credit for that from Government members. They tend to forget that point in these great days of consensus in which we are living. It was commenced under the former Government as a means of raising the public's perception of the ability of domestic manufacturers to produce high quality goods. I think all parties in this House agree that the desired public awareness has been achieved. We are talking about advancing Australia. We are really talking about the spirit of Australia and this particular effort is one of many, but an important one, going on in Australia today. In the last day or so awards of excellence were announced by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd covering a number of fields of activity, one of which was industry and commerce. Others included the arts. But there is undoubtedly a spirit of nationalism abroad of which the former coalition Government was a part and was aware when it started this Advance Australia campaign. The legislation does restrict the use of the logo in terms of licences. That is of some concern to me in cases of small and medium sized businesses that genuinely want to meet the quality requirements of the Advance Australia logo. I hope that the logo will be within the reach of genuine small and medium sized companies that wish to use it on high quality products that meet the standards. My reservation is that the use of the logo ought to be within the reach of those genuine companies. Of course, I do not support, and the Opposition does not support, the abuse of the present system, the illegal activity which has caused the need for this legislation. That activity directly threatens to undermine the campaign and the financial viability of the Advance Australia company because of the unauthorised use of the logo and look-alike symbols. As I said, it is important that genuine companies and corporations have this logo within their ready reach. The cost to the small and medium enterprises is a factor that needs to be considered, because the cost of a non-exclusive licence to use the logo is 0.1 per cent of budgeted turnover of a specific product. In the non-exclusive category, the use is in packaging, business cards, letterheads , et cetera. A good point made by my colleague, the honourable member for Ryan, earlier in the debate concerned smaller enterprises in the early stage of using the symbol on new products, or it might concern a new company that has started out, and that some consideration should be given by the Advance Australia company for some phasing in system of paying the licence fee. I say in relation to both non-exclusive and exclusive licences-the exclusive licences are used as a main or predominant feature of a product where the cost of the royalty is the standard industry royalty as used on brand names-that if the profits of the Advance Australia company reach a substantial stage and the company is generating good profits, some consideration should be given to reducing the amount of royalty payments so that the logo is kept within the reach of all Australian companies that want to use it. The honourable member for Ryan referred in his speech to the Advance Australia bulletins that are produced. I refer to issue No.9 of March 1984. These bulletins are very commendable. On the front page of the last bulletin under the headline 'TV musical on Australia aims for international market' there is an article which states: A new musical documentary-drama on Australia will go into production soon for release later this year to the local and international TV and video markets. Titled 'Sing a Song Down Under', the film will feature Australian actors and singers and will tell the story of Australia through music, drama and just about every aspect of Australian life and heritage. It will have a number of prominent Australian actors, including Sigrid Thornton and John Waters, and singers Colleen Hewitt, Simon Gallaher-an Advance Australia Award winner-and Rolf Harris. The interesting thing about this television musical is that it will be shot in all Australian States and the Northern Territory and hopefully it will advance Australia in terms of the spirit of Australia that we are talking about in this debate. My concern is that if the filming to be done in the Northern Territory is to include some filming of Ayers Rock the poor documentary team will find itself having the difficulties in trying to film Ayers Rock that an Italian film team had in November last year and that the singer Val Doonican had recently. The situation in relation to the filming of Ayers Rock today is ridiculous. I see the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) at the table opposite. He might comment on this because I know that he intervened to enable Paul Hogan to film there. Paul Hogan is in fact doing a series of successful tourist promotions overseas- it has the support of both the Government and the Opposition-using Ayers Rock as its central theme. It is silly to have this great centrepiece of Australia as the centrepiece of an overseas advertising campaign to promote tourism in Australia but to deny an Italian film team the opportunity to film it when they want to promote Australia and do films on significant spots in Australia. For Val Doonican, who is doing a series on Australia, to be denied the opportunity to be filmed at Ayers Rock is a totally ridiculous situation. I hope that the Minister will do something about that. I hope that the television documentary team which is going to do this Advance Australia promotion does not run into those difficulties. I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that it will not. We have a maze of bureaucratic regulations in relation to getting permission to film at Ayers Rock. The situation is totally out of hand. It is my belief, which I have stated in this Parliament before, that the nightmarish regulations administered by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service are beyond his power and are illegal. I hope that the Minister will do something about that and make a statement on the subject. So far he has been silent, other than intervening to get his friend Paul Hogan permission to film because Hoges was initially denied access to film the rock. He has left the running for his colleague the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). Perhaps we will get a statement from the Minister at the table on the whole question of advancing Australia in relation to filming at Ayers Rock, because it is certainly a situation that needs clearing up. For the reasons stated by my colleague, the honourable member for Ryan, and me, the Opposition supports the legislation before the House. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.19) —I thank the previous speakers-the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear), the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore)-for their contributions to the debate. They covered some ground that I had intended to cover but I thank them for covering it because it gives me the opportunity to talk about some other matters. I will respond to a couple of points made by the honourable member for Higgins. The Advance Australia campaign was developed by the previous Government, but the problem that the previous Government encountered was that nationally the feeling was that this was a divided country and from time to time it was almost as if the leadership of the previous Government owed loyalties to only part of the society and not the whole of society. To that extent I think that, as the honourable member for Tangney has pointed out very accurately, since March 1983 there has been a sense in which the leadership of Prime Minister Hawke and his Ministers has been directed to the whole of the country rather than to part of it. I really think that view is conveyed by the community . Certainly the polls indicate that and certainly the confidence of the community gives us reason to suggest that. The Advance Australia campaign has some extra quality to it under this Government, but we acknowledge that, of course, it was developed under the previous Government and that it has very sound commercial reasons. On the question of commercial reasons, the honourable member for Higgins made the point that, if profits rise, the royalty payments could be lowered-there could be a lower threshold level to encourage access to the Advance Australia logo. That seems to me to be a point worth following up. It may well be that the company in charge of the Advance Australia campaign will look at the commercial considerations of that. Certainly we want to see some degree of proliferation of this logo and if lowering the threshold is a way of doing that and is commercially possible, it would be a sensible thing to do. Obviously the question of Ayers Rock is a very controversial issue, but we take the view that we have an obligation to advance all Australians and obviously we have an obligation to advance Aborigines as well. One of the key things in doing that for Aborigines has been to give them some title and some right over and above what they might previously have had. Ayers Rock has great symbolic significance for them as well as considerable cultural and historical significance. We hold the view that the Aborigines deserve the right to have a say in how Ayers Rock is managed and handled. It is not that they have a right that would always exclude the rest of Australia, but I think it is fair to say that, having been given some title and some right, they might want to exercise that right; and there may be times when they believe that their historical circumstances would be trangressed by the right of others being exercised. I do not see it as a highly controversial issue. It is one which those opposite might choose to blow up from time to time, but I do not think that is quite the issue. The issue substantially is that we have the right to advance Aborigines. This is one of the ways we have chosen to do that. It may well be that from time to time we get some controversy about the rights of people to film Ayers Rock, but essentially, if we proceed with good conscience and good intention, I do not see that that will be all that some opposite want to make out. I want to talk a little more about the question of Advance Australia. As I said earlier, I think the honourable member for Tangney has contributed well to the debate and those opposite, in joining us in supporting the Bill, are really facilitating the whole spirit of this discussion. I want to deal with why I think Advance Australia is very appropriate at the moment in the thrust of tourism and then I want to deal with some specific issues about tourism because I believe there are two or three issues in the development of Australia which are quite pronounced. It is true to say that some of the climate we are operating in at the moment, in which there has been an improvement in business confidence and a substantial increase in the level of economic activity, relates to the role that this Government has played. Some of it relates to natural circumstances. It is true that it began to rain in 1983. It is also true that the Government that took over did something about getting confidence together; that is, as the honourable member for Tangney has said, the confidence of the private sector. We are not in the business of scapegoating one against the other , as was the practice of the former right honourable member for Wannon when he deigned to become Prime Minister. He thought that there was some merit in trying to turn one sector of society against the other. We will just not wear that. We are not about to do that. We are in the business of trying to manage both the private and the public sectors. That has been the philosophy. Mr Carlton —You are not managing it with the doctors. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The doctors are an interesting issue. It goes to show that when one takes on a privileged group in society that group reacts to try to protect the privilege. That is natural and understandable, but in so reacting to protect their privilege the doctors have not done anything to encourage the support of the community. We are concerned about that broad support, and the broad support of the community is about having a commitment to the policies of government. Clearly, the National Economic Summit Conference of April was a major factor, as was the role of the Prime Minister. But in talking about that, I want also to refer to the fact that we now have a Minister responsible for tourism who has recognised that tourism is a major industry in Australia. Along with a couple of other industries, it is one of the most promising industries for Australia's future. It is a labour-intensive industry. It is one in which we are prepared to take major initiatives. The protection of the Advance Australia logo is just one of those things where we are following on from what honourable members opposite did when they were in government. But we are prepared to take major initiatives to try to advance this important industry. We believe that it is an industry which to some extent the previous Government neglected, because I do not think that that Government ever quite realised the potential that it offered; but we do recognise it, and we have some proposals. But again, of course, we have been in fortunate times. Looking at the issue of Australian nationalism, one finds that there have been some significant events. I have spoken about March 1983 and the change of government, about the Economic Summit of April 1983, and about the quality of leadership that Bob Hawke has given and the quality of leadership that has been given by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). But it is also important to talk about outstanding Australian achievements. Here, drawn to our minds, as the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) has indicated, is Alan Bond's Australia II syndicate and the successful capture of the America's Cup. It is good that it was an Australian venture, and it is also good that it was a Western Australian venture. We are particularly pleased about that. I know that the electorate of Stirling is particularly pleased about it. We also have Neale Fraser's Davis Cup team. That had a remarkable achievement. It had the echoes of the 1950s and the early 1960s about it-that Australia was once again proving that it is quite a remarkable country. We are pleased about that. We believe that we have some remarkable Australians, and we have some remarkable Australians with respect to developing business in tourism, and we would want to facilitate that. I also point to the Australian film industry. Films such as Phar Lap were just films designed to capture a mood and a moment in history, and Australians relate to that. It is quite significant that 1983 was one of those years. We are all very proud of the efforts and the performances of Robert de Castella . I might add that, interestingly, one of the issues that we must develop in Australia is that if a person such as Robert de Castella goes out and puts in such a great effort, as he is doing, we must never judge him only in terms of medals that he gets, but we should also judge him in terms of the threshold effect, the wake effect, that he develops, whereby others are inspired by his achievements. We would hope that our attitude towards the tourism industry is rather like that; that, somewhat like Robert de Castella, it is the job of government to set the way, to point the direction, and to encourage industry to participate in that, to create a wake effect. That is our attitude, and it is one that we are determined to pursue. I know that the comments of the tourism industry about the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism reflect that. We have also had successful Australian men's and women's cricket teams. That is another example of great success by Australians. The seat alongside me is filled by the captain of the Australian hockey team, Dr Rick Charlesworth, the honourable member for Perth. That is another example, as is the Australian netball team, and as is Steele Bishop from Western Australia, a cycling hero in anyone's terms. They are examples of nationalism. It is interesting how often we choose sport as a way of capturing that nationalism, because it is something, fortunately, to which everyone in society can relate, and we should be mindful of that. When we talk about logos, it is interesting that there are many uses of sporting logos, such as those of the New South Wales Rugby League, the Victorian Football League and the West Australian Football League. They use logos very effectively in their promotion. Of course, this Advance Australia logo is a similar promotion and an important way of developing. I think that there is a third factor. I have dealt with what I might call the overall question of leadership at the government level and the sorts of performances put in by the Government, and by the Minister responsible for tourism, and secondly, the contribution of outstanding Australians. The third factor is the positive attitudes towards the development of Australian industry and, in particular, Australian tourism, which are important. Just to list some examples of initiatives that we are taking in tourism, the one to which I want to point is the question of the licensing and registration of travel agents. This is an important initiative which I support on behalf of the Australian Government. We have the unfortunate circumstance that from time to time travellers overseas find that the travel agent with whom they have been dealing has developed a temporary liquidity crisis-in common terms, he has gone broke- and they are stranded in Singapore, Hong Kong or London. We would be trying to develop a bond system that would ensure that the Australian travelling public would have some guarantees. It is a very important initiative as part of our attitude towards consumer protection, and it reflects an important position to develop in tourism. The other matter is the issue which the Minister responsible for tourism is concerned to look at-the question of in-bound duty-free facilities or bonded warehouses for Australian travellers. The current circumstance, in terms of developing tourism, is that people who wish to purchase goods in Australia have to take them out of the country and bring them back into the country. That is not good enough. It inconveniences Australian travellers, but it also means that we are not keeping the money in the country. We are keen to see Australian business develop. We would like to think that some of the goods that people purchase in fact have Advance Australia logos on them. We would like to see this system established so that we can get a more effective operation in terms of duty free goods within Australia, and so that we can keep business within the country and facilitate the convenience of the travelling public. It will give them some after sales service. It will give them some guarantees that they do not get when they purchase goods in Singapore and Hong Kong. We believe that that is important. It also would be of assistance to Qantas Airways Ltd, because I believe that Qantas currently carries an extra fuel bill because of all the carriage of freight that is involved. It is important to try to assist Qantas, and certainly we hope that there is some flow-through in the fares structure in Australia. The other question, which is a recent initiative- Mr Shipton —Is it Government policy to introduce that? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —It is an issue that we should be developing in the Government because we believe that it would make sense, and, in line with our attitude that the role of government is one of partnership my attitude and, I hope our attitude, is that this would be a way that government, through a common-sense approach, could make this change. At this stage, of course, it is not the policy of government; it would have to be announced. But that is a position that I would be keen to develop. The establishment of new discount air fares was a great announcement. We need to have further debate about the matter; this is not an appropriate time. I simply say that the sorts of packages that are being offered and the sorts of initiatives that are being taken are symbolic of the fact that this Government and the industries with which we are dealing-in this case, the airline industry, but, of course, the related industries of accommodation and entertainment, and so on-will all be facilitated if we can get more people to travel within Australia and to spend more money within Australia. Hopefully, again, they will be supporting goods such as the goods that will carry the Advance Australia logo . We believe that this is important. I commend the initiative of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism because, coming as I do from Western Australia , I believe that that is an important issue. It is a very sore point among members of parliament from Western Australia. As I indicated, the issue of air fares to Western Australia is also a major structural question in relation to air fares within the country. But I think that is a much larger debate. However, at this point it is important to say that the packages being offered represent a considerable advancement. We could say that honourable members opposite did not do much when they were in office, but it is too easy to say that. It is much more important to say that we are attempting a new initiative, and to turn it in that positive way rather than turn it into a negative comment about what honourable members opposite might have done. We are saying what we have done. Obviously, we would not claim that everything that we do has the glint of success all the time, but this is an important initiative. It is one that we on this side of the House welcome and I know that the travelling public welcomes it. It also indicates, incidentally, that the cost of flying will come to about 8c per kilometre, which would be a very inexpensive mode of travel. There are many people from Western Australia who would like to visit places such as Canberra. This certainly will offer them that opportunity, and we are pleased about that. Opposition members interjecting- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Will the honourable member please return to the Bill to hand, and perhaps the House will get off the little chit chat about air fares. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to persist, clearly. The other point about the Advance Australia logo is that we are keen to see people coming into the country and spending money within the country. We are having success with that. We have previously spoken, as have honourable members opposite, about Paul Hogan. There has been a substantial increase in visa issuances for the United States of America, which are up by 31 per cent for January. That is an example of the effect that Paul Hogan is having. We are seeing a substantial increase in the prospect of travellers from the West Coast of the United States. The figures are quite astonishing. They jump from 5,013 for January and February of 1983 to 9,022 for January and February 1984. That represents a substantial increase in activity. That is because, under this Government, tourism is being promoted. This Advanced Australia logo will be one of the important factors in the development of tourism itself. We are keen to see the total development of tourism. In summing up, I say that we believe we have an important opportunity as a government. We have been given a great trust by the Australian electorate to do something substantial. That is starting to fit together. The work is being done, the economy is performing and the leadership is being shown. This is another example of the structural change that we are making which, we believe, will assist the development of industry. We are certainly keen to see the private sector flourish and we are also concerned to see more Australians travelling within Australia, to be proud of Australia and for people from overseas to come to Australia. I conclude by saying that I believe the whole thrust of tourism has taken an improved position under this Minister. I certainly commend the Minister and the Bill to the House. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.36) —Might I say in my introductory remarks that a number of very good speeches have been made on the Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill, which is basically a very straightforward piece of legislation, but I think none have been better than that of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). As the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) has noted in his second reading speech, the purpose of this Bill is simply to regulate the use of the Advance Australia logo. The major aim of the Advance Australia campaign has been and will continue to be to stimulate the demand for Australian goods and services. For my own part, that objective is a very worthy one. Before I proceed to some of the other issues raised by the Bill, I think it is important that we look a little more closely at the background and some of the achievements of the Advance Australia campaign. In August 1979 the Australian Manufacturing Council launched the Project Australia campaign of which the Advance Australia theme formed the major part. The 1979-80 annual report of the Australian Manufacturing Council reported that the principal objectives of the Project Australia campaign were as follows: First, to develop an increased sense of national identity and pride amongst Australians; secondly, to highlight the contribution that each individual can make towards attaining and sustaining a strong economy; thirdly, to emphasise the importance of product quality, design and marketing; and, finally, to encourage the purchase, use and export of Australian products, services and technology to increase employment opportunities. Between 1979 and 1981 the campaign was managed by the Department of Industry and Commerce through the Project Australia Committee. In response to strong private sector support and interest during that period, a non-profit public interest company, Advance Australia, was established in mid-1981 to manage the on-going campaign. I think it is important to emphasise that since 1979 revenue for the campaign has come from two major sources. More than $5m has been provided by the Federal Government and more than $3m has been derived from licensing arrangements involving the franchise of the Advance Australia logo. As all honourable members who have spoken on this Bill today have indicated, it has been a joint venture between government enterprise and private enterprise. Because of the success of those licensing arrangements, which I understand in 1982 and 1983 involved more than 700 actively participating companies which will contribute some $1.8m in licensing fees, the Federal Government ceased its contribution to the campaign in June last year. The Advance Australia company is now a self-funding private sector project. There is no doubt that that campaign has been remarkably well received by the Australian community. It is estimated that the logo advertising now appears in marketing activities and advertising of goods worth more than $2 billion annually. Research completed last year showed overwhelmingly that Australian consumers are prepared to support Advance Australia products in preference to other products. Ninety-nine per cent of Australians instantly recognised the logo and 79 per cent of Australians indicated that they were favourably disposed towards this campaign. More than half of the population clearly stated its preference for products bearing the Advance Australia logo. So in many ways the logo has become the Australian consumers' means of putting their support and, importantly, their money behind this country, its products and its services. Not only has the campaign made a substantial contribution to improved sales for Australian manufacturers but also it has enhanced Australian pride and participation in our community. It is fascinating to look back just five years ago at the perceptions that Australians had of themselves and their country. Yesterday I was reading an article on this subject in the February 1982 edition of the Bulletin. It quotes Mr Phillip Adams, who at that time was involved in the market research in the preliminary stages of Advance Australia and who had to present its conclusions. The Bulletin quotes Mr Adams as having said the following about Australians and their perceptions at that time: The research was totally gloomy. I had to tell Malcolm Fraser and I remember that he hated it. The research said that Australia didn't have any leadership, it didn't have any quality, that if a product said Made in Australia, no one would buy it. There was a sense of apocalypse, of being third class, almost a sense of despair. To be Australian was, in a sense, to be a walking apology. That was in 1979. I think everyone who has spoken in this debate, particularly the honourable member for Stirling and the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear), has indicated that times have changed very much. No longer is there that sense of despair and desperation in being an Australian. One is no longer a walking apology for being an Australian. It is a fascinating change and it has occurred just in that space of five years. I think there are three or four reasons for that change. Obviously, the Advance Australia campaign has made a significant contribution to changing people's attitudes about the quality of Australian goods and the strength of Australian manufacturing. That is a very desirable change but, of course, the political situation has also changed. It is in many ways predictable that the research done at that time would have indicated that Australia did not have any leadership. Of course, it did not, and that is something that has changed fundamentally in five years. We now have a political system which offers leadership to the Australian people. We have a Prime Minister who is supported by and popular amongst more than 73 per cent of Australians. The Government has some positive policies and there is a greater sense of optimism and confidence about the future. Importantly, there is a new sense of co-operation and consensus within our community. That comes across private enterprise, government and the whole union movement. There we have two factors-Advance Australia and the change in political circumstances. The Australian film industry, which the honourable member for Stirling mentioned, has also made a very substantial contribution to our own self-image and our image as Australians. We can all be proud of the Australian film industry, which evolved particularly in the early 1970s under the Whitlam Australian Labor Party Government. In the period 1979-84 some remarkable achievements have been made. Films such as Breaker Morant, The Man From Snowy River, Phar Lap and Gallipoli, to name just a few, have all offered a very new and positive perspective of our history. They have also been resounding box office successes. Not only have they been resounding box office successes in Australia but, importantly in terms of Australians' self-image and perception and the quality of what we can produce, these have been outstanding box office successes overseas. In addition, there are the television series. We produced the series A Town Like Alice and, more recently, All the Rivers Run. A Town Like Alice was not watched by just 70 per cent of Australian television viewers; it showed in 50 countries around the world. When it showed in Britain for a week an average of 16 million viewers watched it every evening. That is a remarkable achievement. It won the international Emmy award for the best foreign drama and, as I have said, it has been sold in more than 50 countries. As I have said, those films have not just given us a new sense of identity and purpose in terms of our culture, history and development, but they have also been outstanding successes, highly professional artistic productions. They have not only done well in Australia but also shown what we can achieve overseas. It is for that reason that some people have suggested that the Australian film industry is rapidly taking over. It is rapidly becoming the most successful export industry since merino wool. A number of other matters have contributed to that sense of greater aspiration, confidence and pride in being Australian. Obviously the sporting achievements in the last two years are also very significant. Again the honourable member for Tangney and the honourable member for Stirling mentioned some of those achievements-I do not want to dwell on them; they were great achievements-the America's Cup, the Davis Cup, the victory of Robert de Castella. We have had victories in the Australian netball team and, of course, we have had victories in men's and women's cricket. So all those factors have contributed to this greater sense of identity and positive self-image of Australians. As I have said that is a complete turnaround from that research in 1979 which showed that Australians really felt themselves to be a walking apology. Mr Ronald Edwards —The Moscow Olympics too. Mr BRUMBY —That did not help, did it? It is shameful. To conclude on a few final remarks, I did refer earlier to the objectives of that Project Australia campaign when it was launched in 1979. The fourth objective I mentioned was to: encourage the purchase, use and export of Australian products, services and technology so as to increase employment opportunities. I just want to say that that is an objective, amongst those other objectives, which is totally and wholeheartedly supported by this Government. Early in 1983 a number of the national media organisations throughout Australia concentrated on the issue of Australian industry, Australian employment and Australian technology and the need for us to develop further in the future. The Melbourne Age in particular had a month-long investigation into the technology gap as it termed it. In that paper of 5 January 1983 we find: As a nation Australia has given the world the Hills hoist, Victa lawnmowers, automatic totalisators and Henselite lawn bowls. We have such a rich history of inventiveness that it is puzzling why, as one observer wrote recently, the country should seem almost prostrate and about to be run over by the juggernaut of the microprocessor revolution. A four-week investigation by 'The Age' has identified a number of reasons for our national malaise in exploiting new technology in industry. They include inadequate Government policies, complacency and bad management by business and a lack of venture capital for new companies and products. We find that in the Age of January 1983. As I have said that issue was studied for more than a month. A little later, in May of that year, another prominent Victorian newspaper, the Melbourne Herald, devoted a number of its editions to the question of technology. In its editorial on 2 May of that year it stated: Australia is losing ground in economic and job growth and is being overtaken by smaller and less naturally well-endowed nations, because of our lagging pace in the international pursuit of new technology. The position is not merely worrying but critical. If anyone has listened, as I know many people have, to the comments, speeches and remarks made by our excellent Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) since our election last year as a government many would recognise that those sentiments and facts expressed in those two newspapers are a truism. We have slipped well and truly behind in the industrial and technological race. Prior to the last election in March 1983 our Party, which is now the Government, made a very firm commitment to developing a more positive approach to industry policy and to creating the most favourable environment possible for the growth and development of industry. Of course the reason I mention that is that it ties in perfectly with that fourth objective of the Australian Manufacturing Council. I want to point out that our Government has already acted in a number of ways to put effect to those commitments and so to foster and develop our industry and technological growth. Some of those policies we have already made and enunciated . We have retained the investment allowance and that was an important decision. We have allocated a record $71.6m for Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board schemes. We have broadened importantly its terms of reference. Last year we legislated to establish the development of a private sector venture-capital market in Australia involving 100 per cent tax deductibility in the year in which the capital is subscribed. Last year again we strengthened and expanded the supporting services available to exporters through the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. We injected an additional $12.5m into the Australian Industry Development Corporation, thereby allowing for a $50m increase in AIDC statutory capital. Importantly also , we increased its gearing ratio so that it will be able to borrow up to 15 times the level of its capacity and reserves compared with eight times the level in the past. Finally, and most recently, we have expanded significantly small business education, counselling and information programs and we recently established a new Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. Of course the need for action in all those areas was overwhelming and the need for further action in the future is equally as strong. It would be no good at all for any government to say 'We have made those achievements already. They are positive achievements. We can now sit back and watch things progress', because that is not what will happen. Things will move forward but we have a very long way to go. I was very impressed this morning by some of the remarks made by the Minister for Science and Technology when introducing a Bill to amend the Patents Act. I wish very briefly to quote two paragraphs of the speech of the Minister this morning. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! This would have to relate to the Bill before us. Mr BRUMBY —It does very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned before the very important part of the whole Advance Australia campaign was to: encourage the purpose, use and export of Australian products, services and technology so as to increase employment opportunities. That has been fundamental to that campaign. It has been a joint campaign between government and private enterprise. I totally support the Advance Australia campaign. I am just trying to emphasise how important that is and I will just do it very briefly by quoting one paragraph and then I will finish off. The Minister said: With its 15 million people, Australia has 0.3 per cent of the world's population. We perform 2 per cent of the world's scientific research, but originate 0.7 per cent of patents and undertake only 0.1 per cent of high technology production. Australia is in the middle rank of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations in terms of government expenditure on research and development. But because of the very small contribution by industry we fall near the bottom of the list in terms of gross expenditure on research and development. . . . . The poor performance of the Australian private sector in research and development finds its reflection in Australia's comparitive standing as a technologically-advanced country. I believe that, over a period of five years, the Advance Australia organisation has made a great contribution to increasing our self image and perception to encouraging excellence in every area and particularly in industry. I believe that our Government, since its election, has also acted to stimulate and give every possible encouragement to industry. I see both of those objectives moving along the same course. The last paragraphs I quoted from the Minister's speech this morning are pertinent because the challenge certainly lies ahead, not only for this Government, but also particularly for private industry in Australia. The challenge is very much in one sense in the hands of the Advance Australia organisation to continue its work in the future and to continue to ensure that the private sector itself encourages excellence and puts the resources into research and development so that we are able in the future to compete equally as a nation with other countries. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.54) —in reply-In closing the debate I would like to make a few comments. I hope that those people who are sitting in the gallery note that it is possible to have a pleasant debate in this House. It is not necessarily a cockpit for rancour and discord. On some occasions there is some rapport between all honourable members of this House. I am pleased to note that the sense of national pride that I detect, which is abroad in Australia in large measure at present, reflects itself in a debate such as this in the national Parliament. I think that can only do something about raising the stature of this House. I will say a few words about national pride. I noticed that all Government members who spoke in this debate concentrated particularly on Australia's achievements of late. Of course, that thread also ran through the contributions from the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). This sense of national pride was not around some years ago . Referring to the quote of 1979 from the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), I think it is true to say that the sense of despair and hopelessness which existed some years ago, of almost apologising if one was recognised as an Australian, has largely dissipated. If people were asked to nominate the great achievement of the Hawke Government since March 1983, I suspect they would say it is in restoring a sense of national unity, pride, optimism and hope to the Australian community, which reflects itself in many ways. I have always had a belief that Australians need to shrug off their cultural cringe, their feeling of inferiority. I think that Australians should realise that this is, as has been stated in several prestigious magazines in the last year, the most interesting and most exciting country in the world. It has taken us a long time to realise exactly what we have achieved in Australia. People perhaps should look at our history and discover that in 1950 there were less than 150,000 Europeans in Australia. What this small group of Western people has achieved in conjunction with native Australians is simply miraculous. To turn an island that was so far from the mainstream of world activity, an island with a hostile environment, into one of the great economic and social developments of the world's history is something of which we should be duly proud. I think it is time we shrugged off that inferiority complex that led us perhaps even to advertise Australia as a zoo, as a marsupial farm, and never to push our great achievements in terms of culture, enterprise and business. I am pleased to note that all Government members took up those points when they spoke about our achievements in sport that have given us a sense of national identity in the last 12 months or so. The high standard of our films and television productions was mentioned by the honourable member for Bendigo. He also touched on our high technological achievements that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is forever pushing at us. Fortunately Australians are starting to realise this. But , more importantly, he mentioned the improvement in the standard of Australian manufactured products. I think it is high time that we did realise that Australian products stand up very well in comparison with similar products around the world. That makes the Advance Australian Logo Protection Bill all the more important because the Advance Australia logo is a signal, a sign, of the high standard of Australian manufacture. While I noted that one member of the Opposition pointed out that this campaign was started by the previous Government-of course that is true-the reason this Bill is before the House is that whoever started it was sufficiently incompetent not to register the design; that is why the Bill is here. But if that mistake led to a reasonable debate, I guess there is something to be said for the mistake that was made. I would like to say something about some of the suggestions that were made by members of the Opposition. The honourable member for Ryan, in leading for the Opposition, suggested that the licence charges might be too high. That suggestion was reinforced by the honourable member for Higgins. This certainly was a complaint in the first stages of the Advance Australia campaign but, as I understand it, there has been no such similar complaint for at least 18 months. I think I should also point out that the product licence is the only source of revenue for the company. The level of the fee that is applied is determined by the Advance Australia Board. Further, I think it is also fair to point out that, where there is an application from a non-profit body to use the logo, no fee is charged by the company. The level of the fee, when it is charged to commercial enterprises, is determined by the Board on the basis of the income expected to be derived from the sale of Advance Australia products. So I do not think the complaint that the licence fee is too high is legitimate. In fact, if the profits of the company do become excessive, the Government could be quite amenable to looking at this matter because the logo is intended to be a great profit maker for the company and to signify that the product that bears that logo is a product of which Australia can be proud. The honourable member for Higgins commented on air fares when talking about Australia's new ventures in tourism. I am sad to see that he adopts this destructive, negative approach to most of the things that we have done in tourism that seem to be lauded by the other 15 million people in Australia and certainly by everybody in the tourism industry and, in the case of air fares, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). At exactly the same hour as the honourable member for Higgins, in his role as the shadow Minister for Tourism, was putting out a Press release decrying the new air fares the Leader of the Opposition, who is much more intelligent and much more attuned with proper conduct and behaviour, was putting out a Press release lauding the incentive. I dare say that the honourable member for Higgins will be pulled in and chastised by the Leader of the Opposition if he continues this constant carping which is doing him and nobody else any credit. He is certainly considered a farce in the tourist industry. Mr Carlton —He is getting under your skin. Mr JOHN BROWN —No, he will never get under my skin. He also mentioned the difficulty Val Doonican had in filming at Ayers Rock. I think he has brought up a reasonable argument. It is fair to point out that the rules that apply to filming at Ayers Rock have really nothing to do with the consequence of the Government's decision to hand ownership of the park back to the Aboriginals. Commercial activity, such as filming, within Uluru National Park is subject to the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and the park plan of management. Those restrictions are not applied by the Aboriginals to suit themselves; they are a measure of the fact that Ayers Rock is a sacred ground of the Aboriginals. It is part of their heritage and they have strict conditions on how it is used. As I understand it, there have been 51 applications in the last 12 months for filming at the Rock and only four applications have been rejected. The reason the filming of the Paul Hogan advertisement ran into difficulty is that nobody had bothered to apply for permission. After about a two-hour delay permission was granted and filming went ahead. Of course, this advertisement has had a great effect on the Californians, who are now streaming here in their thousands. The original proposition for the Val Doonican filming was not acceptable to the Aboriginals responsible for management of the park and they knocked it back. Subsequently, there has been another application which is much more in line with the guidelines. That application has been granted and filming has gone ahead. All in all, I am quite pleased to note that we did have a pleasant and productive debate on this issue. On occasions we can find a matter of accord in this House. I am pleased to see that the most significant reason for that in this debate was national pride. I think it is high time Australians realised that this is the most exciting country in the world. It is a pity that we needed American and French magazines to point out to us that we were the country of the year. At least that is reflected in the attitude of honourable members of this Parliament on both sides of the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(12.05) —We are returning to debate on the Quarantine Amendment Bill which was introduced by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). I have been searching around all week to find some nice things to say about the Minister for Health. He has had a fairly difficult week and I was feeling a bit sorry for him yesterday. However, I am pleased to be able to say that on this matter of quarantine there is quite a broad measure of agreement. I am able to say some nice things about the Minister in regard to this Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the penalties for quarantine offences. A lot of concern has been expressed by rural industries and honourable members on both sides of the House representing rural constituencies as to the very small penalties imposed on offenders in quarantine matters. For example, as pointed out in the Minister's second reading speech, the penalty in 1979 for a breach of quarantine was a maximum of $10,000 or five years imprisonment. Under the measure proposed these penalties will be increased to $50,000 or 10 years imprisonment or both on the part of an individual. For a body corporate there would be a maximum fine of $200,000. In the case of a failure to observe or obey a direction by the Minister in an emergency-for example, if there were some outbreak of foot and mouth disease or some other terrible disease amongst livestock or plants-such a failure in 1979 would have attracted a penalty of only $10,000 or five years imprisonment. Under the proposals being put forward it is now a maximum penalty of $100,000 or 10 years imprisonment, or both. I think that those penalties, which we certainly support, will reinforce the very real concern that people have about the outcomes of possible breaches of quarantine. It is certainly very much in our minds, as it is in the Government's, that a simple outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Australia could bring to a total standstill our exports of meat and other commodities of livestock origin, causing a drop in rural output in the order of $2.5 billion in the first year. An economic disaster of that kind would be terrible for Australia. Therefore, there is a need for constant vigilance in these matters. Certainly the penalties introduced indicate the seriousness of the Government's purpose in this matter. We support the Government on that. Of course we have the opportunity with a Bill of this kind, which has an enormous number of provisions, for a fairly wide-ranging debate on quarantine issues which honourable members want to take up. Before I pass on to some of the more detailed matters in the Bill I mention the point that if penalties are to be imposed we must first catch the offenders. In one particular area there is a matter of concern which apparently has not been resolved. The point was raised on 10 November last year by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Hicks) in a Press release. It concerned the threat to northern defences of exotic diseases. I think it is worth quoting from the honourable member's Press release which stated: Australia's meat export industry could be threatened by a reduction in aerial surveillance of northern Australia . . . Mr Hicks said until the end of March this year- That was 1983- radar surveillance was provided over a section of coastline up to 200 nautical miles off the north west approaches to Darwin, using specially equipped Nomad aircraft. 'However, because the contract was not renewed, there is now no radar surveillance of any part of this stretch of ocean, except for overflights by RAAF Orion aircraft about twice a month.' Mr Hicks said the Northern Territory Government had sent a submission calling for the flights to be reintroduced, to the Federal Government in about August. Of 1983- He said the submission pointed out the dangers faced by Australia without adequate surveillance. The Northern Territory Government submission stated: 'In this light the cost of surveillance must be considered in terms of the horrendus penalties, economic and social, that will be incurred following just one outbreak of any of several animal diseases from which Australia is now free. 'The Commonwealth Department of Health estimates that in the event of a confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which could be introduced by way of infected animals, foodstuffs and animal products, rural output would fall by as much as $2500 million in the first year alone as vast quantities of products would become immediately unexportable. It would cost the beef industry $1000 million each year.' Mr Hicks said the submission also pointed out that other equally devastating diseases, such as Rinderpest, Swine Vesicular Disease, Virulent Newcastle Disease, African Swine Fever, Screw Worm Fly and many more also posed a major threat. 'The submission argues that to restrict surveillance operations on economic grounds in the face of threats of this magnitude is 'the very ultimate of penny wisdom and pound foolishness'. 'There are a host of exotic diseases that are literally on Australia's northern doorstep and we should be strengthening, rather than weakening, our northern surveillance capabilities. He continued: 'I want to know whether the relevant Federal Ministers are aware of the Territory Government's submission. If they are, then why has the Government apparently taken no action on it. If they are not, then they should be asking why the report has not been brought to their attention, . . .' I have been making inquiries as to whether there has been a satisfactory response to the honourable member's Press release. Apparently there is still great concern on the part of the Northern Territory Government. If in the course of the debate the Minister or the Government were able to give any indication to the House as to actions taken in response to that matter we in the Opposition would certainly be grateful. There are other matters in the Bill which I want to refer to. Firstly I mention the appointment of quarantine officers of which there are some 1,700 in Australia. I would be the first to welcome the administrative reform which the Minister has introduced on this occasion. One of the first things I noticed when I was initiated into the mysteries of the Ministry of Health is that I spent most of a Sunday afternoon looking through an enormous number of submissions of a totally trivial nature. On the first Sunday afternoon when I was looking through the blue bags and saw all the things I had to read and sign there seemed to be a dozen appointments of quarantine officers to some remote part of Tasmania. These submissions had to be read and signed by me. Subsequently, since I was a member of the Executive Council, I had to meet the Governor-General for the signing of these documents so that they could be passed into law and the appointments made. I noticed the Governor-General too had the burdensome problem of signing all these submissions for all 1,700 quarantine officers who seemed to be changing their positions very frequently indeed. That was indicative of a general problem within public administration where there has not been a serious analysis of the relevant level of decision making in each of the portfolio areas. I know that the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins ) is looking at these matters and is trying to do something about them. I hope that each Minister within each portfolio area will recognise these nonsenses. In my case I asked the Department to prepare changes to the law so that we would take these matters off the Governor-General's table, and also off my table. I am glad to see that the present Minister has continued with this. The result is the change in this Bill. In this particular case the Governor-General is relieved of this burdensome task. I am sure he gave very serious consideration-as did the Minister-to each individual appointment. Now it is up to the Minister to give approval for the appointment of the Director of Quarantine and chief quarantine officers. For the remainder of appointments the Director of Quarantine can make those decisions. There is another aspect of the Bill on which I want to comment. I do not want to delay the House too long as other members wish to speak. My point concerns the power of the Minister to determine the level of fees for the recovery of expenses on quarantine issues instead of having these brought about by regulation. I notice that the changes recommended to be made by the Minister are still subject to parliamentary disallowance under certain provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act. It is nice to know that on this occasion I can congratulate the Minister on the procedure he has used here which contrasts with the procedure contained in a clause of another Bill about which we have a public dispute. In the first instance the Minister has allowed for parliamentary scrutiny. I am also pleased to observe that he is following a principle, in the setting of these fees, of the recovery of direct operating costs. In other words, this is the user pays mechanism. It seems that in another area the Minister is not all that keen on this principle either, but in this case that principle is being followed. We certainly support the application of reasonable levels of fees for the recovery of costs. Certainly these are not based on any form of percentage of after tax income or whatever other measure one might apply for the recovery of costs. The remainder of the Bill covers a whole lot of tidying up provisions with which we do not disagree. Therefore we are supporting the Bill. I will allow other speakers in the debate to raise matters that are of particular importance to them or to their constituencies. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(12.15) — Breaches of quarantine could one day very easily ruin Australia's primary exports, devastate the economies of country towns, wipe out farm incomes and reduce the living standards of all Australians. The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1984 which is now before the Parliament increases the penalties that may be imposed upon people who offend the quarantine laws of Australia. The Bill also amends the Quarantine Act 1908 to bring it up to date. For instance, the Governor-General is required to appoint each quarantine officer. Confronted with 1,700 quarantine officers the Governor-General would not want to spend half his working hours appointing them. One Governor-General is rumoured to have observed that everyone in Australia must have been appointed a quarantine officer at some time. The machinery changes in this Bill relieve the Governor-General of that task. Mr Don Duncan, the Veterinary Inspector at Yass, has only recently pointed out the dangers of foot and mouth disease, which is rapidly spreading. It is the most infectious disease known to humans, a debilitating disease leading to low production of milk, meat and wool and tragic deaths amongst unborn and new-born animals. Foot and mouth disease affects sheep, cattle, goats and pigs. This Bill raises the penalties for persons who introduce that disease and other diseases into Australia. We have had such scares in this country. Honourable members may recall that there was a scare in the Northern Territory in 1977. Fortunately the bluetongue virus was not clinically significant. There was also a criminal threat from a Queenslander who said he would bring a virus into the country if he did not get his way. With all the overseas travel and with our proximity to other countries to the north one day there will be reason for the scare. One day a threat may be carried out and then what will happen? Don Duncan, the Yass veterinary officer, has told farmers what to do if the symptoms of foot and mouth disease are suspected. First, they should immediately report it to the authorities. No person, animal, vehicle or thing may enter or leave the affected property until the veterinary officer arrives. Then all livestock on the property is to be destroyed. That is what will happen on the farm but that is not all that will happen because the farmer and his or her family will be ruined. What will happen nationally if, for instance, our quarantine laws do not discourage a disease such as foot and mouth or bluetongue from entering this country? Even though the bluetongue scare in the Northern Territory in 1977 was uneventful it lost the region $5m through a complete ban on exports and delayed and disrupted marketing. Some $5m was lost over what turned out to be only a scare. However this is nothing compared with the likely cost of an outbreak of bluetongue or foot and mouth disease. Our animal product exports to most countries depend on our foot and mouth disease free status. The United States of America, Japan, Korea and Canada all depend totally on that status. Our strongest competitors, the European Economic Community, Argentina and Brazil have foot and mouth disease. The United States cattle producers use the foot and mouth disease as a lever to keep imports down. Foot and mouth disease in Australia would mean that we would have to compete with cheap South American beef on the United States market and that would be a real sock in the jaw for our beef exports. Exports of sheep and sheep meat would be seriously affected. Some countries would also ban wool imports. We are talking here about over $1,000m that would be lost in beef exports, nearly $400m that would be lost in sheep meat exports and $40m that would be lost in pig meat exports. Nearly $2,000m in wool exports would be threatened as well as $387m in dairy products and $6m in eggs. I say 'threaten' wool, dairy and egg exports because there would be some export bans. The total cost to Australia and Australians would not be hundreds of millions of dollars but thousands of millions of dollars. This Bill deals with the front line of attack against exotic diseases-our quarantine laws. In Australia there is plenty of apathy which arises from our country's good fortune in the past with exotic animal diseases. We have been fortunate because our native animals have few serious endemic diseases which are transmittable to live- stock. We have little need of meat and animal product imports. This reduces the probablility of disease. Our climate and low livestock density in northern Australia are unfavourable to the spread of animal pathogens . We have been relatively free of exotic diseases because of our geographical isolation. All of these great advantages are now dissolving as more and more people travel in and out of the country using air transport. People visit overseas farms-as I did on one occasion-and wear the same shoes and clothes back in Australia. Far worse, there are some tourists who would like occasionally to bring into the country undesirable goods such as salami produced in a country where foot and mouth disease or other exotic diseases are prevalent. Our good fortune may easily change. We are closer in travelling time to South East Asia than ever before. Contact with our northern coastline may mean that one day one of the dreaded diseases will reach our shores. Once that animal disease is found , no more questions will be asked. In that case only Tasmania may be saved from meat export bans. A few years ago a traveller illegally imported bull semen which is a very successful carrier of the bluetongue virus. The offender was caught. One day this sort of contravention of the laws which protect us could lead to the outbreak we fear. The maximum penalty for importing a disease agent contrary to the Act is no longer $10,000 or five years imprisonment; it is $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both. If the offender is a body corporate the fine is $200,000. Obstruction no longer leads to a fine of $10,000 or five years imprisonment. It is $100,000 or 10 years imprisonment, or both. But penalties are not the entire answer. If this legislation is to work people must be told about it. Community education is needed on foot and mouth disease, rift valley fever, bluetongue disease and other diseases which would cause an immediate cessation of exports. Who would pay for an outbreak of a major exotic disease? It would be the farmer , whose net income would be wiped out and whose livestock would be slaughtered. The Government would pay. The Government would have to pay for disinfection and for compensation to keep the family alive. 'Government' means the taxpayer. Then there would be a reduction in the number of taxpayers as farmers became non- income earners. The taxpayers left would have to pay. Even that has its limits. Social security beneficiaries, pensioners, unemployed and others would have to take, as usual, more than their share of the economic downturn. We vote for this legislation as an insurance against an enormous drop in Australian output and revenue. The legislation is but one response to a healthy fear. Excessive fear is powerless, but fear can be nature's warning signal to get busy. Feral animal control is another response. The straightening out of the proliferation of Federal and State departments involved with animal health is another response we ought to make. But here we have a Bill which will have no financial impact on the taxpayer, only on the criminal offenders. It is another government move to defend Australia's social and economic standards in the country and ultimately in the cities. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.27) —The purpose of this legislation is to increase penalties for offences committed against the Quarantine Act 1908 as well as to improve quarantine administration in both Australia and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Together with my Opposition colleagues, I support this legislation. The substantial increases in penalties are overdue and are in line with the previous Government's increase in penalties for offences contravening our export regulations. The previous Government increased penalties for any Australian exporter who shipped agricultural products which were below standard. It is pleasing that this Australian Labor Party Government has followed that lead and enacted legislation which the coalition Government had intended. There are, however, a number of concerns which I wish to draw to the attention of the Parliament. At the risk of stating the obvious, I stress that Australia, as an island continent largely dependent on agricultural livestock exports, needs to enforce its quarantine laws with the utmost diligence. That need is impossible to overstate. Although Australia has been remarkably free of exotic diseases to date we must constantly guard against complacency. We cannot afford under any circumstances to rest on our laurels or in any way ease our stringent quarantine safeguards. Indeed, I believe that there is a clear case for further tightening present measures. Let me examine three areas where I believe the Government has not acted as forcibly as it might have. Firstly, it was an election promise of the Labor Party to transfer Commonwealth responsibility for animal and plant quarantine from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. I support that transfer and express my disappointment that the Government has failed to honour its election promise. It is only common sense to transfer the quarantine administration from the Department of Health, which is concerned with the health of humans, to the Department of Primary Industry, which is primarily concerned with the health of animals. After all, the Department of Primary Industry is responsible for ensuring that health quarantine standards are met by Australian exporters. So it is only logical and, I suspect, less expensive-more economical, that is-for the Department of Primary Industry also to assume responsibility for the quarantine standards of imports. I therefore express my disappointment that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has failed to act on his Government 's election promise. At this point I will resist the temptation to list the several other rural election promises that the Minister has not honoured. The second area which concerns me is the Government's handling of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong. In September 1983 we witnessed in the Parliament and outside it a heated and, at times, even bitter conflict between, on the one hand, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and, on the other hand, that Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry. As a result of the confusion over funding for ANAHL at that time as well as in the future, the importance of ANAHL was significantly degraded. Staff morale suffered. The Minister's public lack of confidence in ANAHL will have long term consequences. The situation at present is that the ministerial committee on ANAHL will make a submission to Cabinet based on the advice of the advisory committee chaired by Professor Frank Fenner. It is to be hoped that the Government will then act expeditiously to end the confusion and support ANAHL in its fight against the diseases which could threaten our livestock industry. The third area which needs closer scrutiny is quarantine controls at airports in Australia. A number of constituents, and particularly the shire of South Gippsland, share my concern that improvements could be made in this regard. I acknowledge that Australia is one of the few countries in the world which require entrants at airports to declare their movements overseas to be able to determine whether they have come into contact with a farm or farm animals, but, as the Shire of South Gippsland maintains, this is often where the matter ends. The person who has made the declaration is then subject only to a very cursory examination. I understand that the purpose of the declaration is to enable the quarantine officer to make a judgment as to whether the apparel and shoes are free of mud and/or organic materials. If the apparel or shoes are visibly clean no cleaning is needed. I acknowledge that it is not practical to take the test any further than this. I further acknowledge that we cannot devise a system which will guarantee against the importation of organic materials. But the concern is that in some instances the examination is very brief and very superficial. I recently returned from a visit to Japan as part of a parliamentary delegation which visited farms. I made the declaration and was directed to the relevant officer. I informed him that I was wearing the same pair of shoes that I had worn on the farm but that they had since been cleaned. The officer behind the bench did not examine the shoes and did not, furthermore, ask to see any of my clothing but simply waved me through. This has also been my experience on other occasions and has been the experience of a number of Australians. There are obvious problems with delays and the frustrations that these delays could cause by-I will not say a more serious search-a more detailed examination of clothing and shoes. But I believe that the risk inherent in the importation of exotic diseases into Australia merits further examination by quarantine officers. This would require an increase in the number of quarantine officers. I realise that that necessarily means an increase in expenditure, but it is a matter of what are this Government's priorities. If its priorities are the same as those of the Opposition, and that is the complete protection so far as is humanly possible of our livestock industry, it will be prepared to increase the number of quarantine officers so that a more thorough examination can be made of persons who make a declaration that they have visited farms during their overseas travel. I also add that I have a concern about coastal surveillance in the northern part of Australia and the apparent lessening of importance which this Government and this Minister place on maintaining that surveillance. As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) pointed out in his speech, there is no point in increasing penalties for those who offend quarantine laws if we are not able first to apprehend them. I therefore urge the Government to treat coastal surveillance as seriously as does the Opposition and again allocate the necessary expenditure to maintain a viable and serious surveillance scheme. One of the problems in increasing expenditure in this area is that we do not immediately see returns for that increased expenditure. I suppose it is a bit like the Secret Service guarding the President. If there are no assassination attempts on the President over five years, I guess that some would question the level of expenditure on the Secret Service. Of course, in that case, as in this case, the success is measured by whether there is an emergency. It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of our quarantine laws, quarantine surveillance and quarantine enforcement. Given the stakes at risk, in many cases involving the survival of our primary industry, this matter deserves the full attention and energy of, and enforcement by, this Government. Furthermore, increased expenditure and a higher priority ought to be given in the area of coastal surveillance and, just as importantly, in regard to quarantine officers at airports. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(12.37) —I will say a few words on the Quarantine Amendment Bill and make the point that the present Government has moved quickly in many areas in the quarantine jurisdiction. In fact, I was surprised to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), say that he was concerned that the Government had not carried out its election pledge to transfer quarantine services to the Department of Primary Industry. I have no doubt that, if he had spoken to his colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) before he spoke, he would have realised that the honourable member for Mackellar and his predecessor, as Ministers for Health, grappled with this question for a number of years. The previous speaker's party was unable to come to any decision about transferring the quarantine service from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry after it had considered it for a number of years. The present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett ) has a submission before him regarding the matter and at least he has become active on the matter within 12 months. So it is rather carping criticism on the part of the Opposition to say that within the first 12 months in government we have not transferred a problem that it had had for many years. I address myself also to a matter raised by the previous speaker regarding the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory. The situation is that the current Government is now seeking to resolve that problem. The Government set up an expert committee chaired by Professor Frank Fenner, to view the future functions of ANAHL. The committee recommended that there should be a reduction in the size of ANAHL's operations and that it should not manufacture vaccines, as had originally been planned. Also, there is to be a sharing of financial responsibilities for ANAHL. Fifty per cent of the financial responsibilities will be shared by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and 50 per cent by the Department of Primary Industry. The Fenner report was adopted with minor administrative changes by the ministerial committee on ANAHL and a Cabinet decision on ANAHL's future may be expected shortly. I think that that action shows that the present Government has taken an extremely responsible approach to matters dealing with animal health, with the prevention of importation of animal related diseases and other diseases that could be affected by Australia's quarantine laws. Opposition speakers by implying that the Government has been rather tardy show that they do not really understand the situation at all. The present legislation which has been introduced by the Minister provides in the main for a substantial increase in the penalties that accrue to those who breach Australia's quarantine laws. Honourable members may be aware that the present penalty for conviction for breaches of quarantine laws is a maximum fine of $10,000 or a five-year gaol term for natural persons. The Government is proposing that that be increased to a $100,000 fine or a 10-year gaol term for natural persons and a $200,000 fine for corporations. People might ask why we need to have these rather extensive and expensive fines or gaol terms. Australia , fortunately, has been free of many animal diseases. It is important that we should do whatever we can to ensure that there is no importation of diseases such as bluetongue-of which we have a little-or foot and mouth disease. Australia earns quite significant export earnings from our livestock exports. Exports in the beef industry alone run to $1,500m per annum. The fact that Australia is free from foot and mouth disease gives our export markets a competitive edge compared with other countries such as Argentina, which has foot and mouth disease. I have no doubt that it is of great importance to the primary producers of this country that we should ensure that Australia remains free from foot and mouth disease. The importation of those types of diseases is more likely to occur inadvertently by tourists than by any corporation or organisation attempting to import meat or other goods that could carry those diseases. The main area of detection of the importation is of tourists at airports and seaports. I have no doubt that that would account for the fact that the recent penalties that have been imposed by the courts under the quarantine legislation have raised fines of approximately $5,000. No one seems to remember when a gaol sentence was ever handed down for an offence under the quarantine legislation. We ought to be looking today at two things. The first is the size of the fines which will no doubt be a deterrent. The second, however, is a matter raised by my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) regarding a community education program so that people know the reasons behind Australia's quarantine legislation. The Department is moving in the area of providing pamphlets in foreign languages for tourists coming to Australia. The Department is attempting to detect, where possible, tourists who may be inadvertently importing goods which can cause the spread of disease. The main area of danger is the importation of food stuffs, particularly meats and dried meats, such as salamis. The Department probably needs to have a closer look at its education program. There is a greater need for the pamphlets that are handed out on aircraft to be printed in languages that are more appropriate to the originating port of the aircraft. I make that criticism not only in the area of quarantine legislation, but also of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which falls foul of the same issues. We could also ask our national carrier, Qantas Airways Ltd, to take a more responsive approach as well. Many tourists who enter Australia feel that they are suffering undue inconvenience by our quarantine requirements. We could make a good start, at least in relation to Qantas, if the Minister made an approach direct to Qantas or through the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) to ensure that when Qantas announces over the aircraft's public address system that people must fill out the forms it tells them why they must do it and explains the reason for the penalties. I think we would then find a little more co-operation from tourists. I am of the firm view that the same thing ought to be done in the immigration area. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the Prime Minister's call, during his recent Asian tour, for the restructuring of Australian industry. Dr Theophanous —Hooray; at last you are asking a question about it. Mr PEACOCK —Would you like to add to it also, Andrew? Would you like to join me in the question? Mr Hawke —No, one Andrew is enough. Mr PEACOCK —I think Andrew is having as much trouble with you as he is with me. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will continue with his question. Mr PEACOCK —Why is the Government proposing to amend the Trade Practices Act to impose severe limitations on mergers, thus making the rationalisation of high cost industries in Australia harder, which will, therefore, have the effect of impeding the very restructuring the Prime Minister has recently extolled? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Speaker-- Mr Peacock —Don't tell him, Bob. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It would be helpful if somebody told the Leader of the Opposition how to ask a good question. I think everybody agrees that there will be structural adjustment in all countries. It is happening because of technology changes and consideration of what should be applied in an intelligent industry policy. The difficulty of previous governments has been that people such as those opposite have relied just on tariffs to try to work the magic mechanism of structural adjustment. It has not happened. I have noticed from recent statements of the Leader of the Opposition that he has been adopting the appearance of a protectionist all of a sudden whereas his questions in this House had always been related to the fact that he felt there should not be any protection at all. Mr Peacock —Not me. You thought I was the greatest free-trader in the Parliament . Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, and I have never been wrong to date. The question though, in all seriousness, is this. Mr Peacock —Will you make up your mind? What am I? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a big problem for the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether he is coming or going. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will not answer the supplementary questions and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to desist. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I apologise for the levity. The question is serious and it relates to the matter of mergers and the Trade Practices Act. Of course, it is well known that at times there are mergers which become monopolistic and, therefore, prevent the very purpose of trade-prevent its being free, fair and unfettered. If a company takes the monopolistic attitude that it can dominate the market from production right through to retail, of course, the consumer does not benefit. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I notice the distinguished colleague of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, laughing. Of course, he had a lot to do with what he called strengthening the Trade Practices Act. Mr Howard —No, I freed it up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member freed it up to the extent that it is no longer workable! On that basis the Attorney-General quite fairly is having to look at the problems that face consumers and others in Australia to see whether they will bear the burden of what are called monopolistic practices. The idea that international concerns can dominate a market to the detriment of the consumer is a valid criterion that should be looked at by an intelligent Trade Practices Commission. I assure the honourable gentleman that there is no conflict between structural adjustment and mergers. Both have the objective of guaranteeing that the market is fair, that the consumer gets the benefit of it and that the private enterprise sector has an opportunity to flourish in an atmosphere that is fair and unfettered. Mr CHARLES —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the significant rise in next year's Budget outlays projected in the forward Estimates, will the Government be able to reduce personal income taxation in the Budget, particularly for low and middle income earners, while at the same time reducing the Budget deficit? Mr HAWKE —As I made clear in the House yesterday, the Government will be working towards and will achieve a responsible reduction in the deficit for next financial year. At the same time we will be looking at the scope for significant reductions in direct personal income tax, particularly for lower and middle income earners. Clearly, achieving both those objectives will not be an easy task and will certainly require stringent decisions in regard to expenditure. But the important point is that we will be equal to that task and we will not shirk those decisions which are necesssary to pursue responsible economic management. That is in contrast to the completely opportunistic game being played on the other side of the House, so bad that in respect of the Leader of the Opposition one journalist has been led to say that he has at least a $2 billion credibility gap. At the same time as the Opposition calls for reductions in the deficit it is supporting expenditure on totally unrealistic and uneconomic programs such as the Alice Springs-Darwin railway project and its wish to buy an aircraft carrier. It is no wonder that in these circumstances there is talk about at least a $2 billion credibility gap. I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition has called for reductions in the personal income tax burden. Mr Porter —Hear, hear! Mr HAWKE —The honourable member says 'Hear, hear!', but as soon as this Government indicates that it has sympathy with the prospect for and will work towards personal income tax reductions, what do we get from the spokesman from the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer? I remind the House of what the shadow Treasurer said on 19 March on AM: I think if the Government is faced with a choice between giving a tax cut of, say, $1 billion and having a deficit that is a billion dollars lower than it might otherwise be, I think it ought to choose the latter. There is the shadow Treasurer talking about the possibility of tax cuts. He said : 'No, we would rather have a billion dollar reduction in the deficit'. We are talking in a hypothetical situation, but I challenge the shadow Treasurer, in the unlikely event that he will be in government after the next election-- Mr Tuckey —I challenge you to tell us what you are going to do. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. He seems to be at his most vocal just after 2 o'clock on every day of sitting. Mr HAWKE —In the unlikely event that those opposite had the opportunity, would they repeal the tax cuts brought in by a Labor government? That is the question one has to face up to if one is talking about tax cuts. The Opposition is in total disarray in this fundamental area. Members of the Opposition are opposing one another. The Leader of the Opposition talks about tax cuts. The shadow Treasurer says no. In respect of the fundamental issue of wage policy, the shadow Treasurer has one policy and the relevant shadow Minister has another. As far as the economic capacity of the Opposition is concerned, we know what it left us with. These are the things it left this country with. First of all, it left us with a $9.6 billion deficit. Honourable members opposite left us with an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent. In their last year of office they left us with an increase of a quarter of a million in unemployment. That is what they left us with. They left us with a wages explosion. They left us with an explosion in industrial disputation. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I realise that most of the exchange seems to be fairly good humoured, but the level of noise is becoming far too high, and unreasonable. Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite had no credibility when they were in government; they have even less credibility in Opposition. That is the reason that they will stay where they are now, in opposition, for the next 20 years. Mr PEACOCK —On a question of further bipartisanship in this Parliament, I direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister again. In welcoming the Government's likely change of direction towards liberalising exports of uranium, and recognising the widespread confusion within the industry, I ask whether the Government will encourage likely exporters immediately to enter into negotiations to secure valuable long term contracts for an industry, the uranium industry, that an increasing number of members of this House now see as vital to the nation's future. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the Leader of the Opposition would know, the question of contracts for uranium is at present awaiting the survey of that industry by Professor Slatyer who is reviewing the whole of the concepts of the uranium industry, from the question of production to reprocessing and to waste disposal. On that basis, the Government is entitled to get expert advice, and that report should be available before June this year. In the light of that report, the Government will be able to make firm decisions as to its uranium policy. The interesting thing about uranium at present is the spot price. It is down below $ 20, which is well below the contract price of our existing contractors. So any contract in the market at present, because of the floor price indicated by previous governments as well as by our own, is well above the market price. On that score, the question of new contracts is not really a pressing matter. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aviation and concerns air fares. Is the Minister aware of some newspaper articles which have appeared in Western Australian publications critical of the Government's newly- announced tourist air fares? Is it true that the newly-announced fares are as cheap as 8c a kilometre? Is it a fact that residents of Western Australia are limited to travel within their own State by the new fares? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. I have seen the articles to which he refers. They seem to be based on inaccurate information in the first instance, at least in part provided by the Opposition spokesman on tourism, and on a lack of awareness generally of the potential for adding other means of transport to the proposed holiday tours. What the airlines have done, under some pressure from the Government, is to introduce fares permitting a cost as low as 8c per kilometre. That cost compares very favourably with taxis, hire cars, the Indian-Pacific and even some bus fares. The Royal Automobile Club in Perth, for example, calculates that a small car costs about 30c per kilometre to run. Western Australians can get to the eastern States using the $500 fare, contrary to what has been suggested in the articles to which the honourable gentleman refers, and they have an enormous range of options in regard to the $ 800 fare. I cite a couple of examples under both. For example, under the $500 fare they could fly Perth-Darwin-Alice Springs-Perth at a saving of $272 on the price. Using another means of transport, for example, they could fly Perth to Melbourne and on to Launceston, and catch a boat back to Melbourne and fly home via Adelaide for a saving of $297. Or they could use the $800 fare, under which it is possible to fly Perth-Alice Springs-Sydney-Gold Coast - Melbourne - Launceston - Melbourne- Adelaide-Perth, for a saving on air fares of $626. On the basis of that, the Opposition spokesman on tourism and some irresponsible sections of the media in Western Australia addressing this issue have lent themselves completely to misleading the general public on that matter. For people who wish to go only to one city, as I have mentioned before, there has been that 45 per cent discount introduced earlier, and some 50,000 Western Australians have already taken advantage of it. The fact of the matter is that, in pressure to provide cheaper air fares for the travelling public to serve the interests of tourism, no government in recent history has done more than this Government to achieve those objectives. There is one other matter in those articles that I wish to correct. Again, it was attributed to the Opposition spokesman on tourism. He seemed to imply in his statements that these were Government directed air fares. It has never been claimed, either by myself or by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, that we are capable of issuing directives on air fares. Our position, persistently, has been that we have urged the airlines to undertake those air fares initiatives, and I would say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that our urgings have, to this point of time, been reasonably effective. But why are we in this position, where we are urging and not directing the airlines? We are in such a position because of the nature of the two airlines agreement. Who voted for that agreement when it came into this House, and who voted against it? Those who voted for it include the Opposition spokesman on tourism. Those who voted against it include both myself and our spokesman on tourism. I do not make a point of criticism of the operations of the Independent Air Fares Committee. It was one of the initiatives of the Government in that package of legislation which I thought had a great deal to recommend it. But when Opposition spokesmen decide to perambulate around cities criticising our tourism policy, alleging that there is a power in the hands of the Government that does not exist, I should be grateful if they have a degree of embarrassment about doing that, recognising the circumstances that place us in a position not to direct but only to advise and to cajole. It is a situation which was created entirely and, in this instance, given the Opposition spokesman's membership of the previous Parliament, personally by himself and his colleagues. Within the framework of what honourable members opposite left us to do on this matter, we have been very successful. I am grateful for the airlines' co- operation and their willingness to consider the propositions that have been put to them by, in particular, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and by myself. They have addressed in such a timely fashion some of the problems that are being experienced with air travel by our tourism industry. I hope that they will continue to do that. I do not think that either of us is fully satisfied with the operation of discount fares in Australia, but we must acknowledge that the airlines have addressed themselves to this problem in a very systematic way. The progress has been good to date-no thanks at all to any of the Opposition spokesmen on this matter. Mr HUNT —Is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade confident that the assurances given to him, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that Australia will maintain its share of the Japanese beef market and that Australia would not be disadvantaged as a result of the recent negotiations by the United States to gain a greater share of that market will in fact be honoured by Japan? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There is continual worry about the question of whether there can be an increase in the sale of beef as against maintaining the market share with Japan. The honourable gentleman would know, from his time in office in the period of dealing with Japan and selling beef, that the share of the market fell from 78 per cent to 70 per cent. In other words, during the honourable gentleman 's term of office there was a decline in the share of 8 per cent. Nevertheless, looking at the specifics of volume and the question of tonnage, it is found that the tonnage rose. So, whilst one can get an increase of beef into Japan, at the same time one can, as the honourable gentleman's experience showed, also lose one's market share, for this reason. Over a period, the Japanese have been negotiating with the Americans for a different type of beef-namely, grain-fed beef. The problem that the Australian producer has had has been trying to convince the Japanese authorities that Australia's grass-fed beef, its high quality beef, is as good as grain-fed beef. But it certainly does not meet that classification pursuant to quota. Accordingly, because the Japanese have been expanding their quota over and above the initial quota for what they call grain-fed beef, it has been impossible for the Australian producer to tender for that quality beef. That is the present problem we face. It appears that the Japanese are about to announce an increased quota in grain-fed beef. That, of course, will give an advantage to the United States of America. It will allow us to get some additional access but in the process we will not get 70 per cent, which is what we would need to hold our market share. We are very concerned about that matter. My colleague the Minister for Primary Industry and I have had discussions with the Japanese Ambassador on this issue. He said at the time, and we accept it as being right, that that was purely a matter of speculation in the Japanese Press. Nevertheless, the history of events from the time of the previous Government over a period of years shows that there is a tendency for the Japanese to encourage more grain-fed access than grass-fed access. Our attitude is that we should suggest to the Japanese that they deal with us on a fair and proper basis and that if there is to be an additional quota for the grain-fed beef they should allow the same percentage increase in the grass-fed quota so that we could at least tender for it. The honourable gentleman's question had a lot of veracity in the sense that I am not confident that the Japanese for the first time will now behave differently from the way in which they behaved in the time when honourable members opposite were in government. I think the tendency will still be to lean towards the pressure that comes from the United States market. The difficulty we face lies in convincing the Japanese that, having lost 8 per cent or more of the market, we are anxious to maintain the reduced market share of 70 per cent that we now have. The Japanese argue that we are getting more access anyway and we are able to sell more beef. That is the difficulty that we face. We do not accept it. As I said, we have already made representations to the Japanese Ambassador. Officials of my Department are in the process of going back to Japan to have immediate discussions as to whether that is the position and, if it is, why it should not be changed to guarantee that we can at least maintain our market share. Mr Peacock —I thought the Prime Minister said everything was all right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Everything is all right, but we are talking about beef- Mr Sinclair —It is not all right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the right honourable gentleman has a particular problem because he produces it. But the issue at the moment is that of the Japanese market, the Japanese consumer being always convinced by the Government authorities that the better beef to buy is the grain-fed one, when in our view, from the experience of our own producers, our high quality beef is as good as, if not better than, that being allowed into Japan. That is the argument. It is a question of the quality of beef. Mr Hunt —You are putting the pressure on then? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, we are putting the pressure on. If that were all that mattered we would be happy. Honourable members opposite may think that pressure is the thing that counts, but it did not count in their case, because we lost 8 per cent of the market in their period in office. There is no need to look surprised about it. The fact is that that happened. The point that honourable members opposite have to realise is that the Japanese consumer allegedly is expressing a preference for grain-fed beef as against grass-fed beef. That is a consumer's choice, if you like. All we want is the chance to compete in that market, to have access in the same quantities that are now being allowed. For example, if the Japanese are to allow another 6,500 tonnes of grain-fed beef to be imported we would like to say: 'Don't classify it as grain-fed, call it high quality beef, give us 70 per cent of the market and see whether the customer would not approve of it'. Mr MOUNTFORD —Can the Treasurer indicate the effect on the equity of the tax system of the Senate's rejection last night of the Government's legislation against superannuation tax avoidance schemes known as cherry picking or tontines ? Mr KEATING —The Opposition in the Senate was at it again last night doing its usual number, which is protecting the tax avoidance industry. Yesterday the combined Opposition-the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia, three Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine-joined together to defeat an element of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983, the measure which relates to the cherry picking schemes. That is the description of those schemes whereby the tax benefits which accrue in a superannuation fund for the benefit of the employees of that fund are taken away from, ripped off from, that fund by unscrupulous employers who either dismiss the employee or have his or her employment terminated before the benefit can become payable because the schemes are not subject to vesting. Yesterday we again heard all the phoney excuses about why the Liberals and Senator Harradine in particular could not support the measures. The Liberals said that they were not blatant enough-that was their fall back position-and Senator Harradine tried to claim that the Australian Taxation Office would be ripping off money that should have gone to the employees. The fact is that these measures were always illegal. They operate in contravention of the rules of the superannuation funds by which the Commissioner of Taxation approves that benefits should accrue. Therefore, the only recourse left to the Commissioner was to wind up the funds after the rip off had taken place. Of course, there was no point in winding up the funds after the event. So now, as a result of last night's little performance in the Senate by the colleagues of the former Treasurer, we now have no Bill, no legislation, in respect not only of retrospectivity but also of prospectivity relating to these superannuation schemes. Let me make it clear that when the Bill returns to the House of Representatives it will of course have in it other elements which the Government thinks it is important to have carried into law. Therefore, we will accept it with the amendment which the Senate has introduced, but we will then introduce another Bill, again containing that express provision. We will send that to the Senate and let Senator Harradine, if he must, trot out his argument again and let the Opposition face even greater scrutiny by the public and the Government as to why it believes that employers ought to be able to take the advantages of the tax system which were there for the benefit of employees and, by unscrupulous behaviour such as dismissing employees or terminating their employment before they are liable for a benefit, take those tax exempt benefits back into their own companies. The scheme is blatant. I referred in the House of Representatives debate to the judgment by Mr Justice Wootten in a case in New South Wales in which he referred in the most extravagant terms to the blatant quality of the scheme. Despite that , we find that the Liberals suggest that it is not blatant enough, they will not have a bar of the retrospectivity. Not only that, when the retrospectivity measure was carried last night, they decided to vote against the whole provision so that there is now no law, retrospective or prospective, in relation to these schemes. So we will accept the amendments, but we will be back with another Bill . We will put the focus back on members of the Opposition again for what they are-protectors and apologists for the tax avoidance industry. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. It is supplementary to the question asked earlier of the Prime Minister regarding the Budget deficit. Does the honourable gentleman recall the Prime Minister saying in New York on 16 June 1983 that a tax reduction given at the cost of a higher deficit would be of no value because of the inflationary and adverse growth consequences of that higher deficit? Will the honourable gentleman assure the House that the same approach will guide the Government's framing of this year's Budget, or has enough time elapsed since that earlier statement for the Government to feel able to repudiate it? Mr KEATING —That statement was made because of the disastrous fiscal inheritance left to us by the former Treasurer. He keeps coming back to the scene of the crime. He cannot stay away from the $9.6 billion deficit. It rankles him that he took off the award of champion liar for 1983 with the $9.6 billion deficit. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Treasurer to withdraw that remark. It is not parliamentary. Mr KEATING —I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. There was a massive deception of the public that there was indeed to be a $6 billion Budget deficit in prospect, whereas we found it to be $9.6 billion. The Prime Minister said in the course of the election campaign, on the Wednesday prior to the election, that if there were a greater level of fiscal deterioration than we believed in the course of the campaign we would have to review the question of a tax cut. It would have been, quite obviously in my terms and, I think, in the Prime Minister's and the Government's terms, irresponsible to have pushed the deficit out beyond those limits in 1983-84. What is quite obvious in contrast to that is that in 1984-85, with the tremendous level of growth which is now moving through the economy and the income surge which will flow from that, the cyclical element of the deficit will respond to that growth. Of course we will not be facing a financing task in 1984 -85 in any way akin- Mr Sinclair —So the prospective deficit is not too bad. Mr KEATING —Look, George, you have trouble balancing your own cheque book; don't talk about the Budget. The fact is that in 1984-85 we will not have a financing task the size of which we had in 1983-84. Not only was there a large deficit for policy reasons and because of the fiscal inheritence but also there was the massive level of capital inflow to which the Government had to attend in the course of the operation of its monetary policy. Quite obviously that bond- selling program will not be a feature of 1984-85.Part of the cyclical wind back in terms of the revenue will come to some extent from fiscal creep. That is not a description of the former Treasurer; it is a function of inflation on the tax system. Naturally, as incomes are inflated through the scales the revenue yield- - Opposition member interjecting- Mr KEATING —Mr Speaker, can I have some protection from the clowns on the front bench opposite? Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Treasurer not to invite interjections. As I indicated before, the level of noise is far too high and I will have to take action shortly. Mr KEATING —Some of that increase in revenue obviously will occur because of the inflation of income. I assume that the basis of the question by the former Treasurer is the suggestion that the Government stick to every dollar of bracket creep, fiscal drag, call it what you like; therefore, if we did we would have a net contraction in activity in the economy. Indeed if he is echoing the sorts of sentiments which have been echoed recently by others, of foolishly low Budget deficits, what we will have is a tremendous contraction of demand in the economy , which this Government will have no bar of. For that reason we do not accept the premise of the question. It is interesting that the former Treasurer is extolling the virtues of a lower Budget deficit at the expense of tax cuts while the Leader of the Opposition has been running around the country urging the Government to reduce taxes, dragging out his handkerchief for the crocodile tears being shed about the inflation of average weekly earnings into the 46 per cent bracket. Members of the Opposition should get their story straight. Either they believe in a tax cut or they do not . The Leader of the Opposition believes in a tax cut. The former Treasurer believes that there should be no tax cut but a lower deficit. Quite obviously members of the Opposition do not have any idea on fiscal policy, monetary policy , incomes policy or exchange rate policy. As the Prime Minister said earlier, we will be bringing down the Budget deficit and looking at the question of tax relief consistent with the budgetary flexibility available to us for a good outcome for growth in the economy in 1984-85. That is why we will be leaving the Opposition where it is now, firmly entrenched in opposition. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce inform the House of the details of the Government's recent changes to the Australian Manufacturing Council and the Government's action to form specific industry councils? In particular can the Minister explain the role which these councils will play in the development of the industry policy of the Government? Mr JOHN BROWN —It is true that the Minister for Industry and Commerce announced on Monday the formation of a new Manufacturing Council and 10 associated industry councils. Given the crisis that exists in the manufacturing industry in Australia after seven years of mismanagement by the alleged economic geniuses on the other side of the House, the need was absolutely imperative. In launching this new arrangement the Minister, Senator Button, spoke about this being the last chance for manufacturing industry in Australia. I think those words should be taken to heart by everybody who has an interest-I presume that is everybody in this House-in the future of manufacturing industry in Australia. This is the last chance for manufacturing industry to understand the ills that presently prevail. Because it had lost its competitive edge and it had not come to grips with technological change, the work force in manufacturing industry was declining and, as manufacturing industry is so important to Australia, something needed to be done. Who better to do it than the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button? Honourable members should all recall with some pleasure exactly what the honourable senator was able to do in formulating the steel plan. This is exactly what is required in manufacturing industry, to drag together all the disparate threads of this very important industry. I think it was a watershed for industry in Australia to find a government able to drag together industry, unions and the Government to form a plan that would revitalise the steel industry. The same will now happen in manufacturing industry generally. The Minister, in announcing the formation of the Manufacturing Council, referred to the previous Manufacturing Council as a wailing wall and a monumental irrelevancy. How right he was. The previous Manufacturing Council was really only a club where the investors could come along and complain about the lack of profitability. Never once did they consider that there were a lot of elements in manufacturing industry that needed uniting. I guess that has been the abiding influence of this Government. We have united Australia and we will do it to the manufacturing industry. The new Council will be much different from the last one. I will explain why to honourable members opposite if they will just listen. The objectives will be very simple: Firstly, to prepare some advice on manufacturing policy for the Government to promote increased co-operation among all elements of the manufacturing sector and to develop and help industry to implement solutions to major problems. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Surely the Minister is presenting a statement of government policy which could be done better at another time. Mr JOHN BROWN —It is very obvious that honourable members on the other side, after all their years of mismanagement, have no concern about the fact that an extraordinary number of Australians will gain employment from the manufacturing industry that they sought to destroy. What they should do is accept some responsibility for it. Mr Hodgman —Go and ask Laurie Carmichael. Mr JOHN BROWN —As for the honourable member for Denison interjecting about Laurie Carmichael, there is much more chance of Laurie Carmichael having some sort of good effect upon the promotion of jobs in Australia than the honourable member will ever have, with his constrained mentality. The Chairman of the new Council will be Mr John Ralph, a very distinguished Australian, who is the Chairman of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia and many other important companies. But what is important is that the Deputy Chairman will be Mr Fred Peterson from the Clothing and Allied Trade Union of Australia. Well may Opposition members laugh. That is the basis of their failure in government, the failure to realise that in any industry, be it manufacturing or other, there is not only one player; there are not only investors and management but also the unions and all the consumers to be concerned with. That was the abiding failure of the previous Government; it never took that into account. This Manufacturing Council will work because all of the components of that industry will have some say in how it works. There will be 10 industry councils consisting of a whole range of sections of the manufacturing industry. One of them will be chaired by Laurie Carmichael. Mr Hodgman —Comrade! Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member might refer to me as comrade. He does not even know what comrade means. He should look it up in the dictionary occasionally and he will find that it is not such an insulting term. The efforts of the Minister for Industry and Commerce not only in the steel industry but also in the manufacturing industry generally will be lauded with the effluxion of time because this very important part of Australian industry is in the depths of despair. But shortly it will be exactly as the steel industry is now a very short term after the steel plan came into operation and will be, once again, a profitable adornment to the Australian scene and a vehicle for great improvement in the Australian employment area. Mr DOBIE —My question is addressed to the honourable member for Mackellar with regard to the notice he has given of his intention to present a Bill for an Act to amend health legislation. Can the honourable member advise when his Bill is to be introduced into this House? Mr CARLTON —Thank you, Mr Speaker- Mr Hodgman —This will be the best answer we have received all day. Mr Young —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Burr —Do you want the standing order, Mick? Mr Young —I cannot speak while there are interjections. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member not to speak while there are interjections. When the House comes to order, I will take the Minister's point of order. Mr Young —The honourable member for Mackellar is not in charge of the order of business for this Parliament. I draw your attention to previous decisions given from the chair about questions of this nature. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The practice of the House is that questions may be asked of a member who is introducing a private member's Bill. They may not, however, presume that there is a second reading debate on that Bill. They may only ask questions such as whether it is likely to be introduced, when it is likely to be introduced, whether it is drafted and whether a copy is available. So the area on which he has questioned the honourable member is very restricted. I call the honourable member for Mackellar. Mr CARLTON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the honourable member for Cook for his timely question. He is referring to the Bill I tried to introduce yesterday into the House which would have had the effect of removing- Mr Young —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question is: When will the Bill be introduced? Mr SPEAKER —Yes. I am waiting to hear the honourable member's answer. Mr CARLTON —Mr Speaker, my remarks are made only to the timing of this matter. Mr SPEAKER —Your remarks will only be allowed to be made on the timing of the matter. Mr CARLTON —I understand fully. The honourable member for Cook is referring to the Bill I tried to introduce yesterday which would have had the effect of removing the objectionable section 17- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He is defying the ruling of the Chair. I call the honourable member for Petrie. Opposition members-Shame, shame! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Petrie. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. The honourable member for Mackellar is entitled to refer to the Bill and to answer the question that has been put to him. Mr SPEAKER —He is entitled to refer to the Bill. He is not entitled to refer to the causes for the Bill being introduced. That is exactly what the honourable member- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, he is entitled to refer to the Bill and the Bill is the matter of the question. The question was put to him with respect to identifying that which was before the House. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —How can he possibly respond unless he can identify the Bill? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman should read the House of Representatives Practice. The possibility of a member answering such a question is restricted. He is not entitled to put argument for the Bill into his answer. On those grounds, because the honourable member was discussing the reasons why the Bill was introduced-that is part of the argument-he is out of order. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question related to the introduction of the Bill. The words that the honourable member used in the introduction to his answer related to the introduction of the Bill and his endeavours yesterday to introduce it into the House. That is covered by the Standing Orders and, with great respect, you are wrong in your ruling today. Mr SPEAKER —With great respect, I am not wrong in my ruling. The practice in this matter is quite clear. If the answer to the question causes the member to enter into the reasons for the Bill, presupposing debate on the Bill, he is out of order. It is quite clear that the matter is restricted to whether the Bill will be introduced, whether the Bill has been drafted or whether the questioner could see a copy of the Bill. These are the sorts of questions which would be in order. Mr Carlton —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. May I refer to that aspect? I was trying very carefully to remain within those rules which I had read beforehand. Mr SPEAKER —I can assure the honourable member that he was not. Mr Carlton —I assure you, Mr Speaker, that I wish to give the honourable member for Cook a proper answer and will, if allowed by you-- Mr Young —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. There is no doubt that your ruling was quite correct. The honourable member for Mackellar started his answer by saying that 'the effect of the Bill will be'. They were his first words. You are entirely correct, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I have given a ruling. Mr Young —If the honourable member for Mackellar wants to put his answer in order, let the honourable member for Cook ask the question again tomorrow. Mr Sinclair —On the point of order, Mr Speaker, you will recall that in answer to a question put the year before last by the honourable member for Lilley a very similar matter was canvassed by the House. In exactly the same manner as my colleague now seeks to respond, a member of the then Opposition was asked to give a response which related exactly to the timing of introduction and conveyed the general area of the Bill before the House. I submit that this matter is exactly in accordance with that-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have made my ruling. I intend to proceed. Mr Peacock —This is an absolute-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Prime Minister. Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. Mr Peacock —I still take a point of order, whether we move on to another element of the business or not, because I submit to you that standing order 143 is rendered nebulous or negated by your very ruling today. Now either questions-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —can be addressed-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —I am speaking-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —You can call 'Order!'-- Mr SPEAKER —You can do what you like. I do not intend to have the ruling of the Chair defied. We will go on with the business. You will sit down or you will have to take other action. I call on the presentation of papers. Mr Peacock —Are you taking the point of order, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER —No, I am not taking the point of order. That matter is finalised. Mr Tuckey —Okay, let's get out of here. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Presentation of papers-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Trade. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I move dissent from your ruling. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has moved dissent from my ruling. He must submit his motion in writing. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.48) —Mr Speaker, I move: That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. I will put my motion in writing as I speak to you, Mr Speaker. I have moved dissent from your ruling for two reasons. The first reason is that by indicating to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) that he was in breach of the Standing Orders you effectively negated the question which was put to him quite legitimately under standing order 143. I will read that standing order to honourable members. Standing order 143 provides: Questions may be put to a Member, not being a Minister or an Assistant Minister , relating to any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House, of which the Member has charge. That standing order has been interpreted by successive Speakers to mean that a question can be put to the member concerned relating to the introduction or the timing, et cetera, that you, Mr Speaker, referred to when you were answering the point of order taken by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), the Special Minister of State, indicating that he was unaware of the standing order and seeking to prevent the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) from asking his question. I submit to honourable members that there is no way in which the honourable member breached that standing order in the short time that he was at this despatch box. The honourable member's remarks related solely to the endeavours to introduce a Bill which is, of course, of the greatest import to the people of this nation. He had not sought to debate it in any way whatsoever. He sought to relate the question to the timing of that Bill. Mr Speaker, you then sat him down. I then sought to take a point of order concerning you to indicate that by ruling in the manner in which you had you were, by precedent, preventing any question henceforth being put to the honourable member for Mackellar, or any other member who wanted to introduce a private member's Bill. Mr Speaker, with great respect, your job is to ensure that these Standing Orders provide protection for every member of this Parliament. Mr Speaker, you are here not to serve honourable members on your right hand side; you are here to serve the entire Parliament and by that, abide by the Standing Orders. There is a standing order that specifically provides for the sort of question asked by the honourable member for Cook, which had hardly been answered by the honourable member for Mackellar before he was ruled out of order. To rule me out of order for even drawing attention to this standing order is to make an absolute mockery of the Standing Orders and the conduct of this House. Either honourable members on my side of the House are able to draw attention to matters contained within the Standing Orders or they are not. Either they are able to utilise the Standing Orders that give them the opportunity to seek information formally in this House, or they are not. Mr Speaker, they are two matters you have to face. That I move this motion of no confidence is regrettable but I believe not only did you deny my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar the opportunity of answering his question but also you denied me the opportunity of putting my point of order in relation to standing order 143. The tragedy is that it has been the tendency of Speakers when giving rulings in this place to adopt the stance of the jurist and regard such a ruling as a precedent. I am not going to allow my colleagues to be ridden over in this way simply because this blabbermouth, the Special Minister of State, gets up and seeks to have the honourable member for Mackellar prevented from answering a question. I hazard the view that had the Special Minister of State not sought to prevent the honourable member for Mackellar from answering his question you, Mr Speaker, would not have ruled in the manner in which you did. I gained the impression, from the moment the Special Minister of State took his point of order and you, Mr Speaker, pointed out what the standing order was, you sought nevertheless to deny my colleague the right to answer the question. You definitely denied me the opportunity of raising a point of order. I will not delay the House any more other than to say that if this is a precedent for the further conduct of questions that are legitimately asked under this standing order you, Mr Speaker, are effectively negating that standing order. Mrs Child —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could the House know whether the Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion of dissent or a motion of no confidence? Mr SPEAKER —It is a motion of dissent from the ruling. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.56) —Mr Speaker, I second the motion of my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in moving dissent from your ruling. There is no more sacred right in this place than the opportunity for private members to ask questions without notice in accordance with the Standing Orders. The responsibility for interpreting the Standing Orders, in spite of the incipient creeps which we have just heard about, is to be determined by the arbitration which you, as Speaker of this place, exercise. The manner and form by which these questions are asked are laid down not only within the Standing Orders but also within Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. I draw the attention of honourable gentlemen and you, sir, to the application of standing order 143 in accordance with Pettifer's Parliamentary Practice as it is stated at pages 483 and 484. In particular, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the substance of the explanation on page 484, where it is said: Questions most often allowed have concerned private Members' bills listed as notices on the Notice Paper. Mr Speaker, of course that is a question which you properly allowed. The passage continues: However, if the answer to such a question would require the Member to anticipate what he might say in his second reading speech, the question is anticipating debate and is therefore out of order. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that there was nothing in what my colleague said that in any way canvassed the matter that he would put to this House in the second reading speech. What he was doing, at the time when you brought his answer to a close was identifying the Bill so that he could explain the reason why he believed it was essential that it should be introduced at the earliest possible time. We all know that it is important that when a member of this place introduces, as a representative of his constituents, a measure which seeks to draw to an end the first ever strike by medical practitioners in this country-a Bill which is directed to enabling this Government properly to introduce a Medicare proposal taking into account the rights of private patients-that is a matter which certainly should be answered in a question of the order of that asked by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). It is imperative that the rights of a private member answering a question in accordance with standing order 143 be protected by you, as the occupant of the chair. It is an area where obviously the honourable member, in responding to the question, needs to be able to refer to the Bill that he sought to introduce yesterday. The question did not in any way require him to canvass his second reading speech. It was necessary for him to identify the reason for urgency of the Bill, the character of the Bill, and hence to give an answer to the question . The question asked when the Bill was to be introduced. Why was it necessary for him to state that? It was necessary because there is at the moment a first ever strike by medical practitioners because this Government and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) have made such a mess of their introduction of a scheme which at the moment is causing every taxpayer in Australia to pay a levy of one per cent of his income without the scheme being there. The Bill relates to the setting up of circumstances whereby that problem can be rectified. Dr Theophanous —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the National Party is out of order. He is not debating the reasons for the motion of dissent. He is attempting in this issue to debate-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I think the point of it all is best illustrated by the precedent at page 625 of the House of Representatives Hansard. Mr Speaker, you have of course, in the exercise of your function, to bear in mind precedents set by those who have sat in the chair before you. I draw your attention to House of Representatives Hansard of 16 March 1976 and a question asked by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr E.G. Whitlam. Pursuant to standing order 143 he asked the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)-who coincidentally happens to be the Leader of the House-a question relating to his notice of motion for General Business Thursday No. 1. Without repeating the question, I note that it did relate to a Bill introduced by the honourable gentleman concerning an electoral Bill of which he had given notice for the next General Business day. It is interesting if we read the debate to note the points of order taken by Mr Whitlam following the definition by then Speaker Snedden with respect to the terms of questions that might be asked. Mr Whitlam said, at page 626: Mr Speaker, may I ask the honourable gentleman whether the Bill as he is drafting it will cover the public disclosure of funds available to political parties and candidates from trust funds established overseas? Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Mr YOUNG —The proposed section of the legislation will be identical with that introduced-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman is now anticipating the debate. Mr YOUNG —Perhaps I could just give the House an incident that would be covered- - Mr SPEAKER —No, the honourable gentleman is not entitled to give an instance. Mr YOUNG —Of course, all donations and all funds, set up in any manner, from which a candidate or political party would receive a donation would be covered by the proposed legislation. Mr Speaker, what the now Leader of the House, the then honourable member for Port Adelaide in opposition, was doing was responding to an even greater degree than the honourable member for Wentworth sought to do with respect to a Bill of which he gave notice yesterday. The Bill of which he gave notice yesterday needs to be identified in accordance with the question that was put to him by the honourable member for Cook. Mr Speaker, unless you are able to allow a member who has moved a motion relating to a private member's Bill to identify, as the now Leader of the House the then honourable member for Port Adelaide did, the Bill to which the question relates, it is quite impossible for standing order 143 to have effect. The reason why the Leader of the Opposition moved this motion of dissent, Mr Speaker, is that this is a fundamental area involving the rights of members of this Parliament. If you, as Speaker, deny a member the right to answer a perfectly proper question, as interpreted by Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice and as interpreted by your predecessors, no substance can be given to the Standing Orders of this place. The Standing Orders of this place are designed to allow a member to introduce a private member's Bill and to give notice of that. In this instance my colleague sought to bring to the attention of the Parliament, in answer to a question regarding the timing of that Bill, the difficulties which face the medical profession, patients and taxpayers. The Bill is designed to relieve all the people in the constituency, for which the honourable member for Cook and indeed all of us are responsible, of a concern as to when the medical practitioners' strike will end and when it may be possible for proper negotiations to be entered into by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) with the medical practitioners. The difficulty in this matter arises because the Minister for Health has not properly set up the terms within which ordinary negotiations can take place. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party is now using this motion to go far beyond the question of dissent from my ruling. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, the point of it all is that in order to answer the honourable gentleman's question my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar sought to identify the terms of his private member's Bill. He was not anticipating a second reading debate but anticipating the circumstances of public concern which necessitated the introduction of his Bill at the earliest possible time. The character of his answer was not in any way anticipating the second reading debate. The character of his answer was to explain why the Bill had to be introduced at an early time. Mr Speaker, unless you are able to identify that Bill, as did the present honourable member for Port Adelaide who is now wearing another hat, it becomes quite impossible for standing order 143 to have any substance at all. Mr Speaker, the reason for the Opposition moving a motion of dissent from your ruling is not because we believe that in most areas you have not exercised true impartiality in the exercise of your functions; it is because this is one of the fundamental rights of members of this Parliament. Standing order 143 gives the Opposition the only right to introduce legislation about matters of public concern. Standing order 143 was taken advantage of by the honourable member for Mackellar in order to introduce a piece of legislation to resolve a public difficulty caused by the Minister for Health and contributed to by every member of the Government. It is the only way that honourable members on this side of the House can find a way to resolve the present medical practitioners' dispute. It is only by introducing a Bill, such as that to which the honourable gentleman 's question relates, that there is a possibility of an early resolution of the difficulties between private practitioners and the Government. It is only by replying to questions relating to that Bill that the honourable gentleman can give an answer to the honourable member for Cook. Mr Speaker, I suggest that the ruling you have just given not only goes against the meaning of our Standing Orders, not only goes against the interpretation of the House of Representatives Practice as defined in the volume to which I have referred, but also goes against precedents which have been laid down even as recently as 16 March 1976 by Mr Speaker Snedden relating to the present Leader of the House. Mr Speaker, in all of those circumstances I submit that you were wrong in your ruling. It is essential that standing order 143 be interpreted in a proper form and that those on either side of the House who introduce a private member's Bill can properly identify it for answering a question relating to the time of its introduction. Unless that can be done, standing order 143 has no meaning and Government members are able to deny properly members of the Opposition exercising the function which the Standing Orders are directed, and were framed, to permit. I have no hesitation in suggesting that every member of this House, who genuinely seeks to represent the interests of his electorate, and genuinely wants to take advantage of the Standing Orders which were introduced to try to protect every member of the House, and every constituent, take note of the consequences of the ruling you have just made, Mr Speaker. It is essential that members of this place are able to respond properly by identifying such Bills and by giving an answer to questions asked of them. Mr Speaker, your ruling prevents that. I suggest the only recourse we have is to do as the Leader of the Opposition has just done and move a motion of dissent from your ruling. On the basis of that I suggest, Mr Speaker, that you reconsider precedents and reconsider Petiffer's House of Representatives Practice and accept that in this instance you have been wrong. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State and Leader of the House)(3.12) —Mr Speaker, I, on behalf of the Government, enthusiastically and energetically support your ruling. It is pretty obvious that the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) has been a defendant much more than he has been a prosecutor, judging from the case he presented to the Parliament this afternoon. As the former Speaker has been drawn into the debate let me say this: The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) ran to the Library to see whether I had ever been able-- Mr Hodgman —And I found it. Mr YOUNG —But like most things the honourable member does, he found only 50 per cent because I had been asked two questions. Some years ago we were rather amazed because the stupidity of the then Government allowed Mr Bungey the right to ask me a question as the member who had introduced a Bill on electoral reform . The Speaker at the time allowed me to answer it in full. Mr Sinclair —Precisely; that is two precedents. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member should wait just a minute. As the then Opposition was rather amazed at the Speaker's ruling in allowing me to answer the question we decided to try it again. We were not quite so successful the next time, because by then the Speaker had ruled that the Parliament would get out of hand if members of the Opposition were able to introduce unknown numbers of Bills and then ask each other questions about it. So, he decided that he would put a clamp on the practice. However, something of equal importance which history will have to judge is: Who was the smarter person; me or Sir Billy Snedden? I got away with a little bit and Sir Billy let it go. The other matter that I think we should take into account is the parting speech of Sir Billy. He said he did not want to be here to influence the present Speaker. He left the Parliament so that this Speaker would not be influenced by precedents which may have been set by him. I do not know whether Sir Billy Snedden was part of the scheme whereby I was asked a question when I was a shadow Minister responsible for electoral reform. Certainly in the first instance which has not been referred to by the Opposition today I was allowed to give a very full answer and that is why the then Opposition tried to do it again , but that time we were not so successful. Of course, the Parliament has learnt a lot since then. The Government does not challenge at all the right, as the Standing Orders provide, for the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) to direct his question today to the honourable member for Mackellar. However, we on this side of the House do know the tactics. Mr Sinclair —You took a point of order to it. Mr YOUNG —I took a point of order and the Speaker ruled there was no point of order. I accepted that. The Opposition wants to know when the Bill will be introduced; it will be introduced next time it wins government, which is a long time away. So I accepted the Speaker's first ruling about the order of business. But I did not accept that the honourable member for Mackellar, the shadow Minister for Health, could then start to proceed into debate. There was no doubt as to the tactic of the Opposition. There was no reason for us to disbelieve that the question just happened to be asked three minutes before the end of Question Time so that 10 or 15 minutes could be taken up by the shadow Minister for Health telling us all about what should have been his second reading speech. The Leader of the National Party of Australia reads through House of Representatives Practice, but the emphasis should be on the description of what is allowed in the House of Representatives. House of Representatives Practice states: Questions most often allowed have concerned private Members' bills listed as notices on the Notice Paper. We accepted that when the Speaker ruled so today. It continues: However, if the answer to such a question would require the honourable member to anticipate what he might say in his second reading speech, the question is anticipating debate and is therefore out of order. The first words spoken by the honourable member for Mackellar were something about a clause 17. He was going to go on to tell us about the impact of the Bill . If that is not anticipating debate, back to all the campuses for all honourable members opposite. They will all have to do a bit of study on what is debate. That was the tactic being adopted by the Opposition today. Our good friend the honourable member for Cook has a big grin on his face. He knew what it was all about. He is thinking: 'I wish we could have got away with it, but we will have to think up another tactic'. We are not going to allow our Speaker to be embarrassed in the manner-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I suggest that it is a reflection on the Chair to use an expression such as 'our Speaker', that you are accepting a subjugation to one side of this place. It is totally against the precepts of the high office which you hold and I suggest that the honourable gentleman be asked to withdraw that inference. Mr SPEAKER —I believe that any member of the Parliament can refer to me as 'our Speaker'. If the right honourable member wishes to make inferences from it, I cannot stop him. He will do so whether or not it is said by members of this House. I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, this is a day of good rulings. Of course I was speaking for the whole House; who thought otherwise? How else could one refer to such an esteemed person but as 'our Speaker'? I referred to the honourable member for Kooyong as our Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER —I invite the Leader of the House to continue with the debate. Mr YOUNG —The only bloke I will not take on board is the Leader of the National Party. Mr Hodgman —You think you are in the soup. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will not be in it in a moment. I make an appeal to the House. It is a difficult situation for a Speaker when a motion of dissent from his ruling has been moved. It makes it very difficult to control the behaviour of the House at that stage. I think that out of respect for the office, if not me, some silence should be observed during this debate. I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, no one in this Parliament could take a question such as this as seriously as those of us on this side of the House who had to sit opposite for seven years. People in this House will understand that if a procedure being pushed by the Opposition were to become practice in this House of Representatives the Opposition would become almost totally in charge of the business of the House. Obviously the people of Australia have decided that the Government should be made up of Australian Labor Party members. We are in charge of the business of the House. The Standing Orders, which are laid down and carried out by each respectively elected Speaker, are there to see that government programs can be carried out while taking into account specific purposes for private members' activities, whether they concern grievances, private members' Bills, Question Time, the adjournment debate or whatever else it may be. All these things have been sorted out. While they are looked at from time to time there are certain rights in the House for individual members. There may not be enough. That might be an argument that has been held in this Parliament since Federation. It may be an argument which will go on. I am sure that a lot of frustration is felt in this House by many honourable members when they serve in Opposition about the way they think they are participating in the government of Australia. But one cannot do it in the way the Opposition attempted to do it today. The sad thing about this exercise is that when the Opposition was caught out it had to move dissent from the ruling of the Speaker, who is entirely right on this question. There can be no doubt that once the shadow Minister for Health started talking about clause 17 and the impact of the Bill he was moving to an area to anticipate debate. That is what the gimmick today was all about. The Opposition anticipated using the last 10 or 15 minutes of Question Time to employ that tactic. Then, of course the Opposition moved dissent. It should not do that so lightly because it knows that it is going to be knocked over on a question such as this. But the Opposition did so in order that the speakers moving dissent-the mover and seconder-could then take on board the argument about Medicare. As the Leader of the National Party said today: 'All we are trying to do today is to protect all the patients throughout Australia wherever they may be'. So he gets his words in about what he is trying to do. He gets his five or 10 minutes worth. Eventually Opposition members are able to use this tactic. It might mean that further on down the track today, they will lose some other business, but we will just have to look at that in terms of the timetable. I have always found when I sat on the other side of the House and watched the Leader of the House that one of the great talents of the Leader of the National Party was that role. There is no doubt that one of the great leaders of this House since Federation has been the present Leader of the National Party when he was in government. I have learnt a lot from him. But it has only been from practices in the House. From the experience I had in regard to the questions that were asked of me as the shadow Minister for electoral reform, had this tactic been attempted after those occasions in this House, I have absolutely no doubt what the ruling of Sir Billy Snedden would have been. I entirely concur with the ruling that you have given today, Mr Speaker. It is entirely within the proper practice of this House. I move: That the question be now put. Mr SPEAKER —In accordance with precedent, I will respond to the motion of dissent before proposing the question that the question be now put. I respond because I take the Standing Orders very seriously. Until the debate started I was uncertain what ruling was being dissented from. I gather that the ruling that the answer of the honourable member for Mackellar was out of order is the ruling which is being dissented from. I use the two arguments that have been put before the House. I quote from page 484 of House of Representatives Practice: Questions most often allowed have concerned private Members' bills listed as notices on the Notice Paper. However, if the answer to such a question would require the Member to anticipate what he might say in his second reading speech, the question is anticipating debate and is therefore out of order. A question asking when the bill would be introduced, whether the bill has been drafted or whether the questioner could see a copy of the bill would be in order. It was on those grounds that the question was asked. I will allow my ruling to rest on the Hansard record of what the honourable member for Mackellar said. I am sure that it will uphold the ruling I gave. I acknowledge that the Leader of the National Party has mentioned a precedent. It is a precedent with which, I must admit, the honourable member for Port Adelaide went a little further than I would have allowed him but where eventually Speaker Snedden said: Order! The honourable gentleman is proceeding beyond the bounds of the Standing Orders. I ask the honourable gentleman to resume his seat. This was in accordance with my ruling. I think I should respond to the question of points of order. I think honourable members would accept that I allowed a reasonable number of points of order on this matter in order to clarify it. Speakers, in practice in this Parliament and others, do place a limit on the number of points of order when they go beyond reason. That was why I refused to accept further points of order and why I tried to carry on with the business of the House, until the motion for dissent was moved. I rest on that statement. The question is: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. Lusher, S. A.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Newman, K. E.Carlton, J. J. O'Keefe, F. L.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Morrison, W. L.Duffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Fry, K. L. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Steedman, A. P.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Macphee, I. M. Jacobi, R.Drummond, P. H. Cunningham, B. T.Millar, P. C. O'Neil, L. R. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Corporate Affairs Commission of the Australian Capital Territory for the years 1982-83. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, I present the annual report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 for the year ended 30 June 1983, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House I present a Green Paper report entitled 'Trade Practices Act-Proposals for Change', together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969, I present the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee annual report for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act during the year ended 30 June 1983. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship during 1981-82. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee of Review into the completion of Launceston general hospital and the hospital development needs of northern Tasmania. The report, as the House would be aware, was released during the recess. A committee of Tasmanian and Commonwealth departmental officers has been established to examine the report and to advise on the most appropriate course of action. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —On behalf of my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and pursuant to section 14 of the River Murray Waters Act 1983, I present the River Murray Commission annual report for 1983. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 42 (3) of the National Gallery Act 1975, I present the Australian National Gallery annual report for 1982-83. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that the honourable member for Higgins claims to have been misrepresented. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed with his personal explanation. Mr SHIPTON —Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) when answering a question in the House today about the new domestic air fares. The Minister for Aviation made a number of references to me, saying that I had been quoted in Western Australian newspapers as criticising those fares and that my criticisms were incorrect. I assume that the Minister for Aviation was referring to the West Australian newspaper of Tuesday, 27 March when the manager of Trans Australia Airlines was quoted as saying that the $500 air pass was somewhat limited for Western Australia. The Minister for Aviation made a number of references. He was not specific in what he said against me. He purported to prove me incorrect by citing figures and comparisons with the existing fares before the announcement and the reduced fares. I have not had the advantage of being able to check his figures. But I do not believe he was comparing like with like and I do not believe he was referring to the previous APEX fare or the flexi-fare. He was referring to the normal economy fare and not the discounted fare. In criticising me he also pointed out that people from the east could travel to Western Australia. He made no reference in his answer to the point I had raised, that the economy of Western Australia will not be able to benefit by people from the east and other States going to that State because it is not possible under the program for people to travel in Western Australia. As I understand it, the policy of Ansett Airlines of Australia as announced for the new air fares-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is starting to debate matters rather than correct how he has been misrepresented. Mr SHIPTON —I am grateful to you for pointing that out, Mr Speaker. The Minister did attack me. He did say that I was incorrect as quoted in that article in the Western Australian newspapers. It is quite clear that under the announced policy towns such as Albany, Geraldton, Derby, Broome, Wyndham, Katanning, Learmonth and Kalgoorlie are not able to be covered under Ansett's interpretation of the new air fares. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister wishes to make a personal explanation? Mr BEAZLEY —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr BEAZLEY —I have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) in the remarks he has just made. He maintains that I made criticisms of him that I did not make. I made two specific criticisms of him: Firstly, criticisms with regard to the extent to which he had in his statement connected the Government with effectively a directional capacity in relation to air fares and, secondly, criticisms of remarks he made that the air fares had virtually wiped Western Australia and South Australia off the tourist map. A reference to the particular article would demonstrate that I was quite correct in making those two claims. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is now starting to debate the subject. Mr BEAZLEY —It was quite evident from his statements reported in the article that he had made the point that he believed that the Government was effectively in a directional capacity. Mr Porter —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It is quite clear that the Minister has pointed out where he believes he has been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker is quite right in his point of order. I ask the Minister to round off in explaining where he has been misrepresented. Mr BEAZLEY —I accept that point. In failing to recognise the fact that I was referring to those two points and referring to other matters which I did not canvass, he was incorrect. In implying that I was referring to the situation solely in regard to the 45 per cent discount, he was incorrect. The reference I made in my answer to the $626 saving available on one of those $800 tickets and the $300 saving available on the $500 ticket was perfectly accurate and his claim that I was inaccurate on that was misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may make a personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —Thank you very much. During Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quoted from a transcript of an AM interview that I had done on 19 March 1984 on the question of the Budget deficit and tax cuts. Mr Young —St Joseph's Day. Mr HOWARD —I am indebted to my Marist friend for telling me that. Mr SPEAKER —I invite the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to take notice of such interjections. I have given him indulgence to explain where he has been personally misrepresented. Mr Porter —A bit of humour won't go astray. Mr HOWARD —It certainly will not. The Prime Minister sought to establish the difference between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and me on the question of taxation cuts. What I said was that if at the end of the day one was faced with a choice between a reduction in the size of the deficit and giving a tax cut, one should give priority to a reduction in the size of the deficit, particularly having in mind the prospective size of next year's deficit. I do not retreat from that in any way. But what the Prime Minister did not do was to further quote from the interview I had on the AM program which I quote now for the benefit of the House and which puts into full context the remarks I made and establishes that the Prime Minister selectively quoted from what I said and, therefore, misrepresented me. I quote: But if you are asking me from an economic point of view what is the better thing to do quite clearly the better thing to do is to give a greater priority to reducing the deficit and if the Government wishes on top of that to give taxation cuts then it should cut further into its own expenditures to find the room. I stand fully by those remarks. There is no conflict between the Leader of the Opposition and me. The Prime Minister has misled the House and has misrepresented my position. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented in two instances. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may make a personal explanation in both instances. Mr HAYDEN —Thank you. In the Bulletin which became available today in an article by F.A. Mediansky he says, inter alia: At one point in the talks he-- That is, Hayden- reportedly claimed to see 'light at the end of the tunnel'. I quote exactly from the transcript of the Press conference of the 14th instant, which is the only occasion on which I referred to this matter. I was answering a question, and I quote: Mr Hayden: I think you can talk to Mr Thach because he did use the figure of speech that there is now some light at the end of the tunnel-not a particularly appropriate metaphor where Vietnam is concerned, or is it? It is most unfortunate that Mediansky persevered with that claim in his statement in the light of the fact that before the Bulletin was published and in the course of last week he was advised by a senior and responsible officer of my personal staff that I did not make such a statement; the statement was made by Mr Thach. The other misrepresentation concerns the Age newspaper of this morning, an article by Richardson and Davis on page 1, under the heading 'Big Viet attack under way on border: Bangkok'. The portion to which I refer is as follows: Vietnam's failure to mount a dry season offensive so far this year in the Kampuchean-Thai border area- I shall break the quotation for the sake of brevity- . . . have been held out by Mr Hayden and other supporters of a settlement . . . as an indication of Vietnam's desire to move towards a settlement of the Kampuchean issue and Vietnam's military withdrawal from the country. I did not say such a thing either explicitly or implicitly. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —by leave-After the election of this Government 12 months ago, we addressed the question of how we should deal with lobbyists who seek to represent people, organisations and, in some cases, foreign governments which are aimed at influencing decisions and policies of the Government. Virtually unheard of at the beginning of the 1970s, lobbying has became a major profession in the national capital. The Government believed we had reached the stage where the relationship between Government and lobbyists should be placed on a more formal footing. Prior to dealing with the establishment of formal guidelines, the Government made it known that dealings with lobbyists would be conducted as individual Ministers saw fit, but recommended to Ministers that whenever possible meetings with lobbyists should take place with the principals present. The Government recognises that lobbyists are, in a complex society, an inevitable part of the democratic process and as a result the Government raised this issue in the Parliament last year. We held meetings with representatives of the Canberra lobbyists, the legal and accountancy professions and other interested parties and had submissions from the public. On 6 December last year, following an initial round of discussions, the Government announced its intention to establish a register for lobbyists. The scheme encompasses two confidential registers maintained within the Department of the Special Minister of State. A special register, which covers lobbyists with clients who are foreign governments or their agencies was established immediately. A general register, covering lobbyists with other clients, commenced on 16 March this year. Persons currently affected by the scheme have until 30 March to register and beyond that date applications to register should be lodged as the need arises. Any lobbyist not registered under this scheme will not be granted access to Ministers or Departments. I table the guidelines that the Government has decided upon. Under the guidelines a lobbyist is defined as: . . . A person (or company) who, for financial or other advantage, represents a client in dealings with Commonwealth Government Ministers and officials. The scheme applies to specific activities of special concern to the Government, and covers representations- (a) to make or amend legislation of the Commonwealth or Territories other than Northern Territory; (b) to make or change Government guidelines or policies; and, (c) to influence Government decisions on awarding contracts and tenders, or appointments to public office. Further activities could be brought under the scheme if in the future the Government identified other matters of special concern. The guidelines will apply to anyone involved in these activities, including lawyers and accountants and tax, Customs and other agents. The scheme does not apply to appearances before boards, tribunals or other bodies which allow representation of clients. Also, it does not cover representations made directly to the Government by representative organisations, peak councils, professional associations and community interest groups. Information submitted by lobbyists about themselves and their clients will be handled confidentially. Access to the general and special registers will be on a carefully-controlled 'need to know' basis. As the Government also announced in December last year, a complementary code of conduct for Ministers has been established in conjunction with the registration scheme. It requires- that, as far as possible, Ministers follow the practice that lobbyists who make personal representations to them are accompanied by the principals they represent. that Ministers seek to avoid granting special privileges, advantages or access to any lobbyist by virtue of that lobbyist's particular background; for example, as a former parliamentary representative or senior office holder or employee of a political party. I would like to point out that the course of action the Government has taken is not unique. This issue has long been on the public agenda in the United States of America and various registration schemes for lobbyists have been developed at a Federal and State level in that country. These systems have met with varied success and the Government took into account the American experience when it was developing its own policy on this matter. The Government has made it clear that this registration procedure will apply only to people who, for financial gain, represent others in an effort to influence decisions, policies or laws. The registration does not apply to such peak organisations as the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry, various other employee or employer organisations and such community groups as the Australian Council of Social Services and the Conservation Council of Australia. Under our scheme there will no longer be a mystique about lobbyists. Their activities will be recognised and there will be no doubt about what lobbyists are seeking to achieve and upon whose interests they seek to operate. The Government believes that the scheme we have developed will be effective and adequately covers the concerns of all interested parties. The system of registration will continue to be monitored by the Government and we will be happy to receive comments from anyone interested in this legitimate area of public concern so that we can provide a reasonable and workable system. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(3.47) —by leave-When Mr Speaker was summing up his position in relation to the recent motion of dissent from his ruling, he said in reference to the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) that, in 1976, he got a little further than he should. If there has been one thing about the history of the honourable member for Port Adelaide, it has been that he always goes a little further than he should. In relation to this matter of the regulation of lobbyists, of course, he is utterly dominating the question and the matter of the Government's regulation in this affair, because it is his action that has made necessary, in the Government's eyes, this rather authoritarian treatment of those who deal with government. In fact, one would say that the honourable member for Port Adelaide almost does the impossible, of overshadowing himself in the matter of his ability to transgress against the proper conduct of his portfolio. When one looks at this statement one can only assume that the whole thing has been got together because of his previous action , which meant that he spent six months in exile because he sought a colleague out in a Canberra car park. But in looking at the statement, which I understand the Minister has prepared, one can see the humorist in him. There is no doubt that in his management of Government affairs in the House he demonstrates a great amount of humour, which at times is a very desirable attribute. I am not so sure, however, that it exonerates him from the position in which he put himself in 1983. I invite honourable members to study this document. In one paragraph the Minister says: Prior to dealing with the establishment of formal guidelines, the Government made it known that dealings with lobbyists would be conducted as individual Ministers saw fit . . . We know how the honourable member for Port Adelaide saw fit to deal on an individual basis with lobbyists. He came out of a meeting of the National and International Security Committee and sought out his lobbyist friend in a car park to leak to him matter of substantial importance to Australia's national security. He also said: The Government believed we had reached the stage where the relationship between Government and lobbyists should be placed on a more formal footing. Indeed, the Minister's example would have forced any government that contained such a Minister to look at a more formal footing for lobbyists. There can be no other conclusion because of his behaviour. He goes on in his statement to say: . . . the Government raised this issue in the Parliament last year. That is a complete understatement of the importance of that question and the pressure the Opposition put on him and the Government about the matter of dealing in an unauthorised way with national security secrets. He goes on further to indicate that information submitted by lobbyists about themselves and their clients will be handled confidentially. I put it to the House: Is this the Minister to make a serious statement about handling details of lobbyists on a confidential basis? If the Minister is willing to go to a car park to seek out a lobbyist friend and tell him of a matter of national security, how secure are the business details and the secrets of lobbyists in his hands in the form of a register which apparently he is to keep? He goes on to state further: As the Government also announced in December last year, a complementary code of conduct for Ministers has been established in conjunction with the registration scheme. He said that Ministers seek to avoid granting special privileges, advantages or access. It would seem that someone has sat down in the Minister's six months of exile and asked: 'If the honourable member for Port Adelaide ever gets back into Cabinet, how can we circumvent his ever repeating this matter of grave defection in relation to Cabinet security and committee security? How can we prevent him from transgressing again?' The action detailed in this report is aimed not at lobbyists but at a particular Minister. It is all clearly set out here. The Minister has been told by Cabinet, I suppose in the interests of his rehabilitation, to make sure that the finger will not again be pointed at the Government in relation to the leaking of important matters to lobbyists and therefore through to the community. Worse than that, we know that the basis of this goes much more deeply into the internal workings of the Australia Labor Party. The matter in which the Minister was involved led to the public persecution-not the prosecution-of a previous Federal Secretary of the Labor Party. We all know of the use by the Government of tapes secretly taken of individuals' conversations which were volunteered and given to the media to publish. The action in those days rested basically on tapes. It is interesting to see the double standards of government. It is willing and has been willing to pursue the matter of those tapes and the subject matter in them to the degree that one of its previous most able colleagues has been denied his proper security of livelihood. The Government has been willing to use those tapes. One of the results of those tapes, apart from the appalling attack exhibited by the Government on an individual and one of its former colleagues, was to place a different value on tapes which have been mentioned in this House and publicly in relation to other matters, matters of great concern to the public and to the Parliament. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Would the honourable member like to return to the statement? Mr STEELE HALL —Yes I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do so in drawing to a close that comparison of the double standards which the Government exhibited in relation to tapes. All of those matters stand behind this authoritarian action which I have mentioned, which is for the first time to regulate lobbyists in their dealings with governments and to have their business details put on a register and be subject to circulation on a restricted basis among the ministry. In circulating that register, anyone knows-- Mr Young —Not circulating; the need to know. Mr STEELE HALL —Well, on demand. I take the Minister's point that it will be available on proper demand. With the register being circulated in that fashion on demand, it will inevitably be seen by people other than the Minister in the operation of the ministerial offices. That will mean that there will be an enormous interface of knowledge of the business clients, the clients of lobbyists, and obviously at times there will be some leakage. That in itself will present a hazard to anyone dealing with his client as a third party with the Government. The whole object, of course, will fail because the regulation is aimed at those who earn their living as lobbyists. It is aimed not at those who lobby for themselves but at those who bring their own case to the various Ministers of government. What a distinction it is that people can be drafted into two pathways to the Government. A large company, the largest company in this land, with all sorts of reasons for dealing with the Government, as long as it sent an employee, would not have to be registered. However, a different situation would apply to a small outfit which could not afford to employ someone as a third party. That is an essential point in this argument. These people so often make their livelihood as third party representatives because the individuals who aggregate in their responsibility either are unable themselves to get their cases together, with their lack of knowledge of politics or the way in which government operates, or cannot afford to employ their own representatives. Mr Young —Then they go through their peak council. They go through the Confederation of Australian Industry. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister has interjected that the lobbyists should go through their peak councils. It is the Minister who is saying that they must go through their peak councils. It is the sort of attitude he exhibited in his defensive debate in this House. He says to the lobbyists: 'You must'. The lobbyists cannot make the decisions themselves. We are not only now regulating lobbyists; we are also saying to the people out there: 'You must'. This is the corollary of what is going on here. Not only does a lobbyist have to be regulated but also the Minister says: 'If you are a small manufacturer employing six people making pipes and you have to lobby the Government you must go through your peak council, whichever it is, or else you will go to a lobbyist who is tied hand and foot under these regulations'. Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that the Minister should take leave today. I do not suggest that he take leave for six months, only today. He might do better when he comes back tomorrow. He has already widened the implications of this regulation to an enormous degree. He believes that the lobbyists must be registered. Without pointing any personal fingers at him in that regard, it is a typical indication of a socialist government which sees authoritarian regulation as the answer to a problem. If we distil this, it is clear that he created a problem which he is now solving. In solving his own problem he is adopting the traditional response of governments that come from the Left. We in the Opposition do not support this regulation. If there is to be regulation and if the Minister sees his colleagues and views his own future in relation to dealing with lobbyists with such uncertainty, I suggest that he turn back to the lobbying fraternity and do what is done in the only really successful country in this area-and that is not noted to be all that successful- the United Kingdom, and have some self-regulation. If the association of lobbyists in Australia or the various associations, if the lobbyists form them, have standards the Minister can assess them. He can then decide whether or not he will deal with them. That will be his business. But at least the industry would be self-regulating. That is the only way to go if we do not want to do what the Minister has said they must do-go through their peak councils. That would be their decision. The Minister is at fault, and gravely at fault, in pursuing this matter, putting at risk not just the future livelihood of lobbyists but also the business secrets and details of their clients. That is something that this Parliament should not approve. I believe that the Minister is wrong in bringing this measure into the House in the form of a report which simply states that that has been done. He should have moved a substantive motion. A matter as important as this should have been brought in by manner of a Bill. This House could then have properly debated all the essential points and would have known far more of the Minister's intention in regard to this wide-reaching piece of regulation. The Opposition opposes the objectives of this regulation and says simply that if there is to be regulation, if Ministers cannot be trusted, there should be a form of self-regulation which will leave lobbyists free to deal with their clients in a confidential manner and will leave those who they represent free of the sort of strictures which the Minister has quite clearly laid out in his interjection. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —by leave-I wish to inform the House that the United Nations has accepted an invitation by the Government to send a visiting mission to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to witness the making by the people of Cocos of an Act of self-determination. The visit is to occur in the first week of April 1984. The United Nations mission will consist of representatives of Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia, Fiji and Venezuela. This will be the third United Nations mission to visit Cocos. Earlier missions visited in 1974 and 1980. We have appreciated the degree of friendly co- operation that has developed over the years between Australia and the United Nations in regard to the advancement of the Cocos people. We expect that this process will reach culmination in 1984. In issuing the invitation to the United Nations, the Government acted upon the advice of the Cocos leaders who, on behalf of the community, recently informed the Government that they were prepared to proceed with the act of self- determination and asked the Government to make the necessary arrangements with the United Nations. The Cocos people living in the islands will be determining their future in accordance with the United Nations requirements. The visiting mission will witness the plebiscite which will be oversighted by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission. The requirements of the United Nations provide for non-self-governing territories whose development is considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation-known as the Committee of 24-to exercise their right to self-determination, in accordance with the United Nations resolutions 1514 ( XV) and 1541 (XV) which set out the principles by which a territory has achieved a full measure of self-government by choosing, (a) firstly, independence, (b) secondly, free association with an independent state, or (c) thirdly, integration with an independent state. The Government recently presented the details of the three options-independence, free association with Australia, and integration with Australia-to the community. Under the independence option, the Cocos-Malay community would be completely responsible for all aspects of their lives, including foreign affairs and defence. It would be up to them to determine how they would govern themselves and how they would raise revenue and establish their own social and economic strategies. Australia would obviously seek to have a close and friendly relationship with the new State, and would offer all assistance that is within our power to give. The newly independent State would be entitled to apply to join the United Nations and its agencies. Under free association, Australia would conduct defence and foreign affairs matters on behalf of the Cocos community, and would negotiate with a new Cocos government the way it could assist that government to take full responsibility for a wide range of functions undertaken by Australia at present. These include health, education, transport, quarantine, radio communication and the conduct of the airfield at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. As with the independence option, members of the community would have to determine how they were to govern themselves, the standards of services that would be provided and the ways by which revenue would be raised. The Cocos ( Keeling) Islands would not be eligible for United Nations membership but Australia, as part of its responsibility for foreign affairs, would seek to obtain whatever United Nations assistance was available. Under integration, the Cocos people would have the full rights, privileges and obligations of other Australian citizens: Local arrangements would be modified to give the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council wider powers and ownership of the plantation lands at present leased by the Commonwealth to the Cocos Co-operative. The electors of Cocos would be included in an existing territory electorate for the purposes of House of Representatives and Senate elections and national referendums. Appropriate Commonwealth legislation not already applying would be extended to Cocos , including the social security and health Acts. A review in three years time would examine the introduction of tax. At present levels of income, the Cocos-Malay people are under the existing tax threshold and therefore they would not pay income tax in present circumstances. The Commonwealth Government would take measures to raise services and standard of living to comparable Australian levels within 10 years, and use the Commonwealth Grants Commission to review standards. Consistent with its commitment to the United Nations, Australia has, since the Cocos (Keeling) Islands were accepted as a Territory of Australia in 1955, taken many measures particularly in recent years for the political, social and economic advancement of the people of the Cocos to bring about conditions which would enable the people to exercise freely their right to self-determination, in full knowledge of the choices open to them. In November 1982, the previous Government presented general elements of act of self-determination options for the consideration of the Cocos community. In response, the Chairman of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council wrote to the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment indicating that the community believed it could not proceed towards the making of the act of self-determination in full confidence without knowing what the Australian Government intended to do about the presence at Cocos of Mr John Clunies-Ross. That letter was written in the light of longstanding grievances held by the community about what it sees as interference by Mr Clunies-Ross in its affairs. The relationship between the community and Mr Clunies-Ross was commented upon by the 1974 United Nations visiting mission to Cocos and the 1980 mission which expressed the view that the interdependence of the community and Mr Clunies-Ross should be discontinued. I will quote briefly from that letter of 13 December 1982: There is one question which is worrying us and to which we should very much like an answer. As you will be aware from your knowledge of the history of Cocos , the people of our community have suffered many hardships because of the control John Clunies-Ross had in our land for many years. After the Australian Government made its purchase of $6.25 million of Clunies-Ross's land in 1978, we were confident that his influence on the affairs of our community would cease. The Australian Government gave us assurances at the time that we would not have to worry about Clunies-Ross any more. But this has not been the case. He has continued to interfere in the affairs of our community; his ships still come to and from Cocos; he employs on his property labour from the community at rates more favourable than those set by the Co-operative; he brings in foods (goods) of the same kind as those sold by the Co-operative but sells it to the community far more cheaply than our own Co-operative can; he and his manager have made it known to some of our community in recent months that they are opposed to integration and favour the choice of free association but what they have said has been deliberately aimed at creating confusion and division. These are all serious matters which show that his efforts to interfere in our community have persisted. In 1981, our Council passed a motion calling for the removal of Clunies-Ross. We should like to know now if the Australian Government is prepared to take positive steps to carry out the terms of our motion. After all, Clunies-Ross is not even an Australian citizen, as many of us are, yet he enjoys great privileges because of tax exemption for his companies and the advantage given to his ships. We realise that the Act of self-determination is an important step for our community. But we do not believe we can proceed with this in full confidence without knowing what the Australian Government intends to do about removing Clunies-Ross. That then was the position when this Government came to office in March 1983 and I became Minister responsible for the external territories. The House will recall that the Commonwealth purchased the bulk of Mr Clunies-Ross' property in the islands in September 1978 to make possible the implementation of policies for the advancement of the Cocos people. Following upon the purchase, a number of reforms were implemented such as the ending of the use of token currency issued by Mr Clunies-Ross and freedom of movement for the people. A fully elected form of local government body, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council, with extensive advisory powers was established. The village area was transferred to the ownership of the Council for the benefit of the people. The plantation lands were leased at a nominal rental to the Cocos Islands Co-operative Society, established to run the plantation and undertake a range of commercial activities . I visited Cocos in April 1983 to ascertain for myself the wishes of the people about all matters affecting their future, including their attitude to Mr Clunies -Ross. What they had to tell me reflected what they had told the 1980 United Nations mission and various Ministers before me. In the light of unanimous views expressed to me at a joint meeting of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council and the management committee of the Cocos Islands Co-operative Society and other discussions I had with members of the community, I told the leaders that I would recommend that the Australian Government acquire the remaining property interests of Mr Clunies-Ross at Cocos with the intention that the property would be given to the Council, as had been the village area, for the benefit of the Cocos people. I announced in July the Government's intention to acquire the property using the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act for the public purpose of the political, social and economic development of the Cocos people. While the terms for the intended acquisition have yet to be determined, the Act provides for settlement on just terms. Mr Clunies-Ross decided to take legal action to resist the proposed acquisition under the Lands Acquisition Act. The present position is that the case is expected to be heard by the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia later this year. As the matter is before the Court, I do not propose to comment further than is necessary at this stage. But so that the views of the Cocos Malay community are clearly understood by this Parliament I was seeking leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a letter recently sent to the Bulletin by the Chairman of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council, Parson Bin Yapat. Because I am unable to have it included in Hansard, I have no other option than to read it into the record. Mr Ruddock —You have not asked for leave. Mr UREN —Unfortunately, a standing order was levelled by the previous Speaker. I have spoken to the present Speaker and to the Clerks of the House. Under the Standing Orders, because of that previous ruling, I am unable to have the document incorporated in Hansard. I have no other option than to read it into the record. The letter is dated 16 March 1984. It is addressed to the Editor of the Bulletin in Sydney. It states: Dear Sir I am writing this letter as Chairman of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council and in the name of the entire Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council. For the last few months we have read many letters and articles about Mr Clunies -Ross in 'The Bulletin' and we are growing tired of reading all these letters and articles. It is already past the time that the people of Australia should know the real situation in Cocos. Mr Clunies-Ross is very fortunate because there are not many Australians who do know about the situation here. First of all, it is necessary for me to say that we do not accept that Mr Clunies-Ross is one of our people. It is our opinion that he is not a Cocos Malay. It is quite clear from what he does in Cocos that he does not consider himself to be one of our people. Supposing Mr Clunies-Ross is one of our people, why does he live in a house which is very fine whereas our houses are not so good? It is the Australian Government, not Mr Clunies-Ross, who will give us good houses. The Government has a plan to build new houses, beginning from July of this year. If Mr Clunies-Ross is one of our people, why did he not go looking for coconuts every day, why did he not husk coconuts as we did, which he made us do before the Australian Government began to exercise effective control in Cocos. Every week, all males of 15 years of age upwards had to go and gather coconuts and husk them, the number of coconuts which had to be gathered and husked was fixed by Mr Clunies-Ross or his manager. If Mr Clunies-Ross is one of our people, why is his food different from ours, why does he not follow our customs, but rather why, in past times, did he always go by launch whilst we Cocos Malays had to go by Jukongs to our work. He would not want to do these things if he was one of us. In 1978, the Australian Government paid Mr Clunies-Ross more than 6 million dollars when it bought most of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands from him, apart from an area of land where he and his family live at present. Why did Mr Clunies-Ross not divide all the money he had received among our people? Or why did he not use that money for the welfare of our people? You must remember that it was the Cocos Malays who did all the work, but Mr Clunies-Ross who received a lot of money. Is there a people in the world today which does not yet have children who have completed their high school studies? It is only this year (1984) that Cocos Malay children will complete Class 12, that is, they will gain a certificate after having studied to Class 12 (the final year). Mr Clunies-Ross' children went overseas to study. Why did Mr Clunies-Ross not want to give such opportunities to our children? It is necessary for the Australian people to know that before the Australian Government began to exercise control in Cocos, it could be said that our children did not have the opportunity of a good education. Mr Clunies-Ross has said that there is nobody in Cocos who has told him it would be good if he left Cocos. Indeed, Mr Clunies-Ross knows that not so many Australians know about Malay customs. According to Malay culture, Malay people must be good to and respect other people whenever they meet them. Despite this, we are certain that our people will not progress if Mr Clunies-Ross remains here . So the Cocos (Keeling) Islands council has asked the Australian Government to settle this question. It is our firm resolve that he and his family leave Cocos. Until 1978 our wages were paid in plastic coins-our wages were very low. Mr Clunies-Ross received Australian money from the Australian Government because he carried out contracts which the Australian Government gave him. We were the ones who did the work but he continued to pay our wages in plastic coins. Mr Clunies- Ross had enough money if he wanted to go overseas, if he wanted to buy something from overseas. We did not. For a very long time our fundamental human rights were taken away from us completely. Mr Clunies-Ross would not alow us to leave Cocos. If we did go we were not allowed to return. In the period before the Australian Government took over control of Cocos, we were not allowed to speak to Australians. If Mr Clunies-Ross knew that we had spoken with an Australian, we were punished. (It is necessary for me to explain that the Cocos Malays live on Home Island whilst the Australians live on West Island on the other side of the lagoon). We have just heard Mr Clunies-Ross has applied to become an Australian citizen. Almost all Cocos Malays are already Australian citizens. In the years following the last war many Cocos Malays left their homeland. Some went by themselves, others were forced to leave. At that time there was no court to hear the case of whether a person wished to go or not, a person could not bring the matter of whether he wanted to go or not to a court. Last year the Australian Government, after receiving a request from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council that the Government settle the question of Mr Clunies-Ross and his family, took the decision to acquire his land and the house he still owns on Cocos and give it all to our people. Mr Clunies-Ross has the right to take this matter to the high court. In past times those of our people who had to leave Cocos, did not have any right of this kind. It seems that Mr Clunies-Ross is now seeking the support of the Australian people with the intention of not being removed from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It is our feeling, that if the Australian people all knew the true situation, if they knew how he had treated us in the past, if they knew that Mr Clunies-Ross had taken away all our fundamental human rights, they would not want to support him at all. Mr Clunies-Ross says that he is of the same race as us. Why has he not been pressing for the right to vote in our council elections? It is only now that he is seeking the right to vote. His intention is to participate in the election in April, that is the Act of Self Determination or the election which will be held so that the Cocos Malays can determine their own political future. What does Mr Clunies-Ross want for the Cocos Malays? Does he want independence? He has sold many T-Shirts with the word 'merdeka' on them. (Merdeka means independence.) Mr Clunies-Ross has given the name 'merdeka' to his launch. Does he want to give himself independence so that he can regain control in Cocos? Why does Mr Clunies-Ross wish to interfere in the matter of our Act of Self Determination? Who has given our children the opportunity to study overseas, who has endeavoured to give us higher wages? Who will give us new houses? Who has restored to us our fundamental human rights? When Mr Clunies-Ross was in control in Cocos we had no rights at all. The Australian Government has done all these things and wishes to ensure our future. We do indeed believe that the Australian Government will do all it has promised to do. Mr Clunies-Ross can go anywhere he likes in the Kampong everybody else has to seek approval of the Chairman of the Council if they wish to visit the Kampong. Whenever he goes for a walk in the Kampong, Mr Clunies-Ross always wears a dagger. Why? No Cocos Malay wears a dagger in this way. It is not necessary for me to continue. My principal purpose has been that the Australian people should know that Mr Clunies-Ross is not one of our people as he said he was in a letter he wrote to 'The Bulletin'. It is necessary also for the Australian people to know how Mr Clunies-Ross treated us in the past so that we had no fundamental rights at all. Yours faithfully (Parson Bin Yapat) Chairman Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council 16 March 1984 I read the letter out because I thought it was important. Although it was laborious to do so I had to read it to get it into the record. It is important that those Cocos Malay people be heard and their views placed on the record at this historic time because it is only a short time before they decide on self- determination. Australia's commitment to the United Nations is for the political , social and economic advancement of the Cocos community, to enable them to determine their future by free choice in accordance with United Nations principles. An ordinance which contains the rules for the conduct of the referendum has been laid before the Parliament. In the act of self-determination, a person will be eligible to vote if: (a) He or she has attained the age of 18 years; (b) His or her principal residence is on Home Island; and (c) He or she has had such residence on Home Island for the period of 12 months before the date fixed for the closing of the electoral role, 26 March 1984. Mr and Mrs Clunies-Ross will be eligible to vote in the referendum if they wish. We have made this decision after consultation with the Cocos Malay leaders and for the purpose of preventing any obstruction to the conduct of the referendum. The leaders of the Cocos people have made it clear to me personally that they do not see Mr Clunies-Ross as one of their community and they do not want Mr Clunies-Ross seeking to influence the people as to how they vote in that act of self- determination. Finally, I would like to put on record the great respect which the Australian Government has for the Cocos people and our full confidence in their capacity to determine their future. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.26) —by leave-I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for the courtesy in enabling me to respond on behalf of the Opposition to the statement made by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren ) relating to the future of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. It is an important matter. I regret in a sense that the Minister is making the statement only one week before the visit of a United Nations mission to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the purpose of dealing with the matter of the act of self-determination. The notice seems very short. It may be that the United Nations gave the Minister only that length of notice. If that was the case I think it would have been appropriate that the House be informed of that matter. The fact is, of course, that there has been a long standing interest of Liberal and National parties and Ministers of Liberal and National Party governments in the future of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and its people. In 1955 the islands were accepted as a territory of Australia. This was an important event. In 1978 the Australian Government purchased from Mr Clunies-Ross all his property interests on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands except for his home and its curtilage. That was a very important initiative. Of course, it was a very momentous occasion so far as the history of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands was concerned. The Government then leased to the Cocos-Malay inhabitants of the island for $1 per annum-except Mr Clunies-Ross-the areas that had been acquired. There have been a number of benefits from that acquisition. I understand there have been significant pay increases made possible to the Cocos-Malay people. That would be seen as a significant benefit in terms of giving them a rising standard of living. As the Minister mentioned, there was an abandonment of the old token currency, about which a lot has been written and about which there was a great deal of complaint. There were opportunities to improve the facilities in which the Cocos-Malay people lived. Provision was made for electricity and sewerage-so many of the things we take so much for granted. Freedom was granted to people of Cocos-Malay origin to enable them to visit relatives in Australia at reduced fares. Of course, there was the attainment for many of Australian citizenship. I think that was a very important factor so far as the Cocos-Malay people were concerned. Freedom was given to issue stamps for Cocos Island from which revenue would be derived for the local people. Of course , there were employment opportunities for Cocos-Malay people in many areas of activity associated with Australian Government activities on the island itself. The high security quarantine station, which has been so important so far as Australia and the future of its animals is concerned, was put in place. It is very important from the point of view of maintaining the integrity of Australia's breeding stock that we are able to introduce stock from other parts of the world and have a place that is sufficiently isolated to ensure that no disease that might affect Australia is likely to be introduced by imported animals. The Island and the high security quarantine station were a very important involvement for Australia and also important from the point of view of the employment opportunities for the Cocos-Malay people. As detailed by the Minister for Territories and Local Government, the Cocos (Keeling) Island's Council and the island trading company were established. These were important initiatives. The fact that they were mentioned by the Minister in his speech acknowledges the role that the previous Liberal and National Party governments had in bringing to fruition this development wherein the people of the islands will be given an opportunity to determine their own future in terms of being either an independent nation, a country in free association with Australia, or a part of Australia. I certainly welcome the Minister's statement. I do not do it grudgingly; I simply note the interest in this matter by my colleagues and by me when we were in government. Only a matter of weeks ago I put a question on the Notice Paper to the Minister seeking information about many of the matters upon which the Minister has responded today. Honourable members may be interested to know some of the questions that I raised. I asked the Minister: What is the Government's program for effecting an act of self-determination for the non-self-governing territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands? The Minister has dealt with that question today and I welcome that. I also asked: What questions will be put to the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in respect of their self-determination ? That question has been answered today and I welcome that. However, I asked a number of other questions relating to self-determination, some of which have been partially answered and some of which have not been addressed at all. The Minister's statement leaves many of the questions, particularly those relating to the third option that he dealt with-the question of association with Australia-quite clearly unanswered. I certainly hope that the Minister will take the first available opportunity to give attention to answering these very important questions. Many relevant questions relating to Australia need to be addressed by the Minister as quickly as possible. It may well be that the points I am raising could be relevant to the act of self- determination upon which the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be asked to vote. The Minister has clarified some of the questions in relation to the act of self-determination but he has not answered the question as to what future integration with Australia may offer. As I understand it, there are two options that might be pursued in relation to our constitutional structure if the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are to be integrated with Australia. Either the Cocos (Keeling) Islands would become part of a State of Australia-the most likely option is Western Australia-or, secondly, they would become part of one of the territories of Australia. It is well known that many of the islanders have permanent resident status within Australia and that is likely to lead to their wanting to be part of Australia. If they are Australian citizens I think the most likely option is that the people will vote for Australia. But it is important that if they are going to exercise that choice they do so in the knowledge of what form of integration it will take. Will it be integration with Western Australia? Will it be integration with the Australian Capital Territory? Will it be integration with the Northern Territory ? The Minister has not told us whether he has consulted on this matter with the Western Australian Government, the Northern Territory Government or how he thinks the integration of a group of people who live on an island in the Indian Ocean with the people of the Australian Capital Territory would work and how that would fit in with the self-government model that he and his Government are presently proposing. These questions need to be addressed. The Australian Constitution is very ambiguous on these islands becoming part of Australia. I recognise that there are problems with integrating the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands with part of Western Australia because before such an integration could take place there would have to be a referendum to alter the boundaries of Western Australia and that would involve an Australian Constitution amendment. That may well be a matter that the Government, after some consideration, says gives it very considerable difficulty. The only place I heard mentioned previously as an alternative to Western Australia was the Australian Capital Territory. We now have the Northern Territory mentioned as a possibility. On what basis can one reasonably expect the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to be integrated with the Northern Territory? The Minister's statement answers in part some of my questions. He did not answer these questions which I shall address to the House. Is there any substance to the suggestion that integration with the Northern Territory may be proposed? Have discussions taken place with the Northern Territory Government on this proposal? What greater association would the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have with the Northern Territory rather than, say, Western Australia? Do all persons born on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have Australian citizenship? How many people born on Cocos (Keeling) Islands have settled in Australia, and in which States or territories? To me that seems a very important question. As I understand it, most of the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders who have come to Australia to exercise their rights as Australian citizens have settled in Western Australia. How would they be associated with the Northern Territory? I notice that the Minister for Territories and Local Government is shaking his head. If the answer is no I am very pleased to have that answer. I have put very serious questions before him. Finally I want to deal with the matter of Mr John Clunies-Ross. Some of the questions I asked the Minister related to him. I asked: Will Mr John Clunies- Ross and his family be eligible to vote in any questions of self-determination? Will an act of self-determination be effected before or after legal proceedings for the acquisition of the home and curtilage of the Clunies-Ross family are completed? Will Mr Clunies-Ross be asked to leave the Cocos (Keeling) Islands before or after any act of self-determination is effected? I notice that one of my colleagues, in an effort to help me, has said that the Minister in his statement says, yes. I am aware that the Minister has said that Mr Clunies-Ross and his wife will be able to vote in the act of self- determination but the other questions that I have asked have not been answered by the Minister in his statement. The Minister read at length a letter that was written by the President of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council, Parson Bin Yapat. Whilst he read the letter into Hansard I had not read it previously. I have read some of the earlier correspondence in the Bulletin to which the President of the Council was replying. I have to say that that letter alone, without understanding the context of the correspondence, does take the matter somewhat out of context. I am disappointed that the Minister did not fully background the House on the matters raised in the correspondence, particularly that of Mr David McNicoll. I think the President of the Council was replying to Mr McNicoll's postscript to a letter which appeared in the Bulletin of 24 January last. The antecedents and the associations of the Clunies-Ross family with the islands were mentioned therein, in addition to the context in which their property interests in the islands were dealt with. Mr Clunies-Ross has lived on the islands for most of his life except, as I understand it, when he left to be educated abroad. He regarded the islands as his home and until recently-I was not aware that he may have sought Australian citizenship-he has not had Australian citizenship. He has seen the Cocos (Keeling) Islands as his home. I think it is important that in terms of what might be regarded as an Australian ethos in fairness to him as well as to the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands he be given the right to participate in this act of self-determination. I am glad that the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have agreed to that and that the Minister has announced it. But the question of his future on the islands is still very doubtful, it would seem, from the statements that have been made. I must say that I am concerned that the Minister has not given some attention to answering some of the other questions that I raised. A media statement that the Minister made on 21 July certainly emphasised that the Government was intending to acquire Mr Clunies- Ross's property on the island, that is, the remainder of his property on the island, his home and the five hectares of curtilage to that home. But the Minister waited until 17 August-presumably until after he had seen Mr Clunies- Ross during a visit to the island-to make clear what that statement meant. In his statement of 17 August he made the following additional statement: The Government intends that the property on acquisition will be given by deed of grant to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council in trust for the people. When this occurs, it must be expected that Mr Clunies-Ross leave Cocos. We know that there has been an attempt at acquisition. The matter is now before the High Court of Australia, which is to find out whether that property is being acquired for a proper public purpose. I think it is important that Mr Clunies- Ross and the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands have these additional questions answered by the Minister before they make their choice. I think they are proper questions to be asked. In context it was appropriate that the Minister developed his statement to a point where all of the outstanding questions that I have addressed, both in the question that I put on notice and in those I asked today were answered before this act of self-determination takes place. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —by leave-I clarify one point because I do not want any confusion amongst the Press or to confuse and frighten the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There is not the slightest intention of incorporating Cocos into the Northern Territory. As I said during my speech, the islands will be members of either one of the two Territories. There are only two territories in which they can be incorporated. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 they cannot be incorporated in Western Australia. They can be on the electoral rolls of only the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory. One of those two Territories must be determined. I do not want to say any more because in many of these matters legal implications are involved. I would prefer questions concerning them to be placed on notice. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I think it is important that these matters be clarified, but the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) still has not made it clear whether the Cocos (Keeling) Islands can be incorporated in the Northern Territory. I think that the question ought to be answered properly. The Minister said that it could be the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —by leave-The situation is that under the electoral laws, once people become part of Australia they have a vote. Under the electoral laws these people can vote only in either the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Ruddock —Which is it to be? Mr UREN —The Government will clarify that situation at the appropriate time. I must say that it is a little too smart of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) to infer that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands were to be incorporated into the Northern Territory. I did not want to frighten the people of the Cocos ( Keeling) Islands. This is a serious matter. The former Minister, who will speak after me, realises how sensitive and frightened these people can be. The people of Lord Howe Island are on the electoral roll of Sydney, but Sydney has no powers over them. It is a simple matter of being on the electoral roll of either the Northern Territory, or one of the electorates in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —by leave-I rise in a non-partisan way firstly to congratulate the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) on the enthusiasm with which he has pursued the matter of self-determination for the Cocos (Keeling) Islanders. I know from my association with them and from the messages that have been conveyed back to me that the people have an affinity with the Minister. They trust and respect him. I will never be afraid to stand up in this Parliament and express those types of sentiments when I believe that they are appropriate because the national Parliament would certainly degenerate if people were not prepared to get up and speak the truth about sensitive matters. It is not for me to reply on behalf of the Opposition. That was done by my colleague the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). However, I want to be associated with this statement. It has not been an easy task for the Minister to bring this matter to finality. The finality is a matter of a vote for self- determination. I know that the great enthusiasm that the Minister has brought to this matter, an enthusiasm born out of a sensitivity for a wonderful race of people, a people who may be poor in what we might term the corporal necessities of life, but who are very rich in the real riches of life. We have much to gain by having them as part of Australia. I congratulate many of the Cocos Islanders, people such as Wahin, Cree and Parson, for the guiding light and encouraging hand they have given to many of their fellow citizens. It is difficult for us to understand the reasoning of these people. We live in a society where the traditional democratic way is expressed by a vote in the ballot box. These people operate differently. I spoke about being rich in the real riches of life, the quality of the family life of these people and the fact that they speak on a basis of consensus, where leaders convey to the people the things they are concerned about and, having reached consensus, move to ensure that that point of view is finally the accepted point of view. It is a great pleasure to go to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and to be the recipient of the courtesy of these people, to go into their homes and to receive good Christian hospitality. It is very refreshing and personally rewarding to observe the simple, good manners and the deep feeling which people have of friendship for the people whom they know and trust. It is not for me to express a personal point of view about what decision they should make. That would be recreant to any trust that has ever been placed in me by them. I would never want to be part of any criticism that I used any influence that I might have had to try to get these people to vote in any particular way. But I would very much indeed like to go back, maybe many years hence and possibly not in too long a period, to see the excellent quarantine station that has been built on the island, the air strip, built at enormous personal sacrifice by the Cocos Malays, and the post office completely manned and operated by Cocos Malays.That would make me very proud of them and proud for them. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to associate myself with the statement by the Minister. It is a matter of deep personal sensitivity for me. Maybe my own views on the total matter are not shared by my colleagues. Quite frankly, that is of no importance or interest to me. I believe that the Minister has taken the right and proper decision. He has my total support for what he has done and I compliment him on being able to bring to fruition what, unfortunately, I did not have the time to complete. If I had done so, I would have been very proud to stand in this Parliament today and deliver the statement that the Minister has delivered. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The negative effect of current Government policies and attitudes on private investment. 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 HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.52) —There is one thing that has characterised debate on economic matters since the Hawke Government came to power and one thing that has stood out above everything else; that is, the consistency with which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other Ministers in the Government have seized hold of any fortuitous statistics, whatever their origin, whatever their circumstances and whatever their explanation, and used them to justify the actions taken by the Government and to demonstrate that the Government is doing a very good job of handling the economy. What the Treasurer has constantly invited us to do is to make comparisons. How often have we heard him say in this House: 'Inflation was eleven point something in March 1983 and it is now much lower'? He has said in the House that interest rates were at a higher rate in March 1983 than they are now and that something else was at a higher rate in 1983 than it is now. Time and again the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have both gone for the fast quip. They have said that that improvement is due entirely to the magnificence of the Hawke-Keating economic management. It reached its absolute dizzy height when the Prime Minister said in this Parliament: 'Not everything is due to me. You know, the breaking of the drought was substantially due to God. It was not totally due to God; it was only substantially due to God'. There is a nice, consistent pattern that if something good has happened, the Government claims credit for it. Hang the explanation; hang the reasons; hang the timing; and hang the circumstances. What I will do today in connection with this matter of public importance is to take a leaf out of the Treasurer's book. I will grab hold of some statistics that happen to demonstrate that in terms of private sector investment, which both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have said in recent weeks is the absolute prerequisite to a sustained economic recovery, this mob has been absolutely hopeless. I have a bundle of statistics that show very clearly how absolutely hopeless they are. Using their standard, and using the persistent pattern that they have adopted since they have been in government, I will demonstrate that the Hawke-Keating Government has brought about the worst prospect for private sector business investment in the last 10 years. What this Treasurer and this Prime Minister have succeeded in doing is to create an outlook for private sector investment which is worse than it was under the Whitlam Government, and that is saying something. That is not a bad effort. I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table drawn from the Parliamentary Library, based on statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Treasurer can have it combed over-undoubtedly he will do so, and I know by whom-to try to establish whether there is something wrong with it. I present it with my compliments. This table shows very clearly that in real terms -not creep terms, but in real terms-in 1982 prices, in 1974-75 private sector investment was $10,427m, that is, in constant prices, and by 1980-81 it had risen to $15,615m. In 1981-82 it went to $17,871m. In 1982-83-that was the last year substantially covered by a Fraser Government Budget-it had fallen back to $ 16,348m. The 1983-84 forecast is for $11,049m. Do honourable members know what the 1984-85 forecast is? No wonder the Government is coy about making forecasts this year. It is $9,803m. So in real terms it is worse than for the last year of the Whitlam Government. But honourable members do not have to rely on the Opposition or on me to promote the importance of private business investment to economic recovery in this country. Honourable members will remember that the Prime Minister went to the Australian Institute of Directors in Sydney only two weeks ago and in a sort of plea of evangelism he said: 'Will you please invest, because unless you invest we will not have an economic recovery'. So by the Government's own definition, on the basis of those figures, it is staring over the starkest cliff in terms of private business investment that this country has seen since 1974. One of the things that I am reminded of when I hear the Treasurer and the Prime Minister talk about the economy is the biblical quotation which states, in effect, 'Would that mine adversary would write a book'. 'Mine adversaries' have written a book-a book of predictions and a book of quotations which will come back to bite them month by month as time goes by. We all remember towards the end of last year how the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were talking up the economy. We had turned the corner! All of our Christmases were coming at once! Honourable members will remember that marvellous phrase of the Prime Minister in this House on the subject of the forecasts of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They were the ones which the Treasurer said that the Economic Planning Advisory Council had rejected. Yet EPAC had so rejected them that it sent them away and sought further information and further explanation. The Prime Minister said in this Parliament: 'Take it from me, take it from Bob that you can consign those predictions to the dust bins of history. They are irrelevant. They are quite meaningless and they are absolute nonsense'. He said they were too gloomy and they could be confined to the dust bins of history. But by March 1984 we have a different picture. The Prime Minister's tack has changed. He arrogantly claimed that the Government had turned the economy round. But he now asserts that it is up to the business community to do its share. What he is trying to do is to create a situation whereby the Government, having got its job, having done everything right, says that it is now up to everybody else to do their bit. We cannot really expect the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Government to do any more; it is up to the rest of the community! He almost suggests that the business community has some kind of social obligation to invest. Everybody on this side of the House knows that business people, whether they are large or small, whether they live in Australia, the United States of America or anywhere else, do not invest on the basis of evangelical appeals from Prime Ministers, whether those Prime Ministers are Liberal or Labor. That is a simple lesson that this Prime Minister cannot understand. If he really wants to get a private business recovery going in Australia, if he really wants even to claw it back to the disastrous Whitlam levels, according to this table there are four things for openers that he will do. The first thing he will do is sit down with his Treasurer and decide what state they really believe the economy is in. If there is one thing that has characterised the economy and the discussion of the economy over the last few weeks it has been the utter confusion on the part of the Government and particularly on the part of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister as to the facts. At the end of last year all our Christmases were coming at once and it was a sure path to economic glory. At the Economic Planning Advisory Council meeting the Treasurer, no doubt reading a Treasury speech, warned everybody that it was a very fragile recovery. He said: 'It is not really going as well as we might think. Dear me, it is a very fragile recovery'. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister, not to be outdone by that turnaround, and remembering that their mates were against the electoral wall in New South Wales, went to Sydney, and all has changed again. We heard the Treasurer talking about this fantastic growth of 10 per cent. He talked about this fantastic performance of the Australian economy. Of course, what those figures that the Treasurer used demonstrated very clearly, and I have never made any secret of it, was that the economy is growing faster this year than it was last year. But every last person in Australia knows that there are three fundamental reasons for that: Firstly, we had a drought that was broken. Secondly, we had a wage pause which the present Prime Minister tried to sabotage when he was in opposition. As Paul Kelly's book demonstrates, the present Prime Minister tried to manipulate the trade union movement's and the Labor Party's response to that wage pause initiative to undermine the then Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister behaved shamefully as a member of the Opposition on that issue and he has absolutely no credit when it comes to that. Thirdly, of course, there has been a turnaround of sorts in the international business cycle which is working its way through to Australia. Without any question, those circumstances have worked to create a far better climate. What I say to the House and what those on the Government side ought to realise is that there is every potential for the recovery that has taken place over the last 12 months to peter out by the end of 1984. The Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development said at the end of last year that the prospects for growth in 1985 are significantly lower than they are this year, and that is why the Prime Minister is already saying that he is going to rush to the polls at the end of this year. He knows that in 1985 all his problems will come to the surface. The forward Estimates released by the Department of Finance last Sunday week showed one very interesting statistic. They demonstrated that the forecast for the inflation rate according to the price deflator measurement, actually showed the inflation rate in 1984-85 as being one per cent to 1.5 per cent higher than it was in 1983-84. The significance of using the deflator is that it throws out that Medibank fiddle which totally misrepresents the true inflation figure. There is a very simple explanation why that figure shows an increase. It is because by 1985 the effects of that premature return to full wage indexation will have worked their way through. There are four things that this Government ought to do if it really wants an improvement in this disastrous level of private business investment. It can get its act together as far as its own view of the state of the Australian economy is concerned. What a hide the Prime Minister had in fabricating and dishonestly claiming in the House-I repeat, dishonestly claiming-that there was a dispute between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and me about tax cuts. The Government ought to get its act together and make up its mind whether there is really a recovery, whether it is staggered or whether something is going to happen in 1985. The third thing it can do is to bring about a major reduction in the size of the Budget deficit this year because unless it does that, if there is some kind of recovery in private business investment and if there is an increase in the corporate sector's borrowing requirement, there is going to be a collision between that increased borrowing requirement and the largest public sector borrowing demand for 25 years. That will have an adverse effect on the level of interest rates in Australia. The fourth thing it can do to improve the climate for business investment is to tell the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) that he is utterly wrong about the Trade Practices Act. The amendments to the Trade Practices Act proposed by this Government are essentially anti-business in their nature. What the Government intends to do is to make it harder and not easier to rationalise and restructure. What the Government intends to do is to double the penalties on companies for predatory conduct, yet free trade unions totally from any liability for the same predatory conduct. What the Government is endeavouring to do, through those Trade Practices Act amendments, is to encumber the Australian business community, in a nation of 15 million people, with a trade practices regime which is appropriate to the United States, an economy with 250 million people. If those amendments are passed into law, if the ideological, professorial Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has his way on this subject we will end up with a cluster of additional anti-business red tape and regulation which will further depress an already depressed business outlook. If anybody wants to know what the business community really thinks of investment prospects in Australia at present he ought to read the speech of Mr Strong, Executive Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, delivered only a couple of days ago when he made it very clear that one does not invest on faith; one invests only on the basis of proper returns. I will just read a few quotations: Almost to a man they will tell you that the capital expenditure that is taking place reflects completion of projects committed in earlier years, particularly in 1980-81, principally coal and aluminium projects stimulated by the second oil shock of 1979 . . . In the mining industry, there is virtually no investment taking place which will result in increased net output. That is a pretty dismal picture. It is no wonder that he is facing an investment climate even worse than it was in 1974. This Government stands condemned on its own devices, its own rhetoric and its own methodology in economic debate, with the Australian nation staring in the face the worst private sector investment slump for over 10 years. Mr Adermann —Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked for leave to incorporate a table in Hansard. At the time your attention was distracted. Mr Keating —Leave is granted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Leave is granted. I thank the honourable member for Fisher for bringing that to my attention. It had not been addressed to me. The table read as follows- PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT SOURCE: Parliamentary Library (ABS 5625/6) Money 'Real' terms terms (1982-83 prices) $m $m 1974-75 4,565 10,427 1975-76 5,317 10,472 1976-77 5,953 10,466 1977-78 7,091 11,377 1978-79 8,699 12,920 1979-80 9,311 12,654 1980-81 12,742 15,615 1981-82 16,043 17,871 1982-83 16,348 16,348 1983-84 (forecast)* 11,878 11,049 1984-85 (forecast)* 11,843 9,803 * Affected in part by a change in treatment of unsold speculatively built construction projects. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.07) —This was a pathetic attempt by the former Treasurer to try to do something with a very dishonest proposition. Mr Ruddock —You have lost your audience already. Mr KEATING —Look, I heard the former Treasurer in silence and I will speak in silence. So just restrain yourselves. (Quorum formed) It was a very dishonest attempt to make a case which simply cannot be made. I never thought that the former Treasurer would stoop to trying to suggest, by introducing some phony argument around statistics about investment, that a decline investment in 1983- 84 was in the period of the Australian Labor Party Government when he knows full well that the decline was simply the lagged effect of the recession which he induced in 1982-83. He is the greatest job and investment destroyer since the bubonic plague. In 1982-83, with a massive contraction in profits and a massive rise in inflation and unemployment, obviously we have had a serious decline in investment in 1983- 84. His first piece of evidence in favour of his case today is to argue that there are no lags in economics; that because the numbers are down in 1983-84, that is the Government's fault; and then he goes on to postulate something about 1984-85. So much for that argument, which is hardly worth attending to. The next thing that the honourable member says is that either the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have not got their stories straight or they are trying to mislead people about the state of the economy. The fact is that we are speaking about two different income years-1983-84 and 1984-85. For the dullards on the front bench opposite, let me repeat that in 1983-84, the current financial year, the latest assessment that I have of growth through the year is about 10 per cent, which would probably give us a year average figure of between 5.5 per cent and 6 per cent. When the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard ) was Treasurer in 1982-83, the growth performance of the economy in that year was to decline by 2.5 per cent. So we have come from a decline of 2.5 per cent to growth of about 5.5 per cent, a turn around of 8 per cent, with growth through the year of 10 per cent. Why should the Government go out of its way to hide that fact? What are we supposed to say? Are we to say: 'We are having phenomenal growth. Do not tell anyone. We shall keep it a secret, because it might offend John Howard. It may make it look as though his performance in 1982-83 was pathetic'. The honourable member tried to suggest that this year it is all due to the breaking of the drought. There are many elements in this year's pick-up-the slowing of wages, lower interest rates, the turn around in the stock cycle, certainly a pick-up in the farm sector, a pick-up in housing coming off the Government's first home owners scheme and lower interest rates, the fiscal stimulus coming off the Government's Budget deficit and the deficit of the States, the contribution to growth from exports, and stronger consumer spending. They are all the elements in 1983-84, and 1983-84 has given a kick start to the economy which it very sorely needed after the former Treasurer had let himself loose on the economy for five years. Then the honourable member goes on to argue: 'In that case that is inconsistent '. There is no inconsistency. What we are saying is that strong growth is here. Its momentum will feed through into 1984-85. There are certainly one-off elements in it which will wane over the course of that year, but its strength is such that even as some elements wane, they will be replaced by other elements, including a very strong pick-up in consumption and, hopefully, a stronger pick- up in investment. What the Prime Minister has said and what I have said is certainly not an evangelical appeal. It is nothing like that. Neither is it what has been said by Mr Strong of the Australian Mining Industry Council. Frankly, some of these industry lobby executives need to do their homework a little better. Mr Strong in his recent speech said that it was for social reasons. There are no social reasons. To get this matter clear let me read what the Prime Minister said: We believe that this result is possible- That is, higher investment- indeed, that it is a logical response by business to the general improvements in economic conditions which are now apparent- There is nothing evangelical about that- and which can be expected to continue for some time. He went on to say: Already it is clear that the policies that the Australian Labor Government is promoting are contributing to a substantially higher share of profits in total income, lower inflation, lower unit labour costs, lower interest rates and greater confidence in the continuity of economic policy. Our industrial relations policies have produced the lowest level of disputation for 15 years. I would simply ask when business has known a better environment within which to commit its own resources to a renewed round of investment. Indeed, by doing so it will itself be contributing to the maintenance and enhancement of the very conditions it so greatly values. Is that some evangelical appeal? Is that an appeal for social reasons, as Mr Strong put it? It is an appeal based upon the preconditions for investment which will certainly be evident as we move into 1984-85. That is, we shall see a very strong pick-up in consumption. We shall see spending increase as the savings ratio is declining. We have already seen profits recovered, and indeed, over the course of 1984-85 profits will recover where the profit share of the gross domestic product will be back to something like it was in the 1960s. We shall see labour costs improving, the accord holding, inflation continuing on its downward path, and, with an appropriate Budget outcome, further scope for interest rate falls. On the basis of that kind of situation, why would we not say that there are and will be conditions obtaining in 1984-85 which will be conducive to a pick-up in private investment? We are simply acknowledging at this stage that the first survey of business investment taken by the Australian Statistician in January showed a modest decline in investment-although I make the point that the Statistician's survey, on the average of the last nine years, is 35 per cent below the outcome for investment for that year, which would even turn the projection into a modest pick-up of investment. But what both the Prime Minister and I have said is that the conditions will be there, as they never were in the Fraser years, for a pick-up in private investment. That may be terribly embarrassing to the honourable member for Bennelong, and it may be terribly embarrassing to his colleague at the table, the honourable member for Higgins ( Mr Shipton), who is one of the supposed advocates of small business. They have sent more small businesses to the wall in bankruptcy than any government in history. Now that they have a government which is committed to a pick-up in private sector investment, which is committed to growth in the economy coming off a healthy private sector in a mixed economy, they are embarrassed by this because they have been running the phoney line for years that the Labor Party is not interested in growth, that it is not interested in investment, that it could not defend Australia, and that it lacks interest in all sorts of other issues, all the shibboleths on which they have traded in all of the years of easy post- war growth. They now suddenly find that they have a government that can make the business community tick over better than they could. That is why we shall see, over the course of the year, that they will eat their little hearts out as the economy moves correctly and progressively back into a full recovery phase, as we repair the damage which was inflicted by their policies. Looking at the former Treasurer's policy, one would even assume, with this motion, that he had some of the answers. One of the things that he said on the Sunday program not so long ago-again in one of these characteristics bursts of candour where the acceptance of the candour is supposed to overtake the gravity of the matter to which he is addressing that candour-was: 'Of course, wages policy was our great weakness. We never had an incomes policy'. Mr Howard —It was. I have never denied that. Mr KEATING —The honourable member confirms it. But he still does not have one and he will not get one. He has no tax policy, no incomes policy, and no fiscal policy. The result is that what we would see under his policies would be a pick- up in the economy to be choked off by another prices and wages round. All that he has to offer the public is the stale old recipe of monetary policy and a bit of duck-shoving on fiscal policy, winding it up for an election with a few throw -aways, hoping like hell that he can lay enough shibboleths around the place to win another three years of government as he has done in the past. Liberal members have been exposed as belonging to a party which has not only run out of ideas but has also run out of confidence and, more importantly, a party which has run out of policies. They are not kidding anybody in the business community. Because they have their Liberal Party tickets in their pockets, let them not think that they are kidding anybody in business. People in business are interested in profits, jobs and growth. They are not interested in the Liberal Party. I will tell honourable members where the business constituency in this country is. It is right behind this side of the House. They can forget it being behind their side for a long time. They will be growing old in opposition while they try to disparage this Government's policies, because this Government is interested in growth-the one thing that honourable members opposite have never been able to provide. As to the former Treasurer, I do not think that there would have been any Treasurer around the world in the years from 1976 to 1983, particularly as the world economy moved into recession, who was presented with such a one-off golden opportunity to insulate this country from the recession which affected the rest of the world with that massive investment in the mining sector coming off the general energy policies of Japan and other countries, and particularly in coal and in aluminium. We had a golden opportunity to slide through the recession, maintain our growth rates, maintain our investments and come out much better than anybody else. But what happened to us? We went down the tube. Not only did we go down the tube; we went down bigger and harder than almost any other country. Why? Because honourable members opposite were running around like chooks with their heads cut off without a policy in sight. They had this great Country Party Prime Minister, the former member for Wannon, with a sort of Country Party view of the world; that is, rely on the pork barrel and regulation whenever possible. The former Treasurer was trying to squeak a view into the Cabinet amongst all of the Country Party or National Party overlords. What did honourable members opposite finally have? They simply squandered the investment phase in mining. Their crazy advocation of movement to a market-based system of wage fixation resulted in a high wage round, high inflation and that massive burst of unemployment, taking our unemployment rate from 6.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent. I do not want to waste any more time on members of the Opposition. I just say this to them: Come back to us in about five years because that is the only chance you will have. They will have to sit there and watch growth go up, inflation go down, employment go up and unemployment go down and they will eat their hearts out while it is happening. I have no more to say on that matter. The matter of public importance from the former Treasurer who destroyed the economy deserves the contempt of the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.22) —The Opposition has raised this matter of public importance relating to the lack of private investment in the Australian economy because we are most concerned about the future of the country. Investment means jobs, and I have just heard a very disappointing explanation of the state of affairs by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). A most revealing document was tabled today by the former Treasurer, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). It shows that private sector investment is declining and that the forecasts for the future are most depressing. The Treasurer, who has chosen to leave the House and not face the facts, talked about the state of the economy. Let us look at the economy. He talked about growth. Growth is not anticipated in the Parliamentary Library forecast tabled in the House today. If we look at the figures for the last year of the coalition Government we see that in 1982-83 the private sector investment, in money terms, was $16,348m. It is forecast to decline in 1983-84 to $11,878m in money terms, and the forecast for 1984-85 is even worse. Those figures speak for themselves. They show what is happening in the economy today. They show why the private sector lacks confidence in this Government. They are depressing. They show why the Government will have an early election this year; because it is scared of the effect of its policies and of what is happening in the economy today. Investment is not occurring in Australia because of a lack of confidence in the private sector. There is no climate for investment in Australia today. Investors are voting against this Government with their cheque books. They are not writing the cheques to invest. The figures tabled by the honourable member for Bennelong clearly show that there is a crisis of confidence in the private sector. There is no climate for the creation of wealth in the community today. There is no climate for investment, for the creation of profit. It is from profit that we get savings and capital for investment. That is what honourable members opposite do not understand. Today interest rates are rising because of the large Budget deficit and the huge public sector borrowing. High interest rates act as a deterrent to investment. Private investment is not occurring. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has admitted that it is not occurring. In the week before the New South Wales election he appealed to the private sector to invest. He has admitted that the Government's policies are failing. Why? The economic policies of the present Government are not working. The wages accord has failed. It is passing on the consumer price index increases automatically. There is no recognition of industry's capacity to pay or an individual firm's capacity to pay. The cost of living adjustments are just added to the costs in the wage packet of every business in Australia. The accord has unleashed union power on the business community. Mr Ronald Edwards —Cut it out. Mr SHIPTON —I hear an interjection from the honourable member for Stirling. I hope he will admit that the Australian Labor Party is the prisoner of the trade union movement. Was the Parliamentary Labor Party not formed to be the parliamentary wing of the union movement? Does the honourable member deny that? Does he deny the history, the very basis of the Australian Labor Party? Of course he does not. He is what he is. He is the representative in this place of the trade union movement, and the accord shows very clearly that he is a prisoner of that movement. The full wage indexation policy erodes competitiveness and is a disincentive to business investment. The policies represented by the accord discourage investment. Honourable members opposite talk of capital gains taxes. There is speculation about wealth taxes and about an early election. Let us look at these things. Undoubtedly, Labor wants to introduce a capital gains tax. There is no doubt about it at all; it is policy and it is there. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) has said that some strengthened capital gains tax to apply when people sell businesses should be in place in return for the election promises of taxation concessions to small business. There was no mention of a capital gains tax before the election but now the Minister in charge of industry and commerce in Australia says that there ought to be such a tax. Talk of a capital gains tax damages the investment climate. It deters business investment. Speculation of this sort does nothing to create investor confidence or investment. Speculation about capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and the introduction of death duties deters investment. The Government ought to realise that. Similarly, the Government ought to realise that speculation about an early election deters investors. People do not know where they stand. The Government does not understand that capital is needed for investment. It does not understand that capital represents people's assets, savings and nest eggs and that those savings and nest eggs are used for investment. It does not understand the family business. The introduction of probate duty, a wealth tax or a capital gains tax could well wipe out the family investment in a family business. The Government does not understand that. It does not understand that in a mixed business a family may work hard to build up goodwill, which is capital which it sells. It is part of the Australian myth, part of the Australian dream and this Government wants to bring that down. There is speculation about the nature of the assets test. The Government has said that a pensioner assets test will be introduced. Again, this discourages people from saving and investing. The Government does not understand the nature of the investment process. This was clearly shown in its introduction of a lump sum superannuation tax in the mini-Budget last May. The taxation of lum sums affects business investment. Retirees' lump sums are used for investment in businesses. Again, it shows that the Government does not understand the investment process. The Government has failed small business. It promised all sorts of things. Small business is the key to economic recovery. No major growth is occurring in the small business sector because this Government has failed small business miserably. It promised to implement a small business action program immediately upon election. It has made taxation promises to small business that it has not honoured. There is no investment across the board, as the honourable member for Bennelong pointed out, in the major resource sector. No major investment is taking place in Australia's large corporate sector, whether in manufacturing or in mining. No across the board investment is taking place in the small business sector. The small business sector is the key to growth. Small business employs most Australians. For instance, 99 per cent of businesses in Australia employ less than 100 people and 93 per cent of businesses employ less than 10 people. It is estimated by surveys that 80 per cent of extra jobs have to come from the small business sector. This Government's policies will not create those jobs. The Government has failed the small business sector miserably. Let us look at something else that the Government has done in relation to its bondage to the union movement. The Government has supported and endorsed the Australian Council of Trade Unions' job protection case which will put costs up and deter investment for every business in Australia. It proves beyond doubt that this government is a union government and a mouth piece of the union movement. The Australian Council of Trade Unions' job protection case places an incredible burden on business to make payments when people retire. It is an enormous burden. One has to give three months' notice, and there are enormous payments and payouts. Even the Australian Council of Trade Unions' modified claim is an incredible claim and it is deterring business investment in the private sector. I turn now to inflation. This country currently is inflating at double the rate of its major trading partners. We are losing competitiveness daily. Investment is being deterred daily. Let us just look at the tourist industry. The last consumer price index figures show a 5.7 increase in domestic holiday travel and accommodation prices and a 5.3 decrease in overseas travel and accommodation prices. So there is an 11 per cent gap of competitiveness. This gap is widening. This is just an example that Australia is becoming less competitive under this Government day by day. We have a rate of inflation at least double the rate of our major trading partners, and we are falling further and further behind as a nation. It is an absolute disgrace. This Government is an anti-business government, a government that has not in place policies that will encourage investment. Look at the abolition of the dividend rebate in the May mini-Budget. This Government does not understand how this deters investors. It was a blow to people who wanted to invest in companies and in stock exchanges. It was a blow to those people in businesses and in small businesses who were not listed on the stock exchanges, people on the shop floor who wanted to have a share in the ownership of those businesses. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.33) —It is good to hear members of the Opposition at last talk about economic matters. I think we have had enough of New South Wales bashing and innuendo in this Parliament. Members of the Opposition are now talking about economic matters. It is unfortunate that when they do their performance is not better. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has just spoken about small business. He really has dealt totally inadequately with the matter. The reason it is inadequate is that if honourable members opposite were to talk to small businesses they would tell them that they were concerned about increased turnover, lower interest rates and wage stability. That is what they have had under this Government. The small business sector has had increased turnover and lower interest rates. We have to face that, particularly those who are seeking overdraft accommodation. Certainly there has been a lower pattern of interest rates as well as wage stability with this Government in power. We cannot run away from that. That has been this Government's performance. I want to talk about housing shortly because that is where many small businesses are doing very well, especially in the electorate of Stirling in Western Australia. I might add that, if we are addressing the issue of the capacity of small business to perform, the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) has missed the point. The point is, substantially, that with increased demand, wage stability and lower interest rates small businesses are better off. But it is important that honourable members opposite have come into this chamber and talked about economics. We are very reluctant on this side of the House to take issue and say: 'We can look at the poor performance of the previous Government'. But members of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) force us to. If we look at the Fraser-Howard record of economic vandalism we see that there is a lot to talk about. The fact is that the Opposition did a miserable job in the seven years that it was in government. The electorate knows that it did; the Opposition knows that it did and it missed the opportunity. The previous Government left us with the worst recession since the Great Depression. That is an awful legacy to have. The honourable member for Bennelong is still here to face the music. His partner in crime, the former honourable member for Wannon, has left. None of us is sorry to see him go because he was a most nasty and vindictive Prime Minister in the way in which he conducted his economic policy. I concede that a lot of thought was given to the former Government's economic policies, but they did not work. The fact is that the previous Government destroyed jobs in a massive way. Two hundred and fifty thousand jobs were lost in the Australian economy in the last two years of the former Government. Now the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) comes into this chamber and says that he can identify with the unemployed. What a nasty exercise it is for someone in this place. Honourable members opposite know that it is. It is an embarrassment to them. The only comment that members of the Opposition can make about unemployment is to have one of their members go through this charade of identifying with the unemployed. It is a disgrace! Honourable members opposite ought to admit that it is a disgrace! The community knows it is a disgrace and the honourable member for Hume knows it is a disgrace because he has been almost invisible in the last two days, and that is not because he cannot get his bicycle started. The fact is that it is a humiliating experience for him, and he ought to have known about it. Yet the Opposition's only comment about employment is to do that. Yet the previous Government destroyed 250,000 jobs in two years. It is a massive scandal. The previous Government did it, and we are trying to repair that damage. I wish to talk now about private fixed investment. The reality is that private fixed investment declined by 15 per cent in 1981-82 and again in 1982-83. Members of the Opposition want to blame their performance on us. We are flat out cleaning up the wreckage of the economy. They want to say to us that we ought to be doing this and that with the economy. In fact we have been flat out cleaning up the mess left by the honourable member for Bennelong and the not lamented former right honourable member for Wannon. The reality is that private fixed investment will pick up because we are setting the framework for that recovery and honourable members opposite know that. What really bothers honourable members opposite is that they are not in government when the recovery is occurring. Let me go on and talk about the performance in housing. This is where we have a clear record to demonstrate. The previous Government left us with 105,000 housing starts, the lowest in 25 years. Our level is up to 130,000 at least. We are getting people into houses. It is important to take up this issue because tomorrow the Parliament will be visited by the homeless groups from Melbourne. Honourable members opposite might have a look in the public gallery and recognise the fact that a lot of those people are without housing due to the failure of their policies. They are the ones who killed off the economy; they are the ones who killed off investment. When we look at the fact that there are more people in Australia without homes we see that that is the legacy that the former Government left them. It is a disgrace. It is another example of what I would call the Fraser-Howard economic vandalism and honourable members opposite have to face that; they cannot run away from it. We have talked about the issue of getting some wage stability. We have a wages policy. The wages policy has been working since we have been in government. The unfortunate thing for honourable members opposite is that they never had a wages policy. The attitude adopted by former Prime Minister Fraser was simply to bash unions. It is unfortunate to see that the honourable member for Higgins is still on that same kick. It is not very sophisticated. It is not good enough. The Opposition has to come up with a substantial wages policy. So far it has not. The situation is crying out for a wages policy and Opposition members are not addressing that question. Honourable members on this side of the House well know that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) and the honourable member for Bennelong are locked in a struggle as to who will win out over the wages policy issue. If I had a preference from the point of view of honourable members opposite I would hope that the honourable member for Balaclava wins that battle because it is an important battle. It will get back some respect in the community as far as the Opposition's wages policy is concerned. At present the Opposition does not have one. We have a wages policy. It happens that the prices and incomes accord is working with the one exception of the most disreputable union in Australia at the moment-the Australian Medical Association. We have found that we have a prices and incomes accord that is well put together. I can go on and talk further about the gross domestic product. The Treasurer ( Mr Keating) has already spoken about the issue of GDP. That fell by 2.5 per cent in 1982-83, the last year of the former Government. What a disgrace! The previous Government said that it was in power to get the economy moving. It said that it represented the private sector. What the previous Government did was to put its fingers around the throat of the private sector and squeeze the life out of it. So GDP declined by 2.5 per cent. Already in 1983-84 GDP is projected to grow by 5.5 per cent. That is a clear turnaround. It is a turnaround that honourable members opposite have recognised. We have been able to do that and it is a substantial improvement. I wish now to talk about inflation. The previous Government had double digit inflation in its last two years, 1981-82 and 1982-83. This year we are projecting inflation to be 8.5 per cent. That is something that honourable members opposite have to face up to. Inflation is falling. We have wage and price stability. Interest rates are down. We also have some confidence back in the economy. We have restored stability. In that climate, we are looking ahead to a lower Budget deficit. We can project that private fixed capital investment will recover. Those are the conditions for recovery. Honourable members opposite know it. What really bothers them is that they are sitting on the Opposition benches and we are in government. But we did the job of work and the previous Government did not. It had seven years and it failed. The community knows that it failed. When we really begin to address some of the hard issues of economic management, when we look at the fact that the job of government is to set a framework within which the private sector can perform, we see that the former Government had that opportunity and it blew it. Mining recovery never took off in Australia. It did not produce the jobs. It did not produce the flow through to the rest of the economy that the previous Government hoped it would. But we have managed, importantly with the National Economic Summit Conference last year , flowing through to the Premiers Conference and then the Budget, to have set a stage for economic recovery in this country. If we look at some of those conditions we see that the community also recognises that. We also have some hard data to support the claims that I am making. Manufacturing production has turned around. It was nearly 4 per cent higher in the December quarter of 1983 than in the March quarter of 1983. So manufacturing production is up. Consumer spending is rising. The honourable member for Higgins has spoken about small business. The most important thing for a small business person is to get people coming in through the door. The only way to do that is to get money in their pockets and get interest rates down. The previous Government sadly failed in that area and it knows it failed. Somehow that arch- Tory Fraser dragged the previous Government into recession. The fact that there are so few members of the Opposition on the other side indicates that point. Let us have a look at the projections on the balance of payments. We are getting an improvement in that area as well. Overall, the statistics show that we have a credible economic performance. We have to throw this back to the previous Government. It did not succeed. It is not good enough for honourable members opposite to come into this place with some high level of indignation and to pretend that they can unload upon us the responsibility for their failings. They did fail. They failed economically, they failed politically, and they failed miserably in political terms. If one looks at the benches on the other side of the chamber there are very few people on them. If we take the reality, we have put together a credible economic policy. I will go through it again because I think it is important: We have a prices and incomes accord in place; interest rates have fallen; we have begun to get recovery throughout the housing sector; we have also managed to get an acceptance by finance institutions that our economic management is credible and they are looking forward to developments within this economy; inflation is down and we are looking ahead to a Budget which in fact will produce a lower deficit. All the conditions are there. So when we look at the issue of private fixed capital investment-that is what we are talking about today-the reality is that the conditions are there for recovery in investment. If honourable members knew anything about the question of lags they would understand that when those conditions are set up investment recovery follows. In conclusion, I say to honourable members that when they want to come into this House and talk about economic issues they had better get their facts right. These facts do not make a very good case for honourable members opposite; they make a disgraceful case. But they do make a good case for the Government. The Government has put together a substantial policy. That policy is working. The community recognises this and the statistics show it. I am happy to reject the matter of public importance brought on by the Opposition. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —The discussion is concluded. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the forty-seventh general report, and the first, second and fifth reports for 1984 of the Committee, relating to the construction of an engine runup facility, Royal Australian Air Force Base, Darwin, the construction of a new building for the Australian Film and Television School, North Ryde, New South Wales and the reconstruction of the Pyrotechnic section at the Munitions Filling Factory, St Marys, New South Wales, respectively, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the forty-seventh general report. Leave granted. Mr FIFE —Once a year the Public Works Committee is required by its Act to report to Parliament on its activities over the proceeding 12 months. The report contains factual information on such matters as committee membership, number of meetings held and details of the various works referred to it and the number of reports presented, et cetera. The report highlights the new areas of work now being examined, namely those relating to statutory bodies and overseas embassies . This widening of the Committee's purview resulted from recent amendments to the Public Works Committee Act. Two further amendments to the Act are foreshadowed in this report. One is to cover the possibility of work being declared urgent by the Governor-General because of an emergency situation and the other is to raise the current mandatory limit of work being referred to the Committee from $2m to $6m and that the Committee be given discretionary power to examine works estimated to cost between $2m and $6m. For the benefit of honourable members, officials and others likely to be dealing with the Committee and the public generally, I turn now to the functions of the Committee. The Committee, as expeditiously as is practicable, considers each public work that is referred to it in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act and makes a report to both Houses of Parliament concerning the expediency of carrying out the work. It also reports on any other matters related to the work in respect of which it thinks desirable that its views should be reported to both Houses. It may recommend any alterations to the proposals for the work that, in its opinion, is necessary or desirable to ensure that the most effective use is made of the moneys to be expended on the work. It is the practice for the Chairman of the Committee to read out sub-section 17 (3) of the Public Works Committee Act at the commencement of each public hearing. This sets out the pertinent matters to be taken into consideration when the Committee reports on a public work. Honourable members may be assured that the members of this Committee, the twenty-seventh, will continue to uphold the tradition of all former committees in its important role as a watchdog, on behalf of Parliament, over proposed expenditure on public works. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr COWAN(Lyne) —by leave-I support the remarks of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) who is the Vice Chairman of the Public Works Committee. I will say a few words concerning the work of the Committee. I have been a member of it for over three years. I believe that the work performed by members of the Committee is very important indeed so far as the Parliament and the various departments are concerned. If we were to sum up briefly the work of the Committee we could assess it as a dollar saver for the taxpayer. Over the years I have found that all the Committee members have served it in a very capable way . They delve very deeply into the various investigations carried out by the Committee. As honourable members will see from the report over the year there have been quite a number of hearings and investigations. These take up a lot of time of the Committee but all Committee members are pleased to serve on the Committee. I pay a tribute to Senator Foreman, the Chairman of the Committee. I also pay a tribute to Mr Fenton and the rest of the Public Works Committee staff who look after us in a very fine way indeed. They endeavour to fit the members into the various schedules and at times that is not very easy to do. In conclusion, I feel that the work of the Committee has the very great respect of the various departments, particularly the Department of Defence and the Department of Housing and Construction. I believe that officers of these Departments like to appear before us. They go into great detail with their submissions to the Committee, which I believe is a very good thing as far as construction work and costing are concerned. I pay a tribute to all those involved with this report. Consideration resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 30 November 1983 the Australian Secret Intelligence Service-ASIS-conducted an exercise at the Sheraton Hotel in Melbourne which was the subject of Mr Justice Hope's report tabled in the Senate on 29 February 1984. As a result of the incident at the Sheraton Hotel, the Victorian Police together with the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions are considering prosecuting certain persons for breaches of the criminal law in Victoria. On the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), confirmed by Mr Justice Hope, the Government considers that there are very strong grounds for believing that the disclosure of the names of some, if not all, of these persons in the ordinary course of criminal proceedings, would be prejudicial to the national or international security of Australia. In these circumstances, there has been detailed consultation between Commonwealth and Victorian Ministers and officials with a view to meeting the concerns of both governments by means of State legislation specifically empowering Victorian courts, in appropriate circumstances, to make orders for confidentiality upon grounds of prejudice to the national or international security of Australia. Complementary Commonwealth legislation is necessary to give effect to such orders outside Victoria. On 20 March 1984, the Victorian Parliament passed the Criminal Proceedings Act 1984, specifically empowering the courts of that State to make certain orders for confidentiality in relation to criminal proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident. The Bill now before the House represents the Commonwealth's part of the arrangement and complements the Victorian legislation , which received the royal assent on 27 March 1984. (Quorum formed) This Bill amends the Judiciary Act 1903 by inserting a new Part under which any such orders for confidentiality made by the criminal courts of Victoria in relation to those criminal proceedings are applied, by force of Commonwealth law, throughout Australia. Under the Bill, the Federal Court of Australia is, in effect, given power to punish contravention of these confidentiality orders in the same way as contempt of court is punished. The new Part is inserted by clause 3 of the Bill. Proposed section 46 provides that the Part is to apply only to orders made by Victorian courts in criminal proceedings arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident. Proposed sub-section 49 (1) makes it clear, furthermore, that it applies only to orders made on grounds of necessity or desirability 'in the interests of the national or international security of Australia or in the interests of the physical safety of the accused, of a witness or of any other person'. The particular types of confidentiality orders to be applied by the Part are spelt out in proposed sub-section 49 (3) as follows: Orders for the whole or part of the proceedings to take place in a closed hearing; orders excluding a person or class of persons from the whole or part of the proceedings; orders prohibiting or restricting disclosure of information respecting the whole or part of the proceedings; orders prohibiting or restricting publication of a report relating to the whole or part of the proceedings; orders ensuring that, without the approval of the court, no person has access- before, during or after the hearing-to any document used in, or court records of , the proceedings; and orders combining any two or more of the foregoing. The scheme of these amendments can be summarised as follows: If a Victorian court should make, under the specific power conferred by the Victorian Criminal Proceedings Act 1984, an order to which the present Bill applies, that order would by force of proposed sub-section 49 (2) take effect throughout Australia and beyond, applying to all natural persons, whether Australian citizens or Australian residents or not, and all bodies corporate as provided in proposed section 47. Any contravention of the order, for example, by someone in New South Wales, would be punishable by the Federal Court of Australia under proposed sub- section 49 (4) as if it were a contempt of that Court. These amendments have been introduced to meet the particular issues of concern to the Commonwealth and Victorian governments arising out of the Sheraton Hotel incident and it is not proposed to give them general or permanent force. Thus the Bill contains, in proposed section 51, a sunset clause limiting the application of the Bill to orders made within two years after the commencement of the Victorian legislation. This limitation expressly recognises the exceptional nature of the amendments and the particular circumstances which they are designed to meet. In addition, the Bill contains, in proposed section 50, a specific provision to ensure public accountability in regard to the operation of the Part. It requires the Attorney-General to make an annual report to Parliament on the number of proceedings known to him in which relevant confidentiality orders were made, and the outcome of those proceedings. Such annual reports are to be made in terms that would not breach the confidentiality orders involved. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that provisions of the type proposed in the present Bill and the Victorian legislation it complements are not entirely novel. There are precedent provisions for confidentiality orders in the United Kingdom Official Secrets Act 1920 and also in existing Australian legislation. For example, section 85B of the Crimes Act 1914 gives judges and magistrates in Federal jurisdiction a power to make orders similar to those referred to in proposed section 49 if satisfied that such an order is expedient in the interest of the defence of the Commonwealth. Again section 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 gives that Court power, at any time during or after the hearing of a proceeding, to make such orders forbidding or restricting the publication of evidence or the name of a party or witness, as appear to the Court necessary in order to prevent prejudice to the administration of justice or the security of the Commonwealth. The amendments contained in this Bill will enable the criminal law of Victoria to take its due course, but at the same time will provide a procedure designed to ensure that the national or international security of Australia, or the physical safety of persons, is not prejudiced in the process. No significant financial impact is expected. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I seek leave to make a short statement on one of the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works just tabled, the one on the construction of the new building for the Australian Film and Television School. Mr Kerin —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say that our patience has been a little bit tested because the Deputy Prime Minister was interrupted when making a second reading speech. However, the honourable member for Wentworth did see me prior to the House moving to the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. He pointed out there were four reports. I think there was some confusion in his mind. I had agreed that he be given leave to speak to the report on the Australian Film and Television School. We will stick to that agreement. Leave granted. Mr COLEMAN —I thank the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I particularly welcome the opportunity to speak on the tabling of the Public Works Committee report on the construction of a new building for the Australian Film and Television School because of my involvement, in the early years of the school, some 15 years ago in the planning of this new building for the Australian Film and Television School. With the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), now the Minister for Science and Technology, I was on the film committee of the old Australian Council for the Arts which proposed the report, which the then Gorton Government accepted and which the subsequent Whitlam Government continued , on the construction of that school and for the examination of various sites, including the site on which this new building is to be built. We examined sites all over the country but finally settled on a site in North Sydney for the reason that that is where the Australian film industry tends to be concentrated. The school began in effect in a small office in North Sydney, then moved to a slightly larger office in Chatswood and finally moved to temporary warehouses in North Ryde where it has carried out its programs, I think it is fair to say, with very great success. Some 85 per cent to 95 per cent of its graduates are in employment. There will be a graduation next Friday of 24 graduates. Already eight of them have obtained jobs and another eight are in the process of obtaining jobs. That is a fair indication of the success of the employment rate of the school. Graduates have been associated with well known films, such as Gillian Armstrong with My Brilliant Career, John Cruthers with The Plains of Heaven, Chris Noonan with Stepping Out and Sophia Turkiewicz with Silver City which has just been completed. The school has an outstanding success record, particularly under the present Director, Mr Storry Walton. It is also becoming a training school for film makers throughout the South Pacific. It conducts a unique open program for the retraining and reskilling of people already employed in the industry. I say it is unique although it has recently been imitated by the British film school. Nevertheless it has carried on its training, its business, in inadequate buildings-theatres, studios, workshops and rehearsal space-at an annual rental of over $350,000 a year. The Public Works Committee has now recommended a new building. The Committee is obviously surprised, impressed and a little depressed at the great cost of this new building. It will be $13m. The Committee points out that each graduate, taking into account running costs, costs the taxpayer some $70, 000. The Committee, in its report, is concerned to find ways if not of reducing the cost of at least reducing the cost to the taxpayer. I should mention in passing that the report states that all of this money is going mainly to full time students. I do not think that is accurate because the open program is a major part of the work of the school and it will be expanded in the new buildings. Nevertheless it is not surprising that the Committee looks at and makes as a condition its raising money from the industry. The report points out that the industry is, in effect, subsidised by the school at the rate of $5.1m per annum and it asks what can be raised from the industry. I think that may be a little optimistic. The wealthy television companies do not employ cinematographers and directors. They tend to get their finished product from the producers such as the Crawfords and the Grundys who would have a more direct interest in the school than the television companies. Otherwise we are looking at the freelance independent producers, the Joan Longs and the David Elficks. All of these producers are not financially strong. Many of them do not live at all well. They survive on subsidies and tax concessions. They are not in a position to make the sort of contribution to the film school that I believe the Committee thinks is possible. It may well be that the cinema levy referred to in the report would work. But as we know ever since there have been cinemas there has been talk of cinema levies. Except in occasional cases they have never happened and the cinema lobby seems very successful in postponing or ruling them out. Nevertheless I think the Committee is right when it recommends that some attention should be given to removing the disincentive under which the film school and all statutory authorities operate at the moment to raise money. If they raise, say, $50,000 then by standard practice the Commonwealth Government reduces their budget by $ 50,000 and that, of course, really takes away any heart that they would have in raising the money themselves. The Committee rightly suggests that this disincentive be removed and I understand that that is under active consideration . The Public Works Committee has basically approved the new buildings. They will go ahead and do better work for Australia in the satellite age and for the industry, justifying the confidence that Prime Ministers Gorton, Whitlam and Fraser have had in the industry. It is indeed a happy day that after so many years this report giving approval to the construction of a new building, is tabled in this Parliament. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(6.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 and to make a consequential amendment to the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971. The Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 established the Pig Meat Promotion Committee of four members funded by a levy of 60c on each pig slaughtered for human consumption. This gives the Committee an annual income of around $2.5m. There is no Commonwealth contribution to the Committee's funds. This Bill seeks to change the name of the Committee to the Pork Promotion Committee and to change the name of the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 to the Pork Promotion Act 1975. The change is intended to update the image of pig meat throughout the industry and in no way indicates any change in the role or functions of the Committee. Administration of the Committee's funds are to be transferred to the Committee itself. At present the Committee's funds are placed in a trust account within the Department of Primary Industry and all accounts are paid through departmental procedures. Under the proposed arrangements levy money will be paid direct to the Committee which will then be responsible for paying its own accounts. This will streamline the financial operations of the Committee considerably. The Committee will be required to keep its accounts in accordance with usual procedures for such an authority and the accounts will be audited by the Commonwealth Auditor-General. The provision will be continued that the funds can be spent only in accordance with estimates of expenditure approved by the Minister for Primary Industry. The above changes have the support of the Australian Pork Producers Federation. The Bill also provides for a number of amendments of a machinery nature, which have been endorsed by the Committee. One of the two producer representatives on the Committee is Chairman. It is proposed that the other producer representative should be the Deputy Chairman. It is provided that, instead of all four members having to be present to hold a meeting, a quorum of three will be sufficient. The Minister for Primary Industry will be required to approve persons proposed as deputies of members prior to their appointment. The Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 is to be amended to take account of the change of name of the Committee. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill (Quorum formed) Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(6.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend certain of the arrangements under which financial assistance is made available to the States and Northern Territory under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982. I should point out to the House that this Government when in opposition supported the objectives of the program when the Act was introduced by our predecessors. Because of the declining level of Commonwealth expenditure on roads the need for such an initiative was obvious. However, we were concerned about some of the provisions of the legislation, particularly the compulsory tendering requirement , and during last year's election campaign we undertook to review it. Upon coming to government we have accordingly reviewed a number of provisions of the ABRD Trust Fund Act, in addition to those relating to the calling of tenders. In giving this undertaking, our Government was concerned to have provisions that were reasonable to all parties. Consistent with our approach to conciliation and consultation, detailed discussions were held with the States, local government, industry and relevant unions. This process identified three areas where changes to the provisions of the legislation were necessary. The first, as identified earlier, related to the provisions which required that all construction work on national, urban arterial and rural arterial roads must go to tender. The second related to the provisions requiring the States to maintain in real terms their expenditure on roads for the duration of the ABRD program. We do not disagree with the broad objective. We were concerned, however , that there was no recognition of circumstances where a State had substantially exceeded its real terms maintenance of expenditure, possibly for a number of years, but that the excess could not be taken into account in subsequent years should the State fall behind the necessary rate of expenditure. Thirdly, a number of States pointed out that, where a State wished to take the option of directing part of its urban arterial roads allocation to urban public transport projects, additional conditions were imposed without the State receiving one additional cent of funding. Having regard to the much greater rates of investment that most States are making in urban public transport than the funds that would be available under the ABRD program, this Government is satisfied that the requirement that the State also maintain its urban public transport real terms expenditure is unreasonable. The amendments to the ABRD Trust Fund Act therefore make the changes which this Government considers are desirable in order to improve the operation of the ABRD program. Turning to the provisions of the legislation, firstly, the Bill varies the requirement that tenders must be called by a State for all works associated with national and arterial road projects. Under the legislation developed by our predecessors this was an absolute requirement with no provision whatsoever for it to be waived. While this Government recognises the merits of the general principle of calling tenders for road construction, there is a need for some flexibility to cover situations where the process of calling tenders is either impractical or not cost effective. The Bill therefore allows the Minister to approve an exemption from the requirement to call tenders for specific works where a State can demonstrate to the Minister's satisfaction that: there is an emergency requirement for the works to be performed, or the works are of such a minor nature that calling tenders would involve undue additional cost, or it is not practical to prepare adequate tender specifications for the works, or the works are of such a kind that competitive tenders are unlikely to be received, or the works involve adjustments to utility services which would normally be undertaken by a government department, a government authority or a corporation not primarily responsible for the construction of roads, or the performance of the work under contract would cause unavoidable retrenchment or inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State or local government road construction employees. (Quorum formed) This last provision also requires the State or local government to demonstrate that it has taken all practicable action to avoid this problem. The Bill provides for this amendment to come into effect from 12 February 1984, the date on which the Government's intention to revise these provisions was announced. This will enable the States, upon enactment of this legislation, to seek exemption in respect of any works which have been commenced subsequent to that date. I must emphasise that each of these provisions for exemption has been carefully considered. They have been included as there are obvious circumstances where time or costs make the tendering process inappropriate. It is the Government's intention that the ministerial discretion will be used very infrequently, and then only after the most rigorous and detailed examination of all the factors involved. The second area of amendment relates to the requirement that States maintain their own roads expenditure in real terms during the life of the ABRD program. The Act currently provides that, where a State fails to maintain its roads expenditure in real terms in a given year, it is required to make up the shortfall in the following year. Should it fail to do this its allocation under the ABRD program may be reduced. However, there is no provision to allow a State which exceeds the real terms requirement in a year to carry forward that excess as a credit against a later year. While the Government firmly intends that States should be required to maintain their own expenditure effort, it considers that the current legislative provisions are, from the States' standpoint, both inconsistent and inequitable. Accordingly, the Bill provides that excess expenditure by a State in any year shall be taken into account in determining the level of expenditure by that State in a subsequent year. This provision is comparable with arrangements which have previously applied under Federal roads assistance legislation. The third area of amendment relates to the requirement that, where a State proposes that part of its urban road allocation be directed to urban public transport capital works projects, it must maintain in real terms its own capital expenditure on urban public transport. As it stands, a State which decides to apply part of its ABRD entitlement to urban public transport projects receives no more in total assistance than if it were to direct all of its funds to road projects. On the other hand, the State becomes liable to a requirement to maintain a specified level of State expenditure on both roads and urban public transport in each year of the program. This Government's transport policy is to assist the States to improve and maintain urban public transport systems. It is clearly inconsistent with this objective to maintain an arrangement which disadvantages States which wish to apply part of their ABRD funds to worthwhile urban public transport improvements . The Bill therefore removes the requirement that State urban public transport expenditure be maintained in real terms where this option is taken up. These amendments, developed in close consultation with all the parties concerned, further reinforce the Government's commitment to improve the effectiveness of Australia's road system. This commitment is nowhere more clearly evident than in the increases of 45 per cent to $1,233m in our allocation to the States for roads this year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(6.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 24 of the Roads Grants Act 1981, under which provision of financial assistance to a State for a national road construction project is conditional upon the State inviting tenders for all works associated with the project. The amendments for which this Bill provides are fully consistent with the corresponding amendments for which provision is made in the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill. My previous remarks in relation to the tendering aspects of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill apply equally to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(6.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 which is now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains nine schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament in the 1983 Budget sittings and the 1984 Autumn sittings by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 15-19 (1983) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1-4 (1984). Certain of the amendments contained in the Bill arise from the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on: Copper and certain copper products (including removal of export control) Fatty acids and certain aliphatic acids, their salts and esters; glycerol; tall oil Lawnmowers, certain engines and parts and the Temporary Assistance Authority's report on certain air conditioning machines. The Bill also contains amendments relating to: The implementation of arrangements resulting from the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand; Continuation of the textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy, including decisions taken by the Government in respect of the May 1983 report of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee; Concessions granted under certain trade agreements with nations of the South Pacific region and with Canada; The insertion of provisions to allow imports of certain steel products from developing countries to be admitted under quota at concessional rates of duty; and finally, Amendments to correctly reflect the intention, scope or wording of certain provisions contained in the principal Act. Honourable members will recall that on each occasion when Customs Tariff proposals were introduced, the decisions taken by the Government were outlined to the House. (Quorum formed) I am thankful to the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) for giving me an audience for this gripping speech. It is a pity that he is speechless when there are things of some import before the House and confines his total speaking activities to calling stupid quorums. The changes in respect of TAA and IAC reports contained in this Bill are directed to the level of assistance accorded to certain industries. Some of these changes have the secondary effect of increasing or decreasing revenues. Decisions affecting levels of assistance are of course expected to have an effect on levels of imports and, therefore, the level of customs duty collected. The precise impact of these changes may also not become clear, in financial impact terms, until several months after the decisions of the Government are implemented. For these reasons, the financial impact of this Bill may only be broadly estimated at $6.96m in customs revenue forgone per year. It should be noted that bounty assistance is being provided as a result of the Government's decisions of the Temporary Assistance Authority's report on certain air conditioning machines and the Industries Assistance Commission's report on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts. The financial impact of such bounty assistance is not included in the figure quoted above. Administrative amendments contained in the Bill are expected to have little financial impact. In addition, there are no significant administrative costs associated with the measures contained in this Bill. A summary of amendments for each schedule contained in the Bill has been prepared for the information of honourable members. Copies are available in the Bills and Papers Office. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Dr Blewett, and read a first time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(6.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decision which I announced yesterday to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. This section was amended last year as part of the Medicare legislation package because of concern expressed by both Commonwealth and State governments about the lack of controls over rights of private practice in public hospitals. Briefly, section 17 provides that Medicare benefits are not payable in respect of a prescribed medical service rendered to private patients in or at a public hospital unless there is an agreement in writing between the medical practitioner and the public hospital. The agreement must conform to guidelines determined by the Commonwealth Minister for Health. This concern about lack of controls over private practice rights in public hospitals, especially in the area of diagnostic services, is well documented. The previous Government commissioned the Jamison Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals. That report made the following recommendations: Recommendation 109: There be an urgent review by each of the employment authorities of rights of private practice in hospitals with a view to limiting its scope, consistent with the underlying intent of the contract between an individual patient and doctor. Recommendation 111: Steps be taken to phase out over a period of years the right of private practice for full time salaried specialists. Recommendation 112: Action be taken to improve the awareness of all medical practitioners of the medical value and cost of tests, not only for pathology but for all diagnostic services. Recommendation 113: Guidelines be issued by health authorities on the utilisation of radiology, pathology and pharmacy services. These are strong recommendations from what is generally accepted as being a very conservative report. The concern was obviously aroused by the evidence given by many organisations about excess utilisation of diagnostic services in hospitals. Let me quote what the Australian Association of Surgeons told the Jamison Inquiry: There are cases of patients tested to the point of exhaustion for reasons entirely unknown to their principal medical attendant. There is little doubt that many of these diagnostic testing procedures represent an unwarranted invasion of privacy inflicted on the patient and many of them cause unnecessary suffering and hardship. Their cost to the community is almost inestimable. This type of statement which was made by several other conservative and respected organisations promoted the Jamison Commission of Inquiry to state in its report: The Commission realises that patients would want their doctors to explore all available avenues in times of doubt. But the statements above must cause concern to patients, doctors, administrators and governments. Unfortunately the matter was of no concern to the previous Government, which took no action in this area despite the strong recommendations and evidence of the inquiry that it had commissioned. This Government does not believe that questions such as the rapidly increasing cost of diagnostic services can be ignored. We are dedicated to the operation of an efficient, high standard health care system, and we intend to provide this through Medicare at a cost that is affordable to the Australian people. It was vital that at the same time as we introduced Medicare we introduced meaningful measures to restrain increases in health costs in some areas. Given the statement I have just quoted from the Surgeons Association, it is not difficult to see why it was decided that the area of diagnostic services was in need of immediate attention. Some medical specialists have viewed section 17 as a threat to their income and privileges, and as a result they have embarked on a course of industrial action. The Government has made every effort to be reasonable on this issue, as this Bill and the deferral of more controversial matters to the joint Government- Australian Medical Association Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals clearly indicates. However, our overriding responsibility is to ensure that the $2,000m in Medicare benefits paid annually to medical practitioners in this country is wisely and properly spent. For this reason we cannot and will not be deterred from the principle of section 17, or the fairness of the guidelines relating to schedule fee compliance that have already been introduced under the section. These guidelines, which were developed in consultation with State governments, and after considerable discussion and compromise with the AMA, were gazetted on 29 February 1984. These guidelines are not in the form of a regulation and, therefore, under the current legislation not subject to disallowance by the Parliament. The Government believed this provision for disallowance was unnecessary because the circumstances of doctors' employment in public hospitals made it impossible for any government to use section 17 to impose unreasonable conditions. Firstly, in acting in this area any government would need the co-operation of a majority of the State governments, who would not act to endanger the standards of their own public hospital system. Secondly, the specialists who are at the forefront of this dispute are not salaried specialists. They are independent entrepreneurs who work in the public hospital system only part of the time. If a government were foolish enough to impose unreasonable guidelines under section 17, then these specialists would have an immediate recourse to withdraw to their already established private practices outside public hospitals. They obviously do not need the direct protection of law necessary for a salaried employee. Thirdly, and most obviously, it would not be in the interests of any government , especially a Labor government, to introduce guidelines that prompted an exodus of specialists from the public hospital system. We are dependent on these people for the excellence of care that is currently provided in our public hospitals. Rights of private practice are an important element in attracting high quality medical staff to the public hospitals. This Government believes that, while some of those private practice rights are in need of reform, it would be counter- productive in the extreme to abolish them. The points I have just made were summarised in the Sydney Morning Herald's editorial of Saturday, 17 March 1984, as follows: What, exactly, is at issue in the two-month-old industrial dispute between the doctors and the Federal Government? Is it, as the doctors claim, the unfettered power given to the Federal Health Minister by Section 17 of the Health Insurance Act? Hardly, Dr Blewett's power under Section 17 is certainly no more and probably a great deal less than that of any other employer. In theory he can do almost anything he likes. In practice, he is limited by both the doctors' industrial power and public opinion. Now that is a realistic statement of the real position in the real world. However, the paranoia and unwarranted fear that the AMA and specialist groups have aroused in the medical profession, in the interests of furthering an industrial dispute over income and privilege, has meant that the Government now finds it necessary to formalise that real world situation into legislation. For that reason I am introducing this Bill as it meets the objections of principle put forward by the medical profession, and should lead to an end to the current industrial disruption before it seriously endangers patient welfare. Let me remind the House again of the facts about private practice rights in public hospitals. There are a variety of different schemes and arrangements under which salaried doctors exercise rights of private practice. There is lack of detailed knowledge about how such schemes operate, and how a substantial proportion of the funds available under those schemes are applied. It is a fact that receipt of Medicare benefits by salaried hospital specialists provides them with a source of income, over and above their salary determinations. This private practice income is generally accrued during the same working time in which they are employed by the public hospital. This is why it is nonsense for the AMA and those opposite to object to the Commonwealth Government having a say in the conditions under which doctors are employed in public hospitals. Those agreements between hospitals and doctors directly affect the amount of Medicare benefits that the Commonwealth Government is liable to pay. State governments have no direct monetary interest in controlling the amount of private practice work undertaken in public hospitals. However, the four State Labor governments have accepted the reality of the problem and willingly co-operated in the development of guidelines under section 17. As I have already made clear, this Government has no intention of abolishing rights of private practice arrangements in public hospitals, despite the recommendation of the Jamison Inquiry. Our intention is only to impose reasonable controls to ensure that those rights are not exploited. Our concerns have been greatest about rights of private practice as they relate to diagnostic services, pathology, radiology, radiotherapy, and nuclear medicine. In these areas, there is little if any direct doctor-patient contact, and the patient is usually unaware of the nature and extent of any tests being carried out. This is a high cost area of Medicare which provides substantial scope for generating additional revenue. There is also a significant technical content to these services as provided by the use of public hospital equipment and facilities. It is because these costly facilities are taxpayer-funded that we are expecting a wider degree of public accountability from these diagnostic specialists. The Government has made no secret of the fact, from before the legislation passed by this Parliament in September last year, that Medicare benefits would be payable for these diagnostic services provided in public hospitals, only if the service was provided in accordance with an agreement between the doctor and the public hospital. Prior to that, the Government had commenced negotiations with the Australian Medical Association. The initial draft guidelines proposed that all agreements would require certain things. I apologise to the House for the need to go through this matter in detail but it is important that the attitude taken by the Government be fully understood by all members of this House and by the public. The initial draft guidelines proposed that all agreements would require: (a) All accounts to be raised by the hospital on behalf of the doctor. (b) All charges to be at or below schedule fee. (c) All revenue received for diagnostic services rendered under private practice contracts for full time specialists in a particular hospital to be treated as one fund. (d) The fund to be applied in the following order: (1) Facility charges, recovery of costs, to the hospital in a form acceptable to the Commonwealth Minister. (2) Drawings by the doctor at a level determined by the State, up to 25 per cent of full time specialist salary. (3) Any residual to be applied following guidelines set by the State Ministers for Health. The purpose of those guidelines was, firstly: To standardise private practice rights for full time salaried staff. In most States, the 25 per cent limit already applied, except in New South Wales where some more generous arrangements applied in some cases. (Quorum formed) The objective of the guidelines was secondly: To reduce incentives for visiting private practitioners to request and perform tests. In some areas where there is a shortage of salaried staff, visiting practitioners perform most, if not all, the radiological or pathology services. This means that the fee for services payment systems allow these practitioners to generate substantial income. In such circumstances, it was reasonable to introduce income restraints as they meant that necessary diagnostic services would be performed at a more reasonable cost to taxpayers. These guidelines were in no sense harsh by community standards since they did not have any effect until an income of about $62,500 per annum was reached. Because of the AMA's dissatisfaction with these arrangements, a further proposal , inter alia, was made on income levels. It was proposed that: For full time, salaried staff: (i) Drawings by the doctor, up to 25 per cent of the salary of a senior specialist, which would allow about $12,000 per annum for private practice on top of a salary of about $50,000 per annum. For visiting, private practitioners: (i) Full drawings by the doctor, up to 125 per cent of the salary of a senior specialist-about $62,500 per annum. (ii) From 125 per cent to 175 per cent of the senior specialist salary-that is, from about $62,500 to $87,500 per annum-the doctor can draw 75 per cent of the earnings above $62,500 per annum and leave 25 per cent in the fund. (iii) About 175 per cent of the senior specialist salary-that is, about $87,500 per annum-the doctor can draw 60 per cent of the earnings above $87,500 per annum and leave 40 per cent in the fund. Any residual remaining in the fund to be applied for purposes such as education , equipment or other development activities under guidelines set by the State Health Minister. These more generous limits were still not acceptable to the AMA. On 11 January 1984, I met with representatives of the AMA about their objections. On 24 January, I announced that the Government would defer implementation of the income restraint guidelines. I also announced that there would be a committee of inquiry into rights of private practice in public hospitals under the chairmanship of Professor David Penington, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at Melbourne University. The Commonwealth and the AMA were each to nominate a member to constitute a committee of three. I also announced that the introduction of the section 17 arrangements would be deferred from 1 February to 1 March to allow for further negotiation, and to allow a reasonable implementation period for doctors and State health authorities. I met with the AMA again on 9 February 1984. The AMA's attention has now turned to the Minister's 'unfettered powers' under section 17 to alter their conditions . As indicated previously, it is not in any government's interests to introduce guidelines which change agreements so significantly as to drive doctors out of the public hospital system. Therefore, in negotiations with the AMA in February, it was agreed that terms of reference for the Penington Inquiry would include consultative procedures prior to variation of the guidelines, and appeal or review procedures in relation to these arrangements. I also guaranteed that the guidelines would not be altered or extended until the report of the Inquiry had been considered. The AMA's other objection was that the new national list of facility charges for the prescribed diagnostic items meant increases in those charges in some States for some services. Again, the Government agreed to refer the question of a national list of facility charges to the Inquiry, and to allow the existing State facility charges to remain in force until the Inquiry reported. The AMA's only concession in all these negotiations was to agree on 16 February to participate in the Inquiry. Following this further meeting on 16 February, the Federal President of the AMA, Dr Thompson, publicly stated that the Government's concessions and the Inquiry had provided a real basis for resolution of the dispute. However, the Government proposals were rejected by a meeting of the AMA and specialist groups on 22 February 1984. This situation necessitated joint action by the Ministers for Health in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia to ensure that: No practitioners providing diagnostic services would charge more than the schedule fee for services in public hospitals after 1 March 1984; no patient would be denied access to public hospital services and no diagnostician would be prevented from rendering services to his or her patients in a public hospital; and the medical benefit schedule fee would not be required to be included in agreements under section 17 where a State took action to ensure that the schedule fee was charged for diagnostic services through these limited price control measures. The guidelines which were introduced on 29 February were revised to ensure that the only significant requirement for the agreements between the hospital and the doctor was that charges raised be at or below the schedule fee. This is not a government fee. It is a fee set annually by an independent arbitrator after hearing argument from Government, the AMA and other interested parties. Despite all the concessions made, in an effort to reach a settlement, the AMA was still being intransigent, so a meeting was held on 2 March with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) present. At that meeting, the Prime Minister offered: (1) To give an undertaking in writing that during the period of the Penington Committee Inquiry, there would be no change of any sort in the guidelines as gazetted on 29 February 1984 or in the details of their applications. (2) With respect to the recommendations of the Penington Committee relating to appeal and review procedures, the Government would advise the Penington Committee that the Government has no objection to recommendations providing for such procedures and will accept the recommendation of the Inquiry on that matter . In return, the Government sought an assurance that the AMA would recommend to the members of the profession: (1) That they sign written agreements in accordance with current guidelines, with particular emphasis on the guidelines relating to charging at or below the schedule fee, where such agreements do not already exist. (2) That there be no discrimination against Medicare only patients in recognised hospitals. The Federal AMA again agreed that this was reasonable and took the Prime Minister's proposal to a further meeting of its State branches, and other medical organisations. This compromise offered by the Prime Minister was also rejected at these meetings. The AMA and some specialist organisations have now rejected all attempts at a negotiated settlement, and embarked on a campaign of industrial action in an effort to have their total demands met. Because the Government had twice reached near agreement with the Federal AMA on proposals to resolve the dispute, we believed it was necessary to have a round table conference with all the major groups concerned in the dispute. Several attempts to arrange a meeting of myself and State Health Ministers with the Federal and State branches of the AMA and the College of Radiologists have failed, because the medical profession has refused to attend. Senator Haines of the Australian Democrats put forward a constructive proposal which would give immediate substance to the Prime Minister's undertaking of 2 March to institute appeal provisions into section 17. The Government has adopted that proposal in this Bill, and there can be no argument that the Minister's powers under section 17 are considerably fettered and restricted-both formally through legislation as well as in the practical reality which I earlier mentioned. The first amendment of section 17 inserts in it a new sub-section (1a) for the purpose of enabling the Minister, if he is satisfied that the laws of a State or Territory, or agreements or arrangements entered into under such laws, are such as will regulate the rendering of a prescribed professional service in a manner consistent with the guidelines, to sign an instrument exempting a medical practitioner from the requirement to enter into an agreement of the kind referred to. The second amendment adds sub-sections (5), (6), (7), and (8) at the end of section 17. These provisions will enable the guidelines that have been made by the Minister under section 17, and any guidelines that the Minister makes in the future, to be disallowed in the Parliament in the same way as a statutory rule may be disallowed. By these measures, the two practical objectives of this Bill are achieved. The first is to provide for parliamentary scrutiny of the power of the Minister for Health to make guidelines. This is the constructive proposal put forward by Senator Haines, and in practice it would mean that the Senate would have power to disallow any guidelines put forward by the Minister that it felt were unreasonable. This meets the major objection of principle put forward by the medical profession. The second objective is to give the option of Medicare benefits being payable either where there is an agreement in writing between the hospital and the doctor or where state legislation or regulation ensures that the guidelines are complied with. This amendment gives greater flexibility to allow Medicare benefits to be payable, and is designed to protect patients in what is essentially a dispute between Government and the medical profession. The Government believes that these measures are appropriate because our objective has always been to ensure compliance with the schedule fee and instituting other reasonable reforms to private practice rights in public hospitals-rather than to get signatures on pieces of paper. In addition, the Cabinet has agreed in principle to regular arbitrated review of the schedule fee, and has authorised me to enter into negotiations with the AMA to achieve this. This should dispel another piece of paranoia now abroad in the medical profession that, having secured compliance with the schedule fee, the Government would then allow the schedule fee to stagnate for some years. The speed with which the Government moved to secure an arbitrated interim fee increase once the wage pause was ended should also establish the bona fides of the Government in this matter. I have noted the comments of the Federal President of the AMA, Dr Thompson, that parliamentary scrutiny is not sufficient because at some future time a government may also have a majority in the Senate. I point out that such a situation could not occur in the time before the Penington Inquiry reports. The guarantee that the Prime Minister and I gave on 2 March still stands. That is, that the Government will implement whatever consultative and appeal mechanisms are recommended by the Penington Inquiry. That remains a term of reference for the inquiry, and the AMA and other medical groups will have ample opportunity to put forward any other consultative and appeal proposals they feel are desirable. The Government will not extend its guidelines beyond schedule fee compliance for diagnostic services during the period of the Penington Inquiry. I believe that the AMA and other medical groups should accept this Bill as substantially achieving their aims in relation to appeal rights under section 17 . It is obvious that any Federal government would find it impossible to introduce unreasonable guidelines under section 17 because it would require the consent of both Houses of Federal Parliament, and also the agreement of State parliaments to any complementary legislation or regulations made by State governments. The Federal Government has no intention of submitting to all the demands made by the AMA. We believe that schedule fee compliance by diagnostic specialists in public hospitals is fair and reasonable, and we will not be withdrawing that guideline. The Government has a responsibility to act in the public interest, and to ensure that taxpayers' money provided through the one per cent levy is properly spent. Nor will the Government abandon the principle of section 17 which is designed to ensure that the public hospital system is not exploited by private interests. The problem with resolving this dispute has been that while the Government has negotiated in good faith, and made several compromises in an effort to resolve it, the AMA has offered nothing. It has not passed on the details of all these concessions to its membership, and this has served to create misunderstanding and inflame emotions in the profession generally. The current industrial strife should now cease. The introduction of this Bill is a positive step by the Government to seek a resolution of the dispute before the current industrial action which is causing inconvenience to patients escalates to a point where it could endanger patients. I hope that the majority at least of the medical profession will accept this public act of good faith by the Government, and cease the current industrial action in the best interests of their patients' welfare. This legislation will provide the immediate safeguards the profession has sought, and the Penington Inquiry provides a proper opportunity for them to raise any further concerns they may have. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.55) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of Commonwealth and Family Courts, Perth, Western Australia. The proposal is for construction of a building to accommodate Commonwealth courts and tribunals presently located in unsuitable leased premises. The site of the proposed works is on Commonwealth owned land at the corner of Victoria Avenue and Terrace Road adjacent to the Perth Concert Hall and the existing Commonwealth Government Centre. The building will comprise nine upper levels and a basement. It has been designed to complement other significant buildings in this important precinct in the city of Perth. The courts building will accommodate the Federal Court of Australia, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Family Court of Western Australia, the Director of Legal Services, the Official Receiver, the Commonwealth Reporting Service and management support groups. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $28,500,000, at December 1983 prices. I table plans of the proposed work. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at a later hour this day. Motion (by Mr Hurford)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, this House appoints Mr Hand as a member of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies to replace Mr Reeves, who has resigned, until the dissolution of the thirty-third Parliament. Debate resumed. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(7.00) —in reply-In closing this debate I would like first to thank all those honourable members of the House who participated in the debate. I think there was a general recognition of the seriousness of the threats in this area and of the appropriateness of the Government's response. I also welcome the fact that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) displayed an unusual attitude of consensus, at least on this measure within my portfolio. I also thank very much the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay ), who stressed some of the quite constructive points about the need for further education in the quarantine area. They stressed that there should be better education on exotic diseases. More general education programs were suggested by the honourable member for Grayndler. I was also glad that all honourable members of the House welcomed the reduction of the burden of the Governor-General by the new system of appointing quarantine officers. The honourable member for Mackellar and other honourable members raised the question of surveillance in the northern area. I have to say that the point raised by the honourable member for Mackellar-that is, the cessation of radar in March-was relevant only for immigration purposes for refugees. The coastal surveillance aircraft, the littoral surveillance for quarantine, have been since fitted with ground mapping mode radar which now maintains more effective coverage for quarantine purposes. This Government has undertaken a major review of coastal surveillance arrangements, the outcome of which is at present under consideration. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) raised a few critical points which I would like briefly to answer. He was somewhat concerned about the level of examination of shoes and clothing of passengers returning from Japan in relation to possible exotic diseases. The point here is that resources are allocated in relation to the dangers of foot and mouth disease particularly. Japan's freedom from foot and mouth disease means that not as much attention is given to the examination of passengers embarking from Japan because priority is given to goods and persons from major risk areas; that is, countries with high levels of foot and mouth disease. The honourable member for Gippsland was also worried about the allocation of quarantine responsibility to the Department of Health and not to the Department of Primary Industry as the Government had promised at the election. Let me say that this has been a complex issue which has faced governments for a long time. The previous Government had it on its plate for several years following a recommendation from a Senate committee of inquiry and it failed to bring any resolution. This Government has been actively studying the allocation of quarantine responsibility. Submissions in relation to this matter are now before the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is important, however, that before any changes are considered continuance of the important links between the three parts of quarantine-animal, plant and human quarantine-is assured. Finally, there was an expression of disquiet by the honourable member for Gippsland about certain aspects of advertising more quarantine education in relation to passengers coming to Australia. Qantas Airways Ltd now shows quarantine films on flights en route to Australia though this is as yet not technically feasible for other airlines. However, all aircraft make an approved quarantine statement to passengers on landing. I would also like to point out that my Department's quarantine publicity program on which we spent $350,000 in 1983-84, is being altered to concentrate on arriving passengers, including tourists and will be centred on arrival areas of airports. We now print this publicity material in more than 20 languages. I hope that I have responded to the points which were made by honourable members in what was a useful debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: TORRES STRAIT FISHERIES BILL 1983] Debate resumed from 19 October 1983, on motion by Mr Hayden: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1983 as they are related measures . Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There being no objection, that course will be followed. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(7.05) —The passage of this legislation is an historic development in the constitutional history of Australia. We have, as a nation, only one international territorial boundary, and that is the boundary which is defined in this treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea. These pieces of legislation define the elements in this relationship which will govern the conduct of our relations in practical matters in the Torres Strait; that is, our border region with Papua New Guinea. The border region between one country and another can attract problems which, if there is no system for dealing effectively with them as they arise, can become grave irritants in relations between neighbours. The question of defining the rights of Australia and New Guinea in the border region was never seen as a pressing issue whilst Papua New Guinea was a colony of Australia. But with independence, the issue became one of very considerable significance. In 1879 islands lying to the south of New Guinea were annexed. A line was drawn with considerable imprecision between the coastline and Papua and islands immediately to the south, notably Boigu, Saibai and Dauan. Anyone who looks at the map will see that their northern coastlines lie in the three-mile territorial sea. So the 1879 line came into existence. It was not a line of delineation which carefully identified the boundary between Papua and Australia. There were a number of subsequent efforts made since 1879 to draw a line which would precisely establish a boundary which could be given international recognition. Successive Queensland governments could not agree, for a variety of different reasons, on where such a boundary might run. Efforts to do anything about it were abandoned until 1972 when, to his great credit, the Prime Minister , Mr Whitlam, opened up the matter with Queensland and Papua New Guinea. But the notion that the 1879 line was a 'border' had come to be firmly fixed in the minds of many Australians. The islands of Boigu, Saibai and Dauan were inhabited, and the islanders were Australian citizens. Many of the islanders crossed the narrow straits, and even fished and farmed on the mainland. Also, citizens of Papua New Guinea moved through these islands and fished deep into the reefs on the Torres Strait. A complete social and cultural life had been developed by people of both countries who moved freely and sociably into the Torres Strait. But the inhabitants of the islands, who knew full well their rights as Australian citizens, had no desire either to lose their rights as Australian citizens or their traditional way of life, with its free movement and stable social system. So when they became aware that there was to be a major review of the Torres Strait question, and negotiations with Papua New Guinea would ensue, they became particularly, and understandably, worried. They could not see why the 1879 line could not be confirmed as the border. But even an initial effort by the Federal Government to take that position would have created grave problems for Papua New Guinea, particularly as there were maps in existence showing the 1879 line virtually on the Papua New Guinea coastline. Although the Whitlam Government recognised that point, there was very little effort made to convince Queensland that any insistence on the 1879 line was detrimental to Queensland and Australian prospects for a productive negotiation. Mr Whitlam gave every impression that he would prefer to see a settlement imposed by the International Court. With this end in mind, he caused reservations to the jurisdiction of the International Court to be removed. This step opened the way for Australia to be taken before the court by Papua New Guinea, if negotiations failed. It would have been one thing for Australia to be involved with a neighbour in litigation before the International Court on a non-territorial matter; it would have been highly divisive to have the court involved in determining an unresolved territorial dispute between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Fortunately, wiser counsels prevailed, and the way was cleared for Dr Coombs and Mr Allan Griffith to lead discussions between Queensland and the Commonwealth and to draw up proposals for negotiation with Papua New Guinea. Dr Coombs advanced the concept of the Torres Strait area north of islands on the Cape York Peninsula being developed as an environmental zone, a zone which would conserve the resources of the region and the culture of the indigenous inhabitants. It proved both a brilliant and productive concept. Initial public exposure of the concept drew positive interest from Papua New Guinea. The Queensland Parliament became interested and on 3 April 1974, the Queensland Parliament passed a resolution calling on the Commonwealth Government to enter into treaty negotiations with Papua New Guinea for the establishment of a marine park. It is clear that the concepts were legally different, but the essential element in the parliamentary resolution was that the Parliament of Queensland recognised the necessity for treaty negotiations, and for a special regime in the Torres Strait to be based on conservation principles. This development was to prove of crucial importance, as it facilitated wide-ranging discussions between Commonwealth and Queensland officials. These discussions proceeded for over two years before a concept was fully defined which could become a negotiating framework with Papua New Guinea. Central to the whole concept was the setting apart, in the Torres Strait, of an environmentally protected zone within and around which the rights of the Commonwealth of Australia and Papua New Guinea would be defined. At Annex 6 of the Treaty is a map which charts the protected zone boundaries. The southern boundary of the zone includes islands north of the Thursday Island group, and the north boundary includes the islands off the coast of Papua New Guinea, which form part of the traditional pattern of activity of the people. The northern boundary takes in the coast of Papua at the northern end of the Torres Strait. Within this zone, three concepts of law apply. I have referred to the problems that arose out of the 1879 line, and the fact that this line could not serve to delineate the territory of Australia. As a result of the Treaty, the territory of Papua New Guinea and Australia is separated by a territorial sea boundary, which for the main part is a median line between the islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai. Thus it is this line which replaced the 1879 line. This boundary lies to the south of the protected zone boundary, which is not a territorial boundary. The islanders in the Torres Strait and the coastal Papuans each have traditional rights of movement in the protected zone and this traditional activity is not interrupted by the territorial sea boundary contained within the zone. And this benefit is reconciled with the necessity to uphold quarantine, immigration and customs arrangements covered by these legislative amendments. When the 1879 line was conceived, the concept of a maritime territorial boundary was not a developed international concept. But as the law on the territorial sea developed, it was later extended by a special convention defining rights in the continental shelf, that part of the slope of the seabed off an island or continent within the 200 metre mark before it drops into the seabed. Special rights to minerals and sedentary fish were accorded the coastal state. Both Australia and Papua New Guinea were signatories of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and the Convention envisaged negotiation between countries sharing the shelf. In the Torres Strait the shelf is shared by Papua New Guinea and Australia. In accordance with the Geneva Convention a line was negotiated in basic principles of a median line. This boundary is well to the south of the territorial boundary. The consequential legislation, which adjusts our seabed rights, limiting them considerably, is comprehended by the amendments here proposed for the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968. A further and major aspect of international law emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s, with a consolidation of the law of territorial sea and the seabed, and a new concept of maritime law, the 200 mile exclusive economic zone. This concept of the 200 mile exclusive economic zone gave fishing rights to the coastal states, and accorded the coastal state responsibilities for conservation and environmental protection. Again, the emergence of this new concept enables a separate negotiation to be undertaken to the shared rights of Papua New Guinea and Australia in the Torres Strait. The separate fisheries jurisdiction line is identical with the seabed line, except in the Torres Strait area in the protected zone, where it is drawn to include the islands of Boigu, Dauan and Saibai. The reason for this is obvious. But concessions had to be made in order to obtain a sensible balance between the rights of Papua New Guinea and Australia. If every island in the Torres Strait owned by Australia was given a territorial sea of 12 miles, the fishing rights of Papua New Guinea would virtually have been extinguished. So the islands did not extend the territorial sea beyond three miles and the fishing jurisdiction line is designed to restore rights to the islands which were lost to them in the decision to hold to a 3 mile territorial sea. The fishing administrations of both countries are involved in balancing the conservation of species on which the traditional fisherman depends for a subsistence livelihood with the requirements of commercial fishermen. It is understandable that judgments will differ on problems of conservation. Even in parts of Australia, where there has been a sustained application of research, knowledge, and experience, serious problems arise when it comes to making judgments, balancing conservation with exploitation. No one should pretend that the administration of this aspect of the Treaty will be free of problems. This legislation empowers the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to regulate commercial fishing by prohibition of certain activities; by setting legal minimum or maximum lengths of fish; prohibition on the use of specified equipment, reserving certain fisheries for the local community; controlling particular gear; and controlling the number of people fishing from a particular kind of boat. And what we do has to be co-ordinated with the administrative arrangements of Papua New Guinea if the zone arrangements are to work to the purpose of the conservation objectives. Moreover, the Australian position has to be co-ordinated between the Commonwealth and the State. A joint Commonwealth- State authority will administer policies to ensure a co-ordinated approach. The main aim is to keep the condition of fisheries under review, to formulate forward policies and plans. What has been worked out between the Commonwealth and the State and between Australia and Papua New Guinea is a very great tribute to the process of negotiation and consultation. This work was put in place by the previous Government and it serves as a very important example of the capacity of co- operative federalism to work in international affairs. It gives the lie to the trend emphasised by this Government which seeks to dispose of State interests and views by overriding them. I am sure, for instance, that if the Government were to use both strength and patience in setting up a crimes commission, Australia's reputation internationally would be enhanced, and the benefit to the Australian taxpayer of more effective law enforcement in the area of major international crimes of drug smuggling. There can be no doubt that the simplistic view with which Canberra entered into the negotiations for a Torres Strait Treaty were enhanced by a vigorous negotiation and dialogue with the State of Queensland and with Papua New Guinea. At this stage I would mention that my colleague the shadow Minister for Primary Industry will be suggesting that clause 39, page 26, should be clarified to strengthen the consultative intent of that particular clause. I hope that it will be received by the Government as a constructive clarification within the full spirit of the legislation. Negotiations began in 1972, concluded in 1978, and were implemented by this legislation in 1984, illustrating I think very clearly the complexity of the subject matter. But, as I have said, the issue of Australia's only border region , is so fundamental that the care, the time, and the patience invested in it is more than amply justified, as the decisions will hold in place a vital relationship with our neighbour, colleague and friend, Papua New Guinea. Finally, the coming to reality of this Treaty owes much to a number of distinguished Australians and Papua New Guineans. But from the Australian side, the Treaty is a lasting achievement to the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) whose task it was to conduct the negotiations through its many complexities, and will be duly marked down as such in our history books. It is a durable result of his distinguished work as Foreign Minister. It is with very considerable pleasure that I, on behalf of the Opposition, support the passage of this historic legislation. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(7.20) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I am sure you will discharge those responsibilities with fearless independence. I look forward to speaking in this House under your chairmanship for many years to come. It was in 1975 that Papua New Guinea became an independent nation. At about this time, much discussion took place among countries belonging to the South Pacific Forum on a proposal to establish 200 nautical mile exclusive economic or fishing zones in accordance with developing international law. The implications of such discussions were sufficient to impel the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea in 1977 to accelerate negotiations to agree on a maritime boundary that would equitably divide their national rights over fisheries and seabed resources in the area where their 200 nautical mile zones would overlap. The Torres Strait Treaty covers the whole area between Australia and Papua New Guinea. This extends some 2,000 kilometres from the Arafura Sea through the Torres Strait and out into the Coral Sea. In Torres Strait, Australia and Papua New Guinea share a common continental shelf. Australia and Papua New Guinea also share a common desire that all human activity in the Strait be conducive to further developing close and neighbourly relations. It could be said that the saga of the Treaty began in 1859 when Queensland was separated from New South Wales by letters patent which annexed to Queensland ' all and every the adjacent islands their members and appurtenances in the Pacific Ocean'. However, in 1872 the British Colonial Office defined Queensland jurisdiction as extending to all islands within 60 miles of its coasts. In the 1870s there was no established government in Papua and therefore no authority to regulate traffic through Torres Strait or to control the activities of Europeans moving into the northern Torres Strait Islands. With the establishment of the Protectorate of British New Guinea, Queensland no longer had the same interest in controlling the Torres Strait Islands or in meeting the expense of maintaining government ships in the Strait. Years of dithering followed. It was not until 1925 that new letters patent specifically restated Queensland's claim to all islands in the Strait. But the letters patent did not solve the question of whether the three islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussa were part of Queensland or belonged to Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea sovereignty over these islands is now recognised by this Treaty. Australia will maintain sovereignty over all the islands within the 'correct' original colonial boundary. Full consultation with the Torres Strait Islanders took place during the negotiations. This has led to an agreement which protects the interests of the traditional inhabitants to their satisfaction. The Treaty also provides for consultative arrangements with Papua New Guinea on a continuing basis with the Islanders fully represented. The coastal Papuans have also accepted the Treaty. A major feature of the Treaty is the establishment of a protected zone to maintain the traditional way of life of the Islanders and the local coastal Papuans. Both the Islanders and the coastal Papuans will have traditional fishing rights and freedom of movement within the zone. This zone will run from north of Thursday Island to the existing border. The Torres Strait Treaty not only involves the creation of a maritime boundary with Papua New Guinea but also it will offer the legislative framework to regulate the activities of economic development in the Torres Strait. Considerable administrative and economic changes will have major significance to the Torres Strait Islanders. These traditional inhabitants have occupied this region since time immemorial. They are the original owners of the land. Long ago they established a customary right to harvest the resources of the sea and the seabed. The people known as Torres Strait Islanders are, as the Treaty provides, citizens of Australia. They are of indigenous descent. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, can justly claim the title of protector of the legitimate interests of Australian citizens of indigenous descent. The Treaty will endeavour to maintain for the traditional inhabitants of the Torres Strait their traditional and customary associations, their continued opportunity to obtain subsistence and livelihood from the protected zone and the preservation and protection of their social, cultural and religious traditions. The Torres Strait Treaty (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 should never become a measurable financial burden on the Australian Government. It does, however, amend 10 Federal Acts. Briefly, the effect of each of its amendments are as follows: The Fisheries Act 1952 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, are amended to provide that those Acts shall not apply in the future to the protected zone and to any waters outside the zone proclaimed to be waters in which the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill applies to a particular fishery. Enforcement staff will be able to cross protected zones without diminution of their authority. In addition this Bill amends the Fisheries Act to preclude any arrangement under that Act from having an effect in relation to the relevant fishery. Furthermore, the Fisheries Act is amended to permit a Papua New Guinea boat that has right of entry under the Torres Strait Fisheries Act to land its catch in any place in Australia. This authority will not be a right that Papua New Guinea boats will have automatically. Such authority will be granted in specific cases only. The Coral Sea Islands Act 1969 is amended to realign the area that includes the Coral Sea Islands territory and to give effect to the boundaries agreed upon under the Treaty. Another amendment provides that the relevant territory may be defined by reference to the Australian geodetic datum which will enable the points to be more accurately plotted on the earth's surface. There is to be no hindrance by any party to the Treaty to the free movement and performance of traditional activities by traditional inhabitants in the protected zone and its declared vicinity as a result of established Customs procedures. Section 30A of the Customs Act is inserted to secure this provision. Controls will still obtain with respect to narcotic drugs. Certain goods relevant to the Treaty will be exempt from Customs duties, as a result of an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act. The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 is amended to provide that Papua New Guinea wrecks of special significance are granted adequate protection by the law. Compliance with entry permit requirements for Papua New Guinea traditional inhabitants engaged in traditional activities in the protected zone are exempt as a result of an amendment to the Migration Act 1958. However, persons who have a criminal record or prescribed disease, or who have been deported or excluded from Australia or another country in the past will not be exempt from entry permit requirements. The technical amendment to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 will align the northern boundary of the Queensland adjacent area with the Torres Strait Treaty seabed line. There is to be a prohibition of mining and oil drilling of the seabed in the protected zone for 10 years from the date of entry into force of the Treaty. Of particular importance are the amendments to the Quarantine Act. Under this Bill the Governor-General is empowered to make special provision for traditional inhabitants going about their traditional activities and for their vessels and boats. A traditional inhabitant may bring into a part of Australia that is in the protected zone goods which may be used in connection with the performance of a traditional activity. Traditional vessels will be allowed free movement in and around those parts of Australia that are within the protected zone. It is acknowledged that the Torres Strait is a potential gateway to Australia for various insect pests and diseases affecting humans, animals and plants from which Australia is free at present. One such pest, the screw worm fly, if allowed in Australia, would create devastation for Australia's livestock industry. The cost of eradicating such diseases and pests would be monumental. The losses to our overseas markets and primary industries as a result of intrusion of pests and diseases would be colossal. Notwithstanding the recognition under the Treaty of those activities which have been conducted within the protected zone since time immemorial, the Hawke Government is determined never to relax its vigilance to protect Australia's quarantine security. Both Australia and Papua New Guinea will retain the right to implement national controls to prevent possible abuse. Amendments to the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Export and Imports) Act 1982 acknowledge that the killing of certain wildlife for subsistence and cultural purposes is an important traditional activity recognised by the Treaty. Indigenous fauna and flora which are or may become threatened with extinction will be protected as far as possible. This obligation has also been accepted by the Papua New Guinea Government. The Torres Strait will always be a strategic sea lane for world shipping. Total tonnage of coastal shipping using the Torres Strait during the financial year 1981-2 amounted to 6.2 million tonnes. Regular patrols by Australian Navy ships highlight the continual need for vigilance by each party to the treaty to the threat of illegal immigration, illegal trafficking in protected flora and fauna and of any potential military threat. The Torres Strait Fisheries Bill 1983 implements fisheries aspects of the Torres Strait Treaty. The Treaty requires Australia and Papua New Guinea, when licensing fishing operations, to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic development in the Torres Strait and implementing opportunities for traditional inhabitants. Consultations are to be had with traditional inhabitants with respect to licensing arrangements for commercial fisheries. In addition, fishermen and boats of either country may fish in a protected zone commercial fishery in waters where either country's laws apply. In order to obtain this right a fisherman will need to obtain a licence from his government of nationality to operate a boat in that fishery in waters or areas of the seabed under its jurisdiction. Unless both Australia and Papua New Guinea agree, joint ventures involving equity participation by a third country, or joint or national enterprises involving the use of a third country vessel, or a vessel of either party with a crew of substantial third country nationals, will not be permitted in protected zone commercial fisheries. Fishermen who breach the fishery law of either country anywhere in the protected zone can be prosecuted in the courts of their country of nationality only. Fishermen in waters beyond the protected zone and under the jurisdiction of the other country- Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(7.30) —Tonight I draw the attention of the House to problems with AM and FM programs of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in one of the fastest expanding radio and television audiences in Australia, and that is the the region of Mackay which has a population of over 100,000 people. It is expanding at the rate of over 3 per cent a year which is greater than the average growth rate of Australia or Queensland. Yet this growth region is serviced by ABC AM radio on equipment which is sufficient only for the population in the region 37 years ago. FM radio is not even a hope. Although FM is broadcast from Rockhampton and Townsville and overpasses Mackay, the Department of Communications has consistently denied Mackay the opportunity of receiving FM radio broadcasts. I was given to understand that the equipment had been acquired for that purpose but it was eventually passed on to some other centre. Other regional centres of population on the Queensland coast, less than one-half the size of Mackay, have had the ABC FM service for a number of years. One must ask: Why not Mackay? I have persistently brought this matter to the attention of Ministers in this House. The most recent occasion was on 29 February 1984 when I gave a notice of motion. For this and other comments I have made I have received support from my constituents. I have received the following letter which I believe justifies the complaints I have made. The letter states: I am an occasional visitor to your home city of Mackay, Queensland, on the course of business. I was therefore interested to note your concern in the reception of AM radio from the ABC and the lack of an FM radio station in the Mackay district. In the course of my business activities, I travel to many parts of Australia and find the ABC's news coverage and programming generally to be of considerable value in keeping me up to date with events from the current affairs programs and the new programs . . . I have found in Mackay that reception on the ABC's AM stations is generally not all that good and on my most recent visit found it very difficult to get good reception for new broadcasts, current affairs programs . . . I can therefore only say I have to support you in your efforts to obtain a better standard of AM reception for the constituents in your area and I deplore the absence of an FM station for the presentation of quality music programs that the ABC FM stations provide . . . Kindest regards, Since the installation of the original and still existing 4QA transmitters in 1947-48 the demographics of the region have changed considerably. It is not only Mackay city and the Pioneer Shire which have experienced fairly dramatic population increases over the past 30 years but also some of the large outlying towns to the west of Mackay. The signal from 4QA Mackay is just not acceptable to this expanded region and population. As I have said, FM radio is non-existent . Compounding the reception problems from the 4QA transmitters is the fact that the major proportion of equipment, such as draglines, conveyor equipment, et cetera, used by the mining industry in those areas operates from CEB power and in doing so creates tremendous amounts of radio frequency interference. The coalfields news broadcast by 4QA has no chance of being received by the mining population although it has strong historical and commercial links with Mackay. For good reception a repeater transmitter needs to be located in that area. It is ironical that news items gathered from the areas cannot be received there from 4QA broadcasts. Station 4QA's two-kilowatt power transmitters were installed in 1947. That was 37 years ago and no upgrading has taken place since. The equipment can only be described as geriatric. I have been told that both of these transmitters are kept going on a day to day basis by making modifications and rewiring where necessary as spare parts are unobtainable. Replacement output valves are virtually unobtainable. Again the irony of the present situation is that station 4QN at Townsville achieves far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, yet this region is within 70 kilometres of Mackay and over 300 kilometres from Townsville. A complete reassessment of signal strength needs for the Mackay basin and its rapidly expanding hinterland is urgently required. The most cost effective answer, although possibly not the most satisfactory answer to the problems I have outlined would be the immediate installation of a new breed 10-kilowatt transmitter. Consideration should be given to a more efficient RF radiator and the placing of a 4QA radio transmitter of two to five kilowatts on the western plains to serve the mining areas, the grain and beef growers and the Southern Hemisphere's top tourist area, the Whitsunday region. In spite of the tremendous growth and potential of the Mackay region it is being thrust into a cultural backwater by the neglect of the Department of Communications. Mr KENT(Hotham)(7.35) —A couple of days ago I had a visit by the owner of a boning room, Magtoth Nominees of Braeside. He complained that his firm, which employs 10 people, is being squeezed out of the market because of imports of boned mutton from New Zealand. He finds it hard to compete as Australian sheep are scarce on the market and he has to pay high prices for them. It is interesting to note that he came to see me on Monday. On the same morning I listened to a news item which reported that 120,000 live sheep were being loaded on the sheep carrier Al Qurain in Portland for export to the Middle East. It struck me as rather odd that on the one hand we are importing processed mutton from New Zealand while on the other hand we export live sheep. No wonder the Victorian meatworkers headed by their leader Wally Curran, were in Portland and were exposed to the blustery wind and rain picketing the loading of live sheep. By their action they are drawing the attention of the Australian people to the uncontrolled live sheep export that is having a disastrous effect on our meat industry and is causing heavy unemployment amongst meat workers. Victoria has a large meat industry based on sheep and lamb killing. It was developed on the insistence of the rural sector to provide more killing space. Millions of dollars have been invested in facilities for the benefit of the rural sector. Yet today the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association is supporting the uncontrolled export of live sheep, thus throwing thousands of meat workers out of jobs. The following works, which would employ a large number of people in sheep or lamb killing are not operating; Shepparton meatworks, Champion meatworks, Newport, Ballarat, Corio meatworks, Smorgons, Richmond abattoirs, Borthwicks at Brooklyn, Borthwicks at Portland, J. H. Ralph's and R. J. Gilbertson's. The abattoirs at Camperdown, Wodonga and Dromana are working on a reduced production from 50 per cent to a third, and, in some cases, they are killing only beef or calves. The continuing escalation of live exports out of Portland is shown by the following figures: To December 1979, 206,330 cattle were exported. By December 1983, 1,509,907 cattle had been exported. From September 1983 to l March 1984, 9l7,000 cattle were exported from Portland. While this lunacy of exporting live sheep and forcing more and more Australian meatworkers to join the dole queues goes on, we are importing boned mutton from New Zealand and consigning Australian boners to the industrial scrapheap. The Farmers and Graziers Association contends that farmers own and breed the sheep or lambs and they have the right to determine to whom their stocks should be sold. It seems to me that the Farmers and Graziers Association reserves the right to do what it wants when it comes to its profits, disregarding the interest of the community. Yet it is the first to call on the community for assistance when times are bad. Its theory is that profits are sacred and private while losses, which occur for instance during a drought, should be shared by the community. It cannot have it both ways. It is time that the Government stepped in. I am glad that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is at the table. I think he will take notice of what I am talking about. He is a very good Minister. He is often in the chamber and takes an interest in proceedings. I hope the Government will step in and bring some sanity and order into marketing to prevent the export of live sheep while we are importing processed mutton, thus ruining our meat industry. Mr O'KEEFE(Paterson)(7.40) —It is desired to bring before the House a problem being experienced by constituents of mine, Mr and Mrs Klass Nierop of Meroo Crossing, Maitland Bar, Avisford, in the district of Mudgee, New South Wales, concerning an insurance claim of $125,000 for damage sustained in the loss of 22 pallets of venison consigned by semi-trailer from Mudgee to Melbourne. This consignment was insured with Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd, a company with branch offices in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. When travelling between Mudgee and Melbourne, the semi-trailer ran off the road and was destroyed with its contents of venison. This accident took place on 26 July 1983. A claim was lodged by Mr Nierop on 3 September 1983. Norwich Winterthur replied in September of that year denying any liability. The delay in Mr Nierop's sending in a claim five weeks after the accident was because at the time he had occasion to travel to Holland owing to the death of his aged mother. Mr Nierop approached Anthony Davis and Co., solicitors of Penthouse, 41 Glen Street, Milson's Point, Sydney, to act on his behalf in this matter. I have contacted Davis and Co., who informed me that to date all its letters to Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd have been completely ignored. Mr Nierop cannot afford the fees or the delay occasioned by court proceedings. No doubt this may be what the insurance company wants. It is a serious problem when, after a premium is paid and accepted by this company and when a claim takes place, the company denies liability. Mr Nierop is in great financial difficulties as a result of the Norwich Winterthur Insurance company not paying for the loss of the $125,000 worth of venison which was packed in excellent containers. It was a marine insurance policy. I have a copy of the policy here. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There are rather strict rules about the incorporation of documents in Hansard. The rules apply only to the incorporation of tables. Essentially, Hansard is a record of the spoken word. Leave not granted. Mr O'KEEFE —As far as can be ascertained Mr Nierop has complied with all items enumerated in his policy document. This is a very serious situation indeed. Actions of this kind put the insurance industry in bad repute. I hope that Norwich Winterthur Insurance meets the claim which Mr Nierop has made as he has sustained considerable loss. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(7.45) —Few topics have generated as many column inches recently as the dispute in which the doctors have engaged in their totally unjustifiable strike action, so strongly supported by those who sit opposite, although at this time of the evening, as usual, there are not too many of them sitting opposite. Mr Braithwaite —Why do you hate doctors? Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member should wait until he hears what I have to say. The doctors have argued that their dispute is not about money and that their first consideration is and always has been patient care. Today I was informed of a particular case concerning a constituent of mine. Some three weeks ago Mrs Francis Brownett of Dapto was working as a parking patrol officer at Port Kembla when she fell and broke her leg in three places. She was outside the surgery of a Dr Knott and was taken to his surgery for treatment, and, as one can imagine, taken there in considerable pain. As this would have been a compensation case, Dr Knott refused to treat my constituent, claiming that the police department was a slow payer. So much for doctors not being interested in money. Honourable members opposite have gone awfully quiet now. Mr Coleman —No, we are just surprised at your stupidity. Mr HOLLIS —The honourable member should wait for this one. Mrs Brownett had to produce 20c before the staff would even telephone the police so that they could collect my constituent. One feels that this particular doctor, Dr Knott, has not instructed his staff in correct procedures. Where else but in a doctor's surgery in 1984 would a person, in pain and injured, have to produce 20c for a call for help? Today I contacted Mrs Brownett and also spoke with Dr Knott. Not surprisingly, Dr Knott was reluctant to speak to me at first, but he did say that my constituent had the alternative of being treated as a private patient. Unfortunately, on that day my constituent was not carrying a large sum of money, so she received no treatment. Regardless of the circumstances, the patient should have been treated even if only on a temporary basis. She should have had the opportunity to have had the pain and suffering she was experiencing relieved . The facts that have been presented to me fill me with disgust. We are always told that the patients come first. Here is a case where the money most certainly came first. As I said, on the facts presented to me, this doctor was obliged to give treatment. How many other such cases are occurring, I wonder , while these greedy doctors, educated by the taxpayers at great public expense, are grabbing for more and more money? No wonder doctors have fallen so far in public esteem. I hope that those few people who have written to me-the very few- supporting the wild and irresponsible behaviour of the doctors will hear about this unfortunate case. Most certainly, everyone who writes to me about it will get a copy of this speech. This is yet another example of the unreal world in which doctors exist. What concerns me is how many other such outrages occur. What if I had not heard of this case? How many other cases are happening which the local members hear nothing about? There is no excuse for Dr Knott not treating my constituent. I hope that the Australian Medical Association, which has been so vocal about doctors and is so vocal at the moment, takes up this case. It gives me no pleasure to name this doctor in the House this evening but Dr Knott of Port Kembla deserves to be named. I have no alternative but to name him. I am sure that all honourable members will join me in condemning this inhuman and inhumane treatment by Dr Knott. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(7.47) —I wish to speak in this debate about the new Kangaroo air pass air fares announced by the Government last week. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) says that these fares are a good thing. I point out to the Minister that they amount to a bungle and that they are a farce. If he listens to me he will find out why. The new internal tourist fare structure, which gives up to 6,000 kilometres of travel for $500 appears to be only about 10 per cent cheaper than regular APEX fares but does nothing at all to encourage people living in Western Australia to holiday in their own State. As I said previously, Western Australia by the Government's action is obliterated from the tourist map. Earlier today the Minister for Aviation said that that was wrong and he attacked me for saying it. But it is completely true. The fares discourage Australians from travelling to Western Australia and they also discourage Western Australians from travelling in their own State. Another aspect of the fares is that whenever a traveller changes his or her itinerary there is an extra charge of $25. Apparently the new air fares amount to an average of a 35 per cent reduction in normal fares which compares with the flexi-fare existing fare plan which gives a 45 per cent reduction. So as the Government says, the new fares give a 35 per cent average cut. I take on board the fact that that may not, in fact, be correct on closer examination, as I will show honourable members later in a couple of examples. The reduction is only 35 per cent, whereas the existing flexi-fare available gives a 45 per cent reduction. Let us look at some fares. As I understand it, the Melbourne-Perth return APEX fare is $441.50. As I understand it, the distance from Melbourne to Perth is more than 6,000 kilometres. So if one wants to travel under the new Kangaroo Pass fare one has to pay $500, compared with the APEX fare of $441.50. Let us look at a flexi-fare example. The Sydney to Perth flexi-fare, as I understand it, is $381. But the fare under the Kangaroo Pass is $800. That is $ 419 more expensive. Is that what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) thinks is a good idea? Is that what he is telling us the people of Australia are pleased about? Mr Kerin —I think the whole idea is a good idea. Mr SHIPTON —If we want to go to Perth under a flexi-fare from Sydney-- Mr Kerin —You are just against private enterprise. Mr SHIPTON —He says it is private enterprise. The Minister at the table is attacking private enterprise. Let us place that on the record. Mr Kerin —No, you are. You are attacking the airlines. You are attacking Ansett. Mr SHIPTON —I am not attacking it. I am attacking the Government because the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has flown around Australia and he has bragged about the new air fares. He said it was likely that there would be a simple 30-day air fare. He has been proved wrong. Then he announced on Friday that all the vegemite eating Australians could travel under the cheaper air fares. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism said all of those things. The Minister for Aviation said in the House today that they are not the Government's air fares. The Government ought to work out what it is about. It cannot have its cake and eat it too. The Government is either praising the air fares-it has caused the air fares to come about and they are the Government's air fares-or it is not. I wish it would tell us. Perhaps the Minister will be able to inform us, because it is a complete shambles. As I said, the new air fares hit Western Australia particularly hard. They hit Western Australians who want to travel and they hit the Western Australian tourist industry hard. They do nothing to encourage Western Australians to holiday in their own State and nothing to encourage travellers from the rest of Australia to go west for a holiday. It is an absolute farce and an absolute disgrace. As I understand it, in Western Australia people cannot travel under these fares to Derby, Broome, Wyndham, Katanning, Learmonth, Carnarvon, Geraldton, Albany or Kalgoorlie. In Victoria, people cannot travel to Mildura and Warrnambool. This Government is not interested in tourism in regional Australia. In New South Wales, people cannot travel to Moree, Walgett, Dubbo, Mudgee, Griffith, Narrandera, Wagga Wagga, Albury and Cooma. It is a disgrace that this Government is announcing air fares, bragging about newly created air fare decreases and is excluding regional and rural cities. The Minister for Primary Industry ought to tell his colleagues what a disgrace it is, because he is meant to be interested in rural Australia. Rural Australia, with its great tourist attractions in the outback and regional cities and towns, is denied the opportunity to get the tourist dollar because of the Government's policy. The cities and places in country, outback, rural and regional Australia will not be able to benefit from the increased tourist industry in Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(7.53) —Let me say, as someone who knows a lot about the subject of tourism because of the Caucus industry committee, that this Government has done more for tourism in its first year than was achieved in the totality of the seven years of the Fraser Government. I want to talk about a matter of national importance which concerns the advertisements that have appeared which attack the resource rent tax. Mr Braithwaite —Hear, hear! Dr THEOPHANOUS —Is the honourable member financing them? Is that where the money is coming from? These advertisements are a disgrace and they are nothing more than an attempt by a very narrow interest group to support its own position. What is the narrow interest group? We know that Esso-BHP is behind the advertisements because, quite bluntly, it is not interested in paying its fair share of taxation. Whichever government was in power at present-there is no question about it-would impose a tax. We now have attacks on the resource rent tax which claim that the resource rent tax will stop exploration, that it is a contradiction of agreements. It is nothing of the kind. The fact is that the resource rent tax was an integral part of the policy of the Government and the policy which the Labor Opposition put to the people in March of last year. I make it clear with regard to the resource rent tax that I cannot understand what the attacks are all about because the proposals are extremely fair to private enterprise, because the resource rent tax applies only when a substantial profit has been made. If, in the process of development of the mining industry a company is not making a profit, it does not pay the resource rent tax. The present situation is that a levy is paid, and it is paid whether or not a profit is made. But in the case of the resource rent tax a company pays only on the basis of the proportion of its profit. Why are we seeing these attacks in the newspapers? Is it the intention of Esso-BHP that the Government should impose a levy rather than a rent tax, as has been leaked as a suggestion to the newspapers? A levy might be appropriate for Esso-BHP, but it would not be appropriate for smaller exploration companies, because a levy would count against them in the initial stages of production. Mr Braithwaite —You slapped the tax on Utah. That was a levy. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member has had his chance to speak. I am trying to explain to people the reasons why this is a dishonest campaign against the resource rent tax. The resource rent tax, as I mentioned, is applied on the basis of profitability. Smaller companies interested in exploration, et cetera would benefit from the resource rent tax because they would not have to pay the tax on the basis of production. Their payment of the tax would be on the basis of the profit generated from the project. Nothing could be fairer than that in terms of a taxation regime. We are seeing irrational attacks by companies as if they hope, by means of these irrational attacks, to avoid all forms of tax altogether. The key clause in the advertisement, which I challenge the Opposition to comment on, states: The proposed resource rent tax, or any other tax for that matter, will cut back oil exploration in Australia. Is it the suggestion of the Opposition that there be no tax on oil? If that is its position, let it state it. If that is its position it shows irresponsibility in relation to taxation in this country. We have made it clear from the very beginning, when the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and the Government have talked about the resource rent tax, that we will be looking at a policy of off-setting exploration. I will explain that in more detail because obviously some people have not understood it. We are intending to ensure that where genuine exploration activities take place there will be a generous off-set policy for the resource rent tax. So what do we have? We have a tax which applies only when there is profitability and, in addition to that, we have an off-set program so that when there is genuine exploration activity we can off- set those activities. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(7.58) —In the minute or so available to me I appeal to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at the table, to review the export meat inspection charges. I know that over a period there has been very great pressure upon him to review the charges because of the present position of the beef industry. This was a Budget measure followed by the necessary legislation. The Opposition appealed to the Government at the time of its introduction that in view of the circumstances existing in the meat industry there should be a review of the charges. The situation has worsened since then. The inspection charges have increased from $1.80 a beast to $5.40 a beast, so the charges have actually tripled. It has been strongly opposed by the beef industry throughout Australia, and the same charge, on a percentage basis, applies in respect of the export pork and sheep carcasses. I appeal to the Minister, as I said earlier, because of the circumstances involved today in the industry. We have a single meat inspection service, which was certainly supported by us. But that meat inspection has meant that there are very few, if any, inspectors who have been taken away from the service. Today, the producers are paying the extra cost involved. Overtime expenses with regard to the meat works and the owners and other such expenses are being relayed all the time back to the producer. Actually, our beef export prices generally have not increased. In the case of breeders, they have increased. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 28 March 1984: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, report for 1982-83 Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order-1983 MQ 7/83-Sheepmeat and /or Goatmeat to EEC-1984 Control Scheme. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 371) Mr Campbell asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) How many warrants has the Attorney-General issued in each State and Territory since 5 March 1983 authorising interception of (a) telephone, and (b) other telecommunications services by (i) Australian Security Intelligence Organisations, and (ii) other Commonwealth or State government agencies. (2) Have any of these warrants authorised interception of communications of either State or Commonwealth members of parliament. (3) Are conversations transcribed; if so, what safeguards exist to ensure that the transcripts are (a) accurate, and(b) destroyed or removed from individual's files if of no relevance to any matter under investigation by such agencies. (4) Are transcripts or other information obtained from these interceptions disclosed to any overseas government or agency. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) (i) and (b) (i) In accordance with the approach taken in my answer to Dr Klugman's question on telephone tapping (Hansard, 16 November 1983, page 2839 ), I do not propose to answer questions seeking specific numbers of ASIO interception authorisations. (a) (ii) and (b) (ii) The Telecommunications (Interceptions) Act 1979 empowers the Attorney-General to authorise, by warrant, the interception of telecommunications and telegrams by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The Attorney-General has no power to authorise such interception by any other Commonwealth agency, or by any State Government agency. (2) and (4) The Government follows the practice of previous governments of not responding to specific questions which may relate to the activities of ASIO. (3) (a) Where transcripts are made of intercepted communications, I expect ASIO to use all care to ensure that the transcripts are accurate. A number of measures have recently been taken, announced by me on 25 February, to improve performance in the monitoring and supervisory areas of ASIO activities. (b) Section 14, Telecommunications (Interception) Act provides that where a transcript is made of an intercepted communication, and the Director-General of Security is satisfied that the transcript is not required and is not likely to be required in connection with the performance by the Organisation of its functions or the exercise of its powers, the Director-General is required to have the record destroyed. I am assured by the Director-General of Security that this requirement is strictly followed. (Question No. 644) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 October 1983 : (1) Does the installation cost of a digital radio concentrator system service for subscribers vary between $15,000 and $60,000 and is the average cost about $ 20,000; if so, (a) what is the average cost per subscriber for a satellite telephone service and (b) what ratio of subscriber connections to satellite channels has been used. (2) Will there be an additional charge for the satellite service, for the use of the transponder, main earth station and special exchange equipment, but not for the DRCS service; if so, what are the reasons. (3) Has he instructed Telecom Australia to apply a user pay principle to the satellite telephone service to be operated by Telecom contrary to its established policy. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (a) and (b) Telecom has not yet developed charges for the provision of telephone services via the satellite. Because of the very high costs involved it sees the primary market for satellite telephone services in remote areas being for commercial ventures such as mining sites, exploration sites and tourist developments, but service may be provided also to smaller communities as well as to individual landowners. The installed costs of a remote rural station and associated terminal equipment required to provide service begin at an amount of $60,000. To this must be added annual costs for the use of the satellite transponder, the main rural station and special exchange equipment. (2) Telecom has advised that its charges for service, including contribution to the connection costs, will take into account the much higher costs of the satellite system. (3) No. (Question No. 730) Mr Adermann asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 November 1983: (1) Is he able to say how many signatories have appended their names to petitions presented to (a) the House of Representatives and (b) the Senate protesting against (i) ratification of the United Nations Treaty and (ii) legislation proposed by the Government relating to sex discrimination considerations. (2) Does the Government propose to ignore this expression of public opinion. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The honourable member has, in common with other members access to records of the House of Representatives and the Senate with respect to petitions lodged. The Government in deciding to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and in proposing sex discrimination legislation to the Parliament, consulted widely and took into account expressions of public opinion such as those included in petitions to both Houses. The Government does not make decisions on the basis of crude head counting, nor does the Australian community expect it to do so. The Convention is the most important international human rights instrument relating to women. It calls on States Parties to eliminate discrimination against women and to ensure them equal rights with men in political, social, cultural, civil and other fields. The sex discrimination legislation passed by the Parliament on 7 March 1984 gives legislative effect within Australia to some of the provisions of the Convention dealing with the elimination of discrimination against women. It provides machinery for people who believe they have been treated less favourably because of their sex in employment, education, accommodation, and other public aspects of life to make a complaint and have it conciliated. All fair-minded Australians support these objectives. (Question No. 753) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: With respect to each period of service undertaken by the Chairman of the Public Service Board, Dr Peter Wilenski, in the Australian Public Service, what are (a) the particulars of all positions held, (b) the dates of appointment to the positions, (c) the dates the positions were taken up and (d) the dates his service concluded. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows- The Public Service Board's central personnel records indicate the following positions to which Dr Wilenski was appointed up to the time of his appointment as Chairman of the Public Service Board in November 1983. Appointed as External Affairs Officer, Class 1, Department of External Affairs. Served as Second Secretary, Australian Embassy, Saigon and Australian High Commission, Ottawa-February 1967. Promoted to External Affairs Officer, Class 2, Overseas Division, Department of External Affairs-June 1969. Awarded Public Service Board Study Grant and Commonwealth Fund Fellowship, Harvard University-1969-70. Promoted to External Affairs Officer, Class 3, Overseas Division, Department of Foreign Affairs-May 1971. Promoted to Chief Finance Officer, Clerk Class 11, Overseas Economic Relations Division, Department of Treasury-November 1971. Transferred to Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, unattached list. Appointed Principal Private Secretary, Level 2, to the Prime Minister-January 1973. Appointed by the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (RCAGA), as Special Adviser to the Commission, Level 3-June to December 1974. Reappointed by the Public Service Board as Assistant Secretary, Level 2, Local and Regional Affairs Branch, Revenue Loans and Investment Division, Department of the Treasury, but continued secondment to Royal Commission-September 1974. Promoted as First Assistant Director-General, Office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency. Promotion subsequently lapsed on further appointment-November 1974. Appointed Secretary Designate to the Department of Labour and Immigration- December 1974. Appointed Secretary to the Department of Labour and Immigration-March 1975. Unattached First Division Officer-December 1975. Unattached First Division Officer, on leave without pay-January 1977. Appointed Secretary to the Department of Education and Youth Affairs-March 1983. In addition Dr Wilenski has held the following statutory appointments: Member, Australia Council-June 1983-February 1984. Chairman, Australian Trade Union Training Council, later Authority-1975-1976. Member, Australian Development Assistance Advisory Board-1974-1975. I should add that, while an unattached First Division Officer, Dr Wilenski was successively appointed as: Foundation Professor, Australian Graduate School of Management, University of New South Wales. Professor of Political Science, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University. Concurrently with these appointments he was Commissioner in charge of the Review of New South Wales Government Administration and served as a consultant to the OECD, and to the governments of Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea, South Australia and Tasmania. He was also Visiting Scholar at the National Academy of Public Administration, Washington. The honourable member may wish to know that Dr Wilenski holds the following qualifications and awards: Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery-Sydney University Master of Arts, subsequent to BA with First Class Honours in Philosophy, Economics and Politics-Oxford University Master of Public Administration-Harvard University Master of Arts, International Affairs-Carleton University No doubt this and his other qualifications have been relevant to the appointments he has won and been given. In 1983 Dr Wilenski was elected a Fellow of the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration. (Question No. 820) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: Does the Minister have any plans to develop a core curriculum for distance education so that the satellite system can be used efficiently and in the best interests of education in remote areas when the communications satellite is in operation in 1985; if not, why not. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Both Commonwealth and State governments acknowledge that students in remote areas are in need of particular educational provisions and, for this reason, special programs to assist isolated school students have been in operation for some time. Before addressing that issue, however, I should first like to explain the concept of core curriculum. The notion of a core curriculum for Australian schools, to which the honourable member refers, has attracted some attention throughout Australia in recent years. At the basis of this concept is a belief that, by sharing a common range of learning and social experiences, all students may have an opportunity to participate more fully in Australian society. However , the honourable member would be aware that ultimate responsibility for determining school curricula rests with the various system-level authorities, both government and non-government, in the States and Territories. The Commonwealth Government does not provide schools with core curriculum materials. The Curriculum Development Centre, to be reactivated within the Commonwealth Schools Commission, will develop curriculum materials for use in schools, but the extent to which school systems choose to utilise them will be a matter for decision by individual education authorities. I return now to the issue of the potential role of satellites in providing education for students in remote areas. The Australian Education Council, which comprises all State Ministers for Education plus the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Education Ministers, discussed at a recent meeting the educational potential of current and emerging developments in technology, including the domestic communications satellite. The Council consequently decided to establish a task force to develop policies on education and technology. The deliberations of the task force should help to encourage a national approach towards these issues. Among other things, the task force is to consider its relationship to the existing Commonwealth-State Advisory Committee on the Educational Use of Communications Technology. This Committee is currently sponsoring a three-year trials program. Some of these trials are aimed at investigating the potential for educational use of the domestic communications satellite. Examples of trials funded under the program are: Co-ordination of access to the ATS-1 satellite for communication experimentation by education institutions; the development of two- way television teaching techniques; the use of supplementary FM signals for university distance education; and a study of how school students use distance learning materials. It is hoped that the outcomes of these projects will give education authorities valuable guidance in developing educational programs utilising communications technology. Education authorities recognise that use of the satellite has potential for increasing co-operation among them in the interests of enhanced education services. The Commonwealth, for its part, will certainly be willing to co- operate in encouraging such developments. (Question No. 835) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following lists of inter-departmental committees have been prepared in accordance with guidelines provided by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. These guidelines define an inter-departmental committee as: 'a committee involving two or more departments established at the specific direction of the Government and for which authority for its establishment is a Cabinet decision; or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister. (1) (a) (i) The Department of Industry and Commerce participates in the following inter-departmental committees. Inter-departmental Working Group-Security of Explosives Passports Committee Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Civil Coastal Surveillance Special Inter-departmental Committee on Protection against Violence Inter-departmental Working Group on the Koreas Anti-dumping/Countervailing Liaison Monitoring Committee Inter-departmental Working Group on Australia/China Relations Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Offsets Co-ordinating Committee on Drug Strategy Inter-departmental Committee for Advising Departments on Preference Matters Location of Australian Government Employment Inter-departmental Committee on Australian Public Service Housing Scales and Standards Standing Inter-departmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing Telecommunications Advisory Committee Inter-departmental Committee on Australia's Relations with ASEAN Standing Committee on Japan Inter-departmental Committee on Law of the Sea Convention Inter-departmental Committee on Torres Strait Treaty The subject matter of the inquiries of these committees will be set out in the replies to the honourable member's questions from those Ministers whose Departments chair them. (1) (a) (ii) The Department of Industry and Commerce chairs the following inter -departmental committees. The subject matter of these committees' inquiries is set out in respect of each. Joint Management and Liaison Arrangements at Australian Ports of Entry Develop close liaison between Government departments involved with the processing of passengers at Australian international ports of entry. Annual Review of Penicillin Bounty Review and advise Ministers on bounty rates and bounty limits for the local production of penicillin. (1) (b) There are no inter-departmental committees participated in or chaired by instrumentalities within the Industry and Commerce portfolio. (Question No. 865) Mr Hodgman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) Did he inform the honourable member for Denison that he did not know what Pravda had said about Australia's policy on Vietnam. (2) Has he now been advised that, in an official statement on 17 October 1983, a spokesman for the Soviet Union said that Australia's stand indicates that the true state of affairs in Kampuchea, the obviousness of the national rejuvenation there, is slowly gaining recognition even among countries of what is called the developed capitalist world. (3) If so, is this an indication that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is applauding enthusiastically the foreign affairs policies of the Government. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The radio commentary referred to by the honourable member and by Mr MacKellar of 17 November in the House (Moscow News World Service on 17 October) was incorrect in stating that Australia had decided not to vote for the ASEAN resolution on Cambodia at the United National. As is well known, Australia voted in favour of the resolution. (3) No. (Question No. 925) Mr Lloyd asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for community employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The functions of my Department and of statutory authorities for which I am responsible are such that there is no requirement to employ staff in the electoral division of Murray. Nevertheless, the honourable member may be interested to know that, under the community employment program, my Department engaged staff to work as co-ordinators to the Aboriginal Women's Task Force. The leader of the Task Force, together with the Melbourne based co-ordinator, visited Shepparton, in the electoral division of Murray, during the week 20-24 February 1984. Later follow-up visits will also be made by the Melbourne co- ordinator. Another project under the community employment program has been the establishment in the capital cities of a telephone information service on Commonwealth programs and policies for women and of a contact point in the States for consultation with women. Residents of the electoral division of Murray have access to this information service staffed under the community employment program. (Question No. 979) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 December 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to complaints by community youth support scheme project officers and committees, particularly in country areas where there is no public transport, that the revised blanket insurance arrangements are not adequate. (2) What action is being taken to remedy these shortcomings which potentially put at risk, participants, officers and helpers when transporting participants in private vehicles. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. I am not aware of complaints about inadequacy of community youth support scheme-CYSS-national blanket insurance arrangements in country areas. These arrangements, which were implemented from 1 July 1983, have been obtained on behalf of CYSS local management committees to relieve them of the burden of obtaining adequate insurance cover, and to ensure that the wide range of necessary cover was in place. The CYSS insurance arrangements include workers' compensation cover for all CYSS employees and personal accident cover for participants and voluntary assistants. All CYSS personnel who transport participants in private vehicles would, of course, be covered by statutory third party insurance applying to motor vehicles . The Department recommends to CYSS local management committees that project staff using their own vehicles receive payment of travelling allowances at rates which include a component to allow for the purchase of comprehensive insurance and that all private vehicles used on project business are at least insured against third party property damage. (2) Subject to arranging the motor vehicle insurance recommended by the Department, the arrangements currently in place fully cover participants, project staff and helpers who transport participants in private vehicles. The Department is however investigating the possibility of obtaining contingency third party liability cover on behalf of all CYSS local management committees in order to protect them against legal liabilities which arise as a result of use of inadequately insured vehicles. (Question No. 1006) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) What is the present stock count of rolling stock held by the Tasmanian region of Australian National. (2) What percentage of that stock is (a) Tasmanian constructed and (b) imported from AN stock held on the mainland. (3) Of the stock imported to the Tasmanian region of AN, on which rail gauge did it operate before being used in Tasmania. (4) What percentage of Tasmanian region rolling stock of AN is (a) vacuum or (b ) Westinghouse braked. (5) Are trains on the Tasmanian region of AN ever marshalled to include both types of braking systems on the one train. (6) Have there been runaways due to lack of air pressure in the train pipe, in recent months; if so, what are the details. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 1,272 Australian National (AN) owned, 90 privately owned. (2) (a) Tasmanian constructed, 79 per cent; (b) imported (AN), 21 per cent. (3) Broad gauge (1,600 mm), 13 per cent; broad gauge or standard gauge (1,600 mm or 1,435 mm), 56 per cent; narrow gauge (1,067 mm), 31 per cent. (4) (a) Vacuum, 66 per cent; (b) air (Westinghouse), 34 per cent. (5) No. (6) No. (Question No. 1027) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Which local authorities in South Australia have been allocated funds from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund. (2) What was the amount of each of these allocations. (3) In which Federal electorate is each local government authority located. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) All local government authorities in South Australia have been allocated funds from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Fund for the construction of local roads. (2) and (3) Details of estimated allocations and the Federal electorate(s) in which each council is located are set out in the table below. The precise amounts finally allocated to each council will depend upon the revenues received from the fuel surcharge: ABRD estimated total allocation Council and 1982-83 to Region 31.12.1988 Federal electorate $'000 Northern Metropolitan Region C.C. Elizabeth 187 Bonython C.T. Gawler 43 Wakefield D.C. Munno Para 331 Bonython, Wakefield, Port Adelaide D.C. Salisbury 523 Port Adelaide, Bonython, Adelaide C.C. Tea Tree Gully 374 Bonython, Sturt, Adelaide Western Metropolitan Region C.C. Glenelg 66 Hawker C.C. Henley and 84 Hindmarsh Grange C.T. Hindmarsh 43 Hindmarsh C.C. Port Adelaide 181 Port Adelaide C.T. Thebarton 48 Hindmarsh C.C. West Torrens 260 Hindmarsh, Hawker C.C. Woodville 421 Hindmarsh, Port Adelaide Metropolitan Central Region C.C. Enfield 361 Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Sturt C.C. Mitcham 295 Boothby, Hawker C.C. Prospect 96 Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Hindmarsh D.C. Stirling 145 Boothby, Sturt C.C. Unley 193 Hawker, Boothby C.T. Walkerville 31 Adelaide Metropolitan Eastern Region C.C. Burnside 200 Sturt, Boothby C.C. Campbelltown 229 Sturt, Adelaide D.C. East Torrens 67 Sturt C.C. Kensington and 65 Sturt, Boothby Norwood C.C. Payneham 84 Adelaide, Sturt C.T. St. Peters 47 Adelaide Southern Metropolitan Region C.C. Brighton 114 Kingston C.C. Marion 356 Kingston, Hawker D.C. Meadows 349 Boothby, Barker, Kingston C.C. Noarlunga 422 Kingston, Boothby D.C. Willunga 217 Kingston, Barker C.C. Adelaide 241 Adelaide Central Eastern Region D.C. Mount Barker 91 Barker, Boothby, Wakefield D.C. Onkaparinga 78 Sturt, Boothby, Barker, Wakefield Central Northern Region D.C. Angaston 60 Wakefield D.C. Barossa 60 Wakefield D.C. Gumeracha 60 Bonython, Sturt, Wakefield D.C. Kapunda 60 Wakefield D.C. Light 91 Wakefield D.C. Mallala 84 Wakefield D.C. Mount Pleasant 60 Wakefield, Barker D.C. Tanunda 30 Wakefield Central Southern Region D.C. Port Elliot & 66 Barker Goolwa D.C. Strathalbyn 96 Barker D.C. Victor Harbour 67 Barker D.C. Yankalilla 72 Barker Central Western Region D.C. Dudley 24 Barker D.C. Kingscote 127 Barker Eyre Region C.C. Port Lincoln 73 Grey D.C. Cleve 163 Grey D.C. Elliston 150 Grey D.C. Franklin Harbor 103 Grey D.C. Kimba 120 Grey D.C. Le Hunte 213 Grey D.C. Lincoln 151 Grey D.C. Murat Bay 169 Grey D.C. Streaky Bay 163 Grey D.C. Tumby Bay 113 Grey Murray Lands Region C.T. Renmark 67 Wakefield D.C. Barmera 48 Wakefield D.C. Berri 60 Wakefield D.C. Brown's Well 91 Barker D.C. Coonalpyn 121 Barker Downs D.C. Karoonda-East 162 Barker Murray D.C. Lameroo 96 Barker D.C. Loxton 127 Wakefield, Barker D.C. Mannum 55 Barker D.C. Meningie 121 Barker D.C. Morgan 72 Wakefield D.C. Murray Bridge 150 Barker D.C. Paringa 41 Wakefield D.C. Peake 78 Barker D.C. Pinnaroo 85 Barker D.C. Ridley 96 Wakefield, Barker D.C. Truro 60 Wakefield D.C. Waikerie 114 Barker, Wakefield, Grey Northern Region C.C. Port Augusta 133 Grey C.C. Whyalla 222 Grey D.C. Carrieton 139 Grey D.C. Coober Pedy 24 Grey D.C. Hawker 102 Grey D.C. Kanyaka-Ouorn 72 Grey South East Region C.C. Mount Gambier 126 Barker C.T. Naracoorte 48 Barker D.C. Beachport 66 Barker D.C. Lacepede 103 Barker D.C. Lucindale 84 Barker D.C. Millicent 102 Barker D.C. Mount Gambier 97 Barker D.C. Naracoorte 108 Barker D.C. Penola 91 Barker D.C. Port MacDonnell 55 Barker D.C. Pobe 60 Barker D.C. Tatiara 217 Barker Yorke and Lower North Region C.T. Moonta 24 Wakefield C.T. Jamestown 73 Wakefield C.T. Peterborough 36 Grey C.C. Port Pirie 91 Grey C.T. Wallaroo 29 Wakefield D.C. Blyth 48 Wakefield D.C. Burra Burra 85 Grey, Wakefield D.C. Bute 67 Wakefield D.C. Central Yorke Peninsula 102 Wakefield D.C. Clare 72 Wakefield D.C. Clinton 66 Wakefield D.C. Crystal Brook 48 Grey D.C. Fudunda 67 Wakefield D.C. Georgetown 55 Wakefield D.C. Gladstone 36 Wakefield D.C. Hallett 120 Grey D.C. Jamestown 72 Wakefield D.C. Kadina 84 Wakefield D.C. Laura 31 Wakefield D.C. Minlaton 66 Wakefield D.C. Mount Remarkable 150 Grey D.C. Orroroo 73 Grey D.C. Peterborough 96 Grey, Wakefield D.C. Pirie 72 Grey D.C. Port Broughton 36 Wakefield D.C. Redhill 48 Wakefield D.C. Riverton 48 Wakefield D.C. Robertstown 78 Wakefield, Grey D.C. Saddleworth and Auburn 67 Wakefield D.C. Snowtown 73 Wakefield D.C. Spalding 30 Wakefield D.C. Wakefield Plains 156 Wakefield D.C. Warooka 79 Wakefield D.C. Yorketown 72 Wakefield *Note: These are estimated allocations based on the anticipated fuel usage and accordingly each Council's actual entitlement of ABRD local roads funds may be more or less than the estimated. (Question No. 1071) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: CEP Staff Employed in Defence Men Women Total December 1983 9 4 13 January 1984 24 12 36 February 1984 43 16 59 76 32 108 (Question No. 1154) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) Which Commonwealth countries received foreign aid from Australia between 1975 and 1983. (2) What amount was allocated to these countries. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The amount of official bilateral aid extended by Australia to these countries for the period was $2,721m. In addition $20.8m was channelled through various Commonwealth multilateral organisations. Details of expenditure amounts are set out in Tables I and II as follows: Table 1 AUSTRALIA BILATERAL OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES BETWEEN 1975 AND 1983 Year ended 30 June ($'000) Country 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Europe- Cyprus 153 2 63 12 9 22 21 12 36 330 Malta 6 6 10 13 17 509 287 269 81 1,198 Total Europe 159 8 73 25 26 531 308 281 117 1,528 Africa- Botswana 10 33 21 67 83 124 78 288 585 1,289 Gambia 33 40 42 65 38 31 21 58 60 388 Ghana 185 382 829 1,485 791 1,584 518 482 2,029 8,285 Kenya 451 137 1 ,404 1,516 1,890 3,098 5,465 5,465 6,811 26,237 Lesotho 41 104 118 99 101 89 110 239 488 1,389 Malawi 66 44 61 86 79 86 27 110 205 764 Mauritius 821 700 638 628 781 2,504 2,173 2,086 2,760 13,091 Nigeria 170 142 147 221 199 258 244 186 458 2,025 Seychelles 2 6 242 456 256 743 636 637 387 3,365 Sierr Leone 38 41 52 43 15 20 20 625 71 925 Swaziland 18 36 36 56 18 150 64 94 117 589 Tanzania 1,803 603 1,437 2,322 1,938 4,192 6,792 9,482 9,045 37,614 Uganda 101 117 155 119 240 1,426 2,944 4,368 4,738 14,208 Zambia 390 67 80 420 456 435 1, 082 3,297 2,738 8,965 Zimbabwe - - - - - 182 4,063 1,164 2,115 7,524 Total Africa 4,129 2,452 5,262 7,583 6,885 14,922 24,237 28,581 32,607 126, 658 America- Bahamas - 7 10 4 - 1 - 57 59 138 Barbados 11 20 21 34 84 42 20 2 - 234 Belize - - - - - - - 10 - 10 Jamaica 13 46 66 103 129 156 126 198 308 1,145 Trinidad Tobago 9 14 16 36 18 15 2 - - 110 Antigua x 1 - - - - - - 35 36 Dominica - - - - - 25 5 43 35 108 Grenada - 2 2 - 2 - 6 39 39 90 St Lucia 6 8 6 18 17 15 3 26 41 140 St Vincent - - - - - x - 23 56 79 Guyana 11 20 21 70 42 16 18 15 11 224 Total America 50 118 142 265 292 270 180 413 584 2,314 Asia- Bangladesh 15,453 9,675 9,088 11,732 20,296 22,894 24,504 26,055 21,501 161, 198 India 10,732 8,692 7,299 2,388 3,852 2,337 3,102 1,799 2,079 42,280 Maldives 87 83 169 231 303 472 675 534 458 3,012 Sri Lanka 6,747 1,969 2,306 4,658 4,368 3,783 5,127 11787 8,882 49,627 Hong Kong 6 8 23 38 32 47 49 72 106 381 Malaysia 3,858 4,416 3,615 5,902 4,863 5,312 7,567 7,545 8,553 51,681 Singapore 662 1,174 1,203 922 703 736 1,311 1,867 2,029 10,607 Total Asia 37,545 26,017 23,703 25,871 34,417 35,581 42,335 49,659 43,608 318 ,736 Oceania Fiji 3,418 3,424 4,292 6,199 8,188 9,760 9,657 11,590 12,474 69,002 Kiribati *180 95 260 1,479 2,501 2,383 2,482 2,502 2,289 14,171 Nauru 4 4 5 1 12 21 x 1 6 54 Papua New Guinea 168,835 211,930 266,377 219,441 237,196 235,624 245,113 252,897 274,947 2,072,360 Solomon Islands 270 966 1,555 1,710 3,162 3,901 5, 530 5,937 8,830 31,861 Tonga 580 406 1,068 2,103 3,833 3,702 4,591 5,896 4,146 26,325 Tuvalu * 9 35 359 934 1,312 644 690 1,148 5,131 Vanuatu 97 322 659 814 1,446 2,755 3,547 3,409 5,881 18,930 Western Samoa 1,949 1,889 3,976 3,801 4, 634 3,902 2,816 4,005 7,207 34,179 Total Oceania 175,333 219,045 238,227 235,907 261,906 263,360 274,380 286,927 316,928 2,272,013 TOTAL 217,216 247,640 267,407 269,651 303,526 314,664 341,440 365,861 393,844 2 ,721,249 * Prior to 1 July 1975, Tuvalu is included with Kiribati. Note: x denotes less than half the final unit shown. Table 2 AUSTRALIA'S MULTILATERAL OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE SPECIFICALLY EARMARKED TO COMMONWEALTH MULTILATERAL ORGANISATIONS BETWEEN 1975 AND 1983 Year 30 June ($'000) Organisation 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1892 1983 Total Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation 600 700 830 1,200 1,200 1,600 1, 800 3,600 4,510 16,040 Commonwealth Regional Co-operation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 668 1,077 1,745 Commonwealth Youth Program 60 60 60 60 120 120 131 193 290 1,094 Commonwealth Foundation . . . . . . . . . . 241 245 191 198 875 Commonwealth Fund for South Pacific Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 450 Commonwealth Zimbabwe Scholarship Fund 45 50 50 50 50 50 56 56 . . 407 Commonwealth Science Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 79 Commonwealth Institute . . . . . . . . . . 18 19 18 23 78 Commonwealth Legal Advisory Service . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 7 8 29 Total 705 810 940 1,310 1,370 2,036 2,258 4,733 6,635 20,797