Thursday, 3 May 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities, for example, boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie,Mr Free,Mr Hicks,Dr Klugman,Mr Lusher and Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the ACT Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law: the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (for example, X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Groom,Mr MacKellar and Mr Leo McLeay. 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 utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Cross and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That there are far too many prescription drugs available and that abuse of these constitutes a serious problem. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. That all drugs shall be prescribed and supplied by their approved (GENERIC) names only. Trade (Brand) names will not be used in any circumstances. 2. That information concerning possible side-effects of all drugs must be made as freely available as the drugs themselves. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. Wales To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words 'Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, parents and teachers working for and in the interests of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout Australia, respectfully showeth that: We support the Federal Government's determination to restore the community's confidence in public education. We support the Federal Government's opposition to base grants to all non government schools (a) by reducing funds to those schools already operating above community standards and (b) funding other schools according to need. We support the Federal Government's policy of negotiations and planning with State/Territory Governments regarding joint programs for improvements in Government schools in the next decade. 1. We ask that the Federal Government increase current funding for Government schools as promised. 2. We ask that the Federal Government provide promised funding for special programs to assist primary children with learning difficulties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show: That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4,000 aged people), will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redevelopment of the Brisbane Airport becomes operative, ensure that: (1) No jet aircraft use the 32'14' crosswind runway; (2) The Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a. m. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain Citizens of Australia shows-that at present, certain infertility treatments including; Hormonal Drugs, Procedures and Laboratory Services, are not covered by any Health Insurance due to Non-Itemisation on the Commonwealth Rebate List. The pyschological and emotional stress of infertility is therefore increased by the added financial stress. Your Petitioners therefore pray, that the Parliament will view our plight to create life with sympathy, by recognising our needs, and taking action to include the abovementioned items on the Commonwealth Rebate List. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation, presently under re- examination, is iniquitous and if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to: 1. totally abandon its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter, and; 3. following the report of such a wide inquiry, institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory Finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. 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 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,Mrs Darling,Mr Moore and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectively showeth that : 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned programme of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin and Mr Howard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by Government Regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are School Councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt Parent Clubs from the tax in the same way as are School Councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Governments in Australia shows that: General Revenue Grants to Local Government under Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State Governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on Local Governments Authorities to participate in Federal Government programs for example Community Employment Program. The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in General Revenue Grants to Local Government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976, to provide a real term minimum guarantee to Local Government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. Petitions received. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm- (a) the shortage of teachers within the State school system in country New South Wales, and (b) the detrimental effect of the introduction of equal opportunity legislation in New South Wales which will no longer provide for accelerated promotion for those teachers prepared to serve in country areas, and (2) calls on the federal Government to demand equal opportunity for country school children in New South Wales before allocating funds for education to that State. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern about- (a) the failure of some Australian coal exporters to abide by price target agreements in their overseas sales negotiations, and (b) the possible effects of recently negotiated prices on the Australian coal industry and on employment in that industry; (2) urges the coal exporters to establish and implement collective arrangements in their coal export negotiations to avoid being exploited by overseas buyers, and (3) assures the coal exporters that, unless they initiate collective arrangements as a matter of urgency, it will urge the Government, as a matter of urgency, to examine the establishment of a National Coal Marketing Authority. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) fully supports Australia's Asian refugee program; (2) notes Professor Geoffrey Blainey's recent observations concerning an anti- European and anti-British bias in the Government's immigration policies; (3) rejects as inadequate the criticisms of Professor Blainey's position made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; (4) commends Professor Blainey for breaking an unnecessary taboo on discussions of Australia's immigration program, and (5) supports a widespread public debate on the issues raised by Professor Blainey. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) recognises and applauds the agreement between Ford Australia and the Victorian Government to upgrade and expand the Ford Geelong Apprentice Training Centre; (2) congratulates Ford Australia and the Victorian Government on their decision to enable 20 per cent of the apprenticeship places and 30 per cent of the retraining program to be open to people outside Ford, and (3) recommends this example to other States and private enterprise as one significant means of assisting Australians to acquire new skills so necessary to the maintenance of jobs and the health of Australian industry. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting I shall move: That this House- (1) note- (a) since Medicare was introduced by the Government on 1 February 1984, only 2 offices have been made available in the Electoral Division of Dawson, a constituency of over 160,000 people, at the centres of Mackay and Ayr, Queensland, and (b) that this arrangement severely diminishes the services previously enjoyed under the previous private health insurance arrangements and requires residents of other centres to travel long distances or rely on mail to transact their business with Medicare, and (2) calls on the Minister for Health to live up to the statement he made on 28 February 1984 and provide a standard of service to country people at least equivalent to that which was provided by the private funds prior to the introduction of Medicare by opening Medicare offices at Homehill, Bowen, Collinsville, Proserpine, Sarina, Moranbah, Dysart, Middlemount and Yeppoon in Queensland as the desirable minimal standard of service to the constituents of the Electoral Division of Dawson. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the new constitutional arrangements in South Africa as a sham attempt to entrench white rule in South Africa and to exclude the black majority from participation in their own country's political system, and (2) condemns the new Opposition policy on foreign affairs which takes a softer line on apartheid and South Africa. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting I shall move : That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern that the average Australian family is now paying an additional $17 per week in Government charges and taxes; (2) notes with understanding and regret the decline in living standards created for the average Australian family by the Government's policies, and (3) condemns the Australian Government for forcing over 300,000 taxpayers into the 40 per cent tax bracket. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that grocery prices at supermarkets within the Electoral Division of Tangney fell by 0.7% during April 1984; and (b) that this fall reflects the excellent CPI figure for the last quarter; and (2) congratulates the Government for its excellent economic policies that have contributed to the lowering of grocery prices. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Prime Minister in his 1983 election speech stated that his Government would legislate to allow up to 100 per cent retention of profits by small business where these funds are to be used for genuine business purposes; and (b) no such Bill has been introduced into the Parliament, and (2) calls on the Government to honour this broken election promise. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that up to the week ending 27 April 1984, inquiries on the Government First Home Owners Scheme reached a level of 459,367 nationally and 76,904 in Western Australia; and (b) that in that weeek, applications received were 69,037 nationally, of which 10,025 were in Western Australia; and (2) is of the opinion that these figures provide substantial evidence of the success of the Federal Government's First Home Owners Scheme. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) views with concern the Australian Workers' Union campaign in Queensland to reduce working hours in local government from 40 hours to 38 hours per week; (2) is alarmed by the ever increasing costs of local government in providing services at a time when the Commonwealth is reducing its real value of personal income tax grants by 3 per cent; and (3) calls on the Government to ensure the strict compliance of the wages and incomes accord so that the additional cost of a reduction to a 38-hour week will not become an additional cost burden on local government authorities. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and my colleague the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) will second: That this House- (1) notes that the Queensland Government spends only 20 per cent of its budget on education, while the average for the rest of Australia is 25 per cent; and (2) condemns the Queensland Government for its neglect of education and for its failure to make effective use of Commonwealth funds provided for that purpose. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 [COGNATE BILL: PIG MEAT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.14) —When the House rose last night, no adjournment debate having been allowed, as is now usual with this Government, we were discussing the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill and the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill. I had been referring to the importance of the pig meat industry and the fact that Australia had natural advantages which could help the pig industry be a more significant export industry than it is at present. I also pointed out that the lack of a plant variety rights scheme in Australia had reduced that export ability because, without that incentive for greater investment by private firms in feed grain yield development, our feed grain industry perhaps had not progressed in the production of feed for the pig industry, and for that matter I suppose the chicken industry, to the same extent as the industries of some of our competitors in other countries. Another negative point in developing the pig meat industry as an export industry is our bad reputation as a supplier to world markets because of our industrial relations record. The tally system which operates in most abattoirs in Australia is also a major deterrent to efficiency in the meat industry. But the greatest difficulty is in the area of inspection services. The inspection services at present are no longer appropriate. The time taken by the Government to make the appropriate changes illustrates the attitude of this Government in not giving a high priority to taking action to implement efficiency reforms in the inspection system. An example of this is the Mayfair Hams and Bacon Co. abattoir and processing works at Bendigo in Victoria. Until January 1984 this works, which employs 300 to 400 people and processes 5,000 to 6,000 pigs a week, exported more than $2m in meat products. The Victorian Government was charging $400,000 a year for its inspection services which consisted of one inspector and two staff to apply stamps to carcasses. I make the point in passing that it is not only at the Commonwealth level that there are problems with charges for inspection services. Under its new scale of fees, the Federal Government was charging more than $500,000 for 21 inspectors and a veterinary officer. For profit reasons, Mayfair was forced to forfeit its export licence following the dramatically increased charges by the Commonwealth. Of course, that saved it more than $500,000 in Federal levies and, at the same time , stopped all exports from Bendigo. Mr Brumby —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter raised by the honourable member is totally irrelevant to the Bills before the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LLOYD —It improved the profitability of Mayfair but reduced exports by more than $2m a year and reduced employment in Bendigo by 50 people including government inspection staff. The State Government then had to employ about seven new staff to do the job it already had been charging Mayfair to do. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is having urgent discussions with his State counterparts to ensure that, where pork is used only on the domestic market but killed at export registered works, only the domestic fee is payable, particularly in the case of Victoria, which now charges less than the dramatically increased Federal fee. It seems wrong and absurd that last year the total inspection cost for pork producers was $5.9m and the total value of exports was $4.1m. One can see from that that the pork producers of Australia have a legitimate grievance. I call on the Minister to take urgent action on what is, on the information given to the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, rather an absurd situation. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, notwithstanding the request of the industry to have the research levy increased from 10 cents per head to 15 cents per head, the Minister has flatly rejected that increase. The reserves, as indicated in the last report, which was presented to Parliament recently, have almost run out and the present levy will generate only $800,000 of the $1.2m required to maintain the existing level of research. I submit it is necessary to have more research. We have researchers of world renown in Australia, especially in nutrition and animal welfare. The Government, which seems to be able to find millions of dollars for its pet socialist theories, evidently cannot find the extra dollar for dollar money for this important matter of pork meat research, but would rather see a cut of 33 per cent in funds in real terms. There is a desperate need for a rise in the levy and the industry as yet has not received the answer to its last approach, made about two months ago. I therefore ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to increasing the levy. I also draw the Minister's attention to another problem in the pig industry which is of increasing concern to the producers, that is, the changes that are taking place in the marketing structure within the industry which are leading to increased vertical integration and reducing the opportunity for independent family operated smaller producers to have a genuine market for their pigs. There is already a closer involvement of feed companies, usually overseas owned, in the production of pork in Australia than is the case in the United States of America or Canada. Now there is the additional concentration of independent wholesalers being taken over by those companies or leaving the industry. This is reducing the ability for a genuine market in pig meat-that is, an open market with declared prices, et cetera-with fewer open market buyers and increasing direct selling from the feed company without the wholesaler or from the wholesaler, as part of the feed company, to the supermarket. There is a need for some form of weekly independently set price indicator or some other mechanism to sustain an open price and a genuine market for pig meat products and for independent producers to have a future through the retention of some form of open market. I turn to the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill, which corrects what the chicken meat industry sees as a minor anomaly in the original Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. The principal Act established a joint Commonwealth-industry research scheme in which the Commonwealth matched dollar for dollar a research levy imposed on hatched meat chickens. The Opposition accepts that the original Act is somewhat inflexible in that, whilst the levy receipts were on a dollar for dollar basis with the Commonwealth, other receipts from the sale of assets or receipts from research projects, et cetera, were not. This, of course, includes penalties for late payment of the research levy. This led to a situation in which access to the unmatched reserves was restricted by the need to exhaust the matched funds first. People familiar with the industry, as I am sure you are, Mr Speaker, will know that this is something which normally did not occur because of the regular receipt of the levy. The Opposition applauds the fact that this Bill establishes two separate accounts within the research scheme trust account-one to cover funds matched by the Commonwealth and the other for unmatched funds. The Australian Chicken Meat Federation, which represents growers, processors, stock feed manufacturers, breeders, hatchery men and service industries associated with chicken meat production, believes the new arrangements will provide greater flexibility in meeting research funding requirements. The Opposition does not oppose the Bills, but it must be said in conclusion that it is good to see the Minister finally beginning to consult with industry on matters affecting his portfolio. I hope that he will continue to do so. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.24) —I wish to make some comments on the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill and the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill is to amend the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969 in order to facilitate the use of funds for research. The 1969 Act established a joint Commonwealth-industry research scheme for the chicken meat industry. The Act provided for a trust account and an Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee which would make recommendations concerning expenditure from the fund. Moneys from the trust account are to be used for scientific, economic or technical research into the chicken meat industry. Funds for the research scheme are raised by a levy on meat chicken hatchings with the Government providing a matching contribution on a dollar for dollar basis. As has been noted already, the amendments in the Bill are of a minor nature. They are aimed at facilitating the use of funds for research. The principal amendment is to provide for two separate accounts within the trust account. The provision applies to a number of other research committees already. Chicken meat represents more than 90 per cent of all poultry consumed in Australia. During 1983 the average Australian consumed approximately 19 kilograms of poultry meat which represented some 20 per cent of total meat consumption. Estimates and projections for the poultry meat industry contained in the February 1984 quarterly review of the rural economy indicate that by 1987 Australians will consume an average 21.4 kilograms of poultry per person, representing a market share for poultry of 23.1 per cent. Of course, that is an expected increase on the existing share of approximately 20 per cent. The growth of the chicken meat industry is impressive when one considers that it is only a number of years ago that the industry was established on a single commodity item, the frozen chicken. The next commodity produced was fresh whole chicken. Following that, we have seen a large range of cut up chicken products which have been packed in a variety of ways. As the industry grew so the range of products has also grown and the variety of products offered still continues to increase. Various processes now offer a complete range of products from the frozen whole chicken to chicken pieces, tray packs, small goods, smoked chicken, pre-packed heat and serve products and even, in some supermarkets now, pre- stuffed chickens. There is no doubt that one of the greatest advantages of chicken meat is its constant quality. The product is grown under rigorous health, husbandry and nutrition regimes to a given weight, and processed under controlled conditions. An even quality product for the consumer is always ensured. The evenness of product quality has assisted enormously in the take-away food business where factors such as the strict weight, quality and size specifications must be maintained. Funds allocated over many years for chicken research have undoubtedly assisted in ensuring the high quality product that is available today on the market. The poultry meat industry, through the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee, continues to support research in a number of areas and at a number of institutions. The majority of those research funds are allocated to disease research with nutrition the second most supported discipline. The 1982-83 annual report of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee, which was tabled in Parliament during March, shows that expenditure from the trust account to the year ended 30 June totalled some $446,000. Of that, net research accounted for $ 430,000 which was supporting 24 new and 17 continuing projects. The Commonwealth contribution towards those projects was some $218,000. In addition to the major research undertaken in the areas of disease and nutrition, the Meat Research Committee also funds research into physiology and genetics, management and behaviour, public health and meat quality. There is no doubt in my mind that the Committee makes a substantial contribution to the improved quality and production of chicken meat in Australia. There are a number of producers of chicken meat within my electorate of Bendigo and each of them makes a significant contribution to the local economy and to the generation of jobs within the area. They are all well run efficient enterprises. The proprietors have a very good appreciation of the value of the research work undertaken by the Committee as well as an appreciation and understanding of some of the concerns which have been expressed about aspects of the industry, particularly aspects such as animal welfare. The question of feed costs is one which has concerned producers in my area for some time. The cost of feed will always be of major significance in the profitability of the poultry meat industry. Honourable members with an interest in that area will of course remember well the high cost of feed ingredients, particularly wheat, in late 1982 and 1983. Many would know that the poultry industry complained strongly, and perhaps in many cases even bitterly, about what it saw as its effective subsidisation of drought fodder subsidy schemes. I certainly received many similar representations from producers in my area and obviously made very strong representations to the Government on that question of drought fodder subsidy relief. But 1984 is quite a different year from 1982 and 1983. There are significant quantities of rain affected wheat throughout Victoria and the eastern States and this should prove very suitable and priced appropriately for true stock feed wheat. It is pleasing to see that in the industry paper presented at the recent Outlook Conference it was noted that the preparedness of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to discuss the recommendations of the Standing Committee arising from the Industries Assistance Commission report on the wheat industry with both the stock feed and poultry industries, prior to final recommendations being taken to the Australian Agricultural Council, was described at the Conference as both heartening and timely. The view expressed at that Conference confirms again the very good support for and the very popular vein in which the Minister for Primary Industry is perceived and accepted by primary producer groups throughout Australia. As I indicated previously, there is no doubt that the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee continues to make a very substantial contribution to the production of chicken meat in Australia and I strongly support the amendments in the Bill before the House. I wish also to make some brief comments on the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill. This Bill seeks to amend the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 and it also makes a consequential amendment to the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971. Other changes in the legislation give the Pig Meat Promotion Committee the power to administer funds and change the name of the Committee to the Pork Promotion Committee. The Bill also makes a number of lesser changes of a machinery nature to the legislation. The 1982-83 report of the Pig Meat Promotion Committee describes in good detail the general promotional activities undertaken by that Committee during the year. The report shows that $2,601,000 was spent from the Pig Meat Promotion Committee trust account during 1982-83. That was a significant increase in expenditure over the amount spent in 1981-82. The report also notes that the promotion of fresh pork in particular continued during 1982-83 with emphasis being placed on new fashion pork. That is a promotional term which has been used to describe a range of mainly fat trimmed and boneless pork cuts. Television was one of the major advertising mediums used. In late May and early June last year there was an important addition to the promotion of fresh pork in that a campaign promoting all cuts of fresh pork was mounted. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), touched on a number of aspects of that campaign. The Committee also spent a substantial amount of money during the year on market research. Its report notes that further consumer research will be carried out during the year. As in any industry, it is important that that research be carried out so that producers are able to meet the needs of consumers in the market. That research will be important in providing the way ahead for producers in the type of product they ought to be marketing. I refer briefly to a related matter. I note with interest and some pleasure that the Federal Government funds a number of research projects in the industry. I am pleased that $11,000 has been granted to a research project presently being undertaken by the Division of Animal Health in the Department of Agriculture in my electorate of Bendigo in Victoria. That research is looking at the treatment and control of enzootic pneumonia. That is valuable research for the industry. I was pleased again to see in the report of the Promotion Committee that my electorate of Bendigo has done fairly well in terms of the funds it receives from that Committee. Indeed the Committee allocated funds last year for the promotion and organisation of the national pig fair, which was held at Bendigo. I should like to raise two more matters before I conclude my remarks on this legislation. One aspect which has been mentioned in the debate is the question of industry trends and pricing. I note from a recent edition of National Farmer that the Pork Promotion Centre, with funding from the pig levy, will from now on be making its own monthly survey of pig industry trends. The centre is determining at the moment a sample of 400 producers whose farms represent a typical cross-section of Australia's pig industry. Every month those farmers will be phoned and asked to report their production levels, their stock movements, their expansion or contraction intentions, and regional price movements. All of that information will then be fed into computers, where it will be available to industry both intrastate and interstate. Again, that will be a valuable aid to the industry for long term forecasting. I conclude by commenting that when one is talking about pig legislation one is reminded of the Orwell novel Animal Farm. Indeed, I think a number of members may have seen the animated version of Animal Farm shown last Saturday night on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. There is a message in Animal Farm, and I certainly enjoyed seeing it. I guess it is relevant in a sense to this legislation because when one thinks of pigs one thinks of animal farms. Many of us serve in this place in an endeavour to build a better and fairer nation, a nation which is more concerned with those less fortunate people in the community. However, we have to be wary that, in so doing, we do not allow our own living standards and styles to rise to such a level that we are living in some luxury and fail to provide for those who are in much greater need. I think that is an important message from Animal Farm. The Bills are fairly straightforward and I commend them to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.38) —I foreshadow an amendment to the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill in the following terms: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the marketing of all meat products is interconnected and calls on the Government to aggressively support the marketing of Australian meats'. Whilst we are dealing with narrow matters in respect of what are termed white meat industries, I wish to say something about the problems of the red meat industry and the way that these industries are interrelated. Indeed, the white meat industries-the pig and chicken meat industries-will be dramatically affected by the total situation in regard to meat products. I have statistics which indicate that it is traditional that all meat products are interrelated in terms of sale. Irrespective of whether one is talking about cuts of beef, pork, chicken or sheep, the total meat products that are available on the Australian market are interrelated. For instance, if the prices in one area, perhaps in pig meats are high, consumer preferences shift to other forms of meat products. If beef prices are high due to drought or shortage, of course consumer preferences within Australia shift to another area. Although this legislation deals with chicken meat research, the total situation in regard to supply, demand, prices and the economic standard of the industries affected in Australia are interconnected. It would be foolish to say that the pig and chicken meat industries would not be affected if there were, for instance, dumping of large quantities of beef on the domestic market. The statistics that I have drawn out for 1980-83 indicate that over-supply in one area immediately produces a dampening and damaging effect across the board in all industries. Thus the Government should take note of the amendment that I will move at a later stage and move aggressively to support the marketing of Australian meats so that all sections of the Australian meat industry receive the Government's basic support. Honourable members will be aware of the drastic situation that applies throughout this nation in regard to the slaughter and processing of Australian meat. They will be aware also that some 7,000 meat employees have lost their jobs over the last few months. Mr Lloyd —How many? Mr CADMAN —Seven thousand meat employees. We are talking today about small industries. The front pages of daily newspapers indicate just what would happen in the coal industries in New South Wales and Queensland. But the meat industry has lost 7,000 employees over the last few months. Much of this in fact can be tagged to the Government's approach to the marketing of meat products. I read with interest, for instance, in July, comments by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) when he was in Tokyo having trade discussions with the Japanese Government. At the conclusion of his comments about the relationship between Japan and Australia with respect to coal, beef and agricultural products he said: This is why I believe my meeting with Mr Abe yesterday was so significant. He gave me a very clear and unambiguous undertaking that 'Japan has no intention of solving trade problems with third countries at the expense of Australia'. That phrase has been quoted often by the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to justify certain stances that he has taken. But in fact that phrase was used by Mr Abe in Japan in July last year. Goodness knows what it means. One can only assume that the intention with regard to our beef and mutton industries is that Australia will not be played off the break by Japanese negotiations with the United States. Mr Abe, as reported by Mr Hayden, described the Japan-Australia relationship as firm and unshakeable and described our commercial association as an 'economic alliance'. It was also said that we are both very much part of the Asian-Pacific region. I think that that is the basis for the Government's philosophy on the marketing of meats and the trade relationship established by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That comment was made by Mr Hayden on 26 July. It is interesting that on 28 July the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) was reported as saying: The United States had asked Australia to agree to voluntary restraints on its exports of beef to the United States market. Mr Bowen is quoted as saying: If a voluntary restraint program does not prove possible the United States may be forced by its own domestic legislation to seek to apply quotas on imports this year. That is, the United States may have to impose import quotas on Australian beef. There we have the Minister for Trade telling the Australian meat industry, the beef industry in particular, that we will enter into restraints in marketing Australian beef in the United States. What happened within six months? The United States did a deal with Japan and now flogs its beef to Japan. Who has been played off the break? The Minister for Trade, having acquiesced to a demand from the United States voluntarily to restrict the flow of beef into America, then sits on his hands while the Americans turn around and flog beef to Japan, taking away our traditional markets. In my view the Minister for Trade displayed a great deal of incompetence in this matter. As I said earlier, the inter-relationship of all meat products is affected by the incapacity of the Minister for Trade to understand that the Americans were not dealing fairly with Australia in this instance. They sought voluntary restraint in July last year and within six months are selling their surplus beef to Japan. Having convinced Australia voluntarily to withdraw to a great extent from the United States market, the United States then sells its surplus beef against us in our traditional market. Goodness me, if that is not a serious matter and a display of serious incompetence, I would be very surprised. It is up to the Government and the Minister for Trade to explain themselves in these circumstances. The Minister has not sought to do so. He has stayed away from Japan in every instance and stayed away from hard and proper negotiations. No doubt the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was unaware of these processes when he was in Japan in February and had his discussions with Mr Nakasone, the Japanese Prime Minister. At a conference in Osaka on 3 February, as reported in the Melbourne Age, Mr Hawke said: I have secured, I believe, in discussions with Mr Nakasone and others an understanding that provided that Australia remains a competitive and relaible supplier-which we will-then the share that Australia has enjoyed in these traditional markets will be maintained. That share in traditional markets, expressed in those terms, is a percentage that is maintained. An actual figure is not indicated. It is not tonnage. A share indicates a percentage of the total market. The Prime Minister said he understood the Japanese Prime Minister to agree that Australia will hold that share of the market. It was only after that instance that we became aware here that the Americans were seeking to move their beef into Japan. Mr Kerin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not mind the honourable member for Mitchell talking about beef when we are talking about chicken and pigs; but if he wishes to have the sort of debate which we had the other day on this question, I am afraid that in my reply to the second reading debate I will also have to divert from matters before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The honourable member has foreshadowed an amendment which has opened up the debate and which will allow the Minister to respond in the manner in which he may seek to do. Mr CADMAN —I understand the Minister's sensitivity because of all the individuals involved in this sad and sorry case he has proved to be the most incompetent and the most ineffectual in his negotiations on behalf of Australian primary producers and in particular on behalf of the meat producers of Australia -whether they be beef producers, chicken meat producers or pig meat producers- because their markets are interlocked. There is no way in which they can escape the situation that they sell one against the other on the domestic market, and an oversupply of beef on the Australian market will dramatically damage the prospects for the sale of chicken meat and pig meat. Mr Hawke claimed in private discussions with Australian journalists in Osaka that he had an undertaking from the Japanese Prime Minister that he would see that Australia's share of the traditional Japanese market would be maintained. That was the commitment from the Prime Minister in Japan. Within a few days the Ministry for Agriculture in Japan denied that that was the statement of the Prime Minister. In fact, one Press report in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 14 February-referring to a source from Japan-stated that the talks on Australian beef . . . had been delayed because the Japanese were unhappy at the way the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, had interpreted-- notice that word 'interpreted'- his talks on trade with the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Nakasone. It is the Prime Minister's interpretation of what he thought went on but in fact did not. Therefore, he seriously damaged the prospect for the sale of Australian beef to Japanese markets because of his wish to hunt headlines. Media reports in Tokyo following the discussions indicated that Mr Hawke had gained firm assurances from Mr Nakasone that Australia would maintain its traditional share of that market. All of this time, under the closer economic relationships with New Zealand, Australian markets are being attacked-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The amendment that the honourable member has foreshadowed does not deal with the Prime Minister's visit to Japan or New Zealand; it deals with the marketing of all meat products being interconnected. It is certainly not dealing with the marketing of beef, as he has related. Mr CADMAN —If the honourable member is saying that the Prime Minister was on a junket I am afraid I will have to believe him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! There is some substance to the point of order taken by the honourable member for McMillan. While the foreshadowed amendment has widened the debate, I think that the honourable member for Mitchell should make his comments relate more to chicken and pig meats. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have dealt with the role of the Prime Minister in this issue. I wish now to quote from the Minister for Primary Industry who, on 9 April in a discussion on the PM program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, was talking about the sale of Australian meats. He said that it was a very complex picture. He indicated that he was going to Japan to patch up the damage done by the Prime Minister. He said: . . . we're not just flying up there at the drop of a hat, I think we are going at exactly the right time, at the Ministerial level. I don't know why everyone wants to try and heighten this as if we don't know what's going on. One the same day, the Minister of Trade said: I don't think anything was wrong, I think it's a question of interpretation. He was referring to the Prime Minister's comments. The Minister continued: We actually admit we get more beef into Japan in quantity terms and possibly in the terms of interpretation they were saying well, you will get more beef, to that extent you won't be disadvantaged. That is gobbledegook. It is a complete contradition of what the Prime Minister was saying, and it is ducking for cover. On 9 April the Minister for Primary Industry said that he was going to Japan at exactly the right time to try to solve this problem on behalf of Australia. In a report from Tokyo printed in the Australian on 18 April, Rod O'Brien, quoting from Japanese scoures, said that he was informed that Australia's refusal to listen is a constant point being made Japanese buyers of Australian beef. The article stated: As an example, Mr Kerin outlined, that among other things, the Australian side would push for increases in the chilled beef category of the global quota. This approach has been taken for years by Australia and Mr Kerin has inherited, and accepted it. Japan, on the other hand, has said it does not want an expansion of the chilled tonnage because chilled beef must be released soon after arrival-- The comments made by Mr O'Brien are revealing. He is saying that the Minister for Primary Industry went to Japan and did nothing because he was there on the wrong basis. He was there in circumstances that he did not understand. In fact he was trying to resolve a difficult situation created for Australian meat producers by the Prime Minister. In the State of New South Wales it is a disastrous and desperate time for the meat industry, a time when pig producers, poultry producers, sheep growers and beef cattle producers are suffering. When 7 ,000 workers have been sacked throughout Australia, when abattoir after abattoir is closing down we would have thought we would see an effective and dynamic approach by the Australian Government to the problems of marketing Australian meats, but we have not seen that. In New South Wales, despite the closure of these plants, despite the number of people who have been laid off, the New South Wales Government continues to maintain the antique of all abattoirs at Flemington and over the last few years has propped it up with a total allocation of $20m. I am referring to an organisation that has made losses of $25m. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member should be brought back to the legislation. He is way off track in his remarks. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As I said before, the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Mitchell has broadened the debate considerably, but I remind him once again that it would be advantageous if he could relate his remarks to the Bills. I call the honourable member for Mitchell. Mr CADMAN —As my time is coming to and end, I will reiterate some of the main points I made in regard to the marketing of meat produce throughout Australia and internationally and to the role of the Australian Government in these issues . The role of the Australian Government has been abominable. First of all, in one instance in July last year we had the Minister for Trade agreeing to a reduction in the amount of beef Australia would sell to the United States. Where did that beef go? It stayed in Australia and competed against chicken, pig and sheep meats. I repeat: That beef stayed in Australia. Then, the Minister, not recognising what the Americans were doing, failed to take any effective action when he found out that American beef producers were undercutting Australia in the sale of beef on the Japanese market. That is a nice ploy that the Minister for Trade should try to explain. The Minister for Primary Industry was then thrown into the matter in April. He said that he thought it was the right time to go to Japan. It did not matter that it was two weeks earlier than he had planned. He had to do something about the mess the Prime Minister had created there. The Prime Minister, by the way, is a person who gets his fixes from reading his name in the headlines of newspapers. Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order. The Chair should bring the honourable member into line. Mr Shipton —They are very sensitive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think that the honourable members for McMillian has made his point once again. Mr CADMAN —Honourable members opposite are extremely sensitive to a throwaway line made in the course of the debate. The Prime Minister is at the nub of this. He went to Japan, with a quick tongue. He is a weak and insignificant man who likes to see his name in newspapers. Why else would he make statements that so seriously damage our meat trade and so seriously damage the future of Australian producers of all types of meat, both white and red? The Prime Minister is at the nub of it. The Prime Minister caused this problem. The Prime Minister went to Japan and created the problems involving the Japanese Government. He is supported by such a low-key Minister for Primary Industry that one would not know where he was. The Minister went to Japan to try to resolve the matter. He said it was the opportune time. He came back a few days later and said: 'Well, they were not ready to talk to me'. The Minister would have known that before he went, had he done his homework. Now he is going to Japan again. What incompetence! The man has a degree in economics. The only trouble is that he cannot translate that into practice in trade negotiations. These three men who represent the Government, the Minister for Trade, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Prime Minister, have failed this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.57) —The purpose of the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill 1984 is to correct an anomaly in the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. During 1969 three Acts were passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, which established a joint Commonwealth Government-industry scheme to undertake research for the chicken meat industry. The research scheme is funded mainly by a levy on meat chickens hatched, with a matching contribution by the Commonwealth Government on expenditure from the levy. It is worthwhile to record that this research scheme is the result of proposals submitted to the Federal Government by the chicken meat industry for the introduction of a statutory research scheme along similar lines to those operating for a number of other rural industries. The relevant legislation passed in 1969 was: First, the Chicken Meat Research Act, which established the Chicken Meat Research Trust Account; second, the Meat Chicken Levy Act, which provides for the imposition of a levy on meat chickens hatched; and third, the Meat Chicken Levy Collection Act, which provides the legislative authority for collecting the levy. The scheme is designed to provide a co-ordinated program of research in relation to the scientific, technical and economic problems of the meat chicken industry. The current rate of levy is 10c for every 100 meat chickens hatched. The maximum rate of levy provided in the legislation is 25c for every 100 meat chickens hatched. The levy is reviewed each year. I understand there are no current proposals by the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee to change the rate of levy. Levy receipts are matched by the Commonwealth Government. Other receipts from the sale of assets or produce from research projects, interest on investment of resources and penalties for late payment of the levy are not matched by the Commonwealth Government. In the past access to the unmatched reserves has been restricted by the need to exhaust the matched funds first. This is impracticable as the levy continues to be received regularly. The principal amendment contained in this Bill is to provide for two separate accounts within the research account. The first account will cover funds matched by the Commonwealth Government, the second account will deal with funds not matched by the Commonwealth Government. This arrangemnt will provide greater flexibility in meeting research expenditure. The industry levy currently raises approximately $241,000 per annum. For the financial year 1982-83 nearly $220,000 was provided by the Commonwealth as a matching contribution in respect of expenditure made for research over that period. In addition, approximately $90,000 was paid into the trust account from income derived from investments, sales of products, sales of shares and penalties for late payment of levy. Research grants and related expenditure approved to date for the 1983-84 financial year amount to $524,427. Unmatchable reserves held in the trust account amount to approximately $320,000. This sum includes interest amounting to approximately $289,000 earned on investment of reserves since 1970 to the present. The cost of research into nutrition of the meat chicken from 1969 to the present time has amounted to approximately $1.2m. It is the policy of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee to approve grants to research projects on the basis of industry need and requirements. Frequently research grants are made to only two or three groups in any one area of research. During this financial year the Committee has allocated approximately 42 per cent of research expenditure to universities and colleges, 27 per cent of research expenditure to State departments of agriculture or primary industry and 12 per cent of research expenditure to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisations. Since the introduction of the research scheme approximately 41 per cent of expenditure for research projects has been allocated towards research into poultry diseases; 16 per cent of expenditure for research projects has been allocated to public health related projects. The chickens produced in modern hatcheries normally grow faster than their predecessors did. Physiologically they are under more stress and are therefore more susceptible to disease. Newcastle disease poses a continual threat to the Australian chicken meat industry. There is great danger of it being introduced into Australia by accident or design. The disease is evident in Europe, the United States of America and Asia. Only one strain of Newcastle disease, that is , V4, is present in Australia. This strain does not produce any symptoms in birds but has allowed for the development of a vaccine that may be effective against other strains of Newcastle disease. Extensive research into Newcastle disease has been carried out both in Australia and Malaysia for a number of years. The list of chicken diseases seems endless: Marek's disease, avian viral disease, mycoplasma infection, infectious coryza, infectious bursal syndrome, infectious bronchitis virus, infectious laryngotracheitis, acute death syndrome, mycoplasma synovial infection, early chicken nephritis, avian encephalomyelitis viruses, avian lymphoid leukosis, leg weakness and so on. Another important area of research is to improve the nutrition of chickens. Triticale, a wheat-rye hybrid, is an alternative grain that has been examined by the Committee for use in obtaining greater meat production in chickens. The Committee has examined a wide range of foodstuffs which are not useful for human consumption but could be nutritious to chickens. The Committee also sponsors farm management research and extensively promotes farming efficiency, particularly with respect to management of broiler chickens and breeder chickens . Chicken slaughtering techniques are also investigated by the Committee. Normally meat chickens are marketed at about seven weeks of age when their expected average live weight is around 1.8 kilograms. It is important to present or 'dress' chickens in a salable condition. It is also important to reduce the amount of offal remaining in the finished product to maintain product integrity. The total number of meat chickens slaughtered in the seven months to January 1984 was approximately 124 million. Consumption of meat chicken in the same period is estimated to be 19.4 kilgorams per person, a slight rise from early 1983. Slaughterings are forecast to increase by 2 per cent while average slaughter weights should rise in line with trends apparent in the Industry over the past four or five years. It is expected that Australia will export only 1.3 kilotonnes of chicken meat this year. Exports are principally to Papua New Guinea and the Pacific islands. Food costs are a major component of total production costs in the poultry industry. It appears likely that in 1984 there will be significant quantities of rain-affected wheat which should be suitable for, and priced as, stock feed wheat. Feed wheat prices are expected to be much lower than in 1983. Accordingly profitability of the chicken meat industry should improve as a consequence of falling feed costs. Furthermore, production of poultry meat in 1984 is expected to rise by approximately 3 per cent to approximately 315 kilotonnes. In addition to the research work being carried out by the Committee, a number of companies also carry out research into packaging and supermarket presentation . For example, the illumination of certain coloured lamps can highlight chicken meat more favourably than naturally would be the case. No actual work has been carried out by the Committee on packaging. This has been an industry project. The industry prides itself on even quality of products and all packaging carries a brand name. This is to maintain product quality and accountability by the industry. Fresh poultry is packaged in clear plastic bags and frozen poultry in an opaque cryovac package. One of the best advantages of chicken meat is its constant quality. By sound and disciplined production techniques an even quality product for the consumer can be offered all year round. The take-away food business has always demanded chickens of even quality and strict weight and size specifications. The outlook for chicken meat in the medium term is relatively favourable. Feed cost increases are generally expected to be less than the rate of growth of poultry prices, while supplies of competing meats are not expected to return to the high levels of recent years until late in the 1980s. The Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 amends the Pig Meat Slaughter Levy Act 1971 and the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975. Specifically, clause 6 of the Bill provides for the repeal of section 4 of the Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975, which established the Pig Meat Promotion Trust Account. The Bill provides for the closure of that account and transfers funds standing to the credit of that account to the Pork Promotion Committee, established by this Bill. Clause 7 of the Bill amends section 5 of the Principal Act to provide that after July 1, 1984, all money received by the Federal Government for promotion funds from both the pig slaughter levy and any other sources are to be paid direct to the Pork Promotion Committee. The Committee will pay its own accounts. The Committee will now be subject to the usual accounting procedures required of statutory bodies and its accounts will be audited by the Commonwealth Auditor-General. The Bill provides for a number of machinery changes, including the provision for a quorum of three-members or deputies-at Committee meetings. The above changes have the support of the Australian Pork Producers Federation. The Pig Meat Promotion Act 1975 established the Pig Meat Promotion Committee composed of four members. Clause 11 of the Bill changes the name of the Pig Meat Promotion Committee to the Pork Promotion committee. The Committee is funded by a levy imposed by the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971. The current promotion levy is 60c for each pig slaughtered for human consumption. In 1982-83 promotion levy funds collected, penalty payments, interest from investments and miscellaneous income received by the committee amounted to approximately $2.5m. There was also a balance of more than $1m from the previous year. There is no contribution to committee funds by the Federal Government. Expenditure by the pig meat promotion trust account in 1982-1983 amounted to more than $2.6m. The Pig Meat Promotion Committee has done an excellent job in carrying out well conducted market research and has designed its program campaigns accordingly. the committee has been promoting a range of new fashioned pork cuts, which are a selection of fat-trimmed, lean boneless cuts. The advertising campaign has been designed to overcome consumer perception of pork being a fatty wasteful meat. A major public relations campaign is being carried out to inform housewives and people involved in the food industry of the correct values of pork in the human diet. In the next twelve months the Pork Promotion Committee will be undertaking a massive promotional campaign in support of pig meat products. Already advertising and promotion by the Committee has lifted pork, ham and bacon sales enormously. Regrettably, promotion is completely concentrated on the domestic market. The Committee performs an important role with respect to the provision of information to producers and the collation and dissemination of industry statistics. It also conducts market research to establish consumer preferences and the perception of pig meat products. There are approximately 14,000 pig producers in Australia. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that the number of pigs slaughtered has increased from 4,161,000 in 1981 to 4,200,000 in 1983. The gross value of pigs slaughtered during 1982-83 is estimated to be $412m compared with $399m in 1981- 82. An 11 per cent improvement in average saleyard prices for pigs is expected in 1984 compared to the previous year. Feed costs are expected to decline. The two major factors responsible for improved prices are anticipated to be increased consumer demand resulting from an increase in the pricing of other meats, plus a decline in the level of slaughter. As a result of the very low prices received by pig producers in 1983, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimated that total pig numbers are expected to fall by 1.5 per cent to 2.46 million by the end of 1984. Also, over the same period sow numbers are expected to fall by 1.4 per cent, production of pig meat by 0.8 per cent to 240 kilotonnes, and total consumption by 1.3 per cent. However, by 1986 pig producers expect a significant build-up in pig prices and a subsequent increase in production reflecting expected improvements in net returns. However, many pig producers are concerned as to the future of the pig industry. Some producers claim that over the last 20 years there has been a significant decline in the number of pig establishments, with a reduction in the number of small piggeries. It is estimated that the share of the national pig herd under the corporate integrated control is now approximately 20 per cent. The level of corporate investment an vertical integrated operations have important implications for pig production units owned by individuals solely involved in pig production. One concern is the effect of integrated prodution, that is, the same company controlling the supply of feed grains, production of pigs and processing and sale of the final product as against the smaller family unit that is engaged in production of pigs alone and needs to be able to sell its product to a processor . Accordingly, the preservation of market outlets is of vital concern to the non -integrated pig farmer, particularly when corporate investment can take over processing operations. A number of pig producers are desirous of expanding the export pig meat trade. Other pig producers have serious reservations about such a move because of the fluctuation in access to and profitability of export markets and the consequent effect those problems could have on the domestic market. It is noteworthy that exports of pig meat in 1983 rose by approximately 9 per cent on the 1982 figure. However, exports still account for only an estimated one per cent of total production. A small quantity of live pigs has been sold to Singapore for breeding stock. Exports of pig meat are expected to increase slightly in 1984 but to remain a very low proportion of production. It is likely that most of these exports will go to Japan and Papua New Guinea. Mr Brian Jackson, Group executive director of Afrifoods Group, Elders-IXL, told a recent pig marketing workshop that Australia has all the requirements for a major pork export industry. He claimed that successful exporting countries added value to their product before exporting it. For example, export industries should be based on converting Australia's agricultural commodities into higher value-added exports. It was claimed that the export markets for pig meat are quite significant. Japan is the major importer of pig meat. Over the next decade many Asian countries are expected to dramatically increase their demand for imported pig meat. The industry recognises Singapore as a huge potential importer of Australian pig meat. At present many Asian countries are importing pork from Denmark, the United States of America and Canada. The pig meat industry is confident that Australia will become increasingly competitive in the export of pig meat. It has also been claimed that the structure of the Australian grain industry, particularly the Australian Wheat Board, is a major obstacle to the development of value-added indutries based on grains. It has been alleged that the Australian Wheat Board refuses to permit the development of a feed-wheat indstry with variations developed for feed purposes. It has been suggested that it is unlikely that an export industry will arise until there is some freedom in the domestic wheat market. If Australia is to produce cheap pig meat then the producer must have the opportunity of easy access to grain. This would have benefits for intensive pig and poultry feeding. All commercial producers of pigs use milled feed grains made up of a range of grains and proteins for optimum growth of pigs. Mr Jackson claimed that his company had received inquiries from a number of foreign organisations interested in establishing export intensive meat industries in Australia, including pig meat, poultry and grain feed beef. The export pig meat industry would appear to represent the best opportunity in this area. Federal and State governments must adopt a program of accelerated development of value-added agricultural export industries in Australia. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, has instituted a number of sound initiatives designed to develop and maintain such industries. The development of such industries would create thousands of jobs and generate significant export earnings for Australia. Australia's pig breeding, nutrition, husbandry and management technology has rapidly caught up with the rest of the world. Finance collected from producers on the levy of pigs slaughtered for human consumption under the Pig Meat Slaughter Levy Act 1971 is also allocated for research and related purposes. The James Cook University of North Queensland in Townsville has undertaken a number of pig research projects and is an important research centre for the investigation of pig disease. The development of improved production procedures and a concerted effort by the industry to reduce costs deserve the highest priority. If the pig meat industry is to continue to maintain a secure foothold as a major primary industry in Australia then it must accept the challenge of developing and expanding export markets. The industry is far more advanced in almost every area than any other pig meat industry in the world. The Hawke Government supports the continued growth of the Australian pig meat industry and urges the industry to accelerate the development of an export industry of pig meat to Asian countries. To sum up, these two Bills are further written evidence of the Hawke Government 's determination to pursue its historic goals of national reconciliation, national reconstruction and national recovery of Australian primary industry. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.14) —The two Bills before the House today are the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill 1984 and the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984. The House has already been made aware that these Bills are neither large in their content nor in their purpose. However, they are necessary Bills of the type that the Government must bring before the Parliament on occasions to ensure that these industries can be assisted. The main purpose of the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill is to give the promotion committee control of its own funds. That is something that I am sure the Opposition will support because it gives independence to those people who know the task best. The Chicken Meat Research Act 1969 made no specific provision for moneys collected as a penalty for late payment of a levy to be paid into the research account. This Bill corrects that anomaly. The Bill also establishes two separate accounts within the research account, the first account to cover funds matched by the Commonwealth and the second account to cover funds not matched by the Commonwealth. This provides greater flexibility in meeting research expenditure. All in all, the Government has set out to improve the opportunities for the two industries to operate and to improve their product and their market prospects. I do not think anybody had any great objection to that. Nevertheless, when the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) spoke he indicated to me one of the great problems confronting the white meat industries.The chicken industry, through vertical integration and through other things, has become one of the major providers of meat. Plenty of us in this chamber remember when chicken was a Christmas time luxury. It has now become one of the more common-place items on a family menu. Nevertheless, chicken is still, and will always remain, in competition with red meats. Of course, that is healthy and good for the consumer . Australia has relied heavily on the red meat industry as an export earner as well and quite clearly, as was stated by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), when we get to the situation of the white meat industries needing to export, of course the whole export arrangements of the present Government come into question. Consequently, the honourable member for Mitchell foreshadowed an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill which states: Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the marketing of all meat products is interconnected and calls on the Government to aggressively support the marketing of Australian meats. Any person who interjects when the Opposition, quite constructively, tries to bring this matter to the Government's attention is only defending the Government from its own sins. Instead of looking to the welfare of meat producers and recognising the link between export sales and local sales and the protection of those industries, there is interjection after interjection. These interjections were made by the representative of a country electorate who should be deeply concerned about the welfare of his constituents and the export markets, for instance, of beef. Like so many members of the Australian Labor Party he is obliged to put the welfare of his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Party ahead of his constituents. I recently had the job of pointing out to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) that he might start to recognise who elected him. The people of his electorate elected him. If the honourable member wishes to raise objections with me I will remind him at length of his responsibilities. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is a little worried about how he should reply to the foreshadowed amendment. Clearly, the Minister will have the opportunity, as you explained to him, Mr Deputy Speaker, of refuting any statements made by the Opposition. That is quite fair and reasonable. However, that is a chance that he has got which has never been afforded to the Opposition by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is too scared to come into this House and make a statement about his visit to Asia. He will not give the Opposition the opportunity to criticise. Day after day in this place Ministers use Question Time to make statements which they should make at more appropriate times when the Opposition would have a chance to respond. They know very well that the Government's policies and statements would be so easy to criticise-they will not do it. What have we got? More than anything else we have a beef industry which relies on exports. More particularly it relies on exports to countries such as Japan. It has become very clear to everybody that we are losing sections of that market . Every time we lost a bit of that market more pressure was placed on the chicken and pig industries. The Prime Minister, in recognising this after having it brought to his attention by the Cattle Council of Australia, went to Japan and, during his discussions with the Japanese Prime Minister, he raised this matter. According to what the Prime Minister told us, he got some assurances from the Japanese Prime Minister. When he produced his Press release he used the words 'I believe'. He said: I have secured,-- he added 'I believe'-- in discussions with Mr Nakasone and others an understanding that provided that Australia remains a competitive and reliable supplier-which we will-then the share that Australia has enjoyed in these traditional markets will be maintained . He also said: . . . its share in the traditional areas of supply which, of course, includes mineral products and primary products-particularly beef. That is what the Prime Minister was talking about. Having received some assurances, which I believe were probably given by Prime Minister Nakasone in good faith, the Prime Minister, in traditional style, overlooked the first rule of a competent businessman, and that is to keep one's mouth shut when one is in front. Anybody who has had any experience in business knows that is an absolute rule. One does not let one's competitors know what one is doing. That is an absolute rule. The Prime Minister, of course, is a notable failure in the area of business. He took on a retail shop and messed it up. He took on a fuel business, where he had absolute and complete advantage over everyone, and messed it up. He has been a failure. This time he has hurt a lot of other people. On his headline seeking overseas trip he could not get out of the door quickly enough to say what he had done. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not dealing with the issue before the Chair, and he knows it. I suggest that he be brought into line. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — I have allowed this debate to be a fairly free and open debate. The honourable member for McMillan has raised a valid point of order and I would like the honourable member for O'Connor to relate his remarks to the Bills and the foreshadowed amendment. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, with due respect to you, I took some time at the beginning of my speech to say how important it was to these industries that the Government sets out in this legislation to maintain Australia's beef market in Japan. Quite clearly, the actions of our Prime Minister in contributing to the destruction of that market is of importance to us here. I raised this issue with Mr Speaker on another occasion and I have a letter from him explaining to me the relevance of an amendment such as the one brought forward by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I do not believe I have trans- gressed in any way. Mr Cunningham —You are disputing the Chair's decision. Mr TUCKEY —I believe the honourable member who has just interjected is more concerned with his Party than with his constituents who are beef producers. He should be welcoming comments and attacks that try to improve the Australian beef market because his dairy herds are valued at the expiration of their productive life as milk producers by the value of the overseas beef market. He knows that, but he is more interested in protecting a Prime Minister who muffed it, because of his headline seeking, than he is in protecting the people in his electorate, whether they be pig, cattle or dairy producers. The honourable member does not care about them and we all know why. We know that the rules of the Australian Labor Party are that one should forget one's constituents and stick with the philosophy. Mr Chynoweth —That is not right. Mr TUCKEY —Of course it is right and the honourable member for Flinders knows it . Honourable members opposite vote in a block in this place all the time. Quite clearly, some of their constituents are hurt by that attitude. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point or order. The honourable member was instructed by the Chair to be relevant to the Bill and he spent the next five minutes attacking an honourable member in a personal way. I think that he should be brought to order and made to abide by the ruling of the Chair and the rules of the Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is merit in the point of order but, as I have said, the foreshadowed amendment does open up the debate to a large degree. I remind the honourable member for O'Connor that the amendment does not allow him to go as far as he has in the debate. Mr TUCKEY —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take your advice on that. In regard to the situation in the beef industry as it affects the chicken industry and other industries, the point I am making is that nobody should know better than the Prime Minister, presuming he is a consummate politician. After hearing him answer some questions I asked the other day, I have some doubt about that. I thought he showed a considerable lack of ability. In fact, he appeared to me to be a man who knows very little about the game in here. If he has a political streak in him he would know what would happen immediately in Australia if, for instance, the Prime Minister of Fiji were to come to him on a matter of pig and chicken imports and put the proposition that he should assist Fiji in the Australian market and the Prime Minister were to say that he would do what he could and then the Prime Minister of Fiji went outside and immediately announced to the Press and his constituents in Fiji that he had just done a great deal with the Australian Prime Minister and Fiji's share of the pig market in Australia was to be expanded or that pork exports would be allowed into Australia. What would happen immediately? I will tell honourable members. The Australia pig lobby would be on our Prime Minister like a ton of bricks. If it so happened by coincidence that one of our major trading partners who had a major trade surplus or trading deficiency, if you like, with our country and who had also been trying to negotiate to export pig meat to Australia heard that Fiji was to receive some preferential treatment that trading partner would also massive pressure on our Prime Minister. I put it to the House that that is exactly what happened in Japan in the case of the beef market. Our Prime Minister could not keep his mouth shut. Before Prime Minister Naksone could get out of his office the phones started ringing. We know well the strength and influence of the Japanese beef producers. We know extremely well how much influence they have. We know well the strength and influence of the Japanese beef producers. We know extremely well how much influence they have. We know extremely well how much pressure the United States of America is able to bring to bear because of the trading differentials between that country and Japan. Our Prime Minister could not keep the matter quite. He had to spruick about it all over the world. Clearly, those two lobbies came to bear, as we now know, within a couple of days. The Age of Monday, 13 February reported: The Japanese Government has postponed talks on Australian beef exports because of concern at comments made by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, while he was in Japan. Of course it did. The Japanese Government had to give some immediate assurances to the other lobbyists that the things which the Prime Minister had claimed would happen were not going to happen. Any chance that we had of improving our beef markets at that time were destroyed. Perhaps this could be best described to the Australian public by saying that when we look at the Bill we see that we have a government of chicken meat Bills-little Bills such as this. Certainly, the Bills have a place. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this action has to be taken, but this is a government of chicken meat Bills. Mr Lloyd —Chickens with one wing. Mr TUCKEY —They do not fly too well, either. It is a government of chicken meat Bills. We can look at list after list of important decisions which the Government has foreshadowed in all sorts of areas and which are now on the back burner. They are on the back burner because the Prime Minister opportunistically wants an election this year before more of his gaffes, such as the beef exercise and the China steel excercise, come to the notice of the Australian public and they find out that the only thing that is nice about the Prime Minister is the hair that he puts under the dryer every day. Yesterday the Prime Minister tried to defend his position. In the typical fashion of the Government, every time someone says it has done something wrong it says: 'We are the goodies, because we can give you an example of what happened 20 years ago when the Liberals did worse'. The Government is never prepared to stand up and defend its own actions. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order-- Mr TUCKEY —There is no point of order. We are not sure that this Bill does not relate to what I just said. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Cunningham —I still cannot understand how any of the remarks being made by the honourable member for O'Connor deal at all with the marketing of Australan meat. He has made very little mention so far of the Bill in his 15-minute speech . I think that he should be brought into line and made to bring his speech into order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As I have said, there is certainly some substance in the point of order. I think that the honourable member for O'Connor has successfully covered the subject that he wished to cover. I ask him to deal with the Bills in the remaining five minutes. Mr TUCKEY —I assume that while the Minister for Primary Industry is sitting at the table I am entitled to refer to his importance. The Clayton's joke has become pretty hollow these days, but if ever we have had a Clayton's Minister- the Minister you have when you are not having a Minister-we have one now. He is the chicken meat research Minister. When I go out into my constituency my constituents tell me of the wonderful promises he makes in all sorts of areas. But I do not remember him doing anything much more than to bring us some chicken -type legislation since he has been in office. He and some of the State members of the Australian Labor Party who go into my electorate tell my constituents that of course they are fighting all the time for the constituents' welfare but that they get rolled in Cabinet or the unions tell them that that is not on. It is tough for these Clayton's-type Ministers. But we are rapidly approaching the situation of a Clayton's-style Government. Issue after issue-superannuation, the assets test, capital gains, Medicare, human rights, trade practices, State aid and industry policy-is being put on the back burner by this Government. The Government is not able to do anything about these matters of great importance. It is not able to relieve the Australian public of concern in certain areas because it wants to have an election. To get back to the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill and the meat industry, the previous speaker was at pains to point out that the future of these industries lies in exports. Yet what is happening? If a good export market was obtained tomorrow for the chicken or the pig meat industry, how would the goods be delivered? There are delays on Australian wharves of up to a month now-- Mr Lloyd —Meat is being held up. Mr TUCKEY —That is right. We have seen on the television trucks either going to place goods in containers-perhaps pork or chicken, for all I know-or to collect goods. But they cannot get them. The drivers are complaining. They are good hardworking Australians who need the money so that they can pay their taxes. Three days in a row they fronted up but, because of the present go-slow tactics on the wharves, they could not get a load. The Prime Minister had the cheek to say that he would promote competition and reliable supply. But what has he done for the pig and chicken producers of Australia who wish to create an export market? They are not able to go overseas and say: 'We have a perishable product. We know that you cannot hold it for very long but we can guarantee you that if you ring us we will have the order there on time'? How could those people who the previous speaker said need an export market guarantee that anywhere in the world? What has the Government done about that? There has not been one word. Not even a dorothy dixer question from its own side has been put to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations ( Mr Willis) to put pressure on him. I might add that members of the previous Government's back bench had some freedom to ask questions of their Ministry, and did. I put embarrassing questions without notice to our Ministers to keep them on the job. But what happens with this Government? It is all structured. The pig and chicken meat producers could not develop an export market if they tried because the overseas buyers would say to them: 'Come on; you have a go-slow.' Australia records only strike statistics. We do not record go-slow statistics. We do not record bans and limitations. We do not record the fact that, when an iron ore ship is due to leave on the high tide and the fellows walk off for 20 minutes, the ship is delayed for the whole day. We do not write that down. The Government therefore can boast of a low strike record. But that does not convince the potential chicken and pig meat purchasers overseas. I can tell honourable members that they will not buy our product because they would not know when such perishable products would arrive. That is the message for Government members and more so for the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham). He abuses me when I am trying only to protect his people. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I call the Minister for Primary Industry. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.34) —I shall now close the debate and refer to matters raised by the Opposition. I seek your guidance about when the amendment will be moved, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The amendment will be moved when the second Bill is called on. Mr Ian Cameron —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the debate being closed? We have not been informed of that fact. Mr KERIN —Madam Deputy Speaker, nobody else sought the call. Mr Lloyd —He did. Mr KERIN —No, I jumped well before him. Mr Lloyd —But he was here. He was ready to jump. He was listed to speak. It was understood that the debate would continue. Mr KERIN —Madam Deputy Speaker, all I can say is that, when the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) ceased speaking, no one rose from the Opposition side and no one else rose on the Government side; so I rose to speak. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is quite correct. Mr Ian Cameron —But, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was the turn of a Government member to speak. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the Minister prepared to resume his seat to allow the honourable member for Maranoa to speak? Mr KERIN —No. I think the Opposition has had a fair go. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I again call the Minister. Mr Lloyd —Madam Deputy Speaker, I again raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to reconsider because it was understood that the honourable member for Maranoa would be speaking. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I inform the honourable member for Murray that the Chair has no jurisdiction in this. I have called the Minister. Mr KERIN —Madam Deputy Speaker, if members of the Opposition do not jump to receive the call, I cannot do anything about it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order before the Chair. The Minister has the call. Mr Ian Cameron —Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understood that it was the turn of a Government member to speak because one of our members had just spoken. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I regret that the Chair has no jurisdiction over that. The Minister was the only member who sought the call and I recognised him. I call the Minister. (Quorum formed) Mr KERIN —Madam Deputy Speaker-- Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Deputy Speaker- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has the call. Does the honourable member for Maranoa wish to raise a point of order? Mr Ian Cameron —I just hope that the Government runs Australia better than it runs this House. I have just been advised-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will resume his seat. I call the Minister. Mr KERIN —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spoken with the Whips. Apparently there was a speakers list drawn up. I am prepared to defer to the honourable member for Maranoa for some 10 minutes on this. I point out that if he wishes to speak in this House he should seek the call at the appropriate time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the Minister and call the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.38) —I thank the House for the quorum and thank all Government members for being here today to listen to this powerful speech that I am about to make on the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill and the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill. I would also like to thank the Government Whip for allowing me to speak here today. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry ( Mr Kerin) runs the primary industries of Australia better than he has attempted to run business here in the House today. The Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill is being introduced to help the promotion of pork. We on this side of the House will support the expenditure of funds that are being raised by a 60c levy on the slaughter of pigs to put together $2.5m in a year. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is far too much conversation in the House. Mr IAN CAMERON —I can handle members of the Government. They do not concern me much. The sort of interest they take in the pig and chicken producers of Australia is practically nil. I hope that all the farmers listening to this debate note the fact that Government members are not prepared to listen to what we have to say about these great industries. The Bill seeks to change the name of the Pig Meat Promotion Committee to the Pork Promotion Committee. The pork industry has done a tremendous job in the last few years promoting its product. Pork is a name that I guess is easier for producers to use to enable them to sell more of their product to the housewives throughout Australia. Administration of the funds will be in the hands of the producers themselves. I think that this is a model that all primary industries can follow. I believe that Government ought to be involved only in setting up machinery to make compulsory the collection of levies. That having been done, the industries themselves ought to be given the opportunity to run their own affairs. This is the sort of Bill that ought to be applied, not only to the pork industry but also to the beef industry, the wheat industry and a number of other primary industries in Australia. The levy is to be paid direct to the Committee. Again, I think this is an excellent idea. The levy will not be handled half a dozen times by the bureaucracy. It will be collected and will go straight to the producers to do as they see fit. It will be audited, of course. Government has to do these things. A proper audit will be done at the end of each financial year. This is certainly the way to help producers do the job of promotion. The Commonwealth is not involved in providing any funds. There is no dollar for dollar funding. Again, I believe that primary industries in Australia should not be continually going cap in hand to government to seek funds. I believe we ought to get our tax funds back in other ways. Perhaps regional television stations or, at least, studios would be one way of doing it. We all pay our taxes. People ought to be able to get regional television. The pig producers of Townsville and Rockhampton are not now able to get regional television. Yet we spend $30m on ethnic television in this country. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Maranoa that he is ranging a bit far by bringing television into the debate. Mr IAN CAMERON —I probably am, but it is amazing how relaxed the pig and chicken producers can get at night when they come home. They like to put their feet up an watch a bit of television, particularly regional television. They are being deprived of this. I believe it is better for the Government not to fund some of the industries. There is no government funding going to the pork research fund, yet the Government is going to take regional television studios from these people. That is where government funds should be going. The Government should give every producer and rural dweller in Australia access to regional television . I think it is important for this Government to remember-- Mr Saunderson —Ten minutes or the gag. Mr IAN CAMERON —I had better get going. I refer to export inspection. This costs the industry a lot of money. The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) mentioned that the industry is looking to government in this matter. Unfortunately, most pigs are slaughtered in export abattoirs and producers are being asked to pay two levies, the local and the export levy. As the honourable member for Murray pointed out, this costs the industry $5.9m yet it exports only $4.9m of pork. I support the amendment of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). It seeks to open up the debate particularly in relation to the problems that the beef industry has. The matter of beef inspection charges is before the High Court of Australia and the legislation has been blocked in the Senate. The Government is trying to recoup 50 per cent of the cost of the meat inspection service and charges have gone up tremendously. Meat works have been closed throughout Australia. The works at Wallangarra in my electorate of Maranoa have been closed. I see some light on the horizon in that, hopefully, the Roma works are about to reopen. We have to congratulate the Kennedy family which has been in the meat industry for many years in that part of the world and also the local meat workers themselves who have contributed to the raising of funds to see whether the Roma works can reopen. But, of course, we cannot have a meat works without stock and we have to be careful to keep the numbers fairly constant so that these works can get back into operation. World trade is continuing to contract. This is the basic problem we have in selling more meat to our neighbours. We are facing tremendous competition from the European Economic Community and from the United States, in particular, which has a record trade deficit. The United States has never been in a worse position than it is in today. Its trade deficit is at a record when it normally runs at surplus. Our own $10 billion deficit in Australia is the worst we have ever had and the United States deficit at $200 billion is the worst it has ever had. That is the reason why we are not able to get more beef into the Japanese market. It is important to point out that the tonnage of meat going to Japan is increasing. It is unfortunate that this problem has been played up. As a beef producer I know that this tends to give the buyers the opportunity to depress the market. It is important to remember that the tonnage has actually increased; it is the percentage that has fallen. I do not believe that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will have any success in Japan in getting more tonnage but I wish him every success in his endeavours on that trip. Queensland is the biggest beef exporting State in Australia and it is important that we continue to find more markets around South East Asia. I also condemn the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ). I cannot praise everybody but pig iron Bob-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr IAN CAMERON —The Prime Minister goes to Asia and says that he will lower tariffs and all sorts of things. That is the sort of thing he ought to be doing. How can we sell more beef to the Japs if the Government is not prepared to lower tariffs and, for instance, bring in more 4-wheel drive vehicles? It is talking about putting a quota on Japanese 4-wheel drives. We have just lost more markets to the Koreans. The New Zealanders have beaten us to the meat market there. We would not buy the Jackson pipeline. The Jackson oil field on the western end of Maranoa has just been developed. A pipeline down to Moonie has been dug-it is four or five hundred miles long-and we are not prepared to buy the pipe from Korea. What can we expect? The Koreans turned around and said: 'You are not going to take a bit of our steel; we are not going to take any of your beef.' Trade is a quid pro quo. That is enough on the beef industry. Before I sit down I will mention the animal liberation movement. There are 160,000 farmers in Australia. Not only do we have to contend with swivel chair farmers like the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman)-he is a swivel chair farmer; he buys up good productive land in Victoria-but also the Army wants to buy up good productive land, pseudo- Aborigines are wandering around wanting to take up what is left and now the animal liberationists are telling us what we can and cannot do. I intend to march on these people. I have stated this previously. I reckon that if it is good enough for these people to want us to let our chooks out of their cages and our pigs out of their sties we ought to march into Sydney and other places and let all their canaries out of their cages. If it is good enough for the animal liberationists to tell us farmers what to do with our animals-- Mr Saunderson —What about the zoos? Mr IAN CAMERON —We should let all the animals out of the zoos. We should kick all the cats out of the homes and let the dogs loose. We see poor mange ridden dogs around towns. What right have people to keep dogs in houses? People tell us how to run our chooks. The Minister for Primary Industry has been one of the nation's top chook producers. What worries me is that the Senate may set up a committee. Once senators get together and get committees going anything can happen. All I am doing is asking the primary industry producers of Australia to wake up to what is going on, to get together and make sure that we nip the animal liberation movement in the bud before it gets rolling. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Primary Industry. Might I suggest to the Minister that as there has been a fairly free-ranging debate he can answer most of the questions that were raised if he wishes to do so. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(11.50) —in reply-It has been an intensive and a free-ranging debate. I honestly do not know where to start. For the information of honourable members, and perhaps the listening public, the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill 1984 and the Pig Meat Legislation Amendment Bill 1984, which are being debated cognately, relate to a name change, some funding changes and some administrative changes with respect to two Acts of Parliament. I thank honourable members for their contributions, particularly the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who put forward thoroughly researched and constructive contributions which actually referred to the Bills before the House. At the outset I must say that I was rather sorry for the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), who gave a speech for the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), who I understand from a journal I read recently was a public speaking champion. What we got, in keeping with his expertise, was the usual billy-goat nonsensical approach to any matters raised in the House concerned with agriculture, with the usual level of personal abuse. I am not going to focus on personalities. I think what is important and what the people want to hear are the ideas expressed by their representatives, not name- calling which passes for debate. Of course, members of the National Party of Australia are addicted to this sort of behaviour. They always confuse abuse with debate. The points raised by the honourable member for Murray in the latter part of his speech showed some research, some interest, and some knowledge of the industries that are under debate. He also ranged rather widely onto to plant variety rights , industrial relations, the tally system, and the Mayfair situation in Bendigo. What he says about the export inspection charges being greater than the value of the exported product is quite true. However, as I have said before and as people know, the problem is that only one per cent of the pig product is actually exported, and that is mainly offals. To export an abattoir needs an export licence, hence the Export Inspection Service inspection and higher charges. Some plants have surrendered their export licences. Some have been involved in diversion rather than incur higher maintenance and inspection costs. Other works which are still exporting are exporting more than just offal from pigs. I presume that they are more diversified works and that they are killing products other than pigs. Other contributions to the debate raised points of interest. The whole question of research funding is the subject of two Cabinet submissions from me at present . Honourable members would realise that during the last Budget we raised the level of research funding for some agricultural products, and there is a constant demand for continual and further research funding. Another speaker raised the situation in Korea. He said that because we cannot sell meat in Japan we also cannot sell it in Korea. I suppose I should reflect on that in terms of the amendment. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) pursued his usual union-bashing line, despite the fact that the Hawke Labor Government has presided over the lowest level of strikes ever in this country. The industrial relations climate is generally more acceptable and more beneficial to primary industry and industry generally than it has ever been before. What the honourable member for O'Connor said really justified what I said the other day with respect to the Opposition's hypocrisy and its despicable behaviour over the Japanese beef trade. Members of the Opposition have shown in their comments today on this legislation that their only focus is an attack on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). They are not worried about the cattle industry, the processing industry or the meat workers in it. All they are interested in doing is attacking the Prime Minister. They have raised the question of Bourke's and ACTU-Solo when, of course, the historical record shows that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Prime Minister's involvement in Bourke's was the weapon that effectively broke resale price maintenance in this country. It was a very good day indeed when that happened. The Prime Minister has provided all of the speeches he made during his visit to Japan and Asia. He has informed the House of his talks in those countries. What he said about beef and the agreed statement between him and Prime Minister Nakasone was a general statement of great utility and benefit in continuing trade negotiations. The Opposition is doing exactly what it did when Prime Minister Whitlam was abroad. As with the present Prime Minister, we then had a Prime Minister who could actually go abroad without us being ashamed. One of the advantages of being in government is that when one goes abroad one learns of the appalling blues of the previous Government. I will not go through all that, but I just ask members of the Opposition to focus on the fact that it is my understanding that a former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade actually invited Rumania to export pig meat to Australia. It would raise a bit of a storm if that matter were fully investigated. Mr Lloyd —I take a point of order. Mr Anthony, when Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, was instrumental in ensuring that unfair imports remained-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is perhaps making an explanation. Mr KERIN —They are really jealous of the fact that the Prime Minister of this country is popular, has a good Government, and is running the country in the interests of Australia. All they can focus on is attacks on him in some personal way. One gets a great sense of deja vu. In 1974, when the Japanese cut off imports of beef from Australia because of the oil price shock and the actions of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the then Opposition blamed poor old Frank Crean. It is the great re-run. All that members of the Opposition can think about is something in the past, and that is what they are running their present attack on. Let me just focus on the Australian beef industry and the comments of the honourable member for Mitchell. The honourable member said that there is a relationship between the United States negotiations with respect to the agreed tonnage last year and the present trade negotiations. Let me go into that in a bit more detail because the honourable member either does not understand or he is ignorant or he is simply being destructive of Australia's interests, as most members of the National Party are in this place. I would have expected a bit more sense from the Liberal Party member. The situation was that at that stage we did not have all the meat available to fill the quota because there was a drought and the estimates provided at the start of the season proved wrong towards the end of the season. The United States allocated quota on the basis of information available to it and the Canadians and New Zealanders took up that additional quota very quickly. In the end we exported some 285,000 tonnes of meat to the United States. It is true that the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to voluntary restraints because that effectively gave us access to more tonnage than we would otherwise have been given if the United States had triggered the quotas under the meat import law. At the time we were working closely with the United States with respect to overall trade liberalisation. It was not in the interests of our co- operation or of the beef industry that we push the Americans into quota arrangements at a time when both countries were negotiating trade liberalisation with respect to the Japanese market. The meat sold by the United States to the Japanese market is different meat from the meat that Australia sells to the United States. We are not even comparing like with like. I am not going to go into all of the technical arrangements. However, the problem with respect to United States access to the Japanese market does impinge upon Australia's access for meat only in one respect. The squeeze is on the meat in the middle, if we arrange meat going into that market in some hierarchy from high quality to a more normal run of beef cuts through to offals. The United States share of the market in offals has been going up very rapidly, as has the quota beef at the high quality end. Mr Cadman —What do you call offal? Mr KERIN —Diaphragm meat, for example. The Opposition has nothing to be particularly proud of with respect to the Japanese market. We know the figures exactly because the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) put them in Hansard the other day. In terms of total imports going into Japan-these are Japanese beef statistics, quota and non-quota-Australia's share dropped from 75 per cent to 53 per cent, whereas the United States share rose from 16 per cent to 41 per cent. That happened under the previous Government. From 1976 to 1982 the quota increase into Japan was of the order of some 32,000 tonnes and Australia secured during that period an increase of only 10,500 tonnes. That is, it achieved only one-third of the increase. One of the big problems in the offal area is that Australia's share under the previous Government dropped from 43 per cent to 12 per cent. This is at the centre of some of the negotiations about which, as the honourable member for O'Connor quite rightly pointed out, I will not now go into detail because the negotiations are on-going. The other day during an urgency motion I pointed out that members of the beef cattle industry have a far more balanced view on this question. I read partially into Hansard a statement by the Cattlemen's Union President, Mr Ian Park, who is not actually a wide-eyed socialist. The statement was for publication in the magazine of the Cattlemen's Union. The statement says quite plainly and in a balanced fashion: It is not clear yet how much beef Australia will export to Japan in the current Japanese fiscal year. But one thing is clear-the amount of beef will be increased, even though our percentage share of the market is likely to decrease. That is because the Japanese global quota is expanding each year under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. Last financial year, Japanese beef imports increased from 135,000 tonnes to 141 ,000 tonnes. Of this amount, Australia supplied 87,000 tonnes, or around 60% of the market. Japanese imports will increase again this financial year. An increase of 6,900 tonnes already has been negotiated with the US authorities . Australian officials now are to commence talks on the increase Australia can expect. Initial reports suggested the Australian increase would be at least 2,500 tonnes. This may not be the case any more, as the US received a larger than expected increase, and the Japanese Government will be under pressure from its own farmers to minimise imports. Australian officials will seek the best possible deal, and will be backed up by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, who will fly to Tokyo later this week. But cattlemen should be clear on the fact that the negotiations concern an increase in access to the Japanese market. There is no suggestion that our exports will be reduced-the only question is by how much they will increase. In these terms, the result of the negotiations will have little effect on the Australian cattle markets. Demand can only firm-it will not fall. The improved position of the US is only to be expected. The US has a mammoth trade deficit with Japan, and therefore greater influence than Australia in negotiating trade access. But Australian officials still have some strong cards to play. Australian beef is cheaper than the United States product, and Australia has proven reliability as a supplier. These points will be put forecfully to the Japanese Government. At the same time, the presence of the Minister for Primary Industry will clearly indicate Australia's concern at its dwindling share of the market. That sets forth the position in a balanced fashion. I have a tonne of quotes here but I do not have time to go through them. An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald again put forward a rather balanced view on this whole question. There have been other reports in newspapers. As anyone knows, one can selectively quote from newspapers. At least we know the position of a very important cattlemen's organisation because it is on the record. That is a view rather than a value judgment. Mr Cadman —What about the Cattle Council? Mr KERIN —The President of the Cattle Council, Maurice Binstead, has been in Japan and has made statements which are supportive of the factual situation. Of course, having been more closely apprised of the details of the negotiations with Japan likewise he will not go into the details of on-going negotiations. The Opposition has also made some comments about timing. It was propitious that I was going north basically to a trade conference in Korea. We did not know when the negotiations between the United States and Japan would be concluded. It was propitious that I was in Japan at that time. I was going to Korea representing the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen). The deal with the United States was concluded on 7 April and I was in the right place at the right time. The previous arrangement for me to go to Japan on a wide range of questions had also been decided in advance and is well known to the Japanese Government. So there is nothing Machiavellian or mysterious about that. There was some good fortune in it. Our officials from the Departments of Trade and Primary Industry have been negotiating on this matter for a long time. They started negotiations under the previous Government. We know exactly where we are and the lack of understanding by the Opposition is understandable. I think what it is really after is the Prime Minister. It is not worried about the cattle industry at all. Mr Cadman —Come out and speak to the meat workers at Riverstone and see how you go. Mr KERIN —The Opposition when in government shut down 32 abattoirs so it should not go into all that nonsense. It is true that in April the Koreans issued a meat tender for the first time since December 1983. The main situation in Korea that is relevant is that it has diverted many resources into pig production. It has a surplus of pig meat. It has some idea of importing other meats from other countries for its people to use in their diets. It issued a contract for the first time which was entirely for boned-out beef. It is true that New Zealand gained 66 per cent of that contract. That was 2,700 tonnes. We gained 900 tonnes . It is not a question of the Government being involved in this. The only area where government to government negotiations really become absolute is with respect of Japan or to any country where there are laws in the buying country. The reason why we did not win on that tender is basically because of the fact that all the meat was boned-out and the fact that our saleyard prices had risen by 40 per cent. There is no implication that Korea is taking an offset position because we may or may not have bought something from Korea. It is certainly insistent that the trade imbalance between our two countries needs to be given attention. We are working on that. But that is the basic reason. Saleyard prices in Australia have risen by 40 per cent and the Korean Government takes commercial decisions in this matter because it is a fair and honest trader. It is not interested in scoring points off any particular political party which happens to be in government in Australia at the time. The final matter I give some attention to is the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). This is really a motherhood amendment. I am not sure whether he wants us to give statutory backing by setting up a pig meat marketing corporation or a chicken meat marketing corporation. I do not know whether he wants us to fund Inghams and the other big two or three chicken integrators. I do not know whether he wants simply to yell and scream or whether he wants us to pay money somehow. As the honourable member knows, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation is involved mainly in export promotion, but also in some domestic promotion. We have spoken with the pork producers with respect to a statutory authority for them. We have also spoken to chicken producers with respect to contracts for them. The problem with the Opposition's proposal is that it is really a motherhood one and is not really specific. The honourable member should really focus on the fact that white meat is the main competitor of red meat. Is he suggesting that we aggressively support all meats or that we give equal treatment to red meats and white meats? The problem is that chicken and pork are basically in the hands of private enterprise. There is no statutory authority. Promotion is in the hands of the industries. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) does not want any government involvement judging from his comments; neither does the honourable member for O' Connor. They take a more basic free enterprise approach to the chicken and pig industries than does the Liberal member for Mitchell. The Australian Government is actively supporting the marketing of all Australian meats, but it recognises full well that the main competitor in this country for red meats is white meat. Unless the honourable gentleman wishes to specify what his amendment is all about, the Government will simply reject it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. 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 Kerin. That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(12.11) —In closing the second reading debate on the Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) referred to the last Korean beef tender and the reasons why New Zealand gained so much of that tender. He made a point about the price at which beef could be purchased in New Zealand compared with Australia. There is no doubt that it is cheaper-it has been publicly quoted. I ask this question quite sincerely on behalf of all meat producers of all types of meat in Australia: Was that lower price for New Zealand beef subject to the supplementary minimum price scheme in New Zealand? The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and I have made the point that the supplementary minimum price scheme, which is costing the New Zealand Government several hundred million dollars a year, is a direct subsidy for the export of New Zealand's agricultural product and therefore would constitute unfair trading if that tender were won by New Zealand against Australia through the intervention of that scheme. In his concluding remarks the Minister said that the price of beef in Australia had risen and asked therefore how we could expect to win that tender. I have with me the most recent edition of Stock and Land, which is a Victorian agricultural weekly newspaper, dated Thursday, 26 April. One of the good features of it is that it has a price graph for all of the major forms of meat, not just for this year but for the last 12 months. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and I can see quite clearly that the graph for bullocks, vealers or cows-the three types of beef-shows that the prices for this calendar year so far are below what they were at any time last year. So how could the price have risen and therefore affect our competitiveness when one of the authorities on meat prices in Australia indicates quite clearly that they have fallen? Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —by leave-I am advised that the $40 difference between Australian cattle prices and New Zealand cattle prices relates to the period from December 1983 until the present, when the tender has been issued, and it is relative to New Zealand prices. In other words, we are disadvantaged by $40 compared with New Zealand prices in that period. Supplementary minimum prices are involved and I have taken that up with New Zealand. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.15) —Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated earlier, an amendment has been circulated in my name. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the marketing of all meat products is interconnected and calls on the Government to support aggressively the marketing of Australian meats'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Lloyd —I second the amendment. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.16) —in reply-As already indicated, the Government rejects the amendment because it is basically a bit of motherhood and meaningless. It is not specific. The Government is involved through statutory authorities, in aggressively marketing Australia's meat and the pig meat and chicken meat industries are basically in the hands of private enterprise. Going back to the earlier debate, some honourable members have raised the question of the takeover of many elements of the downstream end of Australia's primary production, and that gives the Government some concern. It is not a question that any of us are really on top of in terms of its effects on primary producers. But this is a private enterprise country and there are many actors in the whole area of the production, distribution and exchange of food products. There is only one other matter I would like to address, and that relates to the allegations concerning the inspection charging. The actions by the Opposition in the Senate the other night are totally at odds with its professed views on the need for a review. The products concerned had been reviewed. Amendment negatived. Original 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 3 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.18) —The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill is a technical but important piece of legislation. It amends the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which was introduced to aid in the interpretation of statutes and in the shortening of language employed in statutes. Parliaments and courts deal in words, and the interpretation of the words of Acts of parliament is for the courts and lawyers a major and formidable legal task. Anything that lessens the burden of that task is to be welcomed. Let me illustrate briefly some of the reasons why that task can be so difficult . Firstly, there are the inherent ambiguities and imprecisions of language. Strain as we may, it is often extremely difficult to make a concept as clear as we would like it to be. Secondly, there are the complexities of concepts which are sought to be embedded within a statute. An example is the taxation legislation, which has reached a stage where it is impossible to understand the nature of the legislation which is being put before this House. I speak in particular of all species of recoupment legislation since the recoupment legislation introduced by the previous Government. Thirdly, we have much evidence of sloppy and unnecessarily technical and verbose drafting. Once again taxation legislation forms a striking example. It is as though the draftsman sought to encompass every possible contingency, and consequently the Act become extremely lengthy, extremely verbose and words and concepts trip over each other. The interpretation of legislation has become a minefield for the courts, for the advisers and for those who are caught up before the courts. As we all know laws should be certain, knowable and accessible. There are those who believe that there are ways of making things very much simpler and that laws can always be expressed simply. Certainly that is the desirable aim, but I would ask anyone who thinks that short simple concepts promote certainty to have a look at section 92 of the Constitutions which, expressed in very laconic terms, provides that trade, commerce and intercourse among the States should be absolutely free. That is a statement which one would think would be perfectly plain. After all, we know what is meant by 'trade'. We know what is meant by 'commerce'. We know what is meant by 'intercourse'. We understand the word 'free', and what can be simpler than the concept 'absolutely free'? Yet of all the provisions of the Constitution that single provision has probably taken up more time of the courts and caused greater difficulty in its application to the changing scene of Australia's national life. Let me turn to the purposes of the Bill which is now before the House. It has a number of purposes. First, there are a number of amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act are of a purely technical or drafting nature. For example, I refer to proposed new section 8A, 8B, 8C, 10A and 22, which will deal with such matters as implied repeals, the effects of the expiration of an Act, reference to part of an Act, references to amended or re-enacted laws of States or Territories, and the meaning of such words as 'financial year', 'calendar month' and 'calendar year'. They are all very technical and all very dry but useful to the lawyers. Secondly, the Bill provides for amendments that reflect changes in technology. For example, what will become section 25 deals with such matters as references to writing documents. This gives a wider definition to 'document' to make it reflect the requirements of modern technology. Proposed new section 25A provides for the production of records and the like which are kept in computers and similar equipment. Thirdly, the Bill introduces a number of amendments to overcome idiosyncratic rules of interpretation and to ensure that technicalities do not impede the administration of justice. Examples are to be found in what will become section 25C, section 25D and section 25E. For example, proposed new section 25E provides that one attains a particular age on the commencement of the relevant anniversary of one's date of birth rather than the day before the date of birth, as is presently the law. The reason for this is too arcane and quite unnecessary to be explored now. Fourthly, standing alone is an amendment described by that robust person, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) as a sexist amendment or an amendment to overcome what he said was a 'sexist way of dealing with matters of gender'. To hear the Deputy Prime Minister express that view and no doubt to hear his colleague in the other place, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), has some rather laughable aspects. The Deputy Prime Minister said: The existing Acts Interpretation Act provides in section 23, and has so provided since 1901, that words importing the masculine gender shall include the female, unless the contrary intention appears. One would think that that statement is fair enough and no objection can be made to it. The Deputy Prime Minister went on to say: I propose by this Bill that this sexist way of dealing with matters of gender should be altered so that the provision simply provides that, unless the contrary intention appears, words importing a gender include the other gender. We are at least dealing with two sexes. So the Deputy Prime Minister does concede that one cannot get away from the subject of sex if one is talking about human beings; they are after all either male or female. Why is it that the Deputy Prime Minister and this Government have to contribute to the debasement of the English language, inspired by simple-minded zealots and condoned and supported by Ministers whose indifference to the English language is matched only by their craven desire to appear to be in the vanguard of every attempt at reform? I wonder what would happen if the Deputy Prime Minister got his hand on prayers and literature. What would happen to 'Our Father'? Would it become 'Our Mother'? Would it become 'Our Father/Mother', or would it become 'Our Neutral Gender Father/Mother'? Of those honourable members who might read cowboy novels, I ask: What would happen to the word 'cowboy'? Would it become 'cowperson'? Would we read such sentences as 'A cowperson rides over the horizon', or 'A cowperson comes into town'? What would happen to the word 'fatherland'? After all, the Germans refer to their land as the Fatherland. If I recall correctly the Russians refer to their land as Mother Russia. Will it become 'personland'? One does not know, but that kind of nonsense incorporated into an Act of parliament is no more than a ludicrous and tiresome waste of the Parliament's time. I come next to what is certainly the most important piece of the legislation- that is the radical change which is proposed to the rules of interpretation of statutes. Before coming to what is proposed, let me state the present state of affairs. I can do no better than quote Mr Justice Gibbs, as he then was. In a judgment given in 1975 on a case between the Attorney-General and the Commonwealth, Mr Justice Gibbs said: '. . . in Australia it has been accepted that in construing the Constitution, as in the case of any other statute, although regard may be had to the state of things existing when the statute was passed, and therefore to historical facts and to earlier legislation, it is not permissible to consider what was said in Parliament or at a constitutional convention by those who debated the measure. Parliamentary debate-that is, what happens in parliament-has always been rigorously excluded within the courts. In a case between South Australia and the Commonwealth, the uniform taxation case, the Court refused to permit the tendering in evidence of the second reading speech of the Minister to show what was claimed to be the purpose of the Commonwealth's uniform taxation laws. As matters presently stand, it is a practice to give continual, central and overwhelming importance to the text of the statute. Marginal notes are excluded from consideration for reasons which go back to the nineteenth century and which need not detain the House. Generally, all parliamentary and Executive material is excluded. Drafts of the Bills are usually excluded, although drafts of the Constitution have been referred to for the purposes of interpreting the Constitution. Reports of committees of inquiry may be consulted to seek to ascertain the mischief that an Act of parliament is directed to overcome, where the proposals of the committee have in large measure been accepted. What I have just said is no more than an incomplete and over-simplified statement of the rules that apply in a highly refined and technical area. The central point is that it is the text of the statute itself which has been regarded by the courts as being of overwhelming importance and it is difficult to get the courts to consider matters outside the text of the statute. It is now proposed to permit the courts to have recourse to a wide variety of material. Under section 15AB, as it will be, it is provided that, subject to what later appears, where any material not forming part of an Act is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of that provision, consideration may be given to it either to confirm the meaning of the provision in the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text, taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose and object underlying the Act, or alternatively to determine the meaning of the provision where it is ambiguous or obscure, or the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. So we have two situations where extrinsic, or outside, material may be referred to-either where one desires to confirm the ordinary meaning or where the ordinary meaning of the text as it appears is ambiguous or obscure or is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. For that purpose the court is entitled to consult any material that it judges to be capable of assisting it. The provision we are considering sets out, without limiting the general powers of the courts, the specific matters that the courts may look at. Let me go through them briefly and comment on them as I go. The first is all matters not forming part of the Act that are set out in the document containing the Act. That would include marginal notes, which all of us here look at for the purposes of understanding what an Act of Parliament is concerned with but which the courts, because of historical rules, cannot and do not look at. The courts will be able to look at any relevant report of a royal commission, law reform commission, committee of inquiry or other similar body laid before either House before the time when the provision under consideration was enacted. Of course, what is a relevant report is a matter entirely for the court. It can look at parliamentary reports, treaties or other international agreements. It can look at explanatory memorandums relating to the Bill which contains the provision it has to look at. It can look at the speech made to the House or the Senate by a Minister on the occasion of moving that the Bill be read a second time. That is all very good and it is all very helpful, and I think that what is proposed is a most useful and beneficial measure and one for which Senator Durack is squarely responsible, because these matters go back to his time. But let us not kid ourselves as to how useful some of this material will be. For example, one unacquainted with the operations of Parliament might assume that the purpose of a second reading speech is to convey in clear and impartial terms the effect of the proposal put before a House. But we all know that often a second reading speech does not do that. It has a number of purposes. No doubt one is to seek to explain the substance of what is before a House, but the second is a purely political purpose. It is perfectly plain that over the years Ministers have presented to a House second reading speeches on contentious Bills which misstate or obscure the intended effect and the actual effect of the legislation before the House. A second reading speech is a highly political document and courts having recourse to second reading speeches had better keep that squarely in mind. A second reading speech is often a vastly oversimplified document. The various kinds of documents to which I have referred are not part of any closed system. It is a matter entirely for the court to consider what it should look at. The list includes relevant material in the Journals of the Senate and the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or in any official record of debates in either House of Parliament. So those who speak upon this measure today should do so conscious of the fact that when it comes to the courts to interpret the meaning of this measure, should the courts ever be asked to do so, they may be asked to consider the speeches made in this House for the purposes of determining what it was, if anything, that Parliament had clearly in mind. Perhaps one other provision should be added as a separate sub-provision or sub- paragraph to the list of specific material that courts may consider. I would put it in these terms: 'Anything else which diligent and ingenious and persuasive lawyers can persuade the courts to look at'. It is true and it is sensible that the measure before the House does require the courts to consider, when looking at extrinsic or outside material or the weight and importance to be given to such material, the desirability of persons being able to rely upon the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text and the need to avoid prolonged legal or other proceedings without compensating advantages. That is sensible and desirable, but it is perfectly plain that there will be cases where desperate counsel-all of us who have practised at the bar for any time have been in that position-will seek to persuade the court to have regard to a whole variety of material for the purposes of making a provision read or interpret in a way that suits their case. After all, if an Act of Parliament is against a lawyer and he is in court, then it is obscure in meaning and he needs to look to other material. If it appears to be in his favour then, no matter how tortuous the reasoning, the lawyer will say it is all perfectly plain and the court does not need to look at anything else. I commend this provision to the profession, not only because it will provide the profession with a lot of interesting work but also because fundamentally it will improve greatly a court's capacity to consider material which it thinks relevant when it comes to looking at obscure and difficult provisions. In conclusion, the genesis of this provision is to be found in the amendments introduced by Senator Durack in 1981 in section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act, as well as in the symposium convened under his authority in February 1983. We should all be conscious of the fact that, whilst this Government is putting the proposal into effect, the genesis goes squarely back to the work done by Senator Durack as Attorney-General. Let me finish by commenting on one consequence of the proposal which does not appear to have attracted attention. This House cannot amend the Constitution. We are now proposing one or two sets of rules of interpretations. One set will be the rules that apply presently, as developed by the law, by the courts, in the interpretation of the Constitution. The other set will be the rules now before this House which will permit extrinsic, outside material to be examined for the purposes of understanding what a provision means. Therefore, we will have, it seems to me, two different sets of rules working side by side, one applying to the Constitution and the other applying to all Acts of this Parliament. And we have the irony, if it were open to them, of members of the High Court of Australia looking back on the constitutional debates and looking back on such matters as what Quick and Garran thought was the meaning to be attributed to certain provisions of the Constitution as a result of the convention debate. That is, if the courts could consider, in interpreting provisions of the Constitution, what was said at the time the Constitution was being got together, as they will be able to consider debate in Parliament, then we might have a wholly different interpretation of such sections of the Constitution as section 92 and the provision dealing with the external affairs power. I will expand on that for one or two minutes. It is ironic is it not, that there has been a great deal of debate in this House in recent times about the external affairs power and the proper width of the external affairs power. It is perfectly open to us, for various reasons, be they legal or simply political, to entertain different views as to the meaning of the external affairs power. All of us in this House know that the High Court has given a very wide interpretation to the external affairs power. However, one can only say that it is an interpretation of that power which would be surprising to those who participated in the convention debates. If one looks at what those learned authors Quick and Garran thought to be the effect of the external affairs power, then it is perfectly plain that they and their contemporaries did not believe that it went as far as the High Court has held that it goes. Be that as it may, and without going into the niceties of whether the High Court was right or wrong since the High Court is, after all, the final court on these matters and it is perfectly pointless to express opinions as to the rightness or wrongness unless one has an opportunity to influence the Court to change its mind, which it would not, then the position still remains that we will have these two sets of rules of interpretation marching side by side, one applying to statutes of this Parliament and the other more limited set applying to the Constitution unless somehow the High Court is able to enlarge its own view as to what it may properly and constitutionally look at for the purposes of interpretation of the Constitution. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(12.43) —I rise to speak in support of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1984. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being near 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be continued at a later hour this day. The honourable member for Petrie will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(12.45) —I wish to spend a few minutes today talking in general terms about tertiary and technical education in Australia. I do not think there is any need to stress the importance of it for the future of this country, but what worries all of us, I think on both sides of this House, is the increasing lack of opportunity for many younger and older Australians to participate in technical or tertiary education simply because the opportunity and the places do not exist in the facilities and institutions that we have currently in this country. Whilst that is a very general statement, I will back it up in a few minutes by explaining what is happening in my own area of the Gold Coast and the lack of opportunity there for so many people who wish to pursue higher education. Last year, some 40,000 students were refused admission to tertiary institutions in this country, which is an enormous number of students. We have one of the lowest participation rates in the Western world, and we do have to make substantial efforts to provide the places for these people if we are going to pursue any sensible development in this country. In my own State of Queensland the participation rate, unfortunately is one of the lowest or the lowest in Australia. Only 46 people in every 1,000 participate in tertiary education in Queensland. In New South Wales the figure is some 62 per 1,000. The problem has arisen basically because of the Government's encouragement to the students to stay at school, which is a worthwhile and commendable objective; there is no doubt about that. The second reason that we have this problem of lack of opportunity is that people are realising more and more that the days of getting jobs without any training and the development of any skills have long since gone , and that their future will depend on the training they get in tertiary and technical institutions. So the problem is not likely to go away. In fact, it is going to increase. The Government recognises this. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) certainly recognises it. But it is no use coming to Queensland, as she did a few weeks ago and, in a de facto way, berating the Queensland Government for not providing the places for tertiary institutions. The fact is, rightly or wrongly, that the Commonwealth Government provides the funds for these institutions, and therefore it is the Commonwealth Government that has to make provision for extra places for those who seek them. Let me spend a couple of minutes outlining the position on the Gold Coast. In the first place, we have no tertiary institution whatsoever in that area. We have nearly 60 schools for a catchment population of some 250,000 people, and that is without any prospective growth; that is as it is at the moment. Taking the figure of 46 per 1,000, which is the Queensland participation figure in tertiary education as it is now, one comes up with a student body of about 11, 500 Gold Coast students wanting to attend a tertiary institution, and that, as I said, is at the very lowest rate of 46 per 1,000. If one takes it to 62 per 1, 000, as occurs in New South Wales, then that Gold Coast area alone would have a potential student population of over 15,000. Taking either of those figures-12, 000 or 15,000-and even at 12,000 potential students, that is twice as many students as currently attend both the universities of James Cook, in the north, and Griffith in Brisbane, which have a combined student population of something over 6,000. The 12,000 potential students that the Gold Coast area would produce is half the number of all the students at all the colleges of advanced education in the whole of Queensland. Let me turn to technical and further education in the Gold Coast area. In Queensland the participation rate is about 120 per 1,000; in New South Wales it is about 220 per 1,000; in South Australia it is something like 280 per 1,000. Mr Wells —The State Government is supposed to be funding TAFE. Mr WHITE —It partially funds it, as the honourable member should well know. On the Gold Coast we have a hopelessly overcrowded TAFE, and that is because of the enormous growth in recent years. It has 18,000 students now, and on those population figures and those potential student figures, it should be providing places for about 50,000 people. Just so that the honourable member for Petrie ( Mr Wells) does not get too excited, I am outlining the proposition; I am not apportioning any blame. All I am saying is that we have a problem, and the honourable member should recognise it. Mr Wells —I agree with that. Mr WHITE —Right. If one took, in my own area, a participation rate in TAFE colleges of about 200 per 1,000, then we should be providing places for about 50 ,000 students. Without going any further the problem must be clear even to some of the members on the other side. The solution to the problem, of course, is money. It does not matter who is in government, there are always limits, of course, to the amount of money available for education. So how are we going to solve the problem? I would suggest that one of the options that should be more closely examined is to start levelling off the funding that is being given to the school area of population and start diverting some of those funds into technical and tertiary education. The fact is-and I think it is well recognised- that in the last few years there has been enormous development in most schools in Australia, to bring their level of facilities and educational levels up to a standard which is considerably higher than it was five or six years ago, and certainly a massive growth in these facilities as compared with those that existed when most of us who are in this chamber went to school. There has been enormous growth. We cannot go on and on pouring money into schools to raise the level of their resources if, at the same time, when students leave school, we are not providing any opportunities for them to go on into tertiary or technical education. If there is a finite limit, as we all recognise, on the amount that can be spent on education, surely it must make sense that we start at this stage levelling off the school funding, because I believe that schools have reached a standard which is probably adequate; but we must put more money into technical and tertiary education so that people who want to pursue or who have to pursue their studies, to give them a break-even chance of getting a decent job in this country in the future, are provided with the facilities to do so. We should not continue to ignore areas like the Gold Coast, where places should be provided for probably 50,000 or 60,000 students when all we are doing now is providing some 18,000 places, and that includes some full-time students and some part-time students. I know that the Government recognises the problem. What I am suggesting is an option, and I hope very much that the Government and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs will look seriously at that option as a way of providing some assistance for students in further education. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(12.53) —I want to deal with some serious cases of cover-ups and denials concerning atomic testing at Maralinga. The first comes from a letter from an ex-Royal Australian Air Force serviceman who worked at Maralinga, and I quote from that letter: During my service in the RAAF at Maralinga in 1960-61 I discovered something which I believe should be disclosed, namely, that British atomic weapons were stored at Maralinga adjacent to the airstrip, that is, operational tactical weapons, distinct from test weapons. These were held in a sophisticated building at the north-western end near a taxiway and dispersal bay (please find diagram enclosed). During certain inquiries I made relating to this discovery, which had to be very discreet, I found that there was based in Australia, at Edinburgh ( South Australia), a number of Vulcan and Victor bombers of the RAF. Also based at Darwin, Northern Territory, was No. 542 Squadron, RAF which had reconnaissance Canberra bombers. The reasons for the Victors and the Vulcans being based here at the time was officially given as being here for the purpose of testing the Blue Steel stand- off missile. However, I do not believe this because, after leaving Maralinga at the end of 1961, I went to Woomera to work for the WRE (Weapons Research Establishment), and I witnessed the testing of Blue Steel during 1962-63-64. During 1962-63 there was a number of tests but not near enough to justify up to 6 to 8 aircraft based at Edinburgh. In 1964 the tests with the Vulcans and the Victors virtually stopped but the aircraft numbers remained the same. I believe the real reason the Vulcans and Victors were here was to deliver those weapons stored at Maralinga. When Maralinga range closed in 1963, the weapons I mentioned were moved to Woomera and I further discovered that they stayed there until 1966. Also at this time the Vulcan and Victor bombers left Australia. The letter is signed, and that was the end of the quote. It is to be expected that there will be denials that Australian soil was used to store tactical atomic bombs, but I am confident that the information in this ex-serviceman's letter is correct. To those who would try to deny or cover up this information, I say this: You tried to deny and cover up the fact that the British Government had buried plutonium at Maralinga, and we all know now that plutonium was buried at Maralinga. Denying and covering up usually comes from the higher levels. I refer the House to the Adelaide News of 10 October 1978 and the headline 'What Plutonium! There's none there'. That denial was from none less than Sir William Penney, later made Lord Penney. It was he who was in charge of the British atomic tests here in Australia. Again, I say that this reporting of the storage of tactical atomic bombs at Maralinga and later at Woomera can be relied upon in spite of the flood of denials we will hear following this particular release. I come now to the further denials concerning British atomic tests at Maralinga- denials, cover-ups and more cover-ups. The matter concerns the British atomic tests at Maralinga and their use of cobalt 60. Cobalt 60 has a half-life of 5.3 years. If injected into the atmosphere it adversely affects people in the fall- out zone for many years. The concept is known as the enhanced radiation weapon, or part of the 'dirty bomb'. This was revealed this week. On Monday, 30 April, before Senate Estimates Committee C, as reported at page 60, in reply to a question by Senator Maguire about waste buried at Maralinga, Mr Ryan, Acting Deputy Secretary, Department of Resources and Energy, said: The airport cemetery contains such things as Cobalt 60. 'Airport cemetery' is the term used for burial sites for waste. Now let us look at the cover-up since 1968. I refer to the Government report AWRE.0-16/68 by the United Kingdom. It was the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment report AWRE.0-16/68 entitled 'Final Report on Radiological Contamination of the Maralinga Area and Emu Site'. It was classified 'Restricted ', one of the lowest levels of security classification, and became known as the Pearce Report after its author, N. Pearce. An unrestricted version was finally released in May 1979 by the Australian Department of National Development under the imprimatur of Kevin Newman, the then Minister. The only difference between the restricted and unrestricted reports is deletion of any reference to cobalt, beryllium and natural uranium contamination. Obviously, the British wanted to keep quiet about the work they may have been doing on a possible cobalt bomb; hence the deletion of references to cobalt 60. Beryllium, apart from being a major hazard when inhaled, is an efficient slower- down of neutrons and can be used to increase bomb efficiency. Natural uranium is used to increase fallout from fission-fusion-fission bombs, so obviously all the potential for dirty bomb tricks had been studied. The disclosure of the burial of cobalt 60 at the Maralinga airport cemetery and the sanitised edition of the report AWRE.0-16/68 must give rise to the greatest disquiet and these concerns will not go away. We need and the public need a full judicial inquiry into the atomic tests at Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga. I would like to refer here to the Adelaide Advertiser of 10 October 1978 quoting the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Hayden. The article states: Mr Hayden said the public could not feel confident that proper safety measures had been adopted at Maralinga. Mr Hayden went on to say: In the circumstances I do not see how the Government can avoid a full public inquiry into this whole affair. The edited version of the Pearce Report, in the foreword, points out that the original version gave information on the nature of the test material used-cobalt 60, et cetera, no doubt. The foreword goes on: In addition the report specifically records the location of various burials and their contents. It also records the burial of recoverable platonium amongst the Maralinga burials. But, of course, we needed the courage of RAAF serviceman, Mr Avon Hudson, to force the previous Government to finally own up, resulting in the UK Government being forced to come and remove it. As further evidence of the disquiet, I would refer to the AIRAC Report No. 9- the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. I refer, in particular, to the Buffalo series of tests at Maralinga. For test No. 8, code name Kite, the date was 11 October 1956. The bomb was dropped from a plane and was classified a low-yield bomb. On pages 39 and 70 of that report we find reports of gamma radiation fallout, including a very large dose in Port Lincoln and an even greater dose at Mr Gambier. These records, including the map provided on page 39 , do not indicate that the wind change had carried the atomic clouds down into that area, but quite clearly, the Council could not cover it up completely because it had to give the recordings that were gained both at Mr Gambier and at Port Lincoln. It adds to my disquiet when I find that I have received a communication, which I will disclose later, that says that Sir Mark Oliphant's brother has given information to a neighbour that during some of the tests in the late fifties the radioactive levels were so high that they actually shifted the decimal point of the recordings. That information has been conveyed, as I understand it, to the Premier of South Australia, and a copy of that communication is on its way to me. For these reasons, I think that the Government must take charge of this issue. We must have a judicial inquiry so that people can come forward and so that people can be subpoenaed to give that evidence. Further, the evidence and the reports that the Government currently has must be made available for such an inquiry. Mr HICKS(Riverina)(1.02) —In the city of Broken Hill there are three high schools. There are the state high schools, the Willyama High School and the Broken Hill High School, and, of course, the Catholic High School. At the beginning of this year, when those schools commenced operations, they were 13 teachers and one school counsellor down. In other words, they were expected to start the school year with 14 staff not available. By 15 March they were still seven teachers short and on that day a large protest meeting was held. The majority of school children from the Broken Hill High School and the Willyama High School and the primary schools in the area decided not to go to school and attended a demonstration through the streets of Broken Hill and marched on to the State office block asking for representatives of the State Government to do something about their plight. In the following week the school teachers of Broken Hill-those in the state school system-went on strike over the same issue. This is not a new issue but it is an issue that has been in the pipeline for a couple of years, and I remember that last year the school teachers in the area were making protests to the Australian Teachers Federation and to the New South Wales Government about the teaching staffing problem in the city of Broken Hill. At the moment in Broken Hill, in the two high schools, as a result of the demonstration, four teachers have been provided, and the rest are only primary trained. These teachers, of course, are doing their very best, but I think it is essential that students in country areas should have the same opportunities and the same well-trained teachers as students in city areas. The problem is that this situation exists not only in Broken Hill but also in most country areas of New South Wales. Of course, the more isolated the area, the worse the situation becomes. What is causing this situation? I believe that it is the fact that there are planned changes to the transfers and promotion systems in the school system in New South Wales. Perhaps if I could just read from a study entitled ' Perspectives: looking at education', dated 28 February 1983, this might explain what the situation is and what is causing this shortage of teachers in the country areas of New South Wales. It states: A planned change to the system of lateral transfers and promotion of teachers to promotions positions within the State schools system has been announced by the Department of Education. The planned change, prepared as part of the Department's Equal Opportunity Management Plan, will have far-reaching effects on the teaching service as a whole. The new plan has been designed to remove an aspect of indirect discrimination against teachers who are on the promotions lists. The proposed changes will introduce a bias-free promotions practice by removing the priority enjoyed by mobile teachers who occupy substantive promotions positions over those waiting for promotion. New lists will be created from which all appointments to vacant promotions positions will be made. This be piloted for a period of five years, with the new lists to be published and distributed in May 1984 for the implementation of 1985 appointments. The problem with this promotion system is, as I see it, the fact that it comes out of the equal opportunities legislation of New South Wales State Government. I am sure that most honourable members would agree with that equal opportunities legislation. But it creates problems, certainly in the Public Service, of which the teachers are part, and it will mean that in State areas of New South Wales, particularly in the country areas, we are going to have real problems. What is happening at the moment is that a number of teachers who perhaps asked to go to country areas are saying, 'If I go out to Broken Hill, or to White Cliffs, Tibooburra, Moulamein, or Balranald, or to those such places, there is a very good chance that I will not get back from there simply because no one else will want to come out there, particularly if there are no promotions in the pipeline for teachers who come to country areas'. One of the main groups that have pushed for this equal opportunity in the teaching profession is that of women teachers based mainly in coastal areas or in cities. They feel that it is very difficult for them to move. They may be married to a professional man or to a person who has a business and may find it very difficult to move; whereas for males it is not so difficult to move because usually the housewife is prepared to travel with that male teacher. But, in travelling to these outback areas and to these country areas, many teachers find themselves disadvantaged as, indeed, do many people in the Public Service. I know that people in the Department of Main Roads, when they travel to these areas, if they are very young and they do not have a house, are continually on the move, and they find themselves disadvantaged when they go to buy a house when they return to the areas that they originally came from. Also, some of these people who come from coastal areas or the city have their parents or their families back in coastal areas, and they wish to return there. Everyone can understand that. So there is this reluctance to go to country areas. But, in the decision as to whether to go there, I think that there should be some incentive for these teachers to go there, and I think that removing this rapid promotion system is really discriminating against those teachers. We talk about equal opportunity. It may be that there is equal opportunity there for school teachers who do not want to move into the country. But what about the students? The State Government of New South Wales has introduced this legislation, and I believe that governments which introduce legislation should wear that legislation. What will the State Government do about these teachers? In Broken Hill, as I said, they were 14 down at the beginning of the year and one can travel to any school, I would say, in outback New South Wales and one would find that, if the situation is not already there, it is developing. I am speaking here today to try to implant into the minds of parents in country areas that they should approach the teachers in their schools and find out if this problem exists in their schools. I am sure they will find that if it is not already there, it is in the offing. They should then try to do something about it by forming lobbying groups to approach the State Government. It is no good just hoping that the problem will go away, because it will not go away. The State Government will not make any moves unless there is some type of pressure put on it, because we all know that the Teachers Federation is city based and that it does help greatly in the New South Wales State Government's election programs. So I am asking the parents of country New South Wales to think of their children and to approach their schools and the teachers in those areas. I must say that the teachers in the outback schools in New South Wales have been trying to do something about this for a very long time because they have seen the problems there. But they have not been assisted greatly, and I would ask all politicians, whether they be State or Federal politicians, to try to do something about that. Most of the members of this House know of the importance that countries overseas place on education. Having in the last couple of years visited Japan and Korea, where education is given the utmost priority, because those countries realise the importance of it-and we can see what has happened to those nations in the past years because of their eduction; they realise what is gong on-and having seen that, I realise what is going on. Some of us here also have had children who have studied for the higher school certificate and for the school certificate, and we know the traumas that those youngsters go through, without having the problem of having to sit idle in the school or spend the time in the playground or just do nothing because they do not have the right teachers to teach them those subjects. Mr McGauran —Who is to blame? Mr HICKS —The State Government is to blame-and I think it is also another reason why we should be looking at the Sex Discrimination Act. These Bills that come in sound very good, but when one gets the results of those Bills flowing through we shall find our nation in serious problems. So I reiterate to the parents of students in country New South Wales that they approach their teachers in the schools, ask them what the problem is, ask them about this rapid promotion scheme and what has happened, and ask them about the equal opportunities plan of the Department of Education in New South Wales. Hopefully, those parents will get together. The teachers have tried-without success, because the Teachers Federation is city dominated and coastal dominated. They are getting nowehere very fast. I would ask the parents of New South Wales to stand up and be counted , and let us get our children a decent education. Mr KENT(Hotham)(1.12) —I rise in this debate to express the anguish of workers and employees in my electorate who have lost their jobs because of the situtation that our manufacturing industry is in, where staff are being laid off as a consequence of loss of orders. I also voice the anxieties of those who are still working but who will face dismissal if the level of industrial activity is further reduced and of those over whose heads hang, like Damocles' sword, the plans to restructure our industries. My electorate contains well over 2,000 industrial undertakings, mainly small and medium size industries that are labour intensive and employ tens of thousands of people from the district. Many of these industries and their workers are feeling the double effect of the self-imposed depression by the former Fraser Government and the alarmingly high influx of imported foreign manufactured goods from cheap labour Asian countries. The job losses attributable to these two factors, firstly to the harsh and discredited monetary policies of the former Liberal-National Party Government and, secondly, to the lifting of our import restrictions, are enormous. The combination of these two deadly prescriptions for economic disaster left hundreds of thousands of our fellow Australians unemployed. On 5 March 1983 the Australian people rid themselves of the Liberal-National Party Government and, with it, its harsh and inept economic policies that in seven years brought this country to the brink of economic ruin. The new policies of consensus and confidence in the new Hawke Labor Government have, in our short period of office, resulted in a sustained economic recovery that is unfolding today before our eyes. Together with millions of Australian wage and salary earners, I welcome the policies of the Hawke Labor Government. I applaud its resolution to abandon the inept and fruitless economic policies of the former Fraser-Howard axis which have recently been formally enshrined into the policies of the Peacock-Howard Opposition. Our Labor Government with its competent management of the economy has rekindled consumer and business confidence and has set us firmly on the road of economic recovery. However, I have given warning before, and I am again warning in this House, that unless we extend every possible assistance to our manufacturing industries, our economic recovery may be short-lived and our unemployment level will remain high, if not even higher than it is at present. Today we are witnessing a recovery of business activities and a recovery of profits. Unless these profits are channelled into new productive investments, the level of our unemployment will remain high. The hopes of hundreds of thousands of Australians of finding employment under a Labor Government will be thwarted. The only way to avoid this disaster is through the policies of this Government which offer incentives and assistance for new investment in our industries. However, it has to be clearly understood that such investment will not be forthcoming without adequate protection from the onslaught of foreign multinationals on our industries. American and Japanese capital concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, with the assistance of the international banking system, is being used to develop a plan to control and integrate a global world economy, not in the interests of peoples in the countries that they operate from but in the interests of high profits to multinationals and their shareholders. They have devised a new global division of labour, whereby the labour-intensive operations of manufacturing are carried out in cheap labour countries while the control of technology is retained in developed countries. The profits are thus maximised and repatriated to the mother country. The effects of the multinationals' expansion into Asia, Africa and Latin America, instead of helping development in those countries, have actually thwarted development which would have otherwise taken place. They have imposed on the underdeveloped countries a secondary role, the provision of cheap labour, and they have thus continually kept them in a state of underdevelopment and economic dependence. It is this new economic world order, the new global production plan of the transnational economy, which is pressing for de- industrialisation of Australia. According to this new global capitalist plan, Australia is designated as a supplier of raw material and agricultural produce. I quote from an article in the Age of 26 April, which indicates Australia's poor prospects for future development: Australia devotes a relatively low amount of its resources to national research and development, and it is not expected to improve its position in the near future, according to a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD found that in the 1970s in Australia the percentage of gross domestic product devoted to research and development, the available research manpower and expenditure per researcher fell. The OECD report considers Australia in a group of middle-sized nations-Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Belgium. Australia performs less research and development than any of these other nations in the fields of electrical/electronics, chemicals, transport equipment and machinery. Even in basic metals we are ranked second last to the Netherlands. There is no doubt that the multinational companies are cutting investment as far as our research and development is concerned. Australia is already feeling the effect of the multinationals' world economic plan. Our industries are being squeezed out of the domestic markets and, daily, workers are losing their jobs. There are a number of industries in my electorate which are being threatened by unrestricted imports from cheap labour and high volume production countries, mainly from Asia. The industries I mentioned are well known in my electorate and , indeed, they are well known Australia-wide. Because of Japanese imports, the continuation of manufacturing of large-screen television sets by Philips is in jeopardy, and so is the manufacturing of space heaters by Pyrox because of dumping by the Japanese company, Rennai, to mention only a couple. Mr Groom —What is the Government doing about it? Mr KENT —I will tell the honourable member in a minute. Yesterday 250 workers from Philips, workers who are producing the television set that won the Australian design award, marched to the Parliament House in Melbourne to express their fears that they will lose their jobs. They sent me the following telex: Philips colour television employees this morning assembled at the steps of the Victorian Parliament House and proceeded to Senator Button's Melbourne office, who had prior notification, but were refused entry and confronted by locked grill doors. A delegation was then refused entry to deliver a petition to his office. We request you take this matter up with Senator Button as a matter of urgency. I will certainly take up their sad plight with Senator Button. I expect to see him today. I will tell the Minister that thousands of workers will lose their jobs if we allow the continuation of unrestricted foreign imports. I will ask the Minister: 'What are we going to do with those workers, many of whom are highly trained? Are we going to retrain them to be waiters or laundromat assistants, or are we going to send them into the Roxby Down uranium mine? I am concerned but I am not alone. Let me quote here a person whom I admire for his intellect and outspokeness. I quote from Sir Mark Oliphant's address at a recent prize-giving for young scientists by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd. Sir Mark said: I hope that the Government, unlike its predecessors, will recognise the necessity to foster the industries which are not only vital for our economic well-being and our defence, but which provide more employment and more interesting employment. You who are to receive prizes today, will be tomorrow's leaders in science. You will also become influential citizens who realise that the prosperity and independence of Australia depend upon maintenance of our vital industry. Among you will be teachers who can pass this forgotten message to their students. Some of you may like to enter politics to fill the growing need for mature scientists and engineers in government so that we are not left forever to the mercy of politicians whose background in law, accountancy and so-called liberal arts, seems to make them conscious only of money. Those whose main aim in life is riches and the power which riches bring, should not determine the future of our country. Dignity and self-respect are lost if we allow every profitable activity in this country to fall into the hands of foreigners. We must be an independent nation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(1.22) —There can be little doubt that unless there is a return to a strong private sector investment program, the prospect of mid-term to long-term economic recovery is very dismal indeed. While it was heartening to note that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) belatedly acknowledged this economic fact of life, his response to the grim prospect of another recession next calendar year gives no comfort whatsoever. The Prime Minister and his Government continue to claim the credit for what is a rather fortuitous improvement in our economy at present, and that, as we know, is largely attributable to the breaking of the drought and the effects of the previous Government's wage pause. But, of course, to take credit in those circumstances is all part of politics, even though it happens to be incorrect. At the same time, the Prime Minister and his Government blatantly refuse to accept any responsibility for either the collapse in private sector investment or the practical measures it must quickly take to make a certainty of rapid and sustainable recovery. The extent of the collapse of private investment under this Hawke Government has been dramatic. To draw it into focus it is necessary to recall that under the previous Government private investment more than trebled. It increased to $16 billion in 1982-1983, that rise being a component of an overall increase of 70 per cent in real terms since the demise of the Whitlam Government and after taking inflation into account. Since the Hawke Government came to power in March last year, the dramatic collapse has happened, and worse, it continues. Let me back that statement with some available figures. The Australian Bureau of Statistics predicts that private sector investment will fall from that $16 billion in 1982-1983 to $11 billion this financial year in real terms; before sliding to $9.8 billion the following year and that, if it happens, will be the lowest since the Whitlam years. What has been the reaction of the Prime Minister confronted with this stark reality, a position flowing from his own policies? His firm resolve to continue to spend more than he conscripts to the Government's coffers is to continue, so we can fairly assume that restrained spending is not in prospect. There will be no sacrifice, in effect, at the altar of economic sanity under this Government. Already accumulated deficit spending approximates $50 billion. The Government's crazy commitment to a further increase of the order of $7 billion in its next Budget, will take the total to nearly $58 billion in little more than one further year. I would like to talk about the effects of that, but it will have to wait for another day. However, there is little or nothing arising out of the Government's economic mismanagement which will encourage those with capital to invest long term. In fact, the opposite will almost certainly continue to be the case. The Prime Minister's only reaction is to try to exhort and bully the private sector into investment. It should not have taken long for him to learn that his exhortations are not likely to succeed. All Australians should be told that there is no immediate prospect of a return to the required high levels of private sector investment unless after tax business and corporate profits are allowed to return to something approaching levels which equal a fair return on funds already invested. There must be a fair return on funds already laid out before there can be any more invested. Instead of words, the Prime Minister must show hard evidence of the conditions which will lead to improved profitability across the whole range of private, commercial endeavour. We should be reminded that it is from after tax profits that investment funds traditionally come. But even if private investment can be financed by any one or any combination of accumulated profits, capital or borrowings, the experience and expectation of reasonable profitability must be present, particularly in these days of government inspired uncertainty. Unless this fundamental pre-condition exists, there will be little long term investment of any sort and certainly little speculative investment. I think it is fair to observe that the Australian electorate speculated last March when it elected the Hawke Government. It must await a return on its speculative investment, and I do not see it coming. The business sector also waits and that sector will not be cajoled by the Prime Minister or anyone else into investment decisions until it is sure that the need for unnecessary speculation is, as far as reasonably possible, removed. Regrettably, uncertainty and doubt are not likely to disappear, and that is because, largely, of this manic obsession of the Prime Minister to hold an early election. Whilst it is true that the notion of calling an early election is not now new, this Prime Minister has sunk to new depths in feeding the media on the inevitability of an election after less than one year in office. It has become conventional wisdom, as I will say later. The ensuing destabilisation and expectation of an election is being imprinted on the minds of electors and business alike with all the cleverness and paraphernalia of a latter-day Dr Goebbels. It now seems to be conventional wisdom that we will and should have an election after less than two years of this Government and this Prime Minister. No wonder there is massive uncertainty. No wonder the prognosis for private sector investment is so bad. No wonder the predictions for Australian economic wellbeing in calendar year 1985 and beyond are dismal. In terms of pure political survival, of course, the Prime Minister's electoral intentions may be very well justifiable. However, in terms of responsible government and the responsibility entrusted to this particular Government, the cynicism of the Prime Minister must deeply worry all decent Australians. Look at what he and his Government will not do until after an early and unnecessary election. They will not announce decisions on asset testing and pensions. They will not tell us what amendments are in their mind to the prices and incomes accord-and amendments are inevitable. They will not tell us details of the Bill of Rights which we now suspect is to become a Bill of non-freedoms. They will not tell us their decisions on capital gains, wealth, death and gift taxes. They will not tell us their policy on an inviolate industrial relations scene. They will not tell us their policy on Aboriginal land rights and all that it will mean and imply for our great mining and pastoral industries. They will not tell us what they are going to do before the next election about taxing lump sum superannuation payments. They are not going to tell us a whole host of other things before they go to the poll because they know them to be unpopular, and this Goverment is not about taking unpopular decisions. Only if this Prime Minister is given an unearned second term will the nation see the kind of Whitlamesque approach we all fear. That will happen under pressure from the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. It is certain. The electorate will have to speculate again on the self-professed-and that is all it is-integrity of this Prime Minister in an election which is already diverting the Government from the effective economic management for which it was given responsibility as recently as March last year. An early election will be expensive enough in itself, but it will be not nearly as expensive as a second term for a Hawke Government prepared to do all those things of which only extreme left wing socialists are capable. An early election, apart from the uncertainty and a lack of stability in the lead-up period, will be further testimony to the record list of promises broken by this Prime Minister. The promise to which I refer now is the one he made on 15 February 1983, when he said: Under my Government, parliaments will run their full time. That will rank for notoriety with that other famous promise, in a long list of famous broken promises, made when he said: We promise to not take money out of pensioners' cheques. That has happened already, in November last year. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(1.32) —The grievance I wish to raise in the House today concerns the need for Federal and State legislation to assist in the transformation of the operation of local government authorities in Australia to make them relevant to the 1980s and beyond. There are currently some 839 local government authorities throughout Australia which together constitute what is recognised as the third tier of government. Those authorities employ over 138, 000 people, which is 8.7 per cent of the total government civilian employees throughout Australia. The authorities have a collective total annual outlay of approximately $4,000m and are responsible for the implementation of a diverse range of social and economic functions at the local level, including planning and development control, the delivery of community and health services, local democratic functions, the control of council investments, and an increasing range of political and social initiatives on behalf of the residents of the local government authorities. Additionally, the local authorities whether they be cities, municipalities or shires, are the focus of local community activity in many forms. Despite this, local government throughout Australia is constrained by outmoded and inadequate State Government enabling legislation. There is, regrettably, insufficient recognition of the role of local government in State constitutions and no recognition of local government in the Federal Constitution . It is pleasing, however, to note that a sub-committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention has been formed to work on the recognition of local government's role and functions for the Australian Constitution. In the State sphere, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia have formally recognised local government in their State Constitutions. The Victorian provision, in particular, goes beyond a mere formal recognition of local government and raises the issue of local government franchise, suspension or dismissal, and provides some small measure of protection to local communities against arbitrary central government action. I hope that many of the issues that I am raising today transcend traditional party lines, because I note that approximately a third of the members of the House of Representatives have had some direct local government experience as employees or as elected representatives. I believe that for too long local government authorities and hence the people they represent have been political pawns to be increasingly dictated to by central government in relation to matters which ought to be the subject of decision making at the local level. Additionally, dedicated aldermen and councillors who give their time to local government service are not yet given the necessary support by the Federal Government, State governments or local councils themselves to carry on their tasks effectively. In fact, after six years as an alderman on the Sydney City Council, I can assure honourable members who have not had local government experience that local elected representatives are as much subject to the 'Yes, Minister' syndrome as are other levels of government. Too often, limited resources are available to elected representatives. The entrenched bureaucratic interests of particular council departments and the lack of overall supervision by elected local representatives results in an allocation of resources at variance with the priorities of the elected representatives. I would hope that every member of this Parliament would support the principle of accountability of public servants-including at the local level-to the elected bodies and representatives and ultimately to the people who employ them. As a new member of the Parliament, I was delighted to see that the one thing that I have seen which has united members on both sides of the House was the almost compulsory viewing in the parliamentary dining room of the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Yes, Minister. Local government representatives need, I believe, sources of independent advice and policy support outside the traditional sources of local government operation . The clear evidence is that local representatives need far greater resources to be able to contribute to policy formulation at the local level and to widen the horizons of local government. The Hawke Labor Government, I believe, is to be congratulated on its historic establishment of the first national ministry of local government, and that Ministry has already begun to work co-operatively with State governments and local government in a responsible way. However, the office, I believe, needs to be allocated further resources to allow it to be more effective in promoting local government as the genuine third tier of Australian government. Of vital importance, in my view, is the need for that office to play a leadership role in collaboration with State departments of local government to ensure that aldermen and councillors have support in policy development to allow local government to realise its potential. Generally-and, unfortunately, regrettably-State departments responsible for local government give negligible support to elected representatives in policy formulation or in any other areas. I urge the Federal Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, and his Department, to work with State departments and local government itself, to develop an extensive research capability for the benefit of that third tier of government. However, I do not pretend that local government alone can be responsible for national planning decisions, and there is a need for the Commonwealth and the States, in co-operation with local government and the private sector, to co- ordinate questions such as the location of jobs and functions with changing population patterns, to promote sustainable employment growth, housing, security , equitable means of access to community services, energy conservation, and environmental quality. In the States, the operation of local councils is controlled by legislation which is woefully inadequate and in many cases has even failed to keep pace with what are accepted current practices and responsibilities of local authorities. To give one example, in the State of New South Wales, the New South Wales Local Government Act was amended only last year to enable local government to carry on community welfare services, despite the fact that local government had been carrying on services in community welfare, including meals on wheels services, for about 30 years-30 years without legislative backing for that quite fundamental community service. These deficiencies of State legislation, I believe, are even more apparent when seen in the light of increased local government involvement in areas not traditionally associated always with local government-for example, housing, new forms of revenue raising, and political and social campaigns of general concern to the community. What is needed, in my opinion, is action by the Federal Government to initiate, in co-operation with the States and local government, a total review of the functions and resources of local government throughout Australia and the relevant State enabling legislation, with a view to enabling joint action to be undertaken to make local government, as I have indicated, a genuine third partner in the Australian Federal system. The establishment of a national inquiry into local government financing and the operations of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act is a welcome first step by the Commonwealth to show leadership on this issue. For all those who are committed to the principles of local democracy, decentralised decision-making and service co-ordination, I appeal to all members of the House who share those views to support a total overhaul of local government functions and powers in each of the States. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(1.41) —My grievance today is that the people of Australia are not really aware of what the present Government is all about and what it is really up to. We have this public perception of a government which is very moderate and very reasonable, but the reality is very different from that. My concern is that we have had, in recent times, a number of pieces of controversial and disturbing legislation which have been debated in this place on non-broadcast days. My concern is that this is a deliberate tactic of the Government to ensure that the people do not know what is going on in this particular place. I thought today that I should just inform the people of Australia what is actually happening. In recent times we have had the sex discrimination legislation-a most controversial piece of legislation. It undermines the institution of marriage in a very serious way. For example, one cannot give any preference to a married couple over, say, a de facto couple, or a man with a mistress, in terms of employing people or in terms of finding accommodation for those people. I am sure that the general population would be most concerned if they really knew what this legislation was all about. In the House yesterday we concluded debate on amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act. Under those amendments the former oath of allegiance has been taken completely out of the Act and has been replaced with a pledge. One of the matters of concern to many people is that reference to the Queen has been totally removed from the pledge under that legislation. I believe the people of Australia have great respect for Her Majesty the Queen. I am no reactionary. I believe that we have to be forward looking. We have to be concerned for the future, and we have to remain in touch. But we should not pull down these institutions which have meant so much to Australians in the past and which have done so much for Australia. Another matter which will be of great concern to so many people around Australia arises in the pledge provided for in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. There are two pledges really; there is a pledge which I could call the 'atheist's pledge' and another pledge which could be called the ' religious pledge'. Under the legislation which exists, the religious pledge takes first place and the what I am calling the atheist's pledge takes second place. But they have been reversed in this new legislation. We have the Minister concerned, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), at the table at the moment. He is yet to explain why he has put God second, whereas God was first under the existing legislation. Why is the Australian Labor Party so against the Queen? What has the Queen done wrong? What has upset the Labor Party? It was interesting yesterday during the debate on the Citizenship Amendment Bill when one Labor member said-and it may not have been reported in Hansard but I certainly clearly heard it-'She didn't help us in 1975'. Perhaps that is the reason. Perhaps that is why the Labor Party is so concerned about the Queen and wants to get the Queen right out of Australia and out of every possible piece of legislation. We recall the bitter debate that took place in 1975. We were very much involved in that. I recall very clearly being in Melbourne during the 1975 campaign in the city square at the corner of Collins Street and Swanston Street. I remember very clearly the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a rage, attacking the then Governor-General , Sir John Kerr. Of course the Labor Party forced him out of Australia and now it wants to force the Queen out of Australia. Look at the measures that have been taken in recent times. The national anthem has been changed. There was no reference to the people of Australia. All right, there was a vote taken on the national tune some years ago, but not on the national anthem; so that has suddenly happened. Photographs of the Queen are being removed from public buildings all around Australia. As I mentioned, reference to the Queen has been dropped from the citizenship pledge. That is a serious matter of great significance. The former Crown Solicitor has become the Australian Solicitor. 'Let us get rid of the Queen', says the Labor Party, 'Let us get rid of all reference to the monarch'. Another matter of serious concern is the suggestion that we should have a new Australian flag. I believe that most Australians are very, very proud of their flag. We have two great Australian flags in this chamber. I believe it is a beautiful, well-balanced flag that reflects the history of Australia and the symbolism of Australia. But all around the country we have Australian Labor Party members and senators saying: 'Let's change the flag'. This has been mentioned during recent debates and no one on the other side has denied that he wants to see a change in the flag. I think that the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) said in a recent debate, 'Oh, I don't think the flag should be changed at the moment; that may not be a very wise thing to do'. I think he was looking at the politics and the votes of it all, but he said that the debate about the flag should continue. On the last Australia Day earlier this year, a Labor senator in my part of Australia, from north-west Tasmania, spoke at the Australia Day ceremony at Devonport, and he said, 'Yes, we should change the flag. We should have a green and gold flag, and there should be a kangaroo on the flag'. That was his idea. He said that because we won the America's Cup, we should change the flag. What sort of sense of history does that display? There is more to Australia than just one event. What about the servicemen and women who have fought for Australia in the wars and in the various conflicts in which we have been involved, and those who have died for Australia? What about taking into account their feelings, and the feelings of all the rest of Australians and the way they feel so strongly about the flag? No action would be more divisive than to continue this campaign to change the Australian flag. We know what it is all about. The ALP wants to change the Australian flag by 1988. It wants to get rid of the Queen by 1988. It wants to make Australia a republic by 1988, and it wants to get rid of our great Australian flag by 1988. This is the plan. It was said yesterday, I believe, by one of the Labor members, 'Look, you cannot create a republic in Australia without a change to the Constitution'. That might be, in a strict legalistic sense, correct; but one can go down that path towards republicanism gradually, by little changes here and there. Mr Rocher —By stealth. Mr GROOM —Yes, by stealth. In that way, eventually Her Majesty the Queen will have no influence in Australia. What is wrong with the system that we have at the moment? What is wrong with Australia? We are a great country. We have achieved so much in our short history. We provide a great way of life for people ; and so many millions of people have come to Australia because they are attracted by the way of life here, by our high standard of living, by our high standard of health, education and welfare and so on. They want to come here for a better life for their families and their children, and they are attracted for those particular reasons. Why have these things happened? We have great institutions. We have great traditions. I suggest that if these traditions and these institutions are dragged down into the dust and are destroyed by the Australian Labor Party, we will not be a better country. Look around the world. Where is there a better country than Australia? I think that more respect should be shown for the Queen, for the flag and for our institutions by members of the Government. Mr STEEDMAN(Casey)(1.51) —In the few remaining minutes of the debate today, I wish to bring to the attention of the public the activities of one of our most vocal racist and anti-Semitic organisations. This particular organisation has been around for a long time, especially in rural areas, and I have chronicled its activities many times in the past. The organisation is the Australian League of Rights, and its director, Eric Butler, I am not proud to say, lives in my electorate of Casey. His second in command, Edward Rock, does nothing to grace the adjoining electorate of Diamond Valley, as the honourable member for that electorate, Mr Staples, will attest. Reference to this organisation has recently been brought to my attention because of the activities of Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen, who applauded the aims of the League and sent a supporting message to one of its conferences. We all know that Queensland has long been known as a haven for right wing extremists, and the League has always had a good following in that State. We may recall the support given to the League by Raphael Cilento, who, in relation to immigration policies, wrote such comments as 'You can get an average of four to eight diseases from people who come here', or, 'I'm more afraid of Indonesian germs than Indonesian arms'. My attention has also been drawn again to this group because of its recent activities throughout rural Victoria in opposing proposed land rights legislation. The League's director, Eric Butler, has been on many platforms recently spreading his own particular brand of racism and attempting to incite hatred against our indigenous population. I have been in conflict with this organisation since the early 1960s when I first began publicising its activities, and it seems that, unfortunately, it is time once again to remind the people of Australia just exactly what this organisation and its many front groups stand for. In an introductory pamphlet published by the League, the member's list their aims as: Promoting loyalty to God and the Crown, to advocate genuine competitive individual enterprise and personal initiative; to attack and oppose goverment-by-regulation; to emphasise the value of Legislative Councils and the Senate; to oppose and expose all anti- British propaganda and actions irrespective of their origin. It goes on in this vein. It does, I must admit, sound very much like the diatribes we have been receiving from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) during the recent citizenship debates. But these high-sounding, if conservative, objectives hide the real aims and directions of the League. Eric Butler, its director, has been well-known for more than four decades as an extremist pamphleteer as well as the leader of our main racist organisation. His racism was once described by the Catholic Institute of Social Order as 'a brand of anti-Semitic literature that is rather more dangerous than the low-brow rubbish, because on the whole it does not make such a crude and violent appeal to the emotions and can, therefore, reach a wider audience'. The Heritage Bookshop, the League's point of distribution for its literature, disseminates all sorts of facist, racist and other forms of printed hatred. Some of the less subtle titles refer to the Myth of the Six Million Jews or The Dangerous Myth of Social Equality. The League has books that claim ritual murder by Jews of Christians during the Feast of the Passover, where children are bled white, crucified, tortured, beaten and starved. There are articles by people who , in their time, were leaders of the nazi parties in England and the United States, such as Colin Jordan and George Lincoln Rockwell. A pamphlet circulated throughout Melbourne in the early 1960s in support of the white Australia policy claimed that coloured migrants in Great Britain were responsible for the alleged spread of sexual licence, venereal disease and leprosy. But the real villain, the pamphlet states, was the 'international Jewish conspiracy' which seeks 'to achieve world domination by encouraging intermarriage between Negroes and Eurpoeans'. To support his position that the 6 million Jews were not murdered by the nazis, Butler used to quote from a book by a Hungarian author, the book called The World Conquerors, which put forward this theory. He omits, of course, to identify the author as a notorious anti-Semite, and ex-member of the Hungarian nazi organisation, the Arrow Cross, a war criminal, and a man who was deported from the United States in 1950 when his background was exposed. But the net is wide when the League and its followers search for scapegoats to inflame their paranoid delusions. I suspect honourable members of this House did not realise that John McEwan, once a Deputy Prime Minister of this nation and Leader of the Country Party, was in fact 'a tool of Judaic policies', or that Winston Churchill, his family and ancestors has also been similarly controlled- that is, according to the League. But perhaps Butler's most famous work is an edition of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a book purporting to be a plan drawn up by the Jewish leaders to ensure world domination. It has been proved a fake many times in the courts. Butler's book entitled The International Jew-The Truth about the Protocols of Zion bears no date of publication and has a disclaimer inserted in the back by the printer. We are told that the Jews, via Rasputin, controlled the Russian royal family; they also organised the Bolshevik revolution; they controlled the nazi movement; Hitler himself was Jewish, being a bastard son of Baron Rothschild; the Jews are also in control of world capitalism; they run the United States Federal Reserve, and the Bank; they also ran the nazi Luftwaffe; and they founded the Jesuit Order-a very talented group. We are told they were also in control of President Roosevelt, and that Dr Evatt, Sir Keith Murdoch and Dr Coombs were all under influence via the medium of Professor Harold Laske of the London School of Economics. The Jews were also, by the way, behind the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions, and they were also the hidden directors of their own persecution, their motive being to get themselves dispersed so they might infiltrate unsuspecting countries that gave them refuge. That is the sort of trash in this book. The final claim on the last page of Mr Butler's book was that Christ was not a Jew. But how did this man, at one time a member of the Anglican Synod, a shire president, and a person who ran as the independent candidate for the Federal seat of Deakin, move into an organisation originally based on the Douglas social credit theories and branching out into anti-fluoridation and communist and Jewish plots at every turn? It seems that they were made for each other, and at an early age Butler devoted his life to pushing his conspiratorial theories at every opportunity-and he had plenty. Church leaders, civic leaders, politicians, all gave him a platform to spew out his particular form of hatred. He had friends in high places. But before we move on to them, it may be interesting to reflect on the role that this great supporter of the British way of life played leading up to and during the Second World War. In 1935 he was assuring Australians that the nazis were being maligned and that we should not trust the reports that were leaking out about the persecution of Jews. In 1938 he covered 15,000 miles in Victoria and New South Wales supporting the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany. After a supporter had brought charges of conspiracy against two High Court judges, the security service began an investigation into Butler and his organisation. The inquiry found 'certain similarities in comment' between articles written by Butler and broadcasts made by the wartime English traitor John Amery. Incidentally, after the war Amery was hanged by the British Government for treason. The inquiry also found that articles 'showed sympathy to Japan in her efforts to establish a new order in East Asia'. When such matters were 'projected into a field in which are to be found opposition to war loans, attempts to defeat the operation of wartime regulations, and the use of arguments similar to enemy propaganda, there is undoubtedly, in our view'-said the Commissioners-'every reason for some action to be taken'. So much for the great patriot. So, we get down to the support that the League of Rights has enjoyed amongst conservative sectors of our community, including members of Parliament from the Liberal and National parties. The League is always ready to provide speakers to address lunches, dinners, churches, business groups, service clubs, and political organisations. It attempts to influence opinion leaders, particularly the clergy, teachers, Press and businessmen, and in the past it has especially had the support of certain members of the clergy. But Mr Butler's main supporter in the Parliament was the recently retired member for Moreton, Sir James Killen. I too have read the stories of Mr Killen's great wit, humour, et cetera; the recent member for Moreton. I have never believed it. I remember the man many years ago, the man described by Dr Evatt as the 'junior McCarthy of the House'. I have no time for such a person as Killen, who was a frequent speaker at League of Rights gatherings, a person who went with Eric Butler to England in 1962 to campaign with other right wing groups against Britain's proposed entry to the Common Market, and a person who was extremely vocal after the unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia. In fact, the League set up another front organisation at that time called the Australia/Rhodesia Association, about which I am proud to say I played a major part in its demise. Butler has lectured around the world, including in Canada at the invitation of Ron Gostick, leader of the anti-Semitic Christian Action Movement, and in London at the invitation of Chesterton, leader of the fanatical League of Empire Loyalists. He got wide publicity in the 1960s when top rating radio television commentator Norman Banks, who was a frequent visitor to and apologist for the apartheid regime, gave him air time. As my time runs out I return to my original point. In times of economic uncertainty we often find the growth of racist organisations seeking scapegoats and appealing to the prejudices some people have. They can only succeed if they have access to the presses, to the air waves and especially to people in high places. Butler and his League of Rights have been a blot on the history of this country for some 50 years, and they still continue to churn out the same hatreds . These days, of course, they are aimed at the newer more vulnerable members of our society. To have their organisation lauded and applauded by a member of the Senate is an insult to all men and women who fought to free us from the threat of fascist dictatorships. Under the guise of anti-communism they create and stir up divisions in our society, divisions we cannot afford. Let the people of Australia recognise them for what they are and strongly condemn Senator Flo Bjelke-Petersen. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Prime Minister to the confirmation by Senator Ryan in the Senate yesterday that the assets test would apply retrospectively, meaning that all those affected will have their penalty determined on their assets as at 24 August 1983 regardless of when the test actually commences. Will the Prime Minister withdraw the Government's decision? If not, will the Government seek to minimise the alarm and uncertainty which continues to occur amongst our elderly and which is created by this assets test by undertaking to announce the details of the assets test before its premature election? Mr HAWKE —I hope that the question by the Leader of the Opposition indicates that there is a return on his part to the position which he espoused in the Parliament in 1981 when he supported the concept involved in an assets test. All I say is that what the Government has done responsibly is refer the question of the possibility of an assets test and the way it should best operate to a representative committee. I am awaiting the report from that committee. The Government will make the appropriate decisions at the time it receives it. Mr JACOBI —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports indicating that the British police, in their search of the former Libyan People's Bureau in London, found arms, ammunition and bullet-proof vests, as well as forensic evidence indicating that it was from those premises that the gunfire which murdered Police Constable Fletcher and wounded a number of other persons on 17 April originated? What action does the Minister intend to take in view of the blatant disregard for the norms of international behaviour by the Libyan Government? What action does the Government intend to take to support the actions of the British Government in the light of this appalling affair? Mr HAYDEN —In common with honourable members, I am aware of the reports which were publicised in the last 24 hours. As the honourable member pointed out, there was apparently a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention, which established the proper modes of conduct internationally in this sphere. The Australian Government was deeply shocked by the shooting incident at the Libyan People's Bureau in London on 17 April. At that time the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed the Government's concern. We are appalled at the apparent callousness of the Libyan authorities in relation to the incident, the misuse of the People's Bureau premises in London, and the abuse of diplomatic privilege. The Government calls upon the Libyan authorities to identify and bring to justice the person or persons responsible for the dreadful incident to which I have referred. We consider the Libyan response to date to the crisis created by the shooting to be quite inappropriate. I have directed the Department of Foreign Affairs that the Libyan representatives in Australia should be told this directly. We fully understand the decision of the British Government to break off diplomatic relations with Libya. I have noted reports that the British Government may decide to call for a review of the Vienna Convention and diplomatic relations as a result of this episode. If it should do so, Australia would be willing to join in any international consideration of the problems which the shooting incident has revealed so starkly, but no one should underestimate the complexity of the issues and the difficulty in securing international agreement to any significant revision of the Convention. Mr PORTER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In view of the Government's overall intention to avoid contentious issues before holding a premature election, I ask a question of the Minister regarding his land rights legislation. The Minister will recall stating in this House on 16 November last year, in answer to a question in relation to his uniform land rights proposals, that he had 'discussed this matter fully with Mr Burke', the Premier of Western Australia. In a public statement last month Premier Burke stated: The Western Australian Government has told the Commonwealth not to interfere with the State's handling of Aboriginal land rights. In view of that statement, does the Minister still intend to proceed with his planned legislation to impose uniform land rights on the States? If so, will he introduce that legislation before or after the next election? Mr HOLDING —In respect of the timing of the proposed legislation, there has been a steering committee consisting of Aboriginal leadership and lawyers nominated by them which has been working on some of the legal concepts in respect of the legislation. I have assured Aboriginal leaders that we will not introduce any legislation until they have had an opportunity to consider it fully and discuss it with their Aboriginal communities. I have received a request from the steering committee for further time. I think the reality of that means that legislation as such probably would not be ready and could not be discussed effectively prior to the beginning of next year. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —I find it extraordinary that members of the Opposition who lived with land rights legislation which created considerable problems not merely for Aboriginal land councils but also for the mining industry and who chose to do nothing about it for years should now be urging upon me a course against the wishes of the Aboriginal people. Perhaps the shadow Minister would do well to spend a bit more time talking to Aboriginal leadership. He would understand that this Government will respond to its demands and wishes and not to the yahoo behaviour of honourable gentlemen opposite. Mr REEVES —Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to statements made by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that the Queensland Government will pay for a 1,600 kilometre rail link between Darwin, Alice Springs and Mount Isa? Has the Minister received any correspondence from either the Northern Territory or Queensland governments on this proposal? How does the Chief Minister's support of this proposal stand against his repudiation of the necessity to upgrade the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin? Mr PETER MORRIS —I recall that on 14 July last year there was a joint announcement by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Premier of Queensland that they had decided to undertake a detailed feasibility study of a proposal to construct a railway line from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek, Darwin and Alice Springs. Honourable members may recall that at that time the Chief Minister said that a preliminary estimate had been carried out by the Martin Corporation Ltd, which is a subsidiary of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , and that that preliminary study was very encouraging. The honourable member may be aware that also on that day the Premier of Queensland said that the cost of the proposal would be some $700m, that it could be financed by way of long term loans and that those loans could be serviced by freight revenues earned from the carriage of freight between Mount Isa and Darwin. In specific answer to the honourable member's question, I have not received any correspondence in relation to the proposal from either the Premier of Queensland or the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I have no doubt that, given the fact that some 10 months have elapsed since the announcement, the feasibility study ought to have been completed. It may be that the Chief Minister or the Premier of Queensland could make that report available. Certainly, they would have the Martin Corporation's preliminary assessment available. Perhaps that could be made available to the honourable member and other members of the House. Let me say in respect of the attitude of the Northern Territory Government to the upgrading of the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin that here we have a supreme example of the double dealing style of the Northern Territory Government. In the Northern Territory the Government and its Chief Minister were parading the cause that the Stuart Highway ought to be upgraded. But down here in Canberra the Chief Minister specifically was saying that the Stuart Highway north of Alice Springs was quite adequate and did not need upgrading. Naturally, when dealing with applications for approval of projects on that highway, consideration had to be given to the explicit statements of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. In addition only a few days ago the shadow Minister for Northern Development said that he had recently visited the Northern Territory also and that the roads in the Territory were excellent. Mr Braithwaite —I have been up and down the road. Mr PETER MORRIS —That is right. He said they were excellent; he is confirming that. Those matters have to be taken into consideration. Despite that level of representation and despite the opposition of the Northern Territory Government to the upgrading of the Stuart Highway, the honourable member for the Northern Territory has made strenuous representations and efforts. He has worked very hard here to cope with a Northern Territory Government which is quite double dealing in the way it treats the people of the Territory. For instance, the Chief Minister said to the people in the Territory that he is king of the kids. There is little doubt that he treats them as though they are a bunch of kids. The Territorians deserve some better quality of government than that. They deserve better representation than that. For those reasons, as I indicated I would in debate in the House on 5 April, I acceded to the request of the honourable member for the Northern Territory to send an officer of the Department to carry out an inspection of the highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. That inspection was carried out between 9 and 13 April and, as a result of that inspection and the strenuous representations of the honourable member, I was pleased on 23 April to approve five projects for the upgrading of the Stuart Highway amounting to some $17m and bringing to $24m the work that has been approved on the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Darwin. Thanks to the honourable member for the Northern Territory the people of the Territory will get a better highway system despite their Chief Minister. Mr HUNT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. What additional controls does the Minister intend to impose upon pricing arrangements for the sale of coal to Japan? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —First, we have never had any controls on pricing; so there is no point in trying to suggest that any additional ones could be imposed. The question we have always had to take into account is export control and that is the same aspect that we are now left with. However, the real issue in terms of export control-we followed our predecessors' ideas on this-is parameters. We set parameters in respect of the ability of coal producers to enter into negotiations so that they could come back to the Government and give advice of what they had been able to achieve within the parameters so that we could have intelligent export control from the point of view of tonnage negotiated. The great disappointment of the negotiations, which are not altogether completed because the Newcastle six group is still negotiating, is that those companies agreed to settle on prices without any Government approval. Also, with respect to the companies that attempted to get a better price, the Japanese decided to penalise them by reducing their tonnages. It is a very sad situation. The coal producers had an obligation not only to the Government but also to the nation to honour the arrangements made with governments, both present and past, that they would try to adhere to parameters of pricing. If they had done so, I am pretty certain we would have got a much better price. If they had done so, the Canadians would also have supported us because they desperately needed a better price. But, certainly, once two producers caved in-one well in advance and the other whilst over there-the others had no alternative but to settle because the Japanese allegedly said to them that unless they settled, even at a reduced price, they might not get any tonnage at all. The result has been a disaster from the point of view of the coal producers having any ability to negotiate coal prices. From my point of view the difficulty we are continuing to experience is the failure to get some co-ordination between the coal producers themselves. Study groups have operated in the last 12 months to discuss the problems and set the parameters. It appears that they were unable to agree amongst themselves. Recently, when I put forward at the Australian Coal Association Congress a proposition that we could have an advisory council in which they could all participate, including the representatives of the Queensland Minister because they need to be in it, at that stage it appeared to get a very good reception. But 48 hours later the Premier of Queensland said it was no good, that they would not participate. Subsequent to that, the executive of the Coal Association came to see me and said that its representatives would not participate either. That is the ridiculous situation they have got themselves into. The point that we must look at which is worthy of note is that Japan is now paying the same price for coal and iron ore as it paid in the 1960s. That is how far down the track we have gone as a result of being unable to assist these people to negotiate effectively. It is a bit of a challenge now for the Government to develop a mechanism whereby future negotiations can be conducted in the national interest, and that would also be in the interests of the coal industry. Mr STEEDMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. Is the Minister aware of a group calling itself the People's Coalition for Civil Liberties? Is he aware that this group is reputed to be a front organisation for Bob Santamaria's National Civic Council? Has the Minister seen literature put out by this group accusing the peace movement of being a communist conspiracy aimed at undermining the willpower of the Australian people ? Can the Minister assure the House that this group has no connections with legitimate civil liberties organisations throughout Australia? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —This matter was raised in the Senate on 1 May and I have had the advantage of discussing it with the Attorney-General. I understand that at a recent peace march somebody distributed a leaflet on behalf of the People's Coalition for Civil Liberties. Nobody has heard of that organisation before or since. It is deemed to be a fly by night group that cannot be identified. The Attorney-General, in answering the question, said that they were not legitimate. They had never been identified- Opposition members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Attorney-General said that in the Senate. Perhaps I ought to phrase it another way to get it right. The Attorney-General said in the Senate that this group had no connection with any legitimate group. I think that is the position because, as I understand it, nobody has been able to identify any people associated with it and certainly it has not been possible to identify them with any cause that has been related to a genuine civil liberties activity in Australia. Mr Carlton —What is a legitimate group? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —A genuine civil liberty is not hard to identify if one looks at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which mentions free speech, free assembly and matters of that nature. So when the peace movement was carrying out its legitimate exercise in a democratic way, saying what it should legitimately say, that the world should disarm, I think everybody would agree with that. Mr Peacock —Are you going to lay down the law as to what they can say? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. It is very interesting to see the anxiety of the Opposition . It seems to have a close association with this group which nobody else has been able to identify or find. Perhaps it is the Liberal Party of Australia under some other pseudonym. Mr Peacock —What will you do? Put us in gaol? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. Mr Hawke —We would never put you in gaol; you stay right there. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As the Prime Minister said, the Leader of the Opposition is the most valuable asset we have. The operations of this group certainly have not been condoned by any civil liberties organisation. It seems to suggest that people engaged in demonstrations for the cause of peace are Marxist-Leninists. Certainly that cannot be accepted, even by the Opposition. The people who participated in that march came from all walks of life right across the world. I am delighted to note that the Leader of the Opposition nods his approval of these remarks. I have nothing to add except to say to the honourable gentleman that he has nothing to fear. Mr SINCLAIR —Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General request his colleague in the other place to investigate and report to the Parliament on the circumstances surrounding an interview before the March election last year by the Australian Federal Police of the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition about his alleged possession of a Cabinet document of the then Government about the Middle East? Did the tape recorded interview show that the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition denied having possession of the document although it had been shown by him to a former staff member who was an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs? Did the Deputy Leader subsequently tell the Federal Police that he wished to change the transcript of interview and admit that he had the Cabinet document? Can the Minister personally give any information to the House on these matters? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Was the right honourable gentleman referring to me? Mr Sinclair —Yes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Did I say that I had certain information? Mr Sinclair —You were interviewed by the Federal Police about a Cabinet document relating to the Middle East I understand. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The answer is no. Mr CHARLES —Has the attention of the Minister for Communications been drawn to the recently announced policy of the Opposition that foreshadows a sell off of the publicly owned telecommunications authorities to the private sector? What would be the consequences of such a policy? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for his question. It is with the most weary sense of deja vu that honourable members have heard the Opposition announce its intention of again attempting to flog off Telecom Australia and, for that matter, any other public enterprise that is not chained down. It is a classic example of a sacrifice by what the Prime Minister has referred to on many occasions as a desperate Opposition at the altar of obsessive ideological purity. The Opposition had one shot at this when it was in government previously when it set up the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia but not even that inquiry extended as far as selling off Telecom's operations. However, the recommendations of that inquiry in respect of privatisation ultimately struck a fearful paralysis in the ranks of the then Government because some of its members, in those days concerned about country interests, realised the implications of privatisation. In direct answer to the question, the consequences, of course, of such an insane suggestion, if it became policy, would be felt in the provincial and rural areas of Australia. That is where the benefit of a single publicly owned and socially oriented telephone network is seen. In fact, the internal subsidy operates in favour of rural subscribers. Mr Howard —Why do you not read the policy correctly? Mr DUFFY —I notice that the honourable member for Bennelong is interjecting. I recall statements by him on this matter making his position quite clear. I would have thought he would be the last one who would be able to dispute it. The subsidisation-this is the crunch-is made up from profits generated in what is known as the golden triangle-Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. It runs at $300m annually. I repeat that: The subsidy from urban to country subscribers exceeds $ 300m annually. Let there be no doubt that the aim of those obsessive so-called economic rationalists opposite is to reduce tariffs in urban areas at the expense of country and remote areas. We are seeing in Britain and the United States at this time the same type of attack on the telephone system. I think it is necessary to quote from a story in the latest edition of Time magazine which was entitled 'Letting Loose Some Monsters'. Honourable members opposite ought to read it. It states: True to predictions by many experts, telephone rates have gone up, by an average of 37%, since divestiture says the FCC. Price increases by Bell Atlantic , the holding company for telephone operations in six Eastern states and the District of Columbia, are typical. Its flat-rate charge for phone service jumped nearly 30% in Pennsylvania, the lowest monthly rate rising from $9.60 to $12.28. It has begun installing message-unit service in some areas, basing tolls on time and distance of calls. The company increased pay-phone charges from a nickel to 15c in the District of Columbia and from a dime to 25c in Delaware and Virginia. It increased directory-assistance charges throughout its area, ranging up to 35c in Pennsylvania and Delaware. The crazy idea of selling off organisations like Telecom, if put into practice, would have the most dire effects on the rural community in this country. Fortunately for them it will not even be considered by this Government. Mr Lusher —Have you looked at the State railways subsidies recently? Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Hume has interjected pretty regularly. I challenge any member of the National Party in this place to explain this matter to his rural electors. It is about time National Party members stood up to be counted on this issue. I find it very difficult to believe that National Party members could possibly support this sort of stupidity. They ought to have the decency at least to explain to their constituents how much extra they would pay in telephone bills if this harebrained idea were ever implemented. Mr LLOYD —Is the Minister for Communications aware of the recent statements by Mr Myer, Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Mr Whitehead, Managing Director, which imply that they are confident that the ABC will be given a second television channel and that it will be a part pay or radiated subscription television channel? Does this mean that the Government has already decided that the Special Broadcasting Service will be abolished and the 0-28 channel given to the ABC and that the commercial interest applications for a pay service have been rejected also in favour of the ABC? Has the Minister given the ABC management any reason to be so confident of either of these issues for them to speak in this way? Mr DUFFY —The answer to all parts of that question is no. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Has the Acting Treasurer seen a report which claims that the underlying rate of inflation gives no cause to rejoice? Will the Acting Treasurer indicate whether there is any substance to that claim, and what is the Government's response to the claim? Mr HURFORD —I saw that claim made in a recent financial newspaper headline. There is no substance to the claim, and I am going to have quite a bit of joy in explaining why there is no substance to the claim. The Government's response to the claim is one of astonishment and, if I knew how to spell the word, I would say 'incredulity' as well. I want to make it clear that this claim has been made in only one newspaper. I also want to make it clear that, as far as I can see, the fault does not lie with the journalist who wrote the article because the body of the article does not in any way justify the headline. Let us look at the facts, and I am grateful to the honourable member for Hunter for giving me this opportunity to tell him and the House what those facts are. When the Government took over the economy of this country we had an underlying rate of inflation, a legacy from the Liberal and National parties, of 11.5 per cent. Without any adjustments whatsoever for health insurance, and I emphasise that, because there have been some misleading statements from the Opposition front bench in particular, the underlying rate of inflation right now is 7.6 per cent. Even Acting Treasurers are supposed to be able to do their sums. If I deduct 7.6 per cent from 11.5 per cent, the conclusion comes to me that there has been a reduction of 3.9 per cent. I understand that the honourable member for Hunter has at some time during the past been a teacher of economics. I believe that he would admonish me if I did not remind the House that another way of looking at the underlying rate of inflation is to look at the last quarter's rate and multiply by four. It is no wonder that the shadow Treasurer is pointing his finger at me because he used to enjoy doing that at times. Mr Howard —On the occasional good quarter. Mr HURFORD —On the very occasional good quarter. The Special Minister of State reminds me that it was the 'Lynch-pin'. If we multiply by four the unadjusted rate of inflation for the last quarter of 1.2 per cent-the March quarter-I believe it comes to 4.8 per cent. I am reminded that the December quarter rate was 2.4 per cent. If my sums are correct, if I multiply that by four it comes to 9.6 per cent. Even if we look at those statistics we find that there has been a reduction in the underlying rate of inflation of 4.8 per cent, and that, of course, is another cause for great rejoicing. Wherever we look, whatever the adjustments, whether they are for health insurance, food prices or whatever, there is every cause for rejoicing in the news that has been given to us. Let me go on and say that in the period ahead, as the Medicare adjustment leads to a lower rate of increase in the nominal wages growth through the wage indexation mechanism, it can be expected that there will be a further easing in the rate of inflation and a winding down of inflationary expectations. The reason for that is the successful introduction of the prices and incomes policy. I paid my tributes in this chamber last Tuesday to those who have been responsible for that. There is more rejoicing about that ahead for us as well. It is no wonder that honourable members opposite are seeking to avoid the facts. I have noted that the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy have also sought to spread the type of message that was in the headline-that the underlying rate is not one for rejoicing. It is, of course, not so unexpected that they should do so because they have a long history of distorting the facts. Mr ALDRED —I ask the Minister for Communications: As reversal by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board of Directors of carefully laid ABC plans to centralise the scattered Melbourne facilities at East Burwood will cost the taxpayer at least $3m, has the Minister reprimanded the Chairman of the ABC, Mr Ken Myer, for this irrational course of action? Mr DUFFY —This Government is not in the business of reprimanding the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, on this issue or any other issue. In respect of the specific matter to which the honourable member for Bruce referred , it is a matter which has caused concern to honourable members on both sides of the House. The views of the honourable member for Bruce are already on the record in the Waverley Gazette, an excellent newspaper which took the precaution of ringing me before it published what he said. That gave me the opportunity of correcting what he had said. The fact of the matter is that the decision by the ABC to defer the development at East Burwood has come a little bit late in the day. In fact, the honourable member for Murray, as the shadow Minister for Communications, has already raised this matter in the House in some detail on an adjournment debate. I responded to that speech by the honourable member and commended the views he put. I suggest that the honourable member for Bruce might take the time to have a look at those speeches, both from his side of the House and from this side of the House. The present position is that the ABC has been requested, on the basis of all the representations made, to reconsider a decision which, and I agree with the expression of opinion in and outside this House, has come too late in the day, and that the development of stage 2 at East Burwood should proceed. That has been conveyed to the ABC and the ABC has been asked to give the Government a full report on the matter. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Association of South East Asian Nations-sponsored resolution on Kampuchea at the 1983 United Nations General Assembly express support for the coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, the CDGK? Are the Khmer Rouge forces of Pol Pot an integral part of that coalition? Did the fact that the Government did not co-sponsor the resolution, although it voted for it, reflect in part the Government's refusal to support in any way the genocidal forces of Pol Pot? Mr Lusher —Here comes Fred Astaire. Mr HAYDEN —Hello Ginger Rogers. It merely proves that Fred Astaire had no luck in his old age. The facts are substantially as included in the body of the question asked by the honourable member. However, I draw the attention of honourable members to the statement of foreign policy released earlier this week by the Opposition. It is a remarkable statement that shows that the scribe who cobbled it together, the honourable member for Warringah, has a sentimental attachment to old history because in it he says: Through its treaty with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Soviet Union is now able to extend its military power in the Pacific from air and naval bases in Vietnam. That is an absolutely splendid statement from a hopeful Minister for Foreign Affairs except for one 'minor' fact: The Democratic Republic of Vietnam ceased to exist more than a decade ago. It is now the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. That is not a very good start for an aspiring Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the documentation released by the Opposition there is this bland statement: Coalition support for ASEAN diplomacy on Cambodia . . . There are no questions; no qualifications; no hesitation at all. In short, there is no policy and no independent judgment on the part of the Opposition. Whatever is done by others will be endorsed by them. We have a very close and friendly relationship with the ASEAN countries. It is productive and a great deal of exchange takes place on views which we share or we may share and on sorting out what may be differences. But the fact is we are determined to make our own judgments on policy. We will not allow others to determine what we are going to do. Yet this is clearly the implication of the statement of the Opposition. In the statement before the United Nations late last year there were two assertions with which we had some difficulty. One referred to the increasing effectiveness of the coalition forces on the border between Thailand and Kampuchea. We have some reservations about that as a statement of fact. More than that, we have some concern that in diplomatic terms to identify and endorse that in the way in which the Opposition has may extend recognition to the Pol Pot elements of the coalition forces. We would not propose to be party to that. The Prime Minister has made that clear. I have made it clear. The Opposition's commitment in this way is extraordinary given the context of statements made earlier by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In December 1979 he said: The Australian Government-- of course, I refer to the previous Government- believed that to derecognise the Pol Pot forces would be interpreted as endorsing Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea. That was the original version of the Opposition's policy. Ten months later in October 1980 the Leader of the Opposition was reported as follows: The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, said today that Australia has taken a decision in effect to derecognise the Government of Democratic Kampuchea (the Pol Pot regime). So he has now turned around and endorses Vietnam's invasion of Kampuchea. This is not a worry. Facts were never terribly important to the people in the Opposition when they were in government. Mr Peacock went on: . . . Australia cannot prolong its recognition of such a loathsome regime as that of Pol Pot. Yet now the Opposition's statement extends de facto recognition by surrendering any independent exercise of judgment in the determination of what its foreign policy in government would be. I have another document here which I prize greatly. Copies of it are as scarce as dragon's teeth. It is a transcript of the question and answer sequence at the Press conference conducted by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Warringah after they had released the Opposition's foreign policy. One realises why it is so scarce after one reads it. The following question was addressed to Mr Peacock: . . . are you happy to fully endorse the ASEAN position which supports the Coalition Government or Coalition forces in Kampuchea, which include the Khmer Rouge? Mr Peacock answered: Yes it does include the Khmer Rouge . . . I give no specific endorsement to the Khmer Rouge. The transcript continues: Q. But ASEAN does? Mr Peacock: Yes ASEAN does and I've always indicated that a differentiation so far as the Khmer Rouge is concerned. The most splendid and memorable part of Mr Peacock's answer comes next: I've met with elements of the Coalition down here and endorsed what they're doing. They've not of course been direct representatives of the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot. Thus the Leader of the Opposition was saying that it is all right for one to be a little bit away from those elements; it is all right if one stands, say, five feet from them. It is like being a little bit pregnant. That is totally unconvincing but this is the position of the Opposition. It just does not have any policy. How could the Opposition develop policies? How could it be realistic ? How could it be credibly and substantially informed on these matters? How could there be any reliability about them? Consider this: I have invited the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for Warringah, not once, but umpteen times, to take a briefing, presuming he has the appropriate security clearance-I believe he would have, or could get it if he did not-from the Joint Intelligence Organisation so that he would know something about the subjects he pretends to talk about. He says: 'Oh yes, that is very good. I would like to do that'. Then he does nothing. I suppose he is too busy watching colour television or whatever his predisposition is these days. I must say parenthetically that in terms of publicity he would make much more impact as a Foreign Minister than I could ever hope to do. Imagine Australia's best known but least successful importer of colour television sets as the Foreign Minister. They would have to have a diplomatic bag big enough to carry an elephant every time he came back into the country with his booty. The Opposition has presented this pakapu ticket, and masqueraded it as foreign policy. The Leader of the Opposition vaingloriously tells us that he is the man to lead this country and asks us to trust him. Trust him to lead us where? It was revealed only a week ago that he is the man who secretly and deceitfully presided over Australian troops in the Phoenix operation in Vietnam, one of the most odious undertakings in the whole of that very odious war. He never told the Parliament of this country. Let honourable members recall that the Phoenix operation was where that grim terminology 'terminate with extreme prejudice' came from. Thirty thousand civilians were killed in the course of the Phoenix operation, allegedly because they were Vietcong sympathisers and supporters. No doubt many were, but the evidence incontestably is that many innocent civilians were killed. One will surely trust that the high standards of Australian troops, which we all respect, kept Australians clear of it, but why were they participating in this sort of odious, undesirable association when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for the Army. Why did he get into this secret arrangement, deceitfully dissembling before the Australian public? Members of the Opposition cannot make up their minds. They have no willingness to take reliable briefings on the facts. They have deceived and hoodwinked the Australian public in the past. Yet now they ask to be treated seriously. The Opposition is a shabby organisation and the public see it as such and will repudiate it accordingly. Mr SINCLAIR —In light of the answer of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Attorney-General to my earlier question, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that a former staff member is reported to have written a memorandum to the Department of Foreign Affairs saying that the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition had in fact been shown a copy of the Cabinet submission on the Middle East and that one of his present staffers approached the police to advise them accordingly? Did he deny having seen the admission, in a tape-recorded interview, and did he subsequently change his story? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would think the incident happened some time ago, not just prior to the last election. Mr Sinclair —No, not immediately prior. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —But the first question was whether I had been interviewed. I want to make the point about 'just prior to the last election'. I did see a Federal Police officer. It arose on this basis: Questions had been asked in this House. I do not know what year, but it certainly was not last year. Mr Sinclair —I only said 'prior to'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, how many years back do you want to go? Mr Sinclair —You can go back as far as you like. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it was in 1981 or 1982. Questions were asked in this House, not by me but by the then Opposition. The Opposition parties were in government. The police officer wanted to know how the Opposition knew so much about the matter. Certain questions had been asked at the time. I think I was accurate in saying to the police officer that I was overseas at the time the questions were asked. It seemed to be an element of surprise to him that I had not asked any questions. But it is true that, through subsequent questioning of him, I found out that a former staff officer of mine had reported to the police that he had seen the document in my office. That is true. The police officer asked me whether I could help him about it and I said that I could not and I was unable to. But the significant part of the question was that the government of the day thought there ought to be an investigation because of questions asked in this House. I am happy to be reminded of any interview that I had subsequently on television or anywhere else relating to this document. I am able to confirm that the document was sighted in my office. Mr Sinclair —And you changed your evidence. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I did not give any evidence. I did have an interview with the police. The interview went like this: 'Mr Bowen, can you help us with this document? It was reported that it was seen in your office'. I was not able to help the officer. I asked the officer why he had asked me. He said: 'Because of the questions in Hansard, Mr Bowen'. I said: 'I did not ask any'. He said: 'No, but the questions were obviously related to that document'. I said: 'You should ask the people who asked the questions'. I think he said that he had not been able to do that. I said: 'As a matter of interest to you I was overseas when the questions were asked'. Mr Peacock —Hayden had a stolen document then. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition said that. Mr TICKNER —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of reports today of a rift between the Government and the mining industry in respect of Aboriginal land rights? What is the Government's position in relation to this alleged rift? Can the Minister inform the House what action, if any, the Government is taking in respect of the concerns of the mining industry and Aboriginal land rights? Mr HOLDING —I have seen that report. It is simply a headline in relation to another story. There is no rift between the mining industry and the Government. In fact, a number of initiatives were taken recently by the Government to deal with the problem which has arisen and which is of concern to the industry in the Northern Territory. Honourable members will realise that there was a freeze on mining applications in the Territory between 1972 and 1981. After the Northern Territory Government lifted that freeze 160 applications were waiting to be processed by the land councils in the Northern Territory. But the land councils do not have the resources to deal with those matters expeditiously. That is a matter of concern to the Northern Territory Government. It is a matter of concern to the industry, it is a matter of concern to the Aboriginal land councils and it is a matter of concern to this Government. In order to overcome that problem we have taken a number of initiatives. In conjunction with the Northern Territory Government we propose to appoint a second land commissioner. The Prime Minister approved that action this day. In respect of the application by the North Flinders mine, I had to intervene in order to get that structure moving, and that involved an interpretation and a ministerial intervention in respect of the administration of the relevant Act. We initiated the Toohey review in order to consider the nature and range of amendments that are necessary to solve some of these problems. My colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, has requested the Northern Territory Government to initiate an investigation into the causes of the delay in dealing with exploration licences. I have this week invited the mining industry to form part of a permanent forum with Aboriginal leadership in order to discuss issues of common concern in respect of land rights legislation and other legislation to be considered by the Government so that there can be- Mr Porter —Did you hold a gun at their heads? Mr HOLDING —I did not have to hold a gun at their heads. The only questions I ever get from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) are by way of interjection, and most of the time they are not very intelligent. If he knew what was happening-I am happy to tell him-he would know that the Australian Mining Industry Council has been invited to nominate representatives to enter into a permanent forum to consult and confer with Aboriginal leadership on these problems. That was an initiative that could have been taken by the former Government years ago, but it did not care and it was not concerned to consider these problems. It was only concerned to line up with its hands out for contributions from the mining companies when elections came round. As for dealing with the legitimate problems of the industry, it was not concerned. We are concerned because we believe the evidence shows that many Aboriginal communities are anxious to get the benefits that flow from mining operations where their sacred sites are adequately protected and their rights are preserved . Mr Sinclair —No wonder you are in trouble. Mr HOLDING —No wonder the mining companies are happy and anxious to deal with us . There is no way they will waste time with the incompetents opposite. During this session I have had only one question from the shadow Minister, and I got it today, and what a limp question it was. The reality of the situation is that I have been informed by the administrative officer of AMIC that it is delighted with this initiative and is only too anxious to respond to it. I believe the initiatives that have been taken will resolve many- Mr Porter —You could fool me. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member is pretty easy to fool, any Aboriginal will say that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Minister not to respond to the disorderly interjections. Mr HOLDING —The mining industry is carrying out negotiations. We hope to have all these initiatives in place. I believe that as a result of that benefits will flow and many of the problems that the industry has been confronted by will be met and resolved, and many of the problems that Aboriginal people have been confronted by will also be met and resolved. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes. I refer to the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to my question earlier today regarding the Government's imposition of an assets test. He claimed in that answer that I had spoken in this House in favour of an assets test. I never spoke in favour of an assets test. We revoked the assets test in 1976 and we will revoke the Australian Labor Party's assets test on return to government. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MILTON —I do. Having read the Hansard of yesterday I have noted that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) irresponsibly misrepresented my comments in the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. At the time I was unable to hear him clearly because his excited ramblings had affected his voice. I found grossly offensive, as well as a misrepresentation, his remarks when he said: I do not know what the loyalties of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) were when he was in Britain, but after what he said in this chamber today I would not like to go into battle alongside him. I could not be sure on which side he would finish up. I put it to him quite bluntly: It is extraordinary that some of those who are quickest to stab the Queen in the back came from some parts of the United Kingdom. For the information of honourable members, I served in the Royal Air Force for 2 1/2 years and at one time the unit I served with in Negombo, Sri Lanka, was on active service during insurrections in Malaysia. My loyalty to the people of Australia and my support for the Constitution of Australia, of which the institution of the Queen is a part, is the reason I took part in the debate. I consider that at the very least I, and the other United Kingdom citizens to whom the honourable member for Denison referred, deserve an apology from him. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) had something to say about the coalition's economic policy as it related to certain government-owned enterprises. In particular, he indicated that my position on these matters was well known. Let me assure the Minister that my position on these matters is well known, apparently except to the Minister himself, because in the course of his answer he misrepresented my position and also the position of the coalition parties on this matter. For the benefit of the Minister I will read to him from the coalition economic statement those references- Government members-Oh, no! Mr HOWARD —Well, the issue was raised. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is allowed to point out where he was personally misrepresented. I will allow him to proceed. Mr HOWARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My position and that of the Opposition regarding Telecom Australia is as follows, and it is important that this be said due to the way in which the Minister deliberately sought to stir up unnecessary concern amongst rural Australians- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member get on with making the correction rather than debate it. Mr HOWARD —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I will return to the point. In the policy the coalition said: . . . the Coalition will: . . . . review the role, structure, level of Government ownership and control of all other Government enterprises, such as OTC, AUSSAT, TAA, ANL, Telecom, the Commonwealth Bank and the Pipeline Authority. This examination will include an assessment of the desirability and feasibility of the disposal of the whole-- Mr Young —That is not a personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —Honourable members opposite raised the subject and I am only too delighted to give people an explanation of our policy. I am only too happy. I repeat: This examination will include an assessment of the desirability and feasibility- Mr Bilney —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is not a personal explanation; it is a policy speech. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was named by the Minister for Communications and he is responding to the House. Mr HOWARD —I was specifically associated with the policy and I am delighted to speak on it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to round off his personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —I will wrap it up, Mr Speaker. I repeat: This examination will include an assessment of the desirability and feasibility of the disposal of the whole or part of the Government's interest in such enterprises. The statement went on to say: All of these matters will be canvassed in greater detail when policy announcements are made in specific portfolio areas. The coalition's more detailed position regarding Telecom will be made known when we have the policy. The remarks and the disorderly and misleading statements of the Minister have caused unnecessary concern to rural people. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-I commend the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence for the preparation of this report on the Horn of Africa. It documents many important matters concerning the recent use of aid in the countries of the Horn of Africa. The report has been referred by the Committee to the Jackson Committee to review the Australian Overseas Aid Program for its consideration of the issues raised in the broader context of Australia's global aid policy. The primary focus of the report concerns allegations about corruption, misuse and mismanagement of humanitarian aid from several donor sources in the Horn of Africa. In responding, I propose similarly to confine my remarks to these specific issues. Matters relating to broader policy questions, I believe, should be taken up in the context of consideration of the recommendations of the Jackson review. Development assistance is an important part of Australia's bilateral relations with countries in the Horn of Africa, particularly Ethiopia and Somalia. Both these countries have low per capita income and are also net importers of food, and therefore there is a very important role to be played by aid in assisting the development process in these countries. However, I place very great importance on the efficient and effective use of the Australian taxpayer's money in the provision of overseas aid and claims that our aid is being misused need to be treated very seriously. I welcome the efforts of the Joint Committee to investigate such allegations in regard to the countries of the Horn of Africa and I accept its findings. I am pleased that the Committee was able to convey to the Jackson review its comments on these matters and also with respect to Australia's aid monitoring capacities in that region of Africa. Food aid is the principal component of our aid to the Horn and I would like now to comment specifically on the Committee's findings on this type of aid. The Chairman of the Joint Committee, the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison), in presenting the Committee's report to the House on 1 March 1984, made reference to Australian food aid and drew attention to page 114 of the report which notes: Australia's food aid contributions have increased signigicantly over the years. It is necessary on humanitarian grounds in view of the recent droughts and continuing refugee problem that relief aid be provided. Relief aid is justified where there is an urgent problem requiring attention, but its usefulness is only short-term. The Chairman also drew attention to the Committee's findings, which said: There is a danger in the long term provision of food aid only. Once established , unless there is potential or incentive for recipients of aid to produce their own food, aid becomes self-perpetuating and is very difficult to cut off. I welcome and agree with this viewpoint, which I believe adds valuably and constructively to debate on this topic. I think it is worth noting a few points about Australian food aid and its use as a development tool. All recipients of Australian food aid are food deficit countries and most are also low income countries, with limited capacity to import food to feed their populations. Even under circumstances where there is a concerted effort by the country to eliminate the root causes of food insecurity, many of Australia's food aid recipients will have a continuing need for food aid for some time. Australia, as a major food producer and exporter, will continue to receive requests to provide food aid to these countries and there will be a continuing need for Australia to respond, particularly to emergency situations. In those cases where Australian food aid is used in other than emergency feeding situations, we are endeavouring to improve its development impact. Our preference is that the food aid be used directly as food for work in development projects. Where the food is sold we require, wherever feasible, that it be sold at cost plus freight prices in order to decrease the disincentive effects of subsidised food sales on local food producers. The funds generated from the sale are then directed to development projects, preferably food security projects, in the recipient country. As I have already noted, claims have been made about the misuse of aid from several donor sources in the Horn countries, namely: Misappropriation of food aid; food aid not reaching those in need; inadequate monitoring and the ineffectiveness of long term relief aid. In this regard honourable members may be interested to know the arrangements for this year's Australian food aid program to Ethiopia and Somalia. In the 1983-84 financial year Australia will provide Ethiopia with 16,000 tonnes of wheat. Some 11,600 tonnes of this wheat will be used in a food for work development project involving land reclamation and reaforestation. This project is an extension of a similar successful World Food Program project and aims to restore degraded land to productivity. The World Food Program has been contracted to monitor and supervise the use of this food and it is expected that the project will help to eliminate Ethiopia's chronic food shortage situation. The remaining 4,400 tonnes of wheat is to be used in projects more immediately associated with the current emergency. These projects will have developmental as well as purely relief components. It has been decided after consultation with the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission that the food will go through the counterpart organisations of Australian non-government organisations operating in Ethiopia. In addition to the 16,000 tonnes of wheat going directly to Ethiopia I have for the first time this year approved a food aid gift to three Australian non- government organisations for use by the Eritrean Relief Association in Eritrea. This assistance, which comprises 1,000 tonnes of wheat, 20 tonnes of high protein biscuits and 20 tonnes of whole milk powder, is provided on a humanitarian basis to assist those people suffering from drought and conflict in areas not controlled by the Government of Ethiopia. A cash contribution of $300, 000 has also been made through Australian non-government organisations for other projects of the Eritrean Relief Association to benefit disaster and drought- affected people. In Somalia, Australia has been supporting an international effort to assist some 500,000 to 700,000 refugees resulting from the conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia. In 1983-84 we will provide 3,000 tonnes of flour, 3,000 tonnes of rice and 100 tonnes of high protein biscuits. These commodities have been requested by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and their use will be supervised by the World Food Program. Australia has encouraged UNHCR to use this food in supporting long term solutions to the resettlement of these refugees rather than relying on continuing relief support. We understand that the Government of Somalia has recently agreed to the resettlement of these refugees in Somalia, and are planning development projects for this purpose. In addition to this support for refugees I have also approved a further gift of 1, 000 tonnes of wheat to Somalia. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), who spoke on the need for self-help projects when the Committee's report was tabled in the House, will be interested to know that this wheat will be sold in Somalia at cost plus freight prices, with the proceeds being directed to the Community Aid Abroad primary health care project to which he referred and which was recommended as worthy of support by the Committee. This project is funded by the Australian Government and will involve an expenditure of approximately $3m over 5 years. In concluding, I would like again to welcome the Committee's report and the discussion it has encouraged concerning the effective utilisation of overseas aid resources in a part of the globe little known by the Australian community. I am particularly pleased that the Committee was able to complete the report in time for it to be referred to the Jackson review. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) for his statement to the House. His approach of referring this matter to the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program is a sensible one. Allegations of misuse of aid should be properly reviewed, but this can be done only by a body endowed with the perspective, resources and judgment to look into it. The Jackson Committee is advantageously placed in this regard, and the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee has done a service to the Parliament in opening up the question. The recurrent human crises on the Horn of Africa are the result of natural disaster and man-made catastrophe. The contribution made to human crises by the Soviet-inspired military upheaval is scarcely exceeded by the assaults of nature and the great drought. When these two destructive forces are joined together, they constitute one of the most tragic events in contemporary history. We too easily become accustomed to the pictures of human disaster which confront us almost daily on our television screens. We feel overpowered and almost paralysed by the enormity of the human suffering. Organisations such as Oxfam, World Vision, Community Aid Abroad and similar organisations are pressing their view that a greater proportion of foreign aid should be given directly to the relief of the needy and destitute. Great as the work done by the international systems of emergency relief may be, unfortunately there still remain great gaps. This approach to meeting the here and now problems of human crises have to be balanced by the overriding necessity to prevent their compounding by a failure to take preventive and remedial infrastructure measures. Inevitably, infrastructure aid proposals run the gamut of destructive criticism. They are often long, drawn out and expensive. They are sometimes mistaken, but they are an essential constituent part of a responsible approach to aid. I understand the difficulties any Minister faces in getting across the details of aid administration. I am sure that a balance has to be struck between bilateral humanitarian assistance action and multilateral action. The fact that international agencies will make mistakes and that there may be greater opportunities for corrupt misuse of aid does not remove the apparent necessity to use multilateral machinery to its maximum effectiveness. What the Jackson Committee has to say on this aspect could prove constructive and useful. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received letters from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 107, Mr Speaker has selected the matter which in his opinion is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the Leader of the National Party, namely: The consequences for national security of the run-down in the Australian Defence Force particularly the Royal Australian Navy. I call upon those members who approve 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 SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.16) —Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no more serious area of concern in the community at the moment than the general run-down in the Defence Force of this country and our inability to meet the task of that Defence Force as a result of decisions by this Government. Repeatedly in this House we have heard the apologia by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and other representatives of the Government as to why the Government is not really responsible; it is all a matter of the governments that went before it. That is just not good enough. Progressively, right across the area of defence expenditure, we have found that the Services are being prejudiced in a way that affects their ability to perform the task with which they are charged. It is an area which is of prime concern to all thinking Australians. While not one of us at the moment believes there is an imminent threat, the very actions of this Government, through its Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), have progressively alienated Australia from those with whom we need to be associated. They have distanced us from our Asian friends, removed us from contact with the great and powerful nation of America- and indeed with the traditional Western alliance-and have put the Australian nation in a position where it is more alone than it has ever been before. Tragically, it is only in circumstances of a major world war involving the super -powers that under this Government we could be confident of there being an ally by our side. It is in those circumstances that it becomes even more important that we look at the structure and strength of each of the three armed Services, the function and operation of the Department of Defence, and whether this Government is allocating to the armed Services adequate resources to enable them to perform their tasks. Only a few weeks ago the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) highlighted in graphic and tragic detail the run-down in respect of the Australian Army for which this Minister and this Government have been responsible. We are all too sadly aware that in recent weeks there have been two crashes involving Mirage aircraft. We know there have been instructions from this Government, as a result of its Budget- pruning exercise, to reduce the number of hours of flight training. As a result of that reduction, flight training hours are now below the minimal level prescribed by the Chief of Air Staff; below the level of what we are told he has suggested to the Minister for Defence is necessary to maintain flying efficiency . I hope that the Minister today can assure the Parliament and the people of Australia that it was not as a result of the reduction of flying hours by his Government and his Department that these two accidents occurred. We know the very high quality and skill of members of the three armed Services. We know that it is not the fault of the men and women involved that this run-down has occurred. It is because over the last 12 months this Government and this Minister have bungled from one calamity to another. We have raised this matter of public importance today because of the circumstances which arose last weekend at an Australian Naval Institute forum on sea power. The same sad story revealed by the matter of public importance concerning the Army is reflected in respect of the Royal Australian Navy. Of course, this Minister finds that he needs a catalyst to act. We all saw what happened with the Invincible when he so nearly alienated, totally, the relationship that we have with the United States of America in circumstances where our own fleet finds, so sadly, that its limitations are imposed by Government directives as to the amount of fuel it can use, steaming hours, and manpower restrictions about which I wish to speak in a moment. So we had the Invincible incident. We have had a series of incidents where this Minister has found it necessary to be kicked in the backside before he is even prepared to respond. We had the same circumstances apply with respect to the new training lands. I am delighted to see that, as a result of the promulgation earlier this week, the Minister has at least got himself into a position where he recognises that there would be an impact in regions that would be affected by any sort of a takeover by the Services for military purposes. He has got himself into the position where he has acknowledged that there is an economic cost, and where there is an economic cost which will affect the people concerned he is prepared to declare that that area should not be proceeded with. Indeed, the statement was made, at long last, 12 months after the first notice of intention was proclaimed, that neither the New England nor the Bathurst areas would now be proceeded with for the range. We need to be specific. A number of areas are concerned and the Minister's statement this week, at long last, exposes to the people that the Government is prepared to have consultations with the people and will take into account the social and economic impact and, as there should not have been in the first place, acquisitions will not be processed in areas where there will be an adverse economic or social effect. Quite demonstrably, the criteria that I have been concerned about have now been met and presumably the Minister will now explain to the Parliament and to the people that those two areas will be withdrawn from further study as an artillery range. The reason for this matter of public importance is that we see the Australian Defence Force as a total amalgam of three armed Services, the Navy, the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force. We believe that this Government has run down the Army and we have exposed it. We believe that the Navy is progressively being put in a position where, sadly, as the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald the other day stated, the naval deterrent is in doubt. We are told that the Air Force is having its flying hours reduced, and its ability to perform its functions circumscribed by decisions which are the product of this Government and no other. First of all I want to look at that very excellent presentation by the Chief of Naval Staff who finds himself in an invidious position. If he stands up and speaks out as he should on behalf of those he commands and those he represents, he is called into the office of the Minister and told that he has been speaking in public. But in this area it is essential that those who hold senior executive responsibility are not told to keep quiet because this man and this Government have bungled. These are circumstances that go to the core of the preservation of the future security of every one of us. The threat that could so rapidly and easily develop was acknowledged by those who attended that Naval Institute seminar at the weekend. It is not that there is a threat now but that a threat could emerge. It is the same circumstance as so sadly happened in the Falkland Islands. Overnight, a circumstance the British were told would not happen did happen. The unexpected requires a state of preparedness. In his very excellent presentation, the Chief of Naval Staff identified Australia's principle national security interests as sovereignty, security of our overseas and coastal lines of communications, maintenance of good relations, reduction of tensions with other countries, particularly those in our region, and avoidance of global war. Sadly the third item has been prejudiced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs whose ineptitude in foreign affairs was so aptly demonstrated at Question Time today. The comments by the Chief of Naval Staff were affirmed by Desmond Ball and Colonel Langtry of the Institute of Strategic Studies when they said it would be the height of foolishness if Australia were to adopt a military posture which did not give priority to holding and preferably destroying an invading force on the high seas or in the air before reaching Australia. So the necessity to build up a force and what is needed within that force was laid down by the Chief of Naval Staff. He pointed out the magnitude of the problem that faces Australia. He said that exports and imports were equivalent to about 35 per cent of gross domestic product. He pointed out that 207 million tonnes of cargo are carried in and out of Australia by sea each year; only 161,000 tonnes is carried by air. He pointed out that on an average day there are 195 merchant ships in our ports and about 175 in transit to or from Australia. He pointed out that shipping destined for Australia can be identified at least 4,000 nautical miles from our coast and on the Persian Gulf route at least 2,000 nautical miles away. Looking at the alternative of air transport, he pointed out that a Boeing 747, configured for cargo, requires almost two tonnes of fuel for each tonne of cargo carried. He identified the reason why we cannot rely on our present 95 per cent dependence on foreign shipping as a substitute for our own naval capability. We come to the consequences of the shortfalls in the Services. He pointed out that we must have sufficient ships to operate around the coast, taking into account the extension into the 200 mile maritime zone, and the necessity of anti -submarine warfare helicopter support for our escorts. Sadly, this Government has pulled the plug from under our sailors. It has taken the teeth out of the Fleet Air Arm and left it with no bite. This Cabinet of bathtub admirals has steered the Navy into a position where it could not meet medium level contingencies, as, so sadly, the Chief of Naval Staff identified at the weekend. All this has happened under the guidance of a Minister with a rowboat mentality. Concerned with the cost cutting exercise in the three Services, the Opposition has identified the rundown in the Services. The Government has put us in a position, for the first time ever, where we must be significantly more able to defend ourselves and mount a level of self-sufficient defence than we ever have before. What has happened? First of all, in the Royal Australian Navy, we have had a run-down which has led to the circumstance which the Chief of Naval Staff identified. I do not want to read his speech in detail because I have not time to do so. It is the decision on the Fleet Air Arm and the fixed wing capability, not the carrier decision-the Minister seems to fail to realise this-that has denied the present capability that this nation requires. It has taken away protection from the Bass Strait oil reserves. It has taken away an ability to mount the Tracker aircraft to survey our coastal approaches. It has destroyed the only self-sufficient aerial refuelling capability that this nation has, the A4C Skyhawk. The tragedy is that by removing those capabilities in both the A4s and the Trackers and saying, because of some prejudices that they have, that we cannot have a fixed wing Fleet Air Arm that we find ourselves not only without that capability but also unable to maintain an adequate anti-submarine warfare capability. In my speech to the Naval Institute I identified the fact that we have eight Sea King helicopters without any combat unit able to support them. There is, through the merchants ships laid up, an alternative that could have been investigated. The Minister could have said: 'Look, we will bring some into service temporarily'. There are alternatives that he needs to proceed with as far as the overall ability of the fleet is concerned because at the moment the fleet has no organic anti-submarine warfare protection beyond the range of its ship-mounted sonars and they have a range of only about five or six nautical miles. Even conventional submarines can launch surface skimmer missiles with ranges of about 50 nautical miles. The Navy lacks any method of gaining long- range tactical intelligence from its own resources. Of course, without this intelligence, the fleet cannot exploit its new technology weapons like the harpoon. The Minister said: 'Oh, they can rely on the Orions'. The Orions are already overstressed. There are inadequate funding resources to provide crews. With their present limitations they cannot provide all the services, both military and civil, that are being demanded of them. We find sadly that in relation to anti-submarine warfare capability the Minister has proceeded with a range of decisions that I find totally confusing. He failed to proceed with the expeditious acquisition of the light helicopters. I do not want to read through the statements but we were told that in January he announced that tenders would soon be called for the provision of new utility helicopters for the RAAF. As far as I can see, that means that the earlier announcement that he made in November last year, about acquiring helicopters for maritime operations, will be deferred until he has got a helicopter that is suitable for both Services. I am not sure whether he will spend the $18m allocated in this year's Budget or whether it will come out of the $50m which we are told will be available next year for capital purchases. In any event, we are told by the Department of Finance that the defence budget will be pruned by a further $600m in the next financial year. Whatever the consequences, there has been a run-down in funds for new purchases , a run-down in fuel for the Navy, a run-down in flying time for the Air Force and a run-down in boots and every other form of equipment for the Army, but we find that the Minister does not come out and explain to the Parliament and the people just where he is heading. He does not take decisions which enable people to feel that at least they are being taken into his confidence. Indeed, he wrote to me on 4 April and explained that, because of various run-downs in the naval vote, postings were not proceeding; that he thought he might have fixed it all up now but, because of the pressure there has been on naval resources, a number of postings have had to be deferred. We were told by the Chief of Naval Staff that by 1987 the Navy will lose another 1,900 people. All in all, the position is one of a sad indictment of the Minister and the Government. Defence is becoming a matter of concern in the community. The Minister should explain to this House where he is going and what he intends to do to correct the deficiencies. He needs to identify what he intends to do about our lack of anti-submarine warfare capability. He needs to address the shortfall that, sadly, the Chief of Naval Staff has identified. He needs to assure the people of Australia that we are not going to be put in a position under his Government that will leave us totally without protection. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(3.32) —If we are to believe the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) we would believe that it is possible to equip a defence force and change its entire structure in under a year. No current significant capability in the Royal Australian Navy has been acquired in under four years. The right honourable gentleman has a great deal of expertise in misrepresenting the truth and putting forward propositions in the nature of slogans which he knows he was not processing when he was the Minister for Defence and which he knows his Government did not support when it was in office but for which he believes he will win some short term shonky political points. Mr Sinclair —You are the shonky political animal. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman will withdraw that remark. Mr Sinclair —It was accurate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The right honourable gentleman will withdraw it. Mr Sinclair —On your insistence, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr SCHOLES —I think that we should understand certain facts. The right honourable gentleman was the Minister for Defence at the end of 1981-82, a year in which the defence vote was reduced by 1.9 per cent in real terms. In addition , funds to the extent of $180m, held in reserve for payments of late accounts in the United States, were added to the appropriations, with the result that in subsequent years money had to be found in order to meet the requirements-- Mr Sinclair —Because of the Invincible purchase. You know that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party was heard by the House with courtesy and without interruption. I ask him to extend the same courtesy to the Minister for Defence. Mr SCHOLES —The funds had to be added to the defence vote and subsequently had to be met from current accounts rather than from funds put aside for that purpose. In fact, in the last three years of the previous Government, the real vote on defence was static; it did not rise. Members of the Opposition speak about the Fleet Air Arm and their concern about the Royal Australian Navy. Let us look at the facts concerning the way they actually treated the Navy when they were in office. Mr Sinclair —A jolly sight better than you did. Mr SCHOLES —We have been in office for a year, my friend. Mr Sinclair —I was Minister for about nine months, my friend. Mr SCHOLES —But the right honourable member was a member of the previous Government. I know that he repudiates his own Government-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I invite the Minister to ignore the interjections. I invite the Leader of the National Party to take the advice of the Chair. Mr SCHOLES —I think that we ought to understand exactly what we are about in this House. We have a shonky Opposition which has decided to exploit the defence forces of this country, to demean the defence forces of this country, with some of the most disreputable statements I have ever heard in a defence debate in this Parliament. Mr White —Why don't you answer some of them? Mr SCHOLES —I will tell you one thing: None of the things you said in your speech the other day has stood up; none of them is true. Your own colleagues are ashamed of you. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will address the Chair. Mr SCHOLES —On 8 April an announcement was made that Australia's fixed wing aircraft capabilities would be discontinued. The announcement was made in this House by the then Minister for Defence, Sir James Killen. HMAS Melbourne was tied up in 1982. No capability, either in existence or planned, would have enabled the Tracker aircraft or the Skyhawks to go to sea from that time. Their life of type is such that had a decision been taken to acquire a new carrier, capable of carrying fixed wing aircraft they would have been out of service before that carrier came into service. But the previous Government had no intention of maintaining a fixed wing capacity within the Royal Australian Navy. That was clearly stated by the then Minister for Defence and the then Prime Minister. The purchase of HMS Invincible was based on the premise that it would be an anti-submarine warfare carrier only and would be equipped only with helicopters. The previous Prime Minister stated categorically-the Leader of the National Party can repudiate him if he wishes; he has repudiated everyone else in his Government-that there was no intention to acquire a fixed wing capability for the Invincible. The facts are that the approaching obsolescence of the Melbourne was well known before she was tied up. It was well known to the Government and it was stated in the 1976 White Paper that that obsolescence would have to be addressed as a matter of urgency and a decision taken on whether to replace the carrier. It was also announced at that time that certain funds would be devoted to the defence forces of this country in order to overcome the backlog in capital equipment items-a backlog which still exists. In the four years after that announcement the deficit, on the promises made by the previous Government, was over $1.5 billion. The previous Government did not meet any of its promises. During the whole period in which it was in office the average increase in the defence vote was less than 2.5 per cent. The increase under this Government was in excess of 4 per cent. Mr Sinclair —Rubbish. Mr SCHOLES —The right honourable member says that the figures of the Department of Finance are rubbish. He depends on a newspaper report. Mr Sinclair —It is wrong, is it? Mr SCHOLES —It is incorrect. The right honourable member has chosen to use incorrect figures in a debate, just as his colleague chose to use gossip rather than facts. Mr White —I raise a point of order. The Minister has said twice that information used in previous debates by me in this House was incorrect. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SCHOLES —The honourable gentleman was the man who raised the subject of boots . No unit commander has been able to identify the problem which he raised. Also no unit commander has indicated that he raised the matter with him. Mr White —In view of what the Minister has just said, I raise a point of order. The information that I produced in this House was given to me- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. If the honourable gentleman thinks that he has been misrepresented he will have an opportunity at the end of the debate to make a personal explanation. Mr SCHOLES —We also had in that debate the grandiose statement that the rifles which the Operational Deployment Force has are 20 years old. That is true. When we came into office they were 19 years old and the previous Minister planned to replace them in 1988. That was the timetable for replacement. So what is the charge? Is it that we are going to keep to his timetable and that his timetable was incompetent? Is that the charge the honourable member is making-that we are keeping to his timetable and that he had neglected defence? That would seem to be the position according to his statements. Mr Sinclair —You prematurely retired them. Mr SCHOLES —What-the rifles? Wake up to yourself, George! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will ignore the interjections and speak through the Chair. Mr Sinclair —You are a man of high principle, aren't you? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —Madam Deputy Speaker, I resent the fact that I was called by a name that is not mine and I ask the honourable gentlemen to withdraw it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw and the right honourable gentleman will cease interjecting. Mr SCHOLES —I do not mind being called by my father's name but other people apparently object. We now have the right honourable gentleman suggesting that we have retired the rifles from the Australian Army. It is time that the defence debate revolved around the defence of Australia. It is time that the former Government acknowledged its policies, acknowledged its proposals and acknowledged where it was going on defence. It should stop this hypocrisy and misrepresentation that it was going to do this and it was going to do that. Mr Sinclair —We did it and you know it. Mr SCHOLES —The honourable member did not do it and he knows it. The fact is that there is a bunching of capital equipment problems, because of the procrastination of the previous Government, which is causing serious problems within the defence vote and within the nation's economy. The previous Government did not make a decision on the aircraft carrier when it was supposed to be made. It put if off, put it off and put it off and eventually tied up the Melbourne without a decision having been made. Mr Sinclair —We were going to buy the Invincible. Mr SCHOLES —It tied up the Melbourne without a decision having been made. Mr Sinclair —We bought the Invincible. Do not mislead this House. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party continually flouts the instructions of the Chair. If he continues to do so the Chair will deal with him. I call the Minister. Mr SCHOLES —When the British Government offered to dispose of the Invincible at a bargain basement price, the previous Government jumped in after having previously rejected that design of carrier as unsuitable for the Royal Australian Navy. It did not actually buy the Invincible and it never intended to use the Invincible as a conventional aircraft carrier or for fixed wing aircraft . That is on the record. It waited and waited and waited. It tied up the Melbourne and thus made irrelevant the fixed wing aircraft which could only operate from that carrier. It tied Melbourne up before it made a decision on what it would do about fixed wing air power for the Royal Australian Navy. The FFGs were in service for over a year and the then Government had not even commenced to address the need for a helicopter to operate from those ships. We are now faced with a situation, because of the incompetence, the delays and the failure of the previous Government to make decisions, in which it is quite possible that, in order to obtain an adequate platform, alterations will have to be made to the ships after they are built. This will be because the previous Government did not decide on and did not give consideration to the types of helicopters it would put on the ships before or during their construction. It procrastinated as it always procrastinated. We heard a complaint the other day about the numbers of people available for the introduction of new artillery in the Australian Army. When we came into office it was vastly undermanned. We have increased substantially the number of people available in those areas. It should also be pointed out to honourable gentlemen opposite that, as with all their defence decisions, those guns are coming into operation three years after they were timetabled, because of their procrastination. The previous Minister for Defence made no decisions. He used his verbal capabilities to disguise his inability to make real decisions. The other point about which at least some people in the Opposition are embarrassed, is whether the Opposition supports the need for training areas in New South Wales. We saw a lot of crocodile tears about the inability of people at Holsworthy to train properly. We even had an allegation that sections of the armoured regiments were denied the right to train together. Mr Newman —That is not true. Mr SCHOLES —That was true. That happened for two years before we came into office. We removed that restriction. Mr Newman —That is not true. Mr SCHOLES —You were the Minister Assisting when the direction was given. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister will speak through the Chair. Mr SCHOLES —The former Minister Assisting was in that office when he refused for two years to allow the armoured regiment to exercise as a unit. We took away that restriction. I give due credit to the former Minister Assisting, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman). He was present when the need for exercise ranges was put in February 1982 to the Premier of New South Wales. It is my understanding that both he and the then Minister, Mr Killen, strongly put the case for these ranges. It was a decision of the then Government. It was a decision which was duly processed and it is a decision about which the incoming Minister, Mr Sinclair, was fully informed. But, with the prospect of an election in 1983, he ran away from his responsibilities as the Defence Minister because his own electorate was involved. He might tell this House now, especially as he has all the documentation, whether he declared to the then Prime Minister, as he did in this House this week, a personal interest in this- Mr Sinclair —Yes, I did, as I did here in the House. Mr SCHOLES —Well, we have an interesting situation. Mr Sinclair —You know that. Mr SCHOLES —That was two days ago. It is interesting that an area which personally involves the former Minister is one of the areas involved in a decison which, he acknowledged on Tamworth radio, he decided to hush up until after the election. We have in this Parliament the most shonky Opposition in the history of this country, prepared to go to any lengths to do any damage- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr NEWMAN(Bass)(3.47) —On 29 March we had a debate in this place on the Australian Army. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and I have over 40 specific charges. I will not deny that some of the charges that we made did result from the Administration that went before this one. But I am afraid that, having made that admission, by far the vast number of those 40 charges have their root cause in the things that this Government is doing. We listed problems in a wide number of areas including unit strengths, recruiting cutbacks, training restrictions, ammunition shortages, equipment deficiencies, accommodation defects, the Government's assault on the Army Reserve and cutbacks in conditions of service. The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has responded to only four of those charges and he was wrong on every count. Today he alleged that the previous Government had said that it would get rid of fixed wing aircraft. That is simply not true. In the defence statement on the Invincible, we said that there would be no fixed wing aircraft at that stage. But it specifically left open the option for COVL aircraft. I think it is disgraceful-he has done it again today- that the Minister for Defence has responded to these specific charges in a threadbare, ignorant and deceitful way. If this feeble deception and ignorance is not enough, now he is resorting to censorship. On a number of occasions, including in this Parliament, I have drawn attention to the scandalous living conditions of soldiers at Ingleburn in New South Wales. I must say that I give the Minister credit for having now fixed that situation and for having allowed them to move into East Hills hostel. Well done on that. Mr Scholes —How long was that situation current? Was that a one-year program? Mr NEWMAN —It has been on this Government's books since October last year. I was challenged by the Willesee television team to prove my charges. They invited me to accompany them to Ingleburn to investigate that position. Mr Scholes —That is a lie. You set it up with them. Mr NEWMAN —Permission was refused to let the team or me visit or film the barracks in question. If the Minister wants to call me a liar, I will have a separate debate with him on that issue straight after this. He is telling lies and he knows it. Again, I applied to the Minister to visit the Fleet Air Arm station at Nowra. I wished to see at first hand what was happening there as a result of the Government's scrapping of naval fixed wing air support. The Minister has refused permission to let me go. We are now moving on from a no boots administration to a jack boots regime. It is humbug when it is initiated by a government which believes in open government. But let me focus on the Navy and the decisions that have been taken by this Administration. The hasty decision to scrap the Fleet Air Arm represents another blow to our defence capability. It is also a stupid decision, not properly thought out, with wide ramifications in other crucial defence areas. The Minister wants to sweep the problem under the carpet but he cannot hide the truth. It has become clear that the Government's ill-conceived policy will have the following effects: It will expose our vital oil supplies in Bass Strait to catastrophic accident or attack; leave the Royal Australian Navy fleet without adequate air support; create serious gaps in our anti-submarine warfare measures ; lead to deficiencies in meeting fleet training requirements; be very expensive and wasteful of money; and reduce the capability of our aviation defence industry. By the end of June this year, the Navy fixed wing squadrons of A4 Skyhawks and S2G Trackers will have disappeared. The process of selling them off will have begun. The most immediate and dangerous consequence of this decision is how it may affect surveillance of our Bass Strait oil fields, surveillance which is necessary to give early warning of, say, terrorist attack or wayward merchant vessels off course in the Bass Strait area. This critical national task was once done by Navy Tracker aircraft. On many recorded occasions they intercepted ships , on automatic pilot, set on a collision course with the oil fields. In December last year, Navy patrolling was stopped and the information I have is that the radar and communications which have been installed are inadequate and simply do not do the job. The Government has laid our vital oil fields, from which the bulk of our oil requirements flow, open to terrorist attack or accident. Equally dangerous are the consequences for naval operations and Australia's defence capability. In war the Royal Australian Air Force is supposed to give the support that these aircraft now provide-fighter cover, distant strike ability, airborne early warning and anti-submarine defence. Mr White —Impossible. Mr NEWMAN —But it has become evident that these are very shaky additional roles for an already heavily committed RAAF. Now the essential roles of our 75 F18 aircraft will include not only our nation's air defence but also maritime and ground support to the Navy and Army as well. Given the fundamental complexity and breadth of these roles, the RAAF will be stretched to meet the task or, as my colleague says, it will find it impossible. The RAAF's limitations become worse when the difficulties of undeveloped or inadequate forward bases, the serious prohibitions on mobility of support, maintenance and repair facilities and the inadequate or untrained support and transport systems are taken into account. The Hawke Government's decision to sell off the Fleet Air Arm will leave the Navy very vulnerable at sea. It will make the Navy's strategic role of protecting our trade routes and providing a credible deterrent very difficult. The proof of the pudding is now apparent in the RAAF's inability to meet the fleet's training and support requirements. Information available to the Opposition shows that the RAAF has supported only approximately 60 per cent of the fleet's requirements. It could be 50 per cent or lower. The other 40 per cent or more is still provided by the fixed wing aircraft of the Navy. When the Fleet Air Arm is sold off in June the RAAF will have to provide 100 per cent of all the requirements. On the evidence to date, it is highly unlikely that it will be able to do so. If it manages to respond to the Navy's requirements it will have to be at the expense of other essential tasks. But it is not just a matter of the RAAF's difficulties in doing the job for the Navy. What it is trying to do is costing the taxpayers more money and is wasting the precious defence dollars that the Minister for Defence has talked about today. The Government claims that by getting rid of the Navy fixed wing aviation it will save $20m. But our information is that the Government will incur an additional cost of at least $10m. Fleet training requirements used to be met almost entirely by the Skyhawks and Trackers based at Nowra. Due to the location of exercise areas off Jervis Bay in New South Wales much of the substituted RAAF support is expensive or inadequate. What are the facts? The Mirage aircraft is at least twice as expensive to run as the Skyhawk. An hour is usually needed in the exercise area to work up the gunnery and radar training with aircraft. This can be provided by one Skyhawk sortie out of Nowra but, because of range and fuel limitations, it takes two or three sorties of Mirages or Macchis out of Williamtown. Mirage and Macchi aircraft need to carry heavy fuel drop tanks which limit manoeuvrability and hence effectiveness. RAAF aircraft at Williamtown that become unserviceable just prior to nominated departure times cannot be replaced quickly because of long transit times and other commitments leaving ships on station wasting valuable steaming time already restricted by the Government. Time lost by aircraft not being on station as scheduled cannot be made up by increased time at sea because of these restrictions. So the story goes on but time does not allow me to demonstrate all the results. However, we know about the $10m extra expenditure. There is also the question of our anti-submarine warfare Sea King helicopters. Whilst they can and do make a contribution to fleet training from their base at Nowra, crew experience and training is being severely limited by not being able to be deployed at sea. Another spin off of the decision is its effect on our defence industry capability. Because of the decision, Hawker de Havilland which is responsible for the maintenance of Navy Tracker aircraft has been forced to axe approximately 100 positions. It has also stopped taking on any apprentice airframe fitters. This means that almost certainly there will be shortages of airframe fitters in the next five to 10 years. At a time when Ministers in the Government are trumpeting about the need to have self-reliance in our defence industries they are reducing a very critical defence industry. All these problems have to be added to the points that the Leader of the National Party ( Mr Sinclair) made, the effects of decisions on reducing steaming times, naval strength and the starvation of the naval Reserve. The final irony of the Government's self- imposed defence muddle was the Minister's reported comments in Malaysia during his recent tour. The Age of 26 April 1984 reported the Minister as acknowledging the threat of increased Soviet build up in our region yet the same Minister is hell bent on weakening the capacity and reliability of our Navy and Army. Australia was once one of the leading naval nations of our region. It has now dropped from the position of the most powerful regional navy 15 years ago to about the sixth most powerful. The Navy is unable to provide vital tactical reconnaisance, air defence and air strike at sea. In fact, it no longer can provide a credible deterrent or even a defensive force in our region. At the very time when the Minister for Defence is warning our South East Asian neighbours of the threat from the Soviet build up in the region and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is braying to the world of the weaknesses of the ANZUS alliance the Government is hell bent on the criminal dismantling of Australia's naval strength. Mr MORRISON(St George)(3.57) —For once-I hope for the last time-can we get very clear who the culprits were for putting the last nail in the coffin of the fixed wing element of the Royal Australian Navy? I recall a statement made in this House. This is not the first time I have referred to this statement. It appears I have to refer to it time and again to get across to honourable gentlemen opposite the real facts. In a statement made by the then Minister for Defence, a Liberal Party Minister, on 29 April 1982, we find: The current commitments and the future of Navy's existing fixed-wing aircraft are being examined by a defence working party as a consequence of a government decision that these aircraft are to be paid off as soon as practicable to provide early savings in expenditure. It is expected that there will also be consequent manpower savings. I repeat: . . . these aircraft are to be paid off as soon as practicable. . . That was the last nail in the coffin of the fixed wing element of the Navy. I do not want to have to come back to this House time and again to locate the responsibility for that decision. There has been some reference today also to propositions about Navy activity. Again I point out-I will have to go very slowly so that it sinks in to honourable gentlemen opposite-that in the last four years of the Fraser Government operating expenditure for the Navy decreased. I am very happy now- although I regret that I have to do so-to give figures of the operating expenditure for the Navy. In 1979-80-these are December 1982 figures-operating expenditure for the Navy was $314m. In 1980-81 it had dropped to $309m. In 1981- 82 it had dropped further to $283m. In 1982-83 it had dropped to $276m. In fact, there was a total decline over that period of 12 per cent in the Navy's operating expenditure. Do honourable gentlemen opposite admit that under this Government, and contained in the Budget of this Government for the first time in four years, there has been an increase in the Navy's operating expenditure? The increase this year is over 2 1/2 per cent. That compares with a decrease of 12 per cent over the last four years of the Government of which honourable members opposite were a part. Mr White —There has been a decrease in their capability. Mr MORRISON —I shall take up the proposition that decreases in capability have occurred. Reference was made to the decrease in capability of operating expenditure. Let me quote again from the statement that was made back in 1982, and we are talking about the operating costs not only of the Navy but also of the other parts of the armed services. The then Liberal Minister for Defence said: There will be reductions in programmed expenditure for operating costs. This will be achieved by continuing economies already introduced in this financial year. It will mean restraint in the level of some training activities and the cancellation of others. Other areas affected include travel, equipment repair and general administrative expenses; I am quoting from the decision which was taken not very long ago by the Government of the day which is now represented by the Opposition. That Government talked about reducing operating costs. The then Liberal Party Minister for Defence went on to say: Planned fuel and other stockpiling levels will be reduced and service activities, including Navy's steaming time, Army's utilisation of its armoured vehicles, and service flying hours, will be restrained. Each of the Mirage squadrons may have to specialise to some extent in either the air-to-air or air- to-ground role. This would demand less training time and weapons usage than at present, when all pilots train in both specialist roles. Less than two years ago the Government, now the Opposition, made those catastrophic cuts in the preparedness of the Australian armed forces. We have sought since we came to Government to raise the standards and to provide more funds for operating costs. We did this immediately in the case of the Navy. We have sought, through other measures, to upgrade the preparedness of the defence forces of this country, which fell into such grave disrepute under the administration of the gentlemen who now sit opposite. A whole series of other changes were made in the expenditure pattern for the Australian defence forces, as indicated in that catastrophic statement of 1982. It will take this Government a great deal of time and a great deal of effort to recover from those disastrous decisions that were made in 1982 by the Government , which is now represented by the Opposition. The then Minister, talking about the strength of the Navy, said: The Government will not at this stage proceed with the acquisition of an additional five Fremantle class patrol boats and the second underway replenishment ship; In regard to the Air Force, he said: The long-serving Canberra aircraft, which are currently used in the aerial photographic survey role and other RAAF support tasks, will be paid off. Until a new aircraft is acquired, any requirement for these capabilities will be met by other means such as chartered aircraft; They were setting up a sort of Pizza Hut franchise. They could not provide our forces with permanent assets so they had to seek to lease them. This was the defence policy that was run by the gentlemen who sit opposite. The then Minister also said in regard to the Navy: The provision for expenditure over the next five years on follow-on destroyers will be reduced. The level of annual expenditure will be given detailed consideration along with the planned reforms at the Williamstown Dockyard; Reference was made to anti-submarine warfare: Planned expenditure for additional ASW helicopters has been deferred and program expenditure on other RAN and RAAF helicopters has been reduced. Further, in regard to the Air Force, he said: There will be a reduction in the level of refurbishment of the Mirage; And again: Many of the lower priority facilities and infrastructure developments have been slowed down or delayed. We have this litany of decisions to cut and defer the necessary assets of the armed forces of Australia. These decisions were made by the honourable gentlemen who sit opposite. They were the guilty men. They were the men who cut into Australia's defence preparedness. They were the men who cut back Australia's security position by a whole series of decisions covering the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. They made sure that these decisions were going to live on. They made sure that the grave difficulties of any future Government in trying to organise the scheduling of future payments would be impossible to meet. They did this by the simple procedure of rescheduling debts, of not paying on time bills that were coming in for purchases that were taking place. So the honourable gentlemen who sit opposite now sought when in government to destroy-in fact, they nearly achieved this-the very basis of planning of the Australian defence forces. They are the guilty men. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr WHITE(McPherson) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr WHITE —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr WHITE —The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) during a speech made a little while ago accused me, in his words, of peddling gossip in information I had used in debates in the last few weeks. The implication, of course, was that what I had said was at least inaccurate and possibly untrue. I should like to tell the Minister and the House that all the information I and my colleague, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman), have used has come from senior serving officers. I would be more than happy to tell the Minister in the privacy of his office exactly where I got the information. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I too would like to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr NEWMAN —Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr NEWMAN —The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) on a number of occasions has misrepresented the situation which involved the visit by the Willesee television team and me to the Holsworthy Army camp in the Ingleburn area on 12 April. He misrepresented the situation in a letter he wrote which appeared in the Bulletin magazine last week. He misrepresented it in a Press statement which went out under his name, or under the heading of the Department of Defence. He misrepresented the situation today when he accused me of telling lies. Therefore , I would like to explain the facts of the matter. First of all, I received an invitation from Mr Steven Rice of the Willesee television program to visit Holsworthy and Ingleburn Army camps to substantiate charges made in Parliament during defence debates. Mr Rice indicated that permission had been received from Army authorities for the team to make the visit. My secretary telephoned the office of the Minister for Defence and spoke to a Mr Michael Brown to obtain permission to go. My secretary explained the reason for the visit. Mr Brown asked that the request be put in writing. A telex was subsequently sent. I have a copy of it here. The important point was that the object was to meet an invitation by Willesee to substantiate my charges in Parliament. The Minister's office replied by telegram on 11 April 1984 saying that it would not be appropriate. Upon receiving the telegram I telephoned the Minister's private secretary, Mr Brown, and explained that this put me in an impossible position. I told him that Willesee was to go and film the area with emphasis on my allegations, yet I was deprived of the chance to go also. I added that Willesee had informed me that the Minister would be there and I had made it very clear to the Willesee team that my visit had to be kept quite separate from the Minister's. I stressed to Mr Brown that I had informed the team that it would be quite irregular and improper for some sort of confrontation to be organised between myself and the Minister. Finally, I informed Mr Brown that if the team still planned to go to Holsworthy on that day I felt I had no other course of action but to accompany it but would avoid any confrontation with the Minister. I asked that this information be passed to the Minister. There was no further reaction from the Minister or his office. On 12 April I travelled to Sydney and with the Willesee team went to Holsworthy and Ingleburn Camp. At the entrance to the camp the sentry was informed as to who was in the vehicle. We were allowed to enter and were directed to the parade ground outside the brigade headquarters. On arrival at the parade ground I found that there was to be a demonstration and display for a fairly large Press contingent. Until that time I was not aware that any other Press had been invited to Holsworthy other than the Willesee team . In accordance with what I had told the Minister's office, I decided it would be best to leave the area until the Minister had left. I went to another unit in the brigade area where I had coffee and waited. After it had become clear that the Minister had left I returned to the parade ground and was interviewed by the Willesee team. I had then sought to take the Willesee team to the barracks area which I had condemned as being in appalling condition but I was prevented by military personnel, obviously on instructions from the Minister. The television team and myself were directed to leave the area, which we immediately did. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been personally misrepresented. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr SCHOLES —The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) has claimed that I acted improperly in refusing him permission to enter the Holsworthy establishment at a time when I was making an official inspection of that area. The request which came to me was for participation in a television program, and it was intended that a confrontation situation should take place at Holsworthy. I acknowledge that the honourable gentleman indicated that he was not prepared to take part in such a procedure. It is, and has been, the practice for honourable members to be allowed permission to enter military establishments with the approval of the Minister and subject to its being convenient to the commanding officer of the base concerned. It is true that the Minister, if he so desired, could override the commanding officer, but that would be inappropri- ate. It is not, and has not been in the past, the practice of this or previous governments to give permission to persons to enter military establishments for the purpose of political stunts. That is what we are talking about. I should point out that-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the Minister that he not debate his case. He should just put the facts before the House. Mr SCHOLES —I point out that I have given permission to many members of the Opposition individually to enter the Holsworthy establishment, though I think it would be appropriate if, on occasions, they could visit together and save some of the commanding officer's time. Nevertheless I will continue to give that permission. I will not, however, act in a way which creates embarrassment for the people running those establishments by involving them or their establishments in the day to day politicking in which we engage. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that during the previous election campaign the former Minister refused me permission to enter HMAS Albatross. I have no problems about an honourable member visiting any military establishment providing he is not doing so for a political purpose, to involve the base in political activities. Mr FRY(Fraser) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's reports on proposals for variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs-(1) 81A Series, and (2) 82nd Series-1st Report, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mr FRY —by leave-The first report I have just tabled on the 81A series of variations to the city plan covers only one item and relates to the proposed development of a hotel-convention centre and office space by White Industries Ltd. The Committee approves the variation but it is most concerned about the traffic problems and lack of car parking facilities in Civic which will result from this and other future developments. To overcome the traffic problems, the Committee recommends that the traffic lights proposed by the National Capital Development Commission be established before the first stage of the White Industries development is completed and that traffic lights also be provided at the intersection of Akuna and Bunda streets in the same time scale. As a result of the significant additional demand for car parking facilities in Civic which will be generated by the White Industries development and other proposed developments the Committee recommends that the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories and Local Government address themselves urgently to accommodate the additional demand by implementing a range of measures. The Committee was also concerned that it was approving this variation while a number of major aspects of the White Industries development were still unclear. Accordingly it is requested that it be briefed on the development when the project arrangements have been finalised. The other report I have just tabled covers three items from the 82nd series of variations to the city plan and recommends the approval of work valued at $8.15m . Variation 15 is concerned with changes to roadways in Chisholm to provide a shopping centre at Chisholm in accordance with the revised strategy for local retail centres in Tuggeranong, which include the development of a town centre. The release in May 1984 of a 4,000 square metre group centre at Erindale and the proposed group centre at Chisholm are the first steps in the implementation of this strategy. The building of a 4,000 square metre shopping centre at Erindale is a radical change from a previous proposal by the NCDC for an 18,000 square metre commercial centre at Erindale. This was examined by the Committee and reported on to the Parliament in the 79th series of variations in August 1983. The Committee was told then by the NCDC that it would be at least 10 years before the necessary pre-conditions existed which would enable the construction of a town centre to commence. Because of the severe shortage of retail space in the Tuggeranong area the Committee agreed to the Erindale proposal although it had some misgivings about approving it. The Committee has now been told, only six months later, that there have been substantial changes affecting the Erindale centre proposal and that the town centre will now be built. In the light of evidence given in the 79th series the Committee is surprised and disturbed that it was not formally advised of the major changes to a proposal it had agreed to only recently and on which it had reported its findings to the Parliament. The Committee believes that in order to determine whether Parliament as a whole should be advised of such changes the Committee should be formally briefed of any major changes to recent proposals on which it has reported to the Parliament. The Committee can only reiterate its concerns expressed in the 79th series report about the ad hoc nature of planning decisions in Tuggeranong and the delay in the provision of retail facilities. It can only be hoped that the decisions which have been taken now about the retail structure for Tuggeranong will provide a firm basis for planning and will ensure that retail facilities are established quickly and as required. The Committee therefore approves the variation to provide access for the Chisholm group centre and urges that the site be released for public auction as soon as possible. Variation 2 provides an addition to the city plan of roads to enable an area in Hawker to be developed for housing. Objectors to the proposal were concerned about the T-junction which would be constructed opposite their properties to provide access to the development. In response to representations I made to the NCDC as the local member on behalf of some objectors to the proposal it was stated that: . . . if the Joint Committee does not support the Commission's proposed access to Murranji Street the subdivision could be modified slightly to delete it. When clarification was sought of this statement the NCDC claimed that the statement was incorrect and should not have been included in the letter. It claimed that access to the subdivision as proposed in the variation could not be modified as had been stated in the letter. The Committee recommends that further consideration of this variation be deferred until the NCDC explain fully why incorrect information was included in its letter, and whether in fact the variation can be modified to delete the proposed access from Murranji Street. When this information is provided the Committee will reconsider the matter. The Committee approves variation 15, which is concerned with the development of 544 residential blocks at Lyneham. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I willingly rise in support of the comments of the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, in relation to the National Capital Development Commission. Throughout the two reports that have been tabled there are some quite alarming matters which ought to be brought to the attention of the Parliament. In my view the reports highlight very much the difficulties that exist in terms of the relationship between the Committee and the National Capital Development Commission. I will deal firstly with the eighty-first plan of variations-the 81A series- that is, those proposals relating to the review of the convention centre in Civic. The Chairman of the Committee has drawn attention to the problems of parking and design. The report of the Committee has emphasised the lack of community involvement in this important project. We have now reached the point where the revised plans by White Industries Ltd for office buildings and an international hotel and convention centre are proceeding, but they are now likely to proceed without being referred back to the Committee for its comment before commencement of that project. The Committee had this project before it because of a minor road variation concerning Nangari Street and, not wanting to hold up this important development , the Committee has approved of the road variation in its report. Quite frankly, the Committee was in an impossible position. The White Industries development is important to Canberra and is a project that needs to be facilitated, but already it has been delayed too long. That delay was occasioned by, I think, the Government's pique that the project was planned and arranged by the former Liberal-National Party Government and as well by the determination of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to have a casino included in it. After all that delay, I think it would have been unreasonable for the Committee to hold up this project even though I anticipate and I think the Committee anticipates that there will be significant changes in the design. The report of the Committee emphasises the dissatisfaction of its members with the fact that, having approved of all the road designs of a particular development, the development can undergo rather significant changes without reference back to the Committee unless the change affects another road design. The members are more likely to read about the proposed changes of design in newspapers than to receive detailed briefings unrelated to modification and variation of Canberra's roads. The fact is that we are now seeing significant detail about the building design-new models and new arrangements-of that project in the newspapers of Canberra. The Committee is unlikely to be briefed about them except in the terms in which it was on the last occasion. Of course, it was told then that that was not a final design. I think it needs to be understood that significant changes have been made in the design. We were told formerly that there were to be soft curves and it was to be a very pleasant building integrated into parkland. Now we are told that there are to be very significant changes. I regard it as quite extraordinary that I had to read about the significant dimensional changes for the city in a newspaper article in the Canberra Times to be briefed on it. It is extraordinary that the White Industries development, cited as a grand and daring scheme and one of the largest private enterprise architectural projects in Australia, can be prepared and dealt with in such a closet fashion. It may well be that the buildings that are planned by White Industries will have a classic design, as suggested in the newspaper, with civic order and that they will be essentially horizontal with greater architectural merit. It may well be that Constitution Avenue needs to have a certain civic dignity in the buildings placed along it and that the framing of the edge of the expansion of Civic is an important architectural exercise. But surely the public, as well as the Committee, should have been able to comment on any new proposals which replace the well received curves and sweeps of the original design. The Committee has drawn attention to the need for it to be involved in major planning questions, not only in relation to road designs but also when important decisions are being taken, and I think that is important. That is not the case at the moment. I think it is a very poor state of affairs that very important reports-the White Industries review in relation to the NCDC, the Committee's own report on planning and the work of the Administrative Review Council-have not been taken into account and responded to fully by the Government to indicate the way in which the Committee is going to be given a role in these very important matters. The other report tabled by the honourable member for Fraser relates to the very important plans for extending retail facilities in the Tuggeranong Valley. These were contained in the eighty-second series of variations. Some other matters were also covered in the report, relating to facilitating land development. The Committee has approved of the plans in relation to Lyneham and deferred the proposals for Hawker. The Committee looked particularly at the facilities for retail shopping in Chisholm in what is called a group centre. In that context the Committee also discussed the planning for the Tuggeranong Valley generally in relation to retail matters. The Committee has emphasised in its report the rather ad hoc way in which planning has been proceeding in the Tuggeranong Valley. It is, quite frankly, a sorry saga of changes and revision to the retail strategy in the valley that is revealed by this report. It was not so long ago that the Committee was asked to report on the proposed Erindale shopping centre. Plans were produced firstly for a centre of something of the order of 6,000 square metres. That later rose to something of the order of 18,000 square metres. The Committee approved of a development for 18,000 square metres and presented a report to the Parliament in August 1983. Some members of the Committee had reservations about that, and I was one of them. Senator Reid, the honourable member for Gippsland, Mr McGauran and I presented a dissenting report. We asked that the developments in the Tuggeranong Valley be staged and that further consideration be given to the development of the Tuggeranong town centre site. The members of the Committee who dissented were roundly condemned by the Commissioner of the NCDC, Mr Tony Powell, in a rather scathing letter critical of the staged development concept that he wrote to the Chairman of the Committee. That letter was sent in September 1983. One of the reports which has been tabled quotes at length from the letter outlining the reasons why the Commissioner said that the development should take place at Erindale. The Commissioner said that the suggestion of staging the development was unacceptable and that there was no prospect of the Commission coming to the view that the Tuggeranong town centre should be developed at any time within the next 10 years, and for that reason to meet immediate shopping needs the Erindale Centre should proceed to be built to an enourmous size. In the way in which planning seems to happen in the Tuggeranong Valley there was another immaculate conception six months later when we were told that the Erindale Centre was to be reduced in size from 18,000 square metres as proposed to something of the order of 4,000 square metres. We were told that that development was to commence on the town centre site and that the development was to be put into the hands of a body called the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. It is extraordinary that within such a short period changes of that order could take place. The Committee is quite restrained in using language such as that planning is ad hoc. It is a disgraceful situation that a committee of the Parliament can be treated in such a way. It is tantamount to treating the Parliament in that way. Evidence to the Committee in relation to the Tuggeranong town centre site appears to be that the development is being pressed because of a conviction in the mind of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority that a proposal to make it a much larger size will work. This Authority is not a private enterprise body; it is a government statutory authority. The Authority's judgment that a scheme of this size will work is not supported by private enterprise in the Australian Capital Territory. It was clear in the evidence given to the Committee that the National Capital Development Commission did not want its professional reputation tarnished by accepting responsibility for the nature of the decisions that had taken place in this instance. It did not want to put its reputation on the line. It made it very clear that it was relying on the judgment of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. I am concerned that the development of the town centre site in Tuggeranong is to be placed in the hands of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. It is a discredited body. This has been revealed in many reports tabled in the Parliament, which have been left largely unanswered. I have had a question on the Notice Paper for some time now relating to the performance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. I asked that question of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) some five months ago and it has been left unanswered. I think it ought to be noted that the question I asked on 7 December was in the following terms: (1) Did the Canberra Commercial Development Authority enter into a sub-lease on 27 April 1983 with Myer NSW Ltd for a term commencing on 16 October 1978. (2) Did that sub-lease contain a clause (3) (a) (i) which expressly provides that a minimum annual rental should be paid by equal monthly instalments in advance from the date of commencement of the lease, and on each month thereafter . (3) Did Myer NSW Ltd (a) fail to pay rent for 11 months and (b) make the first instalment payment of rent on 25 September 1979. (4) Did the sub-lease unlike other sub-leases entered into by the CCDA not contain a provision providing a penalty for late payment of rent. (5) Why did the lease not contain a penalty provision when other leases did contain such a provision. (6) How many sub-leases in the Belconnen Centre do not have such a clause imposing a penalty for late payment. (7) What action was taken by the CCDA to recover (a) rent, (b) marketing fund contributions and (c) outgoings, when in arrears. (8) Did the agreement for sub-lease, referred to in the sub-lease, and entered into by the CCDA and Myer NSW Ltd, and not on the public record, in relation to payment of rent, varying the sub-lease rental provisions as contained in the registered sub-leases. (9) Did any other document between the parties, and not on the public record-- Mr Fry —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. As there is no reference whatsoever to the Canberra Commercial Development Authority in either of these reports, this opportunity should not be used to have an inquisition into the Authority. It is quite irrelevant to these reports. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — I believe there is some relevance in the point of order. I ask the shadow Minister for Territories and Local Government to bear that in mind. Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wanted at least to draw honourable members ' attention to the importance of this question. I will terminate reference to that question. I realise that it was of some length, but the last part disclosed that something in the order of $1m was involved; I think that was the point. It does go to the commerical competence of this organisation, and that question remains unanswered. Mr Howe —It is not relevant, either. Mr RUDDOCK —I hope that the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry) and the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) will take up with their colleague the reason why a question involving $1m of public moneys and the commercial competence of an organisation like the Canberra Commercial Development Authority can be left unanswered. Surely important questions about the commercial competence of a government statutory authority about to undertake a multi- million dollar development cannot be left unanswered for that amount of time? The fact is that the CCDA is the organisation which the Minister has announced will undertake this development which has been the subject of quite considerable criticism in the Committee report and which relates to the planning question to which I have referred. At the same time that the Minister announced that this body will undertake the development of the project in the Tuggeranong Valley he has indicated that he will launch an inquiry into the financial viability of the CCDA to undertake the development. There has been criticism from the honourable member for Fraser's constituents, from North Canberra interests, that the diversion of funds from the Belconnen centre operated by the CCDA may be necessary to ensure the viability of the Tuggeranong development. I would like to know what it is about the CCDA that has prompted the Minister in the first place to have a secret financial study undertaken. Surely the Minister's decision was based upon some report-possibly from the Treasury. It may have been the Department of Finance-and that report has brought about this investigation. I think the Minister for Territories and Local Government has the responsibility to come clean with the Canberra community and the Parliament to ensure that all information available to him about the viability and the conduct of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority is made public and that the future and proper retailing development in the Tuggeranong Valley is handled in a way which one can describe as an honest and an open approach to decision-making. This report of a Committee of the Parliament reveals in the clearest terms that in relation to planning in the Tuggeranong Valley the Authority has been anything but honest and anything but open. The Committee's report reveals that there have been changes and about-turns, and that special interests-I put to honourable members that the CCDA is one of them-have been influencing planning in that valley way beyond any other proper interest. I think it is important that there be a much more honest and open approach in relation to these matters, that decisions not be made in a closet way, and that important inquiries such as the financial study I referred to not be undertaken in secret, without the Minister issuing Press releases that would at least make clear what he is in fact doing. These reports are very important. One might not think so when they are brought in and characterised as proposals for variations of plans for the lay-out of Canberra and its environs, but they relate to the very heart of Canberra, to the way in which the city is to be planned and to its future. I think it is important that the Parliament continue to take an interest in scrutinising these matters in the closest possible way and that honourable members will join with me in seeking to have a far more satisfactory relationship develop between the Parliament, its Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission so that we can have a real say in the way in which planning takes place in this city. Debate resumed. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(4.40) —The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill is not the most exciting piece of legislation ever to come before this chamber. However, it is a piece of legislation which plays an important part in Australian life, and it is legislation which ought to be explained in terms which the lay public can understand. It has been said that every profession is a conspiracy against the lay public, and the legal profession is no different. In the case of this Bill we can strip away a bit of the legal jargon which is usually used in the explanation of such Bills in order to explain to the people of Australia just what an important piece of legislation it is. The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill is a Bill about how Acts of Parliament are to be interpreted by judges. As everyone knows, however clearly one expresses oneself, however plain one's words, it sometimes happens that in a particular context those words can be interpreted in more than one way. Everyone , especially members of this House, has had the experience at some time or another of having words quoted out of context or of having some quite plain and simple remark totally misunderstood because the person hearing the remark started the conversation with a completely different set of beliefs and information from those of the person speaking. As an example of how these ambiguities and absurdities can creep into otherwise apparently simple statements, generations of school children have been vexed by the proposition that Charles I walked and talked half an hour after his head was cut off, only to have their teachers triumphantly explain to them that if only they had put in a semicolon after 'talked' the proposition would have made sense. Similarly, there is a story, which may or may not be true, that before the battle of Pydna the Greeks consulted the oracle at Delphi as to whether the Greeks or the Romans would win. I notice that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones ) has started to take an interest in my remarks. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the battle of Pydna was in 168AD. It is said that on that occasion the oracle replied: 'The Greeks the Romans shall overthrow'. The Greeks put the comma in the wrong place and went into battle quite confident that they would win. They did not. The Delphic oracle, however, could not lose. Since unlike modern judiciary or modern public servants it did not have to make written reports, it could always claim that the comma was in a different place from the place it was understood to have been in by the Greeks. When such gremlins, such ambiguities or absurdities, enter into a case before the courts, quite serious damage can be done. This damage might concern the life or liberty of a citizen or it might concern large sums of money running into hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. One recent instance of the latter was the case of the South Australian Commissioner for Prices and Consumer Affairs and Charles Moore Australia Limited. That case arose as a sequel to a hot political dispute in South Australia. It involved a dispute between the two Houses of Parliament in that State. Legislation had been introduced into the lower House to impose credit controls over a wide range of organisations. The Legislative Council, the upper House, wanted to remove from the range of the legislation such large stores as Myer and David Jones. As often happens in these cases, the dispute was resolved to the satisfaction of the upper House and an amendment was introduced to give effect to the agreement which had been reached. However, when the issue came before the High Court it refused to look at extrinsic material such as the nature of the agreement which had been reached between the upper and lower Houses and ended up giving an interpretation to the Act which was the opposite of what Parliament had intended. That is not how the court would have interpreted it if it had, in accordance with the provisions which will be legislated for in this Bill, looked at the second reading speech of the Minister or other parliamentary material. It all happened because of a presumption the courts made that Acts of Parliament should be interpreted according to certain principles of statutory interpretation, which in that particular case excluded looking at the intention of the Parliament. The courts have a number of aids which they habitually use in statutory interpretation. As I said before, every profession is a conspiracy against the lay public, and the legal profession's main tool of obscurantism is jargon. It carries this to a fine pitch by couching most of its jargon in Latin, so many of the aids to statutory interpretation are in fact expressed in Latin maxims which go by such names as ejusdem generis, noscitur a sociis and generalia specialibus non derogant. Mr Barry Jones —De minimius non curat lex is not to be forgotten. Mr WELLS —I do not know whether the Hansard writer is able to take the Latin just quoted by the Minister for Science and Technology but I am sure it can be fixed up in the long run. The maxims I just quoted involve such exercises as looking at the word to be interpreted in the context of the words surrounding it in the Act-that is, staying within the context of the Act-or looking at a particular word in the context of a list of words of the same category in which it appears in the Act, still staying within the Act and not going outside it to look at external materials. Another legal maxim used, which I think has a certain air of irony about it, is ut res magis valeat quam pereat, which means roughly that the courts should interpret statutes so that they make sense. These sorts of aids to statutory interpretation are undoubtedly useful to the courts, but when they are relied on, as they were in the South Australian case, to exclude a look at the extrinsic material, in particular the widely known and understood agreement between the two Houses of Parliament in South Australia, they can lead to the court applying an interpretation to a statute which is the exact opposite of what the Parliament intended. It hardly needs to be said that, given that the Parliament is elected by the people to express their mandate, such a result can lead to a subversion of democracy. Of course in this case only the wishes of the upper House were subverted. There are plenty of worse subversions of democracy than that. However, the principle still applies. I mention another case, this time one which involved the liberty of the subject . This was Sillery's case, a highly publicised case in 1980 which followed an attempt by a person to hijack a Trans Australia Airlines flight carrying 41 passengers between Coolangatta and Brisbane. The gentleman concerned had with him a loaded sawn-off shotgun and with this he attempted to terrorise the flight crew. As a result, the aeroplane had to follow a flight path which had not been authorised, and eventually it managed to land down wind in the wrong direction. No harm was done to anybody but the lives of the people in the plane, as well as those of many of my fellow citizens of Brisbane who lived beneath the flight's path, including a number of my constituents, were imperilled. What happened in that case? Section 8, sub-section (3), of the relevant Act said: Punishment for an offence against this section is imprisonment for life. The problem for the courts arose because in all this sort of legislation such punishments are treated as maximum punishments. However, for some reason this particular statute did not say that it was a maximum penalty. While the behaviour of the gentleman in question did not exactly evoke sympathy from either the public or the courts, nevertheless the trial judge in Sillery's case seemed to think that there were mitigating circumstances which called for less than life imprisonment. However, in interpreting the statute that court and an appeal court in Queensland felt that they were bound by the provision, which they took to be mandatory, of life imprisonment. The fact was that Parliament had not intended the provision of life imprisonment to be mandatory. It was obvious from the second reading speech of the Ministers who had the carriage of the Bill in the House of Representatives and in the Senate that it was intended to be a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty. They said so explicity in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The High Court of Australia pointed out in this case that since the provision appeared to apply to trivial as well as serious offences, there was enough ambiguity for the Court to have a look at extrinisic material such as the intention of the Parliament. The High Court, in particular Mr Justice Murphy, who was a trail blazer in this area of the law, was prepared to look at the debates, in particular the second reading speeches of the Ministers who had the carriage of the Bill in each House. As a result, the matter was referred back to Queensland for re-sentencing and the provision of life imprisonment was not taken to be mandatory. This was a case where the liberty of a citizen was at risk simply because the lower courts were relying on a rule of statutory interpretation which excluded reference to extrinsic materials in the circumstances of the case before them. Obviously the liberty of citizens should not be subject to arbitrary restrictions the legislature never intended to impose just because it is judicial practice not to look at parliamentary proceedings. Neither should commercial transactions which Parliament intends to regulate in a certain way be regulated in precisely the opposite way just because it is not judicial practice to take into account information available to everyone familiar with the area. This Bill permits judges to depart from the judicial practices which might lead to such results. For that reason I commend the Bill to the House. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(4.51) —We are debating the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill which seeks to amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Many of the amendments contained in the proposed legislation are technical in nature. There seems to me to be little point in my going into those in great detail. However, there are two matters to which I want to refer in this debate. The first matter was dealt with at some length by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), who has just resumed his seat, and that is the use of extrinsic material in aiding the interpretation of an Act of the Parliament. I want secondly to touch briefly on the changes contained in the Bill which relate to references to the male and female gender. I think the provision which will permit courts to make reference, in interpreting statutes, to extrinsic material other that the Act of the Parliament is a reasonable provision. Under clause 7 of the Bill the courts will be permitted to use this material to confirm the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the particular piece of legislation or in cases where the meaning of a provision in the legislation is obscure or where the ordinary meaning appears, on an ordinary interpretation of the Act, to be manifestly absurd or unreasonable. Among the sorts of material that the courts can look to to assist in the interpretation of the meaning of legislation are documents that are printed by the Commonwealth Government Printer, reports of royal commissions, the Law Reform Commission and of similar bodies, reports of committees of the Parliament, any treaty or international agreement that might be referred to in an Act, explanatory memorandums relating to the Bill, the speech by the Minister responsible for the carriage of the legislation but not speeches made by other members, any document declared by the Act to be a relevant document for the purposes of the section and also relevant material in the Journals of the Senate and Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or official records of debates in the Parliament or either House of the Parliament. That is contrary to what I said earlier. It really means that matters referred to in debate by members other than the Minister can be referred to by the court. I want to make a number of points about this. It is really an admission of future failure on the part of the Parliament to suggest that we will approve of legislation which might have meanings which are not very clear or are obscure or any ordinary reading of them. So, it is an admission that we may not be perfect. I think that is a reasonable kind of admission. One of the unfortunate facts of life is that we have so much legislation coming through the Parliament. Parliament is like a sausage machine churning out Bill after Bill after Bill. Branches of departments want to be seen to be doing something and the best way to be seen to be doing something is to produce legislation. Sometimes we place too much value on legislation; we think it is the answer to all of our problems. There are occasions when perhaps the Parliament would be doing a service to the community if we did not produce a particular piece of legislation. I will not go into any examples of that but perhaps individiual members could think of some. It concerns me that by producing so much legislation and so many regulations and statutes we are making life so complex for people. In that sense we are taking away freedom from individuals. Mr Cadman —Every time we approve legislation. Mr GROOM —That is probably right. Every time the Parliament passes legislation there are provisions within it which, to some extent, restrict the freedom of some individuals. Obviously, sometimes we give rights to people but, usually, when we give rights to some people we take rights away from others. It is unfortunate that we have so much legislation. This places such a burden on the parliamentary draftsmen. At times I feel sorry for the parliamentary draftsmen because of the pressure of work placed on them. If one has been a Minister one can see the pressure that they work under to produce legislation at very short notice. Cabinet committees meet and ask for certain changes to be made to Bills to be presented that day in the House. There is enormous pressure upon those responsible for producing legislation. I hope that the new provisions, which would allow courts to look beyond the legislation to decide what the meaning and the intention of the Parliament really was, will not lead to sloppy drafting. I think there is that danger in this kind of provision. The draftsman might say: 'All right, I am not sure what I should be saying here but I will put these words in. Anyway, the courts can look to other material'. So the words of the statute may not be as impotant as perhaps they used to be. I hope that sort of attitude is not adopted by those who carry the responsibility. It would certainly be most unfortunate if that sort of approach occurred. The other point to which I wish to refer is the question of gender. I think that clause 11 is an absurd provision. It is headed 'Rules as to gender and number'. Mr Cadman —What does it say? Mr GROOM —It states: In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears- (a) words importing a gender include every other gender; and (b) words in the singular number include the plural and words in the plural number include the singular. I am not so concerned about paragraph (b). However I am concerned about paragraph (a). The point was made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) earlier in this debate that this kind of provision is wasting the time of the Parliament. We have the absurd situation of these radical feminists, who I suspect are behind this measure, being so uptight about the use of the English language in these sorts of ways. The honourable member for North Sydney mentioned the cowboy and cowgirl situation. The cowgirl will have to become a cowperson. However, the problem there is that the cow is the female gender of the species. The cowgirl would have to become a beef person or something like that. I detest the word 'spokesperson'. I think it is a dreadful word. Mr Cadman —What about a mandate? Mr GROOM —Mandate is another problem. What should the word 'human' be? Should we say 'huperson'? Human seems wrong; it must seem wrong to the feminists. I think that these sorts of provisions can lead to absurdities. At the moment, the Acts Interpretation Act provides that the word 'he' includes the word 'she'. So when one refers to 'he' that includes 'he and 'she'. Now we will be able to use 'he' and 'he' will include 'she', or use 'she' and 'she' will include 'he'. It seems to me that this is doubling the sexism aspect. It is not taking away the sexism aspect. At the moment we just use 'he' and that automatically includes 'she'. Now we will be able to use 'he', which includes 'she', or 'she' which includes ' he'. Can honourable members see the point I am making? That doubles the amount of sexism contained in our legislation. In the future the draftsmen will say: ' Which word will I use? Will I use ''he'' or ''she''?'. I am sure that Senator Ryan will want to use the word 'she', which will include 'he'. This is getting to an absolutely ridiculous stage. I cannot understand why there is a need for this kind of provision. The radical feminists are all uptight about it at the moment. I think that it is an admission of their sexual inadequacies or something else that they have to take this sort of action. In some respects they seem to want to diminish the differences between the sexes. On other occasions they want to emphasise the difference between the sexes. In this case they want to emphasise the difference . They want to use 'he' sometimes and 'she' sometimes to emphasise that we have the two genders. At other times they do not want to see any difference between the sexes; they want a unisex society. A lot of nonsense is spoken in this regard. It is about time we woke up to what is going on. It is ridiculous when we get to the stage that people are feeling so insecure and so inadequate about their sex and what their sex stands for that they get all uptight about this matter. Mr Kent —When it comes to sex, are you adequate? Mr GROOM —I am pleased to announced that my sixth child is due at any time. I think that I have proved my adequacy. That is a matter of which I am proud. If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation, he can do so later. I believe most of the other provisions of the legislation with which we are dealing are reasonable. I do not object to the other provisions. I think the provision whereby the courts can use extrinsic material will assist them in the interpretation of statutes, although some danger is involved. I hope that the Government will reconsider clause 11 of this legislation. I hope that the Government will have another look at it. I believe that it is absurd. I agree with the honourable member for North Sydney that we are wasting the time of this Parliament on it. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(5.03) —The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to facilitate, inter alia, the giving of effect to the intention of Parliament when Acts of parliament have to be interpreted. It will provide the courts with greater scope in understanding the intentions of parliament when interpreting the law and will encourage resort to extrinsic materials to make clear that intention. The Bill contains 18 new provisions for insertion in the Act. Some of those amendments will be substitutes for existing provisions. I intend to confine my comments largely to those parts of the Bill relating to the provision for the use of extrinsic material as an aid to statutory interpretation. Because my colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), in his excellent speech, adequately listed a number of precedents showing the absurdity that can result when courts are unable to pursue Parliament's real intention, I shall not comment on those precedents. The Bill is about statutory interpretation. Interpreting the law often involves making the law. To the extent that judicial interpretation is about exercising judicial power, it is the exercise of power by appointed officials potentially acting inconsistently with the will of the people as articulated by their elected representatives. Thus it is absolutely crucial that the Parliament takes appropriate steps to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the judiciary interprets the law in a way that is consistent with the real intent of the legislation. For example, tax avoidance litigation is perhaps the most obvious manifestation of the courts seeming to be out of touch with what the Parliament intended when passing particular legislation. The thrust of this legislation is not new. The literalist approach of the Barwick High Court was only one factor in the pioneering of section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act which was enacted by the present Opposition. That section provided: In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object. That Act was passed by the present Opposition. It was supported by Senator Durack and the present Opposition parties. A further section of the Act went to the matter of extrinsic materials. It set out to prevent the use of extrinsic materials in terms of statutory interpretation. It is important to make the point that when this matter was considered in the other place the then Attorney- General, Senator Durack, implied very strongly that at some stage in the future provision would be made for legislation providing for the use of extrinsic material. Before discussing the contents of the provisions relating to the use of extrinsic materials, I pay tribute to my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). On 2 April 1981, he addressed the following question to the then Treasurer, Mr Howard: Will the Treasurer now consider an appropriate amendment to oblige Australian courts to alter their canons on the construction or their interpretation of taxation laws so that such laws are applied in accordance with the intent of this Parliament? Subsequently, the legislation to which I have just referred was enacted. The honourable member's important suggestion resulted in pioneering legislation. I think that it is incumbent upon this House to pay tribute to his pioneering work . A number of criticisms have been made of the legislation. One of the important catalysts for the criticism was an editorial in the 2 April 1984 issue of the Sydney Morning Herald. That editorial implied superficiality in terms of the legislative provisions. The editorial also stated: The question is whether greater fidelity to Parliament's will is achieved by directing the courts to seek the purpose of legislation and widening their categories of documents they can call in aid in this search. As most honourable members would be aware, that is clearly an erroneous interpretation of the legislation. There is nothing in the legislation that makes it mandatory for judges to seek out the categories of information that this legislation makes available to them. It is an option that they may exercise if they so wish, but it is not mandatory. To that extent the Sydney Morning Herald editorial was erroneous. What is this proposed new section about? Proposed new section 15AB (1) and (2) provides for the use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of legislation. It provides for the consideration of material not forming part of the Act but which is capable of assisting the ascertainment of the meaning of a provision of the Act. As I have indicated, it is not mandatory; that is, the amendment provides that reference to extrinsic material may be made. The provision in no way contemplates the use of extrinsic material to overturn the ordinary meaning of a provision arrived at by taking into account the purpose or the object underlying the Act unless there is an obscurity or something that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. Of course, that provision addresses the very issues raised by my colleague the honourable member for Petrie when he listed a number of precedents where quite clearly the administration of the laws in this land were prejudiced by judges being unable to go to extrinsic material. The provisions in the Bill do not restrict consideration to only documents referred to in the second reading speech of the responsible Minister. I notice that the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) subsequently clarified that aspect in his contribution. To the extent that the Sydney Morning Herald editorial implied superficiality, it is important to make the following comments : The legislation is the result of extensive consultations and discussions that began in 1982. There has been full opportunity for debate, discussion and consideration of all points of view including, of course, a major symposium on statutory interpretation conducted by the Attorney-General's Department and attended by many distinguished Australian and overseas guests. The method by which courts interpret statutes is very much a matter for parliamentary concern subject to possible constitutional limitations on Parliament's power to give directions to judges. The use of extrinsic material will better protect the courts from criticism but their decisions are inconsistent with the intention of Parliament as expressed by Ministers in debate. It is also worth adding a couple of names from those who attended the symposium to which I referred. The opening address was, of course, given by Senator Peter Durack, then Attorney-General. The learned Lord Wilberforce, well known in judicial circles, addressed the symposium, as did Senator Gareth Evans, Sir Maurice Byers, QC, Dr Gavan Griffith, QC, Mr Justice Lionel Murphy and so on . The list of registered participants reads like an honour roll for those involved in these matters. So the argument of superficiality simply cannot be accepted. A specific restriction to material referred to by a Minister in his second reading speech would involve restricting access by judges to relevant reports. There is no such restriction in the existing law. It has long been established that the courts can look at relevant reports that preceded the enactment of legislation. The Bill does not open up the flood gates upon the material which a judge could, in his discretion, take into account. Proposed new section 15AB (1) proposes limitations on the way in which extrinisic materials should be used. The provisions make it clear that extrinsic materials can be looked at to confirm the ordinary meaning of an Act. Extrinsic material would be used to overturn the ordinary meaning of a provision only where there is an ambiguity or obscurity or something that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. It is an established practice of judges. No legal limits are placed on the categories of materials which judges can look at if they think that they are relevant and can be used consistently with proposed new section 15AB (1). To this extent the reaching of a satisfactory outcome in the use of extrinsic materials would depend on the good sense of both judges and the Parliament. In the longer term they will need to combine to produce a situation in which the range of materials and the way in which they are used is reasonably defined and confined. Proposed new section 15AB meets these requirements in a way that respects the independence of the judiciary. In addition, under proposed new section 15AB (3) the courts are specifically directed to consider the desirablility of persons being able to rely on the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act. The legislation also directs the courts to avoid prolonging legal or other proceedings without compensating advantage. I will conclude by making a couple of brief comments with respect to matters raised by the honourable member for Braddon. He adverted to the gender provisions of the Act. I simply refer him to a report tabled in this House yesterday by the Institute of Family Studies. A reading of that report may indicate to the honourable member that society is changing. Some of the findings of that report indicate quite massive shifts in public opinion on a whole range of attitudes that people on the other side of the House tend to assume remain constant. One of the implied findings of that report in this context is that people may be taking different attitudes to things like the use of non-sexist statutory provisions. The honourable member also adverted to the potential for sloppy drafting by parliamentary draftsmen. That is an absurd proposition to put. Who in this House would seriously imply that the highly capable draftspersons in this country would not discharge their duties adequately simply because judges may have access to material other than the actual legislation? That is not something that I take seriously. There is one other aspect of the Act that I should comment on before concluding my comments. It is often said that someone was not born yesterday. The reality is that under our system of common law-this is High Court dicta-people are at law in a sense born yesterday. Under the ordinary meaning of a birth date, if someone turns 21 on 1 July one would assume that he turns 21 immediately 1 July commences. But under our system of common law that is not the case. He would turn 21 the day before he has his birthday. So in fact the old saying about not being born yesterday applies to most things except the way common law interprets that. Certainly that change must be commended. I am surprised that the Opposition in its desperation did not find something to complain about with proposed new section 25E of the Act. I have covered most of the criticisms that have been made of the provisions. I thank the House for its indulgence. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.17) —As indicated, the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill is designed to update and modernise the legal system and in particular to make statutory interpretation simpler, more efficient and relevant to the present day. All members who have contributed in this debate have referred to proposed new section 15AB, the provision to permit courts to have access to a wider range of extrinsic aids to interpret the provisions of an Act. In relation to that provision, there has been bipartisan support, as in fact there has been for the Act. The honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) dealt in some detail and very adequately with some of the criticisms of that proposed new section but I think it is worth reiterating very briefly that the proposed new section provides that if any material not forming part of the Act is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of the provision of the Act, consideration may be given to that material . This provision has been favourably received by leading jurists and legal bodies since it was introduced in the other place on 8 March. It is important to note that in this provision, as has already been indicated by the honourable member for Maribyrnong, the word used in proposed new section 15AB is 'may' and not 'shall'. That is to say, reference to such materials is not to be compulsory but is to be left to the discretion and the judgment of the courts. As indicated, it is pleasing that there is bipartisan support for the Bill and I would merely like now to conclude by thanking all those members who have contributed to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.21) —In speaking today on the Weights and Measures ( National Standards) Amendment Bill I represent the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), the Opposition spokesman on science and technology, who is currently overseas on business in connection with his shadow portfolio. We are talking about amendments to weights and measures legislation. In other words, we are talking about metrication. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill describes the Bill and its purpose. It is to create a hierarchy of standards of physical quantities consistent with both modern and international practice and to clarify the functions and powers of the National Standards Commission in the light of modern technology, existing and in the future. Under section 51 (xv.) of the Constitution the Commonwealth has power to make laws in respect of weights and measures. As a result it established the National Standards Commission in 1948 and the principal Act under which the Commission operates is the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960. The National Standards Commission is responsible for establishing and co- ordinating the use in Australia of a uniform system of units and standards of measurement of physical quantities and for approving the pattern of measuring instruments for use in trade to ensure accuracy and reliability in service. I will say more about that aspect later. In this era of rapid technological change the States have looked to the Commission to play an increasing role in matters such as the promotion of uniform principles in State legislation relating to trade measurements and the use of units of measurement in the packaging of goods . Trade measuring devices presented for pattern approval have increased in complexity and have often integrated with other devices such as computers. The Bill proposes and its purpose is to give legal effect to the increasingly important role undertaken by the Commission in the new age of technology. The Metric Conversion Board was established under the Metric Conversion Act in 1970 as a transitional body to promote, help and guide conversion from the imperial to the metric system of measurement. Mr Barry Jones —I could not have put it better myself. Mr SHIPTON —It is interesting that the Minister of the future says that he could not put it better than I. I am grateful for that compliment. Conversion was substantially completed by 1980 and appointments to the Board expired in 1981. The remaining conversion activities relate, we are told, to industries reliant on long life equipment, such as heavy engineering, and those industries influenced by international agreement such as aviation. I will say more of that later and put my views on how it should be administered. The Bill provides for the transfer to the National Standards Commission of responsibility for these residual metric conversion activities and for the repeal of the Metric Conversion Act 1970. The functions of the National Standards Commission are set out in proposed new section 18. Under proposed new section 18 (1) (e) one of the functions of the Commission is to examine and approve patterns of instruments to which I referred a moment ago. The proposed new sub-section gives the National Standards Commission the duty of approving new measuring devices. It is interesting that we have just debated the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill because the functions of the Commission are to examine and approve patterns of instruments. The plain English is really measuring devices. The pattern of an instrument, as I have said, is the design of a measuring device and it is sent to the NSC for approval. Once approval has been granted production begins and the States carry out inspections to test the accuracy of the measuring device once produced. The NSC keeps Australian primary standards of measurement which are the most accurate standard for a particular measure. Reference standards of measurement are kept by major private or public companies to calibrate their measuring devices and are verified against Australian secondary standards. Reference standards are less accurate than State primary standards which in turn are less accurate than Australian secondary standards which are less accurate than Australian primary standards. I hope the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is listening. There are 32 Australian primary standards and these are the legal measurements for weights, length, electricity, time, frequency, et cetera. Regulations are produced under the Act for each standard with detailed information and designation. Legal units of measure are reviewed and the list is revised at intervals. For instance, the present list will be changed, I understand, on 1 January 1985 when a number of units will be withdrawn. I hope that when they are withdrawn what is occurring in practice in the market place will be taken into account. The Bill amends the Act to allow for contracts signed in legal units of measure to remain valid if the legal units of measure are subsequently withdrawn from the list of legal units. It should be noted that contracts can be signed in any units of measure provided there is no legal challenge. If there is a challenge the case cannot be heard until those units are changed according to legal conversion factors. One interesting aspect is that the standards of most measuring devices have to be aproved. However, there is no legal requirement for speedometers installed in motor vehicles to be approved. It is not illegal to use non-legal units of measurement or non-approved measuring devices for personal use, but trade instruments, such as petrol bowsers, butcher's scales, et cetera have to be approved by the National Standards Commission and measured in legal units before they can be used in commercial transactions. The petrol bowser, for instance, through which petrol is sold, must have its measuring device and design approved by the National Standards Commission and its operation to measure petrol in litres inspected by State authorities to ensure that correct quantities of petrol are dispensed. Gas, water and electricity supplied by public utilities are measured by approved devices under this legislation. Those devices are checked at intervals by reference standards kept by the relevant utility. It is interesting to note that whilst gas, water and electricity are covered and their measuring devices have to be approved-people who own homes and carry on business pay rates according to the meters that are used to measure the amount of gas, water and electricity they use-the telephone is not covered by any standards. Perhaps this explains some of the problems that my constituents and those of other members have when something goes wrong with the Telecom Australia meter and they get phone bills they do not understand for calls they have not made. The devices used to meter telephone calls are not approved by the National Standards Commission. There have been calls from time to time for control of telephone metering by an independent authority but to date no action has been taken anywhere in the world, I understand. I would welcome the comments of the Minister and his views on this point. The metering of telephone calls does not seem to be standardised and no measuring device is proposed by Telecom. Not all industries in Australia have completed the conversion to metric measurement. Some which are covered by international agreement will not convert in the short to medium term. I ask the Minister to ensure that in the administration of this amending Act and the mother Act there is practical understanding in relation to interpretation and that those charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the standards are adhered to take into account what is happening in the market place and the convenience of the people of Australia, of customers of businesses, and of businesses themselves. It is important that they understand that legal imperial units of measure are still kept and may in fact be kept for many years or even for decades. Mr Donald Cameron —Forever. Mr SHIPTON —Or forever, as the honourable member for Moreton says. There is a generation gap in our society. Many Australians will always use measurements, such as feet and inches, which they understand and with which they are at home. I know that this legislation does not cover what happens in the home. However, I think those administering the legislation have to realise that large segments of society understand and still think in terms of imperial units of measures. It is interesting that, for instance, the aviation industry-there would not be a more modern industry-still utilises feet to measure altitude and will continue to do so because it is covered by an international agreement. As a result, the foot is kept as a legal unit, and no doubt the honourable member for Moreton is happy about that. In shipping, speed is legally measured in knots and distances are measured in nautical miles. Inches are still legal units since United States -built engineering equipment is imperial and requires threads of screws and diameter and length of bolts to be measured in inches. This must be clearly understood by those administering the legislation. In December 1978 the import of non-metric measuring devices was halted to help metric conversion. That may have been an overreaction. An example of banned devices was rulers with dual metric and imperial markings. These bans, however, were lifted in 1981, and the honourable member for Moreton will be pleased because I think he had something to do with that. I congratulate the honourable member for that. While metric devices are still required for trade uses, no ban has ever been in force on the private use of imperial devices, nor should it be. In January 1984 the Minister for Science and Technology, who is at the table, stated that metrication of Australia had reached its final stage, and a recent conference of State and territorial Ministers agreed to delete the remaining imperial and outdated metric units from the use of Commonwealth legal units. I will not quote what the Minister said on that occasion. It is interesting that in July 1981 a Press report claimed that complete metric conversion of the building industry was being held back because house builders and home handymen were still able to obtain imported imperial measure items and a local manufacturer of nuts, bolts and fasteners was considering reconverting to imperial measure to compete against imports. This is the type of problem that those administering the legislation have to understand clearly. International standards for metric units are amended occasionally to provide for increased accuracy of measurements. The original definition of the metre-I know the Minister has a great interest in this-born of the French Revolution, was one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator. This definition was later found to be wrong and in 1889 the true metre became the distance between two scratches on a platinum-iridium metre bar, housed in a vault beneath the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres. In 1960, the metre was defined as equal to 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of orange light emitted by the gas krypton 86. Late last year the standard was altered again so the metre would be the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792, 458th second. It is interesting in relation to the definition of a metre that on 15 December 1983 the Minister made the following announcement: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792 of a second. I know that the Minister is very good at answering $64 questions on quiz shows. Some people listening to this debate may have seen the 60 Minute program which showed film of the Minister answering questions in quiz shows-I think on the Bob Dyer Pick-a-Box program show and on an old 3DB radio program. Anyway, the Minister has a reputation, and a successful one at that, for answering questions . However, on the same day he made his statement the Minister realised that he had made a multi-million mistake. He is good at answering $64 questions but his mistake was of the order of 299 million because the new definition of the metre is the one I mentioned previously. The correct definition is that a metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299, 792,458th of a second. Mr Donald Cameron —You don't have to compete with the Minister. Mr SHIPTON —I am not trying to compete with the Minister. However, it is not often that a man as good at answering quiz shows as he is makes an error, even though a momentary one, of the order of 300 million. There have been fewer changes to the standard of the kilogram and it is one of the few standards still physically realised. The kilogram was originally supposed to represent the mass of a cubic decimetre of water at the temperature of its maximum density. Subsequent work showed that the cube used for the determination of the kilogram in 1977, known as the Kilogramme des Archives, had a volume of 1.000028 cubic decimetres, thereby making it too heavy. I hope the honourable member for Moreton is paying close attention to this. At the Convention du Metre held in Paris in May 1875 it was decided to make a new international kilogram which would be an exact copy of the Kilogramme des Archives. The new standard, known as the International Prototype Kilogramme, was established in 1889 and copies of it were sent to the various bodies responsible for weights and measures throughout the world. The kilogram, as the honourable member for Moreton and, I am sure, the Minister know, is still one of the few physical measures. The standard is physical rather than a mathematical invention . In concluding my remarks, I repeat that I hope the administration of this legislation is sensible, that there will not be overregulation, and that there will not be excessive use of authority, as I think there has been in the past. The honourable member for Moreton will no doubt point this out in the House today, as he has previously. I think that at times those administering the legislation have been overenthusiastic because they wanted to see metrication take place. There needs to be a clear recognition of the fact that there will be a dual system of measurement in many, if not most, of the homes of Australia and , in many businesses for decades to come. I hope, as I said previously in the debate, that those who administer the legislation and create regulations under it will recognise the real problems that business large and small might face in relation to its administration. The Opposition will not be objecting to this legislation. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(5.39) —The Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill 1984 seeks to amend the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960 and repeal the Metric Conversion Act 1970. I begin with a quote from Swift: Order governs the world. The Devil is the author of confusion. I am sure that to many people the subject of standards is an area which at first hearing appears dull and uninteresting. However, I can assure the House that it is far from that, and I hope I shall be able to give the correct picture. Standards have been with us since the beginning of time. I go back to the first chapter of the first book, the Bible. The first time a standard was mentioned was in verse 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas: and God saw that it was good. Verse 31 reads: And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. The standards of good and very good were established. Standardisation was not invented by man. It is a principle borrowed from nature. In nature standardisation or organic structure among individuals within a species, of organic processes, of biological functions, makes possible the continuation of life. In human affairs, standardisation of language within a community, of law and of custom, make possible the cohesion and continuity of society. The acceptance by man of some form of standardisation in his daily activities must have begun with the earliest development of community life. The need for communication through commonly understood signals brought about the evolution of language. The sharing of work experiences, such as hunting, must have led man also to adopt a measure of standardisation in techniques and in the manufacture of weapons and tools. As the practice of exchanging goods and services grew up, the necessity for agreed standards of measurement and value became imperative. The International Organisation for Standardization has defined a standard as: An activity giving solutions for repetitive application to problems essentially in the spheres of science, technology and economics, aimed at the achievement of the optium degree of order in a given context. Generally, the activity consists of the process of formulating, issuing and implementing standards. The general aims of standardisation are: Overall economy; simplification-in the general sense mitigating the complexity of modern life-improvement in technical communications; interchangeability-including both ordinary dimensional interchangeability and functional changeability-and safety. Those aims are those pursued since the inception of national standardisation within Australia in 1922 . Standards affect us from birth to death. We have standards in Australia on items ranging from the condom to the coffin. I draw the attention of the House to some standards which I feel are very interesting and will start us thinking about the importance of this seemingly mundane topic. All these items have an Australian standard: Safety requirements for prams and pushers; classification and labelling of children's night clothes for fire hazard; child restraints for passenger cars and derivatives; size coding schemes for school and college wear; methods for sampling milk and milk products, toothbrushes; household synthetic detergents; codes of practice for recording and measuring work injury experience; codes of practice for construction in the timber framing industry; and a code of practice for the application of ergonomics to factory and office work. These are very few of the thousands of standards that affect our very fabric of life. Most of us think of standards as something to do with measurement and weight. We do not realise the great importance of standards and their impact on the lives of each of every one of us. One has only to look around this House to see some of the standards in this place. There are standards in the sizes of paper, paper clips, microphones, pencils, seating arrangements, printing, speaking, dress, procedure, and time. I would like to be able to include behaviour in that . However, that varies with the personalities concerned. All around us standardisation is occurring at a very rapid pace. In Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1982-83 the Standards Association of Australia was granted $2,583,000 to assist with the running of this very important body and with the dissemination of knowledge on standards. The Standards Association of Australia has a certification marking scheme which gives the consumer an independent assurance that the manufacturer's goods comply with a particular Australian standard. This mark is registered by the Standards Association of Australia which allows it to be used only by manufacturers who can consistently manufacture their products to meet the requirements of the standard. Frequent checks are made at the manufacturer's works without warning. In addition, products are selected from time to time and tested. Only then can they receive the standards seal. Recently the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety was told that a popular motor-cycle helmet was so dangerous that it could be fatal in some circumstances. At this very moment the Committee is examining this problem. It will be making an announcement in relation to this matter very soon. Many attempts have been made overseas to quantify the economic benefits of standardisation. The results have rarely been convincing. In Australia the estimated saving runs into thousands of millions of dollars. Australia has many areas which would benefit from standardisation. Such areas include uniform road rules, uniform building regulations, Australia-wide driving licences, and standard education and text books. I recall that just a few years ago New South Wales and Victoria had two different rail gauges. That was indeed a ridiculous situation. Australia is already using many world standards. As communications between countries get faster and the transfer of ideas becomes quicker that there is a need for global standardisation in many areas becomes apparent. Standards have been imporant in the past; they will become more important in future. One of the great assets of humankind is its individuality. I trust that there will never be standardisation of humans. If there is one advantage that humans have over other species it is their individuality. This precious gift needs to be nurtured and protected at all costs. Our individuality is at present being attacked in the fields of cloning and in vitro fertilisation, cold storage and the like. This is an area that I feel we must protect at all costs. We must protect our individuality which, I trust, will never be standardised. I commend this very important Bill to the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(5.59) —My speaking to the Weights and Measures ( National Standards) Amendment Bill will not surprise anyone in the House. If I were to suggest at the outset that I will confine my comments to the section relating to metric conversion it also would surprise nobody. I recall an episode some years ago aboard an airplane flying direct from Canberra to Brisbane. The then Minister, the predecessor of the present Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), was also on board that flight. The plane was filled mainly with politicians of all political persuasions and their staff. I was invited to the cockpit of that plane. I said to the captain, whom I knew: 'When do you start your landing procedures?' He said: 'Very shortly'. I said: 'Would you mind if I took the public address system and made a couple of announcements? ' He said: 'No, definitely not'. So I took the microphone and said: 'Ladies and gentlemen, this is the cockpit speaking'-I could not say that I was the captain or anything like that-'We are flying at 30,000 feet. We will shortly descend to about 20,000 feet. We will be landing in Brisbane at 9 a.m. The temperature in Brisbane is 72 degrees Fahrenheit. If passengers are wondering why we still use imperial measurements on aeroplanes, it is because we have found over the years that nobody aboard our planes really understands much of that metric stuff'. I went back to the passenger section and found other members of parliament rolling about in laughter but the then Minister was sitting there with a stiff upper lip , as he probably does in times of adversity due to his military training. He looked at me and said: 'Nothing is going to stop it. Nothing will turn it back. Metrics are here to stay'. I suppose in a way he was right, but everyone on board that plane understood the humour of it all. There are some people in this country who are so totally committed to the metrication of Australia that one could be forgiven for thinking it was a new form of Christianity or some other religion. In the late 1960s, a committee of the Senate was set up to look at metric conversion in this country. The Minister for Science and Technology would be well aware of that. That committee comprised senators of varying ages. Quite frankly it was most surprising to hear their recommendation that Australia go metric. One of the ironies was that the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, at that time was the Minister for Education and he was the person who introduced the metrication Bill into this chamber. Like all Australians, I was not worried about it for the first few years. But that which became apparent as time went by was that there were a lot of people out there with iron fists ready to smash down upon anybody who dared to maintain or resort to the use of the old imperial system. That was when I went to war. Those on this side of the House who were here in years gone by can testify to the many occasions that I stood up in the party room and gave various Ministers heaps over the heavy-handed approach that was adopted to introduce metrication. I will never forget the day Malcolm Fraser, as Prime Minister, turned to the then Minister for Science and Technology and said: 'For heaven's sake, listen to what Cameron is saying. I do not understand a lot of it. It is something that I regret having done. I want him to ease off. I never want the subject to be brought back into the party room again'. The then Minister-the then honourable member for Leichhardt, David Thomson, who I hope is listening now-obediently went off and made a number of changes. I remember when the Metric Conversion Board, with its heavy fist, banned the production of any measuring instruments other than those which were calibrated metrically. I also remember the raid on an importer in Melbourne who had the audacity to import 30 dozen rulers that had imperial measurements on them. These rulers were seized by a Customs official. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who was then the Minister responsible for Customs matters, has just come into the House with a smile on his face, recalling and recoiling from the embarrassment that it caused him as I got to work. But then a lot of people started to wake up around that time and the Government eased off. I remember contacting the manufacturers of tape measures in Australia and they said: 'The volume of sales has fallen dramatically. People will not buy the purely metric tapes, except those in the building industry who have been forced into it'. I remember saying to one of them: 'I am going to fight for the introduction of a choice'. I do not mind metrication, I am not against it, but my view has always been that people should have the opportunity of buying something calibrated both in metric measurement and in imperial measurement. There are millions of older Australians out there who not only have no desire to become acquainted with metrication but also, frankly, do not have the time or the interest to be swept along with something which was introduced by Napoleon to bamboozle the English. Mr Shipton —You have upset the Minister. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I have never upset Barry Jones. I have a great deal of respect for him. I remember this manufacturer saying: 'I agree with you completely, but I have got rid of all my old dyes. If you cause this to happen it will create great problems'. I said: 'Get ready for great problems because I am going to win this one', which I did. In this Bill the Minister is placing the issue of the continuation of metrication in this country into the hands of a commission. I have always been wary of boards and commissions because they are out of the reach of politicians. I would much prefer the matter to be placed directly in the Minister's portfolio so that, if one or several of his officers gets carried away, we can aim directly at the man responsible, who would be the Minister. But these obscure boards and commissions seem to be laws unto themselves and they can do what they like. I like the words which the Minister used in his second reading speech in describing how the Metric Conversion Board was established under the Metric Conversion Act 1970. It was to be a body 'to promote, help and guide conversion from the imperial'. The way they approached this matter was almost how a Gestapo youth group would have approached it. I remember three inspectors raiding a retail and hardware store at Stone's Corner in Brisbane-I am not going to mention the name of Samios Pty Ltd! The owner had had a brass ruler on the table of his shop since his father's days-for 50 years. It was an old three-foot rule which people used for measuring wire and other things. The inspectors gave him 48 hours notice to get it out of the shop. That is the heavy-handed way they approached things. I hope that those who will be members of the commission will read the speeches which have accompanied the introduction of this legislation so they will know how so many people around here feel about this subject. The message to them is to go gently, gently. If retaining the old system is not going to ruin the country and if the older generation is not going to interfere with science, let people use both systems. Mr Millar —A lost generation. Mr DONALD CAMERON —A lost generation! Maybe it is the one that is coming up. I also remember the time a Christmas present arrived for me at Parliament House. It was a T-shirt from people in the then Minister's Department which had written on it 'For unmetricated politicians', as if I were some odd-ball in the place. I believe that at that time I reflected the views of millions of Australians. I still have that T-shirt at home, even though these days I am somewhat limited as to where I can wear it. Mr Peacock —What size was it? Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am not quite sure. The chest measurement was in centimetres and that really had me beaten from the word go. I have another interesting anecdote. I do not wish to take up too much time, but recently I built a home in Brisbane and I was concerned about having to do it in metric specifications but the law made me do it that way. When I started I really did not understand the metric system that much. But I would compete against any person in this Parliament today in terms of understanding it because I was forced to learn, and that is the difference. Most people do not want to learn, so leave them alone. I used to get lectures from people in the building industry about having to update . They had also been pushed into it and they thought they knew everything about metrication, but I have seen a number of mistakes being made in the building industry by those who think they know everything-even those who originally came from Europe many years ago. The difference in the Australian system of metrication and the European system is almost beyond belief. We have a queer system whereby we deal in millimetres, while Europe deals in centimetres. If something is 10 feet long, we talk about approximately 3,000 millimetres. We have gone from 10 to 3,000. I just hope that the Minister at the table will take on board the suggestion that the metric system might be a more comfortable one for this country if we were to do what we were told would be done in terms of becoming standardised with the rest of the world and if we were to examine what the rest of the world does. Mr Peacock —How is the house? Mr DONALD CAMERON —The house is finished. One thing I am confused about is how many squares it measures, because I was told the area in metric measurement and I have never been able to come to grips with that. I think the Minister is not really responsible for this, because I remember that when he was in opposition he used to agree with me sometimes. We were told in this Parliament how Great Britain was metricating and how the United States was about to go metric. This was the propaganda that was being pedalled by the metric maniacs to try to convince us that Australia was the odd man out. Margaret Thatcher, with the agreement of the British Labour Party, has walked away from it. The United States of America has thumbed its nose to the rest of the world. These are some of the realities: Great Britain is still a major supplier of material to Australia and so is the United States of America. Therefore as desirable as it is that we standardise and have one system, we have to recognise that parts of the world with which we have close links still have not converted and may never convert to the metric system. It is interesting also, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if you were to go to a shop today to buy a carpet, you have to be told in accordance with the law that the carpet measures 3 point something metres. I am well equipped to deal with metrics, but I cannot do this sudden conversion. It would be the equivalent of 12 feet, because carpet is still made in 12-foot wide loom. When measured we are told it is something like 3.666 or 3,666 millimetres wide, whereas the comment ' It is 12 foot wide', would satisfy everybody. That is one of the side products of the conversion we have gone through. Finally, I want to leave the message that I never ever really want to talk about this subject again in the Parliament . Mr Peacock —Hear, hear! Mr DONALD CAMERON —I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition, who just said, 'Hear, hear', reflects the views of many other people. For years I stood almost as a lone soul in this Parliament, saying: 'Just lay off'. That victory was won. My victory advice was: 'Go easy. For heaven's sake, do not start pushing kilopascals down people's throats. If they want to pump up their tyres, let them do so in pounds per square inch. Do not force all the garages to throw out their old gauges, like the old Metric Conversion Board was trying to do when it was endeavouring to achieve a world record in conversion'. I said: 'Just be reasonable; acknowledge that we have an age group which spreads across two systems, and allow the older people in this country to live out their days without having to be confused by a heavy-handed bureaucracy'. This bureaucracy was trying to instil what was so aptly defined earlier as 'promotion, assistance and guidance'. This was done with a very heavy hand. I am very pleased that I am back here to speak on this legislation. It may well be that the Minister thought: 'Cameron will not be gone long now that he has lost the seat of Fadden. I will hold up the legislation until he returns'. I make one final reflection on the newspaper industry. I notice that as always, members of the Press are not in the Gallery. How they ever report this Parliament properly is beyond me. The facts are that they are one group which really applied the heavy hand. The Press decided that people would not be allowed to use any measurement except metric measurement in advertisements. I remember the classic case of a Minister of the National Party who had also been beating the drum for metric conversion. When he came to sell his property in Victoria he very sneakily advertised it in acres and gave the size of the house in squares. There he was, pushing down our throats and the throats of the rest of the people of Australia how important it was to become metric, yet he knew that for sale purposes no one would really understand the ad if the area of the land was described in hectares and the house in square metres. I would never accuse a Minister from this side of the House for ever having displayed the remotest signs of hypocrisy, but some may have said that that was a double standard. That would probably be a fair comment. It all boils down to the method applied by the Metric Conversion Board. The Board would get industries together and say: 'Now, you have to do this'. Industries would fight like mad and say no. Other industries would go to the Metric Conversion Board and be told that a certain industry had agreed to do what the Board had requested. It was a type of coercion, which if used in any other part of this country would cause people to be marched off to prison. But the Board got away with it and it got away with the legislation. I hope the Minister's plans for the National Standards Commission will not mean that we will have another remote body that will do what it likes to do and will disregard the public. I say to the Minister that many people do not get emotional about the subject but they have some feelings about it and they want to be left in peace. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.06) —It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill 1984. In so doing, there are three aspects to which I would like to address my remarks. First, I will make some comments concerning some of the clauses in the Bill in order to provide a little more elaboration. Some of the comments of previous speakers have required that that be done. Secondly, I will look at the significance of measurements and I will look, thirdly, at the importance of measurements in the wider aspect of science and technology and at movements taking place in that important area in Australia at the moment. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) earlier in his remarks gave a fairly comprehensive rendition of the comments and the statements in the explanatory memorandum. I do not want to dwell on those again or on the purpose of this Bill, but I think it is important to look at certain of the clauses. Clause 5 deals with interpretations of measures. The memorandum states: This Clause amends the terminology of the hierarchy of standards of measurement to accord with current weights and measures practice, and transfers the existing definition of ''metric system of measurement'' from the Metric Conversion Act 1970. It also clarifies the definition of ''instrument'' and ''pattern'' in relation to an instrument for use in trade and it also includes a definition of ''unit of measurement'' which will facilitate the prescription of certain terms, such as the decibel, which are employed as units of measurement. The explanatory memorandum deals with clause 12, which is a significant clause which looks at the verification of measurements. The memorandum states: The amendments introduce the new terminology of Australian standards of measurement to the Commission's verification procedures. Verification is the act of establishing the validity and accuracy of a measurement of a physical quantity by means of, by reference to, by comparison with or by derivation from a specified standard of measurement. Clause 13 looks at the conversion factors. The proposed amendment provides for the use of prescribed conversion factors similarly to convert from a measurement that is not in terms of an Australian legal unit. That of course allows for the accurate and valid conversion from quantities expressed in units other than Australian legal units to quantities expressed in Australian legal units. That is obviously important. Clauses 18 and 19 are significant in that they address a number of comments made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). He expressed suspicion about the powers of certain commissions within our community and he expressed suspicion and concern at the power of the National Standards Commission referred to in the Bill. Clause 18 specifically defines the membership of the Commission and clause 19 defines the functions and powers of the Commission. It is a fact that the previous Act did not clearly enunciate the functions and powers of the Commission and that these had to be derived from various sections throughout the existing Act. The amendments in this Bill before the House consolidate and set out clearly the functions and powers of the Commission. I hope that those two aspects of the legislation do allay some of the concerns of the honourable member for Moreton. Clause 25 concerns itself with the patents of instruments. It is important to note that in an era of rapid technological change, weighing and measuring devices are becoming increasingly complex and may be electronically integrated with other devices such as computers. It might therefore be necessary at times for patent approval of an instrument to be given subject to the retention of a sample of the instrument or part of the instrument. That will provide some assurance that the instrument so approved is representative of all similar instruments in the market place. That is a brief description of the important clauses in this legislation. The Bill before the House does bring to attention the whole significance of measurement, particularly within our contemporary society. It is clear that as the rate of technological development has increased over recent decades, and of course the rate of that development has increased proportionately, there has been a growing sophistication throughout the world, not just in Australia, of measurement units and measurement devices and techniques. Many of the standards which were satisfactory in the past, be it a decade ago or two or three centuries ago, are no longer relevant to an increasingly sophisticated society, particularly in scientific terms, and many items of machinery or definitions of measurement must be increasingly sensitive to that increased and heightened rate of technological change. An example of this is the metre, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Higgins in his remarks on this Bill. That is one of the most common examples of the need for the ability to redefine a unit of measurement as technological change has increased. I was interested to read today an article in the New Scientist of 27 October last year concerning a change in the measurement of the metre. The article is headed 'Time to remeasure the metre', and the lead-in states: Last week, by international agreement, the metre was deposed: It is now no more than a fraction of a second. From the time physicists found they could measure the speed of light more accurately than they could measure the metre itself, its days were numbered. I do not want to go into that in great depth, but a metre is now defined as the length of the path of light travelled in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/ 299,792,458 of a second. The speed of light is a universal constant of nature, and we know what that measurement is. That measurement assumes that the speed of light is constant. History would have it-indeed, I think some of Einstein's work would have it-that the speed of light is constant. This rather interesting article points out that perhaps there will be variations in the speed of light on a cosmic time scale, but I am sure that that is unlikely to affect any of us here today. Mr Barry Jones —Not in the life of the first Hawke Government. Mr BRUMBY —I thank the Minister. I was thinking of many Hawke governments in the future, but I doubt that any cosmic effect will take place during that time. There are a number of aspects of measurement. I have mentioned how the increasing rate of technological development has required that there be more precise definition of measurement. I think many of us might recall the humourous story of the question posed many years ago by the university lecturer who asked his students how to measure the height of a building using a barometer. The answer that the lecturer was seeking was that one calculates the difference in the barometric pressure between the ground floor of the building and the top floor, following which a reasonably accurate measurement of the height of the building can be made. Many of the students took a more lateral view of how to measure the height of the building using a barometer. One of the students suggested that the barometer could be dropped over the edge of the building and, using a stop watch, time how long it took to hit the ground. Knowing the speed at which that item would fall-the gravitational velocity and acceleration-the height of the building could be calculated. Another perhaps more perspicacious student suggested that he should go out to a shop and buy a length of string of, say, 200 feet or 400 feet long, tie the barometer to the string and dangle it over the edge, and then bring it back up to find the length of string used. Others suggested more complicated methods, such as swinging the barometer in an arc and measuring the pendulum, and then doing calculations on that basis. Perhaps the most original method of calculating the height of the building was to take the barometer to the person driving the lift and put the proposition to that person that if he would tell the student the height of the building, the student would give him a brand new barometer. So there were lots of ways in which that measurement could have been taken. Mr Barry Jones —Lateral thinking. Mr BRUMBY —It is a good example of lateral thinking. I want to give one other example of the way in which measurement has changed and of increasing sophistication. I refer to the measurements at petrol pumps, and previous speakers in this debate have alluded to such measurements. The measurement devices in the automatic pumps which pump petrol from below the ground in increasing quantities have become increasingly sophisticated. The new measurement devices which theoretically will give us an accurate readout of the number of litres of petrol or distillate that have gone into our cars are very finely tuned mechanisms. In fact, they are very sensitive to all sorts of radio and air wave frequencies. For instance, it has been suggested that the frequency on which police radios operate will cause disturbances to the measurement devices within petrol pumps. In many demonstrable cases petrol retailers in good faith, managing their equipment to the best of their ability, have thought that the pumps had been doing the job required but customers have paid for 40, 50 or 60 litres of petrol only to find that 15 or 20 litres have gone into the car. There have been altercations between the consumers and the retailer and both have protested that they have been correct. The problem, if it can be called a problem, lies with the increasing sophistication of the equipment which, unbeknown to the ordinary people in our society, is a high technology piece of equipment and is affected by things that cannot normally be seen or heard. It is affected by radio waves, but the people involved do not know that because their education has not encompassed that development. I mention briefly a few other matters on the importance of science and technology. It has been said many times in this House that a strong national capability in science and technology is essential to Australia if we are to have a strong industry, a strong society, and increased job opportunities in the future. Clearly this question of measurement and adapting to change comes into that. I was concerned by some of the comments made tonight. They were humourous remarks in a sense but they also indicated an unwillingness to adapt to technological change. The comments of the honourable member for Moreton concerning metrication raised the very real issue of community involvement in and understanding of technological change. This Government has introduced a large number of initiatives in the area of technological change. Many of them have been strictly economic but, importantly, we have also taken initiatives aimed at heightening the understanding and involvement of the community in technology. The honourable member for Moreton mentioned the comments he made from the cockpit of a plane, and that he had said it was cruising at 30,000 feet and that it would be 72 degrees Farenheit when they got in to Brisbane. Apparently he said that because the people on board could not understand what 22 degrees Celsius and 10,000 metres were. Those comments were humourous in the way he expressed them but they did raise the issue in a simplistic way of community involvement and understanding in technology. Our very impressive Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has taken a number of initiatives to ensure that community understanding and involvement in technology is fostered. Last year, in September, the Minister called the National Technology Conference to help establish some new directions in the area of technology. As a consequence of that conference the Minister recently released a discussion paper called 'National technology strategy: Discussion draft'. The Minister said: My main objective at the Conference was to achieve a 'shock of recognition' among the participants-a sharp and growing awareness of the range and speed of the technological revolution, of where Australia stood in comparison with other nations with mature economies and the extent to which we needed to reconsider the appropriateness of conventional economic wisdom. Other objectives were to promote dialogue between those concerned with technology issues-industry, unions , public service, the research sector; and to draw the attention of the media to the central role of technology in economic development. The Conference also served to focus the growing interest of State Governments in technology. All States now have Ministers with a responsibility for technology and a Commonwealth/State Working Party on Technology has been formed. That is what the Minister indicated. I emphasise that because it involves community understanding. In conclusion, I think that is one of the most important challenges facing us in the whole technological debate. It is important that we continue to encourage industry progress in the technological area. It is equally important that all members of the community are kept up to date, informed and, importantly, educated about technological change and where it will lead in the future. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(6.23) —in reply-I thank the honourable members for Higgins (Mr Shipton), Flinders (Mr Chynoweth), Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron)-we now must get used to thinking of him as the honourable member for Moreton after his having been the honourable member for Griffith and Fadden previously-and Bendigo (Mr Brumby) for their contributions. I will take up the points briefly that were raised in this debate by the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Higgins. He asked who checks the accuracy of the calibration of metered telephone calls. Of course, that involves use of the word 'meter' in a different kind of way. He asked where the legal responsibility lay? I am sorry to say that, because it seems to be after COB, as they say, in the Public Service, I have not been able to get an answer about that, but I suspect it will be entirely within the responsibility of Telecom Australia. However, this raises the point that it certainly does not appear to be covered by this legislation. There is, I understand, no Australian legal unit of time. Certainly it is not covered by this Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Bill. The Bill deals with weights and measures. That is, it deals with measurements of physical quantities appropriate to things like petrol delivery but not appropriate to things like time delivery on the telephone. That is very important. I will find out what I can about it and notify the honourable member. Now that we have made that transition to the definition of the meter measured in lengths of time rather than of a physical commodity we need to know precisely who checks the validity of such and such a proportion of a second. The honourable member for Higgins was also correct in drawing attention to the embarrassment over my first Press release that went out on 15 December 1983 on the length of the metre. It was wrong. We left out the final figures, 458. It should have been 1/299,792,458. He has got his mathematics wrong too. The error was of three orders of magnitude; it was a thousand-fold wrong. I think he suggested it was in the order of 300 times wrong. Talking among friends, I think we can talk generally about it being 1/300,000,000 of a second because it is astonishingly that close to that figure. I now take up the comments of the now absent honourable member for Moreton. In part I am sympathetic to a couple of his propositions. It is no secret that when metrication was introduced there was not a great deal of community understanding . I think that metrication exacerbated the fear that many people have of the unknown. They felt compelled to work to a system that they were not sympathetic with. This points up the difficulties for this country though; if our initial knee-jerk reaction to any kind of change is fear and a sense that we will not understand then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy-we do not understand. Essentially, if we consider the comparative simplicity of metrication with an increase by ten with each unit of measurement, no one would ever go back to a system where we begin with sub-units having a ratio to the inch of 16 to 1, then the ratio of inches to feet of 12 to 1, the next ratio being 3 feet to 1 yard, the next ratio being 22 yards to 1 chain and the next unit up being 80 chains to one mile. Nobody in his right mind would sit down and say that this series of ratios should be the basis of a measuring system. It is true that in the traditional world of the medieval period, it made some sense to measure literally by the length of a thumb, by the length of a foot or by the length of a stride. However, as we move increasingly into a world of precision it is a different matter. I thank the other honourable members who spoke. The honourable member for Bendigo gave a very scholarly and accurate account about what is happening. The problem of calibration in petrol pumps is serious. I think the order of variation that he mentioned is somewhat excessive but, certainly with large consumers, there may be a serious variation caused by those signals on police radios. I thank the honourable member for Flinders for his very thoughtful remarks, as they invariably are. I certainly agree with him that as we move towards greater precision and a machine dependence in the physical world, it is essential that we assert our own individuality and do not fit into a rigid precise mould. I thank the House for its support of this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.00) —I am sure that a debate on a subject such as the bounty on two-stroke and four-stroke engines following the suspension of the sitting for dinner, will draw attention to the House. The Opposition does not oppose the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill 1984 but will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage. The legislation was brought about by the Industries Assistance Commission report on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts. The result of that study, the history of which is quite interesting, indicates that the ability in Australia to manufacture engines profitably has been reduced significantly since the last time there was an IAC report on the subject when James N. Kirby Pty Ltd , Norton Villier Australia Pty Ltd, Simpson Pope Ltd, Toowoomba Foundry Pty Ltd, Victa Ltd and Rover Scott Bonnar Ltd were involved in this area. Today there is essentially only one producer of engines of the two-stroke type and that is Victa Australia, which is a subsidiary of the Sunbeam Corporation Ltd. That situation brought about the IAC inquiry. As a result of that inquiry, the Commission recommended that the current 35 per cent tariff be reduced to 25 per cent, 20 per cent and 15 per cent over two years. That recommendation has not been accepted by the Government, which has opted to stay at the 25 per cent level plus a bounty. The bounty will be $6 a unit, which is roughly equivalent to 10 per cent. In other words, for two years the bounty, plus the tariff protection, will remain at the former level of 35 per cent. The history of the production of these small engines in Australia has not been a happy one. Victa has produced a small two-stroke engine of a new series which it claims is in line with modern technology and with which it claims it can achieve significant market penetration. History has shown that the two-stroke engine has not gone much beyond lawnmower usage and into other areas in which I believe some of the producers may have hoped. The Government, by its actions, has allowed Victa to use every opportunity it has to develop an export market or to develop a market outside lawnmowers for this form of engine. The producers of lawnmowers which were subject to the IAC report have been a varied lot-Sunbeam, through the Victa organisation, Rover Scott Bonnar, the Cox company and the Greenfield organisation in Brisbane. They reported that there has not been any substantial growth in the area of lawnmower sales. Roughly 300, 000 units a year have been sold for a number of years. The companies are projecting a total production of 349,000 in the current year. The merger of Scott Bonnar with the Rover organisation resulted in the use by that organisation of the fully imported Briggs and Stratton four-stroke engine. I know that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) is an avid lawn cutter and has a great interest in two-stroke and four- stroke engines. Mr Ruddock —He is an expert. Mr MOORE —I am sure he is. The honourable member for Dundas would know about that. Mr Ruddock —He lives in my electorate. He wins the local prize for the best garden in the street. Mr MOORE —Is that right? He probably gives a ham to everybody who can beat him. As a result of the merger of Scott Bonnar with Rover, those producers of mowers managed to put together their production and substantially reduce the range of products from 74 to 29. The company would have been rewarded in some way for its attempts at economies of scale in that area. Other producers, such as the Greenfield operation and Cox, both of which are Brisbane producers, while relatively small in their area, do produce very competitive machinery. No doubt they contribute to the very high dominance of Australian products in the Australian lawnmowing area. I think that about 80 or 90 per cent of all mowers sold in Australia are locally made. Import penetration is remarkably low. That has to point to the fact that the mowers we produce are of a high quality. Because of that I believe that in years to come the level of government support probably will not be necessary. One of the biggest areas of growth in this area has been that of the electric lawnmower. While I can probably recommend its use to certain people, it has a high risk factor. I have no doubt that some people like living with risk. Mr Shipton —I still push a Pope. Mr MOORE —Many people do. The honourable member for Higgins probably has a small garden. He is probably pushing his mower along a concrete path which has been painted green. In view of what has happened in the lawnmower area, I am sure that the retention of the 25 per cent bounty will be well received by the producers. Having visited the Rover Scott Bonnar plant in Brisbane and being the owner of a Greenfield mower, I know of the enormous benefit which they bring to the user. They are well appreciated. I am sure that they thoroughly deserve the 25 per cent tariff granted by the Government. In conclusion, the annual market for lawnmowers of 330,000-odd units has really never grown. The market has remained stagnant over a number of years. That is an interesting point. I suspect it means that we need rationalisation and an understanding of small business in Australia. It is a case study in no small way of how an area which was catered for by small business has been penetrated-in the case of Victa by an overseas corporation and in the case of Rover Scott Bonnar by an Australian company. Those companies moved into this area and concentrated their markets and essentially dominate this area. The Opposition does not oppose the action taken by the Government, but will be moving an amendment at the Committee stage. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.08) -It is good to see that the Opposition will be supporting the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill. I might add as a preamble that it is important that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) is leading for the Government in this debate, because he has won a couple of gardening competitions. This debate is obviously of great personal relevance to him. I note that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) , who has just spoken, referred to that. That is very good to know. My good colleague the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) will be making some remarks about the importance of research and development. I will not trespass too much on her territory because we are looking forward to hearing her remarks. I believe it is important to talk about this matter because, in many respect, the two-stroke engine has been one area in which Australia did show considerable initiative and enthusiasm and did, in fact, develop a market that previously had not been developed. The previous speaker referred to that and I believe it is important that we in this place try to show some support, not only in terms of this legislation but also some enthusiasm for people out there who are willing to take the risk and to manufacture. The previous speaker indicated that the Government is looking at a 25 per cent level of protection plus a bounty. In effect, we have taken only part of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendation. The proposed bounty of $6 per engine roughly equates to a 10 per cent duty and it will effectively maintain the existing level of assistance for the next two years. I also add that in taking this decision the Government is 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. That is very important. This Government has a very strong commitment to that sort of position and this Bill is associated with that. In an industry in which we believe there is a future, there is a firm which we believe has a future. The firm is called the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. It is involved in the production of two-stroke motors. The Sarich company, by happy coincidence, happens to be located in the Federal electorate of Stirling in Western Australia and I am sure that many people in Australia would be aware of the great endeavours of Ralph Sarich and the great initiative he has shown. He is one of the remarkable Australians who I know the Minister at the table often speaks about. He speaks about Paul Hogan and we can also speak about Ralph Sarich because he is a remarkable Austrailan. Ralph has undertaken some great enterprise. In fact, he is succeeding in one of the hardest industries of the world, the auto industry. He has, in my view and I believe in the view of the Australian community, made quite a major contribution. Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd has been very sound in its support for the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. I would like to bring up to date where we are with this two-stroke production because it is very relevant to this Bill. The Sarich company has a major program with a leading auto manufacturer in the United States of America. I am sure that honourable members will respect the fact that I do not refer to the names of companies because they are matters of corporate negotiation and it would be quite wrong to indicate which names apply to which companies. I am sure people will understand. But I must say that the Sarich company in its briefing of me has been very full in its comments. The program is looking towards the production of a two-stroke auto engine. This is quite relevant in light of what the previous speaker said. It is true that the lawnmower market has in some sense begun to change in terms of its structure but I believe that here is a part of the market that we can advance. I will explain why. In current testing the Sarich auto engine demonstrates a fuel economy advantage of 26 per cent compared with a renowned four cylinder world car engine. That is quite remarkable. A 26 per cent better fuel economy is achieved by this Sarich two-stroke engine compared with a renowned world car engine. It is quite remarkable. It is being produced in Australia. It is being produced in the suburb of Balcatta in the electorate of Stirling. I give all praise to that company. It is remarkable. I add that the world car engine that I referred to has taken a decade to develop; so here we have the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. developing a motor in Australia with far fewer resources than were behind the world car producers and it has been able to achieve a 26 per cent better fuel economy performance. In terms of its development, the two-cycle engine has overcome significant problems . I am sure people listening to this debate will think of two-stroke engines very much as they do of lawnmower engines-noisy, smokey, smelly and very uneconomical. In effect, what the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. has been able to do is to overcome these problems, which is quite remarkable. I have already referred to the fuel economy problems and the fact that this engine has a 26 per cent better performance than a renowned world car engine. It has overcome smoke problems. When looking at it running at the factory, it is really a very clean operation. It does not emit smoke the way my lawnmower emits smoke. That problem with my lawnmower has something to do with the maintenance and with the operator. Certainly, the Sarich engine performs very well. Thirdly, I refer to the severe instability of a two-stroke engine in city running conditions. Those honourable members who are familiar with the running of some two-stroke engines in city conditions will recognise that they are very unstable as well as being smoky. They tend to run very roughly. People would be aware of certain Japanese brand motor vehicles, and certainly motor cycles, in which those two-stroke engines run very roughly. But the Sarich engine is able to perform in a very stable way which is quite a major change. With regard to emission problems, currently the Sarich company is undertaking a study with a United States company to reduce emission to the United States standards. Of course, in Australia in cities such as Perth it is not such a major problem but certainly in the United States it is a major problem. The previous speaker referred to exports and, if this company is to get into an export market, and if one of those markets is the United States, quite obviously we must meet some of those United States conditions in terms of emission. The Sarich company is working on that and I am very encouraged by its progress. An absolutely remarkable area is marine application. The two-stroke engine in marine running has shown a 30 to 40 per cent improvement in fuel economy measured against a leading Japanese engine. I am not in the business of naming Japanese engines; in fact, I have been asked not to because in a sense that would be making disparaging comments. But what has happened is that the Sarich engine in marine running conditions has been able to get a 30 to 40 per cent better fuel economy than a leading Japanese engine. Many people would know of Japanese engines being used on boats all around Australia every weekend. Incidentally, the reason for the 30 to 40 per cent spread of performance is varying load factors. In terms of performance that is quite remarkable. Again I say: This two-stroke engine has been developed in Australia. So that everyone is quite clear in this debate, this engine is fitted with the fuel injection system developed by Ralph Sarich and his team. It uses combustion techniques which were developed when the original Sarich orbital engine was developed. So in effect what we have is the fuel injection system and the combustion system of the original Sarich system being married for its marine application. It is very interesting to note that the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. has recently signed an agreement-this gets back to our earlier debate about the need to have Australian companies performing and extending their boundaries-with a major world marine manufacturer for the development and application of the two -stroke marine engine utilising the fuel injection system developed by Sarich and a Sarich designed cylinder head. This twelve month program is currently under way and is showing a great deal of performance. As I have indicated already, there is reason for a great deal of confidence about this. What is achieved when the fuel injection system is married to the cylinder head arrangement that the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. has developed is in effect a short motor. It is anticipated that this short motor will be able to be applied in quite a number of settings. Not only can it be applied to the marine application to which I have already referred and where I have indicated it is showing a 30 to 40 per cent better fuel economy performance as a two-stroke engine, but also it is thought that this engine could be applied in light aircraft, ultra-light aircraft and as an installed short motor in other vehicles . I am sure people listening to this debate will recognise that what I am talking about is a major example of Australian innovation and research and something of which we can be very proud. It is certainly the intention of this Bill, with its tariff protection of 25 per cent and bounty of $6, to provide some degree of protection for people in Australia. It does apply to lawnmower engines but I want to add that I believe this area of the market to which I am referring, which in effect is not only the auto market but also the marine manufacture market as well as that of ultra-light and light aircraft, does show a degree of promise. Looking at a comparative situation, the Sarich two cycle engine, compared with the world car engine to which I have already referred, is lighter, cheaper and more economical. Let us bear in mind that the world car engine took 10 years to develop and was backed by a very powerful corporation. Here we have an Australian developed engine that is performing at a better rate in terms of fuel economy, is cheaper to produce and is lighter. I will give some statistics which I believe amplify the situation. The Sarich engine is a 1.2 litre engine and is compared with a world car 1.6 litre engine. We are comparing those two. The Sarich engine produces 1.5 kilowats per kilogram in weight whereas the world car engine produces 0.55 kilowatts per kilogram. In effect, the Sarich engine has a 3 to 1 better ratio in terms of power to weight than the world care engine. That is an astounding performance. Obviously, with a smaller powerful engine one can do something in terms of car design. There is much more space left in the engine compartment to do things with. That gives the car designer much more to work with with respect to overall motor vehicle design . That is quite important. Cost estimates from Detroit of the manufacture of the Sarich engine that has been developed in co-operation with BHP suggest that it would be $200 to $300 cheaper than a conventional four-stroke engine. It will be easier to manufacture than a conventional engine and, as I have indicated, the fuel economy is there. Interestingly, the Sarich two-stroke engine is better in terms of fuel economy than the published figures on the VW Golf diesel. That is important to recognise . The VW Golf diesel is held up within the market as being a great performer in terms of economy. People who have them indicate that that is true. But the Sarich two-stroke engine with the fuel injection system to which I have referred is a better performer in terms of fuel economy than the VW Golf diesel. Let us look at some developments in train. These are interesting because we are looking at Australian industry getting moving, getting on its feet and getting markets. The Sarich company has recently received proposals from Europe, the United Kingdom and Asia for development of the automobile concept and the fuel injection system. As I indicated earlier, I will not mention the particular companies because they are matters of corporate negotiation and it would be wrong in this place to do that. But approaches have come from Europe, the United Kingdom and Asia to look at the development of this engine. That offers great promise to Australia. Further, the Sarich company has received a proposal from a company in the United Kingdom seeking a joint venture arrangement. The Orbital Engine Co. has submitted a four-cylinder world car to Detroit for testing of the fuel injection system. It has taken a world car engine and put on its fuel injection system. It has submitted it for testing in Detroit. That testing is already under way with one company. We understand that it is showing good results. The Sarich company is also shortly to add its fuel unjection system to the six-cylinder motor of another Australian manufacturer. Obviously, people could conclude to which other manufacturer's motor the fuel injection system is being added. It will be tested by that corporation as well. Two corporations are currently testing the fuel injection system of the Sarich company on their own operations to see how effective it is. It is good to think that these ventures are being made by Australian business with in the context of Australian operations. The marine masters of the art in the world have submitted an engine to the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. and have received from it an engine which, after the Orbital Engine Co. has worked on it, performs better than the engine they have been able to develop. An engine is being produced in Western Australia in the electorate of Stirling-I do not want to be parochial about it-which, in fact, is standing up to world standards. That is a great achievement. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) visited the plant recently. I was fortunate enough to be there. The people there are all being employed in a good operation. The standards in the factory are remarkably high. There is great cohesiveness. It is a wonderful investment as well as social capital because people are doing a great job of work. There is every reason why people in this place should be proud of it. Two conclusions are evident, I believe, from what I have said. What is needed from government is a favourable climate in which assistance is provided to manufacturers utilising advanced manufacturing techniques. I am sure that Ralp Sarich, if he were here, would say that he does not believe in a highly protected industry. However, he believes that companies in the development stage -one thinks back to companies developing engines such as the Victa engine-need nurturing. The classic economic term is that it is infant industry argument for tariff protection. We need to provide some degree of support in the early stage of development. I think I would be quoting Ralph Sarich fairly if I said that after two or three years, provided the company was using advanced manufacturing techniques, the tariff could taper away. By then, the company should be in a position to cope with the market. The Industries Assistance Commission recommendation on two-stroke engines envisages a reduction in tariff. Certainly, I do not think that the Orbital Engine Co. would be uncomfortable with this recommendation. Many people ask what has happened to the Sarich orbital engine. I have indicated the current position of the fuel injection system and the two-stroke engine. Effectively, BHP has said that, if there are proper marketable business proposals, it is interested in the development of a manufacturing operation. We must ensure that that manufacturing takes place in Australia and that we get the employment and the benefit of the investment. My second conclusion in this debate is that it is evident that Australia must provide a climate of enthusiasm for Australian manufacture. It is very important. We have to be proud of Australian manufactures and Australians who get in and to their jobs. If honourable members were to visit the factory they would be proud too. It is a great operation. We must be proud of Australian manufacturers. The interesting thing that comes out of the tariff argument is that, if we have very high tariffs, manufacturers are often discouraged from being innovative and inventive in the way that Ralph Sarich is. They say: 'We will buy our research and development from overseas. We will not do what Ralph Sarich has done. We will not develop a fuel injection system. We will not develop a two-stroke engine. We will simply buy it in and manufacture under licence'. Guess who misses out again. Australia misses out again. Not only do we have a more expensive motor vehicle but also we have bought the brains and the production from overseas; and we are not manufacturing. I believe that a responsibility of this Government to Australia is to ensure that we provide that enthusiasm, that support, and companies such as the Sarich company are given a degree of support so that there is an incentive for them to undertake research and development and then move into the manufacturing stage. We then have further production, further jobs and the people who are willing to have a go are getting the sort of reward we believe they should get. Australia is a great place. It has done some great things historically. The bold, innovative, determined style that people like Ralph Sarich have is something we must support. In conclusion, it is a pleasure to support this Bill. Although it sounds at first to be a rather unusual small, unimportant Bill, if people were to visit the Sarich Orbital Engine Co. plant at Balcatta in the electorate of Stirling they would be proud of it. I am proud of it. It also indicates that we in this place have a major job to do, that is, to get behind Australian industry. It is trying to do a good job. We have a responsibility to support it. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(8.29) —I follow the remarks of my colleague the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) on the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill by saying how much I agree with him. I go further and say that I am afraid that in this country we have been suffering for some years from a kind of technological cringe. We have ignored the innovative and creative work of Australian inventors and we have-all of us-a sad and sorry list of Australian inventions, adaptations and creations which have got to a certain stage of development and because there has been little or no interest in risk taking from either industry or the Government those creative developments have either gone down the drain or overseas where they are nicely profit-making for other countries and are producing employment and industrial upturn in places other than the place where they were first invented. I think that says something to all of us. We cannot afford to do that any longer, and I think this Bill is important because it is a message to the people that this Government is interested in Australian creativity. I support this Bill, knowing that the bounty concerned is designed to assist already established manufacturers who were producing engines at the time of the Government's announcement. It is a very important part of the package of industry assistance established by the Government following consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission report of July 1983 entitled 'Lawnmowers, certain engines and parts'. As our economic environment continues to show signs of healthy progress and the period of recession begins to succumb gradually to a brighter and encouraging future, this Government is taking the initiative at every opportunity to stand by our industrial producers. I think the important aspect of this legislation is that it really demonstrates our Government's commitment to the support of Australian creative thinking and backing for the development of Australian inventiveness. It is that backing for development which is so essential. The fact is that the visit last year to the multitude of small manufacturing industries in my electorate by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) was the first time a government Minister had taken sufficient interest to actually visit the work place and find out for himself what the needs of those industries are. It was also the first time that many people in industry had seen their local member of parliament. I think that this is an example of why there has been a real loss of confidence in Australian manufacturing industry, particularly in the smaller industries which are the mainstay of our employment. I have very great faith in the capacity of Australians to be creative, forward looking and self-reliant. I do not think they lie down and wait for somebody to pick them up and stand them on their feet. I think Australians generally have shown time and time again that they want to stand on their own feet, that they want to compete, they want to get out there and have a go. They need what anybody else needs when they are developing something which is new; they need support and backing. They do not necessarily need lots of money, but they certainly need to know that the Government is interested in and supportive of their endeavours. Flying flags is one thing but doing something positive is an entirely different thing. I know that, given real backing by an economically responsible government, Australian manufacturing industry will demonstrate again its capacity to compete successfully in local and world markets. Incidentally, I think it is interesting that we do not do many of the things that we used to do and demonstrated quite clearly our capacity to do when we had to. I will mention just one example of that, and that is the fact that we no longer make optical glass. We did not make optical glass in this country before the Second World War. We had to develop and make it during that period. We made the finest optical glass in the world. However, we no longer make it, and the question is: 'Why?'. The answer is too drearily apparent, and that is that we were not prepared as a country to support our own industry. We were much more prepared to say: 'Let us do it cheaper'. In supporting this Bill, I extend as a member of the Government encouragement to industries which are willing to undertake innovative and stimulating research and development programs designed to update and improve their operations in order to gain first class credibility in their long term standing. The competitive spirit is to be nurtured by the realisation that success on the industrial front thrives on this formula. It is a climate that should be recommended and encouraged as it enhances Australian industrial clout both at home and abroad. It is all very well to talk about wages, but, by golly, we can do anything we like here as well as we want to. It is not a matter of crying wages or anything else. It is a matter of being confident and sensible. The past decade has seen the contraction of the engine manufacturing industry, excluding motor vehicle engines, despite high level assistance through duties on competitive imports. So that was not the way to go, was it? It would seem that one of the main reasons for this outcome is that the fairly small and fragmented nature of the Australian market precludes local manufacturers from the benefits of the more cost effective and large scale production of overseas producers. However, there is a further disturbing reason and that is the inability of at least part of the industry to keep pace with technological advancement in the design and construction of engines. That really is the nub of the problem. Unless we can assist in that forward looking development and design we condemn industries to going further backwards. Five main engine manufacturers were producing for Australian industry. There are now very many less than that because the James N Kirby Ltd and Simpson Pope have ceased production. Victa Ltd constitutes practically the entire engine manufacturing industry, producing a single engine two-stroke model for use mainly in its lawnmowers. Victa also produces, in small numbers, an industrial version of the engine. In 1983 Victa commenced production of a new engine, the series 80, to replace the present model in order to improve its competitive position and to reduce its dependence on lawnmower production and its seasonality. The new engine incorporates the latest available two-stroke technology, decreases cost production, and will suit not only lawnmowers but also other industrial applications. In August of this year we shall be looking at full production of the new engine. This creative industrial forethought of the sort we think we should be encouraging will be complemented by the Government bounty rate of $6 an engine. These bounty payments are going to be limited to a maximum of $1.2m per annum, but this seems a very small amount of money for the sorts of things that we need to do. In other words, we expect a fairly good and an economically decent result from that amount of money. Engines with a maximum power output of up to 4.5 kilowatts and 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 are used in Australia by the manufacturer. Because Australian production of engines other than motor car engines has diminished very rapidly in recent years, today sees Victa as very much the sole Australian manufacturer. Clearly, we want to remedy this state of affairs, and in order to set the wheels in train the Government has introduced this engine bounty Bill as an incentive to the ingenuity of our local manufacturing industry. The general rate of duty of 35 per cent on engine imports was considered by the IAC to provide effective assistance in excess of that accorded to the manufacturing industry generally and tended to penalise the relatively lightly assisted engine using industrial sector. The recommendation that that 35 per cent duty be reduced to 25 per cent immediately, with a further phasing down to 15 per cent over two years, brought about a conclusion in the report that the rate of duty of 15 per cent would provide Victa with a rate of return of the order achieved by the manufacturing industry generally and would be sufficient to maintain local engine production. It is the belief of the IAC that Victa has a natural advantage by virtue of the fact that the Australian market is dominated by mowers fitted with two-stroke engines. However, having carefully considered the IAC report, the Government felt the reduction in assistance as recommended could endanger the continued production of small petrol engines. A decision was made immediately to reduce the long term duty rate from 35 per cent to 25 per cent and that the bounty, which is roughly equivalent to the 10 per cent duty, should be paid to existing manufacturers over the next two years. It was taken into account that Victa had made a very considerable investment in its development of the series 80 engine. It was felt that the bounty assistance would allow Victa to adjust to the lower level of assistance and to have the opportunity to develop new markets for the engine so that its commercial attractiveness could be adequately tested and recoupment of development costs compensated. Again, assistance that goes on and on is, as we all know, counter- productive. Assistance that compensates for development and allows for market testing and says 'Yes, we believe in your ability to do things well and we will give you the time you need in order to be competitive', is the kind of assistance that I think Australian manufacturing industry is looking for. It is a darn pity that it did not have it a long time ago. Ensuring that assistance for engine production is not to be undermined by imported lawnmowers incorporating engines, the Government decided that duty on lawnmowers would remain at 25 per cent and not be reduced to 15 per cent, as recommended by the IAC. On the other hand the Government has accepted the IAC proposal that engines made outside Australia be dutiable at minimum rates. In four years time the assistance accorded to lawnmowers and engines will be put to the IAC for further review. Through this bounty Bill the Government is once again showing its determination to support our local manufacturing industries. In my electorate, which has a very large number of small manufacturing industries, the assistance already received in the way of advice and support from the Department of Industry and Commerce, members of which the Minister has made available to assist those industries, has been extremely important. It has given the people involved in those industries the confidence to go on with what they are doing. In my electorate a number of manufacturers manufacture articles which were first developed by family members. They were the first in Australia to develop them. There are a number of very highly creative people who are not frightened by downturns in markets. They take them into consideration. They are able to diversify their operations and go out and find new markets. They need and appreciate the assistance which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has made freely available to them. Mr Ronald Edwards —He is a good Minister. Ms MAYER —He is an excellent Minister. The fact that he has shown such a personal interest in the problems of these manufacturers has been an enormous boost to their confidence. They feel that they can go ahead in their development areas with some confidence that they will receive the understanding and the consideration that they need very much for their continuing production. I am very pleased with the way in which the industries in my electorate are going ahead and looking with some confidence to the future. I am certain that the care with which the Minister has made the services of his Department available and the fact that they know that their local member is extremely interested in their progress and is concerned for their well-being has had something to do with the way in which they are facing the future. On current trends the Australian economy is looking decidedly cheerful. It is with a responsible optimism that the Government continues to maintain wholehearted respect and support for the progressive ingenuity in Australia's industrial sector. We want to encourage creativity of thought in our industries because that results practically in a high standard of performance. Putting theory into practice at the industrial level will create jobs for many thousands of Australians. This, of course, is one of the major themes of Government bounty legislation. 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)(8.43) —in reply-In summing up the debate on the Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill I first note the fact that the Opposition supports this measure, as stated by the shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). I add that he was probably the most courteous and efficient of the Ministers in the previous Government until his rather unfortunate removal from the Ministry, for reasons that were not of his own making. I note with some appreciation that the shadow Minister supports the Government's move to prop up this rather important industry. I noted with some pleasure the comments of the honourable member for Stirling ( Mr Ronald Edwards), one of our better new members. He spoke of the parallel between Sarich and Hogan. In their own ways they are rather unique Australians- Ralph Sarich in the engineering field and Paul Hogan in the field of culture. I guess there is some parallel between Sarich and the founder of Victa mowers which happens to be a recipient of this bounty. I knew Mr Richardson as a child. I well remember Mr Richardson starting his factory in an old shed at Mortlake quite near where I lived. He started from very modest beginnings and built the business up into what was an Australian success story, Victa Mowers. Mr Steele Hall —That is what happens under Liberal governments. Mr JOHN BROWN —I did not happen to be under a Liberal government. It was under a Labor government. Mr Steele Hall —I have very great doubts about that. Mr JOHN BROWN —I assure the honourable member that it was in 1946 when I was in the intermediate year at a school. I point out for the benefit of the unwise shadow Minister at the table that that was when Mr Richardson founded his venture, a venture which found great success in the intervening years. It was during the time of the previous Liberal administration that the business foundered rather badly. Just for the honourable member's elucidation, I point out that we are now providing a bounty of $6 a motor to enable this company to get back on its feet. It is rather significant that the honourable member for Stirling mentioned Ralph Sarich and spoke of his bold, innovative and determined style. In the context of the 1980s, his story parallels that of the Richardson story in the late 1940s when Mr Richardson also showed bold, innovative and determined style to shock the world with the production of his first two-stroke motor. Now, in a latter and more sophisticated fashion, Ralph Sarich is developing a motor which in its own way is extraordinarily sophisticated. I note with some satisfaction that the representatives of General Motor's Holdens Ltd are sitting in the Gallery. They heard the honourable member for Stirling talking about the motor's application to the motor market, which GMH is now promoting. I guess that this debate has been fairly symptomatic of the attitude of this Government. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) spoke about this Government's determination to improve the capacity of Australian manufacturing industry to survive. In some way that is the succinct difference between the attitude this Government has adopted to the problems of industry and that of the previous Government. Our attitude should have been adopted by our predecessors during their seven years of mismanagement. The fact is that we have been able to develop an economic environment in which manufacturing industry can look forward to some future. It had been ground into the earth through the mismanagement of the previous Government. We are providing an opportunity for small business, manufacturing industry in particular, to engage in forward planning. We are encouraging small operators, in this case with a bounty and in many other cases with similar incentives. More important is the industrial peace which has existed under this Government over the previous 12 months. I think that should be an eye-opener to all who take a dispassionate look at the economic environment in Australia. Under the Labor Government, for 12 months we have had less industrial trouble because of our attempts to destroy the confrontationist style of the previous Government and restore some form of industrial harmony and peace. Added to that is the reduction of the consumer price index to a reasonable standard and the sustaining of the prices and incomes accord. Mr Steele Hall —What are you going to do about the strikes that are ruining Australia? Mr JOHN BROWN —The Opposition applauds the bounty we are offering in this Bill- not necessarily this cackling fool at the table, but at least the shadow Minister who knows something about the subject. He was gracious enough- Mr Steele Hall —Australia is on strike. Mr JOHN BROWN —I wish the honourable member for Boothby would put his mouth on strike and put his mind back to work. I note with some satisfaction that the official spokesman for the Opposition, the very competent member for Ryan, has been gracious enough to accept that this measure is one which will be welcomed, particularly by industry. 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. The Bill. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(8.50) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 15, page 8, line 11, after ''reasonable times'' insert ''with the consent of the occupier or in pursuance of a warrant issued under sub-section ( 1B)''. (2) Clauses 15, page 8, after sub-clause (1) insert the following sub-clauses: ''(1A) An authorized officer may make application to a Justice for a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises to which the application relates. ''(1B) If, on an application under sub-section (1A), the Justice is satisfied, by information on oath or affirmation, that it is reasonably necessary that the authorized officer should have access to the premises to which the application relates, the Justice may grant a warrant authorizing the authorized officer to enter the premises for the purpose of exercising the functions of an authorized officer under this section. ''(1C) A warrant granted under sub-section (1B) shall include- (a) a statement of the purpose for which the warrant is issued; (b) a description of the kind of things authorized to be inspected or copied or from which extracts may be taken; and (c) a date, not being later than one month after the date of issue of the warrant, upon which the warrant ceases to have effect.'' The amendments circulated in my name refer to the authority of officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce to enter premises and take and copy certain material on the issue of a warrant within the Department. These amendments are placed on the basis that those warrants ought to be of a judicial nature with all the usual warrantees that go with that. In view of other matters, I will not persist with the debate. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.51) —The Government , of course, opposes the amendments circulated in the name of the honourable member for Ryan, Mr Moore, which he seemed to move without a great deal of enthusiasm, I might add. As a former distinguished Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, which at the time embraced the Bureau of Customs, I am not surprised that he did not move the amendments with a great deal of enthusiasm because, as such, he will know that the right of officers to enter premises and search for documents to see that the public purse is protected is of paramount importance. The proposition that a warrant should be obtained granting officers a right of entry to commercial premises is, in our opinion, inappropriate for compliance auditing of bounty payments. This question has been raised and considered on a number of occasions by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. On all occasions Ministers have responded to the Committee's comments by explaining that the provisions empowering officers with a right of entry without warrant are essential to the equitable and sound administration of any sort of bounty scheme. In fact, that Committee has obviously acknowledged the view that it is not unreasonable for persons who are paid moneys out of the public purse to expect a degree of auditing by investigators to establish that such payments have been correctly made. In its second report, dated 18 May 1983, the Committee stated: To the extent that such investigation is confined to matters of compliance auditing, the Committee does not see the need to alert the Senate to the possibility of any serious infringement of rights or fundamental liberties. The Committee went on to say that, while generally accepting the desirability of compliance auditing, the Committee will continue to draw the attention of the Senate to other provisions that come within its terms of reference. The Government's attitude to this question has not changed, and any suggestion by the Opposition that warrants be required for bounty inquiries will continue to be opposed by this Government, with its very keen perception of the taxpayers' right to see that their moneys are protected. It is worth mentioning that the powers of officers as proposed by the Bounty ( Two-Stroke Engines) Bill 1984 are no more extensive than similar powers contained in the Income Tax Assessment Act. For the Opposition to be suggesting this sort of amendment is parallel to suggesting that taxation officers should not be able to investigate people's accounts without the need for a warrant. I know that the Opposition is pretty good at protecting tax evaders, but I would not have thought it would have gone to that extent. It is in exactly the same spirit that we reject the proposition that before an officer inspects people's tax affairs he should need a warrant, and it is in exactly that sense that we refuse these amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 March, on the following paper presented by Mr Young: Coastal Surveillance-Ministerial Statement, 30 March 1984. and on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the House take note of the papers. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(8.56) —In addressing this question I would have thought that the Minister who is to assume responsibility for the administration of the new order of things in relation to coastal surveillance would have been here to take this debate. However, the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), who has been responsible for preparing the review of Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance, is to take the debate. I suppose that is something of a second best. If there is one thing to be said immediately about the review and the decision the Government has made, it is a very simple statement indeed, and it is this: Under the changes proposed by the Government there is to be significantly less coastal surveillance than before the changes were made. This is an inescapable fact from the material provided in relation to these changes. For instance, the number of flying hours per year-the rate at which the first two months will be flown-is to be reduced from 20,200 to 14,600. This is a reduction in flying time of something approaching 30 per cent. How the Government can say to the public and to the Parliament that there is an improvement in the rationalisation that is being conducted by reducing the surveillance of Australia's coastline by 30 per cent is something that we will expect it to explain in far more detail than it has done so far. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is, on his own words, no great man for secrecy. He has spoken to this House quite freely on matters other than national security-in fact, about matters concerned in this statement. Before I refer to the remarks that he made recently on Nationwide, let me refer to the statement in the report which predicates the reduction in coastal surveillance. The report states: In line with this assessment contract aerial surveillance arrangements will be rationalised to provide significant cost savings and minimise the predictability flights over the north Australian coastline and the Great Barrier Reef. Aircraft charter contracts with two companies which expire on April 30 will not be renewed. This week the program Nationwide dealt with this question from the point of view of the interests of those who run the charters and the interests of the State of Queensland in particular. One of the criticisms of the change from the Nomad aircraft to the Shrike aircraft which is the result of the change in the acceptance of tenders in this matter is that the Shrike aircraft has a radar instrumentation which allows it to view, I think, 38 kilometres laterally, not all round. That is in stark contrast to the old Nomad aircraft, which has a 360- degree radar for something of the order of 120 kilometres. Mr Young —It depends on the height. Mr STEELE HALL —It may depend on the height. I want to deal particularly with the public statements of the Special Minister of State, especially those he made on Nationwide, when it was put to him that the reduction in radar range was of great significance. The Minister responded to this question: But is it as good, Mr Young? The Minister said: Well, it takes more flying time, to do it as effectively as what the other system of radar may have done. The Minister has said it takes more flying time to be as effective, with the changed circumstances, as it was under the old circumstances. What is the change in flying hours? There is a reduction of 30 per cent. The Minister has said publicly that a plane needs more flying hours to do the same job with this less effective radar. I started my remarks with that essential point. The Minister is trying to fudge the issue. He is saying that it is just as good if the plane flies more hours, but in another statement he says that it is flying less hours. He cannot deny those statements. So the reduction in flying hours from 20,200 a year to 14,600 represents a far greater reduction in capacity than those hours indicate, because the effectiveness of the radar is far less than the radar on the planes that are being displaced. One can be sure that under the new arrangements there must be something like half capacity in radar surveillance of our coast. There is another illogical reference in the report. It states: The Health Department has considered that surveillance was excessive to its needs and the Government has declared that it intends to put less emphasis on health and more on drugs. That may be a wise decision. In another part of the report, recommendation three states: The present system is focused on fisheries and quarantine surveillance because these are the interests that are largely brought into being. Again, this is a contradictory reference to the reasons for the changes being made. I refer again to the Nationwide program in which the Minister, among others, was involved. I have already explained the statements of utmost contradiction that the Minister has made. Those statements tend to raise one's questioning and doubts about the whole change which is being made, when one hears the Minister introduce the subject in the fashion to which I referred. There is no doubt that the Government has seen the task as being one of an overwhelming nature as, I suppose, have all governments. It is an enormous area which has to come under surveillance. The report states: Customs, to be totally effective, would require a screen to be maintained at a distance from the coastline to provide sufficient warning of all approaches to allow reception of those vessels or aircraft when they land in Australia. Obviously, this is totally impracticable in respect of intruding aircraft and surface vessels, given the resources required and the volume of aircraft and shipping movements. The report goes on to say: Information from coastal surveillance is passed to Customs but the present program, with its emphasis on routine visual search of the littoral, provides Customs with very little useful information. Obviously, the task is great indeed. What has been established is a presence in the face of those who may intrude, unwittingly or by design. In relation to Customs, immigration, quarantine or fisheries, Australia has, over the years in various actions that have been taken, developed a presence which hopefully is a deterrent to those who transgress our laws in these areas. It is really a matter as to whether it is an effective presence. That is obviously what the report is about. Before I leave the matter of the choice of equipment and aircraft, it is interesting to reflect on the past views of senior members of the Government. A statement was made by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), not long ago on 2 October 1978, when the last major changes were made. The now Minister for Foreign Affairs who was then the Leader of the Opposition was so insistent that at the time he claimed, I believe, that the contracts were rewritten so that the Nomad aircraft became a mandatory choice. It had to be an Australian manufactured aircraft. There was only one that would meet any of the significant requirements. So the Nomad was selected really because of the work of the then Leader of the Opposition-- Mr Young —I do not think so. Mr STEELE HALL —The reports are here. I can read them. The Leader of the Opposition said: It is inconceivable that plans for Australian coastal surveillance should use any other aircraft but the Australian Nomad. He speaks on this subject in paragraph after paragraph. It is rather instructive now that, having achieved that aim, it is this Government, of which the Foreign Minister is a senior part, which is adopting a system which places the Nomads entirely on the scrap heap, as far as Australian surveillance is concerned. So having forced the issue to make sure the Nomads would be accepted in 1978, he is now part of a government that utterly discards them now. Mr Young —But your Government stopped production of them. Mr STEELE HALL —We do have a mixed bag of Ministers here. They all have something to do with this subject. We have big bear, the Minister for Aviation ( Mr Beazley); middle bear, the Special Minister of State; and little bear, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). What a mixed bag of people to be concerned with this subject! I remind the Ministers of another statement by a member of the then Opposition. In 1981-82 the then honourable member for St George said: I believe and the Australian Labor Party believes that the Government should immediately terminate the current program and place the responsibility for coastal surveillance where it rightly belongs on the defence forces of this country. So we have a very scattered set of views from the days when the Government was in Opposition. Time runs out very quickly when speaking on these issues. The Government is justifying its move on economic grounds. It is on very slender ground indeed when it is spending something like $20m a year on coastal surveillance and can throw $8m to $10m to public funding of parties in elections . It then considers that it must cut significantly the surveillance of Australia 's coast, to save nothing. It will shuffle the cards and put more resources on the ground to allow more protection. Let me say in that regard that it is a good move on the part of the Government. The Government has integrated the operations with the State governments and State instrumentalities to set up regional units with those who are involved, whether they be State or Federal and regardless of their place. It will bring them together for a cohesive gathering of information. This must be an advance and one would be silly to say otherwise. But it does represent some expenditure and a shuffling of the cards because I understand the same amount of money is predicated to be spent. The economy is coming from the action arm, the arm of surveillance. Whether it be out to sea or, on our littoral areas. That is where the money is coming from to provide the desirable buildup on the ground. One cannot therefore expect observers of this process to say that it is all marvellous because the Government has made one good move. That good move is made at the expense of the whole program being set up, which is surveillance of the littoral, the Australian fishing zone or other areas of interest. I said that the Government can throw an unwarranted $10m into the electoral system and not blink an eyelid. It can expand the Public Service by 10 per cent at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars a year and that does not matter, but if we need another $5m or $6m to improve Australia's security in relation to quarantine, immigration, health and drugs it comes down to economic persuasion. Economics are involved when we look at those important areas but not when we look at the expansion of the Public Service or the funding of political parties. That does not matter. Mr White —We have 6,000 miles of coastline. Mr STEELE HALL —As the honourable member for McPherson says, we have 6,000 miles of coastline. In fact, if we take the littoral, the Australian coastline is probably over 30,000 kilometres in length. One could go on for a long time. We know that the Government cannot escape the responsibility of significantly reducing what it says it is improving. It has failed to enumerate many of the forward looking measures in technology which ultimately must take over, such as satellites and perhaps airships. Who knows? These things are not mentioned in relation to more comprehensive surveillance for longer periods. This report simply does not address itself to the facts. The Government has decided to look at next year's Budget and to cut a miserly few million, in the sense of its responsibilities, by shuffling air surveillance to ground areas of action and leaving Australia more naked to its neighbours in so doing. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence)(9.12) —This is the first time I have followed Goldilocks in a debate, but I am sure she has been sleeping in her own bed. A number of points were made by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) that will be taken up by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) when he speaks. A great deal of the allegedly factual data he gave is challengeable. One notable thing he did say was that this is the last time this House will debate coastal surveillance when the primary speakers for either the Government or the Opposition will assume that coastal surveillance in this country is the littoral search associated with civil contracts. One thing that became evident to me as I did this Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements for the Government, along with a number of senior public servants, was that coastal surveillance was much broader than that, and that to meet the problems associated particularly with areas of civil coastal surveillance that were not being covered by littoral search, a very different orientation in the way in which coastal surveillance was conducted, a new emphasis on enforcement rather than just staring at things, would be a much more important aspect of a coastal surveillance regime than it had been to that point. To an extent the civil contracts associated with littoral search had to carry, in the public mind, too much of the load. Functions that those contracts simply could not perform were attributed to them and inadequacies were found in relation to those functions. In the course of the survey we found that some of the attacks made on the effectiveness of civil contracts for littoral search were justified criticisms of coastal surveillance as such but they sought to impose too much on that particlar activity. That activity needed to be seen to some considerable extent in its proper perspective. Before I look a little more at the substance of these matters I would like to express my personal thanks to John Rowland, a Deputy Secretary in the Department of Transport; Pat Barrett, an officer of the Department of Finance; and Alan Wrigley, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defence, who assisted me in this inquiry. I thank also Alan Thompson from the Department of Defence and staffers Syd Hickman and Maurie Sherry, who undertook a considerable amount of organisational activity. We were obliged to deal with a number of misconceptions when we set about attempting to devise an appropriate regime for the future of civil coastal surveillance. The first of those misconceptions was the argument being presented , and substantially, put particularly in some of the northern parts of the country, that the organisation of coastal surveillance for civilian purposes ought properly to reside with the Department of Defence. There is no doubt that Department of Defence assets play a considerable role in coastal surveillance for civil purposes and will probably play an increasing role. Very considerable defence assets are involved. The 20 P3C and P3B Orions associated with the Royal Australian Air Force-the RAAF does conduct the bulk of the surveillance of fishing; it is not caried out under civil littoral contracts, as was indicated by the honourable member for Boothby-will continue to perform those functions. Interception and some surveillance activity will continue to be performed by the Fremantle class patrol boats. Submarines provide assistance in some aspects of civil coastal surveillance. To an extent, other defence personnel are placed around the country. Future defence assets are likely also to play a significant role in civil coastal surveillance. They include, if we get them, airborne early warning and control aircraft, surface ship and submarine towed surveillance, using acoustic arrays and, when it comes on stream of course, Jindalee over-the-horizon radar. All these assets will play a significant role in coastal surveillance. Despite the fact that they will play that role, we needed to address the questioning of whether or not the Department of Defence of itself ought to be the body that conducts coastal surveillance, given its already very high profile. I suggest the combination of those assets already indicates an asset base and activity that dwarfs the civil littoral contracts, but it is something which many people did not appropriately associate with coastal surveillance as it existed at that point. We decided for several reasons that we ought not, however, to proceed with the Defence Department as the principal authority for civil coastal surveillance. The first of those reasons was the cost and the appropriate role of defence assets. Defence assets primarily ought to be judged by the defence purposes they serve, and these are not necessarily going to be in the first instance assets that are the most useful for civil surveillance purposes. In the second instance, the Defence Department, understandably, would have considerable concern, and there would be considerable concern in this country, if it were to pursue its role in coastal surveillance to the extent that it involved in any way a necessity to place hands upon Australian civilians. The defence forces do not have that same concern about protecting our littoral regime against foreign intrusion, but there is that concern in relation to dealing with Australian nationals. In addition, defence assets are, of their nature, extremely expensive. Were we to use the Orions, for example, for the tasks currently performed by civil aerial littoral contracts, we would be using an asset that is dramatically more expensive for not a great deal of additional achievement. That in itself was another reason for not seeing the Defence Force as an appropriate body to carry out this surveillance. A common misconception in the public mind is that the United States Coastguard is a part of the United States Navy. The uniforms are similar and some of the Coastguard vessels carry very obvious armaments, but it is associated with the US Department of Transport, not the US Department of Defense. So having set aside the option of involving the defence forces as the controlling rather than the assisting body in the area of coastal surveillance, we addressed other alternatives. We identified several major problems in the system. The first was that interception and enforcement were poorly co-ordinated and inadequate. The second was that the system was over-centralised but offered no coherent career structure for any of the persons involved in it. There was a lack of essential interdepartmental co-operation in many areas which we thought, and several royal commissions thought, ought to play an increasing role in civil coastal surveillance, most notably in regard to the problem of narcotics smuggling. In the light of those criticisms, we cast about for an appropriate authority to play such a co-ordinating role. Clearly, if it is going to go across the border and have that interception and enforcement capability as well as simply being able to look at things, then there are really only two services to which that applied and they are the Australian Federal Police and the Bureau of Customs. We determined that, overall, the AFP, while deeply involved with Customs and having its trust in a number of areas, already co-operating with it in anti-narcotics operations-although it is involved as an enforcement agency with virtually all Federal departments-probably more than Customs is effectively positioned to be able to assume a co-ordinating role. That was one of the many criticisms that I found. I found it, too, amongst those involved in the civil contracts for coastal surveillance. Things were sighted and virtually no interception was undertaken. We found that the processes of interception and the processes of reporting the results of interception were extremely haphazard, to say the very least. There was clear evidence of a requirement for far more effective co-ordinated responses and co- ordinated organisation. Those of us who were involved in the inquiry did not consider that we necessarily had all the answers to the civil requirement. We identified a number of areas of weakness which we did not think we would have time to get ourselves involved in assessing. We thought it would be useful for the subsequent controlling department to examine those areas. Most notable, for example, was the requirement for night time surveillance. There was one evident weakness in our littoral surveillance. On occasions, with the assets available, the aerial littoral search picked up people who were unintentionally and not maliciously entering Australian territorial or economic zone waters. However, any person who sought to deliberately evade it, particularly to deliberately evade it by air, would not, because of the patterns of the patrols, necessarily find that an extremely difficult thing to do. That could occur at night. It could also occur during the day time when the planes were not around. Honourable members should remember that those planes pass over a fixed point at very considerable speed and are unlikely, necessarily, to pick up any person who is attempting to conceal his or her activity. We believe that there is a requirement for that problem to be addressed. It must be said, I think, that for it to be addressed effectively-like so many other aspects relating to our general defence forces as opposed to purely our civil requirements-we await the effective implementation of the Jindalee radar system and then air and ground activities associated with it. In the absence of that we believe that more work can be done in determining the right sort of equipment for the coastal surveillance unit to use. In relation to aerial civil contracts we believe that there is a requirement to pursue the policies of the previous Government. Essentially, in relation to the operation of those contracts, the user should pay. The civil contracts were revised by the previous Government, and by this Government from time to time, in accordance with those principles. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs found that the Nomad search that was done out to sea for refugee boats was no longer justified and the previous Government cut out that activity. We did not, in the report, conclude anything in particular about the existing civil contracts. However, when the report was tabled and the interdepartmental committee reported, it was discovered that the Department of Health had reported a lesser requirement. As honourable gentlemen know-though the former speaker, the honourable member for Boothby does not realise it-the Department of Health is responsible for quarantine matters. Effectively, the decisions made by the Government addressed the changed requirement reported to us by the Department of Health. This will have the side effect of freeing up, down the line, resources for the more extensive activity in the area of coastal surveillance that we anticipate arising out of this report. It will, I hope, free up funds available, if this is recommended, for ships and aircraft of a type perhaps more directly associated with the members of the police force and others who will be associated with the coastal surveillance activity. I think we can look forward to a far more effective coastal surveillance regime . As I said at the outset, the totality of the coastal surveillance regime, the defence assets, the new police assets and the current civil contract assets, all need to be seen as a whole and not taken out and pinpointed separately as was done by the previous speaker from the Opposition. We expect and are seeking, as has not been sought before, the active co- operation of the States because they have very distinct civil surveillance requirements. We have invited them to come on to co-ordinating committees with us. I am very pleased to be able to say that we have just received from the Western Australian Government an indication of its willingness to join us in this regard. I hope that the Queensland Government and the Northern Territory Government adopt the same view. I am sure they will. In fact, I think the Northern Territory Government already has. When the review is done by the new controlling body, by the State authorities and by our own co-ordinating committees, I think that what will emerge will be a far more effective regime on coastal surveillance at both the search end and the enforcement end. I am very proud to have been associated with the committee process that arrived at these conclusions. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.26) —On 15 April 1983, over a year ago, the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) was charged with the most important task of conducting an inquiry into a review of Australia's peacetime coastal surveillance and protection. He was requested to examine Australia's needs for coastal surveillance and protection in peacetime and how they are met, and to make a report and recommendations. The recommendations he was to make included recommendations on equipment, facilities and infrastructure and resources most appropriate to fulfil the requirements having regard to national benefit and economy. God knows, he has had plenty of time to do that. He has had over a year to direct his mind to this subject. The magnitude of peacetime surveillance and protection tasks faced by this country can be understood if one contemplates two figures only. We have a coastline of about 20,000 kilometres plus the Great Barrier Reef. We have an extended economic zone of roughly 6,500,000 square kilometres, an area just about the same size as Australia's continental land mass. Surveillance and protection is designed, amongst other things, to protect us against illegal migrants, environmental damage such as oil spill damage to the Great Barrier Reef, plunder of our fisheries, damage, whether intentional or unitentional, to our off-shore installations in the North West Shelf and Bass Strait areas, illegal drug running and the introduction of plant and animal diseases. I will say one or two things about two areas of those problems. We all know about the blight of narcotics that affects this country, of hard drug use. Narcotics are smuggled into this country in a variety of ways. For relevant purposes, there are three ways: There are drops from ships in coastal waters, small boat landings and drops from light planes. There are 540 known air strips within 1,000 nautical miles of Dili in Indonesia and 400 known air strips within 1,000 nautical miles of Bali. As for diseases, let us contemplate the problems that foot and mouth disease or the introduction of rabies would occasion in this country. Both occur in Indonesia. Rabies is endemic to that country. Reference was made in the report to the damage that would be caused if there was a foot and mouth outbeak. It states: In its submission to the 1981 Coastal Surveillance Review the Department of Health estimated that rural output could be expected to fall as much as $2,500m in the year of outbreak resulting from the closure of many overseas markets and price reductions in other markets. In subsequent years, losses in rural output could be as high as $1,700m per annum. That estimate was made in 1981. We would expect from this Government a serious report, a thoughtful report. It has, after all, been highly critical of the previous Government's actions. There is a commitment in the platform of the Australian Labor Party to a coastal protection force. As late as 27 February 1983 the eminent Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), who was the then Opposition' s spokesman on defence, spoke to the Australian Defence Association on the Australian Labor Party's defence priorities. Mark the words 'defence priorities' . He said: Coastal surveillance activities should be the responsibility of a coastal protection force under a single unit command with uniform Federal/State legislative authority for operations against smugglers, drugs and illegal immigration, landings or operation within Australia's economic or fishing zones. That was his commitment. What happened to it? It has disappeared. He continued: This will entail careful examination of- 1. the types of patrol craft needed for different areas of the Australian coast - mark that very important and thoughtful statement from a very thoughtful man- 2. the advantages of properly equipped aircraft for coastal surveillance; 3. the specific need to provide patrol boat basing facilities on the north west coast; 4. the need for diversification of coastal surveillance and patrol facilities with special consideration of the needs of northern Australia, the currently neglected south coast, and Tasmania. So much for the commitments of the Government when in opposition. If one looks at the 10 pages of the recommendations and reads them carefully one will see that effectively they add up to what the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) called a shuffling of the cards. We have a reordering of machinery, co-ordination and control. There is to be no change in the system in the field. There is to be no attempt to answer the recommendations required of the Minister for Aviation. I remind him, since he is in the House, that he was asked to give recommendations on the equipment, facilities, infrastructure and resources most appropriate to fulfil the requirements having regard to national benefit and economy. No new resources are being allocated, although this evening we heard the Minister talk about over-the-horizon radar. I think that he was talking also about an airborne warning and controlling system. When will we get this system? Will it be in the 1990s or the year 2000? The Minister does not know. He does not have the slightest idea. He has done nothing to tell this House about the Government's proposals for coastal surveillance and protection, for the protection of our extended fishing zone and all else that was encompassed within his terms of reference. All he came up with was a bland, round and rotund statement designed to fob off the problems to another day and to another person. No new resources are being allocated to this most serious of national concerns. Instead we will have a net loss of resources. We will have a loss in flying hours. This matter was referred to by the honourable member for Boothby. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), in the manner to which we are not unaccustomed, managed to forget to point out that flying hours were going down when he was interviewed on PM. There is to be a real reduction in surveillance. At least the Special Minister of State got that right. I must quote his statement again-it has been quoted also by the honourable member for Boothby- because it is a jewel. He said: However, the Department of Health maintains that current levels of aerial littoral surveillance are excessive. I will return to that. He continued: In line with this assessment contract aerial surveillance arrangements will be rationalised- Mark the word 'rationalised'; does it not sound intelligent and logical- to provide significant cost savings and minimise the predictability of flights over the north Australian coastline and the Great Barrier Reef. If one rationalises and provides significant cost savings one will certainly minimise the predictability of aerial surveillance because one is cutting down on it. The Special Minister of State should have pursued that piece of logic and simply abandoned the flights altogether, in which event he would be able to say that they were wholly unpredictable since they would not be taking place. Let us look at something the Special Minister of State did mention. No doubt it was an oversight on his behalf. He said: The Department of Health maintains that current levels of aerial littoral surveillance are excessive. However, what he did not refer to was the other recommendation of the Department of Health, which is to be found in the report. The Department of Health said: The Department of Health's review proposes a shift in emphasis from surveillance by aircraft to more regular, routine patrolling by patrol boats and other surface surveillance vessels. Where was there any mention of that by the Special Minister of State? Where was there any mention of that by the Minister for Aviation? Where has there been any attempt in this report and in the so-called recommendations of the Minister for Aviation to deal with that issue? Nowhere at all. What equipment would we have available to conduct such surveillance? There is talk of using patrol boats. We have nine boats-five in Cairns and four in Darwin-which, subject to repairs and refit, have 10,000 kilometres of coastline to patrol. On top of that we have the discontinuance of the use of the Tracker aircraft and the use of the Nomad aircraft with the far more effective radar which was referred to by the honourable member for Boothby. That represents a very great net diminution in the effectiveness of our surveillance and protection work. In the report which was presented to us-it took a year in gestation-there was no analysis of the need for search and rescue services. That is a Commonwealth responsibility and one of which we are all grievously aware. It was not so long ago that this House debated the Bass Strait tragedy. Because search and air rescue services could not get to a man in time he died, even though he was found in the waters of the Strait and could be seen there alive and waving, no doubt hoping that somebody would manage to get to him. What of the trawlers in the northern waters? It is not long ago that we all read of the terrible tragedy where two people were taken by a tiger shark after being left in the water. Why does the Government not direct its mind to these sorts of questions? There was not a mention of that in the Minister's recommendation and there was but a fleeting reference to search and rescue in the report itself. This would be a bad enough measure of the shortcomings of the report, but there are others, reflecting on the Government's integrity and the demonstrable incompetence of the Minister for Aviation. Let me read the Minister's recommendation on narcotics: I recommend that the national surveillance effort in future give more attention to assisting in activities relating to the prevention of the illegal entry of narcotics. We all agree with that but, as the Minister in charge of the task had a year in which to consider it, one would think he would have told us how that was going to happen. He did not. What else do we have? We have the proposals of the Minister for Defence about a coastal protection force. No mention is really made of that; it is dismissed. That was a commitment solemnly made by the Labor Party on the eve of the election when even the Minister for Defence was able to concentrate his mind on essentials. That proposal has been entirely scrapped. Let me remind honourable members of the specific issues with which the Government intended to deal. The Government intended to examine the type of patrol craft needed for different areas of the Australian coast. Where has the Minister done that? There is reference to advantages of properly equipped aircraft for coastal surveillance. What do we have of that? What about the specific need to provide patrol boat base facilities in the north-west? That has gone. What about the need for diversification of coastal surveillance and patrol facilities with special consideration of the needs of northern Australia? I ask honourable members to listen to this: What about the currently neglected south coast and Tasmania? Tasmania features in the report only to be dismissed and not given any consideration by the Minister. There is no reference for any need to do anything for Tasmania in the Minister's recommendations. I will summarise this examination of a long report, a report which has quite a few appendices to it, a report which runs for over 100 pages. It is slipshod; it is padded. It fails to address serious issues. It is bereft of any considered analysis of the terms of reference, raising as they do Australia's need for coastal surveillance and protection which in principle nobody in this House would regard as other than an issue of the highest national importance. We have this from a Minister who has pretentions to be the Minister for Defence. By judgment on his own recommendations he has the sense of direction, purpose, commitment and energy of a school of stranded whales rotting somewhere on the northern coast where they would remain unobserved in the event that this Government continues down the road that it is presently taking. We know why it is going down this road. It is because it does not give a damn what really happens and because it thinks that if it keeps on shuffling the cards and presenting to the people reports which are almost deliberately obscure, somehow the Australian people will be deceived into believing that the Government is a Government of action, integrity and competence when demonstrably on the basis of this report it most certainly is not. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(9.43) —If that is the best our eminent QC can glean from reading what is a comprehensive and very valuable report, I can only say: 'Pity help the Opposition'. It is appropriate that he is sitting on the other side with goldilocks rather than over here. The facts are that the coastal surveillance system that was reviewed by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is the making of those who sit opposite. They spent seven busy years at it. It provides a level of surveillance to Tasmania that Opposition members now deem to be unsatisfactory but it was achieved by their own hands. Glory be to them and let all the thanks and commendations about the quality of surveillance of Tasmania under the system they left us be accredited to them. It is of their own doing. Again tonight we have had confessions. We had trotted in the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall ) and others will follow on the trail later. They complained about what they did not do in their seven years of office. I am sorry for the honourable gentlemen. They had their turn. They muffed it and what we have done in the new arrangements is to try to introduce a system that will give better value for the Australian taxpayer's dollar, that will give a much better and more effective coastal surveillance system-a system that will provide a better line of command and control of the coastal surveillance operation, a system that will provide a much speedier response than the shambles that the Opposition left us, and a system in which there will be a much better line of enforcement, all gathered together under a unitary control in this coastal protection unit under the aegis of the Australian Federal Police. What Opposition members really want, from listening to the discussion tonight, is to keep the system which they developed over seven years. I described it as a Dad's Army effort and on occasions honourable members opposite admitted that. They want it left that way so that they can fiddle with it. It deals with contracts with a nod and a wink. Really, honourable members opposite, particularly the honourable member for Boothby, were complaining about two contractors whose contracts had expired. This is a mixed economy. It is a land of mixed enterprise. There are things such as commercial judgments. Let me deal with the two contracts. One contract was let to a firm called AireSearch Pty Ltd of Townsville and commenced operating in December 1980. It was extended in December 1982. Rather than going to tender with other firms in this mixed economy, firms that would like to supply that service, it was extended in December 1982 by the previous Government. We were then left to extend it again in March 1983, April 1983 and June 1983 until March this year to give time to review the system that those opposite had left us. I must say in respect of AireSearch that that company made a commercial judgment when it tendered. If it did its homework it would have amortised its investment for the period of the contract. That is a commercial judgment. Are we to expect that Australian firms operating in the market place should be featherbedded and should not- Mr Braithwaite —But did you ask them to re-tender? Mr PETER MORRIS —The Opposition was in Government, not us. The honourable member for Dawson should not come to me with his problems. The company made a commercial judgment in making that investment and in tendering for it. But it did not finish then. Let us compare that with the position of Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd in Western Australia. Under the previous Government its contract expired on the due date. The company tendered against the rest of the market and won the contract again on its merits. I will now give the history of the case of Northern Territory Aerial Work. That contract was originally let to Connair Pty Ltd but, because of the action of that Government, the company sold out to Northern Airlines (Operations) Pty Ltd before it took delivery of the Nomad aircraft which were essential to the provision of the service. In February 1981 Northern Airlines was unable to continue the contract and it sub-let the contract to a firm called trans executive for 60 days. At that stage the Northern Territory Government, that great champion of democracy and integrity, stepped in and said to the Commonwealth-to the then Government-that Ansett Airlines of Australia was the only operator that it was prepared to licence for airline and other service operations within the Northern Territory. Northern Airlines then applied to the then Federal Government to assign the coastal surveillance contract to Ansett and that was approved. Again, it was an intrusion in the market place and again it was an intrusion in the rights of firms that would have liked to tender for the provision of that service. Surveillance operations were then carried by NTAW, an Ansett subsidiary . The contracts were re-negotiated and extended until 31 March 1983, after four various extensions because of the late delivery of the Nomads, NTAW could have expected a total of 125 aircraft months of operation under the littoral and off- shore contracts it took over. The refugee or boat people patrols, the Darwin approaches, ceased on 31 March last year. That was a decision taken by those who now sit opposite, not by us. We simply confirmed it. It was their decision. They should not come in here complaining that we have terminated contracts that they determined should be terminated in March last year. As far as NTAW is concerned, that company received, by extensions, some 39 aircraft months of operation over and above the original contract. Again, I put to those who sit opposite: This is a mixed economy. There is such a thing as a commercial judgment and that judgment was made. Mr Hodgman —Marxist economy. Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member for Denison can speak for himself. That decision was made by the company. When Connair sold out to Northern Airlines, Northern Airlines valued the assets and liabilities of Connair and the contracts it held. It would have placed a value upon those contracts, a commercial judgment of what they were worth and what they could have yielded. Similarly, when Ansett took over from Northern Airlines, it would have made a commercial judgment on the value; so that case does not stand. The Government has operated in a way that can only be seen as honourable and appropriate in all of the circumstances. As I said earlier, the mess that we inherited was the doing of those who sit opposite. Let me refer now to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Boothby. But before doing that, I seek leave-the honourable member for Boothby had agreed to this-to incorporate in Hansard a document entitled 'Previous Aerial Charter Arrangements for Coastal Surveillance'. I have approval from the honourable member for Boothby. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) — A ruling has been made by Mr Speaker regarding the incorporation of written material in Hansard. Mr PETER MORRIS —This is not lengthy material. It is very brief. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has ruled that only charts, tables and things like that will be incorporated in Hansard. Mr PETER MORRIS —I will table it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Do you seek leave to table it? Is leave granted? Mr PETER MORRIS —I do not need leave to table it. As a Minister, I can table it. As I explained, the terms of those two contracts were terminated in those circumstances. The reduction in the number of hours was a recommendation of the Department of Health. It is in the report. It is very easy to see. Obviously, the honourable member for North Sydney was not able to glean that from the report. It is there in bold type. The reasons are given for it. Is there anything more ludicrous than having a littoral surveillance in a time of monsoon when the coastline, the littoral, is floodbound? Does the honourable member really believe that people will make illegal entry into the Australian coast in small boats from the vast north at a time when the whole area is floodbound? The Department of Health said in its submission that there would be better value for the Australian taxpayer and better protection against quarantine breach when there was a better organisation of the utilisation of aerial surveillance and surface craft surveillance. The honourable member for Boothby talked about the range of the Lytton 360 degree radar. I think he took his information from the segment on Nationwide on Australian Boardcasting Corporation television last night. It showed that a Nomad aircraft with Lytton radar had a range of 125 kilometres. Sure, it has-at 10,000 feet. I am quite sure that a Nomad aircraft at 10,000 feet, which is the limit of its operating height can see a lot. It may even detect a small craft in difficulty at 10,000 feet. But the comparison was made with the side looking airborne radar system of the Shrike aircraft at 1,500 feet. It is a simple matter of geometry. If one aircraft is at 1,500 feet and the other is at 10,000 feet the aircraft at 10,000 feet will have a much wider span. It is completely dishonest to put that argument against those aircraft. It is a total misrepresentation. Mr Steele Hall —But your Minister said it; your colleague said it. Mr PETER MORRIS —I am explaining it to you so you will understand, Goldilocks. I do not have time to repeat it but that is the position. The simple fact is that the SLAR system is half the price of the Lytton system. It is used by the Swedish coastguard. I imagine that it would have assessed its effectiveness beforehand. It is used by seven other national systems around the world quite effectively. For the purposes for which it is now being delineated in coastal surveillance it is effective and appropriate. It is a total misrepresentation on the part of any of those involved to suggest that it is a weaker system than the Lytton 360 degree system. It is a tragedy that people have attacked Skywest and its employees and attempted to disparage that firm to the vested interest of AireSearch and NTAW. I think it is quite sad. I have flown with the people of Skywest. I have flown with AireSearch and I have inspected the facilities of NTAW. I have the greatest confidence in the personnel of each of the three firms in their professionalism and dedication to their services on behalf of this country. No one has suggested in the past that the personnel of Skywest do a lesser quality job in the task of coastal surveillance than those of AireSearch or NTAW. What we have heard from the Opposition, some sections of the media in recent days and certainly from the lobbyists of AireSearch has been a very distorted and dishonest emotional campaign. It was designed to advance the financial interest of two organisations , without having regard to the fact that it disparaged the professionalism and dedication of all the people who serve in coastal surveillance. I am positive that the new arrangements will be more effective, that they will allow heightened co-operation with the States and a more efficient utilisation of total resources. Originally, civil coastal surveillance co-ordination became part of the responsibilities of the transport portfolio mainly because my Department operated a 24-hour a day, seven days a week Marine Operations Centre. Its principal role was, and remains, marine search and rescue and the safety of life at sea. Over three-quarters of its work load is related to this service. I reassure the maritime industry and those who serve at sea that the Centre's primary function will continue. It will also continue to be controlled and manned by officers of my Department. The experience, expertise and professionalism built up by the Centre will be maintained and improved. After the Centre was set up it became increasingly a focus for all kinds of information about unusual occurrences in the maritime zone. It was logical and cost effective to use it for the receipt of surveillance reports. This role will be maintained. The Coastal Protection Unit will now be a joint user of the Centre. An officer of the Unit will be posted there, able to monitor, analyse and interpret information received through its extensive communication facilities and to initiate response action. Current plans provide that some members of the Coastal Protection Unit will be located on the same floor of the Centre when it moves into the first stage of new offices for my Department in Canberra City in July or August next. This will have the Centre-- Mr White —What are you doing about night surveillance? Mr PETER MORRIS —What did the former Government do in seven years? It did absolutely nothing. The honourable member should not come to me with his problems. This will have the Centre located with the Department and in close proximity to the central offices of the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Aviation. Additionally, the Department of Transport will maintain the contracting, supervision and training of civil contractors engaged in the performance of coastal surveillance tasks, tasks which it has undertaken previously and which it has the skills and experience to continue to provide for the benefit of the Coastal Protection Unit. Policy co-ordination and the direction of effort including response, system development and evaluation will be the role of the Coastal Protection Unit, responsible to my colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). Honourable members will have noted that the new arrangements retain the sensible aspects of the previous scheme. These include the undoubted discipline of the user pays arrangements, co-ordination of Commonwealth effort and effective utilisation of a significant defence resource contribution. The new arrangements, however, set in place features, including other new features, which will be welcomed by all Australians, particularly those in north Australia . The certain identification of those responsible for coastal protection, the establishment of regional centres in the North for those departments sharing interests and responsibilities in this important area and the establishment of formal liaison arrangements with State governments are significant steps forward . Their value will become more apparent as the new system is developed and put into place. I commend the new arrangements to honourable members and I register my commendation of the Minister for Aviation for this thorough and comprehensive report in what was a very difficult task in a system left to us after seven years of incompetence, bungling and mismanagement by those who now sit opposite and seek to blame us for their own inefficiencies and defects. Mr Steele Hall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) -Order! It is the usual practice, when anyone claims to have been misrepresented, to come to the Chair beforehand and discuss the matter. There is some business before the Chair before the honourable member for Boothby will be heard. Mr Steele Hall —Can I take a point of order? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Perhaps the honourable member will just give the Chair a moment. The Miniser for Transport asked that a document be tabled. While a Minister may present a paper at any time when other business is not before the House and not require leave, to present a paper, when the House is debating a motion before it he requires leave. Is leave granted for the Minister to table the document? There being no objection, leave is granted. The document is tabled . I call the honourable member for Boothby. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise with no disrespect to you at all. If I have transgressed in not speaking to you, I apologise. However, I rise under the respective standing order, which I understand allows me to make a personal explanation if I am not interrupting a member who is on his feet at the time. Is my understanding correct? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr STEELE HALL —Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr Peter Morris —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a straight transgression by the honourable member against your earlier ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No it is not. My ruling was that it is a matter of courtesy to the Chair which is usually observed. I now call the honourable member for Boothby to make a quick explanation of how he has been misrepresented. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) who is at the table , has claimed that Opposition speakers have criticised the employees-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Has the honourable member been personally misrepresented? Mr STEELE HALL —He personally misrepresented me in claiming that I had criticised the firm Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd and, by imputation, its employees. I have not. Nowhere in my speech did I criticise the firm Skywest for any proposition whatsoever. My criticism was directed quite clearly at the Ministers responsible for the change in policy in relation to Australian coastal surveillance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr STEELE HALL —If I may finish on this point: We are concerned about the choice of equipment, which severely limits the performance of those who provide this service in relation to what they can survey. I must reject any claim that I have criticised the personnel, for whom I have the greatest admiration but who will now have to continue their work with less efficient equipment at their disposal because of this Minister's agreement with the change. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I do not think we need a protracted debate. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek a similar indulgence from you on the same matter. I think that such a request is reasonable and fair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Minister can be short and sweet about it, I will allow him to speak. Mr PETER MORRIS —Well, I will try to do better than the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). The fact is that the Opposition, including the honourable member, has cast aspersions on the quality of the new arrangements and the effectiveness of the service. That service is being provided by the same personnel who operated for Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd for some years. By the criticism he has heaped upon the service and the aspersions he has cast on it he is directly criticising the people who provide the service. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is going far beyond a personal explanation. He is debating the matter. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.03) —I want to assure the Government that it is not a matter of attacking Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd or protecting the interests of the contractors, as was implied by the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). There is certainly no attack on Skywest. You will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have no animosity towards Skywest. In fact, I have recently flown with that airline. The Opposition is attacking Government practices. It takes Ministers on the other side of the table a heck of a long time to get it through their heads that they are under attack. They are probably unaware of this because they have such thick hides. The imputation by the Minister for Transport that we have supported two contractors in the eastern and northern coasts is not in keeping with the facts. Before the Minister leaves the chamber I would like to make a comment in connection with commercial transactions. All the firms involved in coastal surveillance contracts entered into a commercial transaction. We are asking that the people who provided the services and the aircraft be given the right to make a commercial decision as to what the cost of fresh arrangements would be. There is no way in the wide world that the Government can say this is not a fresh arrangement. It is not correct to suggest, as the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) did early last month, that the whole arrangement is a deployment. It is not a deployment, it is a fresh arrangement. I am sure that the three companies which have an interest in the contract believe that the Government will put this matter beyond question. I believe that this is the correct way to handle such a matter. I hope the Minister recognises the fact that he is under attack, not Skywest. I agree that a tremendous amount of work has been put into the Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangments by the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). The review was necessary and I believe that the work the Minister has done is of great value to this Parliament. Obviously the recommendations in the report have been taken into account by the Government . In saying that, again we are not decrying or attacking the report. What we are trying to do is sift the facts on which the Government is now basing its decision. No one suggests that the arrangements were not necessary. No one suggests the surveillance of Australia should not be put in the hands of one authority instead of the mish mash that existed before. What more appropriate authority could one have than the Australian Federal Police centred in Canberra, where it can be readily contacted and can handle any emergency situation that may arise. This arrangement will also allow the Australian Federal Police to do all the other things that need to be done with the information it will receive. Honourable members with electorates around the coastline from the Northern Territory right round to the electorate of Dawson, are vitally concerned about surveillance of Australia, and they are in the chamber tonight. The comments of some of my colleagues on this matter prior to the presentation of the report and the Government's decision emphasised that the continuation of surveillance was absolutely vital. I want to refer to a comment made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) which was reported in the Innisfail Advocate. He said: 'I told the Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley, it was imperative that constant and adequate surveillance be maintained along the 1,200 miles of Queensland coastline bounded by the Great Barrier Reef' . . . The newspaper also reports the honourable member as saying that the role of coastal surveillance involves much more than might be initially indicated by just surveying the coast. He continued: It also involves search and rescue, ship source pollution, merchant vessel movements, and protection of historic shipwrecks and marine life. I believe that that is a very adequate reflection of what the people of North Queensland and, I suggest, the Northern Territory, feel about this. The honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), who is also in the chamber tonight , has stressed that there should be no downgrading of the present standard of the surveillance service and that surveillance should be improved, the search and rescue capability maximised and the deterrent effect enhanced. I believe that these comments were recorded in the Cairns Post on 17 December 1982. It is interesting to note the views of these two honourable members following the statement by the Minister late in March. The honourable member for Herbert is now saying that coastal surveillance should not be confused with air-sea rescue. I believe that air-sea rescue is a very important aspect of coastal surveillance. The honourable member for Leichhardt was reported as saying on 4 April that 'not a single arrest for drug smuggling had been made as a result of air surveillance' and that criticism of the new arrangements was unwarranted. Yet item 3.37 of the report we are discussing tonight sets out the sightings, the reports and the follow-ups by Customs and the transgressions that were prosecuted. It is interesting that all the transgressions that ended in prosecution resulted from sightings by Nomad aircraft. I think that that fact is significant in itself. If we are to make judgment of the effectiveness of the aircraft and equipment used to date for surveillance purposes we must come down on the side of the Nomad aircraft. We have the suggestion that there has been no downgrading of surveillance. Yet, the cost aspect has been very relevant in all the discussions we have heard. In fact, I would suggest that in making the original statement a cost saving exercise involving $1m or $2m was paramount in the mind of the Government. I believe that the Government has reduced the efficiency of the service by adopting this course. In addition, it has put aside the normal practices of government in terms of calling for tenders and allowing individuals to compete for the best price. Australia will not have the best surveillance available by opting for the cheapest alternative, and I believe the Government has failed in this regard. About two weeks ago I took the opportunity to fly in the Nomad aircraft and I was able to observe the use that is made of its equipment. I cannot say that I have been in the Shrike aircraft or observed the side-looking airborne radar that is carried by that aircraft. However, I can say that I am impressed by what the Nomad aircraft did. The radar observer was able to direct the pilot right on to a target by using information transferred from the back of the aircraft. I understand that the equipment has no equal in the world today. We have been talking about over-the-horizon radar. But when, in the name of goodness, will we get it? Can Australia be left undefended? We need this facility immediately to deter other people from the temptation to offend against our laws. I understand that the side-looking airborne radar is not immediately available for the Shrike aircraft to put into use. With one contract having been terminated at the end of April, the equipment necessary to go ahead with the surveillance contemplated is not available. So for just one month Australia is undefended. Do we tell the rest of the world that for a month it is open market in Australia and the people can do what they like? This decision is a shortcoming of the Government. There is no suggestion in the new arrangements as to who is to bear the cost of the new equipment. Will the Government bear the cost? Has that factor been taken into account? I understand that the equipment costs between $350,000 and $500, 000 a set. Who will bear this cost? Will Skywest be given the opportunity to acquire it and increase its charge? This has not been mentioned. However, I understand that the Government intends to buy the equipment. What a great commercial arrangement that is! There will be an aircraft fitted with equipment belonging to two separate owners. I believe these matters should be understood. I really want to come to the basis of what has been accepted under the regulations of the Australian Parliament. I refer to the finance regulations and finance directions applicable to all Commonwealth Departments. Section 25 refers to tenders and quotations and states: The underlying intention of regulations 51, 52, 52AA and 53 is that Government procurement procedures should be, and be seen to be, beyond reproach: ie, that all who wish to participate in Government business are given the opportunity to do so: That the Government maintains a reputation for fair dealing . . . The question that has to be asked in this case is whether the Government has maintained a reputation for fair dealing and given all who wish to participate in government business the chance to do so. I suggest that that is not the case. The mischievous excuse of redeployment has been used. I refer now to the regulations relating to exemptions from quotations and tendering procedures. They state: Regulation 52AA (2) empowers the Secretary to the Department of Finance to certify that, for certain kinds of supply, it is impracticable or inexpedient to use the tender or quotation procedures. In these cases a 'certificate of exemption' can be issued. The question has to be asked: Was that permission sought and was that certificate of exemption given ? I would suggest in both cases that the Government has failed its own tests under the Audit Act in this regard. Because of what was revealed in the Beazley report I believe that everybody should be given the chance to retender. It should have been a commercial decision in the first instance. The cost of the aircraft would have been written off in the period of the contract. Is it not obvious that that same company now, in the face of competitition, the reduced cost and the depreciated value of the aircraft, could lower its tender? On 4 April 1984, during an adjournment debate, I asked two questions. The same two questions have not yet been answered by the Government in this debate. I asked: Firstly, is the cost of the reduction in the service worth the downgrading of coastal surveillance? I refer particularly to night surveillance. I then asked: 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? All that the Special Minister of State could say was this: . . . 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. I suggest that these people have not been allowed to retender in accordance with the new circumstances. But the Minister wiped all of these questions by just saying 'we are redeploying'. Mr Peter Morris —That is a lie. That is a lie and you know it. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I would like that comment withdrawn. The Minister was not even listening to what I was saying. He is as thick in the hair as he is in the head and I believe he should withdraw the comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member for Dawson has sought a withdrawal of the comment by the Minister for Transport. Obviously he is a little sensitive about that comment. Would the Minister for Transport withdraw the remark he made? Mr Peter Morris —I seek a mutual withdrawal, Mr Deputy Speaker. I withdraw but I seek a mutual withdrawal of a similar offensive comment from the honourable member for Dawson. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister for Transport has withdrawn his offensive remark . He also was offended by the comment made by the honourable member for Dawson. Would the honourable member for Dawson withdraw his remark. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It surprises me that he could be offended but I will withdraw. There are more matters to this surveillance than meets the eye. If the surveillance scheme is to be taken out of the hands of this Parliament the Government should be called to account for all these aspects now. We are talking about search and rescue. What price does the Government place on the value of a life? That is one of the main aspects of what we are talking about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.08) —The distance between the most northern part of the Northern Territory's coastline and East Timor is about 400 kilometres. The distance between the most northern tip of Cape York and Papua New Guinea is about 140 kilometres. To put those figures in context for those southerners in this House who have spoken tonight, the Northern Territory-East Timor distance is about the same as the distance between Sydney and Dubbo or between Melbourne and Mount Gambier. The Cape York-Papua New Guinea distance is shorter than the distance between Sydney and Newcastle or between Melbourne and Bendigo. If the people of Sydney thought that there was in the Dubbo or Newcastle area or if the people of Melbourne thought that there was in the Mount Gambier area or Bendigo area a rabies outbreak, a hostile army, an illicit drug operation or thousands of people who wanted to get into Sydney or Melbourne, they would throw up the largest barriers they possibly could and guard them day and night to try to stop the entry of the plague, the army, the drugs or the fleeing refugees. Unfortunately, Australia's concern about these types of problems, about diseases , drug smuggling and illegal immigrants in northern Australia reduces in inverse proportion to the distance beween the south east triangle of Australia and the area affected wherever that area is, whether in Australia or not. The best example of that syndrome is the fact that the vast majority of Australia's Defence Force is still stationed in our south east corner and not in the north of Australia where any threat to Australia is most likely to come. In northern Australia, specifically in the Northern Territory, the concern about these problems is real and considerable. Thus coastal surveillance is a very real and sensitive issue in the north. Australia has operated some form of coastal surveillance for many years. This surveillance has been done by the Department of Defence, the Australian Customs Bureau, the Department of Transport and many others. In the past five or six years there have been two reviews of Australia's coastal surveillance operations, one in 1978 and the recent review which has led to this debate. So far as the Northern Territory is concerned the recommendations in 'A Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements' have two broad effects. Firstly, the existing coastal surveillance contracts with Northern Territory Aerial Work Pty Ltd have been terminated, effective from last Monday. Secondly, a regional office of the new Coastal Protection Unit will be established in Darwin thus ensuring better local co-operation of coastal surveillance in the north and a more effective response mechanism for coastal surveillance in the Northern Territory. As a result of the first broad effect I mentioned, 37 people in Darwin lost their jobs. I think I should make a number of points about that. Firstly, it was the previous Fraser Government which killed Northern Territory Aerial Work Pty Ltd some 2 years ago. It did that by by removing the tender conditions that it specifically set that forced contractors to use Nomads. It is interesting to note that tonight the Opposition's spokesman on Northern Territory development was telling us that Nomads are the answer. A couple of years ago his Government specifically changed the rules and forced Northern Territory Aerial Work into using Nomads and then changed the rules half-way through the contract and left that company stranded. If Northern Territory Aerial Work had been able to tender for contracts it could not have competed because it was competing against cheaper planes, such as the Shrike, that the former Government allowed into the contract. The second aspect of this broad first effect that I am referring to is that, having dealt this death blow to NTAW, the former Government did not have the decency to bury it. Why? Because an early election was coming up. Instead, it extended the contracts for short periods to try to tide it over the election period. It did not tell NTAW what it had in mind. It did not tell the people of the Northern Territory what it was going to do about coastal surveillance. By contrast, in the past 14 months this Government has carried out a very complete and detailed review of coastal surveillance in Australia. I compliment the Minister for Aviation Mr Beazley, on the excellent report that he has produced. It sets out clearly the Government's position on coastal surveillance and the recommendations contained in it have introduced some certainty into the future of coastal surveillance. Thirdly, while the previous Government is directly responsible for what happened to NTAW, this Government is concerned about the people who lost their jobs. Both the Office of the Special Minister of State and I have had discussions with Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd and Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd about the employment prospects which can be offered by those two companies when they establish facilities in Darwin. It is good to see that three of the observers have already got employment with Skywest, and it is reported that one or two more have prospects of employment as well. Several engineers have found employment but, so far as the pilots are concerned, the picture may not be as bright. Northern Territory Aerial Work is a subsidiary of Ansett Airlines of Australia. Despite that Ansett has refused to take on the pilots displaced by the decision. Ansett seems to have wiped its hands of these pilots. However, Skywest is interested in setting up a facility in Darwin not only for coastal surveillance but also for its regular passenger transport operations. The establishment of such a facility will open up employment opportunities for the pilots displaced in Darwin. The fourth point that I would like to make about the NTAW situation relates to the amount of notice it received. As has already been observed tonight, any government contractor has to run the gauntlet of tendering for ongoing contracts such as this. Northern Territory Aerial Work had no guarantee it would continue to get this contract. Given the position it was put in by the previous Government whereby it was forced into buying more expensive aircraft it really did not have much chance of winning the contract if it tendered. But I do think that in the particular circumstances NTAW should have been given more time than one month's notice of the termination of its contract-perhaps a few months more. The debate about the future of the former NTAW employees has overshadowed the announced changes to the coastal surveillance system and the benefits which will flow from those changes. The table at page 3-24 of the report entitled 'A Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements' indicates the broad range of departments and incidents which are or could be covered by coastal surveillance. The table nominates 14 departments which have an interest in coastal surveillance, and it also nominates 21 separate tasks covered by coastal surveillance, from quarantine to the inspection of navigational aids. In the past the major task of coastal surveillance has been quarantine. The Northern Territory office of the Federal Department of Health made a submission to the review conducted by Mr Beazley, and it made a number of fairly relevant points in the quarantine surveillance area. The first point that I would like to refer to is the fact that the Department's assessment is based on five years actual experience in coastal surveillance. With that experience the Department is probably in the best position to assess quarantine needs. What is more, if it happens to be wrong, the Department will be responsible. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) has already pointed to the section of the report which sets out what effect a rabies scare or plague in Australia may have on our primary industry. The figures contained in the report are certainly very sobering. I suggest that the report recommends a system which will ensure that there is a better system of co-ordination and response in coastal surveillance in relation to quarantine and a number of other areas. The second point on which the Northern Territory section of the Department of Health made some comment is that of the 95 sightings concerning quarantine in the Northern Territory since March 1982, two involved actual breaches of quarantine regulations or legislation. The Department points out that each of these breaches of quarantine costs over $1m to detect. It went on to point out that the overall quarantine threat is, in its assessment, very low. This is not a case of somebody making this assessment from ivory towers in Canberra; it was done by the Northern Territory establishment of the Federal Department of Health -the people on the ground in the Northern Territory. Further, the Department has said that it would favour the banning of pets on foreign fishing vessels licensed to fish in the Australian fishing zone. That is aimed at reducing the threat that they pose through the introduction of rabies. I think that suggestion should be followed up and acted on. The Department states further that in many instances responses have been rather unprofessional and disorganised. This supports many other similar suggestions, and it is dealt with by the recommendations in the report, to establish a coastal protection unit under the Australian Federal Police with a regional co-ordination unit in Darwin. The Department of Health concluded that it favoured a military based surveillance system. That view is not supported by the recommendations in the report for two reasons. Firstly, the Australian Federal Police is responsible for law enforcement and it is not really the role of the Department of Defence to conduct law enforcement in Australia. Secondly, as is indicated by the report , the cost of a coastal protection force was estimated at between $365m and $ 450m in capital costs in 1977 figures, and a further $55m a year in operational costs thereafter. That is clearly an enormous expense. The Federal Department of Health's submissions have raised many of the issues relevant to quarantine. The report also recommends boosting surveillance on drug smuggling. This recommendation is very important because, as the Customs and police operations become more effective in detecting entries through traditional ports in Australia, illegal drug entry through remote areas of the north is likely to increase. As I said earlier, the Minister should be commended on his report. It is very unfortunate that one section of the media in the Northern Territory, specifically the Northern Territory News, has chosen to attack the report and its recommendations. On this issue the Northern Territory News has continued its biased campaign against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Labor Government. I do not know which of the two is worse-the Northern Territory News or the Northern Territory Government. But it is very interesting to contrast its attitude towards the decision made by this Government with a very similar decision made by the previous Government just over two years ago. In January 1982 the former Government made a decision relating to coastal surveillance. That is the decision that has been referred to about changing the rules on the Nomads. An editorial in the Northern Territory News had this to say about it: Improved radar, communications and navigation equipment will undoubtedly make better use of airborne hours. And provided the same efficiency can be obtained from more cheaply-operated aircraft, there is no reason why the relatively expensive Nomads should be retained, other than for the approaches to Darwin and along the Great Barrier Reef. Two years later, when this Government made a decision in basically the same areas, the newspaper had this to say: The Nomad surveillance aircraft with their excellent radar equipment will be replaced by smaller, cheaper aircraft which will conduct what amounts to no more than beach patrols. For those honourable members who have any doubt about what the newspaper said about the overall effect of the previous Government's decision, I shall quote from the editorial of 12 January 1982- Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.31) —I would like to talk briefly about the live sheep export trade, which is worth over $150m to the Australian economy. Every year it involves the export of over six million live sheep. Of those six million, over one and a half million go through the port of Portland. During the last six years there have been several inquiries into the live sheep trade. These inquiries have repeatedly shown that the live sheep trade should continue. They have also reiterated that the net effects of the live sheep trade on employment are beneficial to Australia. In releasing last year the most recent report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said: Although the scope of the BAE report is much wider than the employment implications of the live sheep trade, its clear message is that retricting the live trade would be self-defeating, ultimately resulting in a smaller national flock and fewer slaughterings in Australia. Mr Kerin went on to say: The BAE study presents strong evidence that the live sheep trade leads to an increase in the number of females in the Australian flock and more lambs are produced. This is turn provides more animals for the carcass trade and to renew the national flock. In Portland, which I mentioned earlier, we have a rather strange situation. Over the last three weeks in particular three ships have been loaded there, but every truck that takes sheep into the wharf has to go across a picket line composed of a small group of picketers. This picket line is not endorsed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, but it is a remarkable thing that the Cain Labor Government has given a new status to this picket line. The Cain Labor Government has given a directive to the Victoria Police to allow these unionists in the picket line to 'put their point of view'. This means that the picketers can direct the Victoria Police to stop every truck that goes across that picket line . This is in fact what is happening. So a truck which may cross the picket line 10 times in one day has to stop every time at the direction of the Victoria Police. Mr Hodgman —It is a police state. Mr HAWKER —It sounds like it. I believe that this is quite a remarkable situation when the Cain Government is endorsing a picket line which the ACTU will not. Mr Hand —Don't you care about the workers from Borthwicks? Mr HAWKER —I say for the benefit of the honourable member for Melbourne that if he reads the BAE report he will find that more employment is created by this trade than was ever taken away by it. As I was saying, it represents gross interference with the responsibilities of the Victoria Police to have the Victorian Government directing the police to take their orders from a picket line. I believe this is quite outrageous. To prove that I support those truck drivers and waterside workers and quite a few other unions in Portland who go across that picket line, I crossed that picket line this week. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.35) —Tonight I want to draw attention to a subject I raised in the House some time ago. It concerns what I consider to be treasonable action in the establishment of the so-called sovereign state of Aeterna Lucina by a Dr Neuman, a German national in New South Wales. Anyone who doubts the veracity of my statements has only to look at various Press reports. I draw the attention of honourable members to the following headlines: 'Bush monarch rules a health State'. This came from the Daily Telegraph of 16 January 1984. The Brisbane Sun of 12 February had the following headliner: 'Strawberry Lord Rules Regal Fray'. I have a copy of a local paper, the Cooma-Monaro Express of 1 December 1983, which is headed: 'State of Eternal Light'-Aeterna Lucina is apparently some crude latinisation of that phrase 'just 50 kilometres from Cooma '. This gentleman, Dr Neuman, has devised a neat scheme. He has preyed upon the hopes and fears of people in Germany and has induced them to buy property in Australia. He has acquired some hilltop land in the Snowy Mountains , worth probably about $40 an acre, and he has sold it to unsuspecting families in Germany for $3,000 for each building block. Of course, he maintains the title to this land under the Torrens land title system as it operates in New South Wales, but he sells them a land title in the sovereign state of Aesterna Lucina. So these people have no title whatsoever. This is really an outrageous confidence trick. It is to the eternal shame of this House that Dr Neuman has been aided and abetted by the actions of the then Minister for Trade, Mr Doug Anthony, who presented this House with a petition which called upon the Government 'to give moral support to the 'Sovereign Humanitarian Mission 17 State Aeterna Lucina'. The words 'moral support' are significant. Government approval has not been asked for at all. That was a fait accompli. Those who signed that petition accepted that. They are merely asking the Parliament to endorse the setting up of a sovereign state in this country. When this same idea was tried in Germany, within three days the German Government dispatched the Army-not the police, but the Army-to make it known to the people that the Government would have none of that nonsense. The real tragedy is that people's lives and hopes have been involved. People who understand Europe know that in Europe lots of fiddling little states exist over there. I refer to places like Lichtenstein or Monaco. We understand why people in Germany would have been fooled, particularly when they saw the sorts of publications which were supplied. Photocopies of these publications show the quality of the paper on which they are printed. One document is headed: ' Declaration of Independence and Constitution'. Another is headed 'Dreams and Realities', and a third is headed 'A Promised Land, the Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina'. I have elaborate certificates of citizenship. The ploy was that people were told that because Aeterna Lucina was an island within Australia, they could come to Australia, virtually walk across the border and be guaranteed permanent residence. I have a copy of the Land Act, if you please, headed: The Supreme- Lord of The Sovereign State Aeterna Lucina', which is an Act relating to the declaration of title of land and to facilitation of its transfer. That is very very impressive stuff, particularly when it was sent to the people in Germany accompanied by these Australian Press cuttings to which I referred. I have letters written by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) supporting Dr Neuman. On 18 April 1983 Dr Neuman sent a letter, which stated words to this effect: 'I am forwarding correspondence asking for help'. The honourable member for Warringah replied that he would be happy to give help. I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), to extend compassion to these people who have been fooled and conned by this confidence trick, taken in, aided and abetted by prominent members of the Opposition. I hope that the Minister will extend permanent residence in Australia to these people. They are all thoroughly good families. I have met them all. I am sure they can make a contribution to this country, and I ask our very compassionate Minister to take into account that these people were outrageously misled in part by the honourable member for Warringah and Doug Anthony and, I might add, by the Foreign Minister at that time. It is absolutely mindboggling and unbelievable that these same Opposition members who wax eloquent about our heritage should be prepared without question to give away this sovereign state in Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.40) —Mr Speaker, I should say at the commencement of these remarks that I did endeavour to notify the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) that I would be speaking on this subject in the adjournment debate, but I ascertained when I rang his office that he had already departed for Sydney prior to going overseas. I want to raise a number of matters which affect him relating to the present dispute over the collapse of some parts of the Australian coal industry, particularly in relation to the reduction of the Japanese price. Over the last 24 hours we have been treated to the spectacle of the Deputy Prime Minister roundly condemning two Australian companies for the price reduction in the Japanese coal market. There has now come into my possession some information which indicates that, far from those companies being responsible, it could have been the conduct of the Minister himself which was responsible for sabotaging the coal price negotiations of Japan. Four months ago the Minister for Trade approved a 400,000 tonne coal contract with Pakistan at $ 2 a tonne below the Japanese steel mill price. Mr Hunt —Repeat it. Mr HOWARD —It was $2 a tonne below the Japanese steel mill price. This was four months ago that the Minister for Trade approved a contract involving 400,000 tonnes of coal. The news of this contract must have come into the possession of the Japanese. It is inconceivable that the Japanese negotiating with the Australian coal companies were not aware that the Minister and the Australian Government had given this permission some four months ago. I also understand that this approval was given to a company not listed among those now blamed by the Government for the latest price fall, and that it was justified by the Government at the time on the false grounds that it involved an extension of an incomplete contract. In fact, that contract had expired several months previously. There is no doubt that the Japanese steel industry would have been aware of the Minister's endorsement of this breach of what were supposed to be firm price guidelines before the present negotiations began. Importantly, other exporters who had accepted governmental instructions to tender for the Pakistan contract on the basis of the agreed price guidelines were, in effect, doublecrossed by the Minister's acceptance of the discounted price without giving them the opportunity to match it. The unsuccessful tenderers warned the Government at the time that this would provide a disastrous precedent for the present reduction in coal export prices to Japan and they objected strongly to the Minister's guideline-breaking decision. Against this sort of background it is incredible that the Minister is now, in blaming the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd and the Utah Development Company , seeking scapegoats for the price cuts that his own actions of four months ago must have made inevitable. Not only did the Minister for Trade undermine the negotiations, the collapse of which he is now blaming on BHP and Utah, but also those companies were subject to the disastrous consequences of a prime ministerial visit to Japan only a couple of months ago. While the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was in Japan giving false hopes about the way his special relationship with the Japanese Government would protect Australian exporters, the Japanese suspended coal contract negotiations with Australia in view of the impossible situation generated by the Prime Minister's totally false assertions. The fact is that the Minister for Trade should immediately stop blaming BHP and Utah for what is happening. If he insists on an absurd policy of Government intervention in these kinds of negotiations, he has to accept the natural and probable consequences of his own stupid decisions in the course of those interventions. He approved that Pakistan coal contract four months ago. When he approved it he knew that knowledge of it had to come into the possession of the Japanese, and it is that knowledge more than anything else which has led to the disastrous outcome that has now occurred in relation to the Japanese coal contracts. Finally, I can tell the House that I was aware of this information some time ago but deliberately refrained from making any reference to it until the negotiations with the Japanese steel mills had been completed. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(10.45) —I wish this evening to bring to the notice of the House the serious problem of unemployment within the electorate of Flinders. We have approximately 9,000 unemployed amongst those who live in Flinders. We have few major industries which are capable of expansion or are in an expansionary phase. We have had a large increase in employment within the building industry, which is a direct result of Government policies. We have also been granted over $2m for various community employment program schemes. However, this has only scratched the surface of this huge problem. Many unemployed have come to me for assistance with the many problems that they encounter as members of a very disadvantaged group. I am the elected representative of all the people of flinders, including the unemployed, and I would like to suggest some actions to help alleviate the problem of unemployment. First, I would like the Government to establish a Commonwealth regional office, to be located in a new building within the electorate. The centre would handle all Commonwealth matters within the region. It could have incorporated in it facilities for data transmission to Melbourne and elsewhere to give public servants who travel large distances and waste many hours the opportunity of working close to their places of residence and, hand in hand with that, obtain the many advantages that such a move would achieve. New technology has given us the opportunity of working away from a central office and we would be fools not to make use of this golden opportunity. I can see a great potential for employment in the establishment of this regional centre. I have also spoken to the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) and he is extremely receptive to the suggestion. I will be making further representations on this matter and I trust I will be able to achieve results. The second suggestion I make is the establishment of a high technology or innovative park within the Flinders electorate. I have already spoken to many within the high-tech area and all are enthusiastic about the establishment of such a park. I have spoken to people at the Chisholm Institute of Technology regarding the setting up of computer links and the many facilities that it, as a progressive institute, can supply. It is extremely enthusiastic and is already investigating the setting up of facilities on the Frankston campus. I have also spoken to members of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). Again , all are enthusiastic. As the chairman of the Caucus sub-committee on science and technology, my position on high-tech industry is well known. We have a great opportunity to set up in Flinders, an industry with a future. The peninsula has the possibility of becoming the high-tech centre of Australia. We are blessed by being in an area which has not been spoiled and which is relatively unpolluted. The areas of employment I have suggested will not affect the magnificent environment in which we live. I am also a member of the Caucus tourism committee. This is another great area for expansion. Tourism in the Flinders electorate has not reached anywhere near its true potential. I trust that these suggestions will help alleviate the problem of unemployment within Flinders, and I will pursue them to achieve greater opportunities for employment for all within the beautiful electorate of Flinders. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.48) —I want to draw to the attention of the House and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) a serious issue concerning the Australian Postal Commission. I did notify the Minister that I would be speaking. This matter concerns the mail bag and mail depot problem which has emerged in Sydney over the past two weeks. This is my first opportunity to speak on the matter as it is the first adjournment debate we have had since then. I refer to the practice of Australia Post dropping mail bags in thousands of places around Australia to assist the postman in his mail deliveries. These places include shops, houses and hotels. Until a Mr Newby, whose $15,000 cheque was stolen from a mail bag initially left in the London Tavern in Paddington, in desperation spoke to the media and to the proprietors of that tavern, in an attempt to recover that money, probably the great majority of Australians, and that includes me, were unaware of this Australia Post system. I acknowledge that as the practice has been in place for many years but remains generally unknown to Australians it must have been a reasonable system. As succeeding non-Labor and Labor governments have not challenged the system, I will therefore speak in a non-party political way. I urge the Minister to investigate the matter to ensure the efficiency and security of the mail system and the good public image of Australia Post. I note that the Minister was reported in the media earlier this week as expressing concern and calling for a report on the practice. However, what may have been a reasonably acceptable informal arrangement in the past has been shown by the Newby and London Tavern incident to be not acceptable any more and raises very serious questions about Australia Post's management procedures, its efficiency and the security of the nation's mail. The first of these questions concerns the general procedure to guarantee the efficiency and security of the mail services. The various newspaper and electronic media reports of this incident reveal that Australia Post at no stage contacted the London Tavern proprietors, in the four years that they have been the proprietors, about the procedure of dropping this bag. Since that incident Australia Post has not contacted these people to clarify or formalise the arrangements. It did not notify them after the theft that the depot was being transferred. It did not notify them that the mail bag was stolen or even thank them for four years of honorary assistance. The whole system is too haphazard. Although I note the gradual change to lockable deposit areas in public mail boxes I urge the Minister, after his consideration of the report he is to receive from Australia Post, to ensure the following: Firstly, that the installation of secure lockable depots is accelerated; secondly, that existing informal depot procedures are improved from the point of view of the security of the mail and that satisfactory, clear and more formal arrangements are made with the non-Australia Post people who generously provide depot assistance; thirdly, that reporting procedures for theft are heightened so that people like Mr Newby or the London Tavern operators are officially advised; and, fourthly, that postmen must report all thefts. That brings me to the final point, the security of the nation's mail. In reporting this incident, various Australia Post people have made the following contradictory points about mailbag theft. First, quite a lot of mail bags are stolen. That was stated by one spokesperson. The second is that only five bags have been stolen in New South Wales in the past 18 months. The third point is that two or three bags have already been stolen in the eastern suburbs of Sydney alone in the first four months of this year. The total for the Sydney area or for New South Wales as a whole is considerable. This theft, together with the increasingly long delays in mail deliveries-I have received plenty of complaints that it is taking four to six weeks for mail to get from Sydney to Canberra or Brisbane, particularly with the Leightonfield mail exchange problem-means that the good public image of Australia Post is now at risk. I urge the Minister not to be mollified by a superficial, all-is-well report from Australia Post but to ensure that the whole procedure is tightened and improved. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(10.53) —Tonight I want to comment on the practice of orthomolecular medicine and in particular refer to the operations of an organisation known as Clinical Assays Pty Limited of Sydney. Clinical Assays came to my attention recently when a constituent visited my office. My constitutent is an invalid pensioner who had taken out private medical insurance but was faced with a bill from Clinical Assays of over $700, a bill which his fund would not pay. His fund, the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited, has advised me that his claim was refused by the Commonwealth Department of Health and suggested that I should discuss the matter further with the Department. I chose to discuss it instead with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). I was advised by him that the matter of non-payment of medical benefits in this case had been investigated by the Department once and then reconsidered. Both investigations confirmed that medical benefits would not be payable because of the position of orthomolecular medicine. I was naturally interested in orthomolecular medicine because my constituent, a pensioner who had nevertheless insured himself privately to provide cover, had been placed in a position where he was faced with a bill for over $700, a bill which his insurer would not pay. I have been advised that orthomolecular medicine has as its basis the theory that many psychiatric and organic disorders affecting the central nervous system are the result of excessive or deficient intake of heavy minerals and vitamins, allergic cerebral conditions or manifestations of autoimmune disease. Numerous and costly pathology tests which may range up to $700 per patient are involved, including estimations of metals and vitamins, tests for allegines, detection of tissue anti-bodies and white cell function tests. Some practitioners of orthomolecular medicine have similar tests carried out on all members of the patient's family, apparently to ascertain whether there are familial or hereditary factors involved. Representatives of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians met on 8 October 1980 and came to the unanimous conclusion that orthomolecular medicine had no status in the practice of medicine or psychiatry. Its clinical role was unproven and the pathology tests could not be justified for the rational practice of internal medicine or psychiatry. I point out at this stage that the tests carried out on my constituent and his wife by Clinical Assays occurred in May 1983 and that the determination by the royal medical colleges took place in October 1980. It appears, therefore, that my constituent, believing himself to be fully covered, was either wrongly referred by his doctor, poorly advised by his fund or poorly advised by Clinical Assays. He assures me that at no time was he advised by his fund or his doctor or Clinical Assays that he would not be covered for the expense involved in these tests prior to taking them. The only indication he had that he would not be covered was when he received the account from Clinical Assays. My constituent is in no position to pay this account and naturally I am in no position to advise him about payment or non-payment. I can only advise the House that debt collectors sent by Clinical Assays have been calling on my pensioner constituent, and that so far they have come away empty handed. I regard it as an absolute scandal that someone in his position should have been let down so badly by people supposedly involved in his care and certainly well paid for assuming that role. In my view the responsibility in this matter lies either with the fund, which did not inform him of his position, the referring doctor, who again did not inform him of his position, or Clinical Assays, who did not inform of his position before the tests. In my view-and I expect it to continue to be the view of my constituent-they can sort out the matter of payment among themselves. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(10.58) —I will take a few moments of the House's time tonight to place on record a tribute to the Hon. Lindsay North who was buried today. He was a member of the Legislative Council in New South Wales for many years and was a great Labor man. He was very much respected by this Party, by the Labor movement in New South Wales and by the trade union movement in that State. He was a member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive for some time in his career. He began his union career as an organiser with the Australian Textile Workers Union in 1943 and rose to the position of Secretary of that union. At one stage Lindsay organised my mother into that union when she worked at the Australian Woollen Mill in Marrickville, in 1944, as a weaver. Lindsay never forgot the area from where he came and never forgot that one of the greatest roles in life was to work for the advancement of working men and women. In those days the textile industry was the largest single employer of women industry of any industry in Australia. Lindsay was in the forefront of achieving equal pay for those people. Trades people in that industry, whether men or women, did well because of the organisation of the Textile Workers Union. As I said, Lindsay was a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council for a number of years and worked to put the voice of the union movement into that Parliament on behalf of the people of his union and the people of New South Wales. He was a returning officer of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party and a returning officer for the Australian Council of Trade Unions for some 25 years. He was the one person who participated in both union and political ballots in this country over two decades whose decisions, as a returning officer, were never challenged by anyone. I think that is a great tribute to Lindsay North's impartiality. On behalf of both sides of the Parliament and, indeed, the Labor movement in New South Wales and Australia as a whole, I offer our condolences to his wife Dorothy and her family for the tragic loss of Lindsay. I am sure his loss will be felt by all of us, a loss to all. Mr SPEAKER —It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr West —Mr Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(11.00) —My purpose in speaking is to respond to the matter raised by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) this evening. It involves the activities of a certain Paul Robert Neuman and his self-styled Order of the White Cross. Mr Neuman not only claims to be a Lord of the Knights of the White Cross but also claims to have established an independent sovereign state of Aeterna Lucina on a property near Cooma. His operation appears to be to persuade the naive that it is possible to migrate to Australia as citizens of this so-called state. He appears to have had some initial success. There is considerable evidence that Neuman has knowingly and quite deliberately sought to circumvent our immigration laws and procedures, and has sought to mislead people in West Germany into believing that he, Neuman, had authority to arrange their immigration to Australia and to grant them citizenship in his so-called sovereign independent state. I am advised that the stated aim of Neuman's so-called order is to promote the divine laws of God. However, Neuman claims that it has no religious or political affiliation. The alleged principles of the organisation are the defence and protection of life, promotion of peace, defence of endangered nature and faith in the divine laws of God. Mr Neuman claims that it is his intention to establish a pollution-free subsistence agricultural and trading community called Vitama. Neuman first attempted to establish himself in the Byron Bay area but ran into trouble with the local authorities. By late 1981 he had moved his activities to the new location near Cooma where he appears to have purchased two parcels of undeveloped land at the reported price of $24 an acre. To many people in West Germany where Neuman has been seeking his recruits among people concerned with issues of industrial pollution and nuclear proliferation, this community may well have appeared to be attractive. Neuman's claims were given unnecessary and inadvertent credibility by the previous Government. A petition to the Parliament in which Neuman claimed that Aeterna Lucina, and its establishment Vitama, was an independent state within Australia was lodged on 10 October 1978. The petition was presented to the House by the then Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Important here is the fact that there was no subsequent denial of Neuman's claims by the then Government. He represented to his naive clients that the former Australian Government had afforded at least de facto recognition to his independent so-called state and was thereby helped to convince prospective settlers of his bona fides. I am informed that Neuman and the Order of the White Cross first came to the notice of my Department late in 1982 when he lodged an application for one of his recruits to enter Australia as an occupational trainee. That application was rejected. In April 1983 he applied for several persons to enter as temporary residents. At about this time my Department's office in West Germany received inquiries from prospective recruits to the Order of the White Cross claiming that Neuman was offering Australian citizenship and migration facilities. Letters from the Order to these recruits contained phrases such as 'your application will then be checked and as soon as you have received your citizenship certificate and purchased your property for which you will receive a regular ownership certificate the Order can then guarantee for your entry so that you can settle unencumbered in Aeterna Lucina' and 'we need all types of tradesman and other skilled people. For these people we will undertake to give a guarantee for their migration'. Our office responded by pointing out that the Australian Government alone had these responsibilities and urged the inquirers to approach the organisation with the utmost caution. The letter was a timely warning to people who may have been in the process of being duped by Neuman's activities. That letter came to Neuman 's attention. It seems that one result was that he advised his potential recruits not to approach the Australian authorities in Bonn and he actually had the gall to complain to several Opposition members. Neuman's community of Vitama seemed to be capable of making him a lot of money. It appears that the land he bought around Cooma cost him $24 an acre and his disillusioned recruits paid as much as $3,600 for a quarter-acre block plus 10 per cent turnover tax and a $50 registration fee. These fees have been paid to Neuman and his Order, not to the New South Wales authorities. The land is mortgaged and Neuman is still seeking approval for multiple occupancy title. The most his recuits could ever hope for in the way of title to the land is a leasehold under the New South Wales multiple occupancy guidelines. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises he may continue. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Neuman's claims have misled several families to join the Order of the White Cross and to come to Australia on visitors visas. Three of these families are now in Cooma. As visitors to Australia they are not entitled to work. In interviews with officers of my Department they have claimed that they came to Australia solely on the basis of misrepresentations by Neuman and his Order and are considering taking legal action to recover their investment. I accept that if the claims they have put forward against Neuman are established, the situation in which they have found themselves is most distressing indeed. Neuman is aware that the Australian Government would not let him bring his overeas recruits to Australia. Applications lodged in 1982 and 1983 had been refused and he was counselled by officers of my Department in April 1983. It is significant that he accepted the Government's decisions in these cases and did not defend his claim to independence. But he continues to negotiate his multiple occupancy plans with the New South Wales authorities while claiming independence from Australia. He advised his recruits not to approach the officers of my Department. When they sought entry to Australia they made no reference to their entanglement with the Order of the White Cross. One of the families which is in Cooma at present has since admitted that it deliberately withheld this information on Neuman's advice. Neuman has evidently set out to deceive the former Government and this Government and, to the extent that was necessary, his gullible recruits. I am considering the options that may be available. There are others who have been involved with the Order who need to be interviewed. Documents provided by the disillusioned recruits in Cooma need to be examined. Decisions need to be taken on questions such as whether Neuman has breached the provisions of the Migration Act. I have asked my colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to review the papers and to determine whether any Federal action can be brought against Neuman. I have also asked the Attorney-General to consider referring the matter to the New South Wales authorities to determine whether any New South Wales laws have been broken. But irrespective of the extent to which he can be charged under Australian law, I am most determined that Neuman's nefarious activities will be publicly exposed in the Australian and international community. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.08 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 3 May 1984: Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations Statutory Rules 1984, No. 67 Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, Nos. 63, 64 National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 66 Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 65 Public Service Act-Determinations-1984-Nos. 7, 12, 13 Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 68 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1015) Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Does the United Nations Charter allow military action by the peace-keeping force only (a) by request of the Security Council (b) by regional arrangements or agencies, if authorised by the Security Council or (c) in self-defence against armed attack. (2) Did these conditions authorise armed attacks on Grenada in 1983 by neighbouring countries, including the United States. (3) Was there any substance, established by a UN forum or organ, in the claim that the military action was not intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation but in response to the appeal of the legal government to release hostages or besieged citizens. (4) What steps will Australia take to strengthen the UN so that (a) it has a permanent peace-keeping force able to intervene before violence breaks out in support of universal human rights, self-determination and international law generally, (b) conciliation and/or arbitration are enforceable where threats to the peace or grave international disputes occur and (c) the veto is abandoned in favour of moves towards a democratically representative UN Assembly with guaranteed revenue sources. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) It is not possible to state with certainty what kinds of peace-keeping operations and military action the United Nations Charter does, and does not, allow, although of course it does provide for such action in the cases mentioned in the question. The practice of States sometimes has gone beyond the apparent original intention of the drafters of the Charter. The term 'peacekeeping force' , for example, appears nowhere in the Charter, and there is a considerable degree of academic discussion, and controversy among States, as to the basis in Charter and customary law for some instances of collective military action and so-called 'peacekeeping operations' by States. On some occasions (e.g. in the Commonwealth) operations relating to peacekeeping have been conducted outside the United Nations. (2) Various legal bases were given by members of the multi-national force which intervened in Grenada in 1983 as the authority for their action. Some of these referred specifically to the United Nations Charter, and I refer the honourable member to the various views expressed in the Security Council debate on Grenada on 27 October 1983. (3) No United Nations body, as far as I am aware, has made a formal pronouncement in relation to the argument that the military action was '. . . in response to the appeal of the legal government to release hostages or besieged citizens.' (4) Under the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Australia supports proposals to make the Council a more effective instrument for discharging this responsibility, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and in the interests of its member States. Australia is a candidate for the election to the Council for a two-year term in 1985-86, and if elected will join actively in efforts to improve the Council's work in regard to the specific settlement of disputes and action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Initiatives to these ends, however, must be capable of gaining the support of the permanent members of the Security Council, each of which has the power of veto over all decisions of the Council other than those dealing with procedural matters. (Question No. 1067) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In December 1983 there were no males or females engaged as temporary employees under the community employment program in either my Department or any statutory authority reporting to me. In January and February 1984 there were respectively 22 males and 4 females and 20 males and 5 females so employed. All were engaged by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. (Question No. 1174) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 978 (Hansard, 29 February 1984, page 245) referring to the definition and use of 'fast track' anti-dumping action, can the fast track system also be used in relation to horticultural products from New Zealand. (2) To which other countries and products does it apply. (3) Is it possible to give a general definition and criteria for the fast track action; if so, what is it. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 1 and 2. As indicated in my answer to question No. 978 (Hansard 29 February 1984, page 245) special procedures have been introduced to expedite investigation of dumping complaints against steel imports. These procedures do not apply to other products. The dumping of goods in Australia, regardless the commodity, is of a major concern to this government. As a demonstration of that concern, shortly after the government came to office it directed an immediate review of both the legislation and the procedures for investigating dumping and subsidisation complaints. On 7 November last year, as a result of that review, I announced that the investigation of all dumping and subsidisation complaints was to be speeded up. Unless there are exceptional or complex circumstances a preliminary finding of whether injurious dumping or subsidisation exists will be reached within 45 days of the complaint being accepted by the department. If the preliminary finding is positive the investigation will then be finalised within a further 120 days. At the preliminary finding stage, if a threat of injury from future dumped or subsidised imports is apparent, provisional action against these imports can be taken. These procedures which will ensure a speedy resolution of dumping or subsidisation complaints will apply to all complaints regardless the commodity or the source of the goods. In addition, a special liaison committee comprising officers from the Departments of Trade, Primary Industry and Industry & Commerce was established in 1982 to monitor clearances of certain horticultural products imported from New Zealand. It is envisaged that this committee would, in the same way as the Steel Industry Authority, provide early warning of possible injurious dumping or subsidisation of these products. 3. The expedition of investigation of dumping complaints against steel imports is possible as a result of the detailed and continuous monitoring of overseas and domestic steel prices by the Steel Industry Authority. The immediate availability of this information will facilitate the reaching of a preliminary finding in respect of a dumping complaint against steel imports ahead of the 45 days which apply in the case of other complaints. (Question No. 1196) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 27 March 1984: (1) How many employees have been stood down or dismissed as a result of industrial action on the new Parliament House site. (2) What claims have been made by unions in the present dispute. (3) What additional payments, allowances and other entitlements have employees on the new Parliament House site received over and above normal awards and conditions of service for working on a building site. (4) What is the estimated additional cost to the completed building of acceding to the union demands. (5) To what extent has industrial action delayed the time-table for construction of the building. (6) Are there any additional costs associated with resuming work at the conclusion of the industrial action and maintaining the present time-table for completion of the building; if so, what are the estimated costs. (7) How many contractors are employed by the Parliament House Construction Authority on the new Parliament House. (8) To what extent is the work to be completed by these contractors impeded by the present industrial campaign in support of a severance pay claim, and the consequent pickets on the site. (9) What provisions are made in contracts with contractors and sub-contractors for dislocation resulting from industrial action. (10) Are contractors and sub-contractors suffering financially as a result of the industrial action; if so, what is the estimated extent of financial damage in each case. (11) Will the viability of any contractors and sub-contractors to complete contracts be affected; if so, what action will be taken by the Parliament House Construction Authority to ensure their continued viability. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Approximately 400 employees were involved in direct industrial action and were subsequently dismissed. An additional 150 employees were stood down by contractors who also relocated other employees to jobs on other sites. (2) The major claims made by the unions in the present dispute include a claim for severance pay of six weeks for every twelve months worked on the site and an increase in the site allowance of up to $2 per hour, and the implementation of a non-contributory superannuation scheme. (3) Workers on the site are paid in accordance with relevant awards in the building industry. In addition to the award, workers receive a $1.12 1/2 site allowance approved by the Arbitration Commission. (4) The estimated present day additional building cost of acceding to the union demands is approximately $20m. This is calculated according to a breakdown of the three issues concerned; namely: (i) Site Allowance Increase-0.875 cents (per hour) x 38 hours = $33 per week per worker (ii) Severance Pay Costs-(based on an average weekly wage of $400) 6 weeks/52 weeks x $400 per week average = $46 per week per worker (iii) Non-Contributory Superannuation Costs-$10 per week contribution plus $1 per week administration = $11 per week per worker Additional Weekly Cost of meeting demands = $90 per week. Based on an average of 1200 workers on the site for the remaining 3 1/2 years of the project the total additional cost is calculated as: $90 per week x 52 weeks/year x 3 1/2 years x 1200 = $19.656m. (5) It is difficult to estimate the extent of time delay caused by the dispute as this is dependent on the ultimate length of the dispute. It is estimated that following the resumption of work it is likely to be at least a further two months to restore the labour force to pre dispute levels. (6) There will be additional costs associated with the resumption of work on the site. At this stage it is difficult to estimate the extent of these costs until the date for the resumption of work is known and the longer term availability of labour established. (7) The Parliament House Construction Authority currently employs 47 site contractors. (8) As a result of the current industrial dispute, all work on the site has ceased. Offsite work such as granite quarrying, cutting and finishing, precast panel manufacture, mechanical and electrical component manufacture and lifts manufacture is proceeding. (9) Current contracts do not contain provisions for reimbursement of costs resulting from industrial action. However, provisions are made for the granting of extensions of time. (10) It is inevitable that contractors and sub-contractors are incurring financial costs as a result of the dispute; however, the extent of financial damage cannot be assessed until the dispute is resolved. (11) Several contractors are claiming that their viability is at risk as a result of the dispute. The implications of these claims are being considered but no undertakings can be given at this stage. (Question No. 1206) Mr Reeves asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy , upon notice, on 28 March 1984: Does the Government maintain a stockpile of uranium oxide at Jabiru, Northern Territory; if so (a) where at Jabiru is the stockpile located, (b) what quantity of uranium oxide is in the stockpile, (c) who is able to use the uranium oxide, (d) what, if any, conditions are applied to the use of the uranium oxide and (e) what plans, if any, does the Government have for the stockpile. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Commonwealth maintains a stockpile of uranium concentrate which was accumulated from Rum Jungle production not committed under contract. (a) The bulk of the Commonwealth uranium stockpile is currently securely stored in the Ranger project area within the Ranger concentrate storage facility at Jabiru East in the Northern Territory. (b) The total quantity of the Commonwealth stockpile including material held at Lucas Heights, is some 2,260 short tons U308. (c), (d) and (e) The use and disposition of the stockpile is a matter for the Commonwealth to decide. The Commonwealth at present has no proposals before it in relation to the use of the stockpile and has yet to address this question. (Question No. 1216) Mr Tuckey asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: Is he able to provide an estimate of the cost to Australian farmers of increases in fuel excise and the indexing of fuel excise. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Details of the end users of fuel are not known. It is therefore not possible to provide an estimate of the cost to Australian farmers of increases in fuel excise and the indexing of fuel excise. (Question No. 1313) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) to (f) Since the 1983 general election the Department of Resources and Energy has reviewed its staff selection procedures with a view to effecting the Government's equal employment opportunities principles. An ongoing assessment is made of applicants for advertised vacancies to determine if there are any apparent barriers to the recruitment and promotion of women in the Department. The Department has placed a high priority on equal opportunity matters and will take further action once the proposed guidelines are released. There is frequent contact with Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau. (2) There are no clearly identifiable costs attributable to equal opportunity activities in the Department.