Tuesday, 16 April 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death of the Hon. Sir Kenneth McColl Anderson, KBE, who died on 29 March 1985, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his wife and family. Sir Kenneth Anderson was, in fact, born at sea in Australian waters approaching Adelaide on 11 October 1909. As a young man he enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force on 2 July 1940 and rose to the rank of lieutenant before becoming a prisoner of the Japanese. He remained a prisoner of war for over three years, enduring enormous hardship not only in the infamous Changi prison but also on the Burma-Thailand railway. His service to his country did not end with the war. He served his wartime colleagues as a director of the Ryde District Soldiers Hospital for a period of 25 years, including over four distinguished years as its Chairman. He remained a life-long member of the Returned Services League. Sir Kenneth's parliamentary service commenced in the New South Wales Parliament in 1950 as the member for Ryde. He was elected to Federal Parliament in 1953, serving for 22 years before his retirement. His career was distinguished. He served as a Minister to five Prime Ministers: Sir Robert Menzies, Mr Harold Holt, Sir John McEwen, Sir John Gorton and Sir William McMahon. He was, variously, Minister for Customs and Excise, Minister for Supply and Minister for Health. In addition, he served his Party as Leader of the Government in the Senate from 1968 to 1972. Sir Kenneth's 22 years as a senator were marked by diligence and conscientiousness. In his maiden speech, on 16 September 1953, he said: I came here to serve . . . I set about serving on 2 July, 1940 and I shall not turn back now. In common with other honourable senators, I just want to do whatever is within my power to help my fellow man. Sir Kenneth fully honoured that pledge in his long career. He was a distinguished Australian who gave much to both this Parliament and his country. On behalf of the Government, Mr Speaker, I extend to his widow and his family our sincerest sympathy and regret at the loss of this very fine Australian. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —The Opposition supports the motion of condolence moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Sir Kenneth Anderson was a man of enormous courage, integrity and energy who served his country, as the Prime Minister has indicated, with great distinction both in war and in peace. He rose from private to lieutenant in the 8th Division, fighting of course in the ill-fated Malayan campaign. Imprisoned in Changi, he also suffered and survived the horrors of the infamous Burma-Thailand railway, the construction of which under the most dreadful circumstances saw the deaths of so many brave Australian soldiers. At war's end he devoted his life to the service of the community and also to the cause of liberalism in local, regional and finally national government. The Prime Minister has spoken of his service to his own community in Ryde. Kenneth Anderson's father had three times been mayor of that municipality, and in l949 he also became mayor and at the same time a member of the Sydney regional administrative body. After serving as a member of the Lower House in New South Wales for three years, he became a senator in l953 and served with distinction until l975. As the Prime Minister has said, he was a distinguished Minister in three portfolios-Customs, Supply and Health-and was also for three years Government Leader in the Senate as well as being active in many of its committees. I had the honour to serve as a Minister with Ken Anderson in the late l960s and early l970s, and then of course through our period in Opposition. When he retired to what should have been a well-earned retirement, he remained more active than many people his junior. In l976, at the age of 65, he returned to politics as President of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party of Australia and helped lay the foundations for its present new vigour and effectiveness. In every aspect of his life, whether as a soldier, as a Minister, as a director for 25 years of the Ryde District Soldiers Hospital or as President of his local branch of the Returned Services League, Ken Anderson was dedicated to the service of his fellow Australians. He went about this service, as all who knew him were constantly aware, in a quiet and persuasive manner but with a quiet and a determined approach. Ken Anderson was possessed of a keen mind which accompanied that quiet manner and therefore he was able to lead by example. He was, in the very breadth of his service to our country, greatly respected. As the Prime Minister said, in Ken Anderson's maiden speech he indicated that he sought really nothing more than to serve his fellow man and in that he succeeded, and succeeded greatly. He was a fine, courageous man of very great character indeed, and my Party and this Parliament owe him a significant debt. He will be greatly missed and I extend our deepest sympathy to Lady Anderson and the rest of his family. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the members of the National Party of Australia I would like to join in the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Ken Anderson was one of that generation of Australians who committed themselves to the service of the community of which he was part. As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, he served at each of the three levels of government-local government, State government and Federal government. He served his community, having been a member for so many years of the Board of the Ryde District Soldiers Hospital. But perhaps more significant was the way in which a man who represented so much of his community was able to interpret that community in this Parliament. Throughout his period as a Minister I served with him, under successive Prime Ministers, and he contributed positively, publicly and privately, to the cause in which he believed. After he ceased to be a senator for New South Wales he assumed another political office, serving as President of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party of Australia-again with considerable distinction. In private he contributed very much to the well-being of the community of Ryde and to that important area of Sydney now covered by the near western suburbs. As one who knows that area well and who has many friends who have lived there, I know how highly regarded Ken Anderson was, not because of the offices he held but because of his concern for the small business community, for those who essentially helped to make Ryde the very prosperous and developing suburb that it is. In war, Ken Anderson served his country bravely and well. He was a man whom all of us felt proud to know. He was one whose service to his nation and his community we all admired. To his wife Madge, to his daughter and son-in-law, and to his family, I extend my deepest personal sympathies. I should like to say also that there could have been no more eloquent testimony to the man who was our colleague and whom we all recall with such affection than the magnificent eulogy Senator Sir John Carrick gave at the funeral service at St Stephen's Church in Sydney. Sir John Carrick said it all. He said it with heart and with a feeling for that generation of men who served their country and who, having been prisoners of war, came back, and subsequently committed themselves in this place. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —I join with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leaders on the other side in paying my tribute to Ken Anderson. I speak for those people who were ex-Japanese prisoners of war with Ken Anderson. He was respected by all former Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese. Ken Anderson was always spoken of with the highest respect. It is appropriate that the Prime Minister mentioned what Ken Anderson said in his maiden speech. Ken was a good and gentle man, even though he was a Liberal. I wrote a personal letter to Lady Anderson along similar lines to what the Prime Minister said about the character of Ken Anderson. I pay my respects to Lady Anderson and all those who were very closely associated with Ken. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I should like to associate myself briefly with the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and supported by my colleagues the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). Ken Anderson for most of his life lived and worked in a large part of the area that makes up my electorate. I got to know Ken Anderson best after he had left the Parliament, although I knew him briefly during the 18 months we served together in the Parliament. He certainly possessed all the qualities of which the Prime Minister and others have spoken. He was a person of gentle strength and, as we have been reminded by all speakers, he belonged to that now dwindling band of brothers on both sides of politics in Australia who served in the Eighth Division and went into captivity at the fall of Singapore. I remember Ken Anderson giving very valuable advice to me as a new member of parliament in l974 and l975. He once described himself as a bare-boards Presbyterian. I think that description encapsulated many of the simple Scottish strengths that Ken exhibited throughout his life. He was a person who for a major part of his life struggled with very indifferent health. He was supported in a most remarkable way by a most remarkable wife, Madge, who is possessed of a very impish and delightful sense of humour. We were reminded by Senator Sir John Carrick at Ken Anderson's funeral service that, during the time Ken served with the Australian forces during World War II, Madge carried on the real estate business that Ken had started in Ryde in the late l930s. He, therefore, exemplified those remarkable qualities of middle Australia-devotion to country, devotion to family, devotion to community, and devotion to the broader interests of mankind. I very warmly join with the expressions of sympathy and condolence to Madge and Robyn. They have remarkable recollections of a remarkable man who did his best by his family and his country. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I, too, would like to be associated with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Deputy Leader of my own Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) in relation to the death of Sir Kenneth Anderson. Sir Kenneth was known to me and my family over a very long period. When I came to the Parliament I served with him contemporaneously for a short period but I had known of him and his very distinguished record of service in the northern districts of Sydney because that was the area in which I lived and where my political involvement had been very much with his. I am able to say that more recently in the area of Ryde, as has been mentioned, Sir Kenneth kept up a very active involvement in community activity and community life in the district. It was very welcome for me to see him still involved, until fairly recently, with the Returned Services League particularly, with whom he had a very strong association and with the Ryde Hospital, with whom he identified, as had his father before him. He was also, of course, still involved in my own political Party. He was a member of one of the branches in my own electorate. At a time when the Liberal Party in New South Wales was in considerable financial difficulties, in his very late retirement, he participated in assisting the Liberals in my area, in particular in their efforts to assist the Party. His dedication to the organisation and to the community was well known and greatly admired. I know that Lady Anderson and Robyn, his daughter, and his grandchildren miss greatly Sir Kenneth and the advice and counsel that he was able to give them. But, on behalf of the people of the community that I represent, I can say that we, too, very much miss his counselling and his support. It is in that spirit that on this occasion I particularly remember Ken Anderson. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I would like to associate myself with this motion. Sir Kenneth served an electoral district in the State Parliament which was the same as the one which I later represented for some years. In that period I got to know him extremely well, worked with him a great deal and learned to respect him very deeply. His is the sort of public career that I believe gives one confidence in the future of Australian public life. It was a career of honourable and steady service. It began, of course, in local government, as we have heard, in Ryde. In my dealings in earlier years with Ryde Council I came to realise how widely he was respected in that community as a former mayor, and not only as a former mayor, but also as a citizen of that municipality. He then served in the war; he served in the New South Wales Parliament and he served for 22 years with great distinction in the Senate. He was active in a range of charities, hospital work and service organisations, such as the Returned Services League, and also in the Liberal Party of Australia. The key thing about him was that he was so widely respected. Charismatic he was not; flamboyant he was not: But honourable and decent he was. It is in that way that he will be remembered for a long time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I, too, wish to be associated with the House's motion of condolence on the death of Sir Kenneth Anderson. Sir Kenneth was known to me from the time I first became interested in politics. Throughout the intervening years he demonstrated, both in war and in peace, to me and to those who knew him, that he was, indeed, a very outstanding person. As has already been stated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) his service in three tiers of government was probably unique in its own way. As a senator of this Parliament for a further 22 years during which he had three ministerial appointments, he set a standard of public service that I am sure all of us could emulate to our individual advantage. But, above all, I think it is worth noting the incredible humanity of the man because as a prisoner of war he no doubt suffered the privations which few of us here would even contemplate, or understand. When he returned from the war he went back into civilian life, but he never lost sight of the role he felt he had to play to the wider community, especially to the returned servicemen and those who had served with him on the Burma-Thailand railway, in Changi prisoner of war camp and, of course, in Malaya. In fact service, as was stated by the Prime Minister and by others, was the prime objective of all that he did in his life. The contribution which he made to the Liberal Party of Australia, especially in my State of New South Wales, the development of its values and the inculcating of those values in the wider community cannot be overstated. He passionately believed in helping people to help themselves. While he may not have been charismatic, I have to say that never once did I hear anybody speak ill of Ken Anderson. We have lost a great colleague; Australia has lost a great son: But his family have lost most of all. To Lady Anderson and to his daughter, Robyn, whom I know very well, and to her family, I extend my most sincere sympathy. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I wish to advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, will be overseas on Government business until 10 May. The Minister will be visiting the United States of America, Western Europe and South East Asia, both in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer and as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In the Minister's absence, the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, will act as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and no doubt will do it brilliantly, and will represent the Minister for Finance in the House. The Minister for Science, Mr Jones, will be overseas on Government business until 27 April. All honourable members will be interested to know, and no doubt will be informed on his return, of his visit to Japan, Italy, Israel, Sweden and the United States for discussions on scientific matters and to lead an Australian delegation to a conference of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In his absence, the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, will act as the Minister for Science; in addition the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr Brown, will represent the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce in the House; and the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, will represent the Minister for Resources and Energy in the House. Mr SHACK —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: In the face of the Australian Council of Trade Unions transport blockade of Queensland planned for Friday next and the immediate action by the New South Wales Branch of the Transport Workers Union, will the Minister explain to the House whom he and the Government to which he belongs actually represent? Do they represent the ACTU and support its regressive industrial action or do they represent the Australian people, some of whom happen to live in Queensland, and support their desire to go about their lives free of industrial disruption and union blackmail and thuggery? Mr WILLIS —Of course, the Government clearly represents the public interest. The public interest is not being served by the actions being taken by the Premier of Queensland. The matter raised by the honourable member for Tangney is, of course, the subject of the matter of public importance after Question Time. I will say a couple of things about it. This Government does not regard the actions by the Queensland Government as being in the best interests of industrial relations in this country. Indeed, it is quite obvious that that kind of confrontationist approach of the Queensland Government is the antithesis of what is required for good industrial relations in this country. We are not saying that trade unions have an untrammelled right to exercise the right to strike. In a democratic society there should be a right to strike but that right should be used in a responsible way. We do not say that there is a right for people to exercise strike action whenever they feel like it, particularly when they are involved in the provision of essential services. We also say that the actions being taken by the Queensland Government, on the other hand, are bound to bring about a deterioration in industrial relations. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said, one cannot legislate- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Minister wait until the House gets over its ecclesiastical shock. I remind honourable members that it is their Question Time that they are wasting. Mr WILLIS —The Archbishop of Canterbury was quite right when he said that one cannot legislate for industrial peace, that one has to work at it and provide an environment in which industrial peace will come about by the voluntary actions of employers and trade unionists. That, of course, has been the approach which this Government has pursued with resounding and enormous success. Over the last 12 months we have had the lowest level of industrial disputes for l7 years, a far better result on the industrial relations front than the previous Government ever was able to obtain. Our capacity to maintain that industrial relations record, of course, is being greatly impaired by the actions being taken by the Queensland Government. A dispute which was almost settled was prevented from being settled by the actions of the Queensland Government for reasons which one can only speculate about but which have resulted in a situation which now threatens a national crisis in regard to the blockade of Queensland and ongoing industrial relations trouble. We hold the Premier of Queensland and his Government substantially responsible for what has taken place. We do not condone the industrial action. On the other hand, we recognise that the primary responsibility for what is now happening rests with the Queensland Government. Ms FATIN —Can the Minister for Defence say how many houses will be provided for defence personnel in the current expansion of HMAS Stirling? What priority does the Minister give to solving the pressing housing needs of Service personnel? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentlelady for her question. In the last two Budgets allocations have been made for l06 new houses to be built for naval personnel at HMAS Stirling. An additional 42 houses will be provided in the next two financial years. These new houses will all be in the suburb of Rockingham in the electorate of Brand. An additional benefit of this program is the boost it provides to the local housing industry. The expansion at Stirling is due to the home porting of destroyers at that base. HMAS Stuart is already there and HMAS Swan will arrive either late this year or early next year. The current housing program, to take the point the honourable member is making more broadly, is aimed at reducing shortages in areas where they are most severe, replacing the worst of the stock and upgrading existing houses where there is an economic justification for doing so. I might say, because there has been a degree of public comment lately and some allegations that this Government is unconcerned about the conditions of servicemen, that the present situation contrasts very markedly with the performance of our opponents in this area. Under the 1984-85 Budget, we will be spending in the current financial year some $48m on new and improved housing for servicemen, which is an increase of 30 per cent on the allocation in l983-84. The major cause of the housing problem, the major reason why we are obliged to have what is an extensive increase in the housing building program, is the problems caused by the so-called Garland freeze on housing expenditure that lasted from l977 to l98l for the defence forces. My Department has calculated that if the expenditure over those years had continued at average levels there would now be some l,500 more defence houses of good quality available for use by servicemen. In this area, as in so many other areas, this Government has paid appropriate attention to the real needs of the defence forces and Defence Force personnel. Our record will stand up against anything that our opponents can put to us in this area. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is in line with the first question from the Opposition. I hope the Minister answers it without invoking the Archbishop of Canterbury's sanction, particularly as the Minister did not swear on the Bible in this place during his swearing-in. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should get to his question. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the request by the Premier of Queensland that the Government act under sections 45(l)(a) and 80 of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act to prevent the proposed trade union blockage of Queensland. I ask whether the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce will obtain an injunction to prevent this un-Australian attack on the people of Queensland. If he is not proposing to take such action, on what basis is he condoning these illegal acts? Mr JOHN BROWN —For fairly obvious reasons I will take this question on notice. I will provide a reasoned response to the honourable member who asked the question before the day is out. Mr LINDSAY —Has the attention of the Minister for Transport been drawn to comments by the Queensland Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing that the Federal Government's new roads program, the Australian land transport program, is deficient in terms of funding and in the tendering provisions associated with it? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. My attention has been drawn to the statements made by the Minister for Local Government, Main Roads and Racing in Queensland. I think that anybody who has done any reasonable reading of our announcements last week and who has made any reasonable examination of this Government's record in respect of road funding would see his statements as completely baseless. This Government has given the highest priority of any Australian Government in history to the development of land transport and, particularly, to the development of roads. We have developed the greatest road construction program in the history of this nation. Despite the bleatings of the Ministers responsible for roads, in whatever State one wishes to name, the fact is that this Government has lifted its game and we are carrying forward this great road construction program. It is up to the State Ministers responsible for roads to recognise that the days of State Ministers for roads coming to this place, holding out their hands to the fairy godmother and saying: 'Give us more of your money to spend in our States on our projects', are over. In effect, what they are saying is that they are unable to persuade their own governments to give them a greater share of State resources for roads. Therefore, they are bound to come to me and to this Government. Those days are finished; they are over. If we look particularly at Queensland, $2 out of $3 spent on roads in Queensland is provided by this Government. If we look at arterial roads, about which Mr Hinze was bleating, the State Government of Queensland is receiving 92 per cent more from this Government for arterial roads than it received in the last full year of the Fraser Government. That is enough of the record of those who sit opposite. Let me briefly describe to the House the Australian land transport program that I announced last week. For the first time in this nation we have taken together road safety, road research, road construction, road maintenance and rail research and we have made a modest commitment to upgrade interstate mainline railways to put them together in one comprehensive program funded-- Mr Hunt —Welded them together. Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the Deputy Leader of the National Party for his compliment. We have put them together in one comprehensive program that will be funded by a set share of the fuel excise for a period of five years and will be indexed for inflationary movements from the second year onwards. Bleat as those opposite will, they were never able to do that. This Government has done it. We have set the framework to improve roads, road safety, rail and rail safety. Let us look at the numbers. What the States are complaining about is that next year, despite the severe difficulties we face in meeting very tight and rigid Budget disciplines, we are going to give the States for road construction and maintenance slightly more than this year-$l,245m. We have managed to do that because of the priorities this Government attaches to land transport. Let us look at Queensland which will get a fraction less for roads in total than it is getting this year. Because it is getting $5m less for arterial roads all hell is going to break loose. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of arterial road works in Queensland and New South Wales are supposed to be at risk, because a few million dollars less is available from this Government for arterial roads. It is a nonsense. The State Ministers have to go back to their own Cabinet tables and persuade their colleagues to recognise the priority this Government accords to roads and get a better deal for themselves. Mr Hinze made the point quite forcefully that the new legislation would require that all arterial road works be put to tender. I advise the House that those sitting opposite wrote that requirement into the Australian bicentennial road development program legislation. They attempted in this place to reject our attempts, and did reject them in the Senate, to relax that legislation. I had personal representations from Senator Bjelke-Petersen and other senators and a number of honourable members opposite wrote to me, after they had voted against the legislation, to ask whether I would exempt the calling of tenders. It was a great exercise. I wrote back privately to them and reminded them that at such and such a date they had voted against that legislation to exempt the calling of tenders. Mr Sinclair —The fact is that you made a mess of it-and in your electorate too, we know. You ought to wind up. Mr PETER MORRIS —I know you are not concerned about roads, George. There are no roads in your electorate. Mr SPEAKER —I invite the Minister to ignore interjections and to wind up his answer. Mr PETER MORRIS —I accept your advice, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the new legislation does not require the calling of tenders for arterial roads. The only way that can happen is if it is forced upon this House by Opposition senators in another place. If Mr Hinze and his National Party colleagues in Queensland want to ensure that does not happen, they ought to be talking to their senators in the other place. Before I resume my seat, I want to repeat that the Australian land transport program is the fulfilment of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in our policy speech to establish a program funded by an indexed set share of excise, which will enable this country to maintain the continuity of the greatest road construction program in its history. Mr PEACOCK —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In order to ensure that Queenslanders will continue to receive their mail and to use their telephone, airline, shipping and other normal services provided by Commonwealth instrumentalities, despite the Australian Council of Trade Unions blockade, will the Prime Minister accept the Opposition's offer to support the introduction and passage through both Houses of the Parliament, of the Commonwealth employees employment provisions legislation, so that it will be in operation by later today? If not, what action will the Government take to ensure that Queenslanders have access to services provided by the Commonwealth, services for which he is responsible? Mr HAWKE —Consistently the attitude of the Opposition, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, towards industrial relations matters is one of gimmickry. They had the opportunity in government to demonstrate whether in fact they can adopt a policy in the industrial relations area which is calculated to produce industrial harmony. They showed themselves singularly unable to do so. Against that ineptitude which they displayed in government, this Government in office has produced the best record in industrial relations, which has now been reflected in the lowest level of industrial disputes for l7 years. Not only are those opposite inept, but they are selectively hypocritical. Members of this House should recall that recently when the doctors in New South Wales were taking industrial action and endangering the lives of Australian citizens, they were not only not condemned by the Leader of the Opposition; they were actively supported. Let the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition stand up and be counted if they are prepared to support industrial action which will endanger the lives of men, women and children in New South Wales. Let it be understood that they will not be listened to in this place or in this country when they come out with this gimmickry. On behalf of the Australian Government, I have been attempting to get the Government-- Mr Donald Cameron —What are you doing? You are doing nothing. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will cease interjecting. Mr Ian Cameron —What about us Queenslanders? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa will cease interjecting. Mr Ian Cameron —I am a Queenslander. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. Mr HAWKE —On behalf of the Government I have been quietly and unobtrusively seeking, behind the scenes-- Mr Peacock —Did you write to the ETU and the ACTU? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, one can see from the attitude of honourable members opposite the reality of their interest in this matter. As distinct from this noise that is being made, I have been attempting to negotiate behind the scenes in order to get the Premier of Queensland to negotiate on this matter. When those attempts failed I wrote to the Premier and published that letter. It was a very reasonable response on behalf of this Government. Mr Peacock —But did you write to the ETU and the ACTU? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —What I said in the letter to the Premier of Queensland was very simple. I said that I recognised that there were difficulties in Queensland, increasing difficulties which were extending beyond Australia. I did not adopt the approach that there was all right or all wrong on one side. That is very rarely the case in any industrial dispute. This dispute does not differ in that respect from any other. There has not been a situation in which there is total right or total wrong on one side. In those circumstances I said to the Queensland Premier: 'Mr Premier, will you in good faith sit down with the Federal Government and representatives of the trade union movement as a whole to get a position in which there can be a negotiation between the trade unions and the Government of Queensland so that there will be a settlement-of-disputes procedure in the power industry which will produce the result that everyone should want'. Under such a settlement-of-disputes procedure in the case of any actual or potential dispute in that power industry, there would be available a system to resolve it so that the interests of the people of Queensland would be properly dealt with. That is the way in which one should try to settle industrial disputes. We do not have to go on with this noise and prattle that is coming from Opposition benches. We have our record in the handling of industrial relations in this country to set against that of members opposite. It is no accident that, in the l2 months to January, under this Government we have had the lowest level of industrial disputation for l7 years. This is the way in which this matter should be handled. We are not going to inflame this dispute, which would be the certain result of the gimmickry proposed by those who in government have shown their total inability to deal with industrial relations in this country. They failed in government and their gimmickry in opposition would be inflammatory and make the situation worse in Queensland. We continue to hold this position, and I take this opportunity to repeat it. On behalf of the Government of Australia, I ask the Premier of Queensland to sit down in constructive negotiation with this Government. I believe that if the Premier does that, ceases the provocation and ceases pursuit of legislation which is in violation of international conventions to which this country is signatory-- Mr Donald Cameron —The Soviet Union, China-they all have strikes! Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton has been warned. He knows the consequences of interjecting after a warning. I will give him one more chance to reflect on it. Mr HAWKE —The level of the contribution from the other side may be measured by the fact that in the most recent interjection we had that observation about the Soviet Union and China. That went out about 20 years ago. It is about time the Opposition realised that the people of Australia have a much more adult and mature understanding and appreciation of what is involved in industrial relations issues. The people recognise that it is the approach of this Government which has produced the best industrial relations situation for 17 years. I repeat: I ask the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, to put aside the rhetoric. In those circumstances we will ask that all the industrial action be put aside. If we sit down together, we can resolve this matter. Dr CHARLESWORTH —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Honourable members are aware of recent Press speculation about a tour of South Africa by a team of Australian cricketers. Can the Prime Minister indicate the Government's attitude to such a possibility? Mr HAWKE —I am aware of these Press reports. I do not know whether they are correct but I certainly hope that they are not. I am very pleased to be able to say that this Government, in its approach to sporting relations with South Africa, has built upon the very sound foundations that preceded it under the Whitlam and the Fraser Governments in regard to opposing the obscene and repugnant system of apartheid. I have paid tribute before and I pay it again not only to the Whitlam Government but also to the Fraser Government for their attitudes in this respect. Over the past 15 years, I believe, Australian sportsmen and sportswomen and Australian sporting bodies have had a proud record in the shunning of sporting contacts with South Africa. I believe their attitude has been exemplary. I also commend in this respect the attitude of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Lange, in attempting to dissuade the New Zealand Rugby Union from sending a team to play in South Africa, and I look forward to discussing that matter with him tomorrow. In view particularly of the tragic violence and loss of life which is currently occurring in South Africa because of the apartheid system, it would be shameful if reports that a team of rebel Australian cricketers was preparing to visit South Africa turned out to be true. I conclude by saying that, notwithstanding the very considerable financial rewards which it is alleged are associated with this offer, I earnestly request any Australian cricketers who are contemplating accepting such an offer to think about the principles involved. I ask them to think about the comfort that they would give to a racist regime by accepting that offer. I ask them to think about the plight of blacks in South Africa. I ask them to think about the reputations of themselves and of their country and to reject any offers they may have received. Mr SHACK —I listened to the Prime Minister's non-answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come to his question. Mr SHACK —I would like to try again by asking the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a question. He will be aware that, through the actions of the New South Wales branch of the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the blockade of Queensland effectively starts tonight. For example, Mr Harry Quinn has said that all airports will be closed. I ask the Minister very clearly and succinctly: What will he do now, today, to protect and uphold the constitutional rights and freedoms of Queenslanders and all Australians, their rights and freedoms to interstate trade, interstate travel and interstate commerce and their rights and freedoms to Federal Government services? Mr WILLIS —The questioner talks about rights and freedoms. Of course, rights and freedoms in this issue are not confined to the people he is discussing. They apply to all the people at the heart of this dispute. As the Prime Minister has indicated, we are, of course, concerned to avoid any such industrial action, any blockade. Mr Peacock —What are you going to do about it? I have not heard a damn thing so far. This is history. Mr WILLIS —We have proposed the means. The honourable member should stop talking and listen for a moment. As the Prime Minister has explained-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has had a pretty fair go. I ask him to cease interjecting. Mr Peacock —They have had a fair go. They have not told us anything. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr WILLIS —We proposed a means by which this blockade could be called off immediately. That is, if the Queensland Premier were prepared to have discussions involving this Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, there would be no blockade. It would be as simple as that. If he wants the blockade to be called off, he only has to agree to discussions. The unions have said that they will call off all industrial action. Mr Howard —Do you admit you can call it off? Mr WILLIS —Let me say to you-- Mr Howard —You admit you can call it off. Mr WILLIS —I cannot call it off. Mr Howard —That is just what you said. Mr WILLIS —It requires-- Mr Howard —You just said that you could call it off. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr Howard —If you call it off-- Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr WILLIS —The Premier of Queensland, of course, can call this matter off. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr WILLIS —Shut up. I suggest you listen to the answer, you idiot. Mr Shack —What was that? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest honourable members-- Mr Shack —I ask the Minister to withdraw that reflection on me, Mr Speaker. Mr WILLIS —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister has withdrawn, quite unreservedly and quite correctly. I ask honourable members on both sides to cease interjecting. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —As I said, this matter could be ended immediately. The industrial action could be ended if the Premier of Queensland decided to agree to the very constructive proposal put to him by the Prime Minister, which was that there be discussions with this Government and with the unions on this whole matter. That seems to me to be an extraordinarily sensible proposal. I find it difficult to understand why the Premier of Queensland has rejected it if his concern is to prevent this kind of industrial action taking place. That constructive proposal has been put. It has been rejected. The Prime Minister has again said today that it is still on offer. The Premier of Queensland can, if he wishes, change his mind, and we will sit down in constructive discussion with him. Let me say also that it is our understanding that in those discussions the trade union movement would be prepared to make proposals to the Queensland Government about the establishment of a settlement of disputes procedure in the electricity industry and that the ACTU would be prepared to endorse the adherence to that procedure by the Queensland unions. There are constructive proposals to be put, additional to those I have just mentioned, yet the Queensland Premier has indicated a lack of interest in discussing these matters, saying that he has had discussions with unions before, and that-- Mr Tuckey —Call your thugs off. Mr WILLIS —They have not adhered to their word. Mr Tuckey —So you call the strike off. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. I remind the honourable member that this is the second time today he has been warned. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —I think the difference in this situation is that the ACTU is saying that it is prepared to guarantee that there would be adherence to some settlement of disputes procedure; so this is a quite different situation from that which the Queensland Government may have experienced in the past. It is regrettable in the extreme that the Queensland Government does not seem to be prepared to look at a constructive settlement. As I said earlier, there was almost a constructive settlement in the State Industrial Commission at the time when he called on the state of emergency and then rejected two recommendations from the State Industrial Commission, which recommendations would have settled the dispute on the spot and would have led to none of the subsequent industrial action which has taken place and none of the unhappy period of extremely undemocratic legislation which has been passed through the Queensland Parliament. It is quite clear that this Government has been thoroughly constructive. As the Prime Minister has said, there have been substantial attempts to try to find a way in which this matter can be resolved. In the end, if the Queensland Government does not want it resolved, I guess that it will not be resolved. We shall have to go through an horrendous period. We hope that it does not come to that. There is no need for it to come to that. If the Queensland Government acts constructively about it, we can avoid all the trouble that is now foreshadowed. Mr BEDDALL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Brisbane Sunday Mail of 7 April in which the journalist Sylvia da Costa-Roque suggested that $100m is being spent in aid for the sugar industry in Bangladesh? Will the Minister inform the House of the extent of government aid to Bangladesh? Has the journalist wildly misled the Queensland public? Mr HAYDEN —I have not seen the article but a number of people have drawn my attention to what they have declared to be its content. Apparently the article did declare that $100m had been spent on developing the sugar industry in Bangladesh and implied that this was at the cost of the Queensland sugar industry, which is in serious difficulty. The facts are that $18m is to be spent over several years on a program to improve the sugar industry in Bangladesh. The program will conclude in December this year. This year, the concluding year of the program, an amount of $6.8m is being spent. Of that, $6.2m will be spent in Queensland acquiring equipment and machinery to improve the operation of sugar mills in Bangladesh. The remainder of the $6.8m will be spent on Australian technical experts and advisers working in Bangladesh. The fact is that the people of Bangladesh require a substantial improvement in the energy content of their nutritional intake, and sugar makes a valuable contribution in that respect. As I understand the situation, even with a substantial improvement in the production of sugar in Bangladesh, the Bangladeshi people will provide sufficient domestic demand to consume that sugar. It will not therefore be a problem concerning the Australian export of sugar in a very difficult international market. Bangladesh does not represent an important market outlet for Australian sugar. Finally, although I have not read the article, I know personally and well the journalist concerned and she is generally a journalist of the highest standards. Obviously the information was wrong in the first place and that is most unfortunate. Mr SHACK —I refer to the claims of the Minister for Industrial Relations and the Prime Minister that the Government has been even-handed in its comments about the Queensland industrial dispute and the Queensland blockade. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of this statement by the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister made on the last Sunday program: . . . if the union movement throughout Australia really decides that it feels it has to take other industrial action in Queensland that would be a very regressive thing . . . Does the Minister agree with the Attorney-General that the Australian Council of Trade Unions planned blockade of Queensland is a regressive step? Will he now condemn the ACTU planned blockade of Queensland and ask his union bosses to call it off? Mr WILLIS —I will ignore the insulting element in the last part of the question. I did not see the Sunday program on which I understand the Attorney-General was interviewed, but he has just informed me that the quote the honourable member has given is wrong. As we have said, we do not condone industrial action by the trade unions in this matter. I told the ACTU that some three weeks or so ago when this prospect was first raised. I said then that it was an unfortunate development and one that we could not support. However, I also said, and I adhere to the point, that if any such action took place we would hold the Queensland Government substantially responsible. It was the Queensland Government's action which in the first place brought about the situation whereby action such as that contemplated by the ACTU is likely to occur. That is not to say that we support the action but we understand the situation that has brought it about. It is something for which the Queensland Government must be held substantially responsible. If it wants to adopt a confrontationist approach to industrial relations, which is obviously its desire, it will inevitably reap the harvest of that in terms of some kind of retaliatory action. That is what happens with confrontationist industrial relations. That is what happened under the previous Fraser Government with the various attempts by that Government to bring about industrial peace by draconian legislation and by using various legislative approaches to try to hammer unions into submission. The usual result is to get the opposite reaction. That is why in this situation we can see that the Queensland Government must be held substantially responsible for the action that it has taken and that is likely to take place. I would like to add to my comment to the previous question in relation to the New South Wales transport workers. I understand the situation to be not as the honourable member for Tangney described it but one in which the union is saying that it will take action which will prevent the passage of freight to Queensland on Friday. In order to ensure that that takes place the union will have to prevent the handling of some of that freight before Friday, but any freight which goes to Queensland before Friday will be handled. I think that is a more correct interpretation, as I understand it, of what is involved. It would be wise for the Opposition to get its facts right in this whole matter before raising points which are quite wrong. Mr LEE —I refer the Special Minister of State to the study conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission into the large increase in the number of informal votes cast for the House of Representatives on 1 December 1984. Has the Special Minister of State received any information regarding the informal vote at this election? Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker-- Mr Moore —Did you sneak him in in your bag? I have not seen him before. Mr YOUNG —Who are you talking about? Mr Peacock —This fellow. Mr YOUNG —You are not winking at me, Andrew? I am in enough trouble. Mr SPEAKER —I am afraid, Minister, that some honourable members are getting so old that they are surprised to see someone youthful in the House. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Dobell will be here for a long time. I had informed the House previously that the Commission was carrying out, as part of its duties, a survey of the informal ballot papers at the 1984 election. The report has been finalised. The report and the accompanying statistical volume will be available to all members of the Parliament as soon as they are available from the Government Printer. I inform the House that, based on the report, some preliminary information has been given to me by the Electoral Commission. That is that all ballot papers marked with a single figure 1 at the last election constituted 42.6 per cent of the total informal vote. Even subtracting the number of people who voted informally by just putting '1' alongside the name of the candidate, the informal vote was still markedly higher than it had been in previous elections. Ballot papers marked with a tick, a cross, or a single figure 1 overall indicated more first preferences for the Australian Labor Party than for other parties. The figures have not been made available to me as yet. Mr Burr —How can you make this statement? Mr YOUNG —It is easy. All you have to do is stand here. You get into the Ministry and you can make it. The conclusion reached by the Electoral Commission is that the overall swing against the Government, which was resolved by the Commission to be 1.9 per cent after the election, would have been reduced to 1.5 per cent, which is a lot of votes. Mr McVeigh —That is a lot, isn't it? Mr YOUNG —It is. It is a lot to make up. It may be one of the reasons that the Opposition is looking at new candidates. I have been told that the new song for the Liberal Party of Australia at the next election will be: If You Knew Susie Like I Knew Susie. The full report of the Commission will be available shortly. Mr SHACK —Does the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations recall his statement of 21 March when he said that the Government 'cannot condone a course of industrial action to try to change the legislation'? In the light of this statement, why does the Minister now persist with not condemning the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the Queensland blockade? Why is he not prepared to take any other action than to condemn the Queensland Government? Mr WILLIS —All of my comments today have been thoroughly consistent with what I said on 21 March. Mr SIMMONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. A report in a recent edition of the Sydney Daily Telegraph claimed that the Australian Army was unhappy with plans to consolidate the infantry and artillery schools as envisaged by the Army training facilities project. Can the Minister inform the House whether there is any substance to these claims? Furthermore, can the Minister indicate when the Federal Government will announce its decision on its preferred site and whether it will seek an environmental impact statement? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question and for his persistent representations in this area, along with his colleague the honourable member for Hunter. Both of them have diligently represented their constituents' concerns. As to the first part of his question, I think it is fair to say that there is a variety of views on this matter in the Army and those views have changed through time. They are coming to a position where some conclusion can be reached. I would expect to be in a position to make a decision on this matter within the next couple of weeks. When that decision is made, I undertake to send it off for a full environmental impact statement. The Government's final determination on how the land subsequently chosen will be used will be dependent on the outcome of that. There will be plenty of opportunities for the honourable gentleman's constituents and the constituents of the honourable member for Hunter, if a site in one or other of their electorates is chosen, to place their views before the people conducting that and before the Government before the ultimate decision is taken. Mr SPEAKER —I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General dated 15 April 1985 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts and generally completed as at 31 December 1984. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the Report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-April 1985, and (2) That the paper be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I present the Law Reform Commission annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian tripartite mission to study the training of skilled workers in the metal and electrical trades in Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1973, I present the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee annual report for 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 29 (4) of the Dairy Produce Act 1924, I present the Australian Dairy Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to clause 11 of the Sugar Agreement 1979, I present the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee annual report for 1983-84. This report replaces the interim report which was tabled in the House of Representatives on 25 February 1985. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Canberra Retail Markets Trust annual report for 1983-84. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 39 (3) of the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979, I present the Parliament House Construction Authority annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980, I present the Australian Bicentennial Authority report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr SHACK(Tangney) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHACK —Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SHACK —In the course of Question Time, I asked a question in which I included a quote drawn from an answer that the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) gave on the Sunday television program on l4 April l985 when he was interviewed by Messrs Laurie Oakes and Robert Haupt. In his answer, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said that he had just spoken to the Attorney-General and that I had misquoted him. I wish to read the question which was asked of the Attorney-General and the answer. Mr Haupt asked: Well if that happens you're still going to have a battle with Sir Joh and Sir Joh's government, it's going to be a States rights issue. Now when that comes up, likely to come before the High Court, would that be influenced by the absence of His Honour Mr Justice Lionel Murphy changing the make up on the Bench? The Attorney-General answered: Yes, I think any actions of Lionel Murphy would certainly make a difference but that's not the issue in front of us at the moment. The issue is to look at it from the point of view of industrial harmony and peace in this nation and the aberration that's applying in Queensland in a small segment of industry at the moment, namely their power industry seems to have got out of complete bounds in the terms of normality. Here is the quote that I lifted: In other words if the union movement throughout Australia really decides that it feels that it has to take other industrial action in Queensland that would be a very regressive thing; in fact it won't solve the problems of this nation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Attorney-General claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, Mr Speaker, but only in the sense of the way that the context of the recent statement has been used. As a matter of fact, the comment that I have is this: . . . if the union movement throughout Australia really decides that it feels it has to take other industrial action in Queensland that would be a very regressive thing, in fact it won't solve the problems of this nation. I went on to say: In other words the Premier of Queensland is living in the luxury of just having a very limited dispute at the moment but if it wants to spread it would bring this nation to a standstill and the procedures of conciliation and arbitration would have to apply. I emphasise the point you won't solve industrial matters by legislation or litigation, you've got to have conciliation and arbitration. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-Honourable members will be aware of the Government's ongoing commitment to assist first home buyers and to attack housing-related poverty and the Government's remarkable achievements in both these areas. Honourable members will also be aware of the strength of recovery in the housing and construction industry. This Government is proud of its housing record. When we came to office, home construction was at a 20-year low. Dwelling commencements in 1982-83 were only 105,000, leaving a large, pent-up demand for housing. The Opposition was happy to preside over these conditions. This Government was not. We set about stimulating activity through the first home owners scheme and assistance to public housing. Commencements built up to 137,000 in 1983-84. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry now expects 147,000 commencements in 1984-85. Commencements substantially exceeded the Indicative Planning Council's estimate of underlying demand in these years because our measures had enabled aggregate pent-up demand to be run off. Thanks to the direct stimulus which we applied, that process is now largely complete. It is now appropriate to achieve a level of activity consistent with the underlying trends. The Indicative Planning Council forecast of commencements in 1985-86 is currently 139,000. So we are successfully striving to achieve not only growth, but also stability in the housing construction industry. Employment in the housing industry has increased. Since the Labor Government came to office over 55,000 jobs have been created in the industry. Of course, many more jobs have been created in other areas involved in the housing market-the finance industry, real estate and in the furniture and white goods industries. The Government's policies are designed to sustain a high level of activity in the housing industry, while also supporting continued economic recovery more generally. As the Government has made clear on many occasions, sustained economic recovery calls for firm action to progressively rein in the Budget deficit. This has been recognised in the Government's budgetary commitments, in particular, its commitment to bring down the deficit in money terms in 1985-86. A lower deficit and a lower public sector borrowing requirement will ease pressure on interest rates-a matter of particular importance to the housing industry. In accordance with this responsible economic approach, the first home owners scheme will be amended. The maximum benefit available under each payment option and each dependant category will be reduced by $1000 for applicants contracting for the purchase or construction of then home from midnight tonight, 16 April 1985. This means, for example, that a family unit with two or more dependant children will receive up to $6000 over five years, compared with the previous benefit of $7000. Mr Hodgman —Shame on you. The promise lasted 16 weeks. Mr WEST —It is surprising how the Opposition urges us to bring down the deficit and yet as we make this very first statement in the 1985-86 budgetary context, it is criticising us for it. It just shows that, if faced with very hard decisions to make, this Opposition would not be able to make them. I see that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is walking out. No doubt he does not want to stay and hear how we are going to bring down the deficit a little. This decision will produce estimated savings of $25m from costs of the program in 1985-86. We now expect to appropriate $290m to assist 82,500 applicants. I stress that, contrary to some ill-founded rumours, the scheme will continue to help the same categories of people whom it has helped in the past, and it will continue to provide welcome stimulation to the building industry and to employment prospects. All applicants who contracted to purchase or construct a home before midnight on 16 April 1985 will continue to be eligible for benefits at the previous levels, regardless of when they lodge their applications. I also wish to assure the House that no person currently eligible for assistance will be excluded from the scheme, and no person presently receiving monthly subsidies will have that benefit cut. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a revised schedule of benefits under each payment option. Leave granted. The document read as follows- FIRST HOME OWNERS SCHEME-REVISED TABLE OF MAXIMUM BENEFITS FOR APPLICANTS WITH A PRESCRIBED DATE* AFTER 16 APRIL 1985 Option 1Option 2Option 3 $ $ $ Lump sum 1,200 Lump sum 2,000 plus plusFor applicants with no dependent children Subsidy only Yr 1 1,400 subsidyYr 1 800 subsidyYr 1 450 2 1,100 2 600 2 350 3 800 3 500 3 250 4 500 4 300 4 150 5 200 5 100 5 50 Total 4,000 3,500 3,250 1,200 2,500 For applicants with one dependent child Subsidy only Yr 1 1,900 Yr 1 1,300 Yr 1 650 2 1,500 2 1,000 2 550 3 1,100 3 800 3 450 4 700 4 500 4 350 5 300 5 200 5 250 Total 5,500 5,000 4,750 1,700 3,000 For applicants with two or more dependent children Subsidy only Yr 1 2,000 Yr 1 1,300 Yr 1 650 2 1,600 2 1,000 2 550 3 1,200 3 800 3 450 4 800 4 500 4 350 5 400 5 200 5 250 Total 6,000 5,500 5,250 * Prescribed date is normally the date of contract to purchase or build, or in the case of an owner-builder, the date construction commenced. Mr WEST —I thank the House. I will be writing to housing and finance institutions, estate agents, builders and others active in the housing industry setting out full details of the change. The decision to reduce the benefit has been taken as part of our 1985-86 Budget deliberations, but I am announcing it now to dispel speculation about the scheme's abolition, which is of concern to intending eligible first home buyers and to the building industry. Announcing this decision now will also enable the changes to cover the full 1985-86 financial year, consistent with the Government's approach to general budgetary reform. It is particularly important that the decision be seen in the context of the Government's approach to the formulation of the 1985-86 Budget. It provides tangible evidence that the targets the Government has set itself in this respect will be met. The Government is concerned that the integrity of the 1985-86 Budget appropriation is assured. Later today I will introduce a Bill to effect a number of machinery changes to the First Home Owners Act, amongst which is a provision to ensure that in 1985-86 expenditure on the first home owners scheme can be held to this Budget appropriation-that is $290m. Following the passage of this Bill there will be no further changes to the first home owners scheme in 1985-86. I remind honourable members that when we first announced our commitment to a first home owners scheme in our 1982 national housing platform we promised a grant of up to $5,000. Following our election in March 1983, after consultation with the industry, and given the urgent need to stimulate housing industry activity and to create jobs, the maximum grant was increased to $7,000. Since then the first home owners scheme has proved spectacularly successful. In the first nine months of operation in 1983-84, 55,000 households were assisted at a cost of $141m. In the 1984-85 Budget we anticipated that a further 80,000 households would be assisted at a cost of $265m. In fact, the popularity of the scheme outstripped expectations, and in February this year an additional $25m was allocated to first home owners scheme funding for 1984-85, bringing funding for this financial year to $290m and increasing the number of households to be assisted this year to 87,000. The change I have announced today should not reduce the scheme's total expenditure or the number to be assisted in 1984-85. So, by the end of June 1985, the first home owners scheme will have helped approximately 142,000 Australian households buy their first homes, with $431m paid to recipients. In 1985-86 we estimate that a further 82,500 will be assisted. Thus, by the end of 1985-86 financial year, nearly 225,000 Australian households will have received a first home owners grant-a spectacular figure indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to advise honourable members that the scheme has also kept thousands of low income home seekers off public housing waiting lists. I again remind the House that in 1984-85, total Federal and State funding for public housing will be almost $1,600m-a record even in real terms. The Federal Government's direct allocation of $623.3m is in stark contrast to the $264.1m allocated by the previous Government in its last full year of office. There is also a strong link between the Government's first home owners scheme and assistance under the home purchase assistance component of the Commonwealth-State housing agreement. Persons receiving this home purchase assistance under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement can also receive first home owners scheme assistance if eligible under the guidelines of that scheme. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a responsible Government, we are prepared to take the necessary hard and tough decisions to reduce the Budget deficit, while maintaining building activity at a sustainable level. That is what this move today does; it meets both requirements. The Opposition is absolutely stuck. It wants to support the business community in arguing for a reduction in the total Budget deficit, yet it is not prepared to take explicit, specific individual action to achieve that end. In recognition of the important role of housing in the continuing economic recovery, changes to the first home owners scheme have been kept to a minimum. I believe that housing industry organisations and the people of Australia will support our efforts to reduce the Budget deficit, while at the same time directing available Budget resources to a continuing first home owners scheme. I present the following paper: Housing Policy-Ministerial Statement, 16 April 1985. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(3.28) —the Hawke socialist Government has quite disgracefully betrayed the prospective home owners of Australia. It has broken a solemn election pledge, just 16 weeks after the election. With absolute premeditation, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who now flees from the chamber, in company with the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Hawke), has torn up the election pledges. They have cut the throat of their own scheme, which has been the most praised and most vaunted scheme since the Hawke Socialist Government came to power in 1983. The blunt facts are that in addition to the $25m cut from the first home owners scheme in 1985-86, there is an additional cut which the Minister has not mentioned-a cut of $15.37m in real terms. If the two cuts are added together, the first home owners of Australia should take note that within 16 weeks of conning its way back into power this Government has chopped $40.37m off a scheme which it has claimed to be one of its greatest achievements. This is a shameful betrayal of many thousands of decent Australian first home owners who were conned into voting for Mr Hawke on l December. I wonder how many of these people would have voted the way they did if they had known what was in store for them at the hands of this deceitful Government just four months later. I say bluntly, on behalf of the Opposition, on behalf of the housing industry and on behalf of the people of Australia, that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing and Construction have grossly deceived the industry, the people and the prospective first home purchasers. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have followed the housing industry very closely for many years. We have just heard the Minister say that these cuts will not really have any bad effect, yet the Minister would surely be aware that as recently as yesterday the Institute of Urban Studies pointed out very forcibly to him and the Government that the first home owners scheme was still not giving sufficient help to the needy. I would like to know where all those members of the Australian Labor Party who say they are genuinely concerned about public housing and the needy will be in this debate. Rather than increase the assistance under the first home owners scheme, this wicked and deceitful Government has chopped $40.37m off it. Look at what it has done to the applicants. As from tonight, the applicants will find their grants cut by as much as 14.29 per cent. That will mean that thousands of decent young Australian men and women who were hoping to get the first home owners grant in order to get themselves into a house this year will now be told by this heartless and deceitful Government: 'Bad luck. We used the con and the promise to get your vote and l6 weeks later we tore up our solemn pledge'. Dr Harry Edwards —Shame! Mr HODGMAN —It is a shameful thing. I note the presence of the honourable member for Berowra, whose concern in this area is well known on both sides of the House. This is the most disgraceful broken promise in the housing area that I can bring to mind in eight years in State Parliament and 10 years in this place. It is only a few weeks ago that the dogs were barking that the first home owners scheme was going to get the chop. Barely two weeks ago the Prime Minister of Australia delivered a major speech to the Twentieth National Housing Industry Convention and he did something very interesting. He left out the nasty parts of his speech. The delegates to that convention had to read the nasty bits in the newspapers the very next day. Of course, the Prime Minister did not want to read out at the convention what his wicked Government had in mind. Oh, no-the Prime Minister gave all the commercials, and these can be found in a copy of his speech, which is freely available. On page 4 there are four glowing paragraphs about what a marvellous thing the first home owners scheme is. Then we come to the interesting words that he just happened not to read out. It was said later by one of his aides that he ran out of time. If he has limited time in future, I suggest that the best advice to him is: 'Do not worry about the good parts; have the guts to tell the industry and the people of Australia the bad parts'. What he did not read out was this: It must be recognised, nevertheless, that no Government program can remain unchanged indefinitely, especially when the circumstances in which that program was introduced are changing. There was the warning. He did not tell the delegates that. They had to read it in the newspapers the next day. The Prime Minister of Australia did not have the courage and the guts to tell the Twentieth National Housing Industry Convention the bad news that was about to come. Now we can see what it is. The Minister for Housing and Construction should resign or should be sacked on two grounds. He should be sacked, first for bringing this disgraceful statement into the Parliament and, secondly, because this is the first of the new pre-Budget announcements and it was leaked to the Press. I ask the House what happens to Treasurers and Ministers who let Budget decisions get leaked to the Press? In today's Australian there is the story on the front page. Sure, there is a slight discrepancy in the figures, but the guts of it is there. What an insult to this Parliament-to members of this House and members of the Senate-that we should read what the Minister was going to say in Parliament on page 1 of today's Australian. I predicted in December last year that the Minister and the Prime Minister would make as great a mess of housing and construction as they jointly made of immigration last year. That prediction is well on line. Mr Beale —Wait until the Government gets started on the economy. Mr HODGMAN —Oh, indeed! The Prime Minister not only missed out three paragraphs, but also sat with the National President of the Housing Industry Association, Mr John Graham, knowing that Mr Graham had, just a few minutes earlier, said these words: No matter how loud the critics cry, the first home owners scheme should not and must not be abandoned or tampered with. Not only will the continuance of the scheme enable the Government to pursue a very worthwhile social objective, but it will encourage a much needed degree of stability in what has hitherto been a far too volatile industry. Dr Harry Edwards —Who said that? Mr HODGMAN —That was said by the President of the Housing Industry Association, Mr John Graham. The Prime Minister sat with Mr Graham and with the Federal directors and did not have the courage to tell them what he and his Government had in store. The Minister was at that function and he knows that what I say is correct. The Minister was put at another table and I was sitting at a table right next to the rostrum. When the Prime Minister made his speech to that convention, he shuffled the pages and did not read out the nasty bits. That is because he was not prepared to confront the delegates to the convention with the truth. Instead, he said: 'No, I will give you a nice little speech. I will leave out the nasty bits and then go away'. There can be no doubt at all that this shameless Government which has been so proud to claim such great credit for the first home owners scheme has, in fact, been planning all the time to cut the infant's throat. The first home owners scheme cuts, taken in conjunction with the recent increases in home loan interest rates-remember the promises of Mr Hawke, Mr Keating and Mr Hurford right throughout last year that interest rates would drop in 1985; as we all know, they have gone up-together with the definite proposal for a 46c in the dollar capital gains tax, will savagely affect morale in the housing industry and will deter prospective first home purchasers. The Government's own expert advisers have already told it that home commencements have peaked-they have, in fact, flattened out-and they will drop by the end of 1985 and continue to drop in 1986. In the light of that information, this disgraceful decision today will inevitably hasten that drop and will lead to a significant loss of employment in the housing and building industries. Mark my words, the Government has done it and has done it deliberately. I suggest its chickens will come home to roost on this matter before this year is ended. The Government knew before the last Federal election that nearly 75 per cent of the entire first home owners scheme appropriation for 1984-85 had already been committed. Deceitfully it kept this information from the people of Australia before the election. Immediately after the election, what did it do? The Minister personally approved a scheme devised within the Department of Housing and Construction to employ delaying tactics to fob off anxious applicants for first home owner grants. If honourable members do not believe me, the proof of the pudding is in a memorandum which I now present in the chamber from none other than Mr R. J. Egan, the First Assistant Secretary, Housing Policy Division, dated 18 December 1984 to Mr J. Wisken, the Director of the Department of Housing and Construction for the Victoria-Tasmania region. Listen to this deception in the light of what the Government has now done. The memorandum says: Current expenditure trends indicate the potential to exceed budget allocation unless measures to contain expenditure are introduced forthwith. The Minister has been advised of measures proposed to contain expenditure and has agreed that the measures be introduced and that their effect be carefully monitored. What was one of the proposals put forward? In respect of certain cases, the memorandum says: . . . you might be able to reduce the number of complaints by acknowledging receipt of these applications and advising of delays. The following form of words may be appropriate. This is a wicked deception to fob off decent young Australians who have made application under this scheme. Listen to these words: This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your application for first home owners assistance and to advise that in cases such as yours, where funds are not required for settlement, applications are being processed in order of date of receipt. The delay in processing of applications is currently . . . weeks. The blank space is just to be filled in. That was to stop the young men and women of Australia coming to the counter and finding out what on earth had gone wrong with their applications. When the Minister was pressed on this he not only declined to respond on national radio, when given the opportunity, but just a few weeks later, without any ministerial announcement, suddenly $25m was injected into the scheme. Would not honourable members have thought that that would have been something of which the Government would have been proud, that there would have been a proper ministerial announcement? No, it was just said that a spokesperson in the Minister's office-a spokesperson we note-confirmed that $25m had been injected into the fund. That was welcomed by the industry and by the first home owners. Last month the Government put in $25m but it will take out $40.37m next financial year. If that is not the greatest con act that I have seen in 18 years in politics, I do not know what is. It is the young people, the poor people-the homeless of Australia-who will suffer due to the Government's decision. The Minister takes some pride in being the first Minister to come into this House and say publicly: 'I put my head on the block. I was the first to go. I am going to be responsible'. The Minister gets 10 out of 10 for economic theory but zero out of 10 for the callous and heartless deceit of the young people of Australia. Since the Minister's appointment he has gone around the country saying that the first home owners scheme is the greatest thing since sliced bread and, funnily enough, we on this side happen to agree with him in principle. But now, having got maximum prestige, maximum public relations and maximum publicity out of it, having conned the votes of the young people of Australia in December last year, 16 weeks later, one of the Government's most solemn election pledges lies in shreds. The Minister should resign. How on earth can he look at himself in the mirror each morning knowing what he has done? He is the one who came into the House a few minutes ago and said: 'The changes are not very many'. He was the first to capitulate. He should have put his ministry on the line on this matter. He should have fought for it. But of course, as I said last December, on the Minister's track record on immigration, along with that of the Prime Minister, what else could we expect? Within 16 weeks the Minister has already proved that he will make a bigger mess of housing and construction than he did of immigration and ethnic affairs. I know that there are honourable members on this side of the House who are genuinely concerned about the homeless of Australia, members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia who are prepared to fight for the right of young Australians to own their own homes. The home ownership rate in Australia has dropped since the Government came to power. There are fewer people owning their own homes in Australia today than there were when Mr Hawke became Prime Minister. This is without doubt the first major scandal of the second Hawke socialist Government. It will cost it dearly at the next Federal election because it has broken a solemn promise. It has betrayed thousands and thousands of decent Australian prospective first home owners. To put it bluntly, the best thing the Minister can do for this country and this Government is to resign forthwith. Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent a First Home Owners Amendment Bill being presented at this sitting and a motion being moved for the second reading of the Bill. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(2.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As I foreshadowed earlier, we propose a number of machinery amendments to the First Home Owners Act 1983. As I informed the Parliament, the first home owners scheme has been the most successful housing assistance scheme this country has ever known. Already it has helped some 142,000 people into homes of their own. Its effect on the housing industry has been marked. As I said earlier, 55,000 new jobs have been created in the industry. Dwelling commencements are predicted to be around 147,000 this financial year, an increase of nearly 40 per cent since this Government came to office. The scheme has now been in operation for some 18 months. During that time a number of shortcomings in the legislation, mainly of a minor nature, have become apparent. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for amendments which overcome these shortcomings. As I have previously announced, the Government will appropriate $290m to the first home owners scheme for 1985-86. This will enable us to assist a further 82,500 applicants into home ownership. In accordance with the Government's resolve to maintain proper controls over expenditure, one of the amendments included in this Bill will ensure that the first home owners scheme expenditure remains within the Budget appropriation. To achieve this, clause 10 of the Bill amends section 34 of the Act to provide for an annual appropriation and appropriates funds for the balance of this financial year. Clause 6 amends section 16 to make it possible to administer the scheme in accordance with the appropriation made by Parliament. I find it very strange indeed how some honourable members of this House, and perhaps some industry organisations, can continue to argue for large reductions in the deficit in monetary terms in the next Budget and then oppose some of the individual measures that we intend to put before this House. Let me repeat that in the last Budget we allocated $265m to the first home owners scheme. We estimated that 80,000 approvals would be made and we subsequently found, despite what the spokesman for the Opposition says, that we would need to appropriate some extra money this year. We did so and we will still spend $290m on this scheme this year and help 87,000 people. Next year we intend to help more people-that is, 82,500-than we originally intended to help in 1984-85, at a cost of $290m, which is $25m more than we expected to spend in the 1984-85 Budget. Yet for this we are being lambasted, for the honourable and responsible wish and design to reduce the budgetary deficit, as we are constantly being exhorted to do by honourable members opposite, and we are being harassed because we are taking these measures. I know the Opposition has to take some very hard decisions and decide whether to applaud us for reducing the deficit or attack us on alleged social grounds for making these changes. What has in fact occurred is that the Opposition is absolutely hoisted on its own petard of irresponsibility, whereas we are taking a responsible decision. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), sits there and says nothing because he knows I am right. If we are going to save a bit of money and reduce the deficit, obviously we have to take some decisions and announce them now to get the full year effect, and that is exactly what we have done. In case the Opposition has missed the message, I repeat that by the end of 1985-86 225,000 households will have been assisted by our scheme and they will have been paid fairly promptly in contrast to the nine months it took to pay people their benefits under the Opposition's scheme. They are the facts of the matter. There are other clauses in this Bill which are machinery clauses. I will not deal with them in great detail, but honourable members can read the explanatory notes. They are clauses that would otherwise have been included in a miscellaneous amendments Bill, if we had not been bringing down this legislation, that is, in regard to the changes in the standing appropriation to the annual appropriation. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill will amend the Act to close loopholes identified by a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The decision has raised the possibility that, contrary to the intention of the Government when it introduced the first home owners scheme, an applicant or applicants acquiring only a small interest in a dwelling could qualify for the maximum benefit. The clauses also make similar provision in relation to applicants who have shares in a body corporate for amounts less than the value of the dwelling. The remaining amendments are of a minor machinery nature, as I said, and are explained in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable members. In summary they are as follows: Clauses 5 (d) and 8 (b) correct the anomalies relating to previous home ownership and year of income for migrants. The amendment to clause 5 (d) makes it clear that my Department may disregard previous home ownership in cases in which it is clear that the applicant lived briefly in the residence but for reasons such as break-up of marriage it was not his or her principal place of residence. The amendment in clause 8 is designed to bring the treatment of migrants fully into line with that of other applicants for the purposes of determining their income year; that is, they may be tested on the basis of their current year of income where this is lower than the previous full year of income in Australia. Clause 5 (e) clarifies the Secretary's discretion to determine the 'prescribed date' of an application. This amendment follows a recent Federal Court judgment and is necessary to give effect to the original intention of the legislation. It will also make sure that applicants who experience a long delay with their contract are not disadvantaged. Clause 9 amends section 23 to permit applicants who have received assistance in respect of contracts which have fallen through to offset that assistance against a subsequent entitlement rather than to have to repay the earlier benefit, as is now the case. Clause 3 amends the definition of 'rural property' in section 4 to that originally intended. This will ensure that it applies only to genuine farming properties on which the applicant has secure tenure. Clause 7 amends section 21 to enable the Secretary to determine an applicant's taxable income for the purposes of the Act when the applicant is not required to lodge a taxation return. Clause 13 of the Bill provides for the removal of all sexist language from the principal Act. The remaining clauses are of a procedural and evidentiary nature. These amendments, other than the change to funding arrangements and the procedural and evidentiary changes, will apply in relation to applications in respect of which the prescribed date is later than 16 April 1985. The changed funding arrangements will apply from the date of royal assent but will have the effect of applying controls on aggregate expenditure as from today. The other changes will apply from royal assent. I emphasise that these changes will not affect the overall level of assistance to first home buyers, which, as I have said, will assist some 82,500 households in 1985-86. I commend the Bill to the House. Motion (by Mr Hodgman) proposed: That the debate on this shameful Bill be adjourned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Just to adjourn the debate is sufficient. The debate is adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Dawkins,Mr Jull,Mr Keating and Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the Koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Dobie,Mr Fitzgibbon and Mr Gorman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They 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. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cunningham,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Lloyd,Mr Mildren and Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mr Robert Brown and Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. By declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges,Mr Snow and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Ruddock. 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 Baldwin. 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 the current Telecom Australia practice of charging STD telephone rates for telephone users living in ''outer metropolitan'' areas is unfair given that Telecom's method of determining what is an outer metropolitan area (by drawing concentric circles on a map centring on the Perth GPO) does not take into account the development of regional and subregional corridors of urban growth which are encouraged by the West Australian State Government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recommendations of the House of Representatives Committee on Expenditure concerning Telecom's zonal charging policies be implemented so that areas of urban growth at significant distances from the Perth GPO are not automatically classified as STD telephone areas but instead that consideration be given to the development of areas of urban growth in relation to their STD status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensions, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. 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 in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. 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 the undersigned citizens humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government reject any attempt to re-introduce Tertiary Fees. by Mr Keating. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We call upon the Government of the Commonwealth to: 1. Reject a user pays system of education and hence tuition fees in any form. 2. Abolish the overseas students charge and make a commitment to action to improve the Overseas Students Program. 3. Publicly reaffirm its commitment to a free post secondary school education system, open to all. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the unemployment benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm its obligations to fully fund tertiary education and to implement all 1983 election promises to academic staff and students. 2. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to accept and implement the recommendations of the Advanced Education Council in regard to the funding of the advanced education sector over the 1985-87 Triennium. 3. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to affirm that increases in Commonwealth Grants to tertiary education should be financed from general revenue and not from the deferral of increases in the level of academic salaries or of tertiary student allowances. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding. 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purposes of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Federal Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned showeth. We electors of South Australia ask that the Federal Government recognise God in our National Anthem by replacing the word 'Advance' in the last line with 'God Bless' reading 'God Bless Australia Fair.' in the last line of each verse because- (1) seeing the words of Advance Australia Fair are being changed for our National Anthem, it would be desirable to include recognition of God; (2) a recent survey showed that 89% of Australian people believe there is a God. This is a large majority; (3) if we ask God to bless us, He will; and (4) God has promised, if people turn from evil to Him, He will reward them. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to make this alteration and recognise God in our National Anthem. by Mr Andrew. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the Division of Dawson shows: (1) Concern about Labor's extension of travel and staff entitlements to cover de facto and homosexual partnerships of parliamentarians and public servants, (2) Legislation should reflect the traditional family as the corner-stone to a stable and cohesive Australian society, and (3) Prays that the Parliament will immediately pass legislation to reverse these regulations and confer proper recognition upon the traditional de jure marriage. by Mr Braithwaite. 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 Braithwaite. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Quarantine Amendment Bill 1985 Trust Recoupment Tax Bill 1985 Trust Recoupment Tax (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 Sugar Agreement Bill 1985 Marriage Amendment Bill 1985 Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1985 Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1985 Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Amendment Bill 1985 International Development Association (Special Contribution) Bill 1985 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to protect the rights and interests of Australian citizens who live in Queensland against the ACTU planned blockade of that State. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SHACK(Tangney)(3.59) —As things stand now, from midnight this Thursday the State of Queensland and its population of about 2.5 million of our fellow Australians will be subjected to a transport blockade. From midnight this Thursday, road, rail, sea and air services into and out of Queensland will cease, cutting Queensland off from the rest of the country. A visitor to Australia might well ask: 'Are you at war? Has some foreign expeditionary force suddenly landed on your shores? Are enemy troops now quickly seeking to sever transport links between Queensland and the rest of the Commonwealth?' If this were the case, if we were at war, would not the Federal Government be making great haste? Would it not be pulling out all the stops to protect our fellow Australians who happen to be living in Queensland? Of course we are not at war and we are not subject to a foreign military threat, but the point is that the immediate consequences for people living in Queensland will be largely the same. Equally immediate is the need for the Federal Government to move to protect these people, to preserve their rights and uphold their freedoms under the Australian Constitution-the freedoms of interstate travel, trade and commerce. The planned Australian Council of Trade Unions sponsored transport blockade of Queensland, this assault on the freedom of our fellow Australians living in Queensland, is nothing short of outrageous. It deserves the strongest condemnation-from Perth to Sydney and from Hobart to Darwin, the length and breadth of this nation. It demands immediate action by the Federal Government. It is a national crisis, as mentioned by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) during Question Time, but what is the Government doing about it? It is doing nothing. The New South Wales branch of the Transport Workers Union has already broken ranks and jumped the gun. It is applying bans from tonight. Mr Harry Quinn, the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Transport Workers Union, believes the blockade should be longer than the 24 hours advocated by the ACTU. That is why his branch is starting already. He advocates that it should go not for 24 hours but for a month. My only advice to all those visitors to Canberra from Queensland is that they get back before Friday. This Government is doing nothing to protect Queenslanders and doing nothing to protect other Australians who want to travel to Queensland or trade with their fellow citizens in that State. This Government is doing nothing to discourage unions from wanting to take what even the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) has described as regressive action. Are we to be treated to the spectacle of Transport Workers Union thugs picketing the highways and byways into and out of Queensland before this Government is forced to act? While the Government is generally responsible for this failure to act, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is especially responsible and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is particularly responsible. It is the Prime Minister who keeps telling us about the Government's so-called special relationship with the trade unions. If this blockade is an example of that special relationship with the trade unions, God help all of us. The Prime Minister and his Government, by their inaction, are giving vindictive and irresponsible unions their head, allowing the actions of democratically elected governments to be challenged by union leaders representing no one but their own sectional interests. Is this a government for the people or for the unions? This Government's inaction and its unwillingness to go in to bat for the people of Queensland and for all of us against union thuggery tell us who this Government is for. Australia now has a government of the unions, for the unions, by the unions. Just look at this Government. The Prime Minister is the biggest ex-union boss of them all and his sidekick, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is the present ACTU man in Canberra. Together they make a good team-good for the unions, but bad for the wider Australian community. This Government is being more than soft on these unions. It is supporting their actions. By doing nothing the Government is supporting the blockade. By appealing to International Labour Organisation conventions the Prime Minister is undermining a democratically elected government's strong and publicly supported stand. Who suffers? It is the people of Queensland and all Australians. Does the Government see its duty as protecting only the interests of Australians in other States? One might well ask: Does the Prime Minister have it in particularly for Queensland, or would he dump any State if his union mates decided to have a go and bung on a blockade of Western Australia, Tasmania or South Australia? It is not just the Opposition which has these grave suspicions about on whose behalf the Government governs. Indeed, one need only look at the money market to see that the business community has the same doubts about this Government's authority and impartiality. The fall of the Australian dollar is a clear indication that the financial community believes that this Government has lost its authority and its control. There could not be a clearer example than this. From the outside it looks like the ACTU calls the shots and the Prime Minister and his Government do their job-the ACTU way. The Queensland dispute proves that that is the way things work in Canberra under this compromised government. For the duration of this Government it has been attempting to keep at arm's length its dependent and supplicant relationship with the trade union movement. We have heard much about the special relationship the Government has with the trade union movement and about the industrial peace and harmony that that special relationship brings to bear. But we can see how this relationship is now working in reverse, as this Government does the bidding of its union masters. Let us look at what the Government could be doing to protect Queenslanders from this outrageous union action. Right now we could be debating in this chamber appropriate legislation, and the Senate could be debating such legislation not long after. We could be debating use of the Trade Practices Act to restrain Transport Workers Union members from conducting the blockade. We could now be passing the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Bill and bringing that legislation to bear on Federal Government employees who are going to go along with this blockade. We could be passing that legislation in this chamber right now and sending a message to the other place so that the Government could have on hand this evening some legislative action to meet this blockade on Friday. The Government, in the light of its special relationship, could be taking political action-supposedly the Government's strong suit. The Government could be using honeyed words. It could be having a cup of tea with or buying a beer for its union mates; a chat here and a deal there-the special relationship. It is a special relationship indeed! I say it is one that puts union interests ahead of public interest. It is a special relationship that supports the guerrilla action of non-representative organisations without popularly elected leaders instead of supporting the action of a democratically elected government, in this case in Queensland, trying to protect its own citizens. Let us have a look at the Transport Workers Union, which has broken ranks and is at the forefront of this present dispute. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Industrial Relations and other members of the Government should have absolutely no compunction in taking the strongest possible action against the Transport Workers Union. Their failure to do so makes a mockery of their commitment to responsible unions in this country. The TWU has been one of the unions that has consistently refused to accept the spirit of the accord that the Prime Minister and his Minister are always talking about. Look at the record of the TWU in the period since this Government came to office. Forget about the wildcat strikes, the airline strikes, the bans it imposed on State and Federal governments and the Victorian milk strike of l98l. Forget about even the scandal of the bullying of small business people in Sydney, in the case of Laidlaw, and forget about the case in Western Australia when the union stood over the Western Australian Government to force it to drop extortion charges against the union secretary, John O'Connor. Just look at the record of the Transport Workers Union under this Government. It fuelled destructive demarcation disputes in the Kimberleys and refused to accept a Western Australian Industrial Commission decision, not once, not twice, but three times, until it got its way. It threatened to ban the handling of medical materials, thereby putting hundreds of medical patients at risk, and threatened to bring the New South Wales transport industry to a complete halt unless employers agreed within a week to superannuation schemes. That demand was completly outside the spirit of the accord and in defiance of the ACTU. There was also the Australa-wide airline stoppage of 23 May. This is the union that is at the vanguard of this industrial blockade of Queensland. There has been a range of threats by the Transport Workers Union to this Government about taking strike action if this Government does not change its tax policies. This is the union that the Government will not stand up to. It is a union which has flouted its authority at every step, a union which behaves very much like those Queensland power unions whose irresponsible attitude forced the Queensland Government into having to move to protect its own citizens. It is a union whose leader in New South Wales has said: 'If we are to be concerned about elections or politicians we would never get anything done for our own members'. That is the contempt for democracy which the Transport Workers Union has shown on many instances in the past and which it is now displaying in respect of this blockade. The Prime Minister and his Government are failing to live up to their responsibilities. This Government is not acting without fear or favour in the interests of the community at large. It is caving in to its union bosses and its union mates. It is abandoning Queenslanders and allowing Queensland to be stood over by a clutch of union heavies. The Prime Minister wanted his job and the Minister wanted his job and they both have them. They both take the money. It is about time they started earning it. The Prime Minister and his Minister have not yet cast off their role of union go-betweens acting in union interests to achieve union ends. That is not the behaviour that this nation needs of a Prime Minister and a Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and all the other Ministers have higher duties to protect the public interest and not sectional interests, to defend responsible action and not belligerent blockading by Transport Workers Union thugs. If the Prime Minister and his Ministers cannot do the job they should give someone a go who can. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.l3) —We have just listened to the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) speak for about l3.5 minutes in which time he said not one word of criticism of the Queensland Government. He spent all his time demonstrating his well-known paranoia about the trade union movement. Far be it from me to say that the trade union movement is perfect in every way. Obviously it does things which this Government does not support. As I have indicated in Question Time, taking industrial action in relation to this matter is one of those things. Nevertheless, I think it is interesting to note that the honourable member for Tangney said not one word of criticism of the Queensland Government in the whole of his time. I want to put it on the record that it is now quite clear that the Opposition totally, unambiguously, without any qualification, supports the Queensland Government. In doing so it is supporting action which I think previous Liberal governments would not have supported and disparaging international treaties which I think previous Liberal governments have shown an inclination to support. I think it is deplorable that this Opposition has now shown that it will go as low as possible in order to support its paranoia about the trade union movement and to grasp opportunistically at any straw which it thinks will get it some kind of electoral support. That is what this pathetic display today was all about. Let me say at the outset that the Government totally refutes the basis of this matter of public importance, the basis being that the Government is doing nothing about the planned blockade of Queensland. This Government has tried to use its best endeavours, in a situation in which it has no substantial powers to legislate to take action in that regard, to say to the Queensland Government: 'The approach that you are on is the wrong approach to good industrial relations in this country. If you will only have a meeting with the trade union movement to discuss what might be done in relation to the electricity industry, we may be able to find a basis for the amicable settlement of this whole mess'. The Queensland Government has refused to accept any such discussions, indicating thereby that it is determined to bring about a total confrontation. I do not know what its motives are in doing so. One can speculate about that but I do not wish to take up the time of the House in doing that. Whatever those motives are, it is quite clear that the Queensland Government is not interested in preventing total industrial confrontation in this country. It is interested in creating that confrontation. When the electricity dispute was before the State Industrial Commission the Queensland Government twice refused to accept recommendations from the State Industrial Commission which would have settled the dispute. The unions agreed to accept those recommendations but the Queensland Government said: 'No'. There was no basis of settlement because the Queensland Government would not accept the State Industrial Commission's recommendations. Not only did it not accept them but also it denigrated the State Industrial Commission, making quite disparaging remarks about that Commission, which led to the State Industrial Commission calling a special meeting of that Commission to reject the statements made by the Premier. Mr Hodgman —This is all history. What are you going to do now? Mr WILLIS —It is not history of which the honourable member seems to be aware. The President of the Commission made the point that the statements made by the Premier had been quite absurd. I think it is obvious, therefore, that the Queensland Government, from its actions, does not want to settle the dispute. If it wants to have total confrontation, it is in a position to bring that confrontation about. That is what is happening, very regrettably. We totally repudiate the suggestions from the Opposition that we could settle this dispute by rushing in with draconian legislation of one sort or another. That kind of legislation would not settle this dispute. It would not stop the blockade. It would exacerbate and inflame the situation and we would rush to a much wider confrontation much more quickly. That is the kind of situation that would develop if we adopted the approach that the Opposition would like us to adopt. We will not adopt that approach. We have put a constructive proposal to the Queensland Government and, unfortunately, it has been rejected. If discussions had been held, I believe that the union movement would have been in a position to put some constructive proposals to the Queensland Government which would have improved the industrial relations situation in that industry, and in a way which I think the Queensland Government would not find unacceptable. Apparently that is not what it is interested in talking about. It just wants to have a situation in which there is massive confrontation. One must ask: What are its motives? What is the Queensland Government really trying to achieve? Is it trying to get some sort of strategic breakthrough against the power of the trade union movement? Maybe that is its motive. Maybe it is wider than that. Maybe it is concerned that it should be doing something to cover the fact that the Queensland economy, relatively speaking, is by far the worst in this country. Maybe it is so concerned about that fact that it wants to distract the attention of the Queensland people from the fact that this State is being hopelessly managed. In the last l2 months it had a growth in employment of only 0.3 per cent when the nation as a whole had a growth of 2 per cent. Its rate of unemployment has risen by 7.3 per cent in the last l2 months compared with a national decline of 4.l per cent. New motor vehicle registrations in Queensland in the three months to the end of February l985 fell by 0.5 per cent compared with a l2 per cent rise nationally. Building approvals rose by only l.7 per cent in the three months to the end of January l985, whereas a year earlier there was a 9.5 per cent increase for Australia as a whole. The value of other building approvals rose by 36 per cent in Queensland in that period compared with 67.4 per cent in Australia. Private investment for the September quarter l984 fell by 20.6 per cent over the September quarter l983 in Queensland whereas in Australia as a whole it rose by 2.3 per cent. Bankruptcies increased by 26.4 per cent in Queensland in l984 against 1983-- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. My point of order, which is a substantive one, is that the remarks by the Minister are simply not relevant to the matter of public importance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I have listened very carefully to the Minister. The remarks are well in context with the discussion that is before the House. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —As I was saying, in Queensland in l984 there was an increase of 26.4 per cent in bankruptcies, whereas they fell by 8.2 per cent in Australia as a whole. In respect of industrial disputes, for the l2 months to January l985, there was a decline of l5.6 per cent for Australia in the days lost through industrial disputes, but in Queensland they increased by 84 per cent. It is quite obvious that the Queensland Government, at least in part, is trying very hard to distract the attention of the Queensland people from the enormous shambles that it made of the economy of that State and that, relative to the rest of Australia, it is performing abysmally. Perhaps that is the major motivation in what it is about. Let me say that in pursuit of these objectives, whatever they are, it is quite clear that the Queensland Government is prepared to make unprecedented attacks on the democratic rights and the civil liberties of the Queensland citizens. We have heard not one word from the honourable member for Tangney about that. He does not have one iota of concern about the fact that civil liberties are being attacked in that State. We have had all sorts of disinterested people, such as churchmen and others, saying that they are greatly concerned about what is happening to civil liberties in that State, but we have not heard one word from the Opposition of any concern about that whatever. If action is taken against unions it does not matter; democratic rights and civil rights can be chucked out the window. They are only unionists after all, and, therefore, second-grade citizens in the view of members of the Opposition. They have that kind of approach. We can expect the kinds of things we have heard from the honourable member for Tangney. We can expect members of the Opposition to say, as he said, that the International Labour Organisation does not matter. He said: 'What does it matter if you breach ILO conventions? Who cares about them? They are only ILO conventions'. To quote him directly, he said: 'They are irrelevant to the Queensland industrial situation. It is pointless for the Prime Minister to invoke them. Most of Australia has never heard of the ILO and would not regard the proclamations of a far off international organisation as relevant to Australian industrial relations'. What an amazing and deplorable statement that was. I think it is regrettable in the extreme that members of the Opposition are now expressing a total lack of concern for the ILO which, after all, is the labour arm of the United Nations. Presumably those comments go also for the international covenants which have been breached by the Queensland Government and presumably, therefore, it does not care much about the United Nations either. I think it is regrettable and deplorable that members of the Opposition have now seen fit to disparage the ILO in particular and say that that does not matter a damn because that has never been the position of the Opposition before, as I understand it. Indeed, previous Ministers and shadow Ministers have gone to the ILO and expressed their great support for it. I think that the honourable member for Tangney, in taking the stand that he has, has taken the members of the Opposition to depths to which they have never plunged. It is a fact that there has been a breach of several ILO conventions, such as ILO Convention 29, ILO Convention l05-both of which relate to forced labour-the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ILO Convention 87 concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the ILO Convention concerning the application of the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively. All of those covenants have been breached by the Queensland legislation and the Opposition does not give a damn. I think that is deplorable. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an attachment to a letter to the Premier which sets out all of the breaches by Queensland industrial legislation of international treaties to which Australia is a party. I want to give the Opposition the opportunity to have a look at it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is leave granted? Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not a written statement and we could not agree to it. Mr WILLIS —Members of the Opposition obviously want to hide the evidence. Mr Braithwaite —That is the rule of the House. Mr WILLIS —There it is. Have a look at it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Leave is not granted. Mr WILLIS —I note the fact that the Opposition seeks to hide from the Australian people the facts of the breaches of ILO conventions and international covenants. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say also-time does not permit me to go into the details-that in the actions taken by the Queensland Government there have been many other breaches of democratic rights and civil liberties which are not breaches specifically of any international treaties but which are certainly deplorable developments. The picketing one is one obvious such development. I do not need to elaborate on that, but I do need to elaborate just slightly on the conditions for re-employment of electricity workers. Some 900 are still without a job. Those people have been told they can get their jobs back if they rat on their mates. They have to tell the authorities whether they were forced out on strike and who forced them; what evidence there is of harassment and by whom; they have to name the people who caused any harassment; name any pickets and name any workmates who have urged them to remain on strike. They also have to agree to sign a no-strike clause for a 38-hour week as against the 36 1/3-hour week they had before and agree to other various detrimental conditions of employment compared with what they previously had. What we have seen in Queensland has been the use by the Queensland Government of its legislative powers to override the conditions of employment established by the State Industrial Commission. The criticism of the State Industrial Commission has been taken to a point where the authority of the Commission was taken away in this area and a new tribunal established. This tribunal does not have the full authority of the previous State Industrial Commission and is unable to deal with disciplinary measures taken against employees for breach of their conditions of employment. Time does not permit me to go into more detail in that regard. But we do deplore the great array of undemocratic actions taken by the Queensland Government. Let me say that the actions taken by this Government are, quite clearly, counter-productive. The way to achieve industrial peace is not by seeking to enforce it in this manner. Many previous attempts have been made, including by the Fraser Government, quite unsuccessfully. This is not the way to resolve the difficult situation in that State. The way we are going to get better industrial relations in this country is by the methods used by this Government. It has achieved a dramatic reduction in the level of industrial disputes. In the last l2 months, l,326,000 days have been lost compared with 4.5 million in the last year of the Fraser Government. There has been an enormous reduction in the level of industrial disputes-the lowest level for l7 years. It is quite obvious that this Government knows how to achieve industrial peace. The Queensland Government is not interested in doing anything about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is obvious-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have not called the honourable member for Dawson yet. I will not call the honourable member for Dawson until there is some order from honourable members sitting behind him on the front bench. That order was not apparent during the remarks of the Minister even though I asked for it on numerous occasions. I call the honourable member for Dawson. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(4.28) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to the matter of public importance wondering whether the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has read the wording of it and wondering whether he realises the importance of the debate that is taking place and in which he has participated. I regard this as a watershed decision: The Government either tells the union bosses what they should be doing or it continues to be led down the road by the nose as it has been over the last two years. This matter of public importance is about who governs-the Government or people who have union positions, who flout their power and who believe that they can govern in that right and that right alone. It is a matter of whether the Australian Council of Trade Unions, an unelected group, is going to tell the Government and continue to tell the Government what it is going to do. It is ridiculous for the Minister to say that he wants to incorporate a paper when he knows, or he should know, that it is a precedent of the House that that is not allowed. I believe he knows as little about his own portfolio as he does about the forms of the House. The Minister mentioned that the Government has no power, that it is not going to introduce draconian legislation to try to put a stop to this matter. He wants to talk to the Queensland Government, but he mentions nothing about talking to the ACTU and nothing about talking to Simon Crean. Through questioning this afternoon it is obvious that he knows that the Trade Practices Act could put a stop to this immediately either through section 45, or through power vested in the Minister under section 80 to impose an injunction on the unions. But what does he do? He backs down and brings on a tirade against the Queensland Government just to indicate that the Queensland Government and the State of Queensland are in the black book of the Commonwealth just as the Tasmanian Government was when it first came to office. It is not good enough for Government members to come into this House and cry the old story of the Queensland Government's inability to do this, that or the other. All the Queensland Government is trying to do in this case is to govern for its people, as is its elected right, and not be forced into a situation through the mistakes of the Electrical Trades Union which caused this dispute. I suggest that, if a secret poll of members of the ACTU were carried out, asking what they thought of the actions of the ETU in this situation, the ETU would get only one vote; that is, its own vote. It is said that the Queensland Government should go to arbitration and should hold discussions. But on no fewer than five occasions the ETU was instructed and was demanded to go back to work. What did it do? It flouted the orders every time. The three times mentioned by the Minister that the Queensland Government took no notice were following recommendations, not demands, as the Commission realised that it could not make the demands as was suggested. It is the height of hypocrisy for Government members to come in here and suggest that the Queensland Government is creating this situation. All it wanted initially was to have the right to employ private labour. All it wanted was the right to employ private contractors. It is interesting to note that the whole demand of the union movement is to fill those thousand jobs. I tell the Minister, in case he has not been over the border lately, that those thousand jobs are filled. The work is going on productively. The only thing that is going on south of the border is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. I will instance one particular occasion where apparently the ETU in Victoria issued a Press statement stating that three electricity linesmen have been killed in Queensland since the strike was broken. That is absolute rot; it is the type of fear that is being put into people south of the border. There is talk of draconian legislation by the Commonwealth being required. It is not required. I suggest that even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) does not agree that the legislation presently in force in Queensland is draconian. The Minister invoked the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the basis that after a couple of days visit to Queensland he knew all about the situation. What he did was to read the rubbish put out by the Labor Government here. All that has happened under the two pieces of legislation is to ensure that the people employed by the Electricity Commission are not harassed. The Federal Government brought in legislation last year to ensure that women are not harassed, but it is not prepared to ensure that people lawfully employed and lawfully contracted are not harassed as they go through strike gates. It is a reflection on the Government that one of its senators is under the threat of imprisonment but was let out for Easter. Another, Senator Childs, had the wisdom to walk away from the confrontation and go into the backyard because he knew that where there is a law there has to be order. This Government and the ACTU are trying to promote a heap of lies in the south which are meant to blanket the inefficiencies and the stupidity of the ETU in going to the wall on this occasion. It went to the wall and it will stay there because of its own stupidity. The stupidity of the ACTU is shown in its wanting to back this to the hilt. Let me say that it is not the union people we are bashing; it is the union leaders. I will give a couple of examples to take us away from the ETU. I understand that on Sunday night there was a flight from Brisbane to Sydney and on to Canberra. As there was a sick hostess who could not take her place on that flight from Sydney to Canberra, the union leader would not allow a substitute. What happened? The plane had to be downgraded from a Boeing 727 to a DC9. Fifty people had to stay overnight in Sydney and the others arrived here two and a half hours late. There are members on the Government side who will verify that fact and who would complain as bitterly as we do about the actions, not of the union members but of the union leader. I will give another example of the great freedom and democratic principles that exist within the union movement! I know of a situation where an employer had to choose between two members of a union. The employer chose one but the union leader would not accept the one chosen by the employer; he wants to impose in that work force someone of lesser efficiency and lesser quality. That is what we are complaining about. That is what the Queensland Government is complaining about. It wants the rights of people recognised so that they can go about their lawful business, do their work and be productive so that the economy which is often talked about, not only for Queensland but for Australia, will improve. It is the little csars within the union movement, who are not elected to government in Queensland, any other State or the Commonwealth, who are imposing their will on Australia and the States. This is the first time ever that a government has had the will, the desire or the real impetus to put something in place, not for itself but for the people of Queensland. If a secret ballot were held on this matter at the moment in Queensland or indeed throughout Australia, I believe that the response would indicate that Australians-the workers, the small business people, the housewives and the aged-believe that enough is enough and that it is time that not only this Government in Canberra but also all State governments adhered to the principles. The Government has been led down the road. I just wonder whether this is another indication that it will be led further down the road. We had the Commonwealth employees employment provision legislation revoked. The prices and incomes accord was agreed to because it was the will of the ACTU. If we ask the sugar industry, the coal industry or any of the other industries that are going down the tube in the Australian economy at the moment what say they had in the prices and income accord, we will find that they had absolutely none. All of the things that were in the prices and income accord, and those outside the prices and income accord, have the approbation of this Government and it does not have the guts to do anything about them. The Government knows who its masters are. Its masters are the ACTU members. We see that influence, that progression down the slide in the last two years, when we look at how Australia compares with the rest of the world. As far as standard of living is concerned we have gone from second to sixteenth. We have gone from being the third most important trading nation to being the twenty-first. Shall I tell the House about our Australian dollar, or does the Minister not want to know about it? It has slipped. Mr Howard —Bob's dollar. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right; Bob's dollar. It will slip further. The ridiculous part that we have heard is that through a devaluation of l7 per cent we can employ l00,000 more people. Perhaps when the dollar gets to zero, we will have 500,000 more people in the work force, carting bank loads of dollars in wheelbarrows across the world, trying to sell them. What absolute rubbish that is. This is all brought about by the dictates of the ACTU to the Government and through the dictates of the Trades and Labour Council in Queensland and right across the union movement. As successful as the union movement might think this blockade will be, either tonight in New South Wales or on Friday for the rest of the union movement, I am sure it will be bound for disappointment because-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(4.38) —The Government totally rejects the basis of the matter of public importance brought forward today by the Opposition. I am absolutely bewildered that members of the Opposition can support this matter of public importance. We heard earlier from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) that the Government of Queensland had been democratically elected. It amazes me to hear members of the Liberal Party of Australia on that side of the House support Bjelke-Petersen and his Government in Queensland. Who deserted the Liberal Party and went to the National Party of Australia? A couple of Liberals did. But the Liberals are now supporting the National Party. What a mob of hypocrites they are. I refer to 'Shady' Lane and Austin. Opposition members know what happened. I wonder whether Opposition members will be in here next week, supporting Bjelke-Petersen's redistribution legislation in Queensland. I wonder whether the Liberals will come in here man by man and support the redistribution? They know what Joh will do to them. I should not call him 'Joh' and familiarise with that man. Bjelke-Petersen is the enemy of the people of Australia and the Liberals are supporting him. We will see what happens with the redistribution. I thought that the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who supported the matter of public importance, had a bit of decency in him. However, after his union bashing today I have totally lost respect for him. We are all well aware of what is happening in Queensland. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the Government has done nothing for the people of Queensland. Let us look at the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 20 February in which he called on all unions that were taking action in support of the Electrical Trades Union to go back to work. He said: 'Let us get around the table and talk'; that is, talk to the Premier, to the Trades and Labour Council and to the Australian Council of Trade Unions about what was happening in Queensland. There was no indication from the Premier that he wanted to talk to anybody. He refused to talk to any person or persons in relation to the dispute in Queensland. I urge all honourable members opposite to look at the telex from the Prime Minister to the Premier of Queensland. Not one honourable member opposite has read this letter. Not one of them cares what is in this letter. Honourable members opposite are not interested in what we are trying to do for the people of Queensland. After the matter of public importance is concluded I will send honourable members opposite a copy of the letter so they are able to read what the Prime Minister said to the Premier. We all know what the Premier said to the Prime Minister. He said: 'You can go to hell. We are not going to talk to you'. Honourable members opposite support a Premier who will not talk to the ACTU. He will have nothing to do with the ACTU, yet the Opposition supports him. He will have nothing to do with the Prime Minister of this nation. Honourable members opposite know as well as I do that the people of this nation support the Prime Minister. Yet we have Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland refusing to talk to the Prime Minister of this nation. He will not talk to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). We all know that the rabble on the other side, the Opposition, purport to represent a man who introduces fascist legislation and rushes it through the Parliament of Queensland. We know what the people opposite are. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who is at the table, tried to tell the Opposition about the Queensland Government. We are all well aware of what the International Labour Organisation conventions are and how they have been contravened by the Premier of Queensland. I will send Opposition members a copy of these conventions, too. They are not interested in reading any of them. I have a few quotations before me. We all know that the majority of honourable members opposite hold the Bible in their hands when they are sworn in as members of this Parliament. They all profess to be Christians. They all swear on the Bible. All the concerned Christians on the other side of the House should listen to what I have to say. Mr Braithwaite —Is this the Canberra Times editorial? Mr HUMPHREYS —It is the Melbourne Age of 13 June l982, in which an article appeared under the heading 'Pope's support for ILO doctrine likely'. I suggest that honourable members opposite read that article. It states: Pope John Paul has arrived to address the International Labour Organisation assembly today and is expected to underline the Roman Catholic church's support for free trade unions. Let us look at another article. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HUMPHREYS —We heard the honourable member for Dawson say that we on this side of the House are hypocrites. Now we are hearing all the hypocrites opposite who profess to be Christians. What hypocrites they are! Another headline states: 'Pope defends unionism'. Honourable members opposite hate this. They should read these articles. Another one states: 'Pope urges greater respect for worker'. Honourable members opposite should look at that article. Yet another: 'A million cheer as Pope praises Solidarity'. Where are all our great Christians? Here is another: 'Sir Joh can't believe Sir John really said it'. Sir John refers to Sir John Grindrod. We all know what the Anglican Primate of Australia said about the people's right to strike. All the concerned Christians on the other side of the House should listen. Thirty-one Catholic priests signed the letter. Eighteen concerned Christians signed it, including Roly Bush and other prominent Christians in Queensland. Not one honourable member on the other side of the House has said that he denies what Sir John Grindrod said. What a mob of hypocrites those concerned Christians opposite are. They are seen for what they are here today. The headlines continue: 'Church leaders defend right to strike: ''A bad law . . . an infringement'' '. I will get away from the church leaders and the Christians for a while. I am appealing to all Christians listening to this debate today to write to their Federal member and to Joh Bjelke-Petersen and let them know what they think about this Queensland law. We have the Christian leaders of the world condemning Bjelke-Petersen, yet honourable members opposite are all supporting him. What a mob of hypocrites they are. The reported view of the former leader of the Opposition parties, who led them to doom and gloom, the Prime Minister of the day, Malcolm Fraser, states: The Prime Minister urged that there be an early return to civil and trade union liberties and expressed the wish that current developments should not impede the spirit of conciliation and compromise which had hitherto characterised the efforts of the Polish people to find their own solution to their difficulties. The then Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, held that view. Why do honourable members opposite not stand up and say that they do not support Malcolm Fraser, that they support the fascist in Queensland, Bjelke-Petersen? We all know what is going on. A further headline stated: 'Union cash target for crackdown by Premier'. That is a classic. The Premier is going to check on all money matters concerning the trade union movement in Queensland. He is going to look at their books. He wants to see what the trade unions are doing with their money. Let us consider the Queensland Government. The Premier is going to check on the trade unions. He said: But you can rest assured we are going to make them more accountable, like any other business organisation. The unions are to be made more accountable; but what honourable member on the other side of the chamber has asked Joh Bjelke-Petersen to be more accountable to the people of Queensland? Not one of them. They are a mob of hypocrites. The Liberals are the people I am condemning today for sticking to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. They must wait to see what he does for them. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not saying one word because he knows what he tried to do to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. When he was Treasurer he was trying to catch Bjelke-Petersen and the skulduggery of his Foundation in Queensland. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is sitting there smiling. He knows all about it. What a mob of hypocrites they are on the opposite side of the House. Do Opposition members, who are today supporting the great Premier of Queensland, remember Milan Brych? What a fraud! He is in gaol in America. He was not gaoled in Australia under the regime of the Opposition. He had to go to America before he was gaoled. Remember the Iwasaki land deals and old Oskar, the oilseed man? What a great man he was. What a fraud! We are trying to get him over now-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —I present the forty-eighth general report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Pubic Works, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —The report covers the activities of the twenty-seventh Committee during 1984. Last year was a busy year for the Committee. The Committee met on 40 occasions to conduct public hearings, site inspections and to deal with general business. Nineteen reports covering a diverse range of works were presented. A large number related to defence works, airports, repatriation general hospitals; others concerned a film and television school, a Commonwealth and family court, navigational aids for ships, a Commonwealth centre, an embassy, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation studio, and an electricity sub-station. The estimated cost of the works was in the order of $460m. The report makes reference to a number of matters which arose during the year, namely, amendments to the Public Works Committee Act, defence housing, and Hydrographer's Passage, Great Barrier Reef. I now pay tribute to members of the twenty-seventh Committee, all of whom are still members or senators-Senator Bernie Kilgariff, who was the longest serving member on the former Committee, having been appointed to the twenty-fourth Committee on 4 March 1976, the honourable member for Farrer, Mr Wal Fife, now the member for Hume, who served with distinction as Vice-Chairman and also the honourable member for Deakin, Mr John Saunderson, now the member for Aston, the honourable member for Lyne, Mr Bruce Cowan, and the honourable member for Forrest, Mr Peter Drummond. The work of the Committee's Secretariat also deserves mention, especially the long and dedicated service by the Secretary, Mr Dick Fenton. Finally, I would like to thank the many witnesses who assisted the Committee's inquiries during the year-departmental officials and representatives of a wide range of private and public organisations. Their co-operation enabled the Committee to carry out its functions in a knowledgeable and expeditious manner. I thank the House. Consideration resumed from 27 March. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. First, this Bill introduces a range of significant amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966. One group of amendments is consequent upon a review of the operation of the Act. This review, of a detailed and technical nature, commenced under the previous Government and has been completed by this Government. Secondly, the Bill contains a number of amendments flowing from the Government's policy decision to modify the legislative implementation of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision in this area. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill appears in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members. Review of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 In the past two decades a number of countries which have insolvency legislation of similar derivation to our own Bankruptcy Act have embarked upon a review of their legislation. In Australia there have been two major reports: The report of the Clyne Committee appointed by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to Review the Bankruptcy Law of the Commonwealth in 1962 which led to the passage of the Bankruptcy Act, and the sixth report of the Law Reform Commission entitled 'Insolvency: The Regular Payment of Debts'. The Government has approved the preparation of draft legislation, along the lines of that recommended by the Law Reform Commission, for exposure for public comment. The Law Reform Commission currently is working on a reference to report generally on insolvency law and practice, as part of a thorough review of the area. Other countries have carried out similar, in-depth reviews-England in 1981, the Republic of Ireland in 1972 and New Zealand, Scotland, Canada and Ghana in the last two decades. The amendments proposed in the Bill presently before the House are intended to address some of the problem areas in this field pending the report of the Law Reform Commission. Removal of Anomalies The Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1980 created the Common Investment Fund which, essentially, comprises the proceeds of the realisation of assets by the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. Experience has revealed some shortcomings in two of the sections of the Act dealing with the Fund, namely section 20B and section 20H. Amendments to these sections are proposed by clauses 11 and 12 respectively of the Bill before honourable members. Similarly, time and judicial decisions have exposed flaws in other provisions of the Act. Thus, clause 25 proposes an amendment to section 125 of the Act to ensure that the control which can be exercised by the trustee over bank accounts of an undischarged bankrupt can also be exercised over accounts with financial institutions other than banks. Clause 20 of the Bill proposes an amendment to section 64, 'First meeting of creditors', which will defer the need for a first meeting until after a statement of affairs has been filed. In most cases it is futile to convene a meeting before a statement of affairs has been filed as the statement details the creditors of the bankrupt and the moneys owed to them. Enhancement of the Special Protection Accorded to Maintenance Creditors In 1980 the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act in its report entitled 'Family Law in Australia: A Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act', made a specific recommendation, at paragraph 5-83, relating to changes to the Bankruptcy Act to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders. This recommendation is the genesis of the amendment to section 40 (3) which is proposed by clause 13 of the Bill. A further amendment, relating to maintenance is proposed by clause 3 to remove any doubt that the term 'maintenance order' includes an order for arrears of maintenance. It is realised that the problem of enforcement of maintenance orders is an enormous one in our community. Further action in this area will require some time. However the changes proposed in this Bill will alleviate in part the difficulties confronting a maintenance creditor endeavouring to recover arrears of maintenance. Improving the Administration of the Act As the Bankruptcy Act presently stands, appointments to statutory offices are made by the Governor-General under section 16 of the Act. It is considered more suitable that such appointments should be made by the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department, which is responsible for the administration of this division of the Act. Another change in this category involves the functions and powers of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy. For example, clause 4 proposes to amend section 12 of the Act to enable the Inspector-General to obtain from registered trustees such reports as he may presently obtain from registrars and official receivers. It is also proposed by clause 32, to amend section 179 to permit the Inspector-General to make application to the Federal Court of Bankruptcy for an inquiry into the conduct of a trustee. At present, in the event that inquiries or investigations disclose some irregularity, the Inspector-General has no power to act upon his findings. The amendment proposed to section 179 will rectify this shortcoming. Achieving Greater Uniformity with Companies Act 1982 Although there are some significant differences in the role of the Bankruptcy Act and that of the winding up provisions of the Companies Act, to the extent that both enactments deal with insolvency it is desirable that creditors should receive similar treatment irrespective of whether the debtor is an individual or a corporate body. Consequently clauses 23 and 24 propose quite significant amendments to those sections of the Act which regulate the rights of the creditors inter se to achieve a greater degree of uniformity with the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act. Very significant changes are proposed by clauses 29 to 32 of the Bill to Part VIII of the Act, which relates to trustees. The amendments will entrench in the Act the qualifications which are necessary for a person to obtain registration as a trustee. They will also permit a greater degree of supervision of the continuing suitability for registration of trustees. There is at present no requirement for regular reporting by trustees or for the updating of bonds by registered trustees in bankruptcy. Once again many of these changes are modelled upon the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act relating to the registration of liquidators. Modifications of the Review of Commonwealth Functions Decision In 1981 the previous Government amended the Bankruptcy Act in order to channel a large proportion of the administration of bankrupt estates to the private sector. Most of those changes, which were implemented by the Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act 1981, are modified by this Bill. Experience has shown that the changes were implemented in such haste that no thought was given to the need for new measures to ensure that the newly expanded role of private trustees was subjected to proper scrutiny and regulation. The number of new estates handled by private trustees grew from 13 out of 5,154 in 1980-81, or 0.25 per cent, to 1,063 out of 5,156 in 1982-83, in other words it escalated to 20.62 per cent. It is not the policy of the Government to exclude registered trustees from the administration of bankrupt estates. However it is apparent that the majority of registered trustees perceive their role as administrators, and not as investigators. Thus the registered trustees have realised assets and distributed dividends, but have largely disregarded the discretionary duty to investigate and report upon the conduct, dealings and affairs of the bankrupt. Investigation of bankruptcies must continue to be given significant priority. Insolvency fraud does occur, even if only in a small number of bankruptcies. Mr Costigan's Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union uncovered some instances of persons using bankruptcy to defraud their creditors whilst concealing the gains for their own benefit. Consequently clause 10 proposes an amendment to section 19 of the Act so that in a bankruptcy administered by a registered trustee, the Official Receiver will have a reserve power of investigation. In the first instance the duty to investigate will remain with the registered trustee. If however the trustee indicates that he or she does not intend to investigate, then the Official Receiver may elect to do so. Honourable members will note that a number of the amendments proposed in this Bill relate to the control over or regulation of registered trustees; for example, clauses 4, 29, 31, 32, to which I have already referred. All these changes have become necessary as a result of inadequacies in the Act exposed during the time of an expanded role for private trustees. The details were outlined in the debate in the Senate. Briefly, some trustees have engaged in distinctly unprofessional conduct. Over the past 12 months the Federal Court of Australia has cancelled the registration of some trustees as a result of misconduct. Some other trustees have themselves become bankrupt as a result of their mishandling of administrations under the Bankruptcy Act. Statistics indicate that many trustees, even most trustees, do not take seriously the investigative and reporting duties which the Act imposes on the trustee of a bankrupt estate. Contrary to the lack of choice as to trustee imposed by the RCF changes, a petitioner, whether petitioning creditor or petitioning debtor, will have an option to file the consent of a registered trustee to act as trustee of the estate. It will also remain possible for the creditors to meet together and pass a resolution appointing a registered trustee as trustee of the estate, pursuant to section 157 of the Act. The reversal of the RCF decision will not, therefore, preclude registered trustees from playing a significant role under the Act. However, it will ensure that the involvement of registered trustees is coupled with proper safeguards and checks. In summary, therefore, the changes proposed by this Bill represent a blend of the experience before the RCF changes and the experience subsequent to those changes. However, I point out to the House that, in deciding to modify the changes effected by Act No. 74 of 1981, the Government had decided not to reintroduce the earlier prohibition of solicitation, contained in the old section 166, which may have reduced the participation of private registered trustees prior to 1981. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will result, in due course, in an increase in the number of new estates administered by the bankruptcy branch of Attorney-General's Department. The increased workload will require some extra resources, estimated at 42 extra staff. The resources required will be reviewed in the 1986-87 Budget context. This demand for extra resources however, will be offset by other savings in expenditure. At present a task force of 47 temporary employees is working in the branch to reduce backlogs in work. The engagement of the estimated 42 staff will permit the branch to administer the level of new estates, and, with the amendments in this Bill, to prevent the recurrence of backlogs. The need for the extra staff will coincide with the conclusion of the task of the task force. Also, the increased costs will be partly offset by expected increased revenue from the Common Investment Fund and from fees. The salaries and overhead costs associated with the 42 extra staff amount to $1,275,616. The anticipated increase in official fees amounts to $282,528 and the extra revenue from the Common Investment Fund should be of the order of $124,000; a total of $406,528. This creates a net increase in expenditure of $869,088, offset by a reduction of $1,646,384 from the completion of the task force, leading to an overall saving of $777,296 over current levels of expenditure. These figures relate to the expected costs and additional revenue once the changes have become fully operational. There will therefore be no financial impact in the current fiscal year, or the fiscal year 1985-86. The financial impact will be felt only in the first half of the year 1986-87. I commend the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill to the House. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(5.04) —The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill l985 is a revamped version of the Bill which was introduced into the Senate last year. It will effect changes to five areas of the existing bankruptcy legislation. The Opposition is able to support the vast bulk of the amendments proposed by the Bill. The first major area of the proposed amendments relates to maintenance creditors. The first point to be made is that the amendments contained in the Bill will be made to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders. This will help to alleviate a growing problem, recognised in l980 by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, which recommended that these changes be made to the Bankruptcy Act. The Opposition is pleased that the Government has now moved to implement that recommendation. Under the amendment, a failure to pay for a period of 12 months maintenance due pursuant to a maintenance order will constitute an act of bankruptcy upon which a creditor's petition can be founded by the maintenance creditor. Collection of maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders are growing problems. Some maintenance debtors have taken it upon themselves to flout the orders of the Family Court, leaving many maintenance creditors in dire financial difficulties. This amendment proposed by the Bill will have a useful facility to induce the recalcitrant maintenance debtor to pay up. It is significant that only the maintenance creditor will be able to found a bankruptcy petition on this particular act of bankruptcy, and the maintenance debtor's general creditors will not be able to use this device. This is a step in the right direction, which the Opposition supports. The second area is those matters relating to the proposal to implement uniformity with the Companies Act. Amendments to be made to the Bankruptcy Act by this Bill propose the creation of uniformity between the treatment of creditors on the winding up of a company under the Companies Act and creditors upon bankruptcy. The proposed amendments invoke, firstly, changes to the priority of payments in the Bankruptcy Act, bringing them into line with the parallel provisions contained in the Companies Act relating to the order of payment of debts on a winding up. The second proposal in this area deals with the supervision and registration of trustees in bankruptcy. Under this proposal the Bankruptcy Act will specify the qualification necessary for a person to obtain registration, modelled upon the corresponding requirements in the Companies Act relating to liquidators and auditors. The third amendment in this area proposes the introduction of a system of triennial reporting by registered trustees in bankruptcy, based on parallel terms to the requirement upon liquidators under the Companies Act. These proposals have the support of the Opposition, which is of the view that it is desirable that creditors should receive substantially the same treatment, irrespective of whether the debtor is an individual or a company. The proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Act will achieve a degree of uniformity with the corresponding provisions of the Companies Act, creating certainty in the business community, and the proposed amendments are desirable for that reason. The third area of the changes relates to improving the administration of the system. There are several minor administrative improvements which will be implemented by this Bill. In summary, the amendments probably fall into three categories. Firstly, the amendments will assist the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy to obtain reports from registered trustees and, by that means, facilitate the preparation by the Inspector-General of his annual report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act and his other statistical duties. Secondly, the amendments will allow the Inspector-General to apply to the Federal Court for an inquiry into the conduct of a trustee. Thirdly, the amendments will provide the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department, rather than the Governor-General, with power to appoint people to the statutory offices created by the Act. It is, in substance, a routine task which need not necessarily be imposed on the Governor-General. The Opposition, therefore, supports that particular amendment, as it does the other amendments in this area of administrative improvement. The fourth area can be described as the removal of anomalies. Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act have been prepared to remove anomalies in the Act which are now apparent in the light of earlier amendments to the Act. In relation to the Common Investment Fund, introduced by the Bankruptcy Amendment Act l980, amendments are now proposed of a machinery and non-controversial nature. One section relating to the maintenance of bank accounts for each bankruptcy district creates an unnecessary work load where a number of districts are administered by the same Official Receiver. The proposed amendment will reduce the inefficiency associated with the present wording of the section by allowing consolidation of bank accounts for two or more districts with the same Official Receiver. A second proposed amendment relates to the payment of moneys into and out of the equalisation account, which is a fund for interest earned by the Common Investment Fund. The present wording of section 20H does not satisfactorily direct when the first and subsequent determinations should be made of the amounts to be paid to Consolidated Revenue and the amounts to be retained to meet possible calls to a bankrupt estate or some other person entitled to moneys in the Fund. The proposed amendment is expected to correct this anomaly by requiring the Common Investment Fund Investment Board to so decide at such times as it considers appropriate and at least once every six months. An amendment of a similar non-controversial nature, but nevertheless one which should be mentioned, is that to section l25 of the Act which ensures that the control which can be exercised by the trustee over bank accounts of an undischarged bankrupt, preventing the dissipation of assets held in that account, can also be exercised over accounts with other financial institutions, such as building societies and credit unions. The proposed amendment to section 64 of the Act is of like character and defers the holding of a creditors meeting until after a statement of affairs has been filed. In most cases it is pointless to hold a creditors meeting until details of the creditors of the bankrupt and the moneys owed to them are known. The amendment is expected to improve the administration of the Act by requiring the holding of the first creditors meeting once the statement has been filed, rather than within a certain time from the bankruptcy. The Opposition supports these amendments, which are designed to improve the operation of the Act by overcoming some of the problems which have arisen in the Act's machinery. But it is here substantially that the sense of consensus, if that is the appropriate word, comes to an end. Although it is true to say that we have given our support to the vast bulk of the amendments, the last area relating to the modification of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision is one where we must make some comments which are of a somewhat critical nature. The most important provision in the Bill deals with modifications to those amendments which were introduced by the Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Act l98l. These are the provisions of the Bill which were instituted from the reports of the former Government's Review of Commonwealth Functions, which implemented what is commonly known as privatisation of the bulk of bankrupt estates administration. Prior to l98l virtually all bankrupt estates were administered by the Official Receivers who, as honourable members are no doubt aware, are public servants operating under the control of the Official Trustee. This situation arose because, under the legislation as it existed at that time, the courts were required, upon the hearing of a creditor's or debtor's petition, to appoint the Official Receiver as the administrator of all bankrupt estates. However, there was provision for the appointment of a private registered trustee, usually a practising accountant, if the first meeting of the creditors so determined. That option was rarely exercised because private trustees were prohibited from soliciting or advertising the availability of their services. Accordingly, in l98l only l3 out of 5,l54 estates under bankruptcy administration were administered by private trustees. The Review of Commonwealth Functions changed all of that. The l98l legislation introduced a scheme which, first of all, maintained the existing system for all estates valued at less than $l0,000, so that the court was compelled to appoint an Official Receiver for those estates, although at the first meeting of creditors a registered trustee could be substituted. Secondly, it introduced a scheme in respect of all estates valued at more than $l0,000. It was mandatory in these cases that a private registered trustee be appointed to administer the estate. With this change, the role of private trustees grew rapidly and this was one of the momentous decisions made as part of the Review of Commonwealth Functions which saw some significant changes in the landscape of this country. By way of a comment on the side, it was unfortunate that there were not more who were able to see that increasing the role of the free and private sector of the economy added some strength to it. To return to bankruptcy, the situation was that in l982-83 some l,063 out of 5,l56 estates under bankruptcy administration were administered by registered trustees and it is fair to say that in general the overwhelming majority of registered trustees have undertaken their duties with dedication and skill. Insofar as this Bill seeks what is referred to as a modification of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision, it operates at two levels. First, the Government is putting the proposition that, following the privatisation of bankruptcy administration, private trustees have failed in their duties to report and investigate. In his second reading speech on last year's Bill, Senator Gareth Evans, who was then the Attorney-General, said: Some trustees have engaged in distinctly unprofessional conduct; statistics indicate that many trustees, even most trustees, do not take seriously the investigative and reporting duties which the Act imposes on the trustee . . . We heard some echoes of those remarks in the statement made by the current Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in this House today. The Government's solution to this perceived problem is a group of amendments to be made by this Bill which will impose stringent reporting and investigatory functions upon private trustees. The Opposition, in fact, does not accept the Government's rationale for these changes. However, we will not oppose them because they go to solving the only problem which has been recognised as arising from the privatisation of bankruptcy administration. If the changes are to be made-and we will not oppose the proposed changes-it would seem logical that there is no objection to maintaining the substantial privatisation of this particular area of commercial activity. In other words, if that prop is taken away from the Government's case, we can see no reason why substantial privatisation should not remain. We wish to emphasise the point that the Opposition rejects the Government's allegation-an allegation which Senator Gareth Evans again took the opportunity recently to repeat in the Senate-that most private trustees have been derelict and are guilty of professional misconduct. We note that the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia, which is a body of private registered trustees, has taken the Government to task on this particular allegation which has been made against its members. It has noted that all registered trustees are required by the terms of the existing legislation to have had prior experience in insolvency matters and that most have derived their experience as company auditors and liquidators. Further, the Association goes on to say this in a submission: Accordingly, such persons are professional accountants with a background of investigation into the financial affairs of businesses and corporate entities. It is common place, however, that the reporting has developed in the accounting profession of matters of exception rather than on reporting conformity. The Association goes on to assert that private trustees do, in fact, conduct investigations but they file reports only when matters warrant further investigation, which is the way one would have thought they would conduct their profession. We say that, if the investigation is a problem, the amendments proposed in this Bill will alleviate that problem and will allow the privatisation to continue as a success because that is the only defect that has been pointed to. For this reason the Opposition really cannot understand why the second stage of the modifications of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision will be to get rid of the privatisation of bankruptcy administration. In the second reading speech on last year's Bill, Senator Gareth Evans said that the Government sought to implement a reversal, as he called it, of the Review of Commonwealth Functions decision. If that Bill had gone ahead there would have been a reversion to the l98l situation where the courts would have been required to appoint an Official Receiver in every case but with the right vested in the first meeting of creditors to reverse that decision. This Bill speaks only of a modification, not a reversal of the RCF decision, but its result will be the same. The Bill will repeal the privatisation of the administration of bankrupt estates valued at more than $l0,000. As with the l984 Bill, this Bill will make it compulsory for the courts to appoint an Official Receiver. Our view is that it is surprising that the Government has offered no real explanation for this reversal or modification, call it what one will, if the only problem with the privatisation has concerned the failure to report and investigate and when other provisions of this Bill, which we support, will solve those difficulties. On that basis there is no reason for terminating the privatisation, which has been operating for only four years, when private trustees are just beginning to develop real expertise in this area. We will oppose these provisions on that basis. Although we will not delay the House by calling for a division, I simply put on record that we do object to those provisions in clauses l5 and l7 of the Bill. Another comment I wish to make relates to this somewhat optimistic financial impact statement in the second reading speech. We know that, according to some foreign magazines, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is the world's best Treasurer and the Government keeps reminding us of this fact, although less frequently over the last few weeks than it did previously. That it can perform a feat of financial gymnastics by putting an extra 42 staff on the payroll and as a result save $777,000 over and above its current level of expenditure really is a most remarkable proposition. If for no reason other than curiosity, we will give very close scrutiny to the future Budget appropriations for the Attorney-General's Department to see how it is going along with this plan. Mr MacKellar —If it appoints more that will cost it even less, will it? Mr N. A. BROWN —We will have to wait to see exactly what form it takes. We all know that when governments appoint 47 temporary employees, as we are told is the situation in this case, they are not going to achieve their savings by sacking them and sending them out on the street. Whatever happens, that certainly is not going to happen. So we are at a loss to see how a saving of $777,000 is going to come about as a result of appointing 42 extra, and presumably permanent, employees in the Department administering this area of the law. We will wait with great interest to see how that comes about. The final point I make is that if savings can be effected so readily in the Department, even if only in this mythical way by which they are plucked out of the air when it suits the Government's convenience, one might ask rhetorically why those economies could not be effected anyway without waiting for an opportunity where the Government is forced to say, as it does in this debate, that it is appointing extra staff but there will be no extra cost involved. If the matter were logical, it seems that there would be a case for reducing government expenditure very substantially by appointing more public servants, a proposition which again is interesting and which we might pursue on another occasion. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(5.23) —Previous speakers have referred to a number of intended amendments to this legislation. I wish to highlight two or three aspects which I believe have an important community impact. One to which I shall refer in a moment is the impact on maintenance payments with respect to bankrupt estates. The other refers to priority payments in areas such as workers compensation, entitlements to leave and wages payments-in a sense, debts due to employees. I will begin with the amendment which in effect enables the trustee to ensure that the control that can be exercised over bank accounts of an undischarged bankrupt can also be exercised over accounts with financial institutions other than banks. This legislation is designed to do a number of things with respect to amending bankruptcy law. Honourable members will be aware that we are also trying to bring bankruptcy law, which essentially applies to individuals, into line with company law, which of course applies to corporations. As far as certain areas of the legislation are concerned, the intention is very clear. We are trying to line up provisions in the companies code with bankruptcy provisions. To turn to the first item to which I referred, the trustee will now be able to deal with accounts other than bank accounts. In the past it was very difficult for the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy to deal with those sums of money that were in accounts in financial institutions other than banks. Clause 25 of this legislation proposes an amendment to section l25 of the Act which will ensure that the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy will have the capacity to deal with sums in financial institutions other than banks. Of course, it will apply similarly to bank accounts but it will, if honourable members like, spread the reach of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy. There is another sensible amendment in clause 20 of the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill, which proposes an amendment to section 64 relating to the first meeting of creditors. This will defer the need for a first meeting until after a statement of affairs has been filed. Quite clearly, it is futile to have a meeting when a statement of affairs is not available. This amendment in a sense says: 'Let's get a statement of affairs ready, and when we have that we can have a meeting of creditors'. That is a simple procedural amendment which is a common-sense approach. The clause with respect to maintenance creditors is one that I believe is of substantial concern to the community. The report of the National Maintenance Inquiry entitled 'A Maintenance Agency for Australia' states at paragraph l.53: If a respondent is sufficiently determined the payment of maintenance can be made a voluntary act. Quite clearly, that is the case with respect to many women in the community. I specifically refer to the plight of women under family law arrangements, where it has been very difficult in certain circumstances to enforce maintenance orders. In those circumstances it has been the dependent spouse-in most cases, of course, dependent women-who has suffered due to the other spouse becoming bankrupt and thereby removing funds from her grasp. In a sense in this clause we are trying to make it more possible for the Trustee in Bankruptcy to get access to those funds. Clause 3 will clarify the definition of maintenance order by removing any doubt that the term includes an order for arrears of maintenance. The trustee will now be in a position to deal more easily with this area of social concern of arrears of maintenance as well as with maintenance orders generally. The changes proposed in this Bill will alleviate in part the difficulties confronting a maintenance creditor endeavouring to recover arrears of maintenance. Clearly, this legislation recognises that difficulties have been encountered in the past. It has been possible for the breakdown of a marriage to occur and then for a bankruptcy arrangement to be established in which usually the former wife no longer has access to funds in order to carry out the maintenance of her family because the former husband has been able to remove those funds from the grasp of the trustee through the bankruptcy arrangements. It seems to me that the more we look at this issue the more important it is that we recognise it is of social concern. I want to dwell also on concerns with a number of arrangements applying to employees. I refer in particular to the operations of the building industry. Quite frequently it is possible for employees to be completely left out of creditor arrangements. We find that due to personal guarantee arrangements between the owner of the building company and other suppliers some suppliers can be satisfied through creditor arrangements, but very often the people who miss out are the employees who are due certain long service leave, superannuation and wage entitlements. I believe we as a community ought to look at arrangements that prevail in certain countries where employers are obliged to take out long service leave entitlements for their employees in the form of a payment for stamps. In the case of a winding up the funds have already been appropriated by the firm and the creditor has access to a pool of funds. The employees, who would otherwise miss out on entitlements due to the maladministration of a company, then have access to those funds. Quite clearly, with respect to bankruptcies, it is a matter of concern that very often employees are the ones who miss out. I am pleased to note in regard to certain issues such as leave entitlements that clause 23 (f) of this legislation, dealing with priority payments, is intended to line this legislation up with the Companies Act. In a number of areas, with respect to leave entitlements and workers compensation, this legislation is designed to try to line up with the Companies Act, to try to make, in a sense, a more orderly procedure for dealing with employees' entitlements. Very often, one of the reasons that we have difficulties in certain industries is the activities of fly-by-night operators who get into a business and conduct it in a fairly haphazard way and when that business goes into bankruptcy the people who miss out are employees. As a consequence, we get an increasing militancy by employees who seek, through their own arrangements, to ensure that when they go into a job they are pushing as hard a bargain as possible. It does not help the conduct of good industrial relations, because we get a dog-eat-dog situation. I am suggesting that, in considering areas such as bankruptcy, if we can provide for effective protection of employees we will go a long way towards improving the climate between employees and employers. The substance of my comments relates to a number of things. First, with respect to some of the amendments entailed, where this legislation is designed to parallel the arrangements in the Companies Code, some appropriate arrangements are made with respect to priority payments for employees. I refer to leave entitlements and workers compensation arrangements-I believe that is very important-as well as debts due to employees. They are important areas. In summing up, I make the following points: This legislation brings forward a number of amendments. One amendment that I believe is important is the attempt to clarify from the point of view of the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy the question of maintenance orders. Very clearly, there is a concern in the community, where many women in particular have suffered because of bankruptcy arrangements. The other area which I believe is of benefit is the amendment which extends the coverage by the trustee to accounts in financial institutions other than bank accounts. Finally, it is quite important that we try to provide adequate protection for employees in the event of bankruptcies. Clearly, employees very often miss out in those arrangements. I shall elaborate very briefly. With respect to the Companies Code in the building industry, one can make a very strong case for saying that we ought to be establishing a common fund whereby builders are obliged to lodge bond payments so that they can set up operations. There is a proliferation of defaults in the building industry where people are having extensions done to their properties, having some other changes in their housing or are having a house built, and the company defaults on them. Many people have no protection in the community as they have in other areas of industry. For example, among solicitors and other such groups, such as the insurance group, there is a capacity for a common fund. It would make a lot of sense to have a common fund for building operations so that when there are defaults the aggrieved customer can call upon that common fund and get some redress. At the moment that is absent. In New South Wales and Victoria a bonding arrangement has been developed. I certainly see a case for it being developed in other States. In my State of Western Australia I see a considerable case for that. I believe that the amendments intended in this legislation are sensible. They will bring some common sense into the conduct of bankruptcy. I commend them to the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(5.34) —I appreciate the presence of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the chamber. I intend to refer to the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill and to the processes of bankruptcy, citing one instance which concerns a constituent of mine, and drawing to the Attorney-General's attention factors which are still not included in the legislation. I refer in particular to the role of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy and his powers and the way he can apply them. Under the Bill, the powers of the Inspector-General are somewhat extended. I am pleased to see that. His role has slightly changed. He has a greater specification of function and a greater opportunity to ensure on behalf of the Commonwealth that the progress of a bankruptcy case can be dealt with properly and effectively. However, there are some areas in early clauses of the Bill which deal with the role of the Inspector-General that I would like the Attorney to consider. I refer him to clause 4 and the amendments proposed to section l2 of the Bankruptcy Act. The role of the Inspector-General is specified under proposed new paragraphs b (i), b (ii), b (iii), b (iv) and b (v). If one refers to the original Act, one sees that those paragraphs relate to the role of the Inspector-General, to the process of bankruptcy to which he can apply his mind and the minds of his officers. I see some deficiencies in that approach because I find that Division 2 of Part X, for instance, which deals with meetings of creditors, control of debtors' property and so on, is not an area to which generally the Inspector-General has access. There is a process to protect the trustee's accounts and the making good of losses sustained by negligence, which can be referred to a court. That is proper and right. However, in the examples that I intend to give, there are still areas where the Inspector-General should have a right to assess the validity of creditors who are accepted by a trustee-the processes of minutes and meetings of creditors, areas related to the initial impetus when the trustee becomes involved in a bankruptcy case, the election of chairmen, adjournments, entitlement to vote, restriction on voting by proxy; all sorts of factors which a trustee has control of and, in fact, may not be supervised by the Inspector-General. I should like the Attorney to clarify that point for me because I cannot find within the Bill any provisions which extend the Inspector-General's powers into those areas. In fact, in one clause at a later stage, concerning the hearing in public, the powers of the trustee are such that there are no hearings in public unless the Official Receiver intervenes and says that he wants to have a hearing in public. I wish to draw to the Attorney-General's attention the case of Latona. I know that he is aware of the case and I have here three thick files that I have accumulated during the progress of these affairs. The participants in this case are active, dynamic and forthright to the extreme in some circumstances. It is a very hotly contested process and my constituent, Mr Latona, is certainly very forceful in expressing himself, both to me and to everybody else. I have noticed that in the processing of his case before a trustee there are particular areas that spark action and that have created real difficulty. The admittance of creditors to a meeting has been a real factor. In discussions with the Inspector-General it appears that that is not an area where he currently can have much impact. Neither does it appear that the Registrar is able to intervene in the admittance of creditors. If that is not the case under the present law, it should be the case under the proposed law, and if it were possible under the existing law, something should have been done to clear up the matter of who were creditors in this case. The previous Attorney-General is fully aware of the case. The details were known to him. He instigated an inquiry by Mr Drennan to assess the case and Mr Drennan reported on it. The admittance of creditors is a spark point. I draw the attention of the Government to that area in particular. The Latona case in fact highlights some of the difficulties. Providing the minutes on the progress of meetings, reporting to the registrar and hence to the bankrupt individual and providing information concerning the progress of the sale or disposal of the estate are steps which to the best of my knowledge have not been carried out in this instance. This matter has been in progress over a period of 18 months. No one is aware officially of what property has been sold at what price or to whom. I understand that in fact it may not be a requirement to inform the bankrupt of that process, but somebody ought to know that the thing is going properly and be able to vouch for the process of the sale of assets. In the Latona case that apparently has not happened and it is of great concern to me. Mr Latona has been to see me on numerous occasions and has forcefully presented me with a valuation of his estate made by his own accountant. There may be some qualifications on the values that he has put on his estate but reputable valuers have carried out the valuations for him. It appears to me that the estate was disposed of at a price $800,000 or $900,000 less than the current market value. I regard that as being fairly serious. In relation to one property in particular, at Mackerel Beach, I will read for the Attorney-General an advertisement which appeared in Sydney newspapers about the property. An advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 February stated: Mackerel Beach. Lot 128 Diggers Crescent. Residential block with dilapidated home. Land value only. See auction columns today. That is a description of the property from an agent in Rockdale. That is nowhere near Mackerel Beach, which is in the Palm Beach area. I understand the reserve price was $36,000, though another valuation was made by the trustee of $47,000. It is claimed that the property was sold at auction, after a number of bids, for $47,000. Anybody with a knowledge of that area and the house in particular would have to value property in this select area at a much greater amount than that because the Valuer-General's value for just the land was $60,000. There are certificates to show that. In this instance the valuation set, I understand, by the firm of Hookers and another independent valuer, was about $l00,000 to $ll0,000. This process of disposal is something that the Inspector-General has to be able to deal with. I believe that under these amendments he can deal with these processes and he ought to be able to investigate something that is improper. I further draw to the attention of the Attorney-General Dun's Gazette for New South Wales, week No. l0 at page l5, where the following reference to the trustee in the Latona case appears: Aitken Hargreaves and Turner (Aitken Lindsay Robert) l23 Clarence Street Sydney and 772A Henry Lawson Dve Picnic Point chartered accountant on petition of Trans-Tasman Timbers P/L. For hearing on 11/3/84. It appears to me, as a non-legal entity but following discussion with lawyers, that the trustee himself in this instance is also under threat of bankruptcy. I do not know how that case can go on or how he can remain in that position. It may be legitimate and proper that he do so. It does not appear to me that that is a proper process of the law or the intention of the previous Government or this Government in regard to trustees of estates. I believe the decision to register trustees was a good one but the way in which they operate must be properly scrutinised and supervised. The Government has moved in this legislation to tighten up some of those areas in which the Inspector-General may investigate matters but I do not believe it has gone far enough in some respects. The Government has attended to the special provisions applicable to deeds of assignment, to the special provisions applicable to deeds of arrangement, to the special provisions applicable to compositions, to the administration of estates of deceased persons and to a number of other areas which are picked up in the legislation before the House in clause 4(a), clause 4 (b) and clause 4 (ba). I refer this matter to the Attorney-General because it has worried me for a long time. There was sufficient concern for the former Attorney-General to appoint a special investigator, whose report I have read and whose description of the problem does not quite match the conclusions he drew. I was sufficiently concerned at one stage to wonder whether the Commissioner of Police should be informed of this matter for I feared that some Commonwealth officers may have been involved in matters that were not proper. I have no evidence to conclude that they may have been but it appears that the process of the disposal over l8 months of an estate of over $2m if we take the broadest valuation-that may not be a factual valuation-has been such that the proceeds will not pay for the trustee. The creditors will get nothing and the trustee himself will get part of his fee only. I do not know to whom the properties have been sold but I think it is worth investigation. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(5.47) —At the outset I should say that this may be one of the very few times that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and I agree about certain aspects of policies and politics. I certainly agree that some of the administration in the area of bankruptcy is reason for concern. Of course, the honourable member for Mitchell was not present when the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) was pointing out the Opposition's disagreement with the amendments proposed by the Government to clause l0 of the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill and to section l9 of the Act, which will bring the private trustees under some control by the Official Receiver. The reason that the honourable member for Mitchell gave, and the concern that he has expressed, is the very reason why these changes should take place and why the Opposition should not oppose such amendments. It should support them in order that private trustees can be placed under some degree of control and investigations can be made into the conduct of individuals suspected of dishonest conduct. Bankruptcy is of prime importance to many members of the Australian community. As an example of that, in l982-83 some l2,000 people entered into bankruptcy in Australia and if we go beyond the bankrupts themselves and look at the people who are affected as, including creditors and members of families, obviously every year in Australia large numbers of people are affected by Federal bankruptcy legislation. It might be of interest to note that the level of bankruptcy in Queensland has grown at a rate almost twice that of any other State. I was interested during the matter of public importance debate earlier to see that the Opposition was not at all concerned with the social ills and problems being caused in Queensland by the grave mismanagement of the Queensland economy and the bankruptcy and social problems which flow from that. Mr MacKellar —Driven into bankruptcy by the unions. Mr CLEELAND —I am sure what is happening to the Queensland economy will be reflected in the economic statistics and indicia, which we can all read. This Bill is of great importance. It recognises the Government's commitment to a wide review of the operation of the Bankruptcy Act l966. I have indicated that bankruptcy is of great social importance in this country. This Government of course is looking at a wider reform by referring further aspects of the bankruptcy legislation to the Law Reform Commission. The bankruptcy process affects values inherent in a credit consumer-oriented society. Morality, skill and knowledge are important values in their own right. There has been very little attempt in this country to work out a coherent bankruptcy philosophy. The committees that have been appointed have made little impact or contribution to the theory underlying it. Bankruptcy to many, who through no act of dishonesty seek its protection, is seen as an act of desperation; an act of last choice. I have seen many individuals forced to the realisation of bankruptcy. I have seen the shame of people who have filed for bankruptcy and who see it as an act of degradation to themselves and their pride. Yet bankruptcy is not simply a matter of collecting and distributing money for creditors. The point that the honourable member for Mitchell made-I believe that he did not quite express it in the terms that he was wanting to express it-is that it appears to bankrupts and to some creditors that the present system of bankruptcy law in this country operates only to satisfy the cost requirements of the trustees and the creditors. There is a greater social philosophy involved in bankruptcy-there should be more recognition of this philosophy-that is, the problems faced by the bankrupt himself. We live in a community where, daily, vast sums of advertising money are being spent on radio, television and in the newspapers to encourage people to enter into a consumer society and to borrow money. One can sit down any night, watch television and see continually the promotion of the great Australian dream of buying a boat, a holiday house, a second car, or a four-wheel drive recreation vehicle. People are constantly being urged to buy on credit. Statistics show us very clearly that Australia is now becoming a nation of borrowers. The debt per family is rising increasingly. The legislation which solves these problems is the bankruptcy legislation. Let us just stop and think about the vast amount of money being spent by the advertising industry. It employs top industrial psychologists to weave its clever messages through the advertising medium. Yet the amount of money which we spend on counselling and rehabilitative processes for those people who are sucked in by the advertising process is next to zero. Very little money is being spent on debt counselling. At present the Act does not give those people who find themselves in financial difficulties very much option. It does not give them the option of seeking a counselling service and program which will avoid the shame and degradation of bankruptcy. It does not allow them to enter into a debt reconciliation program. It offers a very stark reality: If a person cannot pay his debts, his creditors hound him to death-let us face it; quite often, rightly, the creditors should be hounding people for their payments-and that person goes bankrupt. The moment he goes bankrupt, what happens? A private operator now takes control of the assets of the bankrupt. As the honourable member for Mitchell rightly pointed out, no one bothers to tell the bankrupt what is going on. The bankrupt is the last person to find out. Any professional person works firstly to get his fees and income. He is not there to look after the bankrupt and initially he is not there to look after the creditors. His primary function in bankruptcy is to make sure that he will get paid. That is why the legislation makes sure that the trustee is the first person who gets paid. So where is the incentive for, or the control upon, the trustee to act in the interests of the bankrupt in the rehabilitative process or to act in the interests of the creditor? One can find many examples, looking through bankruptcy procedures and practice in this country, where one can question the valuations placed upon bankrupts assets which are being sold. I share the concern of the honourable member for Mitchell very much in this area. I have had many instances where clients have come to me and said: 'I have gone into bankruptcy. I have had a trustee appointed. I own these assets. The trustee has taken them all. I cannot find out what has happened to them. I have seen one of them advertised for sale. I know that it is worth more than the price asked for. I have tried to see the trustee to explain that that asset is worth more and the trustee says: ''Son, you are bankrupt. Go away. I am the legal owner of your property. I am acting for the creditors and I will sell it at my price'' '. I think all members of this House should be very concerned about the process which takes away the dignity of the bankrupt and which does not give the creditors much control over the actions of the trustee. I am pleased that to this legislation no amendment is proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition will support some control over the privatisation of trustees. The actual amendments to this legislation are quite complex. In fact, bankruptcy law is quite specialised law. Very few people in private practice, either in the accounting profession or in the legal profession, can profess to have any great knowledge of the technicality of bankruptcy law. That is a great pity. As a lawyer I have attempted many times to understand some of the complex terms in the legislation. I find it very difficult to read and I find it very difficult to come to grips with in interpretive terms. The Bankruptcy Amendment Bill before the House is to be recommended. I commend the Bill to the House. My great concern is the further reform for which we must look. That reform will come only when the Law Reform Commission, which has been commissioned by this Government to have a total overview of bankruptcy law, reports to this House. When we get that report I believe that we can very properly start looking at the propositions for rehabilitative processes and for care and concern for those people who find themselves bankrupt. I can commend many organisations in Victoria. I know that a debt counselling service has been established in Broadmeadows with the co-operation of the Broadmeadows municipality and supported by funds from the Victorian Government. It is doing a sterling job for people who find themselves caught by a debt crisis in a consumer-oriented society. If many bankrupts had proper counselling and services provided they would find that they would not have to go into the bankruptcy process. They would try to avoid the personal shame of bankruptcy which so many people feel and they would try to pay their debts. I look forward to that further reform and I look forward to the report of the Law Reform Commission. Briefly, I note the fallacy of the Opposition's concern at the amendments which will give the Official Receiver control over the private trustees. I find that admirable. In fact, I think there should be a greater examination of the way in which the private trustees are operating to see whether they are operating to recover their own costs or those of a minority of creditors. I can certainly tell honourable members that, from my experience, they do not have any concern for the bankrupt himself. I support the amendments contained in the Bill. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.58) —While the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill is before the House I would like to raise a couple of matters of considerable concern to me in relation to the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. These matters relate to two constituents of mine whom I choose not to name in this House. Both constituents are residents of similar towns. They came to see me at different times regarding the treatment they received when they went to see the Registrar in Bankruptcy, they claim, seeking advice because of their financial circumstances. My action in this regard was to refer the matters to the Commonwealth Ombudsman who conducted an inquiry and generally found that there was nothing in these complaints. However, in one letter to me the Ombudsman said: I believe Mr Hedges informed you that we have had several current complaints relating to bankruptcy matters . . . Clearly, my two constituents' complaints were not the only complaints in this regard. The situations regarding my two constituents were very similar. Both were in business and both were in some financial difficulty; of that there was no doubt. Nevertheless, both were in a situation where most of their debt was in the form of hire purchase or lease agreements which were not immediately significant. Clearly, at that time, both of them could not see themselves as being able to handle the continuing and ongoing payments. As I understand it, neither of them was very much behind with their payments to the finance companies. One constituent had accumulated outstanding debts of about $7,000 and the other a larger amount. Nevertheless, both claim that, having taken some advice from a legal person in their town-a lawyer, I gather-they were told that they should go and talk to the Registrar in Bankruptcy. Both of them did this at different times and both told a similar story. Both claim that they were seeking a deed of assessment, which I believe might have been a deed of assignment. That is just the first piece of evidence of how ordinary people, small people, small business people, are not qualified in this regard. Having gone there thinking that they were going to get such a thing-I presume their legal adviser told them they could do something of this nature-they were told at the bankruptcy section on the ninth floor that they should fill out certain documents which, in fact, were affidavits. They claim that, after filling them out, they were told: 'You are now declared bankrupt'. When they protested they were advised that if they wanted to take the matter to the High Court or the Supreme Court and pay some $2,000 they could get out of this position. In fact, in my original interview with one, I noted that a High Court action was required. Again, they might not be the correct words. The reality of both these situations is that immediately there was a bankruptcy action the hire purchase companies descended to recover their equipment. I am told that the truck they had purchased for $58,000 on an $18,000 deposit was sold for $16,000 and that a house they had purchased for $36,000 and on which they claim to have done considerable upgrading was sold for $26,000. We know that in many of these situations that is the way it can be, but my complaint is that although the Ombudsman has accepted the evidence of the various officers, and I cannot dispute that, my constituents say it happened differently. I accepted the genuine approach of both these people. I point out that in one other piece of correspondence from the Ombudsman, which I have not got, it was implied that their original answer to the Ombudsman in Western Australia was: 'Look, we are in the bankruptcy business; we are not in the advice business. Everyone who comes through our door wants to be bankrupted'. I was pretty disappointed about that. This raises the issue, which might be brought before this Parliament by the Government on future occasions, of the different means by which people in these circumstances may be able to deal with their debts. From my own assessment, having had the facts and figures put before me, I would have said that these people were not candidates for bankruptcy. I would have said that they were candidates for a creditors' meeting. They were both hard-working people. The district they were servicing was suffering from drought and other circumstances. One man was an agricultural contractor and the other a cartage contractor carting into the town and they had had some difficulties. I believe that with good seasons and a kind-hearted approach from the finance companies and some of their other creditors, who I admit were not large, things might have been different. Finance companies are not always painted as being kind-hearted. Sometimes I growl at them and sometimes I talk to them, but on numerous occasions I have found that the finance companies are prepared to assist people when there is evidence that it is not laziness or other things which have brought about their circumstances. I am sure that if some independent counselling had been available at the bankruptcy office to these people they could have been advised to have a creditors' meeting. It may be, with the interest we now have in small business, that somebody, perhaps an accountant, needed to talk to their creditors for them. These people, for reasons unknown to me, were probably ill-advised by their first adviser about going to the bankruptcy office. I am sure that had they come to me, for instance, I could have talked to their creditors and come to an arrangement. In the period they were in that office-one did go away and come back-both of them were literally bankrupted on their first visit. I am sure that this is something we need to look at. The Ombudsman and the Attorney-General's Department have responded. All the things they have said are probably quite correct. It is interesting to note that the Attorney-General's Department points out that there are reasons why a debtor may have to be dealt with promptly, and maybe that is so. These people just did not seem to tell me that story. It also points out how busy some of these officers are. In their defence they claim that if they have rushed someone through the system it may be because they were too busy. I would be very happy to make available to the Attorney-General the information on the case and the response from the Ombudsman. I do not really think that, as the system exists, these people were necessarily hard done by. I just think that within the system there is a need to consider how we can better advise people who just do not understand. I believe that in this case both of these people did not understand that they were being sent bankrupt at the time. Naturally that has been denied. The officers claim that they spelt it all out; but, whether it was spelt out to these people or not, they did not understand that they were bankrupt. They both lost their homes and their vehicles and they have been put in very difficult circumstances which, from my judgment, should not have been necessary. I would ask the Attorney-General, in framing future legislation, to think to some extent on what the Ombudsman has suggested; that is, that there is room for a cooling-off period, in the same way that, when buying encyclopaedias, a person can change his mind in a day or so. I do not know whether these people would have done that, but it is interesting that the Ombudsman chose to make that comment. In reply, it was pointed out that in some cases that is not appropriate and that there might be reasons why people want it done on the spot-for instance, to remove a garnishee order on the debtor's wages, to hold a bailiff sale, to protect the debtor from committal to prison, which apparently can still happen in South Australia, or to relieve emotional and, quite often, marital stress. Okay, but surely that can still be handled by a counsellor. People can talk to a counsellor and be told: 'In your case, you have these pressing needs'. Mr Brazil, from the Attorney-General's Department, in a letter to me, stated: Generally speaking, if a debtor were to complain during interview that he had become bankrupt by mistake, I would expect the interviewing officer to: explain to the debtor what is the meaning and effect of the above provision; discontinue the interview, at least for the time being; and allow the debtor a reasonable time (say 7 days) to decide whether he wanted to make an application to the Court for annulment under section 154. Nevertheless, it seems quite strange that people who do not know what they are doing can sign a piece of paper which is irreversible at that stage. Maybe it would be illegal, but I think I would be inclined to tear it up or put a match to it. I will not take up any more of the Minister's time. I have a deep concern about these two cases. I am interested to know that the Ombudsman had other problems. I am sure that the provision of a counsellor or some form of advice would be helpful before people go to the professionals, whose business it might be to send a person bankrupt. I would be very appreciative if the Attorney-General could consider that in future legislation, which I understand is pending. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(6.08) —I will take only a few minutes of the House's time this evening in the debate on the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill to deal with one or two aspects of the vexed question of bankruptcy. I agreed with most of what was said by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who preceded me in this debate. I understand the sorts of problems he raised and I think that he dealt with them sensitively. I hope that future legislation that will be forthcoming in the House dealing with debt repayment schemes will help to assist the sorts of problems to which he was referring. In some of the Canadian provinces there are particularly detailed provisions dealing with those types of problems-in a sense, dealing with the problem before it gets to bankruptcy-which I think we could well adopt in this country. Some of the provinces have divided bankruptcies into petty bankruptcies and major bankruptcies, determined by an amount of money. One is much more likely to find insolvency fraud in large bankruptcies than in the type of bankruptcy that occurs in the under $200,000 insolvency category. I hope that in the near future, when legislation is brought before the Parliament, we will be able to deal with some of those matters. I intend to say one or two things further about that in my comments tonight. Dealing with this Bill, I state that the reform of the Australian bankruptcy laws is, of course, long overdue. In many ways the assumptions, especially in the area of personal bankruptcies and insolvency which do not involve business debts, are those of an era when private property, speculation and the interests of investors and traders were considered paramount to the interests of individuals. These assumptions belong to another era. There should be no place in the l980s for the ruin of Australian families who are caught up in the debt spiral. The Australia in which we live is a country which has been characterised by wealth and affluence, especially since World War II, but is also a country which has been characterised by unnecessary and indeed unjustifiable disparities in wealth and affluence. Our bankruptcy and insolvency laws do little to alleviate these problems. They do not acknowledge that economic recession, the evil of unemployment, the effects of social pressures and continued increased consumption can have an effect on the degree and extent of bankruptcy and insolvency that we find in the community at large. Instead, essentially they blame the victims-the victims of economic circumstances often well beyond their control, of socialisation, of inadequate training and of lack of information. Governments in Australia have not done enough to remedy this situation. Over l0 years ago, the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty identified the extent of poverty in our community. In particular, it identified the problems of bankruptcy and insolvency. In l976, the Sixth Report of the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended a scheme-the Regular Payment of Debts Plan-to assist potential personal bankrupts or insolvents to overcome their economic and budgetary problems before the drastic step of bankruptcy was taken. Little has been done since to implement the recommendations of either report. I am pleased to say that in l978 when I was Attorney-General in South Australia in the Dunstan Government I succeeded in legislating for a debts repayments scheme based on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. Unfortunately, before that scheme could be brought into effect, the Tonkin Government was elected and that Liberal Government chose not to proclaim that legislation; it still sits unproclaimed on the books in South Australia. It is a scandalous situation that something has not been done about that before now. The purpose of that legislation was to establish a scheme to help debtors in financial difficulties. It provided for the establishment of a debtors assistance office and for the appointment and training of debt counsellors. It was based on a scheme that exists in Saskatchewan. The whole idea is that, by cutting out legal costs, collection costs and other costs associated with debt at present, one can develop a sufficient pool of funds to cover nearly the costs of administration of the scheme. I understand that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is working on introducing that sort of legislation into this Parliament so that such laws can apply throughout the Commonwealth. If we can achieve that, it will be very worth while. It has always seemed to me anomalous that the laws relating to the insolvency of companies are largely dealt with under State law in this country whereas the laws relating to individual bankruptcies are dealt with under Commonwealth law. Although I have not researched the matter, my suspicion is that this may well have resulted as an accident from our constitutional fathers. Discussions aimed at possibly handing over to the States powers over minor bankruptcies and ensuring that the Commonwealth has powers over the major company insolvencies would be a worthwhile step. I do not know whether any discussion along those lines has taken place recently or in the past but I believe a rationalisation of the laws in this country would be well worth while. I conclude by saying simply that the Bill that is before the House-I do not want to canvass the details of it because that has been done already by other speakers-is a good Bill and deserves the support of the Parliament, particularly clause 24 of the Bill which deals with debts due to employees. There have been numerous examples-too many to mention in detail-where a company has gone bankrupt and people who have worked for the company for many years have been denied their rights to long service leave and other accruing payments. This clause should ensure that that position will not arise in the future. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing forward a Bill which will remove that serious injustice, that serious anomaly. The Bill is a fair and proper one and, when it becomes law, it will ensure that the bankruptcy laws in this nation are at least fair and just. This review of the Bankruptcy Act, in my view, will go a long way to ensuring that bankruptcies, at least throughout the l980s, will be fair to all concerned. I congratulate the Attorney and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.17) —in reply-Briefly, I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The area of bankruptcy is virtually a no win area. As honourable members will understand, people who enter that arena are already in jeopardy. The point has been made by a number of speakers that the difficulties experienced by such people are not always alleviated. There is always concern about whether people receive fair value for their assets. In turn, of course, the creditors have to face the situation that they usually do not get paid in full. In the past under bankruptcy provisions, where people have legitimately entered trade and commerce and suffered losses through no real fault of their own, a genuine effort has been made, through a scheme of arrangement or a court order, to liquidate their debts and enable them to start again after a certain period but, during that period of bankruptcy, has prevented them from continuing in business. I am interested in the remarks made by the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan). I believe basically that in a modern society we ought to be looking at law reform in this area. It has been looked at and is still being looked at to see whether it can cover some of the matters raised in this debate. Although the Opposition supports the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill, the main speaker for the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), was critical of the fact that there appears to be some suggestion of competition between what is called the Official Receiver and private trustees. I think that is a good thing. If he looks at some of the other matters raised by subsequent speakers on his side, he will find that perhaps some of the difficulties related to the fact that trustees appointed privately were not as experienced as they should have been. I would like the honourable gentleman to look at the debate in the Senate on 27 March, at page 859 of Hansard, where he will see six examples given of trustees involved with over 400 estates. He will see that from the point of view of statistics it would be put down to inexperience but the difficulty was perhaps that the bankrupt people felt that they did not get proper treatment in the administration of their assets perhaps and the creditors felt that the matter had not been dealt with in a professional way. I am supported in that view by the fact that I am advised by my Department that the Insolvency Practitioners Association supports this Bill on that very basis. In other words, whilst a genuine effort was made to give the private sector a chance to do the work, experience has shown that it has not been done as well as it could have been in certain circumstances. I admit that there are very efficient private trustees. I refer now to the contribution made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). There was an example of what he regarded as inefficient administration, although whether it was I do not know. I would like him to address the fact that this legislation will assist in what he is about. He took the view that the Inspector-General perhaps will not be able to deal with a number of matters. However, the Inspector-General can deal with most matters, certainly all matters relating to bankruptcy. I would welcome a look at whether the Inspector-General will be able to deal with the question of who are deemed to be creditors and the question of voting. If he is not able to do so, perhaps he should be, because such matters directly relate to the conduct, administration and sequestration of the estate. The Bill is progressive. It certainly covers a number of areas that perhaps have been weak. However, we will never overcome some of the difficulties which were mentioned, for example, by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who quite appropriately referred to the fact that perhaps some people had received wrong advice. Whether they did or not, we do not know. However, they certainly were made bankrupt. The difficulty, of course, in all these areas-I understand that it also applies to some of the assets referred to by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) in regard to the other case-is where there are registered mortgagees or hire purchase agreements. Once one starts to enter the area of bankruptcy the mortgagee will exercise powers of sale. I understand that that happened under some circumstances. Of course there is also an obligation on the mortgagee exercising power of sale to get the best price. However, usually it is a forced sale and an urgent sale and it is usually made at the wrong time from the point of view of getting maximum price. One cannot altogether put the full blame on the trustee if, in fact, any asset has been sold by a mortgagee or an owner pursuant to a hire purchase agreement, which I think might have been the case with the matters referred to by the honourable member for O'Connor. I take the points of both gentlemen. Those cases ought to be looked at. I undertake to see what I can do so that we do not have what appears to be the failure of debtors to get maximum value for assets. That is important. I say, with regard to the matters raised by the honourable member for O'Connor, that I think it is important that people who perhaps do not know their rights are given time to consult with their creditors rather than being made bankrupt in the first instance and then having the problem of everything being sold, which must happen once one is made bankrupt. That is the whole idea of bankruptcy. I will ask the Law Reform Commission to look at some of these matters because I am convinced that in a modern society we can think of better techniques than the present technique. I have a view, from my own period in practice, that the present technique is cumbersome and expensive and involves delays. There seems to be a gap between the bankrupt person and creditors being adequately catered for by being able to get some portion of their debt recouped. We have all those difficulties. We will always have bad debts. We recognise that. However, it is important to try to help people at times to remain in business. Creditors are often very understanding. There is merit in suggesting that there might be consultation with creditors or in people getting some sort of advice from consultants or advisers in this field before bankruptcy is declared. In some cases it has to be declared rather quickly to protect assets. I thank everybody for their contribution to the debate. I must say, though, that the evidence even in this debate does not support what the honourable member for Menzies was emphasising, which is that there is necessarily great merit in the private trustee position. I make the point that there seem to be some difficulties involved in sustaining that point of view in the light of subsequent evidence given by other speakers. Mr MacKellar —What about the extra staff and less money? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is an interesting point. I take it on board. If we keep that theory going we will have a lot of public servants and no debt. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.25 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Debate resumed from 20 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(8.30) —The Opposition will assure the passage of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill, which provides a statutory basis for the Commonwealth's involvement in soil conservation. However, the Opposition is not committed to the establishment of a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee or to the statutory nature of this legislation. While the coalition is committed to direct Commonwealth financial assistance for soil conservation, it is not committed to legislation that tends to duplicate the role and the resources of State governments. For some years the Commonwealth has contributed to soil conservation, apart from a brief period when the Commonwealth contribution to the States was built into State revenue grants. The Fraser Government developed reservations about this earlier action. In the 1983 election campaign, for instance, the Liberal and National parties announced a new $5m afforestation and soil conservation program, with funding to rise to $15m in 1987-88. This program was aimed at building on the annual allocation to the States of more than $3m for soil conservation works. In addition, the Fraser Government provided for individual projects by landholders to be fully tax deductible in the year of expenditure. That went back as far as October 1980. There is an important funding role for the Commonwealth Government in both water and soil conservation. Both resources are of paramount importance in any nation, but nowhere are these resources more important than in this arid, windswept continent. Soil resources are, of course, fundamental to future agricultural development and production. Agricultural production and the exports of our agricultural industries are of basic importance to the standard of living of all Australians. Unfortunately, in this urbanised society of ours, this fact of life is so often forgotten. All those people who take an interest in the future welfare of Australia must realise that the future of this nation depends very largely upon our capacity to produce from the soil of this nation. This Bill should provide the statutory machinery for the efficient allocation of Commonwealth funds to soil conservation projects. It is of utmost important that every action is taken by the Commonwealth and State governments to conserve the limited and fragile soils that are needed to produce food and wealth for generations yet to come. The thin layer of topsoil is our greatest natural resource but already vast areas are experiencing soil degradation, and an effort must be made to overcome this damage. I agree with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that unless real and concerted efforts are made to save our soils, the economic welfare of Australia will be placed at grave risk. The problem is so important and national in character that States should not be left to tackle it alone. A national response is required in the long term interests of the nation. Therefore, the Opposition supports the aim of the program to develop and implement national policies for the rehabilitation and sustainable utilisation of the nation's soil and land resources. However, the policies must be developed in concert with the States and implemented with their concurrence. There is also a need to encourage and involve the farmers' efforts in any program. Governments cannot do this task alone and farmers cannot do this task alone. Any worthwhile results will depend on the participation of the community at large. A satisfactory outcome will require all land users and all levels of government to accept their respective responsibilities in soil conservation. A considerable task remains to raise the level of public awareness of the need to prevent land degradation. I concede, however, that the great progress made over the last 10 years has been one of the notable developments that have occurred in this country. In the last 10 years there has been great progress in spite of droughts, but our task now is to build on that progress. The Bill before the House establishes a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee, a trust fund and the conditions applying to grants. Future allocations of funds will be divided into three elements, namely, funding to the States, to individual projects and to Commonwealth departments. It is a matter of some concern, however, that no fixed appropriation has been allowed for in the Bill, so each year the Minister and his Department will do battle for funds, with no real certainty of success in their efforts. As one who has served in governments in a ministerial capacity for 10 years, I must say that it is very difficult for Ministers to win battles for projects such as soil conservation or, for that matter, water conservation. There always seem to be so many converging demands in a modern society. Social welfare claims, social welfare demands, the aspirations and the hopes of people in the arts and all sorts of areas seem to converge upon the government of the day. Very often some of the most important areas of development and conservation are forgotten in the struggle and the wrangling that go on for the dollars that are available in the Budget. In 1983-84 the total allocation to soil conservation for a continent the size of the United States of America fell back sharply to $1m, despite Labor's 1983 campaign promise to allocate $4m in its first year in office. Only in this financial year has the allocation reached the $4m level that had been promised. What is $4m when all is said done? Many of the bridges in this country that cover little streams have cost $4m or more. We talk about $4m or $3m or $5m-- Mr Wright —What did your own Government spend? Nothing. Mr HUNT —I say to the honourable member for Capricornia that we introduced the program and we made an honest offer to the people of Australia to increase it on a scale that was never envisaged by the Australian Labor Party. Mr Cleeland —What was your record? Mr HUNT —I think that the Labor Party's record stands to its discredit because in the first year it came into office it gave a miserable $1m to soil conservation. Mr Everingham —He was driven out of Queensland by a 73-year-old. Mr HUNT —Yes. The honourable member for Capricornia should go back to Queensland. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The two honourable members from northern areas will cease their by-play across the chamber and allow the Deputy Leader of the National Party to continue. Mr HUNT —Is it the intensity of the sun, Mr Speaker? Mr SPEAKER —I am not allowed to comment on those matters. Mr HUNT —I commend the Government for restoring soil conservation funding to its previous level, but I would prefer this legislation, which gives the statutory framework to the national soil conservation program, to have some reference to the basic levels of funding. I see this as a shortcoming in the legislation. The provisions for the recovery of moneys from recipients of Commonwealth payments as set out in clause 7 (4) (a) of the Bill are also of some concern. This clause empowers the Government to demand from any payee the equivalent amount of income derived from the acquisition or production of any property in the course of the conservation project or the equivalent income from any patents for inventions made in the course of the project. So restrictive is the nature of that provision that it is almost like something one would see in the Merchant of Venice. The aim of this legislation must be to promote the greatest possible conservation effort around Australia but the uncertainty created by the seemingly harsh provision might well act as a disincentive. I stress that the clause gives the Federal Government the ability to resume, not the actual property or income, but the income equivalent of any proceeds resulting from the work. The determination of this equivalent amount rests with the Minister or an authorised officer of the Minister. The measures do appear excessive, and I would urge the Minister to give consideration to further amendment which would at least clarify the Government's intentions in this regard. There is also a need to spell out the extent to which the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee will control soil conservation funding in Australia. In particular, the Committee would appear to have power over the distribution of all funds, whether they be to States, to individual projects or to Commonwealth departments. There is a need for clarification of the extent to which this legislation may override the powers of the States. Neither the second reading speech nor the Bill really gives any clear indication of the extent to which the Commonwealth could override the powers, responsibilities, functions and experience of the State governments that have wrestled with the problem over many years. The primary responsibility of the State governments in soil conservation efforts must be maintained. The State governments are best equipped to carry out work on the important effort which has accelerated over the past decade. The role of the Commonwealth is essentially one of overseeing the national effort to promote the optimal use of available funds. I wish to stress that the Opposition in no way attempts to denigrate the national soil conservation program, which is a commendable effort to assist the efforts of the States and of those associated with the land to overcome a serious national problem. Apart from the reservations I have made, the Opposition will not oppose the legislation. I do make some commitment on the part of the Opposition parties. We are seriously concerned about soil conservation in this nation. In a period of the Fraser Government it was resolved to build the amount into the States grants program but we decided that the States, probably under pressure for the use of resources available to them, would divert those resources to other causes. I think it has been a lesson to governments in the Commonwealth area that in future we must never depart from a direct responsibility in the area of soil conservation. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(8.43) —The history of land degradation commenced in Australia with European settlement. From the first day of settlement in 1788, the fragile land structure and ecology of our country has been destroyed by European farming techniques. Hence, the history of Australian agriculture was marked by the destruction, at an early stage, of the fragile surface soils and vegetation that then existed. As a nation we failed to learn from the Aborigine to understand the interdependence between ourselves and the land we inhabit. It has taken nearly 200 years to understand that fragile balance, in which insufficient allowance was made for the frequency of drought, floods and other climatic events or for limitation such as slope, soil structure or ground water hydrology. The result is a massive soil erosion and land degradation problem for Australia, ranging from wind erosion of the sand plain country to serious irrigation and dry land salinity. The inherited problem is of enormous magnitude. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation studies have shown that of the small amount of arable land available in Australia some 5 per cent per annum is being lost. A joint Commonwealth-States study in 1978 found that some 270 million hectares, or just over half the area in agricultural or pastoral use, required treatment for land degradation if its productivity was to be maintained. However, it must be said that to the credit of the rural industry great improvements have been made in agricultural productivity over several decades. In many areas our primary producers are among the most efficient in the world. Yet, despite these technological and social accomplishments Australian land users and successive governments have failed to introduce land use programs consistent with the use of our diminishing agricultural resources. In my own electorate land degradation is primarily concentrated in soil erosion and dry land salinity. Australia is one of the few countries in the world which experience salinity in non-irrigated, dry land farming. Surface or near surface salinisation of land due to rising water tables occurs in both irrigated and dry land agriculture. While the problem is widespread in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria, it also occurs in New South Wales and Queensland. It has been estimated that productivity losses due to dry land salinity currently amount to some $16m annually. In the Warranbayne and Boho districts of McEwen excessive destruction of native vegetation has created recharge areas that permit the rapid permeation of ground water on high ground which results in increased water tables on the lower ground. Land which has never historically known the leakage of sub-surface water is now being swamped by saline affected ground water, creating classical dry land salinity. A mature gum tree, I am authoritatively informed, soaks up some 300 litres of groundwater a day and evaporates the moisture into the atmosphere. Each tree removed from the recharge areas allows increased ground water to flow to the now salt affected land. The problems and causes are recognised by the Warranbayne and Boho district landowners, who have formed a local soil conservation group, shortly to be incorporated. Mr Colin Davies of Warranbayne, a member of that group, has offered his property for experimental soil conservation techniques by the Victorian Soil Conservation Authority, one of three such experiments in Victoria. Salt affected land is being planted with salt tolerant pastures and the recharge areas are being fenced to prevent stock entry and are being re-planted with native vegetation. Against this background of an urgent need on one hand to combat land degradation nationally, and limited Commonwealth responsibility on the other hand, in 1983 the Government initiated the national soil conservation program. The program aims to develop and implement national policies for the rehabilitation and sustainable utilisation of the nation's soil and land resources. Its broad goals are that all lands in Australia be used within their capability; that land use decisions be based on whole catchment-regional land management planning concepts; that all land users and levels of government meet their respective responsibilities in achieving soil conservation; that effective co-operation and co-ordination occur between all sectors of the community, disciplines and agencies involved in the use and management of land and water resources; and that the whole community adopt a land conservation ethic. It is very strange to sit in this House and hear those who were once proud to call themselves the Country Party, but who now strive to be the National Party, talk about land conservation and land degradation. In Victoria their colleagues in that Party are still actively pushing to open up the Little Desert of Victoria for farming. They still have vague hopes and are still suggesting seriously in Victoria that we should have increased closer settlement. It is absolutely staggering that the National Party of Victoria is still pushing for these rather strange concepts which are so outmoded. Mr Kerin —They never learn. Mr CLEELAND —They never learn. They are still pushing for it, despite the fact that the Little Desert area is now regarded by all serious farmers as being of no value at all. The National Party people in Victoria want to dig up fragile top soil and farm it-for what purpose, I do not know. Mr Tim Fischer —Why won't the Victorian Labor Government re-establish the salinity committee? Mr CLEELAND —We will not let them break up the top soil; I can guarantee that. The program is directed at all sectors of the community with an interest or involvement in land management. That, of course, excludes the National Party. Landholders, with whom the main responsibility for erosion control rests, are the major target, but community groups, researchers, local government and various agencies in the State and Federal governments also have important roles to play. The emphasis is on co-operation and co-ordination, as the fragmentation of responsibility amongst many government agencies has, in the past, contributed to the present extent of the damage. Financial assistance, although just one facet of the overall program, is an essential ingredient for the support of a range of other policy measures to be employed such as education, training, demonstration, research, publicity, provision of technical assistance and construction of works. Funds have been provided for projects in these broad areas of activity. Structurally the program has three components. The first provides funds to State soil conservation agencies to enhance their training, demonstration, research, public awareness, advisory, data collection, design and construction activities. The second component provides funds to other organisations which can contribute to the attainment of the aim of the program through training, education, innovation, research, program development and liaison or co-ordination activities. Projects of national importance involving State co-operation or national co-operation are accorded priority. The third component of the program is still being investigated. It is intended to provide incentives to individual landholders to adopt effective soil conservation practices. It is hoped that all landholders in Australia will be encouraged to accept their responsibility for the mitigation and prevention of all forms of land degradation. An amount of $1m was allocated for the program in the 1983-84 Budget. Despite my interjection during the speech of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), when I asked him to specify the amount that the former Government spent on these programs, he failed to give us that information. The reality is that the previous Government did not do anything about it. Of this $1m, $600,000 was provided to State soil conservation agencies under the States' component of the program for a total of 25 projects. The remaining $400,000 was distributed under the national component of the program to a range of institutions and organisations and was used to fund a further 15 projects. Widespread interest has now been shown in the program and grant applications totalling $10.1m were received in 1984. The sum of $4m was provided for the program in the 1984-85 Federal Budget. Of this amount, $3.5m has been allocated under the States' component of the program to the various State soil conservation agencies in the following manner: New South Wales, $825,000; Victoria, $498,741; Queensland, $610,000-I would like to know how much the Queensland Government puts in-South Australia, $396,000; Western Australia, $610,500; Tasmania, $161,259; Northern Territory, $165,000; Australian Capital Territory, $33,000. Those of a group catchment works-type nature encompass a total area of about 465,000 hectares, with State and local government as well as landholders contributing to the costs. Funds under the national component in 1984-85 have been committed to other organisations and institutions in respect of 25 projects, eight of which are continuing projects from 1983-84. Various options for the third component of the program are being examined. Meanwhile, taxation concessions on investment in soil conservation are being provided under section 75D of the Income Tax Assessment Act. This section allows 100 per cent of certain capital expenditure to be deducted in the first year. Items covered by this provision include the eradication of pests from the land, the destruction of plant growth detrimental to the land, the construction of levee banks or similar works having like uses, the construction of surface or sub-surface drainage works for the purpose of controlling salinity or assisting in drainage control, and other work to prevent or combat soil erosion. The Warranbayne/Boho soil conservation group is the type of group this Bill is intended to assist-the present generation farmers who are prepared to tackle the difficult and costly task of repairing the damage to our history. These people seek from Government a contribution and a lead and they will find this government is providing both the contribution and the lead. The problem is of vital concern in Victoria. Only recently, on 11 April 1985, there was an article in the Age, entitled 'Its time to stop talking and start planting'. The article, by Mr Rod Usher, pointed out that the problem in Australia has arisen largely from the overall destruction of our native vegetation. It may be fair to say that our original farmers-the early settlers-were not aware of the very fragile nature of our soil and our ecology, but it saddens me to find that, even with the knowledge we have of our own nation and of the fragile ecology, we still have in this country groups who are prepared to undertake agricultural activities on land that is not suitable for such activities. The rarest resource we have in this country is our very thin topsoil, which is reducing at five per cent a year. This is the major problem we face if we are to survive and feed ourselves and if we are to have export capacity. Yet in the broader farming community there is still no recognition of this very sad fact. This should be a matter of gravest concern to this Parliament-to all members of all parties. The message must go out to our farming communities, to those who use our fragile land, that it is not just their land, it belongs to the whole community; that the fragile soil and its agricultural produce is the produce of the nation; that they are only temporarily on the land and on the soil and that they cannot use that soil or that land to the detriment of the nation and our future history. That is a matter of the most vital concern. It concerns me as an individual and I know it concerns the Government. I commend the Government for again showing the initiative to do something about a grave national problem, unlike the Opposition, which in 30 years of government talked a lot but did nothing about it. Opposition members come into the House and bleat about the insufficiency of this Bill, but it is a start. It can never be enough, but at least it is a start. I believe that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) deserves the warmest thanks of all farmers in this country for the work he is doing in an effort to stabilise the agricultural industry and prevent further degradation of the soil. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(8.57) —I also rise to support the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill and endorse the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). He certainly spelt it out well, as indeed did the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), who made some very pertinent points. I think the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) was spot on in his second reading speech when he said that the problems of land degradation in Australia were extremely severe and costly. He said: There can be no doubting the seriousness of the problem. Our country is not well endowed with land resources, at least not from an agricultural perspective. The Minister went on: The damage is already widespread. Erosion, salinity and tree decline are afflicting over half of all our agricultural land and poisoning major waterways in this country. Naturally enough we endorse his comments. He continued: It is of the utmost importance that the pattern be halted and prevented from recurring in the future. Furthermore, wherever possible, attempts should be made to restore degraded land. Later in the second reading speech the Minister, almost tongue in cheek, went on to say: This Government has a longstanding commitment to safeguard the nation's agricultural resources. Since attaining office we have moved quickly to fulfil this commitment. I guess that is just a little point. I turn to the content of the Bill. There is one detail which I hope the Minister will discharge very carefully when he sets up the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. I refer to Clause 11 (1) (c), which talks about the constitution of the Committee. It states: The Committee shall consist of- . . . (c) at least 2 and not more that 4 other persons with experience in, special knowledge of, or educational qualifications relevant to, soil conservation. I think that is very good and we would certainly support that, but I hope the Minister will be very careful when selecting these people. I hope he will ensure that they are people who are responsible, who will take a constructive approach and earn the respect of the community, particularly the farming community. If these people do not hold that respect, I fear that the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee will not be as effective as it should be in discharging its duties. We have heard some mention of the size of the problem, and while it is hard to quantify there is no doubt that it is enormous. I wish to elaborate a little on some of the previous remarks. To start with, I quote from a report entitled 'A Basis for Soil Conservation Policy in Australia', produced by the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development in 1978. The first chapter of this report states: The Standing Committee on Soil Conservation carried out a study in 1969 and 1970 to present an overview of soil conservation in Australia and its needs for the future. In that study the Standing Committee concluded that at the then current rates of soil conservation expenditure it would take about 100 years to achieve control of soil erosion in the non-arid regions of Australia, even if no further soil erosion problems arose. The estimated costs of the works necessary to control erosion was reported to be $350 million at that time. I repeat that that was in 1969-70. I think in today's money it would be conservative to say that the cost of arresting the problem would be well over $1 billion. I think that illuminates the size of the problem. The report goes on to mention the problem in more detail and it subdivides the land use into four broad categories, namely, arid grazing, non-arid grazing, extensive cropping and intensive cropping. In addressing this problem the report states: An assessment was made of land degradation in these land use categories. The results indicate that just over half the area in agricultural or pastoral use requires treatment for land degradation if its productivity is to be maintained . . . Forty-four per cent of the area needing treatment can be adequately treated by using farm practices that meet soil conservation requirements. That is an important point which I will come back to later. The report continues: The remaining 56 per cent of the area needing treatment requires measures which involve the construction of works such as gully control dams, drainage works and contour banks, as well as associated practices. At June 1975, these necessary works were estimated to cost $675 million . . . The report states further down the page: The costs assessed for construction of works do not include annual maintenance costs. These are estimated at $50 million a year. That is in 1975. To put the size of the soil degradation in this country into perspective I quote from a book called The Forgotten Country, written by Julian Cribb, the editor of the National Farmer: Using the CSIRO estimate, the last six years of cropping have cost Australia in excess of 860 million tonnes of top soil. That is in addition to losses occasioned by livestock, droughts, development. If corrective measures were implemented nationwide tomorrow, it would take nearly a century to recover all our losses in the grainbelt and high rain fall areas alone. I think that shows very clearly the size of the problem and there is no question that it is certainly an enormous problem. I think everyone in this chamber tonight who is interested in this matter is more than aware of it. With regard to the level of funding, while the Opposition would certainly welcome the commitment of the Government, and as the honourable member for McEwen said, no matter how much funding was committed it would not be enough, the $1m in the first Budget of this Labor Government and the $4m in the second Budget is not going to go very far. In addition to the Federal commitment the States spend a further $20m or so. On the next page of The Forgotten Country a soil researcher, Professor John McGarity is quoted as saying: 'There is a mere trickle of research money where there should be a flood.' The book continues: CSIRO Soils Division chief E. A. Martin echoes his warning: 'Unless research, development and legislation is planned now, we will find severe restraints on our productive capacity.' Two thirds of our broadacre cropping area is in need of treatment for erosion. If the average yield loss from erosion is conservatively put at 15 per cent per year in this area, then each year we are losing around 2 million tonnes of grain, worth $300 million on our export markets. The total bill to correct Australia's soil erosion problems is now estimated to be in excess of one billion dollars which is enormous-but then so are the potential gains. Such expenditure would be repaid with additional national income within three years, and certainly within five. I think there is no question about the size of the problem. It is a question of education and of making those who are directly involved aware of what is happening and of what can be done to correct it. Naturally we support the Government's efforts in this. I think what the Government is doing is justified on several grounds. Firstly, in some areas the cost to individuals is far too much for them to be able to undertake the necessary works to correct the problem. Secondly, the effects of land degradation often cover large areas and affect a lot of people in the same areas. Naturally the benefits to the individuals who take action would in many cases be minor whereas it would often benefit those further downstream or in related areas. Obviously the individual land owner should not be expected to pick up the tab for doing the work for someone else. There is no doubt that there is a growing reserve of goodwill. A lot of farmers are becoming far more aware of what is happening. In my area we are seeing a lot of people who are prepared to go out and start tree planting, do their own research and workout how they can reduce erosion and the salinity problem. I hasten to add that there is a problem, which I alluded to earlier, which is that the Government has policies that discourage farmers from taking a long term attitude to their farming. I believe this can be far more detrimental than all the things that have been mentioned. The amount of money we are talking about is certainly large in anyone's language but the real way of solving this problem is going to be through the individual farmers. That is why I believe it is so important for the Government to be made aware that if it has policies which are contrary to farmers taking those long term views of their land, the money spent on soil conservation is going to be more than lost in the counterproductive effects of the Government's actions. Turning specifically to these government policies, I believe that any policy that fails to pay full attention to the importance of successive generations being put in the position of being able to carry on the farm will lead to farmers adopting a short term perspective. I cannot over estimate the importance of this. I hope that the members of the Government who are interested in this problem will take this on board. The sorts of things I am talking about that will cause this short term perspective are death duties, which are being freely mooted in some sections of the Government, a capital gains tax, a wealth or assets tax- Mr Andrew —An assets test. Mr HAWKER —As the honourable member for Wakefield points out, the assets test is one such thing that is already doing that. I have examples of farmers who have put their properties on the market because due to the assets test they can no longer put their sons on their properties to carry on. These are the sorts of policies that the Government has to look at very closely because they will do far more to undermine the efforts of soil conservation than anything else. That is why I was very disappointed when the Minister, on 26 February, in answering a question without notice, refused to recommit himself to saying that he would oppose, in the strongest terms, a capital gains tax, an assets test and death duties. He gave that commitment before the last election. By the answer he gave on 26 February he appears to be running away from that commitment. That is very disappointing, particularly in the light of the sorts of things we are talking about tonight. We have touched on the magnitude of the problem. While we welcome the Government's move, I think we still have to admit that it is only a drop in the ocean. Nonetheless we are hoping that this Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill will result in good advice and a lot of encouragement to individual land owners. There is a reserve of goodwill and given the right lead a lot of people will continue their work. As I have also pointed out, these land owners are the ones who are going to make the big advancement in the soil conservation program. That is why I have warned about the effect of capital taxes, death duties, assets taxes and the assets test. Mr Hunt —They have stripped them of everything. Mr HAWKER —Exactly, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia says. The other problem facing farmers right now is low profitability. We have already seen the estimate of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that in real terms net farm income will be 17 per cent lower than it was last year. Last year was not a particularly good year. Seeing things worsening will only add to the problem. Mr Braithwaite —The return on capital is only about 2 or 3 per cent. Mr HAWKER —Exactly. If there is low profitability, farmers will find it very difficult to put aside money for soil conservation measures. These are the sorts of things on which the Government has to take a broader perspective and say: 'If we are fair dinkum about soil conservation, we have to address these major problems that are related to it'. The Government has been well informed on this matter. When the National Farmers Federation made its submission on farm costs, it gave the Government a stark exposure of the cost problems facing farmers and, in particular, the lack of international competitiveness. I must admit that since that farm costs submission was made to the Government we have seen the Australian dollar decline in value. I am sure that to some extent that will alleviate the problem, but only if the Government's policies continue to encourage the international competitiveness of farmers. Obviously, the Government has to tackle the problem of excessive tariffs on imported goods and the excessive spending and borrowing at the Federal, State and local government levels; but most importantly, it has to tackle the problem of our inflexible centralised wage fixing system. It is ludicrous to hear the Government talking on the one hand about freeing up the Australians currency and, on the other, saying: 'If it happens to go against one section of the community, we will give you full indexation, even to allow for the effects of the devaluation of the dollar'. The Government must look at that point again if it is serious about addressing the problems of farmers' competitiveness. Other problems outlined in the farm costs submission were the over-regulated service industries, particularly freight, both land and sea, and, of course, the level of Government taxes and charges. The NFF went as far as to quantify these charges. It has estimated that it is costing every farmer an additional $16,700 a year because of the penalties he has to pay through these various measures. The importance of the Government tackling these costs cannot be overstated. It is only by doing so that farmers can increase the cash flow that will be needed to allow individuals to put money aside for soil conservation. Many of them want to do so, but when they are faced with very low incomes, obviously soil conservation cannot be the number one priority. When they are faced with paying for the essentials of life or paying for soil conservation farmers are only human. We certainly support the Bill. The size of the problem has been very much misunderstood by the general public. By and large people are becoming more aware of it. But we have to keep in perspective the size of the effort that the Government is making and the importance of encouraging people to help themselves. When encouraging farmers, we must look very closely at encouraging succeeding generations to continue on their farms, because if there is no reason for a farmer to think that his son or daughter will carry on his farm, it is highly unlikely that he will be too worried about the future of the soil and its condition in 50 years. The Minister for Primary Industry must be aware of this problem, but he must make sure that some of his colleagues are, too. This is why I hope he will restate his opposition to a capital gains tax, death duties and an assets tax. In particular, I hope that he will work a bit harder to get the assets test thrown out of the window. I hope that he will be heeding the NFF's excellent farm costs submission. It put forward constructive suggestions to improve farmers' competitiveness on the international market. It is only by a combination of all these policies that the enormous problem of soil degradation can be successfully tackled. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(9.14) —I am tremendously pleased to speak on this important legislation, the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill. I concur with those honourable members who have said that many farmers are dedicated to soil conservation. In my large electorate of Grey, in South Australia, farmers play a positive role in soil conservation. I am tremendously pleased as I travel around the electorate and see the farmers' dedication to protecting the soil. I am also pleased that the South Australian Government, through its Department of Agriculture, is the leading State government in soil conservation. Some of the work undertaken in areas such as Cleve and Leigh Creek is a great tribute to the Department of Agriculture of South Australia and, in particular, to the South Australian Government. As far as the Federal Government is concerned, expanding the role of the Department of Primary Industry to include soil conservation reflects Labor's clear recognition of the serious losses in productivity in Australia's primary industries caused by land degradation, or soil erosion. Assistance directed at the economics of farming is of limited value over the longer term if at the same time agriculture's resource base is degrading. Soil erosion is the single most serious environmental problem faced by Australia today. Every day, tonnes of irreplaceable soil are lost as a result of water or wind erosion. It is a Federal Government responsibility to join with the States to ensure that the resource base of our primary industries is restored and maintained. This is a responsibility that successive Liberal-National Party governments have ducked; their ad hoc approach to resource management, governed by political expediency, has been a major factor contributing to the critical situation which existed when this Labor Government came to office. The Labor Government actively assumed its responsibility for soil conservation with the allocation of $1m in the 1983-84 Budget. Although only a small contribution, this gave the Labor Government a window into soil conservation. There was a successive allocation of $4m in 1984-85. Hopefully in the next Budget there will be a successive allocation. Certainly funds will not be reduced. This was a big increase on recent years. Previous Federal Government involvement in soil conservation effectively ceased in 1981 following the decision of the notorious Fraser razor gang. The funding increase has made it possible for land degradation problems of national importance to be identified and dealt with in a co-ordinated and systematic manner. This was not feasible in the past as the last Federal Government had only a token interest-if even that-in soil conservation. Although I fully support a further reduced Budget deficit this year, I trust that funding for this important work will not be reduced. I would like to take the opportunity to give a brief history of soil conservation. In the early 1930s, interest in and awareness of the need to conserve our soils were virtually absent in Australia. The Department of Agriculture at that time had no interest at all in soil conservation. Some time later, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation turned to researching biological control of rabbits. This was to provide dramatic improvement in controlling soil erosion. It was only 10 years ago, under the Whitlam Labor Government, that the Federal Government first became actively involved in soil conservation. The Whitlam Government proposed to make direct funding available to the States for soil conservation on the condition that they agreed to participate in a study designed to develop a national soil conservation program, to be undertaken in the context of an integrated approach to land management. This collaborative study took two years to complete. Despite clear evidence of the need for urgent soil conservation work, and a blueprint for action, the Fraser Government chose to ignore the recommendations of the national soil conservation study. The razor gang's rationale was that soil conservation was 'a function more appropriately handled by the States'. The razor gang made its decision in the face of well documented evidence that the magnitude of the problem was clearly beyond the resources of State Governments, let alone Australia's 170,000 individual producers, many of whom were already suffering the added burden of drought. Despite the warnings, the Government failed to grasp the serious long term threat posed to Australia's primary industries by land degradation. This is why there is such a need for the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985 which we are debating today. Community awakening has been slow, and there is still a need to educate the general community. Land degradation and the issue of soil conservation is a sub-set of such things as energy, population, food supply and the depletion of forests. People now are thinking more in an integrated way, identifying the inter-relationships between parts of the whole ecological system into which man considers he must fit. We are identifying components, problems and the need to allocate resources to fix problems in a better way than we ever have before. Land has traditionally been regarded by European society as an indestructible object for ownership and use. A landowner was free to use and manage his land as he wished. These attitudes are now changing in several very important ways. The idea of stewardship is spreading. The landowner and society of today are beginning to be regarded as stewards of land with an obligation to consider the needs of future generations and to hand it on without loss of productivity or use potential. Land's limitations and fragility are becoming more appreciated. The area of productive land is quite limited. The rate of soil formation is so slow that for all practical purposes once soil is gone its loss is permanent. Nature takes from 100 to 400 years and even more to generate 10 millimetres of topsoil and 3,000 to 12,000 years to generate soil to a depth of about 25 centimetres. Soil is essentially a non-renewable resource. Land is easily degraded by erosion, loss of fertility and pollution as a result of inappropriate use and management, but this degradation is usually not rapid enough or sufficiently obvious to create concern until it is far advanced and difficult or impossible to treat. Although Australia is a large country, its land resources are relatively limited, a fact which is not widely appreciated. No more than 10 per cent of Australia is arable, 5.8 per cent is under extensive cropping already and 0.3 per cent is under intensive cropping. Areas with recreational and scenic potential tend to be fewer and more dispersed than is usual in other countries. Considerable concern has been expressed about the quality of Australia's land resources. In 1975, half of the land used for agriculture and grazing was shown to need some form of treatment for degradation. It has been stated that the major pollutant of water is soil from erosion. This far exceeds the threats from salinity and pesticides. Those of us who live in my vast electorate of Grey, in the north of the driest State in the driest continent, depend very much on water from the River Murray for personal use. Soil erosion has had a diabolical effect on our water supply, which is not fit for human consumption. I would like to take this opportunity to describe soil conservation work which is presently being carried out in my electorate of Grey. Brian Hughes, a representative of the Department of Agriculture for the Upper Eyre Peninsula, who is based at Cleve has a very comprehensive and positive plan to combat soil erosion and is to be commended. Brian is presently involved in two projects, one of which is near completion. In 1982 a project designed for water erosion control commenced. This project, which involved contouring and flood control dams at Cockabindi Creek, north of Cleve, will be completed this financial year. A project at Heggaton, north-east of Cleve, started approximately one month ago and is due for completion in late 1987. This project also included water erosion control through contouring as well as reclamation of badly wind eroded country. Work at Heggaton has included improved drainage and the fencing of susceptible areas, as well as the seeding of salt areas with salt tolerant grasses. The cost sharing arrangement for the Heggaton project is that $60,000 over three years will be funded through the national soil conservation program, with the farmers paying that much again. I certainly commend the farmers in that area for playing such a positive role. For the future, there are plans for a project to commence at Campoona Hill, which is situated in between the other projects mentioned. Planning will start this year with work due to commence in 1986. This will involve water erosion control and the reclamation of salt area. The existing critical situation in Australia has been made even worse by drought, the recent bushfires and floods. As a result of drought and consequently bushfires pasture has deteriorated, leaving topsoil with little protection from wind and rain. Heavy rain storms take a particularly severe toll of our exposed soils. Downpours in drought affected areas have washed away the nutrient build-up of the past 30 years. It will take generations, and careful land management, to regain the loss in soil productivity. In my own State of South Australia, floods coming on top of drought and fires resulted in walls of mud-the topsoil from some other farmers' paddocks-swamping low land areas. This Government is committed to restoring Federal Government involvement in soil conservation-hence this Bill-and to tackling the problems of land degradation in general. Labor recognises that this is essential if the future prosperity of Australia's farmers and fishermen is to be preserved. Grass roots soil conservation services are essential to help land users adopt management practices consistent with restoring and conserving the long term productivity of agriculture's resource base. If we are to expect permanent production from our farm land we must develop and nurture a land ethic among all our people-not just the members of government-and a respect for, and an appreciation of, that thin layer of the creation entrusted to us, that precious commodity that occurs on no other planet that we know of. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). As a member of the Federal Government's primary industry committee, I sincerely believe that he is an inspiration to the members of that committee and to the farming community in general. I also wish to commend a young lady in my electorate, Mrs Teresa Lynch, who is also dedicated to soil conservation and who has played an important role in research on this subject. Although some members of the National Party of Australia might like to rubbish us over this legislation, we are definitely committed to it and I take great pride in supporting the Bill and confirming the Government's commitment to soil conservation. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.29) —I share the sentiments expressed by the entire House in offering bipartisan support for the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill. That support has been characteristic of the debate in this chamber tonight. No one has attempted, or would dare, to deny the importance of the small layer of topsoil that covers so much of productive Australia and it is this fragile layer of topsoil that has been the focus of attention of tonight's debate. Indeed, the debate has been something like a debate on motherhood, because everyone agrees that soil conservation is essential, that it is in fact basic to society's survival. This debate has been full of noble sentiment. We heard the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) wax eloquent about energy, population, food supply, forestry and ecology. He talked about the walls of mud that will result from what he saw as poor farming technique. It is easy to defend the legislation before the House tonight when we take a grand overview of what has been happening to Australia's soils. We heard the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) say that it was estimated we would need to spend $675m, in 1975 terms, to correct the degradation that had occurred to our soils at that point. It is estimated that that bill would now be at least $2 billion. Other members have said that the affected area is something like 270 million hectares. Some statistics I read show that there is a 30 per cent reduction in paddock yield in Australia as a result of the absence of adequate soil conservation measures. The Department of Primary Industry calculates that salinity is costing Victoria alone $12m per annum and that the production of one tonne of grain is costing us 13 tonnes of topsoil. It is easy from this grand overview to wax eloquent and to be passionate about the need for some sort of adequate legislation to protect the soils of Australia. I speak with some passion about this because there was a time when I was involved in the very initiatives of the Department of Agriculture to which the honourable member for Grey has referred. As Chairman of the Advisory Board of Agriculture in South Australia, I was responsible for setting some of the directions that soil conservation ought to take. Perhaps even more significantly, may I be permitted to refer for a moment to one of my colourful predecessors in the seat of Wakefield, the Hon. C. R. Kelly, who claims, rightly, to have pioneered modern soil conservation techniques in South Australia and who confesses that there was a time when his neighbours doubted just how stable he was when they saw him producing the first contour banks that were successfully to hold in place the mid-north of South Australia. His example has been very much a part of modern soil conservation, not only in my State but across the nation. In Wakefield today, we have seen the successful completion of the Pissan Creek conservation scheme. If I may be permitted the same sort of parish pumping as was the honourable member for Grey, currently we have a scheme at Narridy Creek which cost $24,000, a scheme at Gum Creek which was funded to the tune of $20,000 last year, and the Light River Group catchment scheme, which was funded to the tune of $19,000. At this stage a very important scheme has been proposed which involves some techniques to limit the damage currently being done in the Hutt River area, and I have been privileged to have been shown around the area by locals from the Clare Valley. Given that grand overview, why is it that the Opposition has some reservations? Why is it that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has said that we ought to tread carefully in this area of soil conservation? It is simply because we know, as the former member for Wakefield, Mr Kelly, discovered so poignantly, that there is nothing that can control soil erosion as well as local knowledge. The reality is that there is nothing that compares with local knowledge when it comes to controlling soil erosion. Soil conservation is all about knowing an individual farm. It is all about knowing why a fence has been put where it has. It is all about knowing why a paddock is worked in a particular direction. It is all about knowing a farm's history. It is all about knowing in which years a paddock was cropped and in which years it was grazed. As the honourable member for Wannon mentioned, it has been calculated that 44 per cent of present soil erosion can be adequately recovered using modern farming techniques. All that is needed is informed, local farmers, prepared and able to implement those techniques. The number one reservation we on the Opposition benches have results from legislation that centralises the control of soil conservation measures when, in reality, it ought to be decentralised to the point at which the initiatives are taken by local farmers. The second reservation is that, as the honourable member for Gwydir has outlined, we do not have what is fundamental to soil conservation that is, a base guarantee of annual funding. We do not deny for a moment that the record of the States in the area of soil conservation has been less than ideal. Mr Kerin —What about Fraser? Mr ANDREW —I notice that the Minister for Primary Industry is anxious to interject. There have been occasions when the Federal Government has made available money to States only to see the States reduce their individual input. We suggest that, far from the grandiose scheme proposed by the present Government, we might look at some form of insurance that would run parallel to the national disasters scheme. Why are we not talking about an annual base grant so we know that every year at least this sum of money-indexed, I would hope, for the consumer price index-will be available for soil conservation? Why are we not looking at a grant that states: 'After each State has spent a certain sum, we will come in'? Why are we not looking at a scheme that states: 'For every dollar you spend we will spend $2', thus locking the States into some commitment to soil conservation, just as we have shown? The honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) really ought to spend a little while talking to the honourable member for Grey. At least the honourable member for Grey was gracious enough to acknowledge the essential role that farmers play in soil conservation and in checking soil erosion. The honourable member for McEwen not only implied earlier in the debate but also later went on explicitly to state that there had been too little recognition by farmers of the dilemma of soil conservation. Indeed, he said that they need to remember that it is not their land; that it is held by them and is given to them in trust. There is not a farmer I know who regards the land as his. Rather, he regards it more as his heritage and as something he wishes to pass on in better condition to succeeding generations. The honourable member for McEwen made no such acknowledgement of that fundamental farming truth. The Murray Mallee has been subjected to some of the worst wind erosion in Australia. The Wanbi Research Station-that is not in my electorate so I cannot be accused of parish pumping-over the last three decades has introduced some of the best soil recovery techniques currently being used in Australia at the instigation of local farmers. That area has pioneered the use, for example, of astutely sown rye crops on sandhills and adequate fencing to keep off the stock that has allowed much of this drifting soil to be recovered. All this has been at the initiative of local farmers. The honourable member for McEwen would have done well to have heeded their experience before he chose to address the House in the tone he used tonight. The remarks he made were a grave offence not only to the many farmers who sit on this side of the House but also to those in the farming communities of Australia who are taking the very steps necessary to ensure that soil erosion is checked. It is true that farming techniques have caused soil erosion but none of that was intentional. Much of it was simply the result of economic necessity, which demanded that farmers be more productive than they wished to be. Only the Government has the resources to relieve the farmers of the economic embarrassment that currently prevents them from instituting the sorts of soil conservation mechanisms they want. Only the farmers have the long term perspective that is necessary for adequate soil conservation measures. As I said earlier, the great problem with the legislation before us tonight is that there is no base grant. This Government will be as guilty as any government, no matter what its colour, of wanting to do what is in the short term interest and not what appeals because of the long term perspective. The farmers are aware of what the long term results of their farming practices will be and governments have been most reluctant to give farmers that support. It is the farmers who, in my area, in the electorate of Wakefield, and in the electorate of Grey, as has been acknowledged- Mr Hawker —And Wannon. Mr ANDREW —And Wannon-have already instituted the very water catchment schemes and dams that have minimised soil erosion. While on the subject of water catchment, may I say that it is the irrigation farmers who have been involved in some of the salinity problems that are so much a part of the salinity dilemmas that are causing soil erosion. The significant thing is that the irrigation farmers I know who are currently embarrassed by salinity levels are, if you please, irrigation farmers in government irrigation schemes. Mr Tim Fischer —In all States. Mr ANDREW —It may well be in all States, but I can say with some conviction that it has been the South Australian Government's irrigation schemes that have been slowest to adapt to modern irrigation techniques that would minimise drainage problems. In fact, it was the South Australian Government which had engineered the magnificent Noora Basin scheme to minimise drainage problems and then found, when it started to renovate its own irrigation schemes, that it was contributing so much to saline irrigation problems that the Noora Basin scheme became enormously over-engineered when it set about redistributing water in its own areas more accurately. It has been implied in the debate tonight that, for some magical reason, all wisdom on soil erosion is housed here in Canberra and that when we enter into this centralised scheme all of this wisdom will come together under some form of centralised control and we will see, in effect, a far better approach to soil conservation. My point is that it is not wisdom that has been lacking, it is funding. All of the wisdom already exists by the very farmers who are forced to work farms that are slowly eroding. Mr Cleeland —It is still happening. Mr ANDREW —Of course it is still happening, and it will continue to happen until governments make available to those farmers the sort of funding that is necessary to relieve them of their present dilemmas over funding. It has been said that this Hawke socialist Government is committed, in fact, to relieving erosion problems. My point is that no one is as committed as the affected farmers. It is true that this legislation is allowing a measure of co-operation. But what has not been acknowledged is that the opportunity for co-operation already exists through the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee of the Australian Agricultural Council. The plea from the Opposition is that what is needed in erosion terms is a deluge of funds to erode the neglect that successive governments have allowed to apply to soil conservation measures in Australia. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(9.43) —I am very pleased today to speak on what I consider a most important Bill, the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill, of which the national soil conservation program is a vital link. It is important that I draw the attention of those listening to two very excellent publications which are produced by the Australian Government Publishing Service. They relate to salinity issues and land degradation in Australia. These books are available at any Government printing office. I urge people on the land to come into the city now and again to obtain them. They are very valuable books. The soil conservation program is based on five major objectives: First, that all lands in Australia be used within their capability; secondly, that land capability assessment and whole catchment-regional land management concepts be used as a basis for land planning; thirdly, that all land users and levels of government meet their respective responsibilities in achieving soil conservation; fourthly, that effective co-operation and co-ordination occur between all sectors of the community, disciplines and agencies involved in the use and management of land and water resources, and, fifthly, that the whole community adopt a land conservation ethic. I would like to make a special mention of the fifth point; that is, that the whole community adopt a land conservation ethic. Many may wonder why I, as a person who has lived the majority of his life in the city and whose electorate has very few farms-except a few in Mt Eliza-should take this debate so seriously. Mr Kerin —They are pretty poor. Mr CHYNOWETH —There are a few farmers in there. Our very existence and the future of the world depends upon the protection of that part of our planet earth which supplies the majority of our food. There are three elements which life depends on. They are soil, air, and water, and they are all intertwined so as to provide us with an environment which is pleasant to live in and also sustains the necessities of life. Soil conservation is not new. Ancient Egyptians practised it and they refused permission to build upon productive soil. Land degradation occurred in Australia before European settlement, but its extent and character are now almost entirely the result of the interaction of the agents of erosion, the nature of the land and the form of human activity since European settlement. Since the arrival of the First Fleet the soils of Australia have been dramatically changed. We have removed vast numbers of trees. We have placed upon them animals which are not native to our country. This has altered the whole eco-system. The share of rainfall that runs off the land swells the stream flow which, in turn, increases soil loss. It also decreases evaporation, which alters the area's hydrological cycle. It can also lead to the desertification of areas which are on the fringes of deserts. This is happening now in Australia. Once this is under way it can become self-sustaining, gaining momentum all the time. Some areas throughout the world where this problem is acute are Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali and Somalia. These are areas where population pressures have removed trees to enable them to survive and, in the process, have caused tremendous erosion problems. As a consequence of this, some areas are now devastated by famine, which has been exacerbated by drought. All this comes from soil erosion. We in Australia are fortunate that we are in a position to learn from these countries' misfortunes to enable us to do something about this type of disaster which may confront us in the future. Due to the wide climatic, physiographic and land use difference in Australia, there are wide variations in the characteristics of degradation. Water, wind and salt are the main natural agents of degradation in Australia. Of these, water is the most prevalent, often acting in combination with others. A frequent objective in controlling land degradation is the preservation or restoration of vegetative cover to minimise the exposure of the soil surface to wind and water. This is particularly important in the arid zone. I am sure honourable members, particularly those from Victoria, will remember the dramatic photographs of the red and black clouds of soil that were blown over Melbourne some two years ago. The topsoil was literally blown away and thousands of hectares of precious soil were lost from the western and central regions of Victoria leaving behind considerably reduced productivity. Crop land throughout the world is decreasing. Cities are being built on our most productive soils. Highways and roads are using up huge areas of arable land. Growth of the world automobile fleet from 48 million in 1950 to 331 million in 1982 has claimed millions of hectares of good farm land. Good land lost by cities, et cetera, is being replaced by marginal lands of less productivity. We exploit the soil and abuse it and finally leave it in ruin and walk away. Over 2 million hectares in Italy have been abandoned in the last 10 years due to measures used to produce crops on marginal land. Some farmers in Australia are doing exactly the same. Soil conservation saves fertiliser, fuel and farmers' efforts in providing a foundation on which stable agricultural systems can be built. It has been estimated world-wide that the 1984 loss of topsoil will total some 25.4 billion tonnes from major crop growing regions. A study in China has reported that five billion tonnes of soil and sand is washed into its rivers each year. Another recent initiative of the Chinese Government is to encourage cremation so as to preserve China's precious land. If this soil depletion continues, persistent areas of famine in the world will continue and increase. What is required in Australia is an accurate inventory of agricultural soils throughout our nation, a management plan for future use and, above all, education of all people in the conservation of this vital element of our lives. Never before has the conservation of topsoil been so directly linked to the efforts to improve human well-being. I assure honourable members of this House who have never experienced the feel and the smell of the sweet earth that they have missed one of the great pleasures of life. The public view of soil conservation is that it is primarily concerned with methods and practices of management to prevent or control soil erosion on farming and grazing land. In fact, soil conservation activity is much wider in scope and should cover the full range of circumstances in which land degradation occurs. Salination is an increasing problem, particularly in irrigation areas. The works involved in treating this form of degradation account for three-quarters of the expenditure on necessary works in intensive cropping lands and involve three States-New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Another form of salination, dry land salinity, is also causing increasing concern in many parts of Australia, particularly in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria. Land degradation results in widespread and diverse costs to individuals, the local community and the nation. The Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985 is in total harmony with the national conservation strategy. In fact it amplifies the major precept of the strategy which is that living resource conservation and sustainable development are interdependent. Further, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated in the foreword of the national conservation strategy: Renewable resources provide the basis for much of our national income today and we are relying on them to continue to do so in years to come. Unless we conserve them for sustainable development it will be our children and their children who will pay the price of our neglect. While speaking of national conservation, I cannot miss this opportunity to mention the Daintree Rainforest and the disgraceful soil erosion initiated by the neanderthal intellect of the Queensland Government. By allowing this road to be constructed, and the horrendous erosion that has occurred and is continuing to occur at this very moment, tonnes of Daintree soil is being washed on to our world heritage reef and could easily destroy it. I doubt whether the union-bashing Queensland Government cares about the conservation of our heritage, especially our topsoil. The only interest it has in soil is in slinging mud at a large number of Australians. This Bill clearly sets out the mechanisms for an adequate response to co-ordination and implementation by the Commonwealth in this most important field. It allows for the provision of financial assistance for soil conservation projects undertaken by the Commonwealth, by the States or by individuals and non-government organisations. It also provides for a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Minister for Primary Industry concerning the allocation of financial assistance and the Commonwealth's role in soil conservation in general. As this problem of soil conservation becomes more drastic in Australia and involves a number of States, it becomes clear that the Commonwealth Government must pick up the challenge of the co-ordinating function in soil conservation; that is, nationally complementing and co-ordinating the various State government efforts in this area. In many ways also it must act as an instigator of new approaches and procedures in the overall management of soil conservation. It must not be forgotten that prevention as well as action plays a major part in future soil conservation. This Bill will allow us to research adequately and, through research, to educate and train people to become more aware of the cycle of soil conservation and to employ different methods and attitudes to retard land degradation and abuse of our precious soil in the future. It is interesting to note that the previous Government felt that it was not the Commonwealth's role to intervene in the area of land use. It felt that this responsibility rested with the various States. However, this Government accepts the magnitude of the problem of land degradation and is willing to meet the challenge of co-ordinating a national approach. This Bill will allow that national approach to occur. This is an important Bill and one that will ultimately affect every Australian-in fact greatly affect the survival and productivity of Australia. It is a Bill that is worthy and therefore justifies every honourable member's support. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(9.57) —Whether it be the conservationist quoting some great statement, the teacher quoting a piece of poetry or the politician quoting the words of Edmund Burke or Churchill, society always seems to believe it gives the words imprimatur when quotations are made. Tonight I intend to adopt that approach. It is many years since I read the first issue of The Land newspaper. I have read many editorials in it. Some I have agreed with, some I have disagreed with; but I have always agreed with the quotation that has appeared at the beginning of its editorial in all the years that I have been reading it. It states: Nations may battle and world rock with revolution, but the land will care for him who cares for it. I believe that that is a most appropriate quotation in a debate such as we are having at present. I support the views expressed by the Deputy Leader of my Party, the Honourable Ralph Hunt, which views were endorsed by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). I will express a few concerns and I want to rebut some of the statements that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has a habit of repeating, particularly when backed into a corner, in all areas of Australia. Firstly, the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill does not clearly specify whether the arrangements to be made with the States or with other persons-I refer to Part II, clauses 4 and 6-are to be made on a national basis only, renewed each year, or for the longer term in which project submissions are normally couched. While the Minister, towards the end of his second reading speech, indicates that the Bill is explicit and enduring evidence of this Government's commitment to the program, the Bill does not necessarily support this, as no total or minimum appropriation is fixed at any level. Secondly, I want to rebut the statement of the Minister that the Opposition, when in government, removed support for soil conservation. That is not true. What we did was not to opt out of assisting with soil conservation but rather to provide funding to the States to assist them to carry out their responsibilities in this area, as we saw this area as a priority and one for a State government's total authority. For its part, Queensland invested all the Commonwealth's assistance into soil conservation and at present is moving its emphasis to community involvement. The legislation does not create an awareness of the problem-and there is a problem. I will confine my remarks to the factual position in my home State of Queensland. I will record the statistics. Each year 0.5 millimetres of soil forms from the bedrock. Between one and 3.5 millimetres of soil is being eroded from Queensland crop land annually. At present 23,000 farms suffer from soil erosion. Of these farms 11,000 apply some form of soil conservation. Thirty years is the estimated maximum productive life of sloping cultivations on the eastern downs and central highlands. Each year 75,000 hectares of new land is cleared. The total area which the Department of Primary Industries can plan annually for implementation of conservation measures is 63,000 hectares. Thirty to 90 landholders are waiting for Department of Primary Industries attention to their requests for soil conservation planning in most grain-producing shires. Ninety thousand hectares of cane land is actively eroding and is being planned for conservation at the rate of only 6,500 hectares annually. Three hundred and fifty tonnes per hectare of soil lost annually in the northern cane belt equals the highest erosion losses in the world. A $250m increase in crop yield is estimated to be gained from applying conservation to one million hectares of crop land in Queensland. To me, this is the most important environmental issue for our country and, I believe, all States to solve. I am disappointed that our conservation movements have been very vocal about South West Tasmania, the Great Barrier Reef, Daintree and Ayers Rock, but very quiet indeed about this issue of greater substance. Land provides our food and fibre and our record in land conservation world-wide is not good. Kovda, in 1977, estimated man as having destroyed 430 million hectares of crop and grazing land since agriculture emerged 7,500 years ago. He pointed out that, on a per capita basis, Australians have destroyed 11.2 hectares compared with 3.5 hectares in the United States of America since settlement. Queensland's record, Australia's record and the world's record are very bad indeed. There is a contradiction between the landholder's love for the land and degradation caused by the landholder to that same land. The classic writer of Australian rural tales, Steele Rudd-Davis, 1934-wrote in sentimental tones of the deep joy the new settler felt for his own block: You will ride all over it, filled with the proud spirit of ownership. Even the wild flowers and darned stones will be yours. How you will admire it. Judith Wright reiterated the unfeeling arrogance towards the land expressed in the above statistics when she recorded the poverty of spirit reflected in degraded landscapes in her poem Eroded Hills of 1963: These hills my father's father stripped; and, beggars to the winter wind; they crouch like shoulders naked and whipped; humbled, abandoned out of mind. It is both a truth and a fallacy that Australian people love their land and care for it. We have a long record of clearing land and, apparently, of making the assumption that the resulting cultivated soil will support permanent cropping. In all States, very little use is made of existing land capability, survey data or existing legislation to ensure a sound basis for clearing. The modification of clearing, I believe, must be undertaken only when knowledge is sufficient to ensure a management input capable of maintaining a stable and permanent cover of topsoil. Anything less than that will be disastrous. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in our country. I am heartened by certain happenings overseas, particularly in America where there is increasing recognition that national objects such as the land may warrant acceptance of their rights and worth beyond their direct usefulness to man. Test cases in America have made legal history as a result of barristers defending the rights of trees against the rights of man to have them removed. The worldwide support for whales, harp seals and rain forests has ushered in a new era in the man-nature relationship. I am hopeful enough to suggest that our new morality has moved not so much towards more rights for humans, but rather to a reduction in the acceptable level of man's arrogance towards the land and its creatures. We need to have a clear focus of where we are to go. Erosion is not recognised as an environmental issue of great significance. In a survey of newspaper coverage of issues, Sinden in 1980 analysed the space given to environmental subjects in Australian newspapers over a full year. In that year, 1978, 1,150 environmental articles, averaging three to nine a day, were published. But, unfortunately, neither land degradation nor soil erosion rated a mention in the listing of issues or their ranking. We read of the tragedy of starvation in Ethiopia. We might ask: 'What has that in common with the erosion problem in Australia?' I believe it has a lot in common. It is appropriate to note that both situations have in common the fact that they have been deteriorating for years and have been reported on in detail with pleas for action. In both cases, the authorities apparently have regarded the problem as someone else's responsibility. Let us hope that as far as soil erosion and water salinity are concerned the authorities do not have to be embarrassed into action by the media. We need to have a plan for ethics. I do not want to be accused of sensationalism, of ringing alarm bells, or of adopting scare tactics. We need to go back to history to record the mistakes we have made as a nation and to learn from those mistakes. As a nation, we have adopted a mentality of escapism. A century ago, each State set up its own department of agriculture to spread the gospel about good, and what they believed were sound, farming practices. But we had the resultant conflict of the academic theory of the scientist opposed to the pioneers of the new farming districts. Farmers and government, in the early days of agriculture, realised that salinity as it is today was an expensive and complex problem which would continue to grow. It was understandable that both farmers and politicians did not want to hear about it. Such attitudes are, to me, the strongest impediments to environmental reform. As in the case of salinity, they are the story of soil erosion. It was not until the late 1920s and 1930s, when Sydney became a victim of heavy dust storms thrown by the summer westerlies, that the public at large came to realise that much of the New South Wales wheat belt's topsoil was being steadily blown out across the Tasman. Nature has answered back because man stumbled into an ecological trap. Civilisations have been living on promissory notes for generations. Now they are falling due all over the world, as the statistics I gave earlier indicate. In economic terms we have been living, not for our interest, but for our land capital. Nature has sent us a final notice. Payment is due and we now need to decide how we shall pay, not whether we shall pay. To me, the only way to combat erosion is to work faster than it does. That becomes increasingly difficult as time goes on. The conservation idea covers a very wide range indeed. To me, conservation means the greatest good to the greatest number for the longest time. The land ethic, which I am endeavouring to develop, simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soil, water, plants and animals or, collectively, the land. In developing our land-linked policies, it seems to me that the problem can only be overcome by a three-fold approach: Firstly, conservation education; secondly, theology of the land, and thirdly, a definite program based on financial assistance, regulatory guidelines and extension. I want to deal with each of these in turn. The problem of conservation education is how to bring a state of harmony between man and the land. Harmony with land is like harmony with a friend-one cannot cherish his right hand and at the same time chop off his left. The problem, then, is how to bring about a striving for harmony of the land among people, many of whom have forgotten there is such a thing as land; among whom education and culture have become almost synonymous with landlessness. That is the problem of conservation education. We need to understand what the profit motive is and we need to start with the children. There are, in fact, ethical and aesthetical premises which underlie the economic system. No ethical and aesthetical premise yet exists for the condition of the land our children must live in. There is as yet no social stigma in the possession of an eroded farm, a destroyed forest or a silted stream, provided the dividends suffice to allow us to purchase all the things we desire. Conservation of our land needs to be part and parcel of a school education system. I wish to talk about my second point, the theology of the land. The father of soil conservation, a United States Minister, Hugh Bennet, in the 1940s used the pulpit of his country churches to make it very clear to his congregation that it was nothing less than our Christian duty to preserve the land and keep it fruitful. For modern Australians, I suggest that three attitudes can be identified as being very dangerous: Firstly, the blind optimism of those who believe that some scientific innovation will always save us; secondly, the gloom and doom of those who have given up hope; and thirdly, the greedy path and refusal to face reality of those who have given up concern and involvement. I do not want to return to antiquity where every tree, every spring, every stream, every hill, had its own guardian spirit. But there is a compromise between Christianity and pagan animism. I turn now to my final suggestion which is a definitive program based on financial assistance, regulatory guidelines and extension. Many farmers have not got sufficient finance to correct the damage already done and to adopt new farm techniques. We need to encourage them, either through taxation or long term low interest loans, to adopt strip cropping conservation methods and to experiment with zero and minimum tillage. We need to minimise regulation by governments. Farmers and others need to realise that they do not own the land to be destroyed and used as they see fit; rather they have but borrowed it to hold as temporary trustees for use by the generations that are to follow. Nature will continue to provide enormous help to those who will work with it. Just as we have itinerant school teachers, lecturers and professional people, we need to have many more people engaged in extension activities, to establish in the minds of farmers and of our children that a relationship to the earth based only on its use for economic enrichment is bound to result, not only in its degradation, but also in the devaluation of human life. Let us not look back in anger, nor forward in fear, but around in awareness, Let us not advance with arrogance, but with humility, not as though we were the last generation to inhabit the earth, but as temporary trustees of posterity's resources. We must adopt the view that the land does not belong to us but we belong to the land. We are part of the earthly system. We must be aware that we need gentle custody of our land, which is in stark contrast to Louis Bromfield's description of Western man as behaving like a reckless son who has inherited too much money. Finally, man can manipulate nature to his best interests only if he first loves her for her own sake. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.14) —It is probably worth while restating briefly at the outset the two main purposes of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill. The first purpose is to provide a statutory basis which is enshrined in legislation whereby the Commonwealth Government can contribute financially to soil conservation on a nation-wide basis. The second purpose of the Bill is to establish a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee to recommend priorities, strategies and conditions for expenditure of funds provided under the Bill and to provide advice on soil conservation to the Commonwealth. In terms of the details of the legislation, the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee which I have just mentioned will be established. That will consist of expert and impartial members who will be appointed by the Government. The main function of that Committee-- Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.15) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to the state of hospital queues in Victoria. On 29 March the Australian Medical Association indicated that about 20,000 patients were awaiting admission to public hospitals. Last week the Victorian Minister for Health was prepared to admit that 21,838 people were on hospital waiting lists in Victoria, and worse is to come. It is interesting to look at the comparison. In 1982, pre-Medicare and pre-Cain, 9,000 patients were waiting for a bed in a hospital. After Minister Roper, and now Minister White, and after Medicare, that figure has more than doubled to 21,838. When Medicare was introduced the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) sent a letter to all Australians indicating that Medicare would be simpler, cheaper, fairer and that the previous scheme was too expensive and too complicated. How about the feelings of those 20,000 or more people in the queue waiting to get a hospital bed? If we look at the figures in detail we see that in September 1984 about 4,000 patients were waiting to receive orthopaedic surgery such as hip replacement or surgery to the knees. Some 900 patients required eye treatment. They had problems with cataracts and were technically blind yet they could not get into hospitals in Victoria. Some 1,800 children were denied a hospital bed. What is more, the statistics do not really indicate the true position because a number of people have given up hope of ever getting into a public hospital in Victoria. I guess that the number of people on the waiting list would be more than 21,000. The position in Victoria is that the public hospitals are full. There is a shortage of beds and a shortage of nurses. The Victorian Minister for Health agreed with that in his Press release. Operating theatres are full and there is a lack of funds. It has been reliably estimated that we need between $54m and $500m for capital and recurrent expenditure just to fix up that sector of hospitals in Australia. The private hospitals are underutilised. Fewer patients are privately insured, and that has come about because the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has attempted to nationalise health care in Australia. He has attempted to nationalise doctors and hospital treatment. I refer to the position in New South Wales, where orthopaedic surgeons have resisted very strongly the nationalisation of health care. In the present situation where many Australians actually go into hospital they are quite amazed at the cost of hospital care. If they have no insurance, they have to join the queue. If by chance they get into a private hospital they are amazed at the quite horrific costs. They have been led to believe by propaganda that this would never happen to them. The ratio of public patients in city hospitals has moved from 60 per cent to 80 per cent. This has come about because private patients are under the impression that they can claim under Medicare when they should have paid their way and used private hospitals. They are now clogging up the public hospitals and denying treatment to genuine public patients. Medicare costs have escalated by some $250m from February 1984 to June 1984. That occurred in the very early days of the Medicare scheme. The situation in Victorian hospitals is even more of a problem in that in 1983-84 there was a 1.5 per cent Budget cut. That cut affected hospitals in the financial year 1984-85. To meet these Budget cuts wards were closed, there were fewer patients and fewer services were provided. Imagine the problems the organisation of admissions to public hospitals would cause to staff morale. What criteria do they use in a life and death situation when deciding on allowing patients to be admitted? Hospital managers are leaving, and there are difficulties all around. I have it on reliable authority from a doctor colleague of mine that the only way to get a patient into a public hospital in Victoria is to put that patient in an ambulance and to circulate the suburbs making radio contact with various hospitals until that patient gains entry. In the case of the regional city of Ballarat, there is a waiting list at the base hospital, but in the private hospital there are empty, spare beds. An administrator of high reputation in that city indicated to me that there is no chance of the queues ever being reduced unless there is a radical change to the total system; that is, a total rejection of the current Medicare arrangements. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.20) —I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the operations of one of the most important public organisations in Australia. I refer to the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia. Early in January 1907, two boys were washed out to sea at Sydney's Bondi Beach and for the first time a surf reel was used as a means of rescue. One of the youngsters saved that day was Charles Smith of Neutral Bay, who was brought ashore in a serious condition. That same Charles Smith lost his life at sea somewhere in the Indian Ocean in November 1935, on a flight from England to Australia. He was known then as the pioneering aviator Sir Charles Kingsford Smith. The origins of the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia can be traced to those early days of this century, when small groups of experienced surfers began to form themselves into life-saving bodies as the dangers of surfing became apparent. Since 1907, there have been well in excess of 281,000 recorded rescues carried out by the surf lifesavers. Today, the Association has 15,258 volunteer surf lifesavers around the Australian coastline. The type of reel, line and belt used to rescue Charles Smith is still being used on beaches today, but little could the famous aviator have known that in the 1980s aviation would be playing a major role in surf rescue. Today, the use of helicopters has revolutionised surf rescue techniques and provides a vital service in several States of Australia. In recent weeks, a new era dawned in surf live-saving helicopter rescue services with the re-launching of the Illawarra IBM-SLSA helicopter rescue service in my electorate. The Association has now completely restructured its operational systems and in future the national and State levels will play a far greater role in organisation, staff and financial support. The SLSA presently operates nine helicopter rescue aircraft, and this month Sydney will launch a highly sophisticated twin-engined helicopter. Other craft operate from Western Australia, Victoria, Newcastle, New South Wales North Coast, Queensland Gold Coast and Queensland Sunshine Coast. Although the craft remain involved in surf rescue, they now are called upon to carry out numerous other rescues in the bush, from cliff faces and in the open sea. They also carry out search and rescue work, medical support operations and medical evacuations, and assist police and other statutory authorities. Rescue helicopter crewmen are specifically selected lifesavers who are trained to meet the rigorous requirements involved. Applicants must be 18 years of age, have an SLSA bronze qualification and have completed three seasons on beach patrol duties. They must also hold a current SLSA advanced resuscitation certificate, or current SLSA radio operator's certificate, a current Red Cross or St John Ambulance basic first aid certificate, and be proficient in snorkel diving to a depth of three metres. But these are only basic requirements, and on entry into the service further training in advanced first aid, resuscitation and rescue techniques is undertaken. The crewmen are volunteers who are backed up by a highly trained, competent group of pilots, many of whom are former senior military pilots who have attained more than 8,000 hours flying helicopters. Together they make a most formidable team. I would be remiss if I did not mention the role private sponsors play in keeping this vital service available to the surfing public of Australia. Westpac Banking Corporation has long been associated with the Sydney rescue service, and in the 1983-1985 seasons Westpac contributed $1.5m to its operation. Governments, radio and television stations and corporate grants all provide further necessary funding. In the case of the Illawarra service, the Illawarra Mutual Building Society has been generous over several years. Finally, I pay tribute to the memory of Mr Tom Thompson, a crewman with the Illawarra service who gave his life in service to the community last October. Tom was the crewman flying a woman injured in a car accident to a Sydney hospital when his craft crashed. In a small tribute to his memory and dedication, the new aircraft proudly bears his name. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.25) —I regret that tonight I am compelled to raise the sad and sorry experience of Mr Brendan Hummerstone in his attempt to obtain a job. Mr Hummerstone is 17 years old and has been registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service since 3 September 1984. Mr Hummerstone actively sought to obtain a position through his own efforts, and no doubt by reference from the Commonwealth Employment Service, but was unable to obtain suitable work. In January of this year he was offered a job as an assistant at the Shell service station in Legana. Naturally, Mr Hummerstone was delighted to have that offer of a position and was only too happy to accept it. His employer, Mr R. Schofield, who is the proprietor of the Shell service station at Legana, applied for assistance from the Commonwealth under the special youth employment training program. It was on the basis of the application for assistance being accepted and approved that Mr Hummerstone started his employment with the service station. When the Commonwealth Employment Service in Launceston discovered that Mr Hummerstone and Mr Schofield were related, Mr Schofield was advised-in fact, instructed-by the Commonwealth Employment Service to dismiss Mr Hummerstone from that employment and to engage somebody else. I think it is disgraceful that a 17-year-old lad was successful in obtaining a job, yet his employer was instructed by the Commonwealth Employment Service to dismiss the young man and engage somebody else. Mr Cadman —What did you say his name was? Mr BURR —Mr Brendan Hummerstone. This is a most unfortunate situation, but it goes a step further than that. Mr Schofield made inquiries of the Commonwealth Employment Service, and through my office, and was advised by the manager of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Launceston that it was a directive from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations that under the SYETP scheme the employer could not be related to any beneficiary. The directive also states that it is not a mandatory instruction from the Department but calls on the local manager to exercise his opinion as to what is reasonable in the circumstances. On pointing that out to the local manager, we were told by him that under no circumstances was his decision to be reversed and that Mr Hummerstone was not to be engaged by his relation, Mr Schofield. This is most unfortunate because, in the brief experience Mr Hummerstone had with the service station, he was very well suited to the job and his employer was very well satisfied with the service given by Mr Hummerstone. I was not satisfied with the decision of the local manager, so I wrote to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on 5 February to ask him to intervene to ensure that Mr Hummerstone could be employed. I received no reply from the Minister, so I wrote again on 13 March. Again, he did not reply to that follow-up letter of 13 March, so I sent the Minister a telegram on 4 April. I have still not had a reply to any of those representations to the Minister. In those circumstances I cannot accept the rhetoric from Government Ministers when they say that they are concerned about unemployed youth. Here we have a situation in which a young lad wants to work, he is offered a job, but under direction from the Department, he is not permitted to work. In those circumstances my representations to the Minister have been totally ignored. I regret that I had to raise this matter in the House. Under normal circumstances this young lad should be permitted to work by the Department and at least the Minister could have the courtesy to give me a reply to my representations. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.30) —I express concern in the House tonight on behalf of a number of small business people in my electorate who have contacted me about penalties being imposed by the Australian Taxation Office for the late payment of group tax. At the outset, let me pay tribute to small business in Australia. It is the small business that provides our industries with skilful entrepreneurship and innovations. It is also the small business that provides the greater number of jobs, as it is short of capital and therefore more labour intensive. Australian industry is built on inventiveness and the ability of small business and small enterprises. I represent an electorate that embraces more than 2,000 small factories and workshops and I know the value of the contribution of small business to our economy. Yet, this is not readily acknowledged by the Taxation Office. My constituents are irate at having to lodge written complaints, obtain bank statements and contact their local member of parliament because they are being penalised for late payment of tax when their cheques have been delayed-either in the mail or as a result of the go slow in the Taxation Office-by circumstances beyond their control. Indeed, many firms in Victoria may be unknowingly paying fines when, in fact, their group tax was forwarded with a reasonable expectation that it would reach the Taxation Office within seven days of the end of each month-the due date for this tax. I understand that the Taxation Office has recently stipulated that it must actually receive these payments within the seven days of the end of the month. I am not talking about those firms that post their cheques on the seventh day. My concern is expressed on behalf of those conscientious people who make every effort to comply, to avoid penalties by making their payments within a reasonable time and who are being penalised by intractable bureaucracy. Whilst I am, of course, happy to assist people and I urge the many small firms in my electorate who are experiencing problems of this kind to contact me, it does appear that this is unnecessary and unreasonable persecution by the devotees of red tape. In one case, Mr Albert Blashki of Ace Wireworks told me that he wrote a cheque on 21 December 1984 and mailed it on 3 January 1985 and then received a letter from the Taxation Office telling him that he would be required to pay a $114 penalty for late payment. I have had letters from other firms and I heard of a similar case on a talk-back radio program in Melbourne recently. I have rung the Deputy Commissioner's Office and I am confident that these cases will be resolved and the penalties will be retracted. I know through my dealings with the Taxation Office in the past how helpful the personnel are and as far as I can remember, most problems of my constituents have been resolved satisfactorily. I especially want to pay tribute to the Commissioner's clerks, who in every case have courteously assisted me with my constituents' problems. However, I would like to see a more flexible attitude being adopted by bureaucracy and I hope that this particular intransigence in the Department will be overcome. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.35) —Tonight I wish to address a few remarks to the question of the assets test. In the last few weeks I have had nothing but a succession of elderly Australians coming to see me, consumed by fear for their future. Dr Charlesworth —You have caused that fear. Mr NEHL —The honourable member's Government did it; it is his Government's action that has caused it. I have had a succession of elderly Australians, men and women, ex-servicemen-and it is Anzac Day only next week-coming to me. One ex-serviceman who fought for five years for this country came to see me with tears in his eyes because he had no income and his pension was taken away completely because he wanted the privilege of living on his own land. That was his crime. He wanted to stay on his own land. Mr Blunt —That is a right, not a privilege. Mr NEHL —Yes, it is a right. And for that his pension has been taken away completely. He has no income. He has no money to pay the rates. It is all right for honourable members on the other side and for the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who unfortunately is not here tonight, to quote examples of people who have $700,000 and suggest that it is unjust that they should receive the pension. What is wrong is that ordinary Australian men and women are being pushed into poverty. For all the examples of the millionaires, whoever they might be-- Dr Charlesworth —How many hectares do they have? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Perth is going beyond the bounds of tolerance. Mr NEHL —I note with pleasure that the Minister for Social Security has entered the chamber because it is important that he understand that we are not talking about rich people. We are talking about ordinary men and women like the lady in the Nambucca Valley who is 79 years of age this month and who has 60 or 70 acres but who receives no income from it. Her total income now is $32 a fortnight. She is typical of this procession of elderly Australians who come to see me and, I am sure, every other member of the House. Mr Chynoweth —They should do something good for the nation. Mr NEHL —I suggest that at 79 these elderly Australians have done something good for the nation. I suggest that ex-servicemen and women in their seventies and eighties have already done their share. How dare you suggest that they should go out to work in their seventies and eighties. You uncaring person. I would like to see every caring man and woman in this country write to his or her Federal member or to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I would like them to spend 33c on a stamp to express their disgust and dissatisfaction with the assets test. We have just gone through an election and it is too long to wait for the next election. We need to get ordinary men and women in this country to join with us to swamp the Minister or the Prime Minister with letters of appeal, with pleas for them to take note of the injustice and the frightful conditions that so many elderly Australians are being thrust into. At the last sitting I asked the Minister what special provisions had been made for funding pensioners who had been left without any income whatsoever. He said that there was no funding. Mr Chynoweth —There was. Mr NEHL —He said that there was no funding. The honourable member can look at Hansard if he does not believe me. Mr Cowan —He wants to throw them on the scrap heap. Mr NEHL —Yes, that is what is happening. They are being thrown on the scrap heap. Mr Robert Brown —He does not need your help. Why don't you give him a go. Mr NEHL —I assure the honourable member that he does and his Government needs our help too. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is very difficult for me to protect the honourable member for Cowper when both his colleagues and his opponents are interjecting. Mr NEHL —If we can marshal the resources of caring Australians to write to members of this Parliament, to make the point that in circumstances where elderly Australians are living on land in rural areas, are losing their pensions and have no income, that we ask and beg the Minister and the Prime Minister to really reconsider and do something about it. I asked the Minister the other day how long it would be-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.40) —The legal challenge presently being mounted by a British born computer expert, Dr Cliff Johnson, against the United States of America Defense Department and the Secretary of Defense, Mr Caspar Weinberger, brings to the attention of us all once again the lunacy of nuclear deterrence policies. Films and books have dealt with the theme of a nuclear war being launched by accident but the possible court case is a reality and the facts it deals with are a reality. On 3 June 1980 the Strategic Air Command centre in Omaha was alerted by its radar screens to incoming Soviet nuclear missiles. The strategic nuclear bomber force was alerted, US nuclear submarines patrolling the oceans of the world were also alerted and the countdown towards a massive nuclear weapons retaliation had begun before, after several minutes, it was realised that the computer-relayed information about the incoming Soviet missiles was false. The subsequent inquiry found that the cause of the error was a malfunctioning computer chip in the communications systems which provided the information to the radar screens of the Strategic Air Command. Although similar incidents had not been recorded prior to June 1980, officials of the North American air defence complex were reported as saying that such malfunctions can occur two or three times a year as a result of random failures within the computers which are an essential part of the nuclear defence warning system. Dr Johnson's main case rests on his contention that the US nuclear defence policy is based on a launch on warning capability or LOW-another of those diabolical disingenuous acronyms. Nuclear deterrence systems programmed for LOW are systems which are effectively controlled by a super computer, but, charged Dr Johnson, they are not controlled by the President of the United States of America as required by its Constitution. Assuming that a nuclear war began in Western Europe, while a Pershing II missile takes six minutes to reach Moscow, the Soviet SS-22 missiles can take less than three minutes to reach Frankfurt or Bonn. As Dr Johnson points out, it is impossible for the USA to give a human response in three minutes. A human being would need one minute to check on the reality of the warning signal and another minute to track down the President. The remaining minute would leave insufficient time to launch the retaliatory strike and so, concluded Dr Johnson, the USA nuclear defence system must be programmed for a computer launch of a retaliatory nuclear counter-strike missile to reach a Soviet target before the Soviet missile had reached its target. Of course, with the secrecy that surrounds all such military operations it is necessary to work painstakingly and logically through the options open to the Defense Department, as Dr Johnson has done. In the case of the Star Wars weapons system development the situation is even more ludicrous because space-based laser beam weapons would have only a 90-second warning to counter a Soviet missile attack and it is difficult to see how such a system could become retaliatory without the use of a computer. The USA Defense Department has, predictably, argued that Dr Johnson's charges are not for the court to decide. Sensitive national security and foreign policy matters should be decided by the people's elected representatives, argued the Defense Department. I am an elected representative of the Australian people and I do not want to be part of any nuclear defence system, whether such a system is controlled by a computer or otherwise. But what choice do I have? While successive Australian governments refuse, on the grounds of national security, to inform the Australian people of the part we play in the nuclear deterrence systems of the USA, how can I keep my constituents informed of the risks for Australia in providing bases for such facilities? I think we have the right to know these things when the lives of ourselves and our families may rest on whether a computer circuit has malfunctioned. In 1983 the US Defense advanced research projects agency began work on a multi-million dollar development for a military super computer. The problem for Dr Johnson, and any other individual who uses legal arguments to challenge the wisdom of nuclear weapons, is to establish that those weapons are causing that person injury. However, a quote from Dr Cliff Johnson himself provides the best answer to the obvious question: Would such a computer fail? Easily, says Dr Johnson, as computer reliability professionals talk in terms of failure rates, never of infallibility; and although electronic elements are becoming more reliable, failure rates per chip are rising due to the more rapid increase in the number of elements per chip. Such arguments cannot get away from the fact that, with such small time intervals, whichever super-power is involved, whether it is the USSR or the USA, the malfunctioning of a defence systems computer resulting in a nuclear war is a very real and frightening prospect. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.45) —I am an elected representative of the people of Australia and I take a completely opposite view to that of my friend the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). Tasmania is a lovely little place. It has 400,000 people and is very peaceful but it always seems to attract all the agitators. Everybody who has an axe to grind always seems to want to go down to Tasmania and do so. That is probably due to the media coverage of Tasmania. One television station covers the whole of Tasmania, so when an esteemed person such as Senator Chipp goes down there and expresses a particular opinion about nuclear war and American warships coming into Tasmania, what he says gets coverage all over Tasmania. The USS Texas came into the port of Hobart today and the same old protesters-about 20 people-were down there expressing their beliefs. The media give them a heck of a lot of coverage, but the majority of Tasmanians never have an opportunity to express their beliefs. Many Tasmanians welcome the visit of the USS Texas. I think my friend across the room misses the most important point of this argument, and that is that America is always being condemned. It is very much in vogue today for young people to be taught to condemn America but very little is said about Russia. Palm Sunday is the day for peace and the day we all go to whichever church we want and express what we believe about world peace. None of us wants a nuclear war but we have to be sensible about it. On that day a peace protest was held at New Norfolk, which is 22 miles from Hobart. An advertisement was put out by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-Australia Society supporting that rally. I noticed that there were no peace protesters who were protesting against the USSR. America is always being condemned. What worries me is that the media are giving saturation coverage to this point of view and people are starting to wonder what is going on. Even in the schools in Hobart at the moment the children are being taught that America-never Russia-is at fault. I think we had better start waking up in Australia before we are saturated to such a degree that the next generation will believe that we depend on the USSR, not America. We need to be sensible about it and to express our views at every opportunity. Every time there is a peace and disarmament group gathering it contains many well-intentioned people. Many of them believe in peace and want peace. We all want it. Always the signatories to those protests are left wing unionists, the Communist Party of Australia, the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the USSR-Australia Society. We are being conned in Australia by these groups of people who seem to believe that that is the only way to achieve peace in the world today. They should be told that in Australia there are many people who believe we were saved by America. I welcome the USS Texas to Hobart and all other members from Tasmania welcome it. A group of Tasmanians rang me today and asked: 'Bruce, can we use your name in a protest against the protesters who do not want the USS Texas to come into a Tasmanian port?' We welcome the Americans. We know that they saved us. It was not the Russians who saved us and it is not the Russians who fight for peace in this universe. They are the ones we need to fight. I think my friend over there had better get his facts right. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.50) —I rise to speak on a matter which I believe is of importance to many Australians and I relate my remarks to the question of road safety, specifically as it refers to young cyclists. I want to target my comments on the use of helmets by cyclists. It is of great regret that many young people today are not prepared to wear helmets, mainly because it is not the done thing. They see the use of such road safety measures as sissy and not the macho sort of image that one ought to have. There is also the question of cost. A recent study showed that the helmets that are available to young people can cost anywhere between $20 and $100. Some consideration has been given to their effectiveness. Some recent studies have shown that they are not worth the money. So we face a problem in that we have young people who, for a start, are not aware of the importance of protecting themselves, and we have the problem of families not being able to afford this very important safety measure. We also have the problem of manufacturers producing a product which, in itself, is of little use. We need a nationwide campaign, first and foremost to create some awareness. It may well be that we need to draw upon the reputations of well-known cyclists and that we need to provide funds not only at a Federal level, as has been done by this Government, but at a State level to encourage our service clubs in the various electorates to undertake a program, the objective of which should be not to provide finance for helmets but, in the first instance, to change attitudes. Recent statistics are hard to find because too often when a child on a bike is knocked down by a car that fact does not appear on statistical forms. Unless the child is seriously injured one often hears little more about it. But recently in central Queensland a young girl was killed. There have been a number of injuries in country areas. This matter does not relate just to the cities. I stress that in any one week in any year, about one million Australians are riding bikes. These people are at risk. We need a nationwide awareness and promotion campaign. That campaign ought to involve not just government but those relevant groups within the community. We need to involve the schools, and to seek the support of law enforcement agencies, not in some Big Brother approach but on an educational line. Such a campaign has to be co-ordinated. It is not just a matter of the use of helmets, as we saw recently in Queensland, where the Road Ahead came out with an excellent article. It is a matter of bringing together the expertise available, seeking the support of media, whether it be radio, television or the newspapers, and asking them to join in the campaign that could begin here tonight. Mr Goodluck —A good idea. We are talking about it now on the Road Safety Committee. Mr WRIGHT —It is a beginning, but the end is a long way down the track because of the points I have made, first, about cost. I stress that the main question is one not of cost but of attitude. Whilst I welcome the point made by the honourable member, I must say that unless we, as members of parliament, can convince our own community groups, the decision-makers within our various areas, to join with us in this campaign, we will achieve little. It was 10 years ago, I recall, that the issue was raised in Queensland and a campaign was started. I suggest that if honourable members visited schools in Queensland, let alone schools in their own electorates, they would find very few young people who are prepared, this day, to wear helmets. One per cent would be an optimistic figure. This is a matter of major concern to me as in recent times I have seen a young person who was injured seriously-fortunately, not killed-not because of a mad motorist but simply because of a rush coming out of school without due care and attention. In the hustle and bustle that occurs between three and four o'clock of an afternoon in most towns and cities throughout the nation, a motorist unfortunately hit this cyclist. The child was injured because that child was not wearing a helmet. I urge a new approach, a new attitude. Present attitudes can be changed by a nationwide awareness campaign, a campaign that ought to start here. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.55) —During this whole day we have heard nothing but disparaging remarks about Queensland. We should now perhaps close on that note so that Government members can go home, rest easily, think about Queensland a little more and perhaps dream up some other statements to make against that State. We talk about the problems in Queensland in regard to the power disputes and the legislative action taken by the Queensland Government. I remind honourable members that any of these sorts of problems are three dimensional. We have the Government, the unions and the people themselves. The people are backing the Queensland Government in its action. This Federal Government has had much to say about the Queensland Government and Queenslanders. The criticism that it directs to that State and those people is still about Australians. I remind Government members of that. In the talk about Queensland people, I have not heard one word from the Government benches in support of small businessmen, shopkeepers and those who had to dump perishable goods that were destroyed during the power strike, not one word of support for the wholesalers who could not move their stock because it became a risk product. We have not heard one word of support from the Government for the fact that people were being affected in Queensland during those disruptions. We now have the tacit approval of the Government through its inaction in regard to-- Mr Kent —Emerging just before Anzac Day. Mr CONQUEST —'Just before Anzac Day', the honourable member says. I wonder that he even remembers Anzac Day. The Federal Government is giving tacit approval to the action taken by the transport unions against Queensland concerning the movement of goods in and out of that State. I remind Government members that there are about 17 points at which road transport can cross into Queensland and, believe me, owner drivers will find their way into Queensland. They will not give in to the thuggery of those unions trying to stop them. The unions may have been successful in forcing many of those owner drivers to take out union tickets for the simple reason that if they did not, the unions would not allow the warehouses to fill the drivers' trucks and to move those goods. I assure honourable members that those fellows have commitments and high repayments on their trucks and vehicles and commitments to their families and their trade. Therefore, they will move goods into Queensland by road. We know that other action may be taken by other unions to try to forestall this. Unions in Australia have become too powerful, and it is about time that some governments decided to make a stand about this matter. The Queensland Government has made a start in encouraging some sort of responsibility by showing the Federal Government and, in particular, to union bosses- Mr Hand —Bash the workers. Mr CONQUEST —Not the union members, my good friend, because the polls in Queensland have shown that 60 to 70 per cent of unionists do not wish to belong to a union because they have had enough of the manner in which union bosses are trying to force them into doing things against their will. Many of the power-house workers did not wish to take part in the strike, but when there is a situation in the power-house where one in every 14 employees is a shop steward, one can understand the harassment that goes on on the the shop floors and in the power industry. The Government has been gloating over the perceived recession in Queensland-gloating over it, forgetting that it is people it is talking about, people who are being affected; not statistics, but people. This Government gloats over the fact that this is happening up in Queensland. People have been disadvantaged by the recession and the power strikes. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(10.59) —I want to say a few words in response to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). I am sorry that I was not aware he was to speak tonight. I do not think that the kind of emotion he displayed is particularly helpful in relation to the assets test. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Howe —Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.00) —It is important to look at particular cases, but I am not sure that anyone in the House got a clear understanding of the particular case referred to by the honourable member. I want simply to refer to one or two matters that I think are relevant to the speech by the honourable member for Cowper. Firstly, I refer to the suggestion that any review processes might involve extended periods. It is possible to review situations where people believe that an injustice is occurring or where people feel there has been, for example, a gross miscalculation by the Australian Taxation Office in the value of assets. It is possible for the regional manager to initiate discussions with the Taxation Office and its valuers to point out any relevant facts that might affect judgments made in relation to a valuation. It is also possible for people to seek a comprehensive valuation from the Taxation Office and to invite people in writing to visit the property to make sure that they have ascertained all of the facts and that the valuation arrived at is correct. Alternatively, it is possible for people to seek an independent valuation. Mr Hodgman —At their cost. Mr HOWE —Yes, at their own cost, and that can be set against the Taxation Office valuation. I also remind the House of the hardship provisions that are part of the assets test legislation and which go specifically to the kinds of circumstances described by the honourable member for Cowper. It is impossible to make any judgment on the basis of that kind of speech. Where people believe that a particular individual or family ought to fit within the hardship provisions cases can be investigated promptly and a decision made. I make the point that the hardship provisions go to the very case where it is impossible for people to achieve an income from a significant asset. That is very much the reason for the hardship provisions. Alternatively, where people's assets go beyond the limit there is a scheme that allows people to borrow against the value of their property. I do not think there is anything extraordinary about that. If people have substantial assets, sometimes amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars, it seems not unreasonable that they use the loan provisions to enable them to sustain income in lieu of the pension. Finally, as is the case with the provision of all benefits under the Social Security Act, there is an appeal process involving the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Those tribunals have worked effectively in respect of other tests that have been applied to benefits and pensions, and they are there to be used. They operate not within a heavily legalistic environment but within a very sympathetic environment in which an objective assessment of the facts can be made. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, he may continue. Mr HOWE —I do not think it is of any great assistance to surround this issue with the kind of emotion we have heard tonight. I believe that the provisions arrived at for the administration of the assets test are quite sympathetic. They encompass many of the cases that people have raised in the House so far and, as the assets test becomes established, I believe people will see that it is a very fair test and is quite sensitive to the needs of people of very limited means. That is a corollary of a social security system which is designed not to support people with large assets but to provide basic incomes for people in need. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded-- Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member cannot raise a point of order at this stage. There is an automatic adjournment of the House. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Banks (Shareholdings) Act 1972, and for related purposes. Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, and for related purposes. Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, and for related purposes. Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Representation Act 1983. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the undertaking of research and development in relation to certain goods, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions and effect certain amendments and repeals in consequence of the enactment of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Act 1982. Mr West to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965, and for related purposes. Mr John Brown to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980, and for related purposes. Mr Scholes to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act 1933. Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to provide for payments in respect of Australian Books held in Australian libraries. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 16 April 1985: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Anglo-Australian Telescope Board, report for year 1983-84. Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 183-Parking and Traffic Amendment No. 1 Christmas Island Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 1-Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment). Defence Act-Determinations-1985- No. 12-Overseas Outfit Allowance. No. 13-Travelling Allowance and other allowances. No. 14-Intermediate Term Duty Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 15-Compensation for Loss of, of Damage to, Clothing or Personal Effects and Emergency Evacuation Overseas-Allowances and Compensation. No. 16-Vehicle Allowance and other allowances. Drug Trafficking-Royal Commission of Inquiry-Report, dated 25 February 1983-Corrigendum. Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 37. Fisheries Act-Notices, Nos 131A, 137. Health Insurance Act- Order under sub-section 6 (2), dated 26 February 1985. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 36. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 32. Public Service Act- Appointments-Department- Aboriginal Affairs-Corowa, C. E. Transport-Spierig, J. M. Determinations-1985-Nos 17, 22. Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination-1985-No. 1. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 34. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1985- No. 14-Dog Control (Amendment). No. 15-Lakes (Amendment). Regulations-1985-No. 9 (Building and Services Ordinance). Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 9 April 1985. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 35. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 33. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 54. Telecommunications (Staff)-Amendment No. 45. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1) Mr Jacobi asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Is any cost-benefit analysis being undertaken of the millions of dollars invested in royal commissions, task forces and the other related inquiries into organised crime. (2) Apart from the public revelations, how much new information has been discovered by these inquiries which had not been known already to the police. (3) Is it a fact that (a) the final report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, expressed the gravest concern about the gross incapacity of the Australian Federal Police to deal with crime, (b) there is growing evidence across the world that police are becoming more efficient at crowd control and the containment of demonstrations, that require little or no community relations, than at the prevention and detection of crime, that are impossible without community relations and (c) there is an apparent correlation between the increasing numbers of police and the declining rates of crime clearance; if so, does he have a plan for researching police operations to improve performance. (4) Is it also a fact that the operations of the National Crime Authority will involve it with a variety of reportedly ineffective criminal justice systems at all levels across the country; if so, what steps are being taken by the Government to avoid the millions of dollars being spent on the Authority being wasted by expecting the Authority to achieve the impossible. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am not aware that any specific cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken. Indeed Mr Costigan observed, in his Final Report, that much of the benefit of these inquiries lies in the disclosure of criminal organisations and their activities, a benefit to society as a whole which cannot be quantified. Nevertheless it is possible to quote relevant figures for some police Joint Task Forces. In the case of the Commonwealth/NSW Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking for example, over 200 alleged offenders have been apprehended since April 1979 most of them in connection with the supply, importation or use of heroin. As a result, the Joint Task Force has broken up 16 major heroin importation groups and 9 minor groups supplying heroin, Indian hemp and cocaine. Up to mid-1984, the Australian Taxation Office, acting on information from the Joint Task Force, had recovered $4,728,000 as understated income and additional taxation penalties, and $300,000 had been recovered by way of forfeiture of bail and seizure of cash. Mr Costigan himself points out, on page 168 of the first volume of his Final Report, that, as a direct result of his Commission's activities, over $25 million of outstanding tax has been assessed. This compares with a cost of some $13 million for the Royal Commission. (2) The powers of the Royal Commissions Act have enabled the Stewart and Costigan Royal Commissions to follow the 'paper trail' with considerable success, producing a significant flow of new information to police for follow-up investigations. (3) (a) The former Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, in his Final Report said of the AFP: 'I again wish to record my appreciation of the support given to me generally by the Force and my satisfaction overall with the results achieved to date'. Mr Redlich did, however, remark on the need for 'a sustained and substantial injection of funds, further recruitment and training of investigative personnel and administrative support', if the AFP was to cope with the increasing demands made of it. In recognition of these needs the Government is committed to spending more than $7 million on upgrading the AFP's computer capacity and an additional $10 million on recruiting an even stronger force. (b) I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that police worldwide are becoming more efficient at crowd control to the detriment of crime prevention and community relations. It is undoubtedly true that successful crime prevention depends greatly on close co-operation between the police and the community. (c) I know of no evidence of such a correlation; nor is it clear how such evidence might be established. Mr Redlich, for example, refers in his Final Report to an increase in AFP members since 1979, and to the rapid increase in the rate of detected crime in areas for which the AFP is responsible. This is especially so in the area of fraud against Commonwealth Departments where investigations tend to be complex and time-consuming. The Government believes that its recent initiatives in the upgrading of the AFP-including implementation of the recommendations of a recent Joint Management Review-will improve the AFP's capacity to respond to the changing law enforcement environment. The establishment, in 1982, of the National Police Research Unit and the upgrading of the Australian Police College will also be beneficial to the performance of all Australian police forces. (4) It is not for the Commonwealth to comment on the effectiveness of State criminal justice systems. I strongly dispute any suggestion that the National Crime Authority is a waste of money. While there are, of course, considerable difficulties in successfully fighting organised crime, that does not mean that the fight should be abandoned. The National Crime Authority was established to investigate organised crime, including drug trafficking, on a national basis-to deal particularly with offences which involve more than one jurisdiction and which are beyond ordinary police powers; matters which are unlikely to be resolved easily. Importantly, the National Crime Authority is supported by all Australian Governments. (Question No. 15) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) How many deportation orders were issued in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to the date of the answer to this question. (2) How many of these deportations were undertaken for (a) illegal entry, (b) overstaying on a visitor's visa and (c) criminal activity. (3) For what costs associated with these deportations was the Commonwealth responsible. (4) What efforts have been made to recover these costs. (5) What was the net costs to taxpayers of these deportations. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The numbers of deportation orders issued and deportation undertaken during 1983-84 and 1984-85 (to 31 January, the latest date to which figures are available) were as follows:- 1983/841984/85 (to 31/1/85)* Under- Under- Issued taken Issued taken Illegal entry (sections 6, 8 and 16 of Migration Act) 149 133 84 38 Expired or cancelled temporary entry permit (section 7 of Migration Act) 599 497 283 160 Criminal convictions in Australia (sections 12 and 13 of Migration Act) 41 24 30 18 Not classified (includes sections 6, 7 8 and 16 of Migration Act) 41 53 30 56 Totals 830 707 427 272 (*) Preliminary figure (3) Total costs associated with these deportations for which the Commonwealth was responsible include salaries, overtime, travel and subsistence and staffing costs; fares for deportees and escorts, payments to escorts, vehicle use, detention costs and legal fees; and other indirect and/or ongoing cost (e.g. field equipment, capital works, repairs and maintenance). Records are not maintained from which costs in respect of deportations undertaken can be separated from other costs associated with the Enforcement Program. Immigration officers involved in the Enforcement Program are not engaged full-time on cases which result in deportation. Officers are also involved in activities relating to illegal workers, the encouragement of voluntary departures by illegal immigrants (rather than deportation), the supervision of (non-deportation) departures, and the investigation of cases which do not result in a deportation order being issued or effected. The cost of staff resources cannot therefore be directly related to the number of deportations undertaken. For similar reasons, other costs such as detention, vehicle use, equipment, repairs and maintenance and legal fees are not necessarily related to the number of deportations. The only direct deportation costs which can be separately identified are fares and payments to escorts. These were: 1983-84 1984-85 (to 31.1.85) $ $ Deportee fares 609,000 238,100 Escort fares 135,000 56,100 Payments to escort 76,100 29,300 (4) A deportee, or in some cases a carrier company, may be liable under the Migration Act to meet certain costs e.g. fares, keep and maintenance while in custody pending deportation and some other items. In such cases formal demands for payment are made upon the person or company liable to meet the costs and such follow-up action as is possible and cost-effective is taken in Australia and through Australian Missions overseas if necessary. Transport and detention costs recovered in 1983-84 and 1984-85 were: 1983-84 $26,200 1984 (to 31.1.85) $22,500 These figures do not include the value of any airline tickets held by deportees which have been used in the deportation process nor the value of removals by carrier companies at no cost to the Commonwealth. (5) For the reasons given above, the net cost to the taxpayer of deportations in 1983-84 and 1984-85 is not available. (Question No.16) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: How many Indo-Chinese refugees have been accepted for migration to Australia since 2 March 1983. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable members' question is as follows: Statistics are not kept of the number of Indo-Chinese refugees 'accepted' for migration. However, statistics on the number who have actually arrived in Australia under the Refugee and Special Humanitarian Programs are available. The table below shows actual arrivals during 1982-83 and 1983-84. FINANCIAL YEAR 1982-83 1983-84 Place of birth Refugee SHP Total Refugee SHP Total Indo-China(*) 12,295 11 12,306 9,884 23 9,907 (*) Includes Kampuchea, Laos and Vietnam. Data not available on monthly basis. Source Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (Question No.17) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: How many applications for migration to Australia have been received from (a) Polish refugees and (b) other European refugees, since 2 March 1983, and how many of these applications have been accepted. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable members' question is as follows: (a) and (b) Statistics are not kept of the number of applications for migration received from Polish and other European refugees nor of the number accepted for migration. However statistics on the number who have actually arrived in Australia under the Refugee and Special Humanitarian Programs are available. The table below shows actual arrivals during 1982-83 and 1983-84. FINANCIAL YEAR 1982-83 1983-84 Place of birth Refugee SHP Total Refugee SHP Total Poland 2,218 109 2,327 599 155 754 Other Europe(*) 1,459 176 1,635 1,096 196 1,292 (*) Includes U.K. and Ireland. Data not available on monthly basis. Source Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (Question No. 18) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1983: (1) Between Australia and which other countries do international air rights exist (2) Which of these rights are not being utilised and until when are each of these rights current (3) In these arrangements, are efforts being made by any parties to generate operating air services; if so, what is the status of any possible future flights. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Rights for the international airlines of other countries to operate services to Australia and for Qantas to operate services to those countries are generally embodied in Air Service Agreements which are documents of treaty status. Australia has Air Service Agreements with the following countries: Austria, Burma, Canada, People's Republic of China, Egypt, Fiji, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Australia also has air service arrangements which are documents of less than treaty status and provide for the operation of direct air services between Australia and the following countries: Brunei, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Western Samoa. Services between Australia and Zimbabwe are operated in accordance with a permit issued by the Government of Zimbabwe which recognises the Commercial Agreement which exists between Qantas and Air Zimbabwe. (2) Air service agreements or arrangements under which scheduled services are not currently conducted by either Australia or the relevant bilateral partner are: Austria, Burma, Egypt, Ireland, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Tonga. Rights granted in these dormant agreements or arrangements continue indefinitely unless termination provisions included in each agreement or arrangement are invoked by either party. (3) The Government has received no application in recent times from the Governments of Austria, Burma, Ireland, Lebanon or Tonga to commence schedule passenger air services to Australia. Representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka held informal discussions with officials in Canberra on 4 and 5 March 1985 on the possibility of re-establishing direct air services between Australia and Sri Lanka. The matter continues to be under consideration by both Governments. The Egyptian Government recently raised the possibility of Qantas resuming services to Cairo en route to Europe. The matter has been referred to the Company for comment. (Question No. 50) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) On what dates have meetings been held of the Cabinet sub-committee to oversee the National Crime Authority and to co-ordinate it with the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of the Special Minister of State. (2) What activities have been undertaken by the Cabinet sub-committee. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Cabinet Sub-committee on the National Crime Authority was established to handle matters relating to the activities of the National Crime Authority. I do not propose to answer questions on the detailed operations of this or any other Cabinet Committee and in taking that course I am following a practice subscribed to by successive governments-for example see Mr Fraser's answer to Question No. 1486 (Hansard of 4 October 1977, page 1617). (Question No. 68) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What information programs has the Information Co-ordination Branch (ICB) of his Department assisted or been associated with since 4 March 1983. (2) On what subjects has the ICB commissioned research since 4 March 1983. (3) What has been the cost of information programs co-ordinated through the ICB since 4 March 1983, itemised by program. (4) What has been the cost of research commissioned by the ICB since 4 March 1983, itemised by project. (5) What are the discrete functions carried out by the ICB which are not also carried out the Australian Government Advertising Service (AGAS). (6) What are the discrete functions carried out by AGAS which are not carried out by the ICB. (7) What duplication of activity is there between AGAS and ICB. (8) Will he make public all formal briefing proposals prepared by (a) any agency in connection with the ICB's information program and (b) the ICB for their advertising campaign, on Economic Summit initiatives. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (3) Following is a list of information programs, in the sense of information campaigns, which ICB has assisted with or been materially associated with since 4 March 1983. From 1 March 1984 ICB has incorporated AGAS. The list does not cover all departmental advertising since that date although the Branch has provided central advertising services. Date Cost Subject of campaign $ April 1983 317,000 Benefits for the Disabled May 1983 330,000 Economic Summit press advertising July 1983 371,057 Family Income Supplement July 1983 332,000 Community Employment Program August 1983 242,985 Superannuation ''The Facts'' October 1983 276,162 First Home Owners' Scheme November 1983 154,000 National Wage Case November 1983 2,150,259 Enrol to Vote Campaign December 1983 15,691 Registration of Lobbyists April 1984 558,000 Drink Driving Campaign July 1984 750,000 Prices and Incomes Accord August 1984 255,000 Sex Discrimination Act September 1984 52,194 International Youth Year October 1984 340,309 Participation in Education and Training November 1984 8,656 Transportation of Dangerous Goods November 1984 183,749 Blood Donors Campaign phase 1 January 1985 46,000 Sea Safety February 1985 260,000 Blood Donors Campaign phase 2 (2) and (4) Following is a list of the research commissioned by ICB and the costs since 4 March 1983. Date Cost Subject of research $ August 1983 11,000 Awareness and understanding of the 1983-84 Federal Budget Jan-June 1984 120,000 Attitudes of young Australians to various government policies and programs Jan-June 1984 35,000 Public understanding of policy on funding of schools March-April 1984 74,000 Initial and follow-up research into awareness and understanding of Tasmanian public of Commonwealth offers of assistance following the High Court decision on the Gordon-below-Franklin dam June 1984 12,780 Testing and evaluation of the Tax Form 'S' August 1984 20,500 Community awareness and understanding of the 1984-85 Federal Budget (5), (6) and (7) On 1 March 1984 the responsibility for Government advertising was transferred from the Department of Administrative Services to the Department of Special Minister of State and AGAS was incorporated into ICB. On 13 December 1984 the information co-ordination function and Branch were transferred to the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. With the absorption of AGAS into ICB there is no duplication of discrete functions. The functions of ICB are: 1. to assist departments to achieve the most expert, effective and efficient communication of Government information with the public including to: inform the community about rights, obligations, administrative procedures and matters which by common consent are of national importance; improve the access of the community to Government information; remedy the shortcomings in departmental public information programs identified in the Task Force on Departmental Information; obtain the best value for taxpayers' dollars spent on departmental information programs. 2. to provide the central advertising service for the Government. 3. to provide the secretariat for the Ministerial Committee on Government Advertising. (8) (a) No agencies have prepared formal briefing proposals in connection with ICB's overall information program. However, various agencies have submitted proposals in relation to individual information campaigns conducted by ICB or by departments with the assistance of ICB. The agency proposals are submitted on a competitive, commercial-in-confidence basis. It would not be appropriate for them to be publicly released. (b) ICB did not prepare a specific briefing proposal for the advertising campaign on the Economic Summit. ICB did participate with relevant departments in the preparation of briefs for the specific campaigns on the initiatives. These briefs are considered to be working documents of the departments concerned and prepared as guides to the agencies. (Question No. 77) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Has the Government undertaken a survey of all buildings owned by it and its instrumentalities in South Australia to determine whether there are Government buildings in which asbestos has been used in the construction; if so, what are the buildings. (2) Has the Government a plan or priority list for removal of asbestos from these buildings; if so, what are the details. Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Not all Australian Government owned buildings in South Australia have been surveyed, but over the last three years the Department of Housing and Construction has carried out a general survey of some 4,000 Commonwealth assets in South Australia in conjunction with its fire safety service. The surveyors were directed to report the presence of sprayed, friable or lagging asbestos, which has the potential to release airborne fibres if disturbed. Such material is usually readily detected by a general survey if it exists in the building to any major extent. These forms of asbestos were found in the following buildings: A.B.C. Collinswood-main building, Admin. Block, plant blocks, T.V. studios, workshops, radio studio Accounts Branch Building (Telecom) Adelaide Adelaide Airport Terminal Building C.S.I.R.O. Glen Osmond-soils Laboratory No. 3, boiler house, plant room, potting shed, carpenter's workshop C.S.I.R.O. Adelaide-animal nutrition building C.S.I.R.O. Horticultural Laboratory, Glen Osmond Central Mail Exchange Customs garage Port Adelaide Daw Park Hospital-wards 1 to 10 and walkways, theatre, wards 18 and 19, plant room, boiler room Defence Research Centre, Salisbury-Admin. Building, building 164, shower block, steam and hot water reticulation Elizabeth Army C.M.F. Depot-transformer room Engineering Building (Telecom) Adelaide Grenfell Street Mail Exchange Keswick Army Camp-various buildings including kitchens, workshops, offices King William Tower Port Wakefield Army Camp-carpenter's shop, electronics workshop Reserve Bank Building, Victoria Square Telephone Exchanges at-Gepps Cross, Glenunga, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Balaclava, Nuriootpa, Berri, West Adelaide Waymouth Communications Building Woodside Army Camp-various buildings including kitchen, houses The Department is in the process of carrying out a specific survey to establish the full extent of asbestos used in the construction of all Australian Government buildings in South Australia. (2) Since 1976 remedial work amounting to approximately $1.3 million has been performed on Australian Government owned buildings in South Australia in compliance with S.A. State legislation. Priority is given to any situation in which a health risk is assessed by occupational health authorities. Where a health risk is not so assessed the next priority is given to situations where extensive renovations or upgrading would make it economical to undertake remedial work. Except for unexpected remedial work currently dealt with under contingency funds, planning and execution of all remedial or removal works is subject to the provision of funds in the normal way. State regulations are followed as a minimum in all cases. (Question No. 82) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Has he received any approaches from an organisation known as the Armed Forces Federation of Australia; if so, what are the details. (2) Is this organisation a body registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. (3) Do the rules of this organisation permit its members to engage in any form of industrial action, including (a) strike action, (b) bans or limitations and (c) work to rule; if so, what is the Government's attitude to this prospect. (4) What is the total membership of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes: Mr Scholes and I received 5 communications from the Federation over the period October to December 1984, informing us of the formation of the Federation and seeking discussions. I have had a lengthy meeting with five representatives of the Federation. The Minister Assisting, Mr Brown, has had a similar meeting. (2) No. (3) The Constitution of the Armed Forces Federation of Australia (AFFA) states in part: 'The Federation shall pursue its aim by processes of consultation and negotiation wherever possible, recognizing the ethos of the Australian Armed Forces and the need to maintain the operational effectiveness of the Australian Defence Force'. 'In particular, the Federation shall not act in a way that would result in Federation members serving in units, areas or formations confronting their commanders'. The Government would be opposed to any action which was incompatible with the requirements of Defence Force service. It has not been given any indication from AFFA that any such action would be intended. (4) The Armed Forces Federation is a voluntary association of serving personnel and is not subject to ministerial direction. I am not aware of its current membership. Whether that information is to be publicly available is a matter for the Federation itself to address.