Wednesday, 4 April 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m. and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropratic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cross,Mr Groom and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respecfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impratical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the 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 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. 2. 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. 3. We call upon the Federal Government, however, to recognise that its failure to create an adequate general recurrent resource base for government schools through providing increased recurrent grants, will undermine its own special programs and thus frustrate its own stated educational objectives of greater equity and participation. 4. We support the Federal Government's stated policy of entering into direct negotiations for joint agreements on these grants with State/Territory Governments, to ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. 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 the Soviet Union continues to violate human rights in Latvia. This is clearly demonstrated by the recent case of Janis Rozkalns, a practising Baptist who, on January 6, 1983, had his house forcibly entered into by K.G.B. agents searching for various religious publications. The K.G.B. confiscated 40 Bibles. Mr Rozkalns was charged with 'anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda' and now faces a sentence of seven years deprivation of freedom plus five years internal exile. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled condemns the religious and human rights persecutions within the Soviet Union. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. 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 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Government has an immigration policy emphasising family reunion. However, the humanitarian motivations of the family reunion policy are lost if an 'assurance of support' for aged relatives forces families into traumatic reunions. Therefore we urge that 1. Assurances of support should be abolished and all previous agreements declared null and void. 2. That permanent residence status should guarantee automatic right to all pensions and benefits providing applicants meet all other eligibility criteria. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully shows their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. Petitions received. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice, that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that the Government has removed the responsibility for the school cadets from the Regular Army; (b) that in line with this short-sighted policy the Government has already withdrawn 122 Regular Army personnel from school cadet units; (c) that the Government has not made any provision for support to the cadets in the future; (d) the very positive role of the school cadets in promoting character, leadership, initiatives and an understanding of the citizen's responsibility for the defence of the nation, and (e) the Government's muddled and confused actions in leaving the cadets in limbo without support or provisions to provide support in the future, and (2) condemns the Government for, in effect, disbanding the school cadets by stealth. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will not rule the notice of motion out of order but I remind honourable members that there is a general precedent. I think argument has been creeping back much more into notices of motion in recent times. I remind honourable members of that restriction. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the House- (1) congratulates Mr Charles Perkins on his appointment to the position of Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and (2) condemns the petty and mean-minded attitude displayed by Opposition Members in the House of Representatives in their refusal to join in congratulating him. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that a recent opinion poll taken in the Electoral Division of Braddon indicates that the Prime Minister's popularity rating is 44 per cent compared with Premier Gray's rating of 69 per cent; and (2) suggests to the Prime Minister that the only way his popularity can be improved is for him to honour the 16 promises he has broken in Braddon since February 1983. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for arranging the Australian Archives exhibition-the Federal Capital Design Competition 1911- 25-now on display in Kings Hall; (2) congratulates the Australian Archives for compiling the exhibition; and (3) expresses the sincere hope that there will be other such exhibitions, in Kings Hall and elsewhere, of some of the treasures held in the Australian Archives. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) warns the people of Australia of the growing campaign by extremist elements in the Government to turn Australia into a republic against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians; (2) warns the people of Australia of the dangers inherent in the presidential style being adopted by the Prime Minister; and (3) congratulates Her Majesty's loyal Opposition for its steadfast defence of Australian parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy, and its steadfast defence of the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the excellent and honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government for its appointment of Professor Jayasuriya, Head of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Western Australia, as the Chairman of the first National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multi-cultural Education; and (2) notes that Professor Jayasuriya is a distinguished academic who has the respect of those who have worked with him in the fields of multi-culturalism and education. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Government for its blatant attempts to manipulate the Australian media by the use on the one hand of threats and intimidation of organisations such as the ABC and on the other hand of improper enticements including offers of overseas trips, dinners at the Lodge for editors, and other forms of patronage. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House notes that despite the revelations by the honourable member for Braddon about the Prime Minister's alleged popularity in the Electoral Division of Braddon, the latest opinion poll in the Bulletin of 4 April 1984 confirms the Prime Minister's popularity on an Australia-wide basis at 74 per cent and the Opposition Leader's approval rating at 34 per cent. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for the withdrawal of various benefits and for increasing charges which particularly affect Australian families; (2) agrees that there should be immediate compensation by a reduction in taxation; and (3) further condemns the Government for its disregard of living standards which has produced a decline in the well-being of the average Australian family. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Queensland Government opposed the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link in its submission to the Hill inquiry and demanded massive compensation from the Federal Government in the event that the central rail link is constructed; and (2) condemns the Queensland Government for opposing the development of a central rail link while it fails to take any action to meet its self- acknowledged responsibility to develop an east-west Mt Isa to Darwin rail link. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) reminds the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that in 1983, in this Parliament, he took an affirmation of allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, and (2) calls upon the Minister to make a full and frank statement to the House as to when he decided that he would recommend to the Cabinet and the Caucus that all reference to the Queen should be removed from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance in Australian citizenship ceremonies. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises that the United States of America is a republic, and (2) calls on the honourable member for Denison to apologise to the United States of America for implying that republics are not democratic. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) in Army barrack blocks, office blocks, married quarters and other fixed installations there is a mounting backlog of essential maintenance; Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have already spoken to the honourable member with regard to argument in notices of motion. In giving an example he is clearly going into that area of argument. Mr NEWMAN —I will delete the second paragraph. Mr SPEAKER —I will accept that the honourable member will delete that from his notice. Mr NEWMAN —My notice of motion continues: (b) soldiers are being obliged to stop training to carry out essential repair work which should be done by others, and (c) although soldiers are billed immediately for any damage they cause, this money disappears into the Government coffers without the repairs being made, and (2) condemns the Government for its shortsighted and contemptuous treatment of the Australian soldier and the nation's defence investment. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for publicly stating that the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin does not need upgrading, thereby jeopardising the funding for the upgrading of this essential Territory transport link. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) castigates the Government for its treatment of the Northern Territory people despite numerous election promises; (2) calls on the Government to immediately implement its election proposals for the Alice Springs-Darwin railway and (3) criticises the Government for appointing a politically biased and partisan investigator to prepare a report on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. Debate resumed from 7 December 1983, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.14) —The Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill is a timely measure. It has as its emphasis the tidying up and updating of administrative procedures which the industry and the Opposition support. Given the broad title of the Bill and the wide-ranging second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), it allows the Opposition to indicate the contribution the industry makes to the economic life and employment opportunities of Australia and the failure of the Government and the Minister to recognise this and to honour its election promises. I will proceed to deal with these matters in order. The Minister indicated in his second reading speech that a comprehensive review of Commonwealth fisheries legislation was taking place. I remind him that he made this statement on 7 December last year and it is now almost four months later and we have heard no further mention of the review. I hope that the Minister has not put this on the back burner. I can understand why the Minister is not in the chamber, having myself experienced difficulties of time, but it is difficult for me to suggest certain things to him if he is not present. However, I do not wish to appear to be critical. Mr John Brown —I will pass them on to him. Mr McVEIGH —I thank the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism for offering to take these comments to the Minister for Primary Industry. I repeat that I hope that the Minister has not put this review of legislation on the back burner . I suggest to him that it is getting rather late in the day. The industry needs more than words; it is becoming impatient. The Opposition supports the changed licence arrangements and the consequent savings in administrative costs. May this be a blueprint for the future. We support also parliamentary scrutiny of fisheries notices and administrative review in relation to certain matters. However, there is one matter which causes us concern. It relates to the situation where the Joint Authority delegates its power under section 12E(1) to a Commonwealth officer. The net result of this is that the Commonwealth officer takes over the powers of the Joint Authority. He becomes it, as it were. Herein lies the anomaly. Some of the States, quite rightly, are upset about this. Their reasoning is logical and understandable. The Commonwealth Government has acknowledged that the decisions of the joint authorities themselves will not be subject to appeal by this Commonwealth Government body. In those circumstances it seems strange that the delegate of such a body should have his actions subjected to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The basis of the new Commonwealth-State arrangements on off-shore matters is the free and equal participation of the governments which constitute the joint authorities. The principles of this arrangement are now incorporated in both State and Commonwealth legislation. I have been informed that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry endorsed these principles at the last meeting of the Australian Fisheries Council. I understand that at that meeting there was no mention of this review procedure. I believe that it is quite inappropriate for it to be incorporated in the Commonwealth Fisheries Act without the agreement of the State partners in the new off-shore fisheries management arrangement. The Hawke Government has been rather long in its words of co-operation with the States but rather short on sensitivity in achieving it. I ask the Minister to have a rethink about this section of the Bill. Joint authorities are usually held together within a rather fragile fabric and any weakening of that fabric can be disastrous. The Opposition has no difficulty with the aims of that provision of the Bill which seeks to improve jobs in the ship repair industry. It would be irresponsible of us to oppose job opportunity for Australian workmen and women. However, I have a twofold problem. One is always just a little wary when a Minister speaks of unlicensed foreign fishing boats. The word 'unlicensed' can conjure up, rightly or wrongly, a type of second rate vessel in structure, performance or activities. I seek an assurance from the Minister that every precaution will be taken and that the vessel and its crew will be thoroughly screened. The risks are always high. As a member of Parliament I receive many approaches from people who are worried about our surveillance, particularly in northern Australia. We do not want to make it easier for smugglers or drug runners to operate. In the former case, as was brought into rather clearer focus in what may have been but a hoax, the telegraphed release of foot and mouth virus, we need to be fully aware that our animal husbandry industries can be virtually wiped out through the importation of disease. Of course, that would be disastrous. It would be even more disastrous if the concessions granted by the Minister could be used by the drug running trade. I would be very relieved indeed if the Minister would put my mind, and the minds of many Australians, to rest on this matter and assuage the strong fears I and many others have in relation to this very important area. I appreciate that the Minister has indicated that such fishing vessels will not be allowed in for routine matters. I support that. However, I am nervous about his total proposition. That nervousness was reinforced when I read an article in today's copy of the Australian. I will quote certain sections of the article. Mr Speaker , you will recall that last week the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) made an announcement concerning future surveillance operations in the northern part of Australia. The article in the Australian states: The number of coastal surveillance flights in northern Australia will be significantly reduced in moves announced by the Federal Government last week. Contracts with two air charter companies will not be renewed next month and surplus Royal Australian Navy Tracker aircraft will not be used for coastal surveillance. The Government expects to reduce the cost of its surveillance program by cutting flying hours by about one third, but says its effectiveness will be maintained. The reduction stems from a finding by the Federal Department of Health that the number of quarantine flights along northern beaches could be cut. The move brought criticism from the private operators who have bought expensive Nomad Searchmaster aircraft and sophisticated radar equipment for the work. More importantly, the article states that the move has also angered the Queensland Government. As honourable members will know, the Queensland Government is rather slow to rise in anger. It takes a very disciplined view of all these sorts of things. Mr Keogh —They are rather slow, full stop. Mr McVEIGH —I know the honourable member for Bowman has had a long interest in containing drug trafficking in Australia. I know of his concern for young people . I know that he will be most interested in hearing that the anger of the Queensland Government is occasioned by a very firm belief about drugs. Who would suggest for one minute that the Hon. R. Katter, the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland and son of one of the great parliamentarians in this place, would utter a false statement or that he would get excited about something which was not of substance? The article in the Australian continued: The Queensland Northern Development Minister, Mr Katter, said the revised coastal surveillance arrangements left north Queensland wide open to drug smuggling and exotic disease. The Queensland Government certainly would not engage in telephone tapping or anything like that but is aware of the fact that vast quantities of drugs are smuggled into Australia via the exposed northern coastline. Mr Katter said that surveillance cuts would greatly increase not only drug smuggling but also the likelihood of exotic disease entering Australia. I think the Queensland Minister was fairly harsh when he said: This proves that the Hawke Government is prepared to sacrifice the northern way of life for what must be a few dollars saved in the Treasury. If we can sort the wheat from the chaff in this statement, I think it does but reflect the concern that I have. I hope that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, will take up with the Minister for Primary Industry the concern that I have expressed and the concern expressed by the Queensland Government, through its Minister for Northern Development, that if we downgraded surveillance we could be increasing drug running and making it easier for the importation of exotic livestock diseases. I ask the Minister, notwithstanding the opportunity for jobs in the ship repair business in the servicing of unlicensed foreign fishing vessels, to take every possible precaution to ensure that this move does not increase drug running and that it preserves the disease-free status of the Australian livestock industry. In Parliament on Wednesday last week our colleague the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) delivered a statement. Due to the indulgence granted by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) I had the honour to support that statement which concerned the act of self-determination of the residents of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I make no further comment about it because, as honourable members know, the United Nations delegation is at present, if the plane arrived on time, on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to supervise that act of self-determination. I do not want to be seen to be influencing that at all. However, I am concerned about the removal by this Bill of all references to traditional fishing from the Fisheries Act. My reason for this is rather simple. If the referendum decides that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are to become part and parcel of Australia I want to ensure, and I know that you, Mr Speaker, want to ensure also, that the residents of that jewel of the Indian Ocean will be able to maintain their traditional fishing rights. The reason for the removal of the traditional fishing rights, as the Minister quite logically explained in the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill, was that the Act referred basically to the Papua New Guinean waters. Because the treaty has been concluded and the islands are now a nation in their own right, there is no need to have those words in the Act. The seas around the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are rich with fish. For decades the people were forced to fish on Sundays to obtain sufficient protein for themselves and their families for the rest of the week. They had to work on the Clunies-Ross Estate for the other six days of the week. Fishing is very much part and parcel of their lives. I would be most appreciative if the Minister were to give an assurance that in due course, and if necessary, traditional fishing rights will be given to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands people. Their situation, in effect, is the reverse of that applicable to Papua New Guinea. On second thoughts, given the complexities of modern administration, the Minister may not have been aware of the activity of his colleagues regarding this act of self-determination. He might like to leave that clause in the Bill for removal at a later stage rather than bring back legislation to protect the way of life of the Cocos Malay people. In his second reading speech the Minister indicated that he would consult with the States on the implications of the proposals for State officials acting under Commonwealth law. We look forward to hearing in this Parliament the results of such consultations, bearing in mind that this legislation was introduced some months ago and that there has been plenty of time for such consultations. On a recent visit to the Northern Territory, Territorian officials indicated to me that there was an enormous need for research into the resources of the sea. They have many exciting plans concerning breeding waters, migratory habits and the development of new markets and fishing techniques. It is fitting and proper that their research funds should be matched by a Commonwealth contribution. I assure you, Mr Speaker, that the funds will be well and wisely spent. Australian fisheries production was estimated to be worth $439m in 1982-83, a significant rise from the 1981-82 level. The major contributions to this increase were prawns, rock lobsters and scallops which registered significant increases in value of production. Prawn production was estimated to be around 20 ,800 tonnes. Its value was estimated at $147.2m, an increase of 35 per cent on its estimated value in 1981-82. Rock lobster production was 18,200 tonnes, up 11 per cent. The value of this production was estimated at $131.2m, an increase of 22 per cent. Scallop production was 34,600 tonnes, an increase of 18 per cent on the level of the previous year, and was valued at $25.7m, up 15 per cent. Abalone production was 6,200 tonnes and showed a fall of 12 per cent. Its value fell from $27.8m to $20.5m. Total Australian exports of fisheries products in 1982-83 were valued at $368. 7m, an increase of 14 per cent on the value of exports in 1981-82. The value of exports of edible fisheries products rose by 15 per cent to $353m. Prawns, rock lobster and scallops were the main products which contributed to the increase. The value of prawn exports, at $158.9m, was $17.3m higher than in 1981-82 and accounted for 45 per cent of total value of edible exports in 1982-83. Japan and the United States of America continued as the main markets for Australian fisheries products. Sales to Japan increased by 11.6 per cent to $176.5m in 1982 -83, and represented 50 per cent of total edible fish exports. Exports to the United States of America were $109.8m, an increase of 14.7 per cent. In value terms, this was 31 per cent of Australia's edible fish exports. I have quoted these statistics to illustrate just how important the fishing industry is to our overall economy, and to emphasise that it needs encouragement if it is to improve its performance even further. Unfortunately, despite the timeliness of this Bill, it must also be said that Labor is doing little else that is positive to encourage the industry. As a matter of fact, the Government will have to concede that it has implemented virtually none of its many promises to the Australian fishing industry before the last election. The fishing area is one of the most graphic examples of Labor making a host of promises in the heat of the election campaign and then forgetting all about them . I can understand that the industry was strongly supportive of Labor's fishing policies before the election because they embodied promises on a number of issues which the fishing industry had been seeking for some time. However, there is now serious doubt and concern within the Australian fishing industry about the Labor Government's genuineness in treating fishermen as significant primary producers. In the twelve months and more that the Labor Party has been in Government, it has failed to implement its promises to establish a national fishing policy, to restructure the Department of Primary Industry's Fisheries Division and to establish management plans for the south-east trawl fishery, the southern shark fishery and the southern bluefin tuna fishery. It is true that Labor announced a so-called interim management plan for the southern bluefin tuna fishery, but this has been widely condemned by fishing organisations, and in fact the move has endangered the southern bluefin tuna fishery by ignoring fundamental issues. The Minister will no doubt recall with some embarrassment the reaction of the members of the Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia. They told him in no uncertain terms that his interim plan could result in lasting damage to the southern bluefin tuna fishery. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has also told the Minister that his proposed interim measures are in total contravention of the advice of Australian, Japanese and New Zealand scientists. Given this, it now seems possible that the Minister may be in breach of section 5B of the Fisheries Act, which compels him to ensure that living marine resources are not endangered by over-exploitation. To get back to Labor's list of broken promises, the House will recall that the Labor Party made these promises: Provide funds for research and development of new fisheries in the Australian fishing zone. Explore national marketing potential with particular regard of the need for fish promotion. Treat the fishing industry similarly to other primary industries with respect to tax exemptions and other assistance measures. Exempt four-wheel drive vehicles from sales tax where they are essential to the fishing business. These promises are all contained on page 21 of Labor's policies for agriculture document which the Minister hawked around the country in the lead up to the last election. It is true that Labor has implemented one promise and that is to restore the free circulation of the Department of Primary Industry publication Australian Fisheries. Mr Snow —That was one more than you achieved. Mr McVEIGH —Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to know that it was a promise that your Party has honoured, but the Government is using funds out of the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account to foot the Bill. That is a pretty easy way of honouring a promise. I ask you: What sort of misallocation of resources is that? Would not the money be better spent on research? Would it not be better to make the money available out of government funds rather than touching the till of essential research trust fund account moneys? Surely the Research Trust Account should be used only for fisheries research activities. Labor made this solemn promise before the election: Urgently move to establish management plans for the Southern Bluefin Tuna, South East Trawl, Northern Prawn Trawl and Southern Shark Fisheries in the belief that such management strategies, based on biological, economic and social factors will help reduce disagreements between states. In actual fact, after more than 12 months in government, all Labor has done is to implement a discredited interim management plan for southern bluefin tuna and a new management plan for the northern prawn fishery. Nothing has been done about the southern shark fishery which, as the Minister should know, is just as important as other areas of the industry. I have on many occasions demonstrated that the Labor Government simply does not understand the issues involved in primary industry affairs, and this has been particularly obvious this week in the Government's handling-or mishandling-of our beef exports. But it also seems unable to understand that the fishing industry is one of the nation's most fuel-intensive industries. If the Government really wanted to support fishermen it would reverse its Budget decision with regard to increased diesel excise and the removal of safe anchorages, and provide a fuel freight subsidy for remote fishing operations. The fishing industry has estimated that these disgraceful Budget decisions will increase overall operating costs by a massive $5m a year. In case this fails to register in the Minister's mind I will put it another way: The industry has estimated that the fuel cost component to catch one kilogram of prawns today is $2. It seems unbelievable, but obviously the Government does not understand the simple fact that if suddenly, overnight, we increase a thriving export industry' s operation costs by $5m a year we will sabotage its competitive ability on world markets. Despite his efforts with this Bill, the Minister for Primary Industry has failed to deliver to fishermen the goods he promised during the election campaign. Time and again he gets rolled in Cabinet and fails to give primary producers the assistance they were told they could expect under a Labor government. This Minister is not looking after the interests of fishermen and the wider rural sector. It is about time his actions matched his words. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.38) —How dare the honourable member for Darling Downs ( Mr McVeigh) accuse the Labor Government of a lack of genuineness in its dealings with the problems of the fishing industry. For the first time in the history of the Australian fishing industry a government has seriously started planning its role in the Australian fishing industry. The Hawke Labor Government has introduced draft management plans for prawns and now tuna and the south east trawl. As usual, the Opposition is accusing the Hawke Labor Government of not achieving in a year what it failed to achieve in seven years. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin)-this is without precedent-is thoroughly versed in fishing industry matters. The Minister, who is the member for Werriwa, has been associated with the fishing industry over many years. As the former member for Macarthur he had a close association with the industry in that electorate, which the current member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), who will speak later on this legislation, is now following. The Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 legislates for measures which the fishing industry has been trying to gain and for which it has been working hard over at least 10 years. One decisive act in the legislation is the removal of the requirement for crew members of fishing boats to be individually licensed. In future only master fishermen will be required to hold a licence. In the proliferation of licences gross inefficiencies were perpetuated. For example, almost anyone could go off-shore to fish. Fifteen years ago government was asked through the Union of Co-operatives in New South Wales to take this action. Mr Peter Bell of Ulladulla played a major part in a submission to the Australian Government in 1969. The Union of Co-operatives was almost a lone voice among New South Wales fishermen at the time. Again four years ago new moves were made. I know that Jock Petrie, current Chairman of the Eden co-operative, again asked for action four years ago. This time the Fraser Government agreed, and showed its enthusiasm in the most eloquent way! This is how the fishermen saw the then Government's co-operation: The Government agreed that there should be only one licence-for master fishermen. Naturally it decided that, if there was to be only one licence and crew members were not required to take out a licence, to keep up with costs the Government would have to raise the fee. But what happened? The fee was put up all right but crew members were still required to pay and take out a licence. What a good trick: Convince a government there should be only one licence; it agrees and puts up the fee, but sticks to more than one licence on a boat-one for each crew member. Yet the honourable member for Darling Downs complains about the Minister for Primary Industry taking four months to implement powers when it has taken at least four years for this legislation to be implemented properly. After 15 years of representation from the fishing industry at least we have a Minister who is prepared to listen to that industry. There is now one licence and one fee. The fishing industry is disillusioned because it firmly believes that this is the way government treats it. The industry has a history of distrust of government and internal friction. That friction has not been helped by our federal system. The honourable member for Darling Downs has complained about relationships with the States. This Minister has gone out of his way to negotiate with State Ministers. If ever I have come across an industry which would like a co- ordinated national approach rather than a haphazard State approach it is the fishing industry. We have Western Australian tuna boats taking fish below size. The tuna come around the coast from the north-west to the east, and of course there is nothing left when the small fish have been taken along the west coast. Now we have the Premier of Tasmania asking that all seas south of 39 degrees 10 minutes be restricted to the Tasmanian industry. How can that sort of thing operate when fishing is common farming all over Australian and nearby waters? How can that isolationist approach operate? Mr Gray knows full well that there will be a time when the Tasmanian industry will want to go into other waters. Is this the sort of thing that the honourable member for Darling Downs wants the Government to take more account of? I hope not. This legislation, with its amendments to streamline and improve the administration of fisheries management arrangements, is an approach towards the aims of this Government for the fishing industry. A major task of this Government is to establish a rarely experienced relationship between the people administering the scheme and fishermen. Tomorrow the Minister meets people in the industry from Sydney to Eden. These fishermen trust the Minister and they feel, I think, that if they speak with one voice the Minister will listen to them. Fishermen, like people in most other callings, are a mixed bunch. Some have too high a capital investment, and many went bankrupt in the Fraser years along with a record number of small businessmen. Some are undercapitalised and cannot fish efficiently. Almost all have low profitability and many are very poor. It is little wonder that there is a lot of scepticism in the industry; it is little wonder that many in the industry ask for no new boats and no more licences; it is little wonder that fishermen, the people on the sea, are sceptical of talk of underdeveloped zones when they are bringing in no fish. Boats are queueing up way out at sea, like football fans at a grand final, along a narrow continental shelf waiting for their turn, taking fish, and then having to get out to avoid arguments. When that sort of thing happens, it is hard to talk of underdeveloped zones. The areas west of Tasmania alleged by some to be underdeveloped are said by fishermen to be well known and well fished. One fisherman and former government surveyor of fisheries has written to me, saying: . . . we discovered all the commercial deepwater grounds off the Swains Reef, Tasmania, and western Victoria. That was several years ago. Since then, despite the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in repetitive and duplicated surveys, nothing more has been found. Within weeks of discovery the very limited commercial areas found within this survey area were being exploited, and all, without exception, are already showing indications of decline. To talk of additional boats, or bigger boats, is either showing a dangerous ignorance, a sheer irresponsibility, or self-interest at the expense of proper fisheries management and compounding the dangers to the present fleet. It is vital to the immediate future of the northern ports to realise that all the major fish species are migratory and although some biologists are inclined to disagree fishermen have convincing proof that morwong breed around the east coast of Tasmania, and migrate northwards, that flathead breed off Lakes Entrance and migrate northwards, and that gemfish and blue grenadier also follow a northward migratory route. This being so, the whole of the trawlable area has to be considered as the one fishery. Any attempt to fence it off by way of zones, or differing management regimes, must necessarily exclude the majority of northern fishermen from the stock. As the fish movement is northwards, all ports north of Lakes Entrance must be affected by any effort expended in the southern regions. If for some reason his call for one fishery is rejected, there are some fishermen who will feel that if people are licensed for a specific area they ought to fish only in that area. This correspondent of mine has pointed out that it would be quite irresponsible to consider the trawlable area to be other than one fishery. The Government and the Department of Primary Industry are listening to that point of view now. The Government is showing its goodwill to the industry. True to the principles on which the Hawke Government came to office, it has begun a process of consultation with fishermen. The Department has been visiting areas already, getting fishermen's views. It will not be easy for the Department. I commend those involved for taking the plunge into a relationship with the industry which will be tough but, given the goodwill of all involved, will benefit both the industry and government. It is clear that management has been inadequate for too long. It is clear that we can have management with a minimum of interference from government. Much remains to be discussed about licensing, including transferability and secondary endorsements. However, this Bill is a beginning to a satisfactory licensing policy. I commend it to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.48) — Legislation to streamline and improve the fishing industry is significant legislation. The Australian fishing industry is an ever- growing industry and one which has always created considerable export revenue for Australia. I am sure that the legislation before us, the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill, is welcomed for the areas in which it improves the handling of fishing in the arena of Commonwealth responsibility. I start by drawing to the attention of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro ( Mr Snow) some of the differences that have occurred in State legislation over the years in terms of controlling the fishing industry and particularly the stocks of fish. I am very proud to say that the Western Australian Government, through its Department of Fisheries, has over the years accepted the situation related to limited fisheries and limited access fisheries in an extremely good and successful fashion. This was brought out, I guess, most importantly by the lobster industry, which is very significant in Western Australia. I had the opportunity to observe it in the north-west of Western Australia with the development of the prawn industry in the town of Carnarvon, where I live. An extremely large industry now exists which clearly, had it been allowed to be treated as the east coast treated its prawn fisheries, would be in a similar parlous situation. State governments and State departments must take a considerable amount of blame for the situation as it exists on the east coast. The controls were not there, and, as we know, the fishing industry is not one in which one can replant the stock; it is an industry which must be carefully watched. Many State governments could have looked to the Western Australian Government in the way in which it sensibly controlled this industry. The limited entry concept is excellent. Unfortunately, in some stages, from my experience in Western Australia, the demarcation dispute that exists to this day between Commonwealth and State authorities creates some problems. Probably one of the more significant problems is that of policing, because, if a certain style of fishing or certain boats are not permitted in a State limited entry area but are permitted in a Commonwealth area, we have a situation in which when we find people carrying equipment, for instance, that is banned in the State area but not banned in the Commonwealth area, we cannot prosecute them for having it on board, because they will invariably say that they were going to use it in the area controlled by the Commonwealth. This is a great pity, because we also recognise that the sea is a pretty big place and the policing of our fishery is always a difficult matter, even with the improved facilities of radar and things of that nature. Many of the problems, particularly those of the New South Wales fishing industry, must be visited upon a variety of State governments. Mr Snow —The fish are not getting around there. Mr TUCKEY —Now the honourable member is talking about tuna. I shall refer to tuna in a moment. There are a lot more fish in the sea than tuna, and the southern bluefin tuna in particular. The facts of life are that the east coast prawn fishery is also in a parlous state. It is in that state because it was overfished and insufficient controls were imposed. However, I am rather pleased that the honourable member for Eden-Monaro talked about the southern bluefin tuna, which was mentioned in the second reading speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I congratulate the present Government on following what I think is the advice of its Department, and on the way in which that Department conducted inquiries into some controls to be applied to the southern bluefin tuna industry. It is a vexatious debate and one which is very much influenced by where one comes from. I represent the fishery in regard to the ports of Albany and Esperance. In that area the immature southern bluefin tuna come around the coast and pass the electorate of Forrest, represented by Mr Peter Drummond, in which, at Busselton, there is also a fishery; they come around the south-west corner and head across the Great Australian Bight, and they are in a growing stage while they do that. Mr McVeigh —We had extensive discussions with all those people. Mr TUCKEY —We did. The shadow Minister was very kind in coming to that electorate and meeting those people and listening to the problems as they put them. I would not like to be the Minister or the shadow Minister in this particular argument, being obliged to take a national overview, because each of the separate fisheries-namely, those in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales-fishing on the southern bluefin tuna has very good arguments as to why it does everything right and everyone else does everything wrong. I do not think the arguments are resoluble. I cannot entirely accept the argument that it will all be controlled if we catch only the big fish. As I understand it, most of the very big fish are being caught by the Japanese in international waters and, of course, we have limited controls there. Nevertheless, as this House has been told on previous occasions, there has been a substantial decline in the resource of southern bluefin tuna. Southern bluefin tuna, as I remember, do not commence to breed until they are approximately five years old. So what we are seeing in the water today is no indication of the circumstances that might confront us in five years time. We are still really and truly fishing the results of breeding some five years ago. That is the sort of time lag with which this industry is confronted. I am pleased that our Australian fisheries departments, in conjunction with Japanese scientists, have got together to try to put some sensible national and international controls on the fishing of this excellent resource. It was interesting to read just the other day that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) complained of how we have depleted this resource principally for the feeding of cats. If that is a cause of much of the damage, maybe we should be asking ourselves whether tuna should be classified as a food fish and removed from the pet food market. Quite clearly, it is a human consumption food fish. It is an excellent food fish in many regards, particularly for canning and in the type of food preparation that uses canned fish. In my State, as I said, we are catching the smaller variety of fish and naturally we have to take a lot more fish out of the water to gain the same sort of tonnages caught in other States. Current restrictions are on tonnage. I often wonder whether it can be argued that every fish that the Western Australians catch would eventually mature into a larger fish somewhere along the line. Clearly, the sea has always been a place of predators. Although tuna is one of the more superior predators and, I presume, one that therefore has the speed and other capabilities to escape other varieties, clearly there is a mortality rate and the farming or culling of the small fish reduces that natural mortality rate . So there is an argument that the smaller fish, if not caught at that stage, might not mature to the size at which, for instance, the New South Welshmen catch them. Mr Hollis —Tell that to them. Mr TUCKEY —Let us not argue too much. I have made the point that we all have a right to represent the arguments of our constituents. I am trying to do that in a logical fashion and point out to the House that clearly not every little tuna that swims past Albany or Esperance will get to New South Wales; some will be eaten on the way. It is not easy to apply the rules of statistics on that point. I will come shortly to the area in which I think New South Wales and Western Australia at least could combine to give the industry a degree of protection which it would not get in any other way. The other factor I wish to raise while talking about the immature tuna-these are caught from the boat by poling-is that we now have size restrictions which are proving to be ineffective. They are effective at the wharf because an inspector can come down to the wharf and measure fish that are being unloaded. Of course, quite properly he can take prosecuting action if undersized fish are on board; they are thrown back. But my fishermen are telling me that they are just not able in the frenzy of poling these fish aboard-as they are able, for instance, when they unload crayfish from a pot, which is a rather slow and cumbersome process-to check the size of the fish. The fish are poled up on a barbless hook and dropped on deck. When they stop biting, the fishermen are supposed to throw back all of those that are undersized. Of course, a large number of them are dead or injured to the point at which they cannot be saved. It is a terrible waste to throw them back in the ocean. I know that a professional fisherman has an opportunity to assess somewhat the size of the school of fish that he is going into. Some schools are clearly all undersized and he should not fish there. But, just as clearly, he will never get them all at the same size or weight in a massive school and many undersized fish will come on board. He cannot hang a sign on his hook saying: 'If you are under X kilos please don't bite'. Therefore he will hook those fish and they will come on board. The fact is that they are dying before they get back in the water. I think it is a problem that has to be addressed. More importantly, not that very long ago a new regime was introduced to the southern bluefin tuna industry. That was the purse seine. A peculiarity that I also observed many years ago in the north-west is that we can become too efficient in the means by which we catch fish. It is difficult to say that one can be too efficient as a farmer because farming efficiency is something that is controllable but in the sea we unfortunately cannot plant the fish. We cannot be selective, with highly efficient methods, as to the fish we catch. The introduction of the fish trap as compared to hand lining was a major drawback to the north-west snapper industry. Hand lining is very similar to poling. Hand lining was sufficiently efficient to allow a fisherman to make a good living. When we stepped past that point we went past the peak of the curve at which, although we improved the efficiency of catch, we had difficulty with handling that catch. Being a food fish, the gutting and other processing had to be handled speedily when the fish came on board. The fishermen could not do that properly when this mass of fish came on board. So there was a deterioration in the value of the product and much of it found its way back into crayfish pots, where it was not required. Similarly, there was a problem with depletion of the stocks. The method of fishing was just too efficient. Therefore, our State government took a decision to ban fish traps. As I made the point, there have been difficulties over many years at the Commonwealth level in handling that situation. But the purse seine makes chicken feed of the fish trap. The fish trap is a box measuring about six feet by three feet by three feet. The purse seine net is probably a mile long and it could be a mile deep. It is put out by a very large ship. It runs around a school and everything inside it is technically dead from that time onwards because the fish cannot get away. As I said, the poler, when he throws his hook in, cannot show a sign saying 'Do not bite', but he does not have a sign saying 'You will bite', either. There is an opportunity in every school for fish to move on and escape. That is a conservation measure. There is no conservation with a purse seine. As I understand it, the purse seine was not introduced to fish southern bluefin tuna; it was introduced to fish the skipjack variety. I would like to think that the Fraser Government would have accepted that. I am sure from what the shadow Minister has heard about the purse seine that if he had control over the industry he would seriously consider either the banning of purse seines or returning their use to other less popular varieties. I am sure that would be a much better conservation measure than trying to tell, for instance, the Albany industry that it should stop catching the smaller fish. I believe that in one fell swoop we could get a reasonable level of conservation in the bluefin tuna industry which would assist all the various States that are fishing by the conventional method of poling. Fishing by poling will always mean , even if there is an increased number of boats-I am not recommending that-that some fish are left over to go through the breeding cycle so necessary to maintain our fishing stocks. I hope that it will not be long before we see some regulation that protects those fish. The other great problem, of course, comes back to the matter of policing. We now have lines at given points beyond which certain fishermen are not permitted to fish. We have a rather strange situation in that the South Australian fishermen are allowed to encroach into what I might term our Western Australian waters. The boundary in the sea is not the State border. Unfortunately, while the pressure is on Western Australian fishermen to catch larger fish, and it is a fact that the fish get larger as they move east, they are being precluded from fishing a section of what could be called Western Australian waters, that area of water that follows the boundaries of our coastline. They are refused entry there and South Australian fishermen are allowed entry. That seems to me to be a problem that should be resolved by allowing fishermen from one or both States to fish what could be common waters. It is difficult to say to Western Australians: 'You have to catch bigger fish but you are not allowed to go where the bigger fish are'. I am not suggesting that Western Australians should go into what I would term South Australian waters any more than I am suggesting that South Australians should be allowed in ours. A compromise should be reached. If there is an area of Western Australian waters where the South Australians go, Western Australians should have common use of it . More importantly, in some of the more remote areas fish are being transferred from smaller boats to larger boats. Some of the larger boats are overseas vessels. Evidence on this has been put to the Minister for Primary Industry. I believe he is aware of it and has indicated that he is trying to do something about it. I recognise that he has as much difficulty as anyone else, but sightings have been reported to him and I hope he takes very severe action. The only way we will control the problem is by ensuring that all the fish come ashore, where they can be looked at and weighed, and where the controls the Government properly has applied can be policed. If people are prepared to transfer fish at sea and the fish go straight to Japan we will have great problems. Finally, I come back to the problem of damaged fish. I have mentioned that the purse seine is the fish trap of the bluefin industry. I do not believe that type of fishing is suitable for the proper handling of fish. I think our fishermen, particularly those who have access to the larger fish, namely the New South Wales fishermen, are not using their brains sufficiently and going into the top end of the market. There is a Japanese delicacy-a dish called sashimi-which the Americans are now farming. They put nets out around the fish, keep them in the ocean and literally fatten them up. The price is so good that they are able to air freight those very large fish all the way from the United States to Japan and sell them within a very short time of their being removed from the water. That is how good the market is. Clearly, the Federal Government and the New South Wales Government should be giving encouragement to the New South Wales fishermen to consider that industry. It would be profitable and, at the same time, I believe it would leave room for the Western Australian end of the market , which is catching smaller fish and is probably able to serve only the canning market. I have no objections to the moves the Minister is making in introducing this legislation. It makes improvements to the administration of the Act. I thank the House for the opportunity to raise all these matters on a very important industry. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(11.08) —Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the first time since your election to your present high office that I have spoken while you have been occupying the chair. May I say how pleased I am to see you occupying that office and what a wonderful job you will do there. It is not very often that I find a substantial degree of concurrence with the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), but I find myself in agreement with many of the things he said today. I would dispute, perhaps, his remarks concerning the size of the fish off Albany, but I agree with what he said about the control of the fishing industry in Western Australia. It is a good measure, one I have long applauded and one that other States should follow. Regardless of the political persuasion of the Government in power at the time the measure was brought in, I think it is a good measure for the betterment of the fishing industry in Australia. I listened to the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), and one always finds his speeches interesting. I am not sure about their content but they raise a laugh occasionally. He said at the beginning of his speech that he was in support of the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill, but then in his usual way he bagged the legislation and tried to bag the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), if such a term is appropriate when talking about fishing. For the benefit of the honourable member for Darling Downs I will quote from a report from a group of fishermen. Talking about the Federal Government, they said: We feel that, generally speaking, there has been quite a degree of ignorance and a complete lack of interest shown by the previous Government on the problems facing the fishing industry in this country, particularly in the State of New South Wales. This was said at a recent meeting and they were talking about the previous Government. So much for the honourable member for Darling Downs talking about what the Hawke Labor Government-he probably threw in the word 'socialist' as well-has not done for the fishing industry. According to the fishermen at that meeting it was the first time that they had met with government representatives from the Department of Primary Industry. They said that the Government 'has given us some hope for the future management of the fishery'. They are not my words; they are the words of the fishermen in the industry, the people involved. They were talking about the Hawke Labor Government and what it is doing for the fishing industry. Honourable members opposite have to accept the fact that we are the natural party for the rural areas of Australia as well as the urban areas. They had better learn to live with that because we will be around for a long time. We are on side with the fishermen, as we are with the farmers and all the other country people, as well as with the city and urban people. As has been pointed out, the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to implement a number of amendments of an administrative nature to the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Continental Shelf ( Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, pending completion of a comprehensive review of Commonwealth fisheries legislation. The amendments are designed to streamline and improve the administration of fisheries management arrangements for the benefit of both the industry and the Government. All associated with the fishing industry recognise the need for a review of Commonwealth fisheries legislation. The industry has been subject to dramatic changes over the past few years. Not least of these are technological changes and their impact on the industry. Although fishermen see many sunrises, the industry in its present condition could not be regarded as a sunrise industry. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) would agree with that. By world standards Australia is not a major fishing nation, producing only a minor percentage of the world catch. One of the reasons we are not a major fishing nation is that we have no massive rivers ejecting nutrients into the ocean and our relatively warm waters are far less productive than the cooler regions. Although we are not a major fishing nation by world standards, the fishing industry is important to Australia. It is especially important to my electorate of Macarthur and to the neighbouring electorate of my colleague and friend the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. Over the past year, since we have both been members of this House, we have raised a number of problems for the fishing industry in the area we both represent. These problems are sometimes caused by our 'very good friends' in the Navy. Last year we had a problem with the spotter planes. That problem, on which we both worked, came to a satisfactory conclusion. Early this year we were both made aware of the problem arising when the Navy was engaged in an exercise off the south coast, when some of the fishing fleet's gear was destroyed. This was especially so with the lobster fishing industry. The Navy boats were cutting their gear adrift and causing them financial loss. Both the honourable member for Eden-Monaro and I raised this matter not only with the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) but also with the Minister for Primary Industry. Hopefully, again, we came to a satisfactory resolution of this potential conflict. One of the great problems is that the fishing industry has virtually no protection, particularly compared with the protection given to some of our competitors. I refer especially to the unfair competition with New Zealand imports-cheaply produced fish caught by, say, Russian trawlers operating in New Zealand waters which are subsidised by the New Zealand Government for export to Australia. This morning I attended a meeting about New Zealand shearers who are operating in Australia. I assure honourable members that not only the New Zealand shearers give us some cause for concern; New Zealand fish coming on to the Australian market and unfairly competing with our own fishing industry is cause for concern also. We do need more control of the Australian fishing industry. The honourable member for O'Connor mentioned the control that has been exercised over the crayfishing industry in Western Australia. As I said at the outset, I do not often stand up here and say that I support the honourable member for O'Connor, but in this case I do support him. I think the illustrations he gave of what was happening around Carnarvon are good illustrations. The fishing industry in other States should follow that example. It would lead to a balanced control of the fishing industry. The Government will take a close look at the industry and undoubtedly some hard decisions will have to be taken. The Hawke Labor Government has never shied away from taking hard decisions when they have had to be taken in the national interest. The resources available to the fishermen on the New South Wales coast are clearly not expanding, so each fisherman is engaged in a horsepower and technological race to ensure he gets his share. As the value of the vessels increases each fisherman is looking for additional quantities of fish in order to cover his capital costs. Other speakers have mentioned this. These developments have been compounded by a rapid increase in fishing technology, with satellite navigation, sonar and similar developments greatly increasing the fishing power of the fleet. This pattern is further reflected throughout the world. There is no way that governments can or should prevent fishermen from becoming more efficient. On the other hand, no government can sit by and oversee a commercial fishing industry which is bent on extinction. It is clearly imperative for governments to moderate the acceleration in fishing effort, and this is the rationale for the draft management plan for the south-east trawler fishery recently announced by the Minister. The thrust of this plan is to limit the number of vessels in this traditional, highly developed area and to ensure that, as boats are replaced, compensating amounts of fishing effort are removed from the fishery. This does not mean that all fishermen will be returned to profitability. There will always be a proportion who, through bad luck, bad management or bad weather, have difficulty in making a living. However, hopefully it will at least bring a degree of increased stability to the south- east trawler fishery. The Government is very conscious of the problems facing the tuna industry. Partly because of the build-up in fishing capacity and because scientists advised last year that the tuna resource is biologically threatened, this Government has introduced an interim management plan and the Minister is studying long term measures designed to protect the viability of the tuna industry. All governments and industry groups want fisheries management, but with the benefits of management there are invariably some costs in terms of restrictions, size limits, closed seasons, quotas or some other form of restraint. To persuade each group that it must bear part of the cost if it wishes to participate in the benefits of management is not an easy task. There is a basic problem concerning the over-fishing of the south-east trawler fishery. Although we do have the 200-mile limit, the actual fishing ground in that area is very small. This area is just off the edge of the continental shelf . Frankly, too many boats are operating what is a narrow field. We often hear about the 200-mile zone and fishing to the outer limit-it all sounds very impressive-but some fishermen recently said to me that the impact of the 200- mile zone in that area is like allowing farmers free access to the Simpson Desert. As I said, this is a very narrow fishing area. That naturally leads to over-fishing, which not only destroys the ground but also leads to a worsening price situation. The fleets' operating costs have risen but the prices of fish have remained low. Therefore, the profitability of those engaged in the industry has also been low. The Bill before the House will amend the Fisheries Act 1952 to simplify licensing requirements, overcome a number of administrative difficulties and include review provisions in relation to licensing functions and fisheries notices made under section 8 of the Act. It will also remove the requirement for crew members of fishing boats to be individually licensed. This matter was touched on by my colleague, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. In future only master fishermen will be required to hold a licence. Another important provision of the Bill will enable the entry of unlicensed foreign fishing boats to Australian ports for major repair and similar purposes. The entry of unlicensed foreign fishing boats for these purposes, which has the potential to provide significant economic benefits for Australian industries, has been limited by restrictive port entry criteria in the Fisheries Act. Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill will remove this difficulty by providing for the authorisation of entry into Australian ports for specified purposes. It is not intended that such authorisations be used for the purpose of allowing unlicensed foreign fishing boats to enter ports for routine refuelling or minor repairs on an ad hoc basis. Clause 9 of the Bill will provide a procedure for formally controlling the activities of research boats in the Australian fishing zone by allowing the granting of permits for scientific purposes. Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill will permit the application of the Fisheries Act to Australian fishermen operating beyond the outer limits of the Australian fishing zone should this be required under future international fisheries management arrangements. It is likely that if international agreement is reached on the management of highly migratory species of fish, such as tuna, each country concerned will be required to control its own fishermen on the high seas. The Bill effects a number of other amendments to the Fisheries Act to streamline administrative procedures. These include additional powers relating to the cancellation of licence endorsements, changes in licence conditions and the endorsement of licences to exempt the licensee from a prohibition imposed by a specified fisheries notice. The Fisheries Act currently permits licences to be endorsed in respect of only one type of fisheries notice. These amendments will permit greater flexibility in implementing fisheries management arrangements. The amendments will provide long-needed reforms to the fisheries legislation which will assist the Government to discharge more efficiently its management responsibilities for the valuable fisheries resources off our shores. The amendments come at a time when the Government is in the process of introducing new and improved management arrangements for a number of important fisheries to provide for the long term stability of the fishing industry and, at the same time, protect the biological needs of those fisheries. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(11.28) —Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I join my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) in offering you my congratulations on your recent elevation. I also adopt his remarks as to your ability and competence in that role. I predict that the House will only benefit from your appointment. It is important that I speak on the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill because the northern seat of Leichhardt has a very large fishing industry. It is a fact that the Cairns port has the largest output of fishing product in Australia. We have the east coast prawn fishery and the northern prawn fisheries, which are very large export earners. The Bill seeks to implement, as I understand it, a number of amendments of an administrative nature to the Fisheries Act 1952, the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 and the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968, pending completion of a comprehensive review of Commonwealth fisheries legislation. The amendments to which I speak are designed to streamline and improve the administration of fisheries management arrangements for the benefit of both the industry and the Government. The amendments envisaged to the Fisheries Act simplify licensing requirements. The amendments will overcome a number of administrative difficulties and include review provisions in relation to licensing functions and fisheries notices, in particular, the removal of the requirement for crew members of fishing boats to be individually licensed. In future only master fishermen will be required to hold such a licence. The amendments, which have the support of the fishing industry, will simplify existing arrangements by reducing the number of licences required and associated administrative costs. It is envisaged that the loss of revenue to the Commonwealth will be less than $100,000. However, there will also be a reduction in the administrative cost of issuing such licences. Turning now to amendments to the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1952 relating to the management of fisheries which will, in the long term, be critical to the industry, I preface my remarks by saying that the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the States and the Northern Territory, must develop a national fisheries policy with guidelines for the management and, particularly, the conservation of fisheries resources. Particular attention should be paid to, firstly, the immediate and long term effects of various management measures on the biological and economic status of established fisheries; secondly, the effects of the implementation of the management regimes in one fishery on the biological and economic stability of neighbouring fisheries and on other fisheries resources and the need for a multispecies approach to management; thirdly, the development of new fisheries within the Australian fishing zone and the exploitation of less preferred species particularly for import replacement purposes. One cannot place too much emphasis on the necessity for the development and implementation of a national fisheries policy in consultation with the States and the Northern Territory governments-a policy defining the objectives and strategies for the rational utilisation of Australian fishing resources. It is necessary for the future development of the industry. It is only in the last 15 to 20 years that the Australian fishing industry has assumed national and international significance. Prior to this the industry catered mainly for the needs of local communities and the populations of major cities. The recent growth of the industry can be attributed primarily to the export of the high unit value prawn, rock lobster, scallop and abalone fisheries, although Australia's demersal fisheries have continued to be exploited in areas over Australia's continental shelf close to the large population centres. Pelagic stock have been only lightly fished by Australians, with the exception of the southern bluefin tuna and the Australian salmon fisheries. The creation of an expanded export market for Australian seafoods provided the stimulus for the growth of the Australian commercial fishing industry. The rock lobster industry in Western Australia and off the southern coast of Australia established the first seafood export market. Its development provided the basis for expansion into other markets. Scallops and prawns provided the next major export markets and the exploitation of these species resulted in the rapid expansion of scallop and prawn fishing in Victoria, as well as Western Australia and northern Australia. The industry responded by building larger and more powerful boats to extend its operations and installing more advanced equipment for position fixing and fish finding. Some of the developments in these two fisheries spread to the demersal and pelagic fisheries supplying fin fish for the local market. During the 1960s the value of the Australian catch of fish, crustaceans and molluscs doubled from $30m to $60m per annum. However, the greatest growth in the history of the industry took place during the 1970s when total landings of fish doubled and the value of the catch trebled. That decade saw prawn fishing overtake rock lobster catching as the nation's most valuable export industry. There was also a steady growth in the production of abalone and scallops for export. Trawl fishing for the domestic market expanded and there was a period of consolidation in the growth of the tuna live bait and pole fishery from the previous decade. The extension of Australia's fishing limit to 200 nautical miles, signalled by the Commonwealth Government in 1977 and eventually implemented in 1979, further stimulated interest in Australia's fish resources by both Australian and foreign fishermen. Research goes hand in hand with the future management and development of our fisheries. Our history in Australia of research in the fishing industry is one of which we should not be proud. It is now time that research was given priority within the overall development of our fishing industry. It is time that we established national objectives, priorities and criteria for the allocation of funds for fishing research activities within the Australian fishing zone. We should accord priority to projects relating to the development of new fisheries in the Australian fishing zone and to proposals submitted by the private sector relating to exploratory and developmental fishing operations and new product development. There should be an adoption of appropriate procedures for assessing all proposals for research grants funded by the Fishing Industry Research Committee Trust Account. There should be appropriate evaluation procedures for the financial supervision of the funds disbursed by the Committee and for the monitoring and evaluation of projects funded from the Fishing Industry Research Committee Trust Account. There is a need within the industry to monitor and report to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the co-ordination of all fishing industry research and advise on the financing of such research, initially to rationalise existing funding procedures and, in the long term, to ensure that funds are allocated for approved and relevant research work which will meet the needs of the industry. It is important and significant that the Hawke Government has taken a substantial step in the management of the northern prawn fishery. In October 1982 the Australian Fisheries Council directed that management of the northern prawn fishery declared management zone should be reviewed in order to find ways of effectively containing and reducing fishing effort. There were problems of overcapitalisation in the industry. Economic decline was predicted unless capital investment substantially reduced over time. A major review of management was completed in late 1983 and a seven-point implementation plan has now been put into place. The Federal Government will move to introduce other management plans throughout Australian fisheries but this will take time. It will be a necessary prerequisite that the industry assist in putting those management plans into place. Finally I wish to refer to some of the clauses in the Bill. Firstly, I go to the amendments in clause 19 and clause 27 of the Bill which make provision for an administrative review of decisions relating to licensing functions, decisions other than those in respect of foreign boats or persons who are not citizens or residents of Australia. These provisions reflect the Government's commitment to the principle that discretionary powers exercised under Commonwealth legislation should be reviewable. However, special provision has been made in this Bill to recognise the position of State officials acting under Commonwealth law. Decisions on licensing matters made personally by the Minister or the Secretary will be directly reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Decisions on licensing matters by delegates of the Minister, including State officials acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, although not reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, will be subject to reconsideration by the Minister, the Secretary to the Department or a Commonwealth official delegated to review those decisions. Any decision made following reconsideration may then be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I now refer to the provisions of clause 24 of the Bill. Under proposed section 13BAA unlicensed foreign fishing boats would be permitted entry to Australian ports where there would be significant economic benefits for Australia. For example, port entry by a boat for the purpose of major repair and maintenance would provide direct benefits to the local shipbuilding industry and would generate employment and income for a wide range of service industries. This amendment does not represent a reversal of Australia's policy of restricting the entry of foreign fishing boats into Australian ports. Access by unlicensed foreign fishing boats will not be permitted for the purpose of routine maintenance, refuelling or revictualling on an ad hoc basis. Already the benefits of this provision are being felt in Cairns, where major refits will be carried out to purse-seine trawlers of American origin. In conclusion I say that by world standards Australia is not a major fishing nation, producing only a minor percentage of the world catch. Nevertheless, the future of Australia's fishing production is comparatively bright and it is a significant Australian industry for which proper management and research policies should be put in place. The amendments to which I have spoken are a step in that direction. However, in the future much more has to be done. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.37) —in reply-In closing the debate on the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill, I thank the honourable members who participated in the debate, particularly the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler). As he well knows, we have engaged in many consultations with fishermen in his electorate. I particularly appreciate the very close interest he takes in the management of fisheries that particularly affect his electorate and fisheries questions in general. Cairns is one of the largest fishing ports in Australia. It is central to the northern prawn fishery. The issues that were debated last week in this House affecting the Torres Strait fishery and the plans we are trying to put in place for the east coast prawn trawl fishery, as well as the whole question of the Great Barrier Reef, are of concern to the honourable member for Leichhardt and to me. They are important questions. All aspects of fisheries management in general are very much in the minds of the fishermen in the electorate of Leichhardt and the various ports in that electorate. This Bill is a rather minor Bill. Basically, it introduces miscellaneous amendments to existing fisheries legislation to remove the requirement for crew members to be licensed and corrects a number of administrative deficiencies. Many honourable members have touched on the actual content of the Bill before the House. Other honourable members, particularly the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), have taken the opportunity to range widely over various topics related to fisheries management and the fishing industry. As with most members of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Darling Downs generally confuses abuse with debate. One of the honourable member 's accusations was, I understand, that I had not been consulting with the States . The main reason that I was not here-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. If I might just clarify -- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —There is no point of order. Mr McVeigh —I indicated that in the second reading speech the Minister said he was going to consult with the States and I asked him to give the House the results of those discussions. I think he has been misinformed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs will resume his seat. Mr KERIN —There have been ongoing consultations with the States. The Fisheries Division of my Department engages in virtually nothing else but negotiation and consultation with the States. The reason I was not in the House for part of the debate was that I was talking to a Minister of a State government on a fisheries question. I think that gives the lie to the story that consultation with the States does not take place on fisheries questions. As I said, negotiation with the States on fisheries matters is very much what fisheries management is all about. Of course, what the Commonwealth and State governments are in the process of remedying are the errors of the past and what they are in the process of attacking is fisheries management based on the biological resources itself. We are trying to change fishermen, who by definition are hunters, fishers and gatherers, into farmers. We are trying to get them into management plans for various fisheries on the basis of the resource. The Commonwealth and the States are involved because the Commonwealth has powers out to the 200-mile zone and because fish do not follow State boundaries when they go out into the sea. In putting together any form of fisheries arrangement, negotiation with the States is absolutely essential. Since this Government came to office we have been able to put into place quite a few fisheries management plans. These plans involve an enormous amount of negotiation and many complex matters. Probably one of the most complex fisheries is the southern bluefin tuna fishery, which involves three or four States, the Commonwealth, New Zealand, Japan and international agreements. A fishery such as the southern bluefin tuna fishery goes beyond Commonwealth and State control. If I had the time I would go into the biological questions concerning that fishery and the fact that we have put together only an interim management plan because of the resistance and interest of the States and to some degree because of the size and composition of the fleets in the various States due to the technology and on-shore facilities in respect of the fishery. The northern prawn fishery, which the honourable member for Leichhardt referred to, is also particularly complicated. Perhaps it would serve the interests of honourable members if I went through some of the progress we are making in the implementation of the new plan. We now have in place a new joint industry- government management committee. It met for the first time on 21 February in Darwin. It comprises seven industry and five government members. It is responsible for oversighting and carefully monitoring the progress of the new plan. Its second meeting is scheduled for 8 May. We are trying to get in place a revised boat replacement policy. Rules for this have been prepared. The concept of such a boat replacement policy is based on units of under-deck volume and the power of the main boat engine per boat as a proxy for fishing capacity. About 30 boat replacements are being put in action at present under the new rules. We are trying to put into place a voluntary licence entitlement buy-back scheme. Proposals for consideration by the Government and myself are being prepared. This is in the context of adjustment assistance for fisheries on a case by case basis involving new legislation. The industry, with respect to this fishery and the northern prawn trawl fishery, has agreed ultimately to meet the total cost of the scheme. Assistance is required in the form of an initial capital base to allow early operation of the scheme. We are extending the northern prawn fishery zone westward to Cape Londonderry. This extension is not yet finalised but I hope in May the committee will resolve this question. We are proceeding to more accurate definitions of prawn nursery grounds to be permanently closed. Defined prawn fishing grounds have been closed from December 1983 and January 1984. They will reopen on 1 April 1984. The closures are based on a pre-season prawn sampling program conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation with industry assistance. We are giving attention to the effectiveness of penalties and improving licensing arrangements. In summary, we are progressing on the implementation of this new management plan. It is proceeding satisfactorily. The Department of Primary Industry interviewed the owners or the skippers of some 240 boats in a fishery which has an estimated total of some 280 boats. That is the degree to which consultation goes on between my Department and State departments and the fishermen themselves in trying to get an agreed policy of fisheries management. I understand that the honourable member for Darling Downs accused me of not implementing all the fisheries policies set out in the document that I released before the election campaign. I have with me some nine pages concerning the implementation of those commitments to the fishing industry. No commitment is not being implemented or is not undergoing study. Progress is being made. Perhaps one of the most important things we did was to set up the interim fishing industry consultative panel to give us a better way of talking to the industry. But the most important measures with respect to fisheries management plans have been put in place, as I have said already, for the southern bluefin tuna fishery. We are working hard on the south-east trawl fishery-which is what I was discussing with the State Minister a moment ago-and also on the northern prawn fishery about which I have given some details, the southern shark industry and the Bass Strait scallop industry. We have also taken action with respect to closures and new measures with respect to the east coast prawn trawl fishery. I could read a great list of the main achievements of the Government since we took office, but I will not take up the time of the House. However, we are making a lot of progress with respect to all these matters, both in the implementation of the Australian Labor Party's platform and also in the implementation of desirable fisheries management plans. The honourable member for Darling Downs claimed that I had not implemented Labor's fisheries platform according to page 21 of our published document. I basically reject that. As I said to the House, I do not have time to go through all of these matters, but we are implementing our policies. We are getting our fisheries under better control. The honourable member expressed concern about the proposed delegation of powers by joint authorities to a Commonwealth official whose decisions will be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He wanted to know whether the States had been consulted about these changes, especially as they are an important part of agreements with the States in respect of the fisheries element of the off-shore constitutional settlement. Ministers and State authorities were approached concerning the review provisions and did not voice any objections to the amendments as proposed. It is really a matter for each joint authority to decide whether it should delegate powers. I think I have already addressed the question concerning whether the consultations with the States regarding the proposed amendments referred to in the second reading speech took place. Since the Bill was introduced into the Parliament last year approaches have been made, and again no objections were raised to the amendments. The honourable member expressed concern about delay in commencing the review of Commonwealth fisheries legislation. Progress has been made on the review, which is a complex issue and is being examined in the context of the legislative provisions needed to support a number of new fisheries management arrangements, currently in the course of development for several major fisheries. I shall go through them again. They concern in particular the northern prawn trawl fishery, the southern bluefin tuna fishery, the south-east trawl fishery, the east coast prawn fishery and the Bass Strait scallop fishery. The honourable member was also concerned about amendments permitting unlicensed fishing vessels to enter ports for repair. He stressed the need for adequate safeguards and controls. The reasons for allowing entry to these vessels was outlined in my second reading speech. These boats will be required to comply with all control measures which apply to licensed foreign fishing boats, including radio reporting of positions, and also to enter port by the most direct route. Finally, the honourable member for Darling Downs expressed concern about the removal of reference in the Bill to traditional fishing and the effects of this on traditional inhabitants of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Again, the second reading speech clearly explains the reason for this amendment. The Fisheries Act covers only commercial fishing. The Act as amended will not affect the private fishing activities of the Islanders. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.47) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome not only you, but also the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) for another discussion on customs items, which always ensures a strong speaking list. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 under discussion this morning covers a range of Industries Assistance Commission reports which have been introduced and are now in legislative form. Copper and certain copper products, fatty acids and certain aliphatic acids and their salts and esters, lawnmowers and certain engines and parts are some of the items which are covered in this legislation. Two of the decisions, those relating to fatty acids and copper products, will result in protection rates remaining constant. But in some instances protection rates will decline. The decision regarding fatty acids was brought about by an approach by Lever and Kitchen Pty Ltd, whose improved trading position was brought about by a slight increase in tariff from the minimum rate of 2 per cent to 10 per cent. The decision regarding lawnmowers, certain engines and parts will result in duty rates on lawnmowers remaining unchanged at 25 per cent. But duty on spark ignition engines and certain related parts will be reduced from 35 per cent to 25 per cent. However, this will be added to by a bounty, which will be made known later, of an amount which will make the former duty of 35 per cent consistent. This is of particular importance to the Queensland firm of Rover Scott Bonnar Ltd, which imports the Briggs and Stratton engines that it uses extensively in its products. Its competitor, Victa Ltd of Sydney, is the beneficiary of these bounties and also of a protection rate of 25 per cent. It is pleasing to note that, due to the improved season, sales profitability in this area has markedly improved. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will appreciate that enormously as you mow your lawn. The Bill also covers room air-conditioners. This was brought about by an approach to the Temporary Assistance Authority by Email Ltd, which is the only manufacturer of air-conditioning products left in Australia. It found that, with the current market of approximately 190,000 units, imports of 200,000 units were measuring out a degree of competition which it was finding too competitive. As a consequence of that, the company has been granted some assistance in this area by way of bounty. On top of that the tariff quota is to be 35 per cent of imports and the non-quota 150 per cent. I think that, given the position of oversupply which exists in that market, even those additions will lead to difficult trading. The other provisions of the Bill relate primarily to arrangements made under the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. They involve a number of measures, primarily the first-phase reductions in a number of duty rates under the agreement. Changes to duty rates for entry of goods under amendments to the schedules of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement will result in duty-free entry of a range of South Pacific Forum products. The amendment to legal note 7 of Chapter 84, tractor bases, arose as a result of the Government's decision on the Temporary Assistance Authority report on agricultural wheel tractors. The House will recall that the Government decided to double the bounty payment on locally produced tractors, and a bounty of 15 per cent on tractor cabs-the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) made a point about that recently-will be paid for a period of 12 months. This was because of a swing to the imported tractors in a completely built up form. The amendment to the tariff reflects the Government's decision in this area. Changes to the tariff as a result of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee's report on the industry on 7 May 1983 related to quota levels, adjustment of value-based quotas, the exclusion of certain footwear, and concessional entry under less than $1 per VFD. A new definition was inserted to give effect to this decision. There has been an increase in penalty duty on quota categories 104, woven coats; 106, suits and sets; and 107, trousers, jeans and overalls, to $25 per units, with effect from 1 January 1984. I am sure that the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) would be very interested in that. Changes have been made to implement the premium tender rates of duty applicable for 1984 textiles, clothing and footwear import quota allocations. There will be quantitative restrictions on developing country preferences for imports of certain steel products. This measure was announced last August as part of the Government's steel plan. It is significant that this is virtually the only attempt by the Government to grasp the nettle of DC preferences. A review of the scheme was commenced in December 1982 by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Despite many promises of early completion, the Government has yet to announce its decision on this matter. If newspaper reports are to be believed, the reason for its making no decision is that the continuing fight between the Button free- traders and the protectionists continues in the Cabinet. There are some general housekeeping matters as a result of the tariff simplification. Mrs Kelly —You did not have those problems when you were in government, did you? Mr MOORE —Never at all. This Bill by its very nature is an omnibus piece of legislation. The Customs Tariff is perhaps one of the most amended pieces of legislation on the statutes, and I should know. By its very nature it is also quite complex. I suggest to the Government that a more simplified way of proceeding with these types of amendments be examined. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(11.59) —Customs law is vitally concerned with the operation of business in this country. The form of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, as we have heard today from the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), is mystifying to many people. I support the suggestion by the honourable member for Ryan that there should be more simplified procedures for dealing with these schedules. It is very difficult to discern any threads of coherence among the various schedules. However, tariff-making in itself is not an obscure process. Customs Tariff is a made-to-measure tariff wherein specific items are named and given a rate of protection according to some policy considerations. Much of this Bill is the result of recommendations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) from the various authorities and commissions. The underlying policy considerations are what I wish to consider today by way of examination of just two of the amendments. I refer, firstly, to the logical conclusion of the putting into place of the closer economic relations trade agreement with New Zealand and, secondly, to the implementation of the recommendations of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee concerning quota levels for that sector of the manufacturing industry. The closer economic relations trade agreement was negotiated by the previous Government, and came into force on 1 January 1983. Initial phases of that agreement were put into place during 1983, and this legislation completes that implementation. The agreement between the two countries was based on the gradual and progressive liberalisation of trade across the Tasman on all goods produced in either country. The amendments relate primarily to Schedule 5 of the Customs Tariff Act 1982. In themselves these amendments are unexceptional, but their importance relates to the agreement itself. The freeing up of trade in our region has an Australia-New Zealand example to emulate. Both countries have prospered under this agreement which has gradually attended to the liberalisation of trade between them. May I suggest to the few honourable members who actually take an interest in this topic that this type of agreement could provide an impetus to similar agreements between Australia and other trading partners. The second amendment which deserves consideration is the continuation of the textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy. Sectoral policies were devised to provide support for a defined period during which real efforts should be made by the industry to improve its structure and efficiency, thereby helping it to achieve a better and more certain long term future. The major industries in receipt of this type of assistance are textiles, clothing and footwear, passenger motor vehicles, and latterly steel. The political debate over protection in Australia is one of the most recurrent and long-standing in our short history. Traditionally, a protective tariff is said to be justified on only four occasions: Firstly, when defence requirements dictate the existence of a particular local industry for a future emergency; secondly, when the national interest requires that a particular industry should be encouraged; thirdly, when labour-intensive industries provide employment and no alternative employment is available; and fourthly, when an infant industry is established. In the 1970s and 1980s when unemployment crashed onto the political agenda, a debate arose concerning the preservation of the manufacturing sector. This debate was heightened because of growing competition from newly industrialised Asian countries. Because of this competition there was general agreement that if the Australian manufacturers were to retain their market share, protection would be necessary. Following an Industries Assistance Commission report, a seven- year assistance program was put in place. The resultant Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee began its work in 1981, and on the basis of information before it makes recommendations to the Government concerning the level of protection required by the industry. If all is going well, quota levels are increased and the level of protection drops. The recommendation for 1984 was for an addition to quota for prospective market growth for most quota categories. While these additions are less than decided upon for 1983, they are somewhat above the 1982 levels. The average effective rate of protection for textiles, clothing and footwear has, like that for motor cars, and steel, been higher than for the rest of the manufacturing industry since 1969. By way of contrast, protection levels for the remainder of the manufacturing sector have declined. The Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee in its sixth report in November 1983 states that there has been considerable reconstruction of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries since the announcement of the seven-year plan, especially in the areas of efficiency and competitiveness. I can only hope that the provision of a reasonably predictable policy environment for manufacturers and exporters provided by this Bill will enhance the will of the industry to improve further its efficiency, competitiveness, and response to changing consumer needs. This Bill provides breathing-space for a beleagured sector of the manufacturing industry to begin the process of reconstruction. The textiles, clothing and footwear industries demonstrate many of the problems of the structural adaptation process. They are amongst the highest cost activities, and are labour-intensive. To maintain profitability they need protection. The textiles, clothing and footwear sectors employ 9.8 per cent of people working in the manufacturing industry, or 1.8 per cent of the total industrial workforce. While these figures reflect a reduction in the numbers employed in that sector over the last decade, the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee has observed that the rapid decline in activity and employment experienced in 1982 and early 1983 had been arrested by the second half of 1983. In some cases, manufacturers reported the virtual elimination of short-hour weeks and, in a few cases, the introduction of overtime. These are encouraging signs indeed. Nonetheless, this breathing space provided by protective quotas and the encouraging signs from the textiles, clothing and footwear sectors should not lull members of this House, manufacturers or associated businesses into acting as though nothing more needs to be done. Since the mid-1970s a plethora of reports has addressed the problem of the need to restructure the industrial base of this nation. That need has not vanished. Restructuring may involve progressive and gradual liberalisation of trade between countries, beginning with New Zealand and expanding to embrace a larger number of countries. Restructuring may also involve the gradual reduction of levels of protection which this nation presently extends to its least competitive sectors. Restructuring means planning for the future while taking account of the present, instead of planning for the future by steadfastly gazing into the past. Restructuring should not be a matter for excited rhetoric and name-calling in this place or any other forums because we have created for ourselves time for careful consideration. Legislation, such as is presently before us, provides simply a breathing space for the consideration of the future of the industrial base and the international competitiveness of this nation. That is why it is important. It should remind us of the work we have to do. I hope that honourable members who take an interest in these topics will think not only about the present but also about the future in relation to issues in the protection area. In the case of New Zealand, the aim of freeing up trade is firmly under way. Application of the principle to other countries awaits us. In the case of sectoral policy for the manufacturing industry, time constraints are a little more rigid. The present agreement expires in 1989. What happens to the agreement at that time depends on what we decide in 1984 and 1985. Certainly the decision cannot wait until the agreement expires. This Bill, unexceptional in itself, has no significant administrative costs associated with its measures. But it should act as a reminder to all honourable members that one of the most important issues we, as politicians, must come to terms with in the future is the whole future of our economic base, the whole future of our manufacturing industry and our international competitiveness. Without coming to terms with those issues the standard of living in this country must decline. Mr BEDDALL(Fadden)(12.08) —As the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) said, the provisions and amendments of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill are not such as to stir great passions. But I support the Bill introduced by the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) as the amendments provide necessary changes to current tariff levels and correct anomalies, especially under the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. Tariff legislation in this Parliament has always raised debate between the free traders and the protectionists. This was most evident in the Fraser years in the arguments between what were known as the 'wets' and the 'dries'. My opinion of that Government is that it was basically a damp argument. Australia now faces the very hard task of making for the future decisions on appropriate levels of protection. This includes what levels of Customs tariff should apply. The Bill before the House represents either increasing or decreasing tariff levels on goods ranging from audio-frequency amplifiers to vacuum cleaner parts. Customs tariffs have, in my opinion, five major effects: The revenue effect, the production effect, the consumption effect, the redistribution effect and the competitive effect. The measures before us today take into account many of these effects. The first effect is the revenue effect. For too long Customs tariffs have been used by government as a means of revenue collection. The Government has a monetary disadvantage in reducing levels of tariff protection because it reduces government revenue. The amount of revenue raised is in the billions of dollars and with lower tariff levels the Government would have to find alternative sources of income. In my opinion, subsidies and quotas provide better incentive for Australian industry than do tariffs. The second effect is the production effect. The imposition of tariffs alters the world price ratio. A tax wedge is driven between the world price and that perceived by domestic producers and consumers. The effect of this is to cause resources to move away from the production of goods in which a comparative advantage exists and to move back into import competing production. There is no better example of this than the Australian car industry. It has become fat and lazy behind high tariff barriers and is not competitive on the world market. In my electorate of Fadden, General Motors-Holden's Ltd is in the process of closing its Acacia Ridge plant. The main reason for the closure was that GMH wrongly believed it could go on producing an outdated model, as its competitors were at a price disadvantage behind the tariff levels. This is not true, and the Australian consumer has clearly shown that to be the case. That leads me to my third point: The consumption effect of tariff levels. The imposition of a tariff has the effect of raising the relative price of imported goods. Because this provides an incentive to purchase the local product, we reduce imports and our opportunity to trade. At the same time we discourage industry from producing goods capable of being exported, as it is easier to produce products hidden behind the tariff wall. The fourth effect, the redistribution effect, has a number of parts, the most obvious being the redistribution of income away from the consumer to the producer of goods protected by Customs tariffs. Although there is supposed to be a return of benefit back to the consumer from revenue collected by the Customs tariffs, it is never in direct proportion. Because many Australian manufacturers have not strived for modernisation and efficiency, I feel it is true to say that the ordinary Australian consumer is paying dearly for our high levels of protection. The fifth effect, the competitive effect, is probably the most redeeming feature of Customs tariffs-that is, if used correctly. If an industry believes it will be protected, especially in its formative years, from unfair overseas competition there is an incentive for the establishment of that industry. However, an open-ended commitment to high tariff levels does not encourage Australian industry to become competitive in world markets. It only encourages industry to reach a level of efficiency in order to remain competitive behind the tariff wall. Australia's goal of a modern manufacturing base can be attained only with an industrial sector that is largely competitive on world markets. Despite what I consider to be the negative effect of some tariffs on Australian industry development, neither I nor, I think, any member of the Government advocates an immediate across the board lifting of tariff protection. However, I do advocate seeking alternatives. If instead of Customs tariffs as outlined in this Bill we move more to a system of incentives and bounties for Australian industry we will not disadvantage the Australian consumer. The most recent example of this method was the Australian steel plan introduced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). This package included Customs tariffs, quotas and bounties. It has been widely accepted by Australian industry , and has been very successful indeed. The other great advantage of bounties and subsidies is that they do not reduce the volume of trade and therefore do not induce counter-action by our trading partners. This would then encourage Australian industry to compete for overseas markets and thus would have a beneficial effect on our balance of payments. One area in which Australia is a novice in terms of world trade is non-tariff barriers. Unfortunately, many of our major trading partners are world experts in this method of protection. I refer especially to Japan. It is significant that Australia has gone from a position where it exported to Japan many times the amount of goods and products-including mining and primary products-that we imported to the present position where we face a balance of payments favouring Japan. Again, the industries that have had the highest level of Customs tariff protection are the worst performers. Industries such as the motor car industry have a sad track record. The other great tragedy of industries that have had high tariff barriers, such as the motor car industry, is that they have been the industries that have shed the most Australian jobs. Australian industry must modernise and restructure. Customs tariff barriers will not prevent us from declining into a position where we have a status that is little more than that of a developing country, unless we have an efficient Australian manufacturing base. The first step towards a more mature trading position has been the closer economic relations agreement with our friend and ally New Zealand. CER is the basis of future economic growth for both Australia and New Zealand. This Bill reflects the commitment of this Government to that growth and could work as a model for future agreements with our trading partners. CER has its problems and some of the measures included in this legislation are a move towards solving some of those problems. Trading agreements require both good intent and goodwill on the part of both parties, and I am disturbed at the number of dumping complaints by Australian companies against their New Zealand counterparts. One company in my electorate has suffered severe financial hardship because a New Zealand-based subsidiary of a large Australian company has been dumping in Australia. To me this is economic madness on the part of both the Australian company and its New Zealand subsidiary. Much depends on the success of CER for, if it does not succeed, the natural suspicions of Australian industry will be confirmed. The measures included in the Bill are adjustments to our existing tariff policies and do not represent any fundamental change to our position or to the protection policies that have existed in this country since Federation; and we have had the debate between free traders and protectionists since Federation. In my opinion there is middle ground that we should move towards. I feel that Australia has now reached a state of maturity that enables us to discuss Customs tariff measures in a sensible climate. As we move out of recession, I urge both government and industry not to waste the opportunity that exists for change. As secretary of the Government's industry committee, I am only too well aware of the power and influence of vested interests. Many companies which advocate the free enterprise system are only too happy to socialise their losses through government assistance and protection. Australian industry must broaden its outlook and reassess its position. Short term planning has played too large a part in Australian industry for too long. Customs tariff measures such as those included in this Bill represent only the stop gap measures of crisis management. This has been for too long a feature of the Australian economy. In conclusion, I hope that in the near future I will be able to speak in this House in debates about legislation that brings about assistance to Australian industry to modernise and restructure. Customs tariffs will be part of that restructuring and the Australian economy is, I hope, on an upward swing. It is also my hope that with a modern and efficient industrial base there will be much less reliance on Customs tariffs in future as Australian industry becomes competitive on world markets and restores us once more to the level of growth we had in the past. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(12.18) —in reply-I would like to spend a few moments summing up on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. It is a pity that the enthusiasm for the restructuring of Australian industry, by either Customs tariffs or other means, displayed by the only speaker provided by the Opposition, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who obviously is skilled in this area , is not shared by his colleagues. It is significant that quite a string of Government members wanted to speak on this Bill, but we restricted the number because of other demands for Bills before the House. I commend the two Government members who did speak, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), for their reasoned and intelligent contributions to this debate. This Government faces a very vexed question in finding its way through the minefield of tariffs, quotas, duties, bounties, incentives and the problems of the closer economic relationship and the Pacific Forum. Mr Ruddock —It sounded like one of those set speeches that you had given them. Mr JOHN BROWN —I can assure the honourable member for Dundas, who interjects with inanities in his usual braying fashion, that I had nothing to do with the speeches delivered by those honourable members. They were the products of their own imaginations and, I suggest, were very valuable contributions to this very important debate. To get back to what I was saying, we must address very carefully the difficulties and complexities facing the Government in the whole question of the restructuring of Australian industry. Yesterday in Melbourne I addressed a group of people concerned about the demise of manufacturing industry. It was pleasing to find that, for the first time, with the encouragement of Senator Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, this forum comprised people representing the Metal Trades Industry Association and the metal trades unions. They are trying to find a reasoned approach to the restructuring of manufacturing industry in Australia. It is just a pity that members of the previous Government spent so little of their seven years in office in turning their minds to the absolute demise of manufacturing industry. This Government is certainly moving to correct that situation. I would like to give one answer to the shadow Minister. He asked about the problem of developing country preferences. There has been a long and continuing debate, affecting the previous Government as well as this one, about a total review of preferences available to developing countries. Some developing countries are complaining that others in the same area which are perhaps more developed and more sophisticated now have an advantage. Some Australian companies are complaining that some of the countries getting developing countries preferences are not entitled to them. The whole report is now before the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I can assure the shadow Minister that a report to the Parliament will not be very long in appearing. To sum up, it was an interesting debate and I can assure the House that the Government is looking very seriously at the mix of tariffs, quotas, bounties or other forms of protection or incentive that is required to help restructure Australian manufacturing industry to its former economic and profitable state. 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. [COGNATE BILL: ROADS GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(12.23) —The legislation before the House principally deals with three matters. The first matter relates to changes in the tendering arrangements in the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act as well as the Roads Grants Act. The second matter deals with the effort that State governments are required to make on their roads programs. The third matter relates to the effort that the State governments are required to maintain concerning their public transport programs if in fact there is some change to the way in which the Australian bicentennial road development program allocation for local roads is allocated by the States. There is a fourth matter which I will be raising and about which the Opposition wishes to express serious concern; that is, the levy itself and the indexation of that levy. I would like at this stage to indicate that the Opposition is going to oppose the legislation. The Opposition will also seek to move an amendment to the principal legislation in relation to the funds which are flowing as a result of indexation of the levy. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) introduced this legislation into the House last week. In the second reading speech he pointed out that some requests had been made by the States in relation to the tendering arrangements presently in place under the bicentennial legislation, which requires that work being carried out using those bicentennial road funds on national highways and on arterial roads should be put to tender. That is something which the former Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir ( Mr Hunt), introduced into the legislation, and it was very strongly supported by what is now the Opposition. I acknowledge that there were problems, particularly with the unions, and there were some concerns with local government about whether the tendering procedure was the best way of going about seeking the best value for the road dollar. However, the Government at that time believed that that was the way to go, and it was very strongly supported by its back bench members. I was one of those who were very strongly in favour of the tendering procedures. I maintain that position. The Opposition maintains that position. We believe that, if we are to maintain the most efficient use of moneys which are being expended on roads, if we are to get the best value for the money that taxpayers are contributing and for the money that the petrol user is contributing through the levy to roads, then to the maximum extent possible the use of the tender system is the most appropriate way to go. What the Minister is suggesting is that there is a range of areas in which it may be possible to make an application to him and he would consider varying the tender requirement. He lists those areas. The first is where there is an emergency requirement for the works to be performed. I suppose that means that perhaps it is just not possible within the time frame to have a tender process completed. The second is where the works are of such a minor nature that the calling of tenders would involve undue additional cost. The third one is that it is not practical to prepare adequate tender specifications for the works. The fourth area is where the works are of such a kind that competitive tenders are unlikely to be received. The fifth one is where 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. The last area is where 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 . I do not think that anyone would want to argue too much about the first five of those areas. There is a question of good sense involved in this matter. For my money, I probably would not even require ministerial approval for waiving tender requirements. This is probably something that can be written into the system so that, where there are demonstrably good reasons for it, one can get around the requirement. However, on the last point, the Opposition expresses serious concern, principally because it believes that this matter will be the one that will cause most of the interest and be responsible for most of the applications to the Minister on this question. We are concerned about that, and we shall oppose it. The reality is, as I think everyone realises, that over a very long period the State road authorities have built up their day labour forces. They have developed their own top heavy and very labour intensive methods of designing and constructing roads and generally going about the business of providing the roads for which they are responsible. In a normal bureaucratic fashion, that has not necessarily been the most efficient way in which they could have gone. It has built up a situation in which the unions have developed a power structure of their own within the system. It has become very difficult for anyone to challenge that and to try to suggest that there ought to be changes to it. I commend the former Minister for Transport, Mr Ralph Hunt, because he was prepared to take on that situation and to recognise that there was a great deal of inefficiency in these matters and that if we could provide some effective competition in the road making area it would be in the interests of road users and of the taxpayer who is having his dollar allocated to that purpose. So it was with a great degree of optimism that we passed the legislation that included that tendering requirement. We are very happy with the way in which it has gone. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the annual report for 1982- 83 on the ABRD program was tabled in this Parliament. That report referred to the tendering procedure. It says: Under the ABRD Trust Fund Act, the States and the Northern Territory are required to call tenders for Federal Government funded National and Arterial road construction projects and for appropriate capital works on urban public transport projects. The report says, in conclusion, having given some figures, that the figures indicate that the tender requirement is achieving good value for the roads dollar. The Minister for Transport tabled this report in the Parliament and, very shortly afterwards, brought in for our consideration legislation which seems to fly in the face of the comment made in the report on the ABRD program, which said that these figures indicate that the tender requirement is achieving good value for the roads dollar. What I draw attention to is our concern that variations will principally be in relation to this question of unavoidable retrenchment or inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State or local government road construction employees. I should have thought that it would not be drawing too long a bow to imagine that the State road making authorities would be contacting the Minister on a fairly regular basis pointing out that, if they were not able to get work, there would be serious dislocation, unavoidable retrenchment or inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State or local government road construction employees. What I am saying is that this is flying in the face of what the tendering system is all about. It is clear that the system is there specifically to provide competition to those road making authorities. If those authorities are good enough they will get the work, and in fact they have got a fair amount of the work that has been tendered for on national highways and other projects which have been funded under this legislation and which have been required to be put to tender. I do not think there is that much difficulty in that matter. The fact is that competition is good for anyone. If no competition exists, State road making authorities tend to get too fat, too lazy and too bureaucratic, and the value for the road dollar begins to decline dramatically. When there is an alternative to that system, where intensely competitive private construction contractors are prepared to get in and do the jobs efficiently, to get on with them and do them in most cases more quickly and at lower cost than the State road making authorities can do them, we ought to be taking advantage of that and we should not be doing anything that would impede that process. The Bill seeks to fly in the face of that concept. It is trying to say: ' Although we are acknowledging that the tender system is providing good value for the road dollar, and although we do not want to upset that sort of thing, if a construction authority says ''We shall have real problems with our labour force here if we do not get the work, and therefore we cannot put the work out to tender; will you give agreement to that, Mr Minister?'', the Minister will find himself having to make a judgment'. I do not think that that is appropriate. The point is that we want to have that competition. If the road making authorities are good enough, let them have the work and get on with it. But if those authorities are not good enough, if they cannot compete with the contracting industry, so be it; let the work go to the contracting industry, and let us have the best value for the dollar. The Minister said: 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. I am a little sceptical about that. I believe that there will be a lot more approaches than the Minister is prepared to anticipate at this stage. I think it will be difficult for him to have to make decisions which may in fact mean retrenchments among State road making authority staff and all sorts of pressure on him from the trade union movement. I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister is a man without a heart or anything like that. He has a heart and that is one of the things that worry me. I think that, faced with the prospect of saying 'No, this work must go to tender' and with the prospect of a road making authority saying 'If it goes to tender we know we cannot win it; we will have to put people off', we will get back to the sort of problem from which we were getting away quite nicely. We have to have competition and the process of competition will work out where the road money goes, unrelated to the fact that day labour forces have to be maintained. So there could be some restructuring of the way in which the road industry was developing and the injection of competition would mean greater efficiency. The Opposition is not happy with that aspect of the legislation and will oppose it. The second aspect deals with the effort that State governments are required to make in their expenditure on roads following the introduction of the ABRD legislation. The ABRD legislation provided a significant input of funds into the road building sector. Again, all credit must go to the honourable member for Gwydir, the then Minister for Transport, for having got agreement with the motoring organisations, the transport industry at large and State and local government for the introduction of a levy which would go to roads. That agreement was put to the States on the basis that there would be a significant input to the road sector and that the Federal Government was not prepared to sit back and see the States withdraw funds from the road sector and spend them somewhere else. That would be absolutely counterproductive. It would be a little like what the States did in the local government area last year, about which my colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) is so concerned. When the Federal Government increased the funds flowing to local government in the last Budget, the State governments, particularly the New South Wales Government, withdrew the local government assistance fund and the rate rebate system for pensioners. The local government sector, in effect, finished up being no better off following a significant increase in the injection of funds from the Federal Government level. We were not prepared to see that going on and we said: 'If you are going to accept the money from the Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund, you have to guarantee that you will maintain your traditional effort on roads and will not cut that back'. The Minister is saying that there is no flexibility in that proposition for giving credit to a State government if it spends more than it has to spend in a particular year and that perhaps some adjustment ought to be made for that in subsequent years. I am not too sure that I am happy about that. I think the reality is that, if a State wants to make a significant effort or feels for some reason that it has to make an increased effort in one particular year, that should not reduce the effort it needs to make in later years. Mr Braithwaite —They are their roads. Mr LUSHER —As the shadow Minister for local government points out, they are the States' roads. The Federal Government, through its involvement, is providing a topping up more than anything else. Roads are still a basic responsibility of the States. We do not accept a situation in which that is going on, even if it is by a manipulation of the amount that is spent in one year and allowing credits for that in another year. Our view is that the States ought to be spending more on roads anyway. If they spend more on roads in one particular year, that is quite appropriate and so be it, but we do not want a situation to develop whereby they can say: 'Because we spent a little more last year than we were required to spend under the formula arrangements, we will spend that much less under the formula arrangements next year or the year after'. For those reasons we are not too happy about that aspect of the legislation and we will oppose it. We think that the way the Act is structured at the moment is quite appropriate. Although the States might not be too happy about that, it is appropriate from the point of view of Federal taxpayers and the way we seek to have the system running here. The third question raised by the legislation is the effort that must be maintained by States if they seek to switch some of the money from their local roads entitlement to the public transport sector. Under the original legislation , because there was a very close relationship between urban roads and urban public transport, it was felt that it might be appropriate to have some financial flexibility and allow States to move money between the urban roads system and the urban public transport system to allow for an appropriate allocation of resources. That was provided for by the honourable member for Gwydir as Minister for Transport when he introduced the legislation, and there it stands. I was not aware that that capability was being used until it was used with a great fanfare in the recent New South Wales State election campaign. I think all members of the House will be aware that in that campaign the Wran Government said to the Federal Government: 'Listen fellows, we really need a big injection of money into the public transport sector to give things a bit of a boost in New South Wales. We have discovered this section of the ABRD Fund legislation which means that we can switch funding away from roads and into public transport'. So the Federal Government in Canberra, helping out its State Labor colleagues, approved the transfer of $40m from the urban road construction program to the urban public transport program. Knowing the way in which things are run in New South Wales, where the Government does not buy buses any more but leases them-it gets all geared up-its decision to buy something like 40 trains and 700 buses with the $40m that it siphoned off the road building program and into the public transport program was nothing more than a quite deliberate and quite obvious State election campaign stunt. That is the reality of the situation. We do not agree with that. I think the intent of the legislation when it was brought down was that there be a degree of flexibility and that there be some capacity on the part of a State to move funds around a bit, but I think that the $40m stunt, smacked square in the middle of a State election campaign, reeked of absolute political opportunism. It is something that we are not happy about. I have already made a statement saying that in government we would look at that aspect of the legislation. We do not say that we would necessarily want to knock it out altogether but we would certainly look at it to see that it could not be abused in the way in which it was clearly abused by the New South Wales Government in the course of that recent election campaign. The Minister for Transport, in his second reading speech, stated: 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 . We think that is appropriate. The Minister is seeking to remove the requirement that the State maintain its effort in the public transport sector and the urban roads sector. We think it is appropriate that that provision not be changed and for that reason we will oppose the change. So much for the Bill. The Opposition is not happy with the changes that the Government is bringing forward. We believe that the tendering arrangements have served the taxpayer well. They have ensured that the best conceivable value is achieved for the road making dollar, that we get as many miles as we can for the dollars that we spend and that we keep pressure on the State road making authorities to ensure that they are not getting fatter and lazier but that they are getting on with the job. I think that for all those reasons the tendering arrangements have been successful. They have not had the impact on local government that local government feared in the beginning. I think local government is now supportive of the arrangements and is not particularly keen to see changes. Those matters will be dealt with by my colleague the honourable member for Dawson when he speaks in his capacity as shadow Minister for local government. Suffice it for me to say that the tendering changes have worked well . We were strongly supportive of them when the legislation was first introduced and we are strongly supportive of them now. We will oppose changes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —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 for Hume will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware of the Prime Minister's refusal to confirm to a Press conference yesterday his allegation against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation because Caucus was allegedly akin to the confessional. I ask the Treasurer, as a man more experienced in the confessional, whether he has, outside the alleged confessional of the Caucus, threatened the ABC with financial cuts because of alleged ABC bias? Mr KEATING —Would I do a thing like that? Ms MAYER —Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted reports of Vietnamese military activity across the Thai-Cambodian border into Thailand? Do such attacks put in jeopardy any potential for a settlement of the situation? Is it a fact that Vietnam has so far this year refrained from the sort of major dry season offensive it has undertaken in previous dry seasons? Have Vietnamese forces in Cambodia been subjected to harassment by resistance forces, especially by Pol Pot forces? Do these latest incidents appear to be in retaliation for such harassment or the start of a new major dry season offensive by Vietnam? Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker-- Mr Peacock —Does the Minister's jacket represent a new up-market image? Mr HAYDEN —If not a pregnant pause, this is a moment of productive reflection on new style for the parliamentary year. Mr Howard —Is the Minister wearing the uniform of the Centre Left? Mr HAYDEN —I wear the colour black in mourning for the future of the Opposition. I proceed in answer to the very serious matter which has been raised by the honourable member. I have noted the reports of conflict between Khmer Rouge guerrilla forces and Vietnamese forces on the Thai-Cambodian border, in particular at Samrong Kiat. I understand that a large number of refugees were displaced as a result of the conflict. Accounts vary and accordingly the figure varies, but between 5,000 and 10,000 people have become refugees as a result of that conflict. I deplored the prolongation of the cycle of violence in the Cambodia situation, and on 22 January I expressed the wish of the Government that there should not be a dry season offensive as has happened in previous years in that region. To this point there has been no evidence of a dry season offensive. However, this point stops at the recent conflict. This is not to suggest that this is the beginning of a dry season offensive. On the basis of information available to the Department of Foreign Affairs which is still being analysed, while this is a conflict in retaliation for insurgency operations and incursions of a substantial nature by Khmer Rouge forces penetrating into Cambodia, it is not of such a substantial nature as to suggest, certainly at this point, that this is the beginning of a dry season offensive. I pointed out on 14 March at a dinner here in Canberra for the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, Mr Thach, that while we deplore the continued occupation of Cambodia by Vietnamese forces, at the same time we recognise that continual attacks upon Vietnamese and Cambodian forces by Khmer Rouge forces, among others, could sooner or later lead to retaliatory action. At this point we put the recent conflict in that category. Nonetheless, we deplore and condemn any invasion or military incursion by any country into another country's territory wherever it occurs, and to the extent that there has been or may have been an incursion into Thailand that condemnation would be extended to the Vietnamese forces responsible. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact, as revealed in a confidential Royal Australian Air Force costing, that it will take an additional $80m a year for the RAAF to provide from Williamtown the fleet support services that were undertaken in the past from Nowra by the Fleet Air Arm? As the Government's justification for this criminal rundown in a service which has been vital to Australia's defence was totally on the basis of saving money-a justification that would appear to be disproved by the RAAF costing-can the Minister explain why he is persisting with the 30 June final destruction date for the Fleet Air Arm? Mr SCHOLES —The whole question of future operational requirements and the means by which they will be met is subject to a review currently being undertaken by my Department and the Defence Force chiefs. I remind the honourable gentleman that the former Minister for Defence once removed, Sir James Killen, told this House in 1982 that it was the purpose of his Government to wind up the Fleet Air Arm and that, for all effective purposes, naval capacity to operate a fleet air arm ceased when HMAS Melbourne was tied up three years early. Mr KENT —I refer the Foreign Minister to a report by Ian Davis on page 3 of the Age of Tuesday 3 April. Does that report say that the Minister is proposing that the Australian Labor Party should dilute its strong support for human rights in its foreign affairs platform? If the report is correct, will the Minister explain why he is proposing to retreat from this Government's clear commitment to strong support for human rights? Mr HAYDEN —I did note the report and paid no more attention to it as I regarded it as quite inaccurate in its interpretation. However, one or two people have raised the matter with me, including the honourable member for Hotham, whose concern for human rights is well known. Accordingly, I respond by declaring that there is absolutely no change in the attitude or the practices of this Government as against the declared intentions, attitudes and practices of the Labor Party in this Parliament when in Opposition. What was said by me when Leader of the Opposition, and more recently in a major address to the Australian Institute of International Affairs late last year in Canberra on the topic of human rights, and what has been proposed as a formulation more specifically in the policy of the Party under the subject of human rights in the section on foreign affairs, is that, as has been the practice by this Government in the past and, as I understand, on the part of the previous Government, the best interests of people we wish to serve where human rights are at issue are not always promoted by strident public declamation. There is a range of possibilities which can be resorted to and ought to be utilised according to the circumstances of the case so that maximum effect is achieved for the benefit of the people or the causes concerned. Secondly, it is pointed out very properly, and I am surprised that Mr Davis is not familiar with the extensive writing on the subject of human rights in international relations, that there are varying concepts between countries as to what is the equivalent of human rights. For instance, in some countries economic rights are put ahead of political and social rights. While we may have differences with countries in respect of that, they respond that it is not much good talking about abstract rights of political participation or rights of expression of points of view-- Mr Peacock —If you haven't got food. Mr HAYDEN —If, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, one does not have sufficient bread and butter to live on. That is their priority, and I can understand it. But I do not understand why Mr Davis has not comprehended that point. Finally, Mr Davis refers in his article, in a somewhat dismissive fashion by implication at least, to the human rights initiatives by this Government concerning Father Brian Gore. I do not believe any government has taken a more overt and assertive initiative in respect of human rights than this Government did, than I did on behalf of this Government and at the direction of the Prime Minister in going to the Philippines to present personally a case in support of a proper process of law being conducted in the Philippines in respect of Father Brian Gore and his co-defendants. To this point, according to the defence counsel representing Father Gore, that initiative has been completely successful on those matters concerning the procedures about the trial. So in the circumstances, and in summary, it is quite clear to honourable members that there has been no change. In fact, this Government has given much greater emphasis and attention to and has displayed much more activity in the area of human rights than any previous government has. Mr SINCLAIR —Does the Minister for Defence agree with the Chief of Defence Force Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Neville McNamara, and the strategic basis paper that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has achieved superiority over the United States of America in a number of key areas of nuclear capability? If not, has he, as the Chief of Defence Force Staff has suggested of his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, other sources of military advice? If he has other sources of advice, who are they and on what basis does he accept their authenticity? Mr SCHOLES —I think it is appropriate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should answer that question. He is responsible for disarmament matters. The honourable gentleman has asked me to answer questions which deal with the opinions of Sir Neville McNamara. Mr Sinclair —It is in the strategic basis paper. Mr SCHOLES —The right honourable member has not seen the strategic basis paper. The right honourable member has seen what he thinks is the strategic basis paper . Sir Neville McNamara is a very senior and respected defence officer. He is entitled to his own opinions. Mr STEEDMAN —Is the Prime Minister aware that on this date 30 years ago the then Prime Minister, Mr R. G. Menzies, claimed that he had been informed of the defection of one Vladimir Petrov, an official with the Soviet Embassy? Is the Prime Minister aware that since that time there has been wide speculation as to whether or not Menzies actually had information of the defection at an earlier time and that this influenced his decision to call a Federal election? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not he intends to release all Cabinet documents relating to this incident under the 30-year rule so that the people of Australia will be able to judge for themselves the actions of the Prime Minister at that time? Mr HAWKE —I am aware that on a number of occasions at and around that time 30 years ago and since there has been speculation of the sort alluded to by the honourable member. I was informed yesterday that work is being done in regard to the release of relevant documentation under the 30-year rule. I am led to believe that it is rather complex. I believe that by the beginning of next year the documentation in regard to this matter will be released in terms of the 30- year rule and then it will be open to all and sundry to draw their own conclusions from all the material that will be made available. Mr PEACOCK —Does the Minister for Defence agree with his military advisers that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has achieved superiority over the United States of America in key areas of nuclear arms? Mr SCHOLES —I have nothing to add to my earlier answer. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the Government's reaction to today's national wage case decision? Does that decision hold any implications for proponents of alternatives to the current centralised wage system? Mr WILLIS —In regard to the first part of the question of the honourable member for Hunter, the Government welcomes the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission today to grant a 4.1 per cent increase. That decision is in line with the prices and incomes accord and the wage fixing principles established by the Commission last September which do involve a prima facie assumption of full wage indexation. Having examined the arguments of the parties , the Commission saw fit to adhere to full indexation. We believe that that decision is conducive to continued economic recovery in this country, and clearly so does the Commission. It pointed out that since its last decision there had been a substantial recovery of the economy, and of course there is every prospect that that will continue to be the case through the rest of this year. In regard to the second part of the question, I have noticed reports that the Opposition has finally got its act together and agreed on a wages policy. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition said when he resigned from the Ministry almost exactly three years ago that what the then Government parties needed most was a wages policy. Almost three years later they finally got one together. What a damp squib it is. It would lead to the destruction of the arbitration system. It is a recipe for industrial chaos and a charter for sweated labour. Apparently the major features of this policy are a limitation of national wage increases to productivity, the restoration of penal clauses and a facilitation of reductions in wages and conditions below award levels on an individual employer basis. I quickly mention some points on each of those elements of this policy. The limitation of national wage increases to productivity would not be accepted by the trade union movement, for the simple and good reason that it would involve the-- Mr Drummond —I raise a point of order on the jurisdiction of the Minister. Does it have relevance to our policies? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Forrest knows about relevance in answers. The answer is associated with the question that was asked of the Minister. Mr WILLIS —My comments are directed to the second part of the question, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, limiting national wage increases to productivity certainly would not be a practical policy because it would not be accepted by the unions. It would result in continuing reductions in living standards and, therefore, inevitably would lead to widespread wage increases outside national wage cases, which would lead to wage increases of a considerable measure overall , far beyond the national wage system, and to a breakdown of the centralised wages system. Such a wages policy certainly would not be conducive to a sustained expansion of the economy. For the last 15 years penal clauses have been inoperative. For 11 of those 15 years the now Opposition was in government and never once did it seek to use them, for the very good reason that they are quite impractical. The Opposition now suggests that such clauses can be reintroduced. Of course, it is a totally impractical policy, and it knows that to be the case. In regard to the third aspect of agreements to achieve below award wages and conditions, the proposition apparently is that if the employers and employees in a particular establishment agree to reduce wages and conditions for that firm the Commission must accept the agreement. I make a couple of points in that regard. This would put enormous power in the hands of ruthless employers who could threaten the employees that they would be sacked unless they reduced their wages. It is therefore a charter for sweated labour. It certainly would provoke a strong union reaction. If there were to be below award wage increases for less prosperous companies, then there should be well above award wage increases for the prosperous companies, and there would certainly be an acceleration of wage claims in the more prosperous areas of the economy. Furthermore, this represents an attack on the whole basis of the arbitration system, which is that unions have a right to represent employees. In this regard it is interesting to note today's national wage decision in which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had something to say on this matter. In today's decision the Commission, when looking at the employers' application to vary the food preserving industry's award for its particular employers where there had been plant level agreements to give effect to the no extra claims condition, said that this 'could undermine responsibility of particular unions and of the ACTU in ensuring that the principles are adhered to '. I ask the House to take note of this: Moreover, we should not do anything to weaken the longstanding convention that the Commission should deal with unions rather than individual employees. It is quite clear that the Opposition's proposal is to do precisely that-to force the Commission to deal with individual employees or groups of employees unorganised rather than the trade union movement. It is a direct attack on the trade union movement and on the arbitration system. I believe, therefore, it is the sort of proposal which is bound to create absolute industrial chaos if attempts are made to bring it into being. Finally, it is clear that the Opposition's wages policy is completely and hopelessly impractical. It should go back to the drawing board for another three years to see whether it can come up with something workable. Mr CARLTON —I will try not to provoke another outburst like that. I refer the Minister for Health to his answer to a question from the honourable member for Lilley last Monday relating to the percentage of doctors' bills covered by the bulk billing system. Has the Health Insurance Commission, in response to further inquiries on the figures quoted by the Minister, made the point that his figures are totally misleading because of lags in the submission of claims privately submitted by patients compared with those submitted direct by doctors? When will the Minister tell the House the truth? Dr BLEWETT —I am not surprised that the Australian Medical Association has sought to cast doubt on figures which suggest many doctors are resisting some of its militant pressures. I am just a little surprised that the Opposition should endeavour to give them some weight. It is true that there are differential time lags in the payment of medical benefits. However, for the information of the Opposition, it should be noted that these lags go both ways. For instance, in the first 10 days after service, payments in cash are claimed and made much more quickly than payments to direct billers. We have to allow that on the other side . Secondly, as honourable members opposite are probably aware from figures in the newspaper this morning, if we leave out February, the first month of Medicare, and take the March figures and add the last week, we see that the national proportion of bulk billing has now risen to 51.9 per cent. I think my figures were quite conservative. Mr Sinclair —Can you give us a week by week publication of the figures? Dr BLEWETT —I can answer the Leader of the National Party. For the first time in this country we are getting quick and reliable statistics on the way our health system is working. This is a very big improvement on the situation in the past. Finally, over time, there will be adjustments to these figures. But I am perfectly confident that the adjustments will be marginal and the general pattern given to the House earlier this week will turn out to be accurate. Mr SCOTT —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology. What further Commonwealth assistance can be given to South Australia to help end the Portuguese millipede infestation in and around Adelaide and the Adelaide Hills? Mr BARRY JONES —Funding for a joint Commonwealth-South Australian three-year study into the biological control of the Portuguese millipede ended in December 1983. The funding was on a 50:50 basis with no contribution from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The project involved the recruitment of a research scientist to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation who had already studied the millipede for his PhD thesis. He spent the greater part of the three years in Portugal which is, of course, where the millipede comes from. Mr Hawke —That is why it is called the Portuguese millipede. Mr BARRY JONES —It could have been naturalised. He spent the greater part of the three years in Portugal searching for natural enemies that showed potential for controlling the pest in South Australia and, of course, studying their life cycles. Mr Shipton —That is called the socialist left. Mr BARRY JONES —Ah, yes, but its feet enable it to move in all directions, even the far right. The most promising organism identified was a parasitic fly whose larvae feed and pupate inside the millipede. The next stages would be to collect supplies of the parasitic fly in Portugal, introduce them under quarantine into Australia-which would be the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Health-develop methods for mass rearing under laboratory conditions-- Mr Donald Cameron —What about unemployment? Mr BARRY JONES —If we only had one per millipede it would employ millions. Additional stages would be to test the fly's specificity to the millipede and whether it is likely to attack other hosts, to make field releases in the infested areas and to monitor the effectiveness in controlling the millipede. To keep the project moving South Australia has offered to finance a collecting mission to Portugal by the CSIRO scientist to gather supplies of the parasitic fly. But there is a serious problem in Adelaide. The most suitable time to do this will be next August as that is when the fly breeds. Although the scientist is presently in the early stages of a project on the biological control of pest snails in South Australia, he will work on the millipede project as necessary. This will represent a Commonwealth contribution to the solution to the problem in terms of time, expertise, and salary. If further funds are required at a later stage the CSIRO will approach the appropriate authorities in South Australia. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Prime Minister to his answer to me yesterday in which he denied being careless with money he lost in Sydney. In his report of that theft to the New South Wales police, dated 21 February 1982, the Prime Minister mentioned that the amounts of stolen money included: Three thousand six hundred dollars in Commonwealth bank notes in fifties, twenties and tens; the sum of $1, 000 in United States of America currency; and a quantity of travellers cheques, bank and number unknown. Is the Prime Minister aware that section 5(1) of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations states: (a) a person shall not, either on his own behalf or on behalf of another person buy, borrow- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am not clear whether this was a matter that was under the Prime Minister's control at the time. The honourable member is dragging his question out. I ask him to come to the point. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Speaker, the question is: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that his apparent dealing in United States currency on or about 21 February 1982 was in accordance with section 5 (1) (a) of the Banking (Foreign Exchanges) Regulations? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, I would think it apparent that if I made a report on this matter to the police, I have nothing to hide. Mr LEO McLEAY —I draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to recent publicity regarding the alleged missile superiority of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics over the United States. Does the Minister agree with this proposition? Has the Minister made any public comment on this matter recently? Mr HAYDEN —I am extremely grateful to the honourable member for raising this question. Indeed, it will allow me not only to meet his questioning requirements but also to calm down the St Vitus's dance-like agitation of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, who raised this matter earlier this afternoon. I remind honourable members that on Monday, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Sydney about the relative superiority of these two super-powers, I said: One is then confronted by the problem of asymmetrical differences. For example, the Soviet Union has more vehicles to carry weapons. It has more warheads. It has more explosive power. On the other hand, the Americans have much greater accuracy. I then said: I think the confusion and the complexities in trying to count these respective areas have been summed up in a paper entitled 'Management of the Superpower Balance' by Desmond Ball . . . I went on to say that he points out that on soft targets, so described, the Soviet Union has a 40 per cent superiority in destructive capability and that on hard target capability the United States has an ability twice that of the Soviet Union. I point out to honourable members that the Office of National Assessments , in its report entitled 'The Global Balance', has specifically declared that in this particular area there are extraordinary difficulties in trying to quantify because of the asymmetry which is involved and the way in which quantification is applied to different categories or capabilities for weapons. Mr Sinclair —You reject the Defence advice? Mr HAYDEN —Because of that, I continued: Taking these considerations on board, the obvious conclusion is not to spend time trying to work out who is edging ahead, who is sliding behind, who on balance has the greater destructive power or who is lagging but to recognise that both super-powers have sufficient capability to destroy themselves and the world with them many times over. Accordingly, we should work for arms control and disarmament. In response to the right honourable member for New England, who has been accused of many crimes in this House, significantly none of them requiring courage in their perpetration-- Mr Sinclair —What about you and Mick Young? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the National Party to cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will not answer back when he is requested to cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw those remarks, which I regard as offensive. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw the remarks. Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker, I withdraw. If the right honourable member says the crimes of which he has been accused require courage, I will not quibble. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister would assist the Chair if he withdrew unqualifiedly. Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker, in response to a much earlier interjection of the Leader of the National Party I say that the ONA has declared-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to assist the Chair by withdrawing without qualification. Mr HAYDEN —in its report 'The Global Balance' that it is extraordinarily difficult to quantify in this area and to do so with any confidence. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to assist the Chair by withdrawing unqualifiedly. Mr HAYDEN —Mr Speaker, I withdraw unqualifiedly. I apologise. Sometimes my hearing defect is an advantage. On this occasion it is an embarrassment. I apologise. Mr SPEAKER —I sometimes wish I had one. Mr HAYDEN —I conclude on the point simply that the ONA itself declares the extraordinary difficulty in quantifying in this area and the confusion which can arise. I believe that underscores the point I was making that, rather than getting involved in what often proves to be unproductive, complex and confusing argument, it is far better to work, as this Government does, unremittingly for arms control and hopefully for disarmament. Mr LLOYD —Does the Minister for Communications still agree with his statement yesterday that 98 per cent of the media is with the Government? If so, is it his intention to encourage the media to be more critical and thus reduce the Minister's admitted bias of the media in favour of the Government to the more accepted position in a democracy of the media being basically critical and questioning of government, or is he being forced by the Prime Minister's mania for adulation to act against the remaining 2 per cent, including the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation? Mr DUFFY —Mr Speaker, when the honourable member for Murray provides me with a transcript of my alleged statement I might be prepared to comment on it. Dr EVERINGHAM —I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the recent incident at Woorabinda Aboriginal Reserve in central Queensland when an elderly Aboriginal man was refused medical facilities and, it is alleged, died as a consequence. Can the Minister inform the House whether an inquest will be held into this most unfortunate incident? If an inquest is not held, what steps will the Government take to ensure that all the facts of the matter are inquired into and made public? Has the Minister assessed the standard of Aboriginal health, especially in Aboriginal reserves in Queensland? Mr HOLDING —I am concerned, as I am certain all honourable members are concerned, with the recent incident at Woorabinda, where it is alleged that the tardiness of hospital authorities in providing medical services to an elderly Aboriginal man may have resulted in his unnecessary death. I am concerned to see that an appropriate inquiry is conducted into all the circumstances that surrounded that incident. I have written to both the Queensland Minister for Health and the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs suggesting that this matter should be dealt with appropriately under Queensland law and an inquest should take place. To date I have not received any assistance from the Queensland authorities. I have simply been told that no inquest as such is planned. As I read the Queensland Coroners Act, section 17 would allow the Queensland Minister to direct that an inquest be held even though a magistrate may have felt that one was not necessary. I propose to pursue this matter further. Indeed , if we cannot get the assistance of the Queensland authorities on this matter, it may well be necessary for me to consider making a reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for its inquiry. It would be a matter that could be looked into by that Committee. This sort of incident attracted widespread attention when, as honourable members will recall, our media reported on a situation which arose in the United States of America when a man sought an ambulance service for a relative and that relative died because of the way in which his approach was received. That incident caused a great deal of comment in the media. I suggest that if the media examined closely the situation at Woorabinda, which is much closer to home, it would find a set of circumstances which not only parallels the situation which caused so much comment in Australia but in some areas may have been worse. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, led by the Hon. Pan-Nam Ko. On behalf of the House, I extend to the delegation a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Has the Minister 's attention been drawn to the results of a survey conducted by the Confederation of Australian Industry of 41 major exporters wherein more than three-quarters of those surveyed opposed the introduction of an overseas trading corporation? Has the Minister's attention further been drawn to the criticism by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and other business bodies of the proposed overseas trading corporation? In light of the business community's almost unanimous opposition, will the Minister abandon his proposal to establish an overseas trading corporation which nobody has asked for and which nobody wants? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman needs to get more evidence than he now has because the independent survey which the Department commissioned as to the feasibility of an overseas trading corporation has already produced evidence that such a corporation would increase trade by $300m, and that is in the very confined atmosphere which exists at present. The idea of an overseas trading corporation is not to take away trade from the private sector, but to add a facility which the private sector does not now have. If one were to look at world trade on a barter basis-I am not suggesting that that is the only basis, but 30 per cent of world trade is conducted on that basis-one would have noticed that recently the United States of America, for example, was engaged in such trade with Jamaica. One would also have noticed that the facilities of an overseas trading corporation are already used by Singapore, Indonesia and other countries. I can understand the criticism by the Chamber of Commerce, which has a pretty blinkered view at any time. I am well aware that one of the secretaries of the Chamber of Commerce has-what will I say?-Liberal Party aspirations. So I do not take much notice of correspondence I receive in that regard. Mr Howard —What about the political aspirations of Simon Crean? Is it all right for a Vice-President of the ACTU? Mr Peacock —Total double standards. Mr Howard —Double standards. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not understand. All I am saying is that I do not think that the honourable gentleman who asked the question has an understanding of what trade is all about. I mentioned the fact that one of the secretaries had political aspirations. What is wrong with that? I am trying to make the point that there is a great need for an additional facility in the private sector. It is also very important that that facility be able to compete, as other countries do, for trade which at present we are not able to get. That is the situation. I am quite happy to discuss that matter and any area which the Chamber of Commerce wants to discuss with me. It has never at any stage sought to have any discussions with me about the matter. It might be more important for it to discuss the matter with the independent group that did the survey, that is, the Australian Bank. Mr MAHER —Can the Minister for Aviation inform the House what action is being taken to nominate the site for a second airport for Sydney? Mr BEAZLEY —I appreciate that question without notice. A considerable amount of action is being undertaken to select a site for a second airport in Sydney. I should say by way of preface, because this has been a matter for discussion recently in the House, that the Government is committed to seeking that site for the very good reason that the current site, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, is inadequate. It would have been inadequate even if, as was proposed by the previous Government, a close-spaced parallel runway was constructed. The site is also inadequate in the sense that it is causing to the neighbourhood of the airport, in which is situated the honourable member's electorate, a considerable amount of noise nuisance. It is the worst noise affected airport. So for a variety of reasons going to both the inadequacy of the facility for aviation purposes and the impact of the facility on the neighbourhood, the Government believes that it is desirable to select a second site for Sydney Airport. We are, in consultation with the New South Wales State Government, investigating a number of potential sites. Those sites include the final sites identified in the previous Major Airport Needs of Sydney study of sites to replace Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. They include two sites south of Sydney . Our objective is substantially different from the objective of the MANS investigation which sought a total replacement for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. It is not my intention to seek a site which would amount to a total replacement for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. My objective is to select a site for a second airport in Sydney. We are undertaking an investigation of that at several levels. First, we are investigating what sort of purpose such an airport would serve and, secondly, what size such an airport should be. At a minimum it would require to be somewhat less than the 5,000-odd hectares which were being sought by the MANS survey. Thirdly, we are investigating where the location of that airport should be. In this instance, because of the changed dimensions of the site we are seeking and also because of the possibility that there are alternative sites other than those identified by MANS, we are obliged to undertake an extensive series of engineering surveys both of the sites identified by MANS and of alternative sites. It is our belief that the possibility of a second airport site for Sydney is welcomed by the general Sydney public, if not necessarily by those areas located in the areas which to this point have been identified as possible sites. Our objective is and will be to ensure that people who live near those identified sites have ample opportunity to comment on the potential environmental impact of an airport in those areas and to recommend to us alternative courses of action. This is not a matter which can be dealt with in a hurried fashion. It is a matter which I think, in terms of its significance to the aviation industry generally, its significance to Sydney and its significance to persons resident near potential sites, requires a great deal of attention from government. Nevertheless, we intend to proceed expeditiously within that framework to the selection of a second site. I have indicated that we expect to be able to do that early in the new year. Our intention is to provide a permanent resolution of the aviation problems of Sydney, a resolution which will ensure that Sydney remains the premier point of entry for aviation services. I believe it will be a decision which will be welcomed ultimately both because of its employment aspects and also because it will ensure that Sydney remains, as it should remain, the principal aviation centre of Australia. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Ordinance and Regulations 1936, I present the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board annual report for the year ended 30 June 1983. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics-' Attributable Aviation Costs-Review of Valuation Methods'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly's publication, 'Business of the Assembly 1982-83'. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Speaker, my attention has been drawn to a report in today's Canberra Times in which, under the heading, 'Hawke comes to Uren's defence on housing issue' the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is quoted in the following terms: Mr Hawke said that the policy under which Mr Uren had rented his government flat had been established in 1956 and has been supported by successive governments since. Over the years, 25 ministers had rented government accommodation. The article went on: The Leader of the Government in he Senate, Senator Button, said Mr Uren had rented the flat since 1973 and was 'the last survivor- The article continued: . . . ''the last survivor of a policy established by a conservative government' '. There had been no change in Government policy. The Prime Minister's remarks, as reported, grossly misrepresent me and the position which pertained during my term as Minister for the Capital Territory from 1980 to 1983. Mr Uren —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I respect personal explanations but I do not like to see them used as a political gimmick. I can assure the House that there has been no change of policy; the policy still remains. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will not debate the issue. I hope he comes to the point where he has been misrepresented; otherwise I cannot accept it. Mr HODGMAN —I inform the Parliament that neither I, nor, to the best of my knowledge, my predecessor, Mr Ellicott, his predecessor, Mr Staley, nor his predecessor, Mr Robinson, ever occupied-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is making a personal explanation. I ask him to come to the point. Mr HODGMAN —They never occupied a low rental government flat in Canberra nor to the best of my knowledge did any Minister of the Fraser Government occupy-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his personal explanation by saying that he did not occupy a flat. The honourable member knows it is a matter of personal explanation, not of debate. Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Government's Sensitivity to Criticism Mr SPEAKER —I have 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 undue sensitivity of the Government to criticism as exemplified by the Prime Minister's attack on the ABC. 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)(3.53) —If ever we wanted some up to date verification of how accurate is the claim in this matter of public importance, we had it today in the reply of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) to the question asked by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). In dismissing the views of the Australian Chamber of Commerce the Deputy Prime Minister said: 'Why should we take any notice of the Chamber of Commerce because one of the senior officers of that Chamber has political ambitions?'. Undoubtedly the Deputy Prime Minister was referring to Alexander Downer, a former speech writer on the staff of both the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the former Prime Minister. Apparently it is all right for the present Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Simon Crean, to have political ambitions. Apparently it is all right for him to tout himself around as a future leader of the Australian Labor Party and as a future rival of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) for the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. Apparently it was all right for the former President of the ACTU nakedly to parade his ambition to lead the Australian Labor Party, an ambition he finally consummated at the beginning of last year. When it comes to someone who offers a different political point of view, somehow or other the political ambition of the individual taints the quality of the advice and the viewpoints expressed by his organisation. The Deputy Prime Minister said it all in his answer. He really underlined the extraordinary sensitivity to criticism of this Government and in particular the extraordinary sensitivity to criticism of the leader of this Government. Anybody who has studied the career of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) would be struck by quite a number of things. One of those things is the extraordinary sensitivity of the Prime Minister to any kind of criticism. to any kind of questioning of his personal integrity, to any suggestion that in some way he is, after all, like one of us. He has this elitist response to any kind of criticism : ''Criticise Young, criticise Duffy, criticise Hayden, criticise Peacock, criticise Fraser, criticise anybody, but if you criticise me, it is a national scandal and something will really have to be done about it'. Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order. Mr HOWARD —We are getting a bit sensitive, are we? Mr Cunningham —The Standing Orders clearly state that reference must be made to an honourable member by naming his electorate or his position and not by using his name. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member is quite correct. However, I believe that in the hurly-burly of the debate what the Deputy Leader did was permissible. Mr HOWARD —I am reeling under the blow of that point of order by the honourable member. It is all right to criticise the Leader of the Opposition. It is all right to defame the character of the former Prime Minister. It is all right to defame the character of the Leader of the National Party of Australia. But if it comes to any questioning of the Prime Minister or any querying of his political motives, that is an absolute national disgrace. We are invited not to descend to these impossible depths of actually criticising the Prime Minister and querying whether he might be wrong about something. We all know that in the past, the Prime Minister has endeavoured to silence his opponents by the use of legal writs. We had the extraordinary spectacle during the Combe-Ivanov affair of the Prime Minister taking steps, for the first time in political history, to try to put the Leader of the Opposition in gaol, so frightened was he of the criticism being made by the Leader of the Opposition. It was legitimate political criticism, not personal vilification, but that was too much for the Prime Minister, this craven populist who always places his personal popularity above the execution of his duty. When it comes to any kind of criticism he becomes absolutely pathological. He has demonstrated that, although he is very good at dishing out criticism, when it comes to receiving it he has a glass jaw. Since he became Prime Minister he has demonstrated this very clearly. He took an unprecedented volume of legal action against the Press at the time of the Combe- Ivanov affair. He demonstrated by his actions then his extraordinary sensitivity to any kind of political criticism. I come now to the rather extraordinary events that were reported in this morning's Press concerning the Caucus meeting. I am delighted that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is at the despatch box and that he will respond on behalf of the Government. We were all fascinated by the evasive response he gave at Question Time, when he invited somebody to provide something that he knows darned well no member of the Opposition or the Government can ever provide about each other's Caucus meetings. I refer to the transcripts of the proceedings. He was not prepared to get up in the House and deny that he had made the extraordinarily arrogant, patronising claim that 98 per cent of the media was on side with the Government and that really, in a big, grand gesture of democratic spirit, we had to accept that the remaining 2 per cent, according to the report, comprised the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Times and should really be tolerated. Of course, the Prime Minister, that great consensus- seeker, was not quite so charitable. He is reported to have said: Freedom of the Press is freedom to lie, I suppose. That really is a marvellous statement. It indicates a great generosity of spirit on the part of this person who somehow or other is above it all. I will be fascinated to hear a denial of that remark from the Minister for Communications. I will be delighted to hear him say: 'Oh, the Prime Minister did not make any critical remarks about the ABC. He would not do that'. The remark demonstrates very clearly that this Prime Minister has a paranoia about any criticism that is levelled at him from sections of the Press. We all remember that famous exchange about 'being up to your armpits in blood', which occurred at the commencement of the last Federal election campaign. We all remember that meek-as-a-lamb denial by the Prime Minister when he said: 'No, I had nothing to do with it. I was not up to my armpits in blood in disposing of the former Leader of the Opposition. I just sat there and quietly contemplated my navel. All of a sudden, I woke up and the leadership of the Australian Labor Party fell into my lap. In other words, I was the passive beneficiary of a chain of circumstances over which I had no control. I woke up one morning and found that, whacko, I was the Leader of the Australian Labor Party and I was about to become Prime Minister of Australia'. Of course, 12 months after that meek as a lamb denial we all know what is the real story. Of course, we are indebted to Paul Kelly's book The Hawke Ascendancy which described to us that the Prime Minister, far from being a passive beneficiary of that change in the leadership of the Australian Labor Party, was a very active participant; that he was plotting and planning. He endeavours to create the pose that somehow or other he is not like any of us, that he is quite different from us and from all other Government members. But somehow or other that story found him out, somehow or other it demonstrated that he was right in the thick of it, plotting and planning with members of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other members of the Australian labour movement, to bring about a change in the leadership. We all know that the Prime Minister has a certain paranoia about attacks that are made on him by the media. We have all been impressed by the Prime Minister's political double standards. When he was in the Labor Party, in opposition, he blindly opposed every single thing that the Government of the day wanted to do. When he was the President of the ACTU he did not invite the Prime Minister of the day to any of his celebrations. But, of course, now that he has become Prime Minister, he expects every organisation to respect and honour his office. But that is perfectly all right because in some way he is different and in some way he is entitled to adopt that kind of double standard and to show that kind of sensitivity to criticism! We all know that in 1972 there was a suggestion that the ABC was being criticised by members of the then McMahon Government. One or two members of that Government, as I think my friend the honourable member for Gippsland will know, did not regard the ABC as necessarily a branch of the Liberal or National Party of Australia; anything but. At that time Mr Hawke was full of righteous indignation. He said he was appalled that any Liberal politician should question the integrity of the ABC. He said that under a Labor government the ABC's autonomy would be strengthened. We are told, now that he is Prime Minister and now that he has the capacity to strengthen that autonomy, that unless the ABC toes the line its funds will be reduced. That is just another example of the appalling double standards of this Prime Minister. This is an example of the appalling standards-- Mr O'Neil —He is telling lies. Mr HOWARD —No. These are appalling examples of this Prime Minister's double standards. On the question of political interference in the ABC, we are reminded once again by Paul Kelly's book that during the election campaign Mr Hawke worked behind the scenes to influence the ABC's coverage of the 1983 election campaign. That book describes how Mr Hawke contacted the ABC Chairman to protest about the coverage on the AM program. When the then Chairman of the ABC did not succumb to Mr Hawke's will there was righteous indignation involving the present Prime Minister and the present Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). That Minister contacted the ABC Chairman twice during the election campaign and on both occasions attempted to put pressure on her to act as some kind of censor of ABC programs. I ask the House what the Labor Party would have said if during an election campaign this kind of pressure, this kind of intimidation, this kind of interference, had been applied to the ABC by a Liberal Prime Minister or by a Liberal Minister. We would have had speeches from the rooftops and from the steps of Parliament House about the freedom of the Press, the rights of minorities and threats to our democratic institution. Of course we all, particularly the Minister at the table, recall very well that after the election the ABC Chairman was publicly attacked by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He publicly attacked one of the most respected academic figures in Australia, Dame Leonie Kramer, and the Minister for Communications, no doubt under pressure, refused to declare confidence in her. The end result was that this Government of reconciliation, bipartisanship and consensus, secured, brought about the removal of the entire former Board of the ABC and was so miserable and mean-minded that it was not willing to offer Dame Leonie Kramer even a place on the Board of the Corporation. At about that time the Deputy Prime Minister made the extraordinary allegation that the ABC was so completely anti-Labor that 'it was anxious to exploit any situation at all'. I ask all fairminded members of this House and the Australian community whether they really believe that large sections of the media have some kind of vendetta against the present Government. I think the ordinary person would take the view that a Prime Minister in our present political circumstances who runs around saying 'The media is out to get us' has some kind of paranoia about the media. I wonder whether the Prime Minister seriously expects the Australian community to believe that in some way the ABC is out to get the Australian Labor Party. I think the Prime Minister has spent far too much time lately in the company of the New South Wales Premier. I think he is adopting some of the paranoia of the New South Wales Premier about the ABC. He would do well to contemplate his own attitude and the balance of his own mind on this subject, because yesterday's Caucus meeting demonstrates a very thin skin on the part of the Prime Minister and a number of senior Ministers of the Government. The Government has been willing to resort very readily to the cheap intimidation of an organisation which has always valued its independence and which has done a great service-often a discomforting service-to both sides of politics. Let nobody imagine that the Liberal Party has enjoyed some of the criticisms that have been made of it by the ABC. But the fact remains that through the years the ABC has been a very worthwhile organisation in Australia. It has shown courage, it has shown independence and, frankly, that is what the Prime Minister cannot really abide. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(3.07) —The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) started his speech by talking about the political ambitions of a member of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. The relevance of that to this debate was a little too subtle for me. I propose to deal with the actual proposal which is before us, which is: The undue sensitivity of the Government to criticism as exemplified by the Prime Minister's attack on the ABC. The honourable member for Bennelong referred to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as a craven populist. He referred to the concerns that the Prime Minister has about the media. I ask all honourable members opposite to give some consideration to the fact that in the past 10 years, or maybe more, in this country, no person has been more exposed to public scrutiny than the present Prime Minister of Australia. Throughout that period he has been able to stand the criticism that has been directed at him from time to time-when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, when he became a member of this Parliament, when he was Leader of the Opposition and when he became Prime Minister. It is absolute nonsense to argue that this Prime Minister, of all people, is concerned about that sort of exposure. It is also worth noting how that so-called 'craven populist', referred to by the honourable member for Bennelong, is regarded by the people of Australia at the moment. According to all the polls he has a popularity rating of between 74 per cent and 78 per cent. The Opposition talks about the exposure that the Prime Minister of this country has had to the Australian people. The result of that exposure is the way that these people regard him, which is as reflected in the polls. In relation to the specific matters raised, the honourable member for Bennelong really got to the guts of it in the last four or five minutes of his speech. In those few minutes at the end of his speech he dealt with the question of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That is the real issue today: The sensitivity of the Government, according to the Opposition, as exemplified by the Prime Minister's attack on the ABC. The real issue is the question of the independence of the ABC. I propose to deal in some detail with the record of this Government on that matter. It must be emphasised that such independence-and let us get this clear-does not mean that the ABC, or for that matter any other media organisation, is shrouded in some immunity from criticism. I do not think that even honourable members opposite are putting such an absurd proposition. The fact is that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is paramount and that independence is and will continue to be entirely respected on this side of the House. That does not mean that from time to time honourable members on this side of the House and on that side of the House cannot and will not be critical of the ABC. Before proceeding with that, let me say that one of the most extraordinary aspects of today's debate is that the desperation of the Opposition becomes worse day by day. We have in this Parliament today a discussion of a matter of public importance based at best on hearsay evidence of unconfirmed reports of what is alleged to have been said at a private meeting. I said that I would deal in some detail with the record of this Government. I want to deal particularly with my attitude to the independence of the ABC and the attitude of those opposite to the independence of the ABC. Their attitude surfaced very early in this Parliament. I refer to two matters which were raised in this Parliament, the first on 3 May 1983 and the second on 4 May 1983. On the first of those occasions the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) asked whether I or any member of my staff had been approached or contacted by anyone suggesting that I intervene in the Four Corners program alleging political interference by the Premier of New South Wales in the course of justice in that State. The answer to that question was very simple and short. It was no. The question indicated the state of mind of those opposite in raising the fact that there was on the ABC a program in relation to which the Premier of New South Wales rightfully took action available to him, that is, an action for defamation against the ABC. I recall an interjection from the honourable member for Bennelong when that matter was debated. He said that that program was very well researched. We will see about that when the outcome of the defamation proceedings is known. The second question again indicates the mentality of those opposite. On 4 May, one day later, I was asked what action I had taken-and I quote: . . . relevant to the Australian Broadcasting Commission's program alleging political interference by the Premier of New South Wales in the course of justice in that State, since he- that is, I- learnt of that program and its contents. Again I was able to say: The ABC has been requested to supply a transcript of the program. Other than that, I have not taken any action. The question of the programming of the ABC is a matter for it, and we on this side of the House respect totally its independence in that regard. That was the position then and that is the position now. There will be no political interference from this Government in that absolutely fundamental factor in the ABC's whole operation-its independence on the question of programs . Mr Lusher —Does everybody agree with you? Mr DUFFY —It is interesting to hear the honourable member interjecting. It is interesting to note that both of those questions I referred to came from members of what is now known as the National Party but which once was not embarrassed to call itself the Country Party. The sensitivity of people in the National Party on this issue is very easy to understand when we consider the appalling performance on this issue of the National Party, formerly the Country Party, in government and in opposition. I refer particularly to the performances of the former member for Gippsland, Mr Nixon. Let us look at some of those great efforts in this talk about sensitivity. In March 1975, when he was somewhat quaintly described as 'an Opposition front bencher, senior Country Party spokesman on transport and Country Party spokesman on the media', he said: ABC Commissioner (Professor Downing) is either a naive academic or is part of the plot to disseminate socialist propaganda Australia-wide over ABC radio news. At best Professor Downing is so naive that he has had his head in the clouds for the past 20 years. That is the sort of sensitivity he displayed. He was not satisfied with that. Three days later, on 20 March, after Professor Downing dared to defend himself, Mr Nixon said: How can Professor Downing's comments that 'the ABC reports and comments from a neutral position favouring neither one political belief nor another' . . . apply in this instance? . . . . Even Professor Downing cannot deny the mounting evidence-- Mr Howard —When was this? What date is this? Mr DUFFY —Just listen to this. The honourable member normally interjects and carries on and will not listen to anybody. He has behaved himself reasonably well today and he could learn something if he just listened for a change. To continue: Even Professor Downing cannot deny the mounting evidence that ABC reports either on radio or television are far from impartial. That was in 1975. Then, of course, we had the coup and Mr Nixon became caretaker Postmaster-General. Following that coup, those opposite were quaintly termed the 'Acting Government'. Let us look at what happened then. We get back to Mr Nixon who was reported as follows: The caretaker Postmaster-General, Mr Nixon, yesterday renewed his pressure on the ABC with a call for a political 'moderator' to monitor the commission's election coverage. That was a report of his statement in the Age of 13 November 1975. Mr Griffiths —Who said that? Mr DUFFY —Mr Nixon, the former member for Gippsland, who was then the caretaker Postmaster-General. On 13 November 1975-- Mr Hodgman —We are talking about yesterday, not 10 years ago. Mr DUFFY —I do not care whether it was yesterday or 10 years ago. The honourable member can sit here and listen to his record on this issue. On 13 November the report of Mr Nixon's statement continued: Mr Nixon, who has strongly criticised the ABC in the past few months, said the 'moderator' was needed to balance 'the ABC's now well established bias towards Labor and the socialist side of politics'. This is the absolute cruncher: The ABC news . . . must expect unprecedented watchfulness by the National Country Party and the Liberal Party. He was speaking on behalf of not only the National Party but also those who became the Government. Next I turn to this present Parliament. The next outburst on this question of the independence of the ABC came-what a surprise!-from none other than the then Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony. On 18 October 1983 Mr Anthony put to me a question in relation to the conduct of the Queensland elections. He said: Can the Minister assure the House that neither he nor anyone under his authority had any part in this attempt at political interference in the ABC news service? He was referring to some insane suggestion he had got in his mind that there was some interference in the news coverage at that stage in the Queensland election. On that occasion I was able again to answer him without any equivocation. I said : I have heard other people say so often, and it is now obvious that it is so very true, that there are some very slow learners opposite and it is necessary to repeat again-I do not know whether it will ultimately sink into the head of the right honourable member for Richmond, the Leader of the National Party-that no person has spoken to me at any time about anything connected with the allegations until Monday last, when the Press reports were referred to me. Further, there is no question about my staff's involvement in this matter. They have advised me that none of them was asked by anyone to request, direct or otherwise influence the ABC to change its current policy. Further, I have been advised by my staff that none of them has spoken to the ABC on any matter connected in any way with the Queensland election. That was said in the adjournment debate on 18 October 1983, as reported at page 1885 of Hansard. Let us move to what we did when we came into office. The fact is that at that stage it was necessary to take this issue head on and bring into Parliament something that had been investigated, in fairness, by honourable members opposite through the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, although it had been around for a fair while. I want to refer to my second reading speech when legislation about that review was introduced. I repeat it today, and I shall repeat it again and again. I said: . . . this Government is committed to maintaining a strong and independent ABC, able to meet the broadcasting needs of the Australian people. This Government believes that as Australia's only national broadcaster the ABC has served and must be able to continue to serve in the forefront of Australian broadcasting. That was the attitude of this Government then. That is the attitude of this Government now. That will continue to be the attitude of this Government to the ABC. This Government regards the fundamental independence of the ABC as something which will be defended by this side of politics as long as it is about . The fact is that honourable members opposite are always on the attack on this issue because they have such putrid, guilty minds. Every time anything crops up in relation to the ABC, they start attacking the ABC and attacking the Government in relation to the ABC when, as a matter of fact -- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DUFFY —I assure honourable members opposite who are interjecting that this Government's attitude is as directly specified by me in the second reading speech on the introduction of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill on 4 May 1983. I have repeated it today. That is the attitude of this Government, and it will continue to be its attitude. The duties of the Board-and honourable members ought to look at the Act-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.22) —Let us congratulate the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on his efforts in Caucus yesterday. My advice is that he was one against the lot. He was the only one who stood up for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and everybody else there gave it heaps. Today he had to get written a speech that took him back nearly 15 years in history. Why did he have to do that? It was because he had very little to say on behalf of his colleagues and their activities of the last few days. That is the situation, and that is what we have just heard from the Minister. There was nothing in his speech to guarantee to the Australian public that this Government will keep its fingers off the ABC. He told us about the Government's moral position and indicated that members of the Government would not ring up the ABC, as the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did on one occasion, and threaten and cajole. No, as they hold the financial strings, they will just screw down the ABC whenever it looks like misbehaving. I do not care what this very honest and genuine Minister says in this House, because, no matter what he says, he cannot deliver it when he gets into Caucus. It was him against the rest yesterday. We all know that. Government members interjecting- Mr TUCKEY —This is a debate about sensitivity. Honourable members opposite are getting sensitive again. Are they not a sensitive lot? This debate is about this Government's sensitivity, which is laughable given its supporters' actions when they were on the Opposition benches. The Minister has chosen to take us back into history, and there is plenty of history around, as to what Government members complained about when they were in opposition. What right do they have to criticise any news organisation that has the courage or the temerity to come out and say that maybe they are wrong? We know all about the Prime Minister and his cloud nine situation. Yesterday, just in answer to an innocent question, he screamed 'Foul'. Why did he scream 'Foul'? Mr Hurford —Innocent? Mr TUCKEY —Of course it was an innocent question. All that he had been asked about was a matter of national security. We are all sensitive to that question. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked a question about national security. Today he was asked a question about certain money, because that was clearly where his sensitivity lay. It did not lie with the issue of whether he had been careless with documents. That was not his worry. He was highly concerned and very sensitive about that money. His answer today is not worth a penny Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is straying from the matter of public importance. Mr TUCKEY —I have used the word 'sensitive', Madam Deputy Speaker, on about 10 occasions in my last 50 words, and that word appears in the matter of public importance. We are talking about the Government's sensitivity. I am relating how sensitive the Prime Minister is to references to his possession of $US1,000- United States currency-in a manner which is expressly forbidden under the exchange legislation. Mr Charles —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member is not relating his remarks to the motion. They are a slur on the Prime Minister. I ask him to withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order, but I suggest-- Mr TUCKEY —I withdraw that, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am too short of time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have already ruled the point of order to be out of order . Mr TUCKEY —I do not know what else is said in the Caucus. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are more party to that than I am. However, it seems that there must have been other discussion in the Caucus yesterday, because many other honourable members opposite seem to be sensitive to this issue now. The fact that the Prime Minister, when he was a back bench member, mistakenly included in a complaint about a theft the fact that he had had $US1,000 in his hands was not because he was innocent; it was because he did not know any better-and he was probably quite used to doing it. However, let us return to the matter before us. This is not the only matter in which this sort of situation arises. Let us talk about the Prime Minister's sensitivity when, on an occasion not so long ago, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman)-and I was rather displeased about it-quoted from one of the Prime Minister's own books. The Prime Minister was not going to sully his hands by coming in here and showing a bit of courage and defending himself. He had to go into the Caucus and get himself a champion. I am told that the first champion that he tried to get was the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). If he had got him to stand up in this Parliament, we would have sat quietly and listened. But that champion was not available. That is why there is admiration for that gentleman on this side of the House. The Prime Minister went and got Sir Galahad with the bent lance-the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)-to come into this Parliament and say some disgraceful things; to imply that, because a former Minister lived in Queanbeyan, any trip that he made out of the Australian Capital Territory to his flat was a nocturnal visit. That is the level to which the Minister for Finance sank. Where was the Prime Minister when this Sir Galahad got up on his behalf? He was sitting right next to him and egging him on. He arranged that, and then he complains in this House to us about standards of behaviour and whatever. I would get down in the gutter with the Prime Minister at any time, but I would probably beat him in climbing out as he would be in a drain. That is where he would be. He would be lower down than I would be. He knows all about gutter politics. For him to come in here and complain that he does not know about gutter politics and to say that people might at times tend to use them on him has to be the greatest joke in history. Talking about sensitivity, to attack the major media organisation in Australia, the ABC, in the way in which he has in the last couple of days-'Don't do as I do ; do as I say'-is typical of our Prime Minister. He gives us example after example. He has worked pretty well on the commercial Press. He is very happy with the treatment that he gets from the big business leaders. He knows how to handle big business people. If he cannot do it in one way, and that is by threat -threat, for instance, of defamation proceedings, and so on-he just seems to get Neville Wran to do it in another way. Maybe one just hands out a Lotto concession, or something like that. He can win them one way or he can win them another way. But the fact of life is: How can anyone be sensitive to criticism when he has mixed his hands in this type of thing? I told the House on one occasion previously about that wonderful cartoon called 'Rome Rules OK'. For some unknown reason the main character was called Spartacus . Spartacus was a slave. He was not of the senatorial rank of our Prime Minister . The simple name for the Prime Minister was Brutus. He was one of the senators. We know how he dealt with his leader; in exactly the same way as the Prime Minister dealt with his leader-with a knife in the back. This is the situation we have. Why should this man at any time be sensitive? Why should he complain about how the media treats him? The fact is that he is a headline junkie, and any headline that depicts him- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr TUCKEY —I withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Prime Minister, with all his sensitivity, is prepared to condone and support Ministers who have been clearly discredited on previous occasions. He has re-instated the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) after he leaked all sorts of documents and all sorts of information. I just hope that during his time in Perth on 21 or 22 September or whenever it was he was not walking through any carparks. I have to presume that that is where the defence leak might have come from. He is very sensitive to carparks. Then there is the Minister for Finance-as I said, Sir Galahad of the bent lance . He is the person whom I attacked again yesterday. He is still trying to be the nation's most well known tax avoider. It is notable to me that he has not used the opportunities available to him today to make a personal explanation. It is clear to me that he will not talk to the Western Australian Press. Honourable members can read what they like into that but I suppose he will now complain about the media being insensitive to the Australian Labor Party by reporting the fact that he is probably active in the bottom of the sandpit scheme. Mr Howard —But he has turned over a new leaf. Mr TUCKEY —He has turned over a new leaf or someone has cut his tongue out; we are not exactly sure which, but it might be a bit of both. He is a cynical man who has made statements in this place time and again. I just wonder whether members of the Press have not got a little sick of the Prime Minister selling them furphies as he did in Japan. He told the Press that he had solved the problems of the beef industry and the steel industry. He did neither and his attracting of publicity to those matters did irrevocable and irretrievable harm to those industries. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms FATIN(Canning)(3.32) —Before I address myself to some of the things that were mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and then to the matter of public importance itself, I just say that when I listen to honourable members such as the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who has just spoken, I recall the numbers of people throughout Australia who listen to parliamentary broadcasts-fortunately they are not able to listen to this debate today-and who criticise this place for the utter nonsense and disgraceful garbage that gets thrown around here. All of us have to wear that in public. Much of the time of those of us who have been here for only a year is taken up trying to cope with answering questions on the behaviour in this place. I now address myself very briefly to the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who talked about querying people's political motives. Has he seriously asked himself about the political motives of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who recently advised the public that he had formed a committee to award prizes to journalists who showed a bias towards the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? What sort of political sensitivity does this show? What attitude to the news media do actions like this portray? We can only assume that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not worried about actions like this, since they pass without comment. Today in debating this matter of public importance the Opposition seems to be worried about two things. The first, and perhaps the most obvious from its terms , is that the Federal Australian Labor Party Government is unduly sensitive to criticism. The second, although this is far from being the main thrust of the matter, it would seem, is that the Opposition is worried about the relationship between the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Federal Labor Government . This second point has already been more than adequately addressed by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), who is at the table. This Government has rejected the token mouthings which characterised the attitude of previous coalition regimes. We have enshrined the integrity and independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in legislation and are pledged to maintain the ABC's autonomy, and we are proud of that. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act has been widely acclaimed by broadcasters and people involved in the media and communications. The Act set the scene for reforms which were long overdue and it is already providing our national broadcasting organisation with a much needed stimulus. While I am on the subject of preserving the independence of the ABC, let me just remind members of the Opposition again of some of the things that the Minister has said . Over a period of years the current Opposition, in government and in opposition , has been responsible for intimidation of the ABC, continued cuts in its budget and general abuse of both the ABC news and current affairs sections. As in so many areas, the National Party's role in criticising the ABC was particularly scandalous. This has been mentioned already by the Minister. It must be yet another source of embarrassment for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and his deputy to have to carry the heritage of the National Party into areas such as this one. Let us just look at some of the performances turned in by the former member for Gippsland, the Hon. Peter Nixon, when he was an Opposition spokesman. On 17 March 1975 he accused the ABC Commissioner, Professor Downing, of being either a naive academic or part of a plot to disseminate socialist propaganda Australia- wide over the ABC radio news. I suggest that that was somewhat over-sensitive. When Professor Downing attempted to defend himself Mr Nixon asked how Professor Downing's comments, that the ABC reports and comments from a neutral position favouring neither one political belief nor another, could apply in that instance . A few months later, when he no longer had the excuse of being in Opposition, Mr Nixon said publicly that a moderator was needed to balance what he called ' the ABC's now well established bias towards Labor and the socialist side of politics'. Mr Nixon declared in November 1975: Never in its history will the ABC be under such close scrutiny as during the coming election campaign. ABC news and public affairs programs must expect unprecedented watchfulness by the National Country Party and the Liberal Party. Many of us in this chamber will recall the furore in the community that centered on the debate about whether a moderator would be imposed upon the ABC. Those comments and others quoted by the Minister are in my view pretty impressive stuff on which to build a reputation of concern about the independence of the ABC and the freedom of the news media in general. This is just one more example of the political acrobatics the Opposition is prepared to undertake in its desperate search for an electorally attractive stance. Yet the truth about the situation of the ABC is perfectly obvious to anyone who cares to look at the record. Let us compare what Mr Nixon said and the attitude condoned by the Opposition parties with what the current Minister said last year when he was introducing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. The Minister said: . . . this Government is committed to maintaining a strong and independent ABC, able to meet the broadcasting needs of the Australian people. This Government believes that as Australia's only national broadcaster the ABC has served and must be able to continue to serve in the forefront of Australian broadcasting. That is the position of this Government. It is a position which will not change while the Labor Party is in government. It is a position which is recognised throughout the Labor Party as being the foundation of maintaining the integrity of the ABC and the quality of its news and current affairs reporting. Let me now turn briefly to the other problem which seems to be worrying the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for O'Connor. In my view, the Opposition is using the ABC only as an example of what it has interpreted as this Government's undue sensitivity to criticism. The Opposition's contributions to debates and discussions in this House are proving to have more entertainment value than many of the ABC programs which are actually classified as comedy. Maybe I am being unkind. Perhaps the message being conveyed by the people of Australia to the leaders and members of the Opposition parties has not got through yet. They obviously have not read the latest polls published in today's Press. Perhaps they also have not heard about the many Liberals who prefer our leader to their own. Perhaps they have not got around to doing their sums about where the support of the Australian people lies and who they want as the government. To be sure, we are sensitive and we have done nothing to hide our sensitivity over the last 13 months. We are sensitive to the need of people to own their own homes. Look at our first home owners scheme. We are sensitive to the needs of people who are unemployed. Look at the $300m we are spending to employ people. Those of us on this side are sensitive-maybe, as someone suggested, unduly sensitive-to those needs. As the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) demonstrated last week, these are sensitivities that the Opposition cannot even begin to perceive, let alone act upon. We are also sensitive to the criticism which stems from the cynical light in which politicians are held as a result of seven years of conservative hypocrisy and manipulation. This Government is not ashamed to admit to a sensitivity to the feelings of the people of Australia. There is one thing, however, to which we are absolutely and totally impervious and that is the kind of ludicrous, trumped up, cynical charge which the Opposition has dragged up today. It is the Opposition, not the Government, which has shown its weakness in the face of criticism. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The discussion is concluded. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the sixth and eighth reports for 1984 of the Committee, relating to the construction of facilities for the Australian frigate project at Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Victoria, phase A, and the upgrading of facilities for the introduction of F28 aircraft at Wagga Wagga Airport, New South Wales, respectively. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr FIFE —The recommendation for the upgrading of construction of the facilities for the Australian frigate project at Williamstown Naval Dockyard has the support of the Committee and it is recommended that the construction of the work in this reference proceed. The Committee has found that there is a need to provide the additional facilities identified to augment existing facilities for the construction of the FFG-7 type frigates at Williamstown Naval Dockyard. The work comprising phase A of the modernisation of Williamstown Naval Dockyard will supplement existing modern ship construction facilities constructed earlier. It appears to be adequate and should result in improvements to productivity. The Committee further finds that interim measures designed to optimise the utilisation of existing off-street car parks, including the provision of additional entry points, should be implemented. For the information of the House , I advise that the Committee was informed that the estimated cost of the work is $6.1m at December 1983 prices. The upgrading of facilities for the introduction of F28 aircraft to the Wagga Wagga Airport has also received the endorsement of the Committee and it recommended that the construction of the work in this reference proceed. The Committee also finds that the terminal, runway and apron at Wagga Wagga Airport should be upgraded to provide adequate levels of service to passengers and the non-travelling public and to permit F28 operations. Air traffic control should be established at Wagga Wagga Airport to permit F28 operations. The Committee also finds that the Department of Aviation should closely monitor aircraft delays and provide a parallel taxiway if significant delays arise, and that the extent of the proposed new terminal building, additional apron space and taxiway work is justified and adequate. The site selected for the new terminal building is considered suitable by the Committee. The Committee agrees to the adoption of minimal movement area improvements proposed but draws attention to the recurrent maintenance expenditure necessary to keep the movement area operational. The location and design of the control tower meet Department of Aviation requirements and are considered by the Committee to be satisfactory. The Committee has been advised that the limit of cost estimate for the proposed work is $2.3m at November 1983 prices and that the project is due to be completed within one year of the approval to proceed. The last project to which I have referred, namely, the Wagga Wagga Airport, is within the constituency of Farrer, which I have the privilege of representing. This project is long overdue and I hope that the Government will give it the go ahead almost immediately. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, unlike many Bills to amend the income tax law, covers but one subject . Its need arises because of the decision taken by the Opposition parties in the Senate and some other honourable senators to reject outright measures contained in a Bill passed by this House, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983. The measures would counter some tax avoidance practices associated with employee superannuation funds which are, by any test, blatant and contrived. As I explained in my second reading speech on the introduction of the earlier Bill, some proprietors of businesses, after establishing superannuation funds purportedly to provide superannuation benefits for their employees, wind up the funds in circumstances where the accumulated assets of the funds are paid out, not to the employees but to the proprietors themselves. This happens after advantage has been taken of the considerable tax concessions provided for superannuation contributions and the income of the funds. One technique adopted is to terminate the employees' employment under some pretence shortly before they would otherwise become entitled to substantial superannuation benefits from the funds. Another is to make tax deductible contributions for workers who, in the ordinary course of events, do not stay long with their employer. The benefits that are forfeited are then allocated to the proprietors who, technically, as the sole remaining employees, take the whole of the accumulated assets. The funds, having been wound up in this way, are not then able to meet any tax liability which, under the existing law, may fall to be met by them. Not only does the revenue, and therefore the Australian taxpayer, suffer by these particularly distasteful practices, but the unsuspecting ordinary employees of companies are deprived of superannuation benefits accumulated in their name and ostensibly for their benefit. It is difficult to imagine a more brazen abuse of the taxation law. Ingeniously planned to give the appearance of bona fide superannuation arrangements, these practices involve clear raids against the revenue and the unsuspecting employees, who are used as mere pawns in this particular unsavoury practice. It is one where the losers are the taxpayers of Australia and the winners are those who seek to enjoy the benefits and privileges of living in this country without meeting their rightful share of the tax burden. A policy of retrospective application of anti-avoidance legislation was one which we put before the people of Australia on 5 March last year and on which we were elected to govern. That policy was confirmed by my colleague the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in a statement he made shortly after we came to office. In the Government's view these tax avoidance practices are clearly in that category of schemes which we intended would be covered by our retrospectivity policy. Not only are they of the most blatant kind, but they contain elements of fraud against employees, many of whom stood to benefit from many years membership of a superannuation scheme which has been afforded substantial taxation benefits. A technical explanation of the proposed section 26AFA is contained in the memorandum that was circulated to honourable members at the time of introduction of the Bill containing the original measure. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) 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)(3.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to implement the Government's decision, announced on 12 January 1984, to pay a temporary bounty for two years from that date on the production in Australia of two-stroke air cooled spark ignition engines. Engines up to a maximum power output of 4.5 kilowatts with an Australian content of not less than 55 per cent will be eligible for the bounty, if during the two-year bounty period they are sold for use in Australia or used in Australia by the manufacturer. The rate of bounty is to be $6 per engine and bounty payments are to be limited to a maximum of $1.2m per annum. The bounty is designed to assist established manufacturers who were producing these engines at the time of the Government's announcement. It is part of a package of industry assistance determined by the Government following consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission's report of 6 July 1983 on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts. Australian production of engines, other than motor vehicle engines, has diminished very rapidly in recent years. Such engines have in the past been produced by James N. Kirby Pty Ltd, Norton Villiers, Simpson Pope Ltd, Toowoomba Foundry and Victa Ltd. By the time of the last IAC inquiry in 1977, only Norton Villiers, Toowomba and Victa were involved in engine production. Today the only producer is Victa, which produces a single-engine model for use mainly in its lawnmowers. To remain competitive, Victa has incurred considerable expenditure in the development of a new engine, the Series 80. This engine has fewer parts, reportedly incorporates the latest available two-stroke engine technology and has a lower cost of production. Victa has indicated that the engine is suited to many industrial applications, in competition with imported four-stroke engines. The potential for increased export sales by Victa has been considerably enhanced by the new engine. Manufacture of this new engine commenced in 1983 and full production is expected to begin in August 1984. In its report, the IAC considered that the then existing general duty rate of 35 per cent on engine imports provided effective assistance in excess of that available to manufacturing industry generally and tended to penalise the relatively lightly assisted engine-using industries. The Commission considered a 15 per cent duty would provide Victa with a rate of return on funds employed of about the same order achieved by manufacturing industry generally in recent years and would be sufficient to maintain local engine production. Accordingly, the IAC recommended that the 35 per cent duty be reduced to 25 per cent immediately and be further phased down to 15 per cent over two years. The Government considered the reduction in assistance as recommended by the IAC could endanger the continued production of small engines and decided that the long term duty rate should be 25 per cent, in line with other power sources such as electric motors and motor vehicle engines. To assist the wide range of engine users, it was decided that the duty reduction should be immediate. However, to give Victa time to adjust to the lower level of assistance and to have an opportunity to develop new markets for the engine, to thoroughly test its commercial attractiveness, and to recoup some of the developmental costs, the Government has decided to pay a temporary bounty for two years. The proposed bounty of $6 per engine roughly equates to a 10 per cent duty and will effectively maintain the existing level of assistance for the next two years. In taking this decision the Government was mindful of its desire to encourage industries which are willing to undertake research and development activities and to modernise their operations to improve their long term viability. To ensure that assistance for engine production is not undermined by imported lawnmowers which incorporate engines, the Government also decided that the duty on lawnmowers should remain at 25 per cent, instead of 15 per cent as recommended by the IAC. The Government accepted the IAC's recommendation that engines not made in Australia be dutiable at minimum rates. The assistance accorded lawnmowers and engines will be referred to the IAC for a further review in four years time. Financial Impact Statement I indicated earlier that there will be an annual upper limit of $1.2m on bounty payments. The maximum cost of this bounty scheme will therefore be $2.4m over the two-year bounty period. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 Quarantine Amendment Bill 1984 Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate amendment- Page 3, after clause 8, insert the following new clause: Directors of Aussat ''8A. (1) In this section- 'Commissioner' means- (a) the Managing Director of the Commission; or (b) another Commissioner holding office under section 22 of the Telecommunications Act 1975; 'prescribed person' means- (a) a Commissioner; or (b) a person holding an office in the Service that is higher than any office in the Service held by a person who is principally responsible for the management of the affairs of the Commission in a State; 'Service' means the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service established by section 38 of the Telecommunications Act 1975. ''(2) At any time- (a) the Directors of Aussat shall not include more than 2 persons who are, or, within the period of 3 years immediately preceding their appointment, have been, prescribed persons; and (b) at least three-quarters of the Directors of Aussat shall be persons other than persons who are, or, within that period, have been, prescribed persons.''. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(3.56) —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. This amendment was moved in another place last night by the Australian Democrats and it relates to the Board of Aussat Pty Ltd. The amendment does two things. Firstly, it provides: the Directors of Aussat shall not include more than 2 persons who are, or within the period of three years immediately preceding their appointment, have been, prescribed persons; The term 'prescribed persons' is defined earlier in the amendment as: (a) a Commissioner; or (b) a person holding an office in the Service that is higher than any office in the Service held by a person who is principally responsible for the management of the affairs of the Commission in a State; Secondly, paragraph 2(b) of the amendment reads: at least three-quarters of the Directors of Aussat shall be persons other than persons who are, or, within that period, have been, prescribed persons. This proposal was put forward by way of amendment to limit the number of directors to be directly associated with the Australian Telecommunications Commission. In fact, it is related to the shareholding of Telecom Australia in Aussat Pty Ltd, which is 25 per cent. As indicated, the amendment moved by the Democrats in the other place is acceptable to the Government. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(3.58) —The Opposition parties in the Senate supported this amendment to the Satellite Communications Bill yesterday. I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that we will support it here today. I am relaxed about this amendment in that it is appropriate, irrespective of any shareholding by the Australian Telecommunications Commission in Aussat Pty Ltd. I believe that Telecom Australia should have representatives on the Board. The question of limiting the number of representatives in accordance with the shareholders is reasonably appropriate. I am disappointed that the Democrats in the Senate were not able to support some of the amendments that we moved in the House. They certainly made it clear that they would not support the removal of Telecom's shareholding. But I thought that, in view of the public statements that they have made in relation to Aussat and the need for both a free commercial television and radio service as well as an Australian Broadcasting Corporation service for people in remote areas they would have been able to support that amendment. They felt they could not support the amendment; they have moved this amendment. I suppose we are showing that we are being just a little bit more broadminded in, nevertheless, being prepared to accept their amendment. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(4.00) —I do not wish to take much of the time of the House. I want to respond to the comment which is still being made by a number of Opposition spokespeople that this Satellite Communications Bill will result in the Government not supplying commercial television to people in the bush. In particular, Senator Kilgariff has been making that statement regularly in the Northern Territory. It is inaccurate and I think he knows it is inaccurate. The fact is that the Government is considering the options available to it in supplying commercial television to the bush. We have already asked the regional television stations to indicate whether they will expand their services . They have given indications of interest in doing exactly that. We then intend to consider the options available to us in providing a commercial television service to those areas that are not covered by an expanded regional service. Indeed, members of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal visited Alice Springs last week to take a first-hand look at the provision of services to people in the bush, people in the remote areas outside the towns in the Northern Territory . This matter is being considered both by the Government and by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It is inaccurate and mischievous to say that this Bill will lead to the Government not supplying commercial television to people in the bush. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. [COGNATE BILL: ROADS GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before the debate on this Bill is resumed, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(4.03) —In the time that remains to me I want to say a few words about the Australian bicentennial road levy. I think that most honourable members will recall that in 1982 there was discussion between the then Government, industry and motorists' organisations about whether a levy would be acceptable and, if acceptable, whether it would be applied to the construction of roads. At that stage there was a lot of concern in the community, and quite rightly so, about the amount of money that was going to roads. All sorts of work had been done by those concerned with this matter and it was clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that, in real terms, the amount of money going to roads was declining. There was concern by the then Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), that he had not been able to secure more road funding. There was concern at local government level and State government level. There was concern by members of this Parliament about the fact that the relative effort on roads was declining. At that time, as a result of discussions with local government and discussions at the Premiers Conference, a 2c per litre levy on motor spirit and automotive distillate was agreed to but only on the basis, and very clearly on the basis, that the 2c would be hypothecated and used on roads. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations issued a statement on 19 July 1982 in which it said: Local Government would welcome a new Federal Government commitment to road funding even if a fuel surcharge had to be introduced. It went on to say: . . . the fuel surcharge must be spent on roads and the funds generated by it must be in addition to a road funding commitment by each of the three spheres of government which at least keeps pace with the road price inflation. It was fairly clear, from the point of view of local government and similar statements that were made by motorists' organisations, that the levy would be agreed to on the basis that it was spent on roads. The then shadow Minister for Transport, the present Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), rejected it. He issued a statement in August 1982 in which he said: Labor thus rejects Fraser's proposed new fuel levy of 2 cents-a-litre, to rip another $350m annually from motorists, to fund national highways. He went on to say: The new levy does absolutely nothing for arterial and local roads and also disadvantages Australia's country people by raising transport costs. All I can say is that on that occasion, as on so many others, the then shadow Transport Minister, the present Minister, had it wrong. Of course, in office he has now capitulated and has come to the view that the levy is something that he is quite prepared to accept and that his Government is not prepared to remove. We say 'Hear, hear!' to that. We recognise that the agreement that was struck between the previous Government, local government, State governments and motorists' organisations was appropriate and the 2c that was agreed upon as the levy would be allocated to roads. Of course, that was wonderful. It was going along extraordinarily well until the Treasurer (Mr Keating) introduced his Budget last August. In that Budget the Treasurer provided for the indexation of all the different excises and things that the Government collects. No specific mention was made of the 2c road levy but it became apparent within a brief period that the 2c road levy was one of those excises that would be indexed. That started to raise some concern in the minds of people who were worried about these matters, myself included. It became apparent very quickly that the legislation which had been passed by the former Government was only going to provide for 2c a litre flowing into the bicentennial road trust fund. The former Government provided the 2c because it had absolutely no intention of indexing any excises, let alone this excise. Therefore there was no need to take into account anything other than the 2c levy . But the situation changed quite dramatically. When the Treasurer indexed these levies this one was also indexed. Contrary to the spirit of the agreement that was made between the Commonwealth, the States, local government and motorists that the amount raised by the levy would flow to roads, it became quite apparent that all the excess over 2c that came from indexation would flow simply to Consolidated Revenue. There was concern about that. The Australian Road Federation has produced an estimate of the shortfall to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund resulting from the allocation of the indexed component of the levy to Consolidated Revenue. That is an amount which, over the life of the program up to 1988-89, totals $491m. I have put those figures to the Treasurer and to my knowledge he has not been prepared to dispute them. As far as I am concerned, they stand. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table from the Australian Road Federation concerning the shortfall in the levy. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ESTIMATED SHORTFALL TO A.B.R.D. LEVY RESULTING FROM ALLOCATION OF INDEXED COMPONENT OF LEVY TO CONSOLIDATED REVENUE Estimated Revenue Estimated Revenue A.B.R.D. Levy Not A.B.R.D. Levy Not Year Indexed Indexed Shortfall $m $m $m 1983-84 385 411 26 1984-85 389 441 52 1985-86 395 474 79 1986-87 399 509 110 1987-88 404 547 143 1988-89+ 204 285 81 TOTAL 491 Mr LUSHER —I thank the House. I reiterate, as strongly as I possibly can, that from the point of view of the Opposition this lack of action by the Government represents a total breach of faith. There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of any honourable member that when this levy was agreed to it was agreed to on the basis that it would flow to roads. In the intervening period the levy has been indexed and, as a result, it is estimated that an additional $491m will flow to Consolidated Revenue over the life of the program and will not be taken out of Consolidated Revenue and appropriated to the trust fund for use on roads. The Opposition finds that totally unacceptable. For that reason, in the Committee stage of this debate we will move an amendment to the principal legislation which seeks to provide for an amount equivalent to 2c plus indexation being passed across to the roads trust fund for allocation to roads. I will deal with that in more detail in the Committee stage . I re-emphasise to the House that we will oppose the legislation before us and will move the amendment, which to my mind, sets the position straight in relation to the 2c levy, and honour the commitment that the Government entered into with motorists, States and local government. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(4.11) —The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill involves three areas of amendment to the principal Act. The three areas deal with tendering, real terms State expenditure and public transport. The clauses of the Bill dealing with tendering allow for flexibility in the tendering system. In remote, sparsely populated areas such as the Northern Territory the inflexible tendering provisions currently in the Act create difficulty. In remote, sparsely populated areas it is not always possible to get competitive tenderers for jobs. In all areas the contract may involve such a small amount of money that it is either disproportionately too expensive to justify tenders or not practical to prepare tender documents. This Bill allows for those types of contracts to be exempted from the strict inflexible requirements previously necessary for tendering in all cases. I am sure that the Territory and local government authorities in the Northern Territory will welcome these amendments which will allow flexibility and take account of local conditions. Apart from changes to the tendering procedures the Bill introduces an averaging formula for establishing whether the State and Northern Territory governments are maintaining their road construction expenditure in real terms. At present the Act once again is inflexible. If, for example, a State or Territory spends above the level of real term expenditure for a number of years and then drops off in one year the provisions of the Act currently would adversely affect the grant to that State or Territory in the year the expenditure drops off. The Bill allows for the expenditure to be averaged. Since we are dealing with State or Territory expenditure it is instructive to consider this Labor Government's record in road expenditure and the record of the Northern Territory Government on the same issue. The 1982-83 Budget, the first Budget of the Hawke Labor Government, is in relation to road construction expenditure, something that we can justly be proud of. Road funding increased by 45 per cent to $1,233 billion in 1982-83. That is the largest increase in road funding for more than 40 years. It contrasts markedly with the record of the Fraser Government, which managed a decline of 23 per cent in real terms in road funding during its seven disastrous years in office. Funding for Northern Territory road construction has gone up by 17 per cent to $35.9m. At the same time the 1982-83 Budget increased the total dollar allocation to the Northern Territory by $125m, taking it up to $850m. This too was a record increase in expenditure. In fact, that is the largest dollar increase in funding granted to the Northern Territory since self-government. This funding boost allows the Northern Territory Government itself to spend more on road construction. The Hawke Labor Government can justly claim credit for that Northern Territory Government's expenditure on road construction because the Australian Government provides almost 90 per cent of the Northern Territory Government's income. Put another way, about 90c of every dollar spent by the Northern Territory Government on roads or anything else in the Northern Territory comes directly from the Australian Government. Of great importance to the Northern Territory is a project outside the Northern Territory which has received a big boost from the Hawke Labor Government. I am referring to the section of the Stuart Highway between Adelaide and Alice Springs. The section is actually in the electorate of the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) in South Australia. I praise this Labor member for Grey for the excellent work he has done in lobbying for this project. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has announced that the Stuart Highway project will be accelerated so it will be completed by mid-1986. It is difficult to describe just how significant that project will be for Territory trade and tourism when the highway is completed in about two years time. For decades it has been an ongoing national scandal that most of this so-called national highway has remained unsealed. The report for 1982-83 on the Australian bicentennial road development program indicates that 579 kilometres of the 925 kilometres of road between Adelaide and Alice Springs in South Australia remain unsealed. It should not be forgotten that Liberal-National Party governments are directly responsible for that continuing scandal. After all, they have been in power in this country for 31 of the past 35 years. When the Hawke Labor Government presides over the completion of the sealing of the Stuart Highway in about two years time there could be at the same time another continuing national scandal in relation to the Stuart Highway. The scandal could then relate to the section of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. It could be a scandal because of the insistence by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that the section of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin does not need upgrading. The work of this two-faced saboteur is not limited to the Territory's justice system or the Territory's act of self-government. Of course, it is all part of his perverse Canberra-bashing campaign to get elected to this House. Any Territorian who has any doubt about just what disasters would befall the Territory if by some fluke they decided to opt for an Opposition member in a Peacock Opposition in place of a Government member in the popular, successful Hawke Labor Government need only look at what the Chief Minister has done in the Northern Territory on the question of the upgrading of the section of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. This saboteur has consistently said that the section of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin does not need upgrading. This stupid, insensitive statement has put that whole project at risk. I shall make my position clear. It is absolutely essential that the section of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin be upgraded to a dual carriageway, all weather standard road as quickly as possible. However, my problem is this: When I approach the Minister for Transport, as I have done repeatedly over the past few months, about the absolute necessity of upgrading I am confronted with the Chief Minister's statement that it is not necessary. If only the Chief Minister knew what damage his ill-considered shoot from the hip statements do. The statements he makes in the Northern Territory do get down to Canberra. People here unfortunately hear them. If only he would stop and think every now and then of what is best for the Territory instead of what he thinks is best for his doomed election campaign. Not even the Chief Minister's own Minister for Transport and Works agrees with him. In a telex to the Minister for Transport on 21 March this year the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works said: It is imperative that the construction of the Stuart Highway proceeds if the objectives of the ABRD program are to be met. As you know the primary objective is to upgrade the nation's road system to a high standard by, or soon after, 1988. Important factors in this aim are the meeting of the growing transportation needs of Australia: The enhancement of safety on our roads: The construction of developmental roads, including those of importance for national tourism. I would very much appreciate your urgent consideration in expediting approval to these outstanding projects in order that these aims be achieved. Continuity of work and much needed job opportunities in the Territory will also result once these works get under way. I agree wholeheartedly with the Territory Minister for Transport and Works, but the Minister for Transport and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have both been told by the Territory's Chief Minister that that upgrading is not necessary. The Chief Minister is two-faced. He is a saboteur. He struts around the Northern Territory using his expensive and extensive propaganda machine to put across the lie that he acts in the Territory's best interests at all times. Yet this two- faced saboteur comes down here to Canberra on his much publicised visits and tells the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport that this very vital Territory project is not necessary. He has sabotaged it. If that remains the position, when the Hawke Labor Government gets the Adelaide-Alice Springs link sealed in mid-1986, the Alice Springs-Darwin link will be sub-standard. It will be a scandal. Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member's speech is very wide-ranging. It may well be that you will not uphold this point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would at least like to establish the guidelines for the conduct of this debate. The honourable member seems to be more concerned about the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and his campaign for election rather than about the question of roads in the Northern Territory or elsewhere. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is addressing the Bill. I call the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Mr REEVES —Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand why the honourable member is concerned about the statements I am making. It is because they are deadly accurate. If he has any doubt about that he need only go to the Parliamentary Library to find out what the Chief Minister has said about this project. He has said that it is not necessary. In 1986, when the Hawke Labor Government completes the Alice Springs to Adelaide section of this highway, the only dubious consolation we may have will be to point to the then former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and say: 'You are directly responsible for this mess'. But it is not my intention to allow that to happen. I do not intend to allow him to succeed in his current sabotage mission. I intend to prove to the Federal Minister for Transport that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is wrong about this project. I have travelled the road between Alice Springs and Darwin on many occasions. It is the Territory's main transport link. Every day of the week many road trains travel up and down that road. It is a living example of the fact that the Territory has been built on road transport. I doubt that the Chief Minister has travelled the road recently. He certainly does not indicate that he has done so in his statements. He would have to fly everywhere to spend his self-allocated yearly air fare allowance of $2.25m. But I have travelled it, and I know that sections of it are too narrow. The surface is below standard. In the wet weather it is cut by floods. I have told the Minister for Transport this but, to provide up to the minute proof of it, I plan to travel the road again next week. I will ask the Minister for Transport to send along with me a technical officer from his Department to look at the road. I have no doubt that at the completion of the journey I will be reporting to the Minister that it is absolutely essential that this project proceed. That time consuming process, I hope, will demonstrate clearly that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is wrong yet again and is doing substantial damage to the Northern Territory. I hope that the whole exercise will be a salutary lesson to him that in the future he should think about the Territory before he shoots his mouth off. Let me deal now with another aspect of Territory road funding. Some part of the Australian Government's funding for roads is passed on by State and Territory governments to local governments. In the Northern Territory the formula provides that only about 10 per cent of road funds go to local government. That formula was unilaterally adopted by the Northern Territory Government. When I was an alderman on the Alice Springs Town Council and a representative on the Northern Territory Local Government Association, the Territory local government bodies asked the Territory Government to explain how it calculated the formula. The Territory local government bodies believe that, since they cover over 70 per cent of the Territory's population, they should get more than 10 per cent of the road funding allocation. To my knowledge no satisfactory explanation has yet been given by the Territory Government as to how it calculated the 10 per cent formula. The formula certainly has not been changed. This issue has been going on now for a number of years. The Territory local government representatives approached the Federal Minister for Transport last year and asked him to approach the Territory Government to do something about the matter. He did exactly that. He asked the Territory Government to expedite a review of the formula. I regret that I have to report that the Territory Government still has not sorted out the matter. If the people of the Territory see the standards of their council roads slipping, they should remember that it is the Territory Government's procrastination that is the source of the problem and not the excellent local governments in the Northern Territory. I have mentioned tendering and State and Territory road funding. The third area covered by this Bill is public transport. The Bill allows State and Territory governments to direct spending towards urban public transport. The Opposition is , of course, opposed to this measure in the same way as it is opposed to the development of an efficient public transport system in Australia. In the past year I have heard the Opposition spokesman in this area, who I note has left the chamber yet again during an important transport Bill, attack every public transport entity in Australia. He has attacked Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans Australia Airlines, Australian National Line and Australian National. It is in keeping with his general approach to public transport bodies that he is opposed to this proposal. On the other hand, the Hawke Labor Government has successfully resuscitated these public transport authorities in the past year. We have given them a new lease of life which will let them get on with the great job they were doing before Fraser and his cohorts started their vendetta against them. This Bill will allow State governments to inject some of their road funding money into their public transport systems, an objective that I think is laudable. It is an excellent proposition and it just might, although I will not hold my breath, allow the Territory Government to inject some much needed money into improving Darwin's public transport system. I rather think that they will produce more glossy photographs of the Chief Minister than provide more bus services. I commend the Minister for this excellent piece of legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.27) —I wanted to speak on this legislation because of some important matters relevant to it that have arisen in my electorate. But, perforce of the speech that we have just heard, I feel that it is necessary to make some remarks about the address by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves). As I listened very carefully to him, I am sure that I could have been forgiven for believing that it was a political address par excellence. I do not think I have heard a speech from an honourable member in this House who was so obviously afraid of his own circumstances that he had to mention his prospective opponent in ways that I think if I were his opponent I would be glad to hear. In quoting his erstwhile opponent at the next election he ignored the very relationship between roads and rail. I think that what needs to be understood-I think it is understood in the Northern Territory and understood Australia-wide, in fact-is that the roads question in the Northern Territory is relevant only insofar as it is juxtaposed with the Government's intention to abandon the former Government's proposal to build a rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, like honourable members on this side of the House, is intensely interested in the future of that rail link because of its importance to our national security and because of its importance to the Northern Territory . I believe that the honourable member for the Northern Territory has been forced to make a choice. He has been told that he has no chance of getting his rail link so he is trying to put far greater weight on the road link to retrieve his position. But what needs to be understood is that the honourable member for the Northern Territory has failed. He has failed his electorate and the people of Australia because of his unwillingness to articulate properly in this place and to his own Government the needs of the Northern Territory. I do not think that any honourable member could reasonably be expected to come into this House and to show his face when he has had such an absymal failure as the honourable member has suffered concerning his constituency. In fact, I must say that I felt somewhat sorry for him when these announcements were made by the Government because it seemed to me that he had been grossly let down by his colleagues. Obviously he was the sacrificial lamb who had to project some degree of economic responsibility. Heaven knows, one could not regard a deficit of $8 billion as responsible. The Northern Territory has only one seat, and we can forget about that. We can cut the traces so far as the honourable member for the Northern Territory is concerned. To come into this House and endeavour to defend that situation by attacking the real defender of the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister, the man who has been most articulate on that question, is, I think, a real failure on the honourable member's part. I wish to discuss in some greater detail the two Bills with which we are dealing, the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984 and the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984. The purpose of these Bills is to make changes to the arrangements for the States' level of real expenditure on roads and urban public transport and to vary the tender requirements in relation to each of the Acts. The tender requirements of the legislation put in place by the previous Government were quite important. They were designed to ensure that the money being spent on roads by the Commonwealth would achieve its purpose to the greatest extent possible, that is, that we get more miles of road built for every dollar spent. I think that is an important national purpose and one that ought to be lauded and very much admired. The former Government recognised that the States, by force of circumstances over many years, have built up their own work forces for carrying out road building. They have not always been the most efficient bodies for that purpose. I do not mean that in any unduly critical way . It is simply that they have built up a situation where in many cases they have a large number of employees who work in a day labour situation and not in a competitive environment in which they might well be able to deliver somewhat more for the public. The former Government said: 'Look, we do not want to deprive State authorities of work that they might have been able to do or local government of work that it might have been able to undertake in the building of roads. We will give them an opportunity, with others, to be able to tender competitively for the building of national and arterial roads projects and other roads projects the Commonwealth is funding'. I do not think we could ask for anything more reasonable than that. It was a very laudable and proper purpose and one which I think would have achieved for this nation more roads of a better standard for the amount of money specially collected under the Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund arrangements. The Minister's purpose is to change those arrangements and enable the calling of tenders to be dispensed with in a situation where a State approaches the Minister and satisfies him on a number of matters. One has only to consider the list of matters about which a State is required to satisfy the Minister to understand the purpose of the amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that the States and local government authorities in the road building business, notwithstanding that they are not competitive, that this will cost a lot more and that we will get less for our dollar, will be able to build roads with the money collected under this charge. The specific circumstances of which a State can advise the Minister are these: Firstly, in an emergency, that the works must be performed urgently; secondly, that the works are of such a minor nature that calling tenders would involve undue additional cost; thirdly, that it is not practicable to prepare adequate tender specifications. I am not sure precisely what that means, except that it is sufficiently vague to give the Government an excuse in an appropriate case to do away with the tender requirements. The fourth situation is where the works are of a kind that competitive tenders would not be likely to be received. Again that makes a judgment. Surely one could call tenders to see whether any would be received. The State can advise, fifthly, that the works are of a kind usually carried out by a State or Federal government department, authority or corporation not primarily responsible for the construction of roads; and, sixthly, that the performance of work under the contract would cause unavoidable retrenchment or inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State or local government road construction employees. That is the rub. That is the provision that is intended to ensure that this Government, in concert with State government authorities, is able to give work to those State government authorities to keep their day labour forces on the job, regardless of whether they are competitive, and whether others are available to undertake the task and build those roads at a far better price. I regard this amendment as one that is not worthy of support. For that reason my colleagues and I will oppose this provision. The legislation is also important in two other respects, and I wish to address them jointly. First of all, in relation to access to the Australian Capital Territory it ought to be known that under the legislation the Minister for Transport is required to be consulted by the States about the distribution of funds and he has to give his approval. I am quite alarmed that in regard to the Australian Capital Territory the large amount of money being spent in duplicating the Federal Highway between the Canberra border and Wells Station Road will be spent for naught. This is largely because the balance of the road, the Federal Highway into Canberra, which is the major road thoroughfare, will not be duplicated in time to complement the Canberra development and ensure that the Federal Highway between the Hume Highway and Canberra is in a satisfactory form for Australia's bicentenary. The bicentennial roads program was designed to ensure that for our bicentenary our national roads will not be a disgrace. Yet the road that will lead people to the most important memorial associated with that occasion, the new and permanent Parliament House, if in fact it is built, will be grossly inadequate. I felt so strongly about this matter that I spoke on it in the Parliament on 3 November. I outlined the reasons why the Minister ought to involve himself in ensuring that this matter is dealt with. On that occasion I read to the Parliament a question I intended to ask the Minister about this very matter. It asked: (1) Is it a fact that (a) the duplication of the Federal Highway between Goulburn, New South Wales, and Canberra is unlikely to be completed in time for the bicentennial celebration in 1988, (b) planning by the National Capital Development Commission is advanced to ensure that duplication of the highway within the Australian Capital Territory to the New South Wales border has been included in the NCDC works program for 1983 and (c) notwithstanding grants by the bicentennial roads program, duplication of the highway between Canberra and Goulburn might not now be completed until 1990. (2) If so, (a) are there any acceptable reasons for this delay, (b) is the delay likely to occur because the level of funding under the bicentennial roads program for New South Wales is insufficient to meet the 1988 target, (c) is the program for bicentennial road spending in New South Wales established by the New South Wales Government and (d) is there any action that the Commonwealth Government can take to ensure that the duplication of the highway is completed in time for the opening of the new Parliament House in 1988. The Minister answered that question on 28 February. He did not pick up the specific points I made. He sought to obfuscate by his answer. He said: The current position in regard to the duplication of the Federal Highway between Goulburn, New South Wales and Canberra is that I have advised the New South Wales Minister for Roads that construction to a four-lane standard is to be completed. That is fine; I am glad it is to be completed. The Minister continued: Whether it will be completed by 1988, the bicentennial year, is dependent on a number of factors, the most important of these being movements in construction costs- they will undoubtedly rise because of this legislation, because of the tender requirements-- decisions as to future funding after the expiration of the current Roads Grants Act in 1985, the speedy resolution of possible environmental issues- which he did not detail- and finally planning, design and engineering capacity constraints. again, which he did not detail- Despite these uncertainties, the following major projects are expected to be completed or substantially under way . . . He gave me details of those projects. Of course, they do not in any way complete to a dual carriageway standard the road between Canberra and Goulburn. As shadow Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, I regard that as extremely disappointing. I make that comment as one who is concerned about access to the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that a Minister in an Australian government has a responsibility to ensure that this road is a dual carriageway before the Australian bicentenary in 1988. I do not regard the Minister's answer as being in any way adequate. I think he has a responsibility to explain to this House why such a situation should arise. The second matter I wish to address relating to the way in which the funds are dealt with concerns the Minister's approval of the transfer of certain roads funds in New South Wales to certain election programs of the New South Wales State Government. I was surprised, as many were, to read, in the context of the New South Wales State election, an announcement by Mr Cox, the Minister for Transport, that there had been approved a $40m package of improvements to Sydney 's bus and ferry services and that the improvements would be funded using money from the Australian bicentenary roads program. The arrangements were, of course, for 200 Mercedes Benz buses with electronic destination boards; a second hydrofoil for 240 passengers to operate between Manly and Circular Quay, worth about $10m; and four more ferries for inner-harbour services from Drummoyne, Gladesville, Rhodes, Ermington and Silverwater, at a cost of $8m. Those changes mean that less funds will be available for road purposes. The funds were collected for road purposes and, while there was an entitlement to change the mix between urban public transport and urban arterial roads, it does mean a corresponding reduction in funding for roads in Sydney. It means, for instance, that the linking of two parts of the important freeway project in the western suburbs-that between, say, the F4 and the works that have been developed to this point between, say, Auburn and Strathfield-is delayed. There are $40m less in funds available to carry out that work. It cannot be carried out at the same pace at which it might have been carried out if those funds were available. That is a consequence of the sort of change that has been made. The Minister, in the context of the election, did not want to talk about that; but the change had been made. The shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), said that this was a stunt, and he was right. I have raised the matter of ferries since 1975, both in this Parliament and locally. Notwithstanding that fact, Labor governments in New South Wales have ignored the need for ferries on the Parramatta River. I took Mr Jones, a former Minister for Transport, on the hydrofoil operated by Mr Halvorsen. But because of the difficulties Mr Halvorsen had in terms of funding an additional hydrofoil or two, to ensure that he was able to operate an adequate service between Meadowbank in my electorate and the city, his service had to stop. His was a very important initiative. We knew at the time that other vessels could be developed. A Tasmanian firm developed a vessel called the Jeremiah Ryan, a twin- hulled vessel that could have been used on the Parramatta River. But the fact of the matter is that the Government was not interested in that design. Eventually, it came up with its own duplicate design and said: 'We will get the boat builders in Newcastle to build those'. Of course, the effect of that was to delay further the plans that might have brought ferries to the Parramatta River, and the consequence has been that we have no service to this point in time. The fact is that the ferries are an important initiative, but it is very late. While it is important that the Government should get this program under way as quickly as possible, it would have been far more beneficial if the New South Wales Government had picked up this initiative and used some of its own funds to meet that need in the western suburbs of Sydney which I have been articulating since 1975. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(4.45) —I am not quite certain whether the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), really understood what he was saying, because I think his earlier comments would have been seen to be a denigration of State employees. I am sure that the honourable member would not wish to go on record as making imputations against them. These people in the employ of the State Government are just as hard working as are employees in private industry. Mr Ruddock —They would win the tender, wouldn't they? Mr MILDREN —I do not think it does the honourable member any good to denigrate them in the way he does, because unless he is prepared to demonstrate with evidence that they are as he believes them to be-inefficient, lazy or incompetent-the kind of non-sequitur that he drew will condemn him. Obviously we have seen once again an unfortunate example of the ideological blindess of the Opposition. It is unfortunate that it acts in that way because it is divisive. It is probably unfortunate for the Opposition, because that is one of the reasons why it is where it is and we are where we are. I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill as the construction, upgrading and maintenance of Australia's roads have been of vital interest to me for many years. It also gives me considerable satisfaction to support the amending legislation because of the major improvements that it makes to the Australian bicentennial road development program. The major problems associated with the administration of the ABRD program which currently obtain derive from the obsession of the previous Government to downgrade the role of experienced government instrumentalities. Discussions with personnel of municipalities and the State Government road authority in my electorate of Ballarat have shown that the ABRD program was limited in its capacity to provide a service because of the unnecessary restrictions placed upon the commonsense involvement of the State authorities. As has been stated, the record of the previous Government with respect to concern for the nation's roads was lamentable. We know that so little was its concern for the nation's roads that between the financial years of 1975-76 and 1981-82 there was a reduction in real terms of 23 per cent in the amount of Federal assistance given to the States. This statistic is irrefutable. This reduction took place despite, firstly, the growth in road transport and other road traffic during that time; secondly, the increase in the place of tourism as a significant economic factor in the life of many parts of Australia-in particular, that of north Queensland; and, thirdly, the aging of many of the nation's roads, with a consequent increase in the need for extensive maintenance and reconstruction programs. Mr Braithwaite —Are you talking about north Queensland? Mr MILDREN —I am talking about not only north Queensland but many other parts of the country as well. That is simply a fact of life. When in 1982 the then Fraser Government introduced the ABRD program the Australian Labor Party had to indicate how late was the development of its concern for the nation's road network. It was no coincidence, I suggest, that the ABRD program was introduced in that Budget, which the then Prime Minister believed-erroneously, thank goodness-would ensure his re-election. Like so much of that Budget, the ABRD program would always have been seen as an election gimmick, and I suppose the people of Australia had just cause for recalling the fate of the 1977 Budget commitments which were clawed back so ferociously in 1978. Fortunately, with the defeat of the Fraser Government in 1983, the same fate was averted for the ABRD program. When we announced our transport policy prior to the 1983 campaign we promised, among other items, to continue the ABRD program. I must congratulate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) for his tenacious and determined efforts and his pursuit of the success of this policy. It is certainly to his credit that in 1983-84 the total allocation of Commonwealth funds for road works will be $1,233m, as was indicated by my esteemed colleague, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves), and which represents an increase of 45 per cent over the sum expended in 1982-83. The ABRD program was allocated $385m in 1983-84, which more than trebled the amount allocated in 1982-83. The Government places great importance upon the purposes of the ABRD program and is committed to continuing it. It has been said before that the purposes of the program include the following, and I think they are worthwhile restating and I hope naturally that they will have the concurrence of both sides of the House: Savings in travelling time; savings in vehicle maintenance and running costs, including fuel consumption; a reduction in road accidents and their associated economic and social cost; the removal of dust hazards; a reduction in road closures, stoppages and delays due to flooding; less driver strain and fatigue; and increased employment from the extra construction activity, which is certainly tremendously important. It is probably fairly easy to gloss over these , but I am sure that everyone who thinks about the significance of these goals will agree that they are enormously important. I indicated when the original legislation was adopted that we wanted some enlightened components added to it, but the narrow and reactionary disposition of the Fraser Government would not allow that. The amendments proposed in these pieces of legislation free up the funding arrangements in a particularly rational way. It makes common sense to enable the States and the Northern Territory to be more flexible in their planning for expenditure without actually losing moneys available under the scheme. I remind the House of the provisions of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984. Firstly, the Bill requires States to maintain expenditure in real terms at a level set under agreement. The amended legislation will permit States to spend more than required under the Act, with excess expenditure being able to be treated as expenditure by the State in a subsequent year. This flexibility is sensible and should allow for planning in a way that suits the States' available resources and priorities. However, the onus, of course, is now placed upon the States to ensure that relevant expenditure will not include money provided by the Commonwealth through the community employment projects. This is also, I contend, a very reasonable provision. I am particularly pleased to see a relaxation in regard to section 4(3) of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 to enable States to direct part of their ABRD allocations for urban arterial roads to urban public transport capital projects. I think it is extremely important that they be able to do so, given the compensating effects. They will be able to do so without necessarily receiving a penalty, so long as the Minister is satisfied that this will result in a reduction of the traffic on or the wear and tear affecting urban arterial roads in the States, and is a project which the States consider should be given priority. I believe this will mean that the State is not disadvantaged by reasonable use of these funds. I also wish to comment on the major amendment in the Roads Grants Amendment Bill 1984 which will, I hope, remove from the State road construction authority a cause of considerable frustration and inefficiency. It is included in both these Bills. I refer to the requirement under the Roads Grants Act and the ABRD Trust Fund Act 1982 for States to call tenders for all construction works associated with national road projects approved for funding under the Act and, with respect to the ABRD Trust Fund Act, for national rural and urban arterial road projects. The new procedures will free up considerably the process of tendering which, under the previous Government, had been dogmatically inflexible . In its own way it reflected, as I said before, the blinkered ideological stance of that Government that so stifled co-operative development in this country. It was obviously a procedure meant to frustrate government authorities and in fact simply worked against the interests of a vast number of Australian people. Our proposed procedure is a considerable advance on the existing legislation because it allows for circumstances which States have recognised for years and which cannot be met adequately under inflexible rules. The provisions now cover circumstances, as the amendments state, where the work to be done is urgent, where the work to be done is of such a minor nature as to involve undue additional cost should tenders be required, where it is not practicable to prepare adequate tender specifications, where it is just not likely that competitive tenders will be received, where it is usual for the responsible government department or authority to do the work for the public utilities, and where the requirement to accept a private contract would result in retrenchment of State or local government employees. I know that that is of little consequence to honourable members opposite and certainly would be of little consequence to the first speaker on this Bill today, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), as everyone would know. They will also cover the circumstance where it would be quite inefficient to employ day labour employees of the State or local government road construction bodies. We are committed to ensuring the maximum efficiencies and cost-effectiveness of the ABRD program and all road construction programs. These amendments retain the best elements of the tendering principle but build in commonsense possibilities through flexibility. Fortunately the Minister has developed these amendments through a process of consultation with the States, local government, industry and the unions, which again, might I say, is something which the Opposition, if in government-God forbid-just could not do. I know that these amendments will be welcomed by the road construction authority and the local government bodies in my electorate of Ballarat. Mr Hollis —In mine too. Mr MILDREN —I am sure of that. It is a very worthy electorate with a very worthy member. I must say that during the past year, in all aspects of road funding, my electorate of Ballarat has received considerable benefit from the Government's decisions, as has Victoria generally. In western Victoria alone 88 new projects in new urban and rural arterial roads and local roads have been allocated funds. In Ballarat $2m under the ABRD program has been allocated to highway duplication in Victoria Street, Ballarat, and in the east national road construction program . The municipalities of Buninyong and Ballarat City have received funding for urban and arterial roads improvement, also under the ABRD. Local road schemes under the ABRD program have attracted grants in the municipalities-I mention these because of the wide-ranging scope of the program-of Avoca, Ballarat City, Ballan, Ballarat Shire, Bungaree, Buninyong, Creswick, Daylesford/Glenlyon, Grenville, Kyneton, Lexton, Maryborough, Sebastopol, Talbot and Clunes, and Tullaroop. In all, the ABRD commitment to local roads schemes now totals $2,219,000. Apart from the jobs on local roads project, which has also created worthwhile employment, the ABRD program as announced will provide directly-and this is something that is forgotten by honourable members opposite who do not come from rural electorates-the opportunity for a considerable number of jobs in the communities I have mentioned. It injects much needed income into the economies of many country towns. Whilst I do not expect that the amendments will have a dramatic effect upon the administration of the ABRD program, they will enable more common-sense relationships to develop between each of the concerned authorities, and to that extent the program should proceed more smoothly. I congratulate the Minister on his diligence and on his success in discussions with the interested parties. I commend these Bills to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.01) —At the outset, I should like to refer to the tirade that we heard from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) about these Bills, the Australian Bicentennial Development Road Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill. As far ranging as it was, it appeared to be the action of a fairly desperate member to use 10 of his very precious 15 minutes to attack the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I can only say to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that when considering polls of any description, it is evident that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has the support of 76 per cent of his electorate. I am sure that the honourable member for the Northern Territory will not have such support when the next election is faced by him. The diatribe was quite unjustified. It was what one might call the whinges of a oncer. The unfortunate aspect is that the debate was not put into its proper context, in that there was a choice available in the Northern Territory as to upgrading the highway, as opposed to promoting an Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. We know how much the Chief Minister is in favour of such a line. I believe that the matter should be taken in that context. Nine months ago I travelled not only the highway between Alice Springs and Darwin but also the road from Tennant Creek to the Queensland border. I noticed the difference coming across the border into Queensland, appreciating the quality and the good standard of the roads in the Northern Territory. So I believe that the Chief Minister has a case. As to the amendments to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act that we are now discussing, I believe that the value of the program has been established within the minds of the Government and of the Opposition. After all, the program was introduced by the previous Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir, Mr Ralph Hunt. I can take some credit for the fact that this was, I believe, an inspiration which occurred to the previous Minister on a tour that I invited him to undertake of the Bruce Highway between Rockhampton and Townsville with the Minister for Main Roads in Queensland, Mr Hinze. Mr Cowan —He gives the credit to the honourable member for Dawson. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Good on him. I can recall that at the council meeting of the Broadsound Shire Council at St Lawrence, where this matter was discussed between the two of them, the germ of the idea was enlarged, and a Press release was issued. I can only assume that the former Federal Minister was so guided by the wretched conditions he found on the Bruce Highway. I suggest that no one has any complaint in that direction. However, the then Labor Opposition was loud in its complaints about the increasing price of fuel, so far as the oil parity pricing levy was concerned, to the extent that before the last election it made a massive promise to reduce the price of fuel by 3c per litre. What did we find just prior to the Budget? We found an increase of 2c per litre. But, worse still , we have had the indexation of that excise from here on in, to the extent that we shall get indexation upon indexation. So whilst the Australian Labor Party in opposition was prepared to attack the pricing of fuel, the revenue from which was to be put into the road systems, it has now increased the price, and so on, indefinitely. Perhaps we should look at how sincere the Labor Party was in that regard. I now deal with aspects of the amending Bill. The first aspect concerns contracts. I appreciate the value of the tendering system when I recall the system in vogue prior to this legislation being passed and these conditions being applied. As a public accountant in the years before I became a parliamentarian, I saw first class road contractors, people of high quality, very efficient people, being pushed out of the contracting work because the main roads boards were gradually taking them over, to the extent that only a pitiful amount was allocated to the tender system. I believe that such people have proved their efficiency, so when this was made a condition I was not unhappy at all. Perhaps I was unhappy about the 100 per cent qualification that everything had to go to tender; but basically it has proved its worth. One Government supporter challenged us to say where the improvements have been. The annual report on the ABRD program indicates that it has been successful in getting more roads at a lower cost. But in a State where the development has decreased quite considerably and contractors are moving in from the mining areas , there are tremendous tenders from very reputable companies being placed on road contracts in that State. That is so to the extent that I heard one figure from my own Main Roads Department suggest that prices were coming in 40 per cent lower than the estimated price put on jobs by the Main Roads Department. So what we are getting is cheaper roads but roads of a higher quality, and we are getting more of those roads of a standard that will take the traffic. So there is no argument there but that the tender system has been good. It has also exercised control and power over the State road authorities which were reliant on day labour. There have been great successes. That is the evidence that I am able to adduce in that regard. No main roads authority in any State should be the planner, the programmer, the constructor and the supervisor. That is the worst of all worlds. If we want to get in this nation the roads that we require-and it is difficult enough to get priority for funds in that regard-no State authority can take all of those positions and expect to get efficient road spending as a result. What we have had under this program is fewer delays and more roads. However, as I have said, the 100 per cent clause gave it a rigidity which was not approved at that stage either by State authorities-I have no real comment in that connection-or by local government authorities. Some freeing of that system-I say 'some', not a total freeing-will be welcomed by local government, for the reasons that it gave at the time. As to clause 5(2) of the Bill and the conditions under which the Minister now has to be satisfied in order to exempt works, this is a discretion that was not in the original legislation. Can one imagine the problems that the Minister will bring on to his shoulders just through the fact that there is now to be a discretion? Everyone will be asking for an exemption. In view of the nature of the conditions that are to apply, one might say that one could drive the proverbial bus through some of them. I agree with several of the conditions. I agree with paragraph (b)-that the works are of such a minor nature that the invitation of tenders for those works would involve undue additional cost. I agree with, perhaps, paragraph (c)-that they are of a kind for which it is not practicable to prepare adequate tender specifications. But that is not spelt out. That could leave itself wide open to interpretation. The next one is paragraph (d)-that they are of a kind for which competitive tenders are unlikely to be received. Who, in that case, makes the assessment that they are unlikely to be received? But in all the other things for which the exemption might be sought, such as the works being urgently required by reason of an emergency, who determines the urgency and who determines the emergency? As far as I am concerned, road construction throughout Australia is an emergency situation. We are so far behind, not by the will of any government but because of the lack of programming and funding, that there is an emergency. Does this mean that every part of these works will involve an emergency? Then we come to paragraph (f). I think this has to be very carefully looked at. The condition is: . . . would need to be carried out by employees of a State or a government authority responsible for the construction of roads in order to avoid the occurrence of a loss of employment by or the inefficient deployment of, a substantial number of those employees, even if the State or authority were to take all practical steps to avoid that occurrence. Let us think in terms of what this would mean in a system in which we use a private contractor who has a reputation for building good roads at a reasonable price. The decision has to be made as to whether the day labour force-not in place at the moment; the States have lived with this situation for a couple of years now-should come on. It could be an encouragement. Somebody suggested that there was a criticism of the day labour force. There is no criticism of the day labour force, but when we have honest competition, as the tender system now provides, and when the system provides for the State or a local government to contract, we have the best of all worlds. I see these amendments, while freeing up the system, as being sufficiently wide to enable the proverbial cart to be driven through them. The second set of amendments would give some authority to the States to carry forward excess expenditure in one particular year, as I understand it, to expenditure in the year to come. I am sure the point should be made here that State roads are State authority roads. It is the States that should be responsible for the funding. To suggest in this Bill that they should not be allowed to take up their section of the responsibility is a mischief. The argument for States withdrawing their road funds is provided by the Commonwealth not only in respect of State roads but also for local government roads, is well known, but I do not think we should encourage it. In fact, we should be disciplining the States to the extent that they accept that they should be providing the funding for main State roads and that if we do anything at a national level it is only on a topping up basis. Mention has been made of the 2 per cent levy. In fact, it will be embodied in an amendment to be moved later by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). As I understand it when this was first mooted-the idea was germinated at St Lawrence-the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, represented by Councillor Maddern, said: . . . the fuel surcharge must be spent on roads and the funds generated by it must be in addition to a road funding commitment by each of the three spheres of government which at least keeps pace with road price inflation. When that 2c was allocated to the trust that money was allocated to road construction. While we do not agree with the indexing of that levy, I believe that, morally, the index itself ought to be applied to those road funds. Within the last three weeks I was at a conference where an engineer who was well known for his interest in local government and road funding said he thought that the people of Australia would not mind an additional price on their fuel if the money was to be allocated to road construction. When I told him that in fact that levy was being charged but not being appropriated to road funds it came as a bit of a surprise to him. It was incomprehensible to him that, despite the increased price of fuel, the money collected was not going to road funding. In reply to a question in this House a few weeks ago, the Minister indicated a lack of acknowledgement that the funds obtained from the levy should go to that source. I believe that was an indication that his conscience might have been getting the best of him through the representations that had been made. They have been made to me from many sources in the last few weeks. I would have thought that his conscience would perhaps have directed him not to answer the question in the way that he did, because the answer did not mean anything. He could have applied himself positively in this legislation to bring about that further amendment. I believe it was an ideal opportunity to amend the legislation to provide for contracts and other situations and that he should have concerned himself also with the amendment that the Opposition will be introducing to make sure that that situation is not overlooked. I hope the Government is prepared to accept that amendment. There is a problem with local government, as I have said. Local governments believe that through the indexation of the bicentennial road fund they will be missing out on their 12 per cent of the total amount that will be appropriated to Consolidated Revenue. That figure, $491m, was mentioned by the honourable member for Hume. Local government's share of that sum is $59m over the next five -year period. It is an area in which money is vitally important. I believe local government right throughout Australia is concerned basically with road funding. That is its major problem. Local governments' open grants go to that end. They also desire more funds. It is incomprehensible that they should feel that they will miss out on $50m in a five-year period in an area where it is drastically required. This Government and State governments are putting additional burdens on local government not only in fuel levies and excise but also in payroll tax, the bank transactions tax, workers compensation, and the non-rateability of properties. All this is getting out of perspective. Local government is not getting back sufficient money to do the work it is required to do in relation to the money that it pays to the other spheres of government. It is just not good enough. All I can say is that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund has been designed to cater for a real need in this society, to improve the major links between areas of Australia. I approve of the manner in which the Government has endorsed the program but I cannot really give my approval to giving a discretion to the Minister under the conditions mentioned. I believe that the Bill should be amended so that we can get that indexed amount through to the road construction authorities. I have just one final comment to make. It comes back to Canberra roads. We heard from the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) about the access roads to Canberra. I suggest that the access road to the airport be immediately looked at to make sure that it is completed by the bicentenary celebrations. Work on the road has been going on for 18 months. It is an absolute disgrace and I believe that the money is being wasted. I hate to think that if I am a member of this place in 1988 I will still have to deviate over two bridges and avoid the road works, potholes and everything else to make the trip to the airport. Mr Shipton —What do the tourists think about it? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Of course, it would be a great asset to Canberra if the tourists could make the trip speedily but at the moment they are just wondering how many times they have to cross that river to get to the airport. I suggest that the Minister look very closely at that situation also. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(5.18) —I am pleased to participate in this cognate debate on the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill. Before I rose to speak I was reflecting on the number of times I have spoken in this chamber since my maiden speech last August . Many of my speeches have been about transport. I am pleased, as a member of the Government's transport sub-committee, to have had the opportunity to contribute to these debates. Every time I speak it is about another initiative in the transport field. Why have I been able to contribute so frequently to debates about transport, be they on shipping, interstate transport or whatever? I have been able to do so because this Hawke Labor Government is doing something about transport. This Government has been able to achieve more in one year of office than the preceding Government was able to achieve in seven years of misguided and misdirected control of the Treasury bench. I listened to the previous speakers in this debate. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) again talked about road access to the Australian Capital Territory. He should know, if he travels over this road as frequently as I do, that work is proceeding on this and will continue. He has raised the matter in the House before and I have answered him. The honourable member for Dundas should not worry too much as he probably will not be a member of this House after the next election and his concern about road links to Canberra will evaporate. Also, I listened not so much with amusement but with utter amazement, as the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) made his predictable attacks on the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales, calling it a flabby and inefficient body. That is a description that many honourable members would feel more applicable to him personally than to the DMR. He opposed the provision of the legislation that would preclude the calling of tenders in cases where large scale retrenchments of State road authorities' work forces would ensue. Does he not realise how important the employment of DMR work forces is to country towns, such as Nowra and Dapto in my electorate and, one would imagine, towns in his own electorate? I am not an expert on his electorate but I know that there are DMR work gangs in Yass, Tumut, Gundagai and Cootamundra. I wonder what those people will think when they hear that the honourable member for Hume wants to sack the lot of them? The only thing I can say is that his well known disgraceful attitude to the unemployed has been shown again. He wants to put the DMR out of work. I suppose he will get a bicycle and ride around and make publicity out of it. I sometimes think how grateful in years to come the people of Australia will be to the Hawke Labor Government as they drive along well constructed and well maintained roads, when they have an efficient, competitive coastal shipping line , and when road safety, thanks to the work of the honourable member for Lilley ( Mrs Darling) and the Standing Committee on Road Safety, is fully accepted. The Hawke Labor Government is providing not only roads but also a well thought out road safety program. In my own electorate of Macarthur there has been a tremendous amount of funding towards roads. The Hawke Labor Government was able to provide funds for an immediate start on the Kiama bypass. This vital road that the previous member for Macarthur could not get started was started in less than 12 months after I became the member. There is also the extension of the F5 Freeway to Yallah, and only last week I announced work on the Berrima bypass at a cost of over $6m. My colleague, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow ), also announced work on the Marulan bypass at a cost of over $11m. The former member who could get no money for roads, tried to peddle the story in the week before the New South Wales election that funds for my electorate were being diverted to Newcastle. He has been on that hoary old chestnut for many years now. The only diversion of funds since I have become the member has been into the electorate of Macarthur to try to correct seven years of neglect under the previous Government. The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill provides for changes in three aspects of the arrangements under which financial assistance is made available to the States and the Northern Territory under the Australian bicentennial road development program. Firstly, the Bill provides that where a State's expenditure on roads in any year exceeds the amount necessary to meet the requirement under the Act spending be maintained in real terms. The excess expenditure may be treated as expenditure by the State in a subsequent year. The Bill also removes the requirement that where a State directs assistance received under the Act to an urban public transport project it must maintain in real terms its own capital expenditure on urban public transport. I feel that this is very important. The Bill introduces some flexibility into the requirement that tenders must be called by the States for all works associated with national and arterial road projects. The Bill allows the Minister to agree, upon request by a State, to an exemption from the requirement to call tenders for particular works where the Minister is satisfied that specific circumstances apply. This amendment is to be backdated to 12 February 1984, the date on which the revised arrangements were announced. When the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act was introduced by our predecessors the Labor Party supported the objectives of the program. Because our predecessors could not or would not provide adequate funding for roads, the need for such an initiative was obvious. However, we were concerned about some of the provisions of the legislation, which appeared to be too extreme in their application. We indicated that upon coming to government we would review a number of provisions in the ABRD Trust Fund Act, especially those related to the calling of tenders. In giving this undertaking the Labor Party was concerned to have provisions that were reasonable to all parties. Consistent with our approach of 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 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. 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. After careful consideration and discussion this Government is satisfied that the general principle of calling tenders for road construction is appropriate if Australia is to obtain full value for its investment in our road infrastructure. However, we recognise that 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 his satisfaction that there is an emergency requirement for the works to be performed; the works are of such a minor nature that calling tenders would involve undue additional costs, and I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) mentioned that; it is not practical to prepare adequate tender specifications for the works; the works are of such a kind that competitive tenders are unlikely to be received; 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 work under contract would cause unavoidable retrenchment or inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number or State of local government road construction employees. It has been emphasised that each of these provisions for exemption has been carefully considered. They have been included as there are obvious circumstances where time or cost 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 the factors involved. There can be no argument that the Hawke Labor Government has a thoroughly thought out transport policy. Since we have been the Government we have been implementing that policy. As I said at the outset, I believe that more has been done in the transport field in the last 12 months-the first 12 months of the Hawke Labor Government-than in the whole of the preceding seven years. I invite honourable members to look today at the amount of work going on. I often drive to Canberra from my electorate and along the way, and indeed wherever I drive in the State, I see examples of years of neglect being corrected by the Hawke Labor Government. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.30) —The Australian bicentennial road development program has a degree of bipartisan support in this House. It is proving to be a most successful program. I notice that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) disagreed with it violently back in 1982. As I understand it, he now supports the program. I think most Australians support it. Although they do not agree with having to pay an extra 2 per cent tax levy, I think if that money can be seen to be going directly into a project which benefits them as motorists, although they might not be happy, they are prepared to put up with it. I wish to cover briefly a few points on the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill, which seeks to change the system of compulsory tendering for national and arterial roads. The changes brought forward by the Government really highlight the difference between the philosophies of the Government and the philosophies of this side of the House. In bringing in these changes the Government is looking around to see what it can do. I hope that the philosophy on our side, which is very much ingrained in most of us, is: What can free enterprise do? As the Government is looking for statutory authorities, main roads departments and State governments to do more, quite rightly, we are defending the principle of free enterprise. We are saying: 'Let us leave it to free enterprise if we possibly can'. That is the difference between the two. The present tendering system does favour free enterprise. It is all very well for honourable members to get up and say: 'What about the people in country towns?'. Everyone is conscious of the people who work for local authorities, but what about the people who work for local contracting firms, big and small, who are finding, and have found in the last few years, it most difficult to keep on the black side of the ledger? What about them? We are not saying 'Sack all the people from the councils'; what we are saying is 'For goodness sake, let the councils look after the local roads to a large extent and let free enterprise and the tendering system look after the national and arterial roads. If the councils feel these firms are efficient they also should be quite welcome to tender, as they are entitled to do under the system'. The conditions for exemption laid down in this Bill are: In an emergency, when works are of a minor nature, when it is not practical to prepare adequate tender specifications, when competitive tenders are unlikely to be received, when works would cause disruption to existing government authorities and when works would cause unemployment in State or local government road construction areas. It seems to me-I note some other speakers have picked up the theme as well-that in general there are so many exemptions that State governments and local authorities will have no difficulty in convincing the Minister that they have good reason, under one of those exemptions, not to go through the tendering process. In effect, it would appear that compulsory tendering has gone. There are so many exemption clauses that, as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) said, trucks will be able to be driven through it. I have no doubt that local authorities will welcome the changes but, as I said before: What about the people who are working for private enterprise in these areas? The fact is that under this system we probably will have fewer roads which will cost more. As the honourable member for Dawson said-he quoted some figures-some of the tenders from private enterprise for roads and road works were 40 per cent down on tenders received for similar works from various departments of main roads. I note that the Minister in his second reading speech says that his discretion will be used infrequently. I hope that that will be so. I wait with interest to see how it turns out. If his discretion is used infrequently I will congratulate him and the Government. The trouble is that the changes to the Act seem to be far too wide-ranging to offer any comfort. I want to say a few words about the failure of the Government to index the proportion of the levy on petrol that goes to the road program-at present it is 2c a litre. We have to ask the question: Why has the Government chosen not to index the 2c levy so that the money goes where it should be going? Of course, it should be going to the road program. The answer the Minister gave to a question from his own side in this House on 29 February can only be described as weak. He tried to blame it on the previous Government. He stated: . . . it was the intention of the previous Government that the legislation cover the period from 1982 to 1988 . . . It knew there would be increases in excises . . . That is no excuse. The present Government has introduced indexation for petrol excise. Why should it not choose to index also that 2c a litre which goes to the road program? The reason is that it wants the money to fund more and bigger social programs and to reduce the deficit. These are not unworthy aims, but the trouble is there is only a limited amount of money to go around and priorities have to be set. We have to get the balance and the priorities right. Is Australia's road development to suffer as it has for years because the Government wants to fund bigger and better welfare programs and a socialist commitment to welfare spending? We all know we have a huge country and a massive road bill. Here is a program in which we have a chance to make an inroad into the backlog of road development work in this country. It is inexplicable to me and to most people why the 2c a litre is not indexed and the money put into the road program. It is not a matter of we cannot do it. Here is a golden opportunity to do it right now, when we have this amendment to the legislation. It is not a matter of we cannot do it, it is a matter of we will not do it. Local governments are very concerned about the amount of money they are missing out on, some $58.9m over the life of this program-a massive amount of money for local government alone. Of course, that represents only 12 per cent of the total estimated loss to the road program of some $491m. In August 1982 the present Minister was adamantly opposed to this levy. He said it would do nothing for arterial and local roads. One can only conclude that he is doing his best to make sure that the effect is minimised. The next point I mention is the readjustment of the funds which allows State governments to use them more widely and freely in urban public transport. I commend the Government and the Minister because this seems to me a very sensible approach. I will give an example of why it seems to be a step in the right direction. In my area of the Gold Coast an electric railway line project from Brisbane to Beenleigh has been brought forward because funds have been allowed to be used on it. I am hoping now that because this funding system has been further eased the project to extend the railway from Beenleigh to the Gold Coast will be brought forward. I believe the project is most important to that area. It is servicing not only the increasing population of the Gold Coast but also the important corridor between Beenleigh and the Gold Coast, which is a fast- developing residential and tourist area. My last point is a very controversial and contentious one: It is the failure of the New South Wales Government to start on what is commonly known as the Tweed Heads bypass. I ask the Minister-I seek a response later in this debate-whether he can tell us why work on this bypass has not commenced. We can go back for some years to the promises made by New South Wales Ministers. In the New South Wales Hansard of 15 March Mr Rex Jackson, who seems to have departed, stated: I have every reason to believe that the promise given by the former federal Minister for Roads will be honoured by the new Minister. That was shortly after the change of government. The New South Wales Government had applied for this project to be considered under the Australian bicentennial road development program and it was given permission. We then had the Federal election and a change of government. All the indications were that the Federal Government would support the program. More than 12 months later there is still no sign of a start. I ask the Minister for Transport to tell us why this project has not started. I presume it is because the New South Wales Government is steadfastly still refusing to ask the Federal Government for matching money for this project. Honourable members might ask why this matter is important to me when it is not even in my electorate. It is important to that whole area-northern New South Wales, the Tweed Heads area and the Gold Coast and for me and my electorate of McPherson in particular. As much as 18 months ago, in December 1982 and January 1983, some 34,000 vehicles a day were plodding their way across the single lane bridge over the Tweed River. That is why this matter is important. When something like 85 per cent of our tourists come by road, and probably half of those come from the south, honourable members will see why the tourist development in northern New South Wales and the Gold Coast is something about which I express concern tonight. I saw in a recent Press release that the Minister has granted another $600,000 to New South Wales under the ABRD program. That makes a total allocation of $67m for local roads alone in New South Wales with an allocation for 1983-84 of some $90m. It is impossible for any sensible person to believe that the Tweed by-pass does not get some priority for access to those funds. I have to ask: What is going on? The only conclusion I can come to is that that area of New South Wales is being discriminated against by the New South Wales Government simply because it does not hold that seat. I, like other speakers in this House, oppose this Bill mainly because the exemptions on tendering are too wide and the road levy should be indexed. I fully support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(5.44) —At the outset I think it is appropriate that we look at the objectives as set out in the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 as they are pertinent to the debate this evening . Section 3 of the Act states: (a) in accordance with national priorities, upgrade the road network in Australia to facilitate the reliable and efficient carriage of road traffic; (b) to enhance the safety of Australian roads; (c) bring the national highway system that links the main centres of population to a standard that will meet the growing transport needs of Australia; (d) accelerate the construction of development roads, including roads of importance for national tourism; (e) assist the development of urban and rural arterial roads; and (f) enable appropriate authorities to upgrade local road systems. I do not think there would be any dispute from honourable members opposite that those are fine ideals. It is unfortunate that those ideals are not practised by the Queensland Government. This evening I would like to spend some time dealing with the misappropriation and the deceit of the Queensland Government in the distribution of road funding in Queensland. I raise this issue, which is of serious concern for people living in the more remote areas of Queensland, particularly far north Queensland, during the debate on the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Bill and the Roads Grants Bill because of the importance of the funding, maintenance and development of our road system in the remote areas of Queensland. Whilst I do not wish to open the debate on the necessity for a public accounts committee for the State of Queensland, it is clear that the Queensland Government, through its Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing, Mr Hinze, has indulged in misappropriation and that people in the more remote areas of the State are disadvantaged. This evening I would like to alert honourable members in this House to what has become over the years an almost total and appalling misuse of Commonwealth funds by the Queensland Government. I raise this issue as it is one of serious concern for people living in my part of Queensland. In so doing I wish to advert to certain areas where the Queensland Minister has quite clearly and categorically misrepresented the facts of the funding of Queensland roads, particularly in the more remote areas. I appreciate that a charge such as this is very serious. However, the evidence clearly indicates that not only the Minister concerned but also the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administration Services, Mr Tenni, have deceived the people of far north Queensland. In the 1982-83 Budget special funding was allocated for north Queensland roads and transportation. At page 66 of Budget Paper No.7 it was made patently clear that $20m had been allocated for the upgrading and maintenance of north Queensland roads-I emphasise the words 'north Queensland'-and the transportation system. It is clear on the evidence that not one red cent of that money has been spent in north Queensland. Mr Ronald Edwards —It is just another example of their vandalism. Mr GAYLER —It is misappropriation, deceit and vandalism. It is a most unfortunate fact. Yet when I approached Mr Hinze back in October 1983 and asked where the money had been spent he quite unequivocally stated that it had been spent in north Queensland. I would like to quote from an article in the 28 October 1983 edition of the Cairns Post which is headed 'Twenty million spent in north-Hinze'. The article states: Main Roads Minister Mr Hinze said in a statement yesterday a $20m 1982 Federal Budget allocation for north Queensland roads and transportation had been spent totally on these projects. Mr Hinze said: 'If local Federal Labor MLA, Mr Gayler , had done his homework he would have discovered that the Federal Budget term ' transport systems' had not simply included roads'. He goes on: 'He should have been able to discover that, of the $20m, $10m was for northern roads and $10m was for other transport projects such as railway and bus development in north Queensland. I emphatically deny the suggestion that the money has been spent anywhere else'. That was a clear, unequivocal statement that I had made representations that were untrue. I ask honourable members to note that in fact what he said was that $20m had been spent in the north. I quote from the Queensland Hansard of yesterday when a question put to Mr Hinze was answered in this way: I am advised that the statements in the Commonwealth Budget documents referred to by the honourable member are inconsisent with the purpose of the special funds as officially advised by the then Federal Treasurer-namely, 'the upgrading of Queensland's transportation system'. I quote further with the most damning piece of evidence that Mr Hinze has to face. Mr Hinze said: The funds were accordingly distributed by the State Treasurer in the amounts of $10m each to the Main Roads Department and the Railway Department as special allocations to the capital programs of those departments for application in accordance with needs as determined by them. What in fact happened was that the money was intercepted in Brisbane and spent in the south-east corner of Queensland to the detriment of the people living in far north Queensland. Mr Ronald Edwards —Not on racetracks. Mr GAYLER —No, the money was not spent on racetracks. It went into the electrification of the Brisbane railway system. Mr Peter Morris —North Queensland roads money? Mr GAYLER —Yes. It went on the electrification of the railway system just before , one might note, the last State election. It was pork barrelling by a senior National Party Minister in Brisbane at the expense of the north Queensland people. It goes further than that. The Minister was prepared not only to misappropriate it, but also to lie about it. It is the case now that we have the worst road system in Queensland. We have a situation in which the roads are deteriorating, not improving. This sad and sorry state of affairs has been overviewed by none other than Mr Hinze, who not only has difficulties in dealing with the appropriations for his main roads portfolio but also seems to have problems with the appropriations for his racing ministry as well. The list of indictments of this Minister in north Queensland is endless. In 1976 Mr Thomson, my predecessor-it was not often that he had much to say in this place, but on this occasion he stumbled across something-asked Mr Nixon, the Minister for Transport, what happened to the $24m-only another $24m-allocated to Queensland for the beef roads system, as it was called in Queensland. An amount of $24m was allocated but north Queensland, which, of course, is the capital of the cattle industry in Queensland, got nothing. That $24m was another amount misappropriated by the Minister. In fact, Mr Nixon washed his hands of the matter. Mr Ronald Edwards —No beef roads money at all? Mr GAYLER —There was no beef road money at all. The money went down to the brigalow country. I do not need to remind honourable members who live in the brigalow country of that. Mr Nixon was not going to have any part of this. In his reply he said: At the commencement of the 1974-77 program $24m was made available for the beef roads program. As I understand it, at that time consultation between the Queensland authorities- I imagine Mr Hinze was privy to that- and the then Department of Northern Development decided which roads would be included in that program. He continued: I understand the honourable member's concern in this matter- why would he not be concerned as only another $24m has been misappropriated?- because it appears that certain sections of road in the Gulf Country were included in previous programs and then, all of a sudden, excluded from the 1974- 77 program, leading to the situation which he has described. The reason given for the exclusion of the roads in the Gulf Country was that the Queensland authorities and the Department of Northern Development apparently decided that resources could be better spent in the brigalow country. In those two examples we have $44m gone from the north of Queensland. In a recent incident when ABRD funding of $400,000 was given to a local authority in north Queensland a previous grant from the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing and the Queensland Government was then withdrawn. This is a matter I have brought to the notice of my Minister. These incidents cannot be allowed to continue. These instances of misappropriation and deceit of the people of north Queensland cannot be allowed to continue. In conclusion, I refer to another issue which involves road funding. It is a matter I have taken up over a long period with the Federal Minister. I place on record that he has paid particular attention to this problem. Mr Shipton —He is a pork barreller, is he? Mr GAYLER —It concerns pork barrelling. Just before the last State election in Queensland, Mr Hinze came to north Queensland and decided to pork barrel the Mulgrave State electorate. Honourable members will all be aware of the honourable member for Mulgrave, Mr Menzel. He is one of the leading lights of the National Party in Queensland and an embarrassment to his party, to Queensland and Australia. Anyway this time an $llm pork barrel was involved. The pork barrel was in regard to a road bypass. I use the word 'bypass' although the road is to go right through the middle of a township. It will not bypass anything. All it will do is result in the bulldozing of 26 houses if it goes ahead. Some five years ago Mr Hinze was reported- once again in the Cairns Post-as saying after having had discussions with the people of Babinda that the bypass would not go through what was then known as the western route. He said that it was not possible for the road to go there and that certainly would not be done by the Queensland Government. That was in 1978. In 1983, just before the State election, Mr Hinze said: 'We are going the western route now'. That means a cost of $llm. I have challenged Mr Hinze as to whether he would be using State funding or whether he would require ABRD funding. Mr McGauran —He would be terrified of you. Mr GAYLER —Yes. I can look after Mr Hinze. All I say is that 650 people of the township of Babinda signed a petition opposing the bypass. The reason for the change in the routing of the bypass was that a handful of cane farmers got the ear of Mr Hinze and told him it would affect their cane paddocks. Mr Hinze, in his wisdom and to accommodate the cane farmers, intends now to bulldoze 26 houses of the people of the township of Babinda. Mr Hinze said unequivocally five years ago he would not do that and he has turned around now and said that the matter will proceed. I have had the utmost assistance from my Federal Minister in this regard. Mr Shipton —Have you got a cheque yet? Mr GAYLER —No, I have not. I can assure taxpayers that, having proscrastinated for five years on this matter, an extra $5m will be added to the cost of that bypass. The honourable member need not worry about any cheques. Such a decision is an utter disregard for the people of north Queensland. It represents the misappropriation of funds, deceit and lies on the part of senior Ministers in the Queensland Government to the detriment of the people of north Queensland. I can assure all honourable members and those Ministers that that deceit and that misappropriation will be remembered whenever the people go to the polls again. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.59) — Honourable members opposite think in regard to roads that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is a good Minister. He may be in an administrative sense but he has been rolled by Treasury. A 2c a litre charge is levied. It was a concept of its introduction by the previous Government that there should be a discrete collection of excise payable directly to road funds in Australia. It was an innovation. It was a brilliant scheme and one widely accepted by all Australians as a process that would upgrade, to the highest possible standards, our national highways by the year of the bicentenary . Hence the program took on the title of the Australian bicentennial roads development program. It is an excellent program and one that has already started to bear fruit. However, in the last Budget, the Government in its wisdom, decided to index the factor that was used as the base to collect funds for the bicentennial roads program. The factor that was indexed was the excise on petrol. The indexation takes place in a way which increases the excise charge to consumers by the amount of the increase in the cost of living. That increase takes place on a six -monthly basis. Included in that charge, of course, by the process of indexation , is the 2c which has been allocated to the development of road programs throughout Australia. So, of the total excise collected, there is 2c in it somewhere which belongs to the bicentennial roads program. That 2c allocation will not increase. In fact, it is not indexed, as is the excise duty. What is happening is that the road users of Australia are paying more for their petrol and a smaller proportion of their total contribution to Commonwealth funds through excise is being allocated to roads. There is a falling off of the amount which should be allocated to road programs. The motorist is not contributing the same proportion to the program as he was 12 months ago. Twelve months ago, upon the election of the Hawke Government, commitments were made to programs. One of those commitments was that the road programs would continue. If one reads the material carefully, one finds that there is no commitment that additional funds gained for the bicentennial road program will be passed across to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund and held within it. What has been done is that the Treasurer has done over the Department of Transport and its Minister. He has said: 'We will take those additional contributions from motorists and put them into Consolidated Revenue'. When the Minister was in opposition he fought day after day in this chamber to maintain what he considered to be a proper profile for road programs in Australia. He did it consistently and forcefully. But as soon as he became the Minister he was rolled. He has proved ineffective because he cannot maintain the proportion of funds which should go into the bicentennial roads program. The funds provided by the program are significant and important. I am expressing today my extreme disappointment that the Minister has proved to be so ineffective in maintaining the real level of contribution through excise to this program. One has only to look at the great needs around the country to understand why that level of effort needs to be maintained. If one looks at the way in which road programs are funded, at the categories of roads throughout Australia, one will recognise that funds from the bicentennial roads program apply both to national roads and to State governments and that a small proportion of them also applies to local authorities. Those local authorities have shared to a minor degree in the bicentennial roads program. Just last week this House witnessed a delegation of local authorities from western Sydney visit the House to raise the problems regarding the categorisation of roads and the way in which road funds were applied. The main contention they put forward is that the gap, the roads that lie between local roads and State roads, is a no-man's land to which neither the State governments nor the local authorities feel they should contribute. I put the proposition to the Minister that if only he could gain the sympathetic ear of the Treasurer and if only he had the capacity to express forcefully the views that he knows are right and sound, he would gain additional funds from this program which could well be applied to the specific needs of local and State governments. The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils comprises nine local government authorities and covers a vast area of western Sydney, an area of 350 square kilometres. Over the last 20 years those councils have experienced a massive growth rate. Even at the moment the growth rate is running at something like 2.2 per cent each year. The population is growing to that extent. It is now over one million people. It is, in fact, an area much larger than Tasmania. It represents four times the population of Canberra and twice the population of Tasmania. That is the size of western Sydney, an area which is experiencing a significant problem in regard to roads. The funding programs which the Commonwealth have instigated have tended to ignore the difficulties that are faced by local authorities in such a fast growing area. The Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils put a series of propositions to the Minister for Transport about what the councils' needs were in regard to roads. Most of them are substantial needs which could easily be solved by the Minister saying that he is prepared to go in to bat to gain the additional funds which should rightly be going to roads and by his being willing to have State governments apply those funds to particular areas of need. The increase in the total funds available to the western Sydney councils has risen each year-and that is without the bicentennial roads program-by approximately 7 per cent to 9 per cent. The Minister would be aware that the bicentennial roads program has supplied an additional small amount. But in western Sydney no roads are classified as national highways. Consequently, the region does not have access to half the moneys which the Commonwealth makes available for road works. Furthermore, since national highways quite rightly have a high priority, none of the roads passing through western Sydney which are equivalent to national roads have priority for funding in any way. The Minister was asked whether he would agree to extend the national highway system to cover the area. I do not believe that that decision would be proper. The area contains none of the roads which make up the great capital city link- the national grid. Therefore, the Minister could not satisfactorily make such a decision regarding that area. But the councils in the western region of Sydney rightly pointed out that they face a non-recoverable road cost which has been estimated to be about $540 per lot in new residential developments. Residents expect and traffic usage requires suburban standard roads with the appropriate widths. These are more expensive to maintain than two-lane, rural local roads. Yet many of the councils concerned have lost their rural road funding. The Minister was asked whether he would agree to change the current formula for urban local road grants so that it would recognise the problem of need. I do not know what the Minister said in regard to that question. But a needs base for programs such as that is something that the Commonwealth has tended to reject, holding the view that, in fact, it is properly a decision for State governments. In regard to State governments, the councils said of the Government of New South Wales: Despite numerous submissions and discussions with the State Government, there has been little action on WSROC proposals for special programmes to finance urban growth in the Region. In addition, new Government charges and extensive cutbacks in some grants have combined to produce an even more difficult situation. Until 1981-82, the State government's Local Government Assistance Fund used to provide over one million dollars per year for the ten Councils of Western Sydney; it has now been abolished. So we have a situation where the State Government has walked away from the problems and the councils are saying to the Federal Minister: 'Will you please consider us as a special case?' I await with great interest the Minister's response to their plea. I believe that there is only one way in which this problem can be solved. The Minister must go into the Cabinet room and get the right proportion of fuel excise applied to petrol. He must have those additional funds applied to areas of need such as those in western Sydney. Some 6,500 to 7, 000 new building lots are put in place each year in this area of Sydney. That imposes tremendous strains on transport planners. As I have said, the link between the local road systems and the main urban arterial roads falls into a no man's land where neither the State Government, nor local government because of its lack of capacity, can do anything in planning or upgrading the system. I want the Minister to take that on board and to take action. He has done a terrible thing in denying the appropriateness of an indexed 2 per cent of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund moneys being paid out to the motorists. They have made the contribution; the funds should go back into roads. The final aspect of this legislation about which I wish to complain is the Minister's decision to move away from a contractual basis for the construction of roads. The Minister, as shadow spokesman when in opposition, said on a number of occasions that he did not like the process of contracts. He is being consistent in this legislation. In fact, at one stage he moved an amendment proposing that State governments be given the option of choosing contractors to carry out road programs. An amendment moved on 28 May 1981 said in part: . . . moneys paid to the State in accordance with the grant are required by virtue of this Act to be expended on the carrying out of an approved project by way of the construction of a national road, the State, in its discretion, may invite, and deal with, tenders for those works. I draw that to the Minister's attention because it will very quickly become clear to him what will happen when the tender process goes and the contractual program instigated by the previous Government is abandoned. He will quickly find that the situation which applies to the construction of Housing Commission homes in New South Wales will apply also to the road construction program. He may not be aware of it, but there is a surcharge of 25 per cent on the cost of every house built by the New South Wales Housing Commission. That comes about in this way: There are very tight arrangements with the unions because there is an approved list of builders. The builders must ensure that every man on the site is a member of a union, whether he be a sub-contractor or deemed to be an employee. The cumulative effect of that process of having approved builders and a unionised site is that costs have risen to 25 per cent above private enterprise construction, side by side on the same land. I say to the Minister that we will go back to the situation where Commonwealth funds will eventually build a smaller proportion of roads. For the same money he will get fewer miles of road. The funds will not go as far as they should and a massive backlog will accumulate which future governments will have to pick up. I think it is not a good decision. It is one to which the Minister has been committed for a long time, and one with which I heartily disagree. It will prove to be unsound, uneconomic, and a false economy in the construction of roads under the bicentennial roads program. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(6.15) —Before moving into the text of what I want to talk about on the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill, I believe it is appropriate to set the record straight. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), spoke about the indexation of the excise. In seven years the previous Government quadrupled the revenue it was getting from Federal fuel-related matters. When honourable members opposite talk about what we have and have not done and about our backing off some commitments, it has to be stressed that not only did they do that but also they trebled the price of petrol in seven years. When they talk about the bad deal transport is getting under this Government, they should look at their record. Their performance was abysmal. I repeat: The previous Government quadrupled Federal fuel-related revenue in seven years. That was the burden the economy bore. We know a lot about what happened to the economy under the previous Government. It went into a severe recession, and one of the reasons for that was the increase in costs generated by the previous Government. The increased transport cost was one which had a severe negative effect upon the economy. The previous Government trebled the price of petrol as well. In effect, it reduced real expenditure on roads by $520m in its seven years in office. That is not a very good record, and it is not one which should cause honourable members opposite to take this Government to task. In fact, this Government has met its commitments. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has met his commitments. When in opposition the present Government was critical of the low priority accorded to roads. Given that many honourable members opposite speak about how important roads are and how they will build roads, between 1975-76 and 1981-82 Federal assistance to the States for roads declined by 23 per cent in real terms. That is just one example of the Fraser economic vandalism, and it occurred in regard to roads and in many other areas. I could talk for a long time in this place about its mismanagement, and that is one example. Late in its term of office, the previous Government introduced the Australian bicentennial road development program. We supported the program at that time and we have supported it since we came to office. Before we came to office we made a very clear statement about our transport goals. It is to the credit of the Minister, and I congratulate him, that he is putting these goals into operation. In my electorate of Stirling it was very important that the construction of the Mitchell Freeway should continue under this Government, and it has. We had a guarantee; we have had consultation. The electors of Stirling recognise that, and I congratulate the Minister for it. I am very impressed by the Government's performance and willingness to consult. It is not good enough for honourable members opposite to come in here and talk about deficiencies. It is always possible to find deficiencies. They are very marginal. The reality is that the performance is there and this Minister is delivering. The electors of Stirling know he is delivering because the Mitchell Freeway is proving to be a substantial boon to them, and I will come back to that subject later. In our transport policy statement we made some commitments. They were, firstly, to accelerate construction of the national highway system, which was originally begun under the Whitlam Government; secondly, to continue assistance to States for the construction of other roads; thirdly, to continue the ABRD program, which was initiated by the previous Government and which we followed through; and fourthly, to establish a jobs on local roads program. Before I comment on the JOLOR program, I want to give a couple of figures. For 1983-84 total Commonwealth allocation to roads amounts to $1,233m, an increase of 45 per cent over the $851m expended in 1982-83 and the largest increase in nearly 40 years. I repeat: The figure went from $851m under the previous Government to $1,233m, an increase of 45 per cent and the largest increase in 40 years. It is not good enough for the honourable member for Mitchell to come into this place and say that it is about time the Minister for Transport got into Cabinet and started fighting for roads. If that is not fighting for roads, if that is not delivering economic results, the honourable member for Mitchell has a very unusual grasp of arithmetic. The performance is there and it is very telling. We know that the arithmetic of honourable members opposite is faulty, because somehow the deficit that was supposed to be around $6 billion blew out to $9.6 billion. I say that because, in the face of that massive deception by the discredited former Treasurer, we were able to continue funding roads. It is a credit to the Minister that he was able to win the fight for that funding. Even in the tight budgetary circumstances that we faced when we came to office, we were able not only to increase spending on roads, but to increase it massively- by 45 per cent. That is a real performance. As I say, the national accounts were not in the best of health when they were handed over to us. In fact, they were very shaky indeed. The Minister and this Government have taken up the issue, and they have delivered. I want to address some other issues. JOLOR has been a substantial success for this Government. It is certainly a success in the electorate of Stirling. However, I would like to see more funds spent in the electorate of Stirling. We need to ensure that we do as much as we can in terms of job creation. One of the areas that I think it very important and very impressive in respect of the JOLOR program is that it permits local councils to do some innovative and important things with respect to road construction, maintenance and the upgrading of areas around roads, including one area in which I am particularly interested-the construction of bicycle paths, which is a very important issue. Those funds are well used in the central areas of cities in Australia. I know many people in the electorate of Stirling are very concerned about that. I compliment the Government and the Minister on the fact that JOLOR funding is enabling us to allocate funds to that. I add that we must have a commitment to obtain further funding for that and the local council must become more flexible in looking at the issue. We certainly need a strong commitment in terms of JOLOR. It has often been difficult to meet some of the guidelines under JOLOR because of the labour and materials arrangements involved. But I certainly believe that with proper consultation and with assistance from Federal members such as myself and local councils we can persist in that area. JOLOR will provide $70m in 1983- 84. That is an important part of the community employment program. I believe it is one of the issues of which we in this place can be justifiably proud, because we did inherit an economy that was in substantial recession, in addition to which there was a high degree of unemployment. The JOLOR program is one way to deal with that unemployment. I find that a very satisfactory area of endeavour. I turn to the issue of national highways and the objectives for construction of national highways in Western Australia. Two particular projects concern me: The completion of construction and sealing of the Fitzroy Crossing-Halls Creek and Newman-Port Hedland sections and the widening of the narrow pavement from Wubin to north of Meekatharra on the Perth-Darwin national highway; and also the commencement of reconstruction and widening of the Eyre Highway west from the South Australian border on the Perth to Adelaide national highway. They are two very important projects to which I want to relate very briefly. They are important projects because Western Australia is on the verge of a substantial boost in tourism. I believe that the proper upgrading of roads that this national highway program envisages will be an important contribution to tourism. We must recognise that, despite the efforts made in the area of air fares by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley)-and they have been very impressive efforts-we still have in Australia a desire by many people to travel around the country in their own motor vehicles and to take the family with them. It is important, in light of that, that the national highways system is up to standard. This Government has carried through what I would call an important Labor tradition that started with the Whitlam Government-that of having up to standard national highways. I am very pleased to see that further efforts will be made in that area. Certainly, it is appropriate to talk about the things that we can expect towards 1987 and 1988, because a tourism boom will develop in Western Australia towards 1987 and 1988 for the obvious reason that there will be a substantial yacht race contested there and many other tourism matters will develop at that time. The development of national highways ties in with that. I am very pleased to be able to say in this place that that will be an important development. I will talk specifically about two projects closer to the electorate of Stirling. Two projects to cost $44m were approved in Perth's urban arterial roads. The $30m project on the Beechboro-Gosnells Highway will involve construction of a high standard four lane road, including a major bridge over the Swan River, from the Leach Highway to Morley Drive. That is important for my colleagues who represent the electorates of Moore and Canning, because that will certainly improve transport for their constituents, but it also impacts upon people in my electorate, because it will enable them to travel around Perth. For those who might not be familiar with the road to which I have referred, it is in effect a ring road. It provides a very good ring road service that circles the north and east of the city. It is a very important development, and I am pleased to see that that is happening. Within the electorate of Stirling the other project, which will cost $14m, involves the construction of stage 5 of the Mitchell Freeway, to serve increasing travel to and from Perth's expanding northern suburbs. I was pleased to be in the company of the Federal Minister when he visited Perth with respect to stage 4 of the Mitchell Freeway, and now stage 5 is underway. We had the co- operation of the State Minister. The consultation and co-operation provided by the Federal Minister and the State Minister gives great encouragement to members such as myself in the electorate of Stirling. My colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) faces the transport issue that I face. The northern suburbs of Perth have expanded very rapidly and the Mitchell Freeway is central to the whole construction plan and the transport plan of the north of Perth. As the economy is being rejuvenated-the housing program is doing a great deal towards that-it is important that if people are looking at buying houses and living in that area they can be sure of getting to and from the city, to and from their friends' homes, to and from relatives' homes and to and from work. The Mitchell Freeway offers that possibility. I certainly commend the Minister, as I said at the beginning of my speech. It was gratifying to know that before we won government it was possible to consult and to feel that that important project not only would be continued but would be persisted with and advanced under this Minister. That has been a great boost for me, because one of the things it has done in regard to my electorate is that it has improved the local road issue. There are many problems. As everyone in urban Australia knows, when we have rapidly developing populations and people need to get to and from their places of leisure and work often people's lives are totally disrupted by through traffic. The way to improve this substantially is to spend money on major roads and thereby move traffic on to those major roads. That is what we have done in the case of the Mitchell Freeway. I am pleased to see that the funding for that project will continue, because already in my electorate we are seeing an enormous move of traffic from the West Coast Highway, which clearly is not capable of taking that traffic, which provokes a lot of traffic hazards and which has downgraded the quality of life for those people along the West Coast Highway. All of that traffic is being moved inland onto the Mitchell Freeway. It has meant that people can now move into the city to their places of work. They can travel to the important industrial area of Osmond Park with great ease. The safety conditions have improved remarkably. I believe that that is a great factor in favour of this Government. It is one thing that we can be proud of, the Minister can certainly be proud of and I know that the electors of Stirling are proud of, because we are doing a very good job in that regard. One issue we must take up involves the State Government. We have some difficulty in Western Australia-I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would recognise this point-in ensuring that traffic keeps to the left. Traffic seems to spread all over our lovely roads. That is an issue that we will try to take up with our State Government to ensure that, as in some of the other States, drivers intelligently keep to the left unless overtaking. It is a problem that we will have to take up. If we build these good roads and we make sure that people have access to those roads, we must make sure that the conduct on those roads is appropriate. Some of the traffic matters around Canberra tend to approximate some of the traffic matters around Perth. This makes one feel at home from time to time. Certainly, it is an issue that we will be able to take up with the State Government. We have good relations with the State Government and we will be pleased to take up that matter. The record of this Government is good. The record of the Minister for Transport , in fact, is quite outstanding. I will close by citing the figures. In 1983-84 total Commonwealth allocations to roads amounts to $1,233m, an increase of 45 per cent over the $851m expended in 1982-83. It was the largest increase in nearly 40 years. It is not good enough to quibble about the excise. Incidentally, we have done the intelligent thing about fuel excises; we have indexed them. What those opposite have to face is that they trebled the price of petrol in four years. They cannot blame it on the Arabs; they did it themselves and they have to live with that. In addition to that, they quadrupled Federal fuel-related revenue in seven years and they reduced the amount of spending on roads by $520m. We have increased the funding. We have done a substantial thing in terms of road development and there is a lot to be proud of. Might I say in concluding that I think it important that we talk in this debate about the performance of this Government. It is a substantial performance. I say to the honourable member who is trying to interject that between 1975-76 and 1981-82 federal assistance to the States for roads declined by 23 per cent. I know that the former right honourable member for Wannon was a mean and miserable Prime Minister. He was also mean and miserable about roads. Those opposite have to cop that. The Australian people copped that, but they did not cop it for too long because, come March 1983, they gave him his marching orders. They put in a government that has done a substantial job on roads. It has done a substantial job on the economy. We have the economy going again. We have roads going again and we have Australia going again; and the important thing is that we have all people in Australia going again, not just the narrow sectional interest whom those opposite purported to represent but who gave them the bye-bye and will continue to do so. I am pleased to commend these Bills to the House. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(6.32) —The condition of roads in Australia affects all the people of Australia. I believe it is very important that the Commonwealth is very closely associated with the funding of all categories of roads throughout the continent. I know that in recent times the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has spoken a lot about the additional funds available today from the Commonwealth for roads generally, but I think that our minds should be fairly clear here. I think our people understand that the reason more money is available for roads today is simply the Australian bicentennial road development program. The Minister has said that an extra 40 per cent is available to be spent on roads. This may be true, but it is there because the previous Government decided upon the initiative of the bicentennial road development program into which the Minister and the Government have now stepped so that they are able to allocate more for roads generally within Australia. There are three ways in which the Commonwealth assists: Firstly, under the Roads Grants Act, which is virtually the petrol tax; secondly, under the tax sharing arrangement; and, thirdly, under the bicentennial road development program. These are three very important funds which bring the Commonwealth into line to a very great degree with the upkeep and building of roads throughout Australia. Naturally I am opposed to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill today simply because it takes away one or two of the initiatives in the original legislation. As I have gone around the countryside over the years, attending meetings of a council, a progress association, a farmers' association or a chamber of commerce, people have indicated to me that it is time these road and bridgeworks went out to contract. Any sensibly-minded Australian would agree with that. I have no criticism of the ability of the people involved in the day-labour scheme to do their job vigorously. I have found that the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales is a well organised body which has carried out its work particularly well. But should not people and certainly private contractors have the right to be involved in this major development within the country? That is why I emphasise that private enterprise should play its part. The Department of Main Roads, or the main roads boards, or whatever they might be termed in the States, along with local councils, all have the opportunity to submit tenders in respect of any bridge or roadworks. I suppose that the Minister and the Government will say: 'But we are not taking that option away from them'. I claim that in the clauses of this Bill the Minister is taking away the opportunity for councils or States to call tenders. The clauses are fairly watertight. They let councils or States out so that they can carry on their work under a day-labour scheme. I feel that the Minister might well have amended the Act completely and taken the option of tenders completely out of it, because that is virtually what the amendments before the House at present will do. Let me say something about the indexation of the 2c per litre fuel excise. What has occurred is that the Government has taken approximately $450m away from roads and bridging expenditure within Australia over the term of the bicentennial road development program. Were there no indexation that large amount of funds could go to the States, to the national roads program and, importantly, to local councils for work on local roads. It is a shame to see the Government taking away these funds. Another aspect of the Bill is that it gives greater scope or flexibility to each of the States to spend more money on their urban transport systems. I know that the original Act provided for this, but we were amazed that during the State election Mr Wran decided that he would spend $40m on water and road transport within the Sydney metropolitan area. In other words, we found that $ 40m was going to be spent on the purchase of craft for the harbour and maybe for buses that were not even going to be produced in this country. Mr McVeigh —Importing them. Mr COWAN —That is right; importing them. The bicentennial road development program created at least 8,000 jobs directly and another 20,000 jobs indirectly. Here we find a government, I suppose because of political expediency, which was actually determined to spend money in those areas I mentioned. I have no objection to that. But I do object to the employment atmosphere of that decision . These moneys, under the true meaning of this legislation, should have been spent on roads that are vital to our country towns and our rural communities. That is why I emphasise that the actions of this Government, which came to power only a year ago, have virtually taken away money that could have been allocated to the rural roads of Australia. These roads are terribly important to those of us who live in country electorates. I do not know what honourable members on the Government side of the House think when they study the legislation. I wish they would say what they think about the effect that this legislation will have in virtually taking away funds from the expenditure available for important roads in the areas they represent. Roads are important to this country's economy. They are productive. They are necessary to get our products to the market for shipping. As I said earlier, they affect every Australian, whether on the way to work, taking a product to a market or touring. Certainly they are important to defence. We have talked a lot about defence in the House throughout the week. If we look at the nitty gritty of this Bill we will see that it contains more that will actually assist the defence of Australia than any other item we have talked about through the week. We are providing for l6,000 kilometres of national road around Australia and, under the Bill, we shall be providing funds for the arterial roads of Australia. I can think about roads within my electorate of Lyne. Most honourable members who have spoken in this debate spoke from a parochial point of view of roads within their electorates. I do not blame them for that, because they are a typical illustration of the problem that faces the nation in regard to building up the provision of roads and bridging. In my electorate there are a number of arterial roads which are neglected, which the State fails to recognise, and on which local councils do not have the money to spend. They are literally going into disrepair because of the lack of funds. The Minister and I had a look at the Medowie Road, main road 518. I know that the Minister is keen to assist with it. But the New South Wales Government has not made it a number one priority. I can understand that to a degree, because in the Port Stephens Shire there are other very important arterial roads to be dealt with. The road to Nelson Bay carries a tremendous amount of local traffic, yet the council is unable to upgrade it because the moneys cannot be made available for that. Forster is the headquarters of the Great Lakes Shire. There are roads in that area that need attention immediately, but the council does not have the money to spend. There are local roads in the Greater Taree city area, such as the road from Nowendoc to Walcha, which is terribly important so far as the meatworks, the timber industry and tourism are concerned and to the many graziers who live along that road. However, I am pleased to say that it was the nomination of the council for bicentennial road funding, and there is to be an allocation of money for that road-about $700,000 over the six-year period. But that will do only a mile or so. Here is an important road linking the coast and the tableland area, for which the Cattlemen's Union of Australia and other groups have agitated for years. I have raised the matter previously and I have fought for it within the New South Wales Parliament and here. There is a road which is so important for linking up the tablelands with the coast in order to get people and produce through quickly. The same can be said for the adjoining shire, the Gloucester Shire. It has a main arterial road going back to Walcha. But it is important that this road, when dedicated, should be able to take any form of traffic. The Pacific Highway is a vital road serving the New South Wales coast including the whole area north of Newcastle right up to the Queensland border. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) spoke today about Tweed Heads and the by-pass area, but here is a road that is incapable of continuing to carry the traffic that runs over it every day. I am often on that road, and it is nothing, of a night-time, to pass up to 15 very large trucks, following each other bumper to bumper, bringing produce down to the Sydney markets for sale. This road is growing in importance. Australia is so dependent upon road transport. I know that we have the railways , and perhaps it is a shame that we are not using them more than we do. But the Australian people are accustomed to roads. They are accustomed to owning a car. They are accustomed to having their produce from farms coming to them mainly by road transport. As regards the centralisation of industry, people are establishing industries in country areas only if they are able to obtain the place upon a truck to send goods directly to a destination. They do not want to take goods and to load them upon a train because that involves handling them three or four times. These are the factors which we must appreciate. I am somewhat concerned about the attitude of the New South Wales Government, particularly with regard to the tax sharing arrangements. Over the last year that Government has gained, within the State, about $176m under the tax sharing arrangements. Almost $70m of that has been taken from the councils by the State Government in extra charges. The New South Wales Government has now loaded more on to the councils with respect to the rebate for pensioners. The councils now have the responsibility of finding about $30m for that. There is an extra charge with the Board of Fire Commissioners. The New South Wales local government assistance fund has been abolished. That was $9.5m a year. I hope that the Minister notes very closely that what is happening-no matter who is sitting on the Federal Treasury bench, and no matter what extra funding we are prepared to give to the States under the three schemes of which I spoke earlier-is that the State of New South Wales is putting those extra charges on to the councils concerned to relieve its own expenditure. This is an important matter. It is quite unfair for a State government to do this when the cry from the people is that we want more money spent on roads. I trust that the Government will take that matter on board and will try to influence the States to the view that they must put their expenditure into roads, too, and try to relieve the local government scene. Our roads are a worry to us. Our shires, cities and municipalities are not able to keep up to a reasonable standard the rural and urban roads within their areas. Ratepayers have reached the maximum of what they can afford to pay. There is a problem here. The Commonwealth has a great responsibility to invoke the legislation which will go directly to councils and to keep an oversight on that in the States. We must ensure that, as we provide the extra moneys, the States do not take the money away. I was delighted and honoured, and actually excited, when we introduced the bicentennial road development funding program. We on the Opposition benches just do not like to see that legislation tampered with. We do not want to see private enterprise prohibited from tendering to build the roads and bridges of Australia . The people are calling out for more initiative by private enterprise, which is efficient, and the councils, as I indicated earlier, and the departments of main roads and the road boards, were able to compete. They themselves won quite a lot of contracts, so why should we remove this provision now? Once we prohibit private enterprise contractors, the long term effect of the legislation-as with many other features of legislation that the Government undertakes-will be that we shall eventually deprive the working man of work in public services. I oppose the removal of these parts of the legislation. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.48) —The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Roads Grants Amendment Bill amend certain arrangements under which financial assistance is made available to the States and the Northern Territory under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 and the Roads Grants Act 1981. The amendments are the result of consultation and detailed discussions held with the States, local government, industry and the relevant unions. Three areas were identified where amendments were required to these Acts. First , many objections were raised against the requirement that all construction work on national, urban arterial and rural arterial roads go to tender. Secondly, the provision requiring the States to maintain in real terms their expenditure on roads for the duration of the Australian bicentennial road development program was stated to be impracticable. Thirdly, objection was taken to the policy of applying additional conditions to a State which had exercised the option of directing part of its urban arterial roads allocation to urban public transport projects without providing additional funding. The amendments contained in the Bills are, therefore, designed to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of the Government's road programs and to ensure that taxpayers receive the maximum advantage from expenditure of public moneys under these programs. The requirement to call tenders for specific works had a profoundly adverse effect on road construction in north Queensland. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1984: . . . 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. In addition, the requirement that State urban public transport expenditure be maintained in real terms where the State has exercised its discretion to use part of its urban road allocation for urban public transport capital works projects is no longer necessary. Transport absorbs more than one-quarter of the national resources and is a large and critical item in government Budgets. Therefore, effective management of Australia's transport resources is basic to the nation's well-being. In this regard the Federal Government's commitment to improve the road network is clearly demonstrated in its transport policy statement issued prior to the March 1983 election. The statement provided undertakings to accelerate construction of Australia's national highway system. The statement recommended a continuation of the Australian bicentennial road development program to provide worthwhile employment opportunities for the nation's unemployed. It called for the establishment of a jobs on local roads program. In 1983-84 total Commonwealth allocations to roads amounted to $l,233m, which represents an increase of 45 per cent over the $851m expended in 1982-83. It is the largest increase in federal expenditure on roads in nearly 40 years. Three programs are being administered by the Federal Government to provide effective management of Australia's transport resources. First, $778m was allocated in 1983-84 under the Road Grants Act program. This represented a 6 per cent increase in expenditure over the year 1982-83. Secondly, $385m was allocated in 1983-84 under the Australian bicentennial road development program. This sum is more than treble the 1982-83 expenditure of $117m. Thirdly, the jobs on local roads program has been enthusiastically adopted by councils in all States. An amount of $70m has been allocated in 1983-84 for this program as an element of the community employment program. Additional employment opportunities have been created and the backlog of local roadworks is now being reduced. However, particular emphasis has been given by the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, to the upgrading of the national highway system , with 42 per cent of total funds being allocated to this program from 1983-84 onwards. The Bruce Highway is the declared national highway connection between Brisbane and Cairns. The condition of the highway between Townsville and Tully is inadequate for a national highway which is serving an area undergoing a rapid degree of development. This area of Australia is benefiting from a growing national and international tourist trade. In recent years resource development and commerce have also become major growth industries. Visitors to north Queensland frequently complain about the primitive condition of the Bruce Highway. Long term residents recall that just over 20 years ago the Bruce Highway was split into sections of trafficable road. It should be recorded , however, that it was not until 1962, some 13 years after the Menzies Government took power, that the Bruce Highway from Brisbane to Cairns was completely sealed. The Bruce Highway has really existed as a sealed through route on the present corridor only since that time. Prior to World War II the Bruce Highway was not a through road. The costs of providing an adequate highway standard are enormous. Northern Australia is subject to heavy rainfall. Falls of more than 750 millilitres of rain have been recorded in a 24-hour period. Numerous streams and rivers traverse the highway corridor. This requires the construction of more bridges than would be required in dryer regions of Australia. An increased standard of pavement is requird to cope with conditions of heavy rainfall and road foundation instability. The cost per kilometre of road construction in north Queensland is significantly higher than in other parts of Australia. It is estimated that road and bridge construction costs amount to approximately $600, 000 per kilometre in north Queensland. The Townsville office of the Mains Roads Department is responsible for the maintenance and enhancement of some 444 kilometres of the Bruce Highway. This office is ably led by the extremely competent Assistant Commissioner in north Queensland, Dick Wharton and his District Engineer, Ron Piper. More than 50 kilometres of national highway are under construction or are about to commence construction in the Townsville area. Over the last two years 15 single-lane timber bridges have been replaced. Work is under way to replace an additional seven single-lane timber bridges. The program provides that all of these dangerous single-lane bridges on the Bruce Highway in north Queensland will be replaced by 1987. An allocation of $9.4m for road works was made to north Queensland by the Fraser Government in 1981-82. The Hawke Government has allocated $20m for road works in this region in 1983-84. In other words, the road allocation has more than doubled. The amendment to allow the Minister to approve an exemption from the requirement to call tenders for specific works in certain circumstances is welcomed by the people of north Queensland. Prior to the introduction of the Australian bicentennial road development program, the Townsville office of the Main Roads Department employed 67 people in its day labour force; that is, three road and three bridge construction gangs. The Fraser Government's action in requiring that all construction work on the national highway be given to private contractors has now reduced that work force to 35 employees. Every effort has been made by the Townsville Main Roads Department to retain its day labour force . Employees retained have been engaged on maintenance tasks on other road works. The main roads day labour force is vital for the efficient operation of the Main Roads Department in north Queensland. It enables the Department to retain employees with significant expertise and experience in road construction techniques. North Queensland highways are subject to flooding and frequently become impassable during the wet season. Road damage is caused by washouts during cyclones. Vital communication links are severed during these times. It is the responsibility of the Main Roads Department in these circumstances to re- establish road communications as soon as possible. The cities and towns of north Queensland depend on the Bruce Highway for the carriage of fresh fruit and vegetable supplies, daily milk supplies and a host of other goods and services. Obviously, it is vital that the highway remain open all year round. In addition, 80 per cent of tourists travel to north Queensland by road and use the Bruce Highway. The upgrading of the Bruce Highway will enhance Australia's defence self- reliance by improving the mobility of our defence forces and their supplies and equipment. The highway will be a vital communications link for defence purposes. Recent defence studies have been directed towards greater utilisation of civil road transport assets. Clearly, there is a need for an effective process of consultation and co-ordination between the defence forces and the road transport industry. Notwithstanding the commitment of the Hawke Government to upgrade the Bruce Highway urgently, the road continues to remain extremely hazardous for unwary motorists. In 1983, 15 per cent of all road fatalities in Queensland occurred on the Bruce Highway. The tragedy of loss of life on the national highway from Brisbane to Cairns can be reduced only by an urgent acceleration of the reconstruction of the Bruce Highway. The Hawke Government should be applauded for its expansion of the national campaign against drink driving. This campaign, together with improved road conditions, will hopefully reduce loss of life on our national highways. Of particular significance is the amendment requiring both State and local governments to show to the satisfaction of the Minister for Transport that 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. The amendment requires the State or local government to demonstrate that it has taken all practicable action to avoid this problem. For example, the Hawke Government has allocated $2.5m to reconstruct a section of the main street in Ingham later this year. As a result of this amendment, the Main Roads Department intends to construct this work using day labour employees. Many government services, including telecommunications, electricity, sewerage and drainage will be affected during reconstruction. During construction traffic will be inconvenienced and business houses may be adversely affected. In these circumstances, it would be folly to allow the work to be carried out by a contractor over whom the Department would have little influence in protecting the interests of business people and motorists. The Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has travelled the Bruce Highway in the Herbert electorate on at least three occasions during the last few years. Without his positive and constructive intervention to provide funds for the improvement of this section of the national highway, motorists would have continued to be exposed to unnecessary hazards and risk to their lives and the lives of their passengers. Not only has the Bruce Highway benefited from the generosity of the Hawke Government but also local authorities in my electorate have been major beneficiaries of massive Federal Government grants for road works. This has permitted the replacement of dangerous single lane bridges, the upgrading of important arterial roads to bitumen standard, and the reconstruction, widening and bitumen sealing of numerous other roads in every local authority area in my electorate. The jobs on local roads program has been a major boost to local government road construction in north Queensland. It is funded through the community employment program and will, therefore, generate additional worthwhile employment opportunities. The sum of $70m is provided this financial year for the construction and maintenance of local roads and cycle paths. The provision of cycle paths, particularly outside high schools, has been welcomed by education authorities in north Queensland. Finally, the Hawke Government will continue to speed up the construction of the national highway system. It will continue consultation and discussions with State and local governments to ensure that Federal road grants are passed on in full to their intended recipients. It will provide the legislative framework for a national roads policy that for the first time since Federation will enable Australia to develop one of the finest road transport systems in the world. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(7.02) —The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Amendment Bill and the Road Grants Amendment Bill are of great importance and interest to honourable members. However, I express my concern at what is happening in the Parliament at the moment. I refer to the paucity of legislation that the Government has available to bring before the Parliament in the interests of the Australian people. The Opposition opposes these Bills. They certainly could not be called heart stoppers, Bills that offer magnificent hope to the Australian people in the areas such as the economy, defence, industrial relations, unemployment, or any of the major issues confronting the Government. It is interesting to note that in the six or seven days on which the Parliament has sat so far during this sitting period the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill attracted 14 speakers, the Appropriation Bills attracted 19 speakers, the Torres Strait Fisheries Bill-a very minor Bill-attracted four speakers, the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Bill attracted eight speakers, and on Thursday 29 March one small Bill attracted 13 speakers and another attracted 12 speakers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to make his remarks relevant to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —The relevance of my point is that it is time the Government came forward with some legislation for the Australian public. It is great if one does not mind speaking two or three times a day, and some of the Bills are worth while, but the Government is not delivering legislation of consequence to this place. Mr Peter Morris —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The roads legislation before the Parliament is of vital importance to millions of Australians. I am sure there are honourable members on the other side of the House who would like to speak on the subject of roads. Maybe they can be given the opportunity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr TUCKEY —In addressing myself to these Bills, I start by referring to some of the statements of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). The honourable member, like everybody else on the Government side, thinks that the Government can govern in a negative fashion. Provided it can make a comparison with the previous Government, which is now the Opposition of today, and say that the previous Government was worse, that is sufficient for it not to be very good . That is not a position this Opposition takes any more. We are not responsible in many ways for the attitudes of another day. The honourable member again brought up the $9.6 billion deficit issue. The other day the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) told us we were a mob of meanies because we would have spent $2 billion less had we been on the Government benches at this time. Somebody will have to make up his mind in the Government or we will get double counting to the point where there would have been no deficit at all. If there is something good about that, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) might tell us why he has now discovered that forward estimates are illusory. He had great fun with them last year. The honourable member for Stirling, if he were present, might take the time to tell us how the Government, confronted with all these terrible financial problems, managed to increase expenditure on its programs by 7.5 per cent. That is the reality of the situation. I am more interested now to raise matters relating to current problems. The O' Connor electorate has 48 separate local authorities and many miles of roads, probably more than some larger authorities are responsible for. It is quite densely populated in rural terms and it requires many roads to link its 170 small towns. I have stated already that the Opposition is opposed to this legislation. It is a pity that the legislation we are debating is not designed to overcome the ridiculous and disgraceful decision of the Government not to keep a commitment related to ABRD funding, that is, the commitment to pay on any additional funds that are earned by indexing the 2c levy. It has been said in the Parliament today, and in round figures it is estimated, that during the life of the ABRD legislation the automatic indexation of excises that has been introduced by the Government will raise slightly less than $500m and take some $ 60m from local government alone. I guess it is worth repeating in this House the frivolous attitude of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) to this very serious problem. When the previous Government brought in this legislation it was well aware of the avaricious attitude of governments towards fuel taxes and how they have refused over the years to recognise that there should be a link between taxes collected on fuel and expenditure on roads. Government after government has rejected that argument, particularly when it has been put by local government. The previous Government said: 'We will give you some money that you can identify. More importantly, we will create a trust fund to put it in'. That was something the back bench of the Liberal Fraser Government was very keen on. We had little trust in any administration keeping its sticky fingers off the money. The 2c levy is now locked in, and no government would be game enough to try to steal it . But now we have a new trick whereby the Government indexes that amount of money, banks the proceeds and uses them in some obscure fashion. If Government members think that only local government is upset about that it ought to talk to some of the truck drivers. The Minister had his one rough ride to Newcastle and probably has not got into a truck since. He should ask the truck drivers what they think now about something they accepted because they could look out the front of their trucks and see some improvement on the roads. They could see where their money was going. Now they know they are being conned. Let us look at the frivolous approach of the Minister when a question was put to him on this subject. His answer is recorded in Hansard of 29 February. The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) asked: I address my question to the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the fuel levy of 2c a litre for the Australian bicentennial road development program is indexed? The Minister said: One could say that the bicentennial road levy component of the total excise charged on fuel is indexed as a result of measures in the last Budget. But the bicentennial roads legislation enacted by the previous Government of those honourable members opposite who are now chiacking about it did not provide for other than 2c a litre of the levy to be directed to the trust fund for road expenditure. What a frivolous and disgraceful answer to what was, even from his own back bench, a sensible question. The Minister should have been smart and put a sweetener in this legislation to which we object. He should have done what the Western Australian Government does. It comes into the House with proper legislation, then puts in a piece of socialism and tries to force local government into accepting it. It will not succeed. But the point is that the piece of legislation first brought to this House by the Minister under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Act made provision to transfer the results of that indexation to the trust fund. It would have been as simple as ABC. It is quite wrong to suggest for a minute that the previous Government had some fault. Quite clearly the previous Government would never have been sufficiently avaricious to go down the track of this Government. Let us get that point settled at the start. There is another interesting part to that and other honourable members have referred to it. We get this double counting again. The Minister tells us that in fact there has been a 45 per cent increase in road funding under this Government . I think the honourable member for Stirling said something about that. As I have told honourable members before, when we get down to statistics I have great fun in reminding people that it is a statistical fact that lions have killed more Western Australians than sharks have. That is a useless piece of information, but it is true. The fact is that the claim of 45 per cent is in the same category. Let us look at why. Firstly, we find that the ABRD levy was only 1c in the first year and then it doubled to 2c. That had nothing to do with any decision taken by this Government . Furthermore-this is a fact-by the time the processes of application had all gone through in the first year only $7m of the $27m available got to local authorities. So all of a sudden we have this massive double counting, counting the full result of the previous Government's decision and the full result of the 2c a litre levy. Of course the Government has written to them and said: 'We are not too game to give you 100 per cent of what was promised, we will give you only 80 per cent'. Nevertheless, I guess the Government has a reason for that, although I doubt that it needs to vary the sum by 20 per cent, with the figures that are available today. Maybe there is some profit to the Government, maybe the interest that has been earned has not been sent off yet. Let us just remember what that figure would do to the Government's expenditure. Of course it had nothing to do with the Government. Let us look at the wonderful double counting effort where we add the $70m of jobs on local roads program funding. JOLOR is a really interesting exercise. Every time the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) speaks in the House he tells us about JOLOR, which he says is one of his programs. It is a form of community employment program. Then the Minister gets up and says: 'I spent the $70m'. We are double counting that $70m. It is a fact that that money expended on roads is not necessarily being used productively, for various reasons. The principal reason is that, as honourable members know, JOLOR has an extremely high labour component. It has requirements relating to the employment of unemployed people and it limits the ability of local authorities to do good, productive and constructive road works with the high quality machinery that the authorities have today. Of course, we do not build roads with picks and shovels any more. If we did we would not have many roads. The JOLOR program is not the province of the Minister for Transport. It should not be thrown around as part of these 45 per cent figures, because clearly it is a make work program and, like all the other make work programs, it is artificial and does not do much for roads. Nevertheless, local government will take the money and it will do its best with it. It is, of course, being confronted with more and more difficulties of matching grants that exist on this and other CEP programs. I predict that by next year many local governments will have to reject a lot of this money because they just cannot afford it. I am not from New South Wales, but the people tell me it is doubly difficult there because of the interference of the New South Wales State Labor Government, which will not even let them increase their rates for the purpose of raising money to gain some of the Federal Government's matching grants to create employment, useless though some of that employment might be for the future of Australia. These are the sorts of situations we get when people start this wonderful percentage business. Of course we must remember how easy it is to increase some of those figures. There was no base in the ABRD prior to last financial year. How quickly can the Government get the percentages up? The Government should tell us how much more money was spent and how much of it was spent on initiatives of this Government, not on initiatives of the previous Government. That is the sort of situation to which we have to address ourselves. It is quite a problem. I refer to the legislation and explain again why the Opposition objects to some of these amendments. I have some experience and knowledge in the arena of local government and public road construction as I was a member of a local government authority for some 16 years. In fact, I was also President of the Country Shire Councils Association in Western Australia for the two-year term available to me. I was a State grants commissioner in Western Australia for four or five years, handling the Federal funding that came to local government. During that time I spent hours and hours and weeks and weeks talking to local government authorities throughout the State of Western Australia about the problems. So I do know what I am saying. What is this Bill proposing to do? It wants to take out the very real and sensible move of the previous Government to see that tenders are called for major construction work. I say 'major construction work' because the Act as it stands refers to urban arterial and rural arterial roads. It does not refer at any time to those little $30,000 and $40,000 grants given to most local authorities. It talks about the big stuff. I think the previous Government and the then Minister for Trransport, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), were able to concede to local government that those small projects which in some way are being insidiously introduced into this argument now were not necessarily to be tendered for. Generally local authorities, other than some very large ones , were not obliged to tender for their minor works. I have no objection to tenders not being called for certain works. If some of the words that now appear in this Bill will help to tidy things up I do not mind very much. These works include: Emergency works, works of a minor nature-although I believe they were previously covered-works for which it is not practicable to prepare adequate tender specifications, works of a kind for which competitive tenders are unlikely to be received and the cost of some other works done by other departments, although I view the latter with some concern. Then all of a sudden we get to this ripper, as set set out in the explanatory memorandum: Performance of the work under contract would cause unavoidable inefficiency in the deployment of a substantial number of State and Local Government road construction employees. Of course we are then warned that this last provision also requires the State or local government to demonstrate that it has taken all practical action to avoid this problem. Those are roughly the words in the Bill. Paragraph (f) in clause 3 continues: . . . even if the State or authority were to take all practicable steps to avoid that occurrence. What do those few words mean? They mean nothing. What they mean is that a person has to be a smart engineer. I knew plenty of smart local government engineers. In local government we were experts at working the system. That is what we were there for. We were there to represent the people who elected us. It did not matter whether it was a regional employment development scheme, a CEP or any of these types of grants, one very smartly came to grips with the situation. One did not act in a dishonest fashion, but on behalf of one's electorate one made sure that if that was the way one wanted it one achieved it. Once we get into that type of complicated statement anybody can win the day. Of course, if there is a particular union around that wants to see a heap of its members employed and not the members of a firm working under contract, those sorts of conditions will be established without doubt. The pity of it is that if the Government had really wanted to look at some good Australian private enterprise it might have done something the previous Government did not do. It might have made some provision for expenditure by sub- contract, compared with full contract. The sub-contractor, particularly in some of the more remote areas, is the greatest asset to the community that can be found. He represents hard-working private enterprise in his own field and he is a man who will get a lot of work done. Trucking sub-contractors in an otherwise day labour-type operation will lift the game for everybody present. They want the dirt, will cart the dirt and put it on the road and make sure everyone else keeps up to that rate of work. These are the sorts of things the Government could have done if it wanted to relax the system. The Government might have brought in something which provided for the situation to be viewed differently in remote areas on the grounds of maintaining a work force in the area to address itself to the various problems that occur from time to time. That would have been commonsense. That would have been good stuff and maybe we could have understood it. Every piece of legislation can stand some improvement. But the facts are that this has nothing to do with that. One of the other matters to which the Bill addresses itself is the provision requiring the States to maintain their expenditure in real terms. Two other sections really cover that; they cover the situation regarding expenditure on roads and expenditure on public transport. What a disgrace it will be. People think that this money is going to roads. The State governments are equally able to work the system. They are equally able to hive off money to their urban transport systems in place of money they otherwise would have spent themselves. That is what this legislation says. The previous legislation states that there is an opportunity for some of this money to go into public transport but only if the States expend a similar amount of money as they have done previously. That has been wiped out. If we allow this legislation to pass we have opened up all sorts of opportunities for what might be called legitimate rorts-one government against another. That is why the first piece of legislation was adequate. The only change that is worth a damn that was needed, accepting the fact that there is now an index on the original levy, was one to ensure that the money goes to the right place, the trust fund, and from there into roads. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(7.23) —The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 provided for a levy of 1c a litre for a period of 12 months and then 2c a litre in order to upgrade roads in the States and in the Northern Territory. This levy flows into Consolidated Revenue and from thence into the trust fund. Over the life of the program until 1988-that is why it is called the bicentennial road development program-$2.5 billion will be provided for in the maintenance and construction of roads right throughout Australia. This Bill amends the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982 in order to provide for changes to arrangements relating to the States' level of real expenditure on roadworks and urban public transport capital projects and to vary the tender requirement. I would like to relate this Bill to my electorate of Riverina just to show honourable members how it will affect my electorate and the road system within it. Mr Lusher —It is one of the biggest electorates in Australia. Mr HICKS —It certainly is. Over the last three years that I have been a member of Parliament I have travelled 200,000 kilometres by car within that electorate. I know the road system fairly well. I imagine that other members with larger electorates than mine have travelled even greater distances. Perhaps they can add even more to the debate than I am about to. Let us start on State Highway 22 , from the Queensland border to Broken Hill, a distance of 346 kilometres. To travel that distance over a normal road would probably take about four hours. To travel that distance, from Tibooburra to Broken Hill, would probably take six hours, depending on the condition of the road. What makes matters worse is that the present New South Wales State Government is trying at the moment to downgrade the Tibooburra Hospital. Honourable members can imagine what it is like when it rains. One cannot get out of the town by air or by road. The situation is very difficult. For some years I have been trying to get funds for that road from the State and Federal Governments. When the Australian bicentennial road development program commenced I thought this was the answer to my prayers. I thought we were going to get some money but unfortunately so far my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Mr McGauran —You have tried very hard though. Mr HICKS —We tried extremely hard but no one seems to be listening. If we travel down State Highway 22, we get to Wentworth. Wentworth is a case in itself. It is an old but rather progressive town and it has a Department of Main Roads depot. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago the State Government closed that depot as funding was not available. It blamed that on the previous Government. That depot was closed because the State Government was not providing funds. A lot of works have to be undertaken in Wentworth. I have tried to get the Monak deviation scheme into the Australian bicentennial program. That deviation is a section of road between Buronga and Euston. A number of people have been killed on that road. A lot of terrible accidents have occurred there. We are trying to straighten out that road. Mr Fisher —We got the bridge out of Ralph Hunt. Mr HICKS —That is right. My friend the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) has just reminded me that, in that area, coming off State Highway 22 we have the Mildura Bridge approaches and other approach bridges. The honourable member for Mallee and I were able to obtain money for that project through representations that we made. I am pleased to say that several million dollars will be spent on that project. Hopefully those bridges will be opened at the end of this year or early next year. We are very grateful to the people who put that project forward . Mr McGauran —You are a very good team. Mr HICKS —We are a good team. We are both National Party of Australia members. Let me go back to deal with the works office. It was a tragedy that the works office in Wentworth was closed down as a number of works could be carried out there, funded by both the State Government and the Federal Government. But it is gone now. Hopefully the Department of Main Roads in New South Wales will rethink the situation. That will depend very much on the attitude of the State Government. Mr McGauran —The State election is over so they will not. Mr HICKS —It is finished now. If we go up State Highway 8, the Barrier Highway to Wilcannia, we find an interesting situation. There is a Department of Main Roads works office there. Wilcannia has a population of 1,200 people. It has a great unemployment problem. A number of Aboriginal people and white people are unemployed. They rely very much on the Department of Main Roads for employment. It is a large employer of people. That puts me in a bit of a quandary because I must admit that I am a former DMR employee. When I looked at this legislation my immediate reaction was that perhaps there is a case for day labour on most of the jobs. It provides permanent employment for people, particularly in isolated areas. The Government proposes to change this situation of tendering. Tenders will not be required to be called where a State satisfies the Minister that in an emergency, the works must be performed urgently, the works are of such a minor nature that calling tenders would involve undue additional cost, it is not practicable to prepare adequate tender specifications, and so on. That really means that we have thrown out the tender situation. Looking at those conditions one could say that there was no need to tender any more. When roads in that area are costing $200,000 to $300,000 a kilometre-in other words for $1m one would get about 3.5 kilometres of road-honourable members can understand why the taxpayer is thinking that perhaps we should be going to tender; we should be looking at the situation and saying: 'That is just too much to spend'. I think it is up to the Government to adopt a realistic approach and to look at every situation on its merits, paying particular attention to the employment situation . I think we have to look at that because towns such as Wilcannia will die if they do not have that employment. But, on the other hand, the Government has to weigh up the situation and say: 'If it is costing $200,000 to $300,000 for a kilometre of road we have to be realistic and see exactly where we stand on that matter'. I am also delighted to say that we have obtained a couple of million dollars for the approaches to the Tallyawalka flood plain bridges on the Barrier Highway just east of Wilcannia . This is a very important project that should have been carried out by the State Government but, of course, it was not done. Now the bicentennial money will be used for it. Mr McGauran —Due to your hard work. Mr HICKS —It took a lot of representation. Fortunately people were listening. We then travel down the Cobb Highway, State Highway 21. Some time ago the Department of Main Roads was interested in developing that road. But, because of the isolation of Ivanhoe and certain industrial action, it decided it would construct the road from Ivanhoe to Booligal instead. Because of the cost of roads I would say that it will take another 35 years for that road to be completed. I do not know whether cars will be in vogue then or even whether roads will be in vogue. It is a difficult situation. On that road we have the Willandra flood plain bridges. I am pressing the Government at the moment for bicentennial money to construct those bridges. Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(7.30) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), in a ministerial statement in this House on Friday, 30 March, advised the House of the decision of the Government to alter coastal surveillance procedures in this country. While admitting the complex nature of the whole coastal surveillance question insofar overlapping responsibilities are concerned, the response of the Government is to transfer the coastal surveillance function to the Australian Federal Police in Canberra so as to concentrate more on drug trafficking. This appears to be the Government's response to the report of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), which was a collection of opinions of departmental bureaucrats which were completely at odds with the true facts. I shall mention some of the comments made since that announcment. The President of the Queensland Commercial Fishermen's Organisation, Dale Bryan, said that the Government was playing Russian roulette with the lives of fishermen. A Courier- Mail reporter, Andrew McKenzie, said that it was bad news for lost sailors and that surveillance stops when the sun goes down. The Canberra Times reported that the move could cost 36 jobs in the Australian Capital Territory. In fact this cost cutting exercise could be establishing an open door policy for drug smuggling, illegal fishing and long term degradation of Queensland's Great Barrier Reef. I say that could be so because the whole aspect of coastal surveillance will drastically change. I shall read now a section of the 1982-83 report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority which puts the matter of surveillance into perspective. The report stated: Aerial surveillance is an essential management tool for the Capricornia Section . . . The professionalism of the crews and their use of sophisticated technical equipment, such as 360 degree search radar and a global navigation system, ensure that the reports are accurate, comprehensive and not greatly affected by poor visibility . . . They can also be the basis for subsequent action, such as surface investigations, education and enforcement. A recent development has been the use of a Coastwatch Nomad aircraft for night surveillance. The 360 degree search radar and global navigation system are essential for this purpose. The decision by the Government begs two questions. Firstly, is the cost of the reduction in the service worth the downgrading of coastal surveillance? Secondly , why, if the standard of surveillance is to be downgraded, was the revised program not put out to normal tender by the Government in preference to the Minister's opinion? The Minister said: In line with this assessment contract aerial surveillance arrangements will be rationalised to provide significant cost savings and minimise the predictibility of flights over the north Australia coastline and the Great Barrier Reef. Aircraft charter contracts with two companies which expire on 30 April will not be renewed. Not only will these contracts not be renewed but also the companies will not have a chance to tender at all. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which forms part of the Beazley report. Leave granted. The table read as follows- 3.37 The table below summarises the use made of coastal surveillance information provided by the ACSC during the last two years: Follow Sightings up by Trans- reported Customs gressions New South Wales 3 3 . . Queensland 32 29 9 Victoria 3 2 - Western Australia 19 17 - South Australia 1 1 - Tasmania - - - Northern Territory 16 14 . . 74 66 9 Mr BRAITHWAITE —This table indicates the number of sightings, the follow up by Customs and the transgressions. It is interesting to note that in Queensland, where the surveillance was undertaken from Townsville, there were 32 sightings, 29 follow-ups and the prosecution of nine transgressions. Those nine transgressions were the only transgressions in the whole of Australia that were followed by prosecutions. That indicates the worth of the Nomad aircraft which was mentioned in the annual report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Nomad's high success rate on night flights proves there is a massive intrusion into the Great Barrier Reef by illegal fishermen. I understand that on one night alone 32 such illegal fishermen were seen on radar in the Great Barrier Reef region. In my own area just off Mackay there was a search and rescue operation in which four persons were picked up in very rough weather which would normally have prevented any other aircraft from flying. The fisherman who was picked up off Cairns, I think it was, after two of his companions had been taken by sharks was picked up as a result of a search and rescue operation by the Nomad. A system which depends on littoral surveillance and good weather will leave this nation defenceless to night intrusion, drug trafficking, illegal migration from the near north and damage to our national asset, the Great Barrier Reef. It will allow the introduction of exotic animal and human diseases from our northern neighbours. I mention particularly the screw worm fly, which could devastate our northern beef herds. It will be only the limited use of our air and naval services that will stand between Australia and these invasions. The new proposal of the Government means the replacement of search radar surveillance on the Great Barrier Reef with side-looking airborne radar SLAR. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority requested the Weapons Research Establishment at Woomera to evaluate SLAR. The reply was that it was inadequate for the Marine Park Authority's requirements. That is evidenced by the recommendation in March 1983 of the standing interdepartmental committee that search radar surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef continue until 1986. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(7.36) —I was very fortunate to be asked to represent the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) on Sunday at the 1984 King's Cup, which was held at the international rowing course at Lake Barrington . The Minister was very keen to go but, unfortunately, was unable to make it because he was busy. He was very keen to go particularly in view of the fact he had been snubbed only a month before by the Tasmanian Government at the opening of that magnificant course. It should be remembered, of course, that the Commonwealth Government contributed $700,000 towards the completion of that rowing course. Lake Barrington is not the only facility that the Commonwealth Government is presently funding in Tasmania. The Launceston indoor velodrome and the Kingborough baseball centre also have been the subject of Commonwealth contributions. Lake Barrington is an outstanding venue. It is situated in superb surroundings. It is a pity that such a serene environment does not produce the sort of balanced political representative that one might hope. My suspicions about Tasmanian politicians were confirmed when I opened the program for the King's Cup. Honourable members can imagine my surprise when I read the message from the Premier of Tasmania, Robin Gray, which said that the Tasmanian Government was very proud of Lake Barrington and which expressed Mr Gray's thanks to a number of people and groups which had been involved in the completion of the program. Lamentably no mention was made of the $700,000 that the Commonwealth Government had contributed. Mr Staples —How much? Dr CHARLESWORTH —It was $700,000. Imagine my further surprise when I was informed by locals that two days before the regatta got under way a sign was removed from the entrance to Lake Barrington and replaced by a sign which said: 'This is another State Government initiative'. It was suggested that the cost of this sign was $2,000. The sign bore the name of the State Minister involved. Clearly this was dishonest and a misrepresentation of the situation. Has the Tasmanian Government no scruples? It is indeed a great pity that this magnificent national event, the 1984 King's Cup, was not free of cheap political points scoring. Indeed it was a pity that even though 15,000 people-arguably the largest crowd one will see at a sporting event in Tasmania this year-were there, there was no representative of the Tasmanian Government and no Federal member from Tasmania there. It is a pity that the Tasmanian Government cannot find its way clear to co-operate with what is clearly a very generous Federal Government. I take this opportunity to thank those people in Tasmania who welcomed me. Many of those involved in rowing and in sport generally in Tasmania expressed their concern at and mistrust of the Tasmanian Government's action. Of course, that is entirely understandable. I hope that in the future the Tasmanian Government will be able to acknowledge the Commonwealth Government's contributions to such projects. Sports people throughout this country are well aware of the even- handed approach of this Government in sports funding. Perhaps the Tasmanian Government one day will catch up with the rest of Australia. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(7.39) —My contribution to the adjournment debate this evening concerns the publication by the Attorney-General's Department of papers dealing with the new Commonwealth censorship procedures for publications and the decision of the Government to drop the barriers on the importation of hard core pornography. I spoke to the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) and gained his approval to incorporate a four-page document in Hansard. I seek leave to do so. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I would like to look at those pages. Mr Speaker has laid down very clear guidelines for incorporations. We will have to check the pages. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Madam Deputy Speaker, it is simply a government document. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has clearly ruled that the only things which can be incorporated in Hansard are those tables which cannot adequately be read out. The honourable member is at liberty to table the documents. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am not prepared to use some of the language which the Government is now approving-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member that he table the document. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I shall table them, but-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to seek leave to table the document. Mr DONALD CAMERON —If that is my only alternative, it is better than nothing. So be it; I may as well seek leave to table the other two pages also. I seek leave to table these documents. Leave granted. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The point I want to make, Madam Chairperson-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest that 'Madam Deputy Speaker' will get the honourable member over the hill. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am absolutely shocked and staggered by the fact that the polls suggest that the Hawke Government is popular in the minds of the people. I can construe only that the people do not really know what is going on. How can the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who is not in the chamber at the moment, approve that in this country from now on we will be able to obtain, although it will be categorised, literature advocating or even inciting the use of hard drugs? We will be allowed to buy publications which promote school teacher-student sex. We will be allowed to purchase such publications. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman), the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) and the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples) are laughing . Obviously, they are not school teachers. That we will be able to purchase publications which promote incest, and practices such as urolagnia, coprophilia and necrophilia, just to name a few-publications which have previously been forbidden in this country-is totally beyond me. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is of the view-this is what is stated in the paper-that adults should be entitled to protection from exposure of unsolicited material which they find offensive. He also says that adult persons are entitled to read and view what they wish. But I believe that there is a conflict in that the Government still has a form of censorship insomuch as one is not able to depict certain things such as genitals on the front of magazines but one is allowed to show pubic hair on the back covers. Therefore, there is some feeling that Australian people require standards. But the way that the barriers are being dropped by this Federal Government will cause a flood of the worst type of pornography. Bestiality is now acceptable in publications. Ten to 15 years ago I saw magazines overseas, the contents of which I will not go into, Madam Deputy Speaker, because of your presence in the chamber this evening . These magazines contained the most lurid scenes. Yet this Government, whose Prime Minister is supposed to have the approval of 74 per cent of the people, is about to drop the barriers. In the final seconds remaining to me I make a plea to the Australian Democrats, the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia in the Senate to join together to stop these proposals. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(7.43) —I do not have any problem identifying your gender, Madam Deputy Speaker, as did our comrade from Queensland, but I understand that they have a few problems up there. Today in this House I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) relating to the release of Cabinet documents concerning the Petrov affair in the mid-1950s. I pointed out during my question to the Prime Minister that today was the thirtieth anniversary of the claim of Prime Minister Menzies that Vladimir Petrov wanted to defect to Australia. I asked the Prime Minister whether he intended to release all Cabinet documents relating to this incident under the 30-year rule so that the people of Australia would be able to judge for themselves the action of the Prime Minister at that time. There has been much speculation since that time on whether the then Prime Minister knew of the defection several weeks in advance and used that knowledge to call an election and hold a McCarthyist campaign. There is a lot we should know about the Petrov affair, not the least of which concerns the role of our continuously discredited internal security service, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. If the Cabinet papers are released we may find the answers to many of the questions which have worried people over the years, questions such as: Was Petrov a witness of truth? Were the royal commissioners interested in getting to the truth? Were the Sadovnikov papers fabricated? A handwriting expert testified that they were written by two entirely different people. Another question is: Was the Petrov affair a political ploy? As Frank Green, the former Clerk of the House said, 'Menzies never told the truth about anything'. Honourable members will recall that Menzies managed to rush in a three-day sitting of the royal commissioners just prior to the election. The words 'spy ring', which turned out, in fact, not to exist were mentioned. What was not mentioned at Menzies' specific instruction was the fact that before the defection ASIO had offered Petrov the sum of five thousand pounds when or if he defected. Much of the Royal Commission was taken up with the discussion of the so-called 'document J', the bulk of which has been kept secret until this time. The Commission adopted a statement that 'document J' was a 'farrago of fact, falsity and filth', yet only a small part was ventilated during the hearings. What was there to hide? We may get some information from allegations made at the time by an officer in naval military intelligence who, amongst other things, alleged that a leading conservative political figure was a Japanese agent before Pearl Harbour, that with war in Japan apparently imminent this person gave Japanese interests in Australia three months warning that their funds were to be frozen and that Japanese interests then distributed part of those funds to named figures in the Liberal Party and to the Party itself. Why was this material suppressed? In October 1975 a former Director-General of ASIO reported to Gough Whitlam that the great bulk of suppressed documents and evidence could be published without prejudice to Australian security. Whitlam proposed to table the documents once the Supply crisis was resolved. As we know, he was never given that opportunity. In 1981, Dr John Burton, a key diplomat under the post-war Chifley Government, said that he knew that the Whitlam Government would be in big trouble if it released the Petrov documents. Dr Burton, who claims that ASIO engineered the Petrov defection in 1954 to help Menzies gain power at the forthcoming elections , said: I read in 1975 that Mr Whitlam was planning to release the Petrov documents. I knew that this would put them in serious trouble with the security network which wants to keep the documents suppressed. In April 1981 the former head, Brigadier Sir Charles Spry, said that ' reputations could be ruined if the Petrov papers are released'. Just what is it in these papers that everyone is so afraid of? Who is it exactly who will be, as Sir Charles Spry said, 'ruined'? Will we find out that ASIO and Menzies engineered a spy crisis to win an election? Will we find out about the treacherous activities of many senior Liberals and their business supporters of that era? Will the real truth ever surface? Whatever the result, it is imperative that all-and I mean all-the Cabinet documents are released to the people of Australia and that any attempts by our security organisations to keep them under wraps be resisted at all costs. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.47) —Tonight I protest against a grevious injustice perpetrated by the Hawke socialist Government against the Federal electorate of Denison and the people of Tasmania. It is a matter upon which I and my Tasmanian Liberal colleagues in the House of Representatives and, indeed, thousands of Tasmanians feel very strongly. It is a matter of a grevious wrong being perpetrated against Australia's only island State and Australia's only maritime State-Tasmania. Since the eighteenth century and I emphasise the eighteenth century and, indeed , before 1788, men and women have gone down to the sea in ships in Tasmanian waters. People as diverse as the Frenchman D'Entrecasteaux and the Englishman Bligh of mutiny on the Bounty fame sailed in Tasmanian waters and landed on Tasmanian soil. From the establishment of Hobart in 1804 and the ensuing whaling industry which developed throughout the last century, Tasmania literally became the seafaring headquarters of the nation which became the Commonwealth of Australia on Federation in 1901. Antarctic expeditions as early as 1810 with the discovery of Macquarie Island originated from Hobart-- Mr Goodluck —In my electorate. Mr HODGMAN —In the honourable member for Franklin's electorate on the other side of the river. In 1832 the ship Venus owned by Captain James Kelly was the first vessel to penetrate the Antarctic Circle. In 1838 Australia's very first square rigger was commissioned, built and launched in Hobart. Late in the last century a Tasmanian named Louis Bernacchi was on board the first British Antarctic expedition. It is well known that the expeditions of Scott, Amundsen, Mawson, Edgeworth David, and others all commenced at Hobart. Indeed, the news that Amundsen had reached the South Pole was telegraphed to the world from the General Post Office in Hobart. I am sure all honourable members will be aware by now that I am protesting in the national Parliament tonight against the shameful and disgraceful action of the Hawke socialist Government in deciding to site the proposed multimillion dollar National Maritime Museum in Sydney. This magnificent project of national and international importance should have been located in Hobart. It was the preferred site, according to the best expert opinion and advice, and without doubt it was the best site in the entire nation. Sydney is a magnificent city. In my humble opinion, it is one of the greatest cities in the world. But Sydney already has a large number of magnificent tourist attractions. The National Maritime Museum in Sydney will be one of probably 20 major tourist attractions of international significance. In Hobart, the National Maritime Museum would have been our No. 1 tourist attraction, each year drawing thousands and thousands of visitors to our State and to Australia's finest State capital city, Hobart. It has been conservatively estimated that the project would have been worth between $10m and $15m to the building industry. It would have involved the electorates of Denison and Franklin and would have produced tourism income of the order of $3m to $5m a year. That is what Tasmania has lost. We have been robbed, and robbed shamelessly, by the Hawke socialist Government, which cynically used this project of international importance as a cheap political stunt when it handed the National Maritime Museum on a silver platter to the Wran Labor Government just three days before the New South Wales election. In this Parliament I say: Shame on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), shame on the Hawke socialist Government. They have once again unjustly discriminated against Australia's smallest but finest State, Tasmania. They have once again perpetrated a wrong and an injustice against the people of Tasmania. I can assure all members of the Hawke socialist Government that their shameful and disgraceful action will be remembered by all Tasmanians, whatever their political persuasions, when they go to the ballot boxes in the next Federal election. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(7.53) —Madam Deputy Speaker, since that great day for Australia, the election of the Hawke Labor Government, two important trends have occurred. Firstly, the trend to higher unemployment under the Fraser Government has been reversed. Unemployment has dropped from 10.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent- better than we expected-in just a year. Secondly, there has been a positive and unexpectedly high improvement in growth through the year. Including farm growth, there has been an economic growth of 11 per cent. Take away the farm growth and the effect of the drought and there is still a growth of 8 per cent. The main reasons for non-farm growth are, firstly, an increase in private consumption; secondly, an increase in the number of homes being built; thirdly, an increase in equipment purchased; and fourthly, an increase in exports. This improvement is to the credit of the Government, business, farmers, and social security beneficiaries in their pursuit of the aims of the prices and incomes accord, but it is also very much to the credit of wage and salary earners. Wage earners and their families can be thanked for much of the economic recovery. Wage earners employed in transport and in communication, in education, in banks, by farmers, in the Public Service, by big business and by small business, did their bit last year by accepting a 4.3 per cent increase when living costs had actually increased by more than that. They have done that again today by accepting a 4.1 per cent increase, in line with the prices and incomes accord. The community owes them thanks for that. As a member of the Hawke Labor Government-- Mr Braithwaite —The Hawke socialist Government. Mr SNOW —As a member of the Hawke democratic socialist Government I am very conscious of and very humbled by the willingness of ordinary wage and salary earners to accept adjustments less than cost of living increases. At the same time, we have seen a reduction in industrial disputes of 30 per cent. It would not be hard for wage and salary earners to say no to a recovery which depends so much on them. There are many reasons for the recovery owing so much to wage earners. They have borne the cost of the income tax system. They are the people who pay most of the taxes. It is no comfort to the Hawke Government that few people earning over $50,000 a year pay any taxes. It is no comfort to the Hawke Labor Government that wage and salary earners and their families are left carrying the taxation burden. It is no fault of the Hawke Labor Government, nor of the Australian Democrats, Senator Colin Mason and Senator Jack Evans, that action has not been taken to restore justice to the taxation system. It is because of the dereliction of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, of the Democrats, Senator Chipp, Senator Macklin and Senator Haines, and of Senator Harradine, that the Senate has consistently refused to pass legislation which would do something to spread the taxation burden. I do not blame the unions for calling for reform of the taxation system. In particular, I warn the National Party in this House that if it wants to stop business people like Carnegie and union leaders like Carmichael from talking about some form of capital gains tax it needs take only one simple step: Join with this Government not in introducing a capital gains tax but in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars of evaded tax. Wage and salary earners have contributed enough. Social security benefits have been withheld for long enough. Let us give credit where it is due and thank the Australian workers for their great contribution to the recovery. Let us thank them by reforming the income tax system and by passing retrospective tax legislation. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(7.58) —In the time that is left tonight I wish to say a few words about the 4.1 per cent national wage increase that was handed down today. This increase has been labelled, and quite properly, as the $6 billion decision. It will have a very detrimental effect on what is still a very fragile economic recovery in Australia, even taking into account the comments that have been made by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). This decision will make it all the more difficult for the small business sector and the farm sector to maintain the level of profitability, and that is most unfortunate. In addition, the overall economic framework of Australia will be adversely affected by the 4.1 per cent decision and by the flow-on effect it will have. The decision must have an adverse effect on investment, which is still lagging very badly and which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been doing his best to encourage. It must have an adverse effect on employment, which I think everyone in this Parliament and in the country would like to see improve. If we are to continue to increase the cost of employment at rates like this, it will not do anything to help the employment situation. In regard to Australia's competitiveness, particularly in international terms, today's decision has handed out for a period of just six months an inflation rate more than that of the economies of most of our overseas trading partners for a 12-month period. At the moment the inflation rate in Australia is running at around 8.6 per cent and the average of our overseas trading partners is 3.7 per cent. So for a 12-month period the overseas inflation rate is 3.7 per cent and for a 6-month period here in Australia we have a 4.1 per cent rise in wages. One of the effects of this wage rise will be to lift average earnings from their present level of $19,453 to $20,251. That will have the effect of putting many more workers into the 46 per cent tax threshold bracket, which cuts in at $ 19,500. Most workers who are earning wages above that figure will now be paying 46c in every extra dollar they earn. Obviously that situation will have a serious impact. In addition, increased Medicare payments will flow from the increased income, and that will add up to something like 15c a week for the fellow on average wages. On top of that, there is the automatic indexation of the excises, and that will flow on as a result of the 4.1 per cent decision handed down today. So in overall terms this is not something which will help the economy. It is not something which will help the recovery of the economy or the necessary investment in our economy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Young —Madam Chair, I require the debate to be extended. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate will be extended to 8.10 p.m. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(8.00) —I want to say a few words-not very many, actually-in response to the honourable member for Dawson ( Mr Braithwaite), who spoke earlier about the changes that will take place as a result of the Government's decision on coastal surveillance. As he would be aware, when I made the announcement last Friday I gave an undertaking to the House that we saw the decision as being of sufficient importance to give the House the opportunity to debate this matter when we resume after the Easter break. I did that in co-operation with the shadow Minister of State, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), so that he would be aware of this matter. I will reply to a couple of points because it seems to me that perhaps the honourable member for Dawson, rather than leading newspaper opinion, has been led by it. He made a couple of observations which are not true. It seemed to the Government on taking office that this was an area that had been somewhat neglected in terms of offering an overview of what was happening, the structure of command of coastal surveillance, and updating the user departments on what was required. Subsequently, as we interpreted it, the former Government had almost placed it in the too hard basket. We asked the Minister for Aviation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to carry out a review of the requirements of our coastal surveillance, which he undertook for several months. He talked to departments and travelled extensively throughout the north of Australia. He looked at what was required and at what was being done. Ultimately he made the decision that coastal surveillance ought to be based in a department that had a career structure, and that had a relationship with the enforcement of the laws laid down by this Parliament. I think that the recommendation he ultimately, made-if one is so guided by the newspaper reports-has been accepted as the correct decision by the Government; that is, that the Australian Federal Police should be in charge. As I said in my statement to the House, it has not been the traditional role of the defence forces to enforce the laws as such. It is not a role that they feel they should play. In supplementing the coastal surveillance operations throughout Australia we are not changing their role. But we are recommending and putting into place certain rationalisation based upon the user departments of coastal surveillance-departments such as the Department of Primary Industry, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and, particularly, the Department of Health which felt that for its purposes as a user department it was being utilised far too much, far beyond its requirements and it was far too costly for its needs. In terms of the criticisms of people who may not have their terms extended, obviously, as the honourable member would know, people make a commercial decision when they tender for a government contract, whatever their field may be . They make their capital investment based on the successful tender that they may be granted, and that is what these people have done. It is not a question of their being given an opportunity to retender, because we are redeploying. I have seen some reports in the Queensland Press that some people were upset because they felt that Queensland firms were missing out and firms from another State were perhaps coming in. It is true that Skywest Airlines Pty. Ltd. has been described as a Western Australian firm. But in my opinion and on the information which I have already given the Parliament Skywest, by virtue of its takeover of H. C. Sleigh Industries Ltd. in Queensland, is as much a Queenland company now as it is a Western Australian company. It will do the additional work that is required in the redeployment that will take place. As I said in my statement to the Parliament, we will also talk to the Queensland, Western Australian and Northern Territory governments about the deployment of the units of Commonwealth police, where they will be located and under what circumstances. Within a week of the House rising for the Easter break I will travel to Darwin with the Commissioner of Police to talk about those matters. Very shortly afterwards I will travel to north Queensland and the north - west of Western Australia also to hold discussions about those questions. We have set up what might be called a ministerial council, of which I will be chairman. All the departments that are affected by it-the Department of Transport, the Department of Defence, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Department of Primary Industry and so forth-will be part of it. The new measures will be monitored very closely and if changes are required by virtue of our circumstances those changes will be made. I assure the honourable member, in view of what he said about drugs, that the emphasis of the new coastal surveillance system will be very much on drugs. That reinforces our decision to put the AFP in charge. With the new coastal protection unit which has been set up within the coastal surveillance area, which will be run by the AFP-supplemented, of course, by the normal procedures carried out by our defence forces, be they Army, Navy or Air Force-we believe we have now set in place with the proper structure a more constructive coastal protection unit than we had previously. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(8.05) —I too want to reply briefly, although most of the points I would have made have been covered appropriately by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is now in charge of coastal surveillance. Reference has been made to whether there will be increased vulnerability of the northern coastline to the possibility of the importation of narcotics. I do not know whether the criticisms that have been made in that regard are made in terms of deliberate ignorance, or simply ignorance. The fact of the matter is that the coastal littoral search, which covers the particular contractual arrangements for littoral surveillance which were under consideration at the same time as my report and decisions on it were announced jointly, have absolutely nothing to do with drug surveillance, and never have. They were associated in the first instance with the requirement of the Department of Health for quarantine and, in the second instance, at least to some extent, with the requirements of the Department of Primary Industry in regard to fisheries and also, to some extent, in the case of Queensland, with the requirements of the Department of Home Affairs and Environment in relation to the Great Barrier Reef. The only alterations that have been made in terms of their impact on surveillance in any of those areas have been in the Department of Health. It was determined that the extent of the surveillance that it conducted for its own purposes was not necessary. Littoral surveillance in the way in which it has been carried out for the purposes of drug interception is virtually valueless. For that very good reason, it is not being used for that purpose. That was the situation that existed under the previous Government. A number of planes and boats in the north of Australia are involved in that activity. They are associated with at least by the Australian Customs Service and of course, they are not in any way affected by this decision, except that now those assets, along with the littoral surveillance assets and the assets of the Department of Defence, will be combined with those additional assets that will be given to the Australian Federal Police, and we will have a properly co-ordinated surveillance activity. Far from depleting the capacity of coastal surveillance to deal with the problem of the illegal importation of narcotics through the north of Australia, we are now, in a coastal surveillance sense, in a co-ordinated fashion addressing that problem for the first time. It was not addressed by the previous Government in the context of the littoral surveillance that it offered. Unfortunately, but perhaps to some extent understandably, there has been a little too much concentration in the northern Press on the question of littoral surveillance, and not enough recollection of the very relevant criticisms that they have made from time to time that coastal surveillance was not serving any valuable service in regard to narcotics and was not being accompanied by appropriate efforts at enforcement. I agree with many of the criticisms that were made, not least by those people associated with papers in the north and, of course, with the governments in those areas. For the first time the Commonwealth is accepting a co-ordination responsibility for that exercise. Given the financial constraints under which we are operating and the requirement for further investigation of our needs in that regard, under the formula and the framework worked out by the Commonwealth it will be the first time that those very important needs will be properly addressed. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 8.10 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a new building for the Australian Film and Television School, North Ryde, New South Wales. Mr Hurford to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of facilities for the Australian Frigate Project, Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Vic., Phase A. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 4 April 1984: Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statute-No. 53-Courses and Awards Amendment 1984.