Wednesday, 17 April 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 2. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.01) —What must very appropriately be called the Blue Hills of Canberra is once again on for debate. This would be the fifth attempt that the Government has made to put through these totally unacceptable, punitive imposts upon a section of the Australian community. I say again on behalf of the Opposition parties that, for reasons which have been explained in great detail in the past, we will once again be voting against this legislation in this House and also in the Senate. However, the legislation does provide us with a splendid opportunity once again to debate the great current agony of the Australian Labor Party, and that is the whole issue of taxation reform. I am delighted to see that the factions are quite well represented in the chamber this morning because since the debate on taxation started we have had a great parade of different points of view, different ideologies, different arguments and different taxation systems. We all know the views of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on taxation reform, although the Treasurer supports it a little more enthusiastically now than the Prime Minister. If I were the Treasurer I would be starting to get a bit nervous about how much the Prime Minister really supports me on taxation reform because the Prime Minister has been hedging his bets a bit lately. Remember when the Prime Minister was in Canada? After he had lectured the Canadian people on what a terrific Prime Minister he was and what terrific things he had done for the Australian economy, not least the Australian dollar, what did he have to say? He said that he, the Prime Minister of Australia, had no intention of committing political suicide over the issue of taxation reform. I noticed last week that when he was being interviewed about the Australian economy and he was asked about taxation reform he was very cautious indeed. The word I have is that the Treasurer's camp is getting a little bit worried about how strongly the Prime Minister will support the Treasurer on taxation reform because they know, as any person who has studied the taxation system in Australia knows, that unless one has the introduction of a broadly based consumption tax with preferably minimal or no exemptions to speak of, and one uses the proceeds of that to reduce personal income tax, one will not have taxation reform. What is the response of the other factions of the Labor Party on the subject? We have, of course, those marvellous contributors to national wealth generation, the socialist Left. We have the rich brigade of the socialist Left who say that the way to get productivity and an improvement in living standards in this country is to tax people still more. We have heard from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). We have had the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) saying, quite flatly, that he is opposed to a broadly based consumption tax. In the process of doing that he has not only expressed his opposition but also indicated that the pleas of the Prime Minister to the members of his Government to remain silent on the taxation issue have fallen on deaf ears. I noticed Press reports this morning, once again emanating from the Prime Minister, about the Prime Minister pleading with the members of his Party not to go public on this issue. Once again we have an indication of the loss of authority of the Prime Minister over his own Party on so many very vital issues. Last week the Prime Minister decided to go on the offensive and start explaining his Government's economic record and economic credentials. If one looks at what the Prime Minister did last week, one will see that he made three attempts to explain what his Government was going to do in the wake of the devaluation of the Australian dollar and on three occasions he ran up to the problems and then failed to tell the Australian public just what he really intended to do about those problems. More important to this legislation is the attitude of the Government towards taxation reform. The Opposition supports sensible reform of the Australian taxation system. Unlike the Labor Party when it was in government, we are not taking a negative, destructive attitude to the issue of taxation reform; we are taking a constructive approach. We recognise that the great reform that is needed to our taxation system at the moment is the bringing in of a broadly based consumption tax and the use of the proceeds of that to reduce the high marginal taxation rates that act as such a disincentive to effort on an increasing number of middle income earning Australians. In the process of preparing a recent speech on this issue which I delivered in Perth, I came across a remarkable contribution to the debate from none other than the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). It was really a remarkable contribution. It is one that he made in this House, speaking in this very place on behalf of the then Labor Opposition in l98l after I had delivered a statement on behalf of the then Government on taxation. What he said on that occasion would have warmed the very generous heart of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and it would have warmed the very generous hearts of all members of the Socialist Left. What was under debate on that particular occasion was the proposition that high marginal rates of taxation have a disincentive effect; in other words, they discourage people from extra effort. This is what the honourable member for Gellibrand, the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, had to say on that occasion. I would like the honourable member for Melbourne to listen very carefully because I think he probably feels a sense of kinship with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. He nods his head indicating that he does feel a sense of kinship with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on this subject. This is what the honourable member for Gellibrand said: As I understand it, and I challenge Government supporters to produce evidence to the contrary, there is no evidence to show what is the reaction of people to reductions in taxation. Although on the one hand it may be argued that with reduced taxation people will work harder because they pay less to the Government in tax- here is the terrific bit- on the other hand it is also arguable that if people have a certain income in mind and the Government takes more of it in tax they will work a bit harder in order to get that end income after tax which they have in mind. That is the contribution to taxation made in this place on behalf of the Labor Opposition by the then economic spokesman of the Labor Party. He is now the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations; he is the union man in the Hawke Cabinet; he is the chief apologist for the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the Hawke Cabinet; and he will be instrumental in shaping the dialogue between the Labor Party, the Government and the ACTU on this issue. That particular quote demonstrates, very interestingly, the attitude of the honourable member for Gellibrand, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, on this issue. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, unlike the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, we do see a link between high marginal rates of personal tax and incentive to work. We do not believe, as apparently the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the socialist Left and many academic supporters of the Australian Labor Party believe, that if people are taxed higher and harder it will make them work better and try harder. We do not really think that works. We think there is abundant evidence around that it does not work. There are people in the Labor Party and in this Government, including the Treasurer-and, I think, the Prime Minister, if he can summon up enough courage and if he does not rat on the Treasurer on this particular issue, because there is a serious possibility, if we look at the way in which he is hedging his bets, that that may really be about to happen-who understand this. We are to have a taxation summit, apparently during the first week in July. One of the things that will not be on the agenda for that taxation summit, but which ought to be on the agenda, is the question of government spending. We all know that the level of taxation is a direct reflection of the level of government spending. The Prime Minister tells us that. The Treasurer tells us that. Yesterday we even had the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), who is hardly the greatest monetarist on that or any other side of the House, come into the Parliament and say: 'We have to cut the homes savings grant in order to reduce the deficit'. I cannot argue with that from a budgetary point of view or from a straight economic point of view. Therefore, there is an acknowledgment on the part of the Government, even right over to the left wing of the Ministry, that there is some link between government spending and levels of taxation. If that is the case, I put it quite seriously to the Government that it ought to set aside a couple of hours at the taxation summit to talk about levels of government spending. The reason why it ought to do that is that it will have a unique opportunity, with many people attending that summit who do not normally come together, to discuss these matters. To start with, it will have the Premiers of the six States of Australia. If ever there was a group of people who in my experience ought to be lined up on the question of government spending, it is the Premiers of the six States of Australia. It was invariably my experience, no matter what their political colour, that Premiers were very good at simultaneously haranguing Federal governments about high levels of Federal taxation and at the same time putting out their hands and asking for more money. I think in his heart the present Treasurer and, I reckon, most people on the other side of the House will agree with me on that. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer would do this country a great service if they lined up those six Premiers and said: 'Righto, fellas, you tell us where you think there is duplication. You tell us where you think there is waste. You tell us what ought to be cut out so far as our activities are concerned and we will tell you what you ought to cut out to save your money'. There is a totally mistaken view in this community that in some way government spending is reduced by transferring functions from the Federal government to the State governments. Nothing of the kind happens. It is the total size of the public sector that really counts. Mr Hand —Ask Peter Walsh. Mr HOWARD —Well may the honourable member for Melbourne interject, because the Cain Government in Victoria is a classic example of what I am talking about. The rate of growth in the Public Service under the Cain Government has been the worst of any government in Australia over the past three years. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer would do all of us on both sides of the House an enormous service if those Premiers were all lined up. I do not care what their political persuasion is. My experience is that this double standard of State Premiers on spending and taxation is uniform across party lines. It is one of the things that bedevils rational government decision making and finance in this country. We have this annual parade of breast beating by State Premiers. They come down to Canberra and say: 'Look, we are ruined. We are in a terrible situation. We need more money.' They go out on to the front steps of Parliament House and say: 'I went in there and I told the Prime Minister that it was about time that he reduced the level of Federal taxation.' Of course, the past master of this exercise in double standards is the Premier of New South Wales. In the five years I was Treasurer the Premier of New South Wales led the charge so far as increases in borrowing and spending by State governments around Australia were concerned. In that five years he never once supported a sensible increase in interest rates in order to fund the overgenerous loan programs to which he was committing his State and other States around Australia. That is an example of the double standards that are adopted by so many State governments and Premiers. I very seriously say to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer that when they hold the taxation summit in July they should set aside a morning, line up the State Premiers of Australia and say: 'We all preach tax reduction. We all preach expenditure restraint. Let us spend a morning listing those areas where there is duplication and where each of us could give away some functions'. The Premier of South Australia has run a very tight ship, has he not? Mr Steele Hall —The outgoing Premier. Mr HOWARD —Yes, the outgoing Premier of South Australia, the man who has that special uranium. There is good uranium and bad uranium, according to the Hawke Government. The good uranium is the uranium that is in a Labor governed State. The bad uranium is in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Do honourable members know that the uranium in Queensland and the Northern Territory is more harmful to mankind than the uranium in South Australia? Do they know that there is really a difference? That is why we can export the uranium from South Australia but we cannot export the uranium from Queensland. The uranium from Queensland and the Northern Territory is really bad. It kills one twice over, whereas uranium from South Australia provides quite a benign end to one's life. It is very gentle. One does not really feel an effect from the uranium from South Australia. That is why it is perfectly okay to export uranium from South Australia. If ever there was an example of the sheer hypocrisy and nonsense of consensus politics in Australia it is the attitude of the Hawke Government as exhibited over Roxby Downs. Roxby Downs is the largest deposit of uranium in the world but because of that uranium's benign and special qualities, and because it is perceived as being crucial to the political survival of the Bannon Labor Government-this is not going to work-all those fine principles are overthrown. To return to taxation, I very seriously exhort the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to line up all Premiers, put the finger on them and say: 'Why do you not stop simultaneously asking for reduced taxation and more Federal Government handouts?'. It is one of the great charades of Australian politics of the last 20 years. The begging bowl has been carried by Premiers of all political persuasions to Canberra. They have asked for lower taxation and more money. They have simultaneously complained that taxation is too high and that Federal Government handouts are too low. Frankly-- Mr Steele Hall —Some begging bowls have been smaller than others. Mr HOWARD —I say to the honourable member for Boothby that some begging bowls have been smaller than others and some have been presented with more dignity than others. I also say very seriously to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer that there will also be an opportunity at the taxation summit to say to the various business groups that will be widely represented that their responsibility on the question of spending does not end with general exhortations to governments to reduce their spending. It goes further than that. I have repeatedly found from my experience-I have no doubt that the present Treasurer has had a similar experience-that there is plenty of advice and general exhortation from groups around Australia to reduce government spending. However, when the next question is asked-'Where do you think we ought to cut spending?'-the reply normally is: 'That is not really our field of expertise'. The reality is that everybody in Australia apparently is an expert on how one should reform the taxation system. Everybody is an expert on what the mix of taxation is. It is a bit like every member of parliament being an expert on the electoral laws, although I am not sure whether the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) in recent experience qualifies for that. However, I will return to my theme. Everybody is apparently an expert on how to change the taxation system, but when it comes to where we reduce government spending many people, with a few very notable exceptions in the business community, have become noticeably reticent. Let me say in this context that I particularly welcome the initiative of many businessmen around Australia to sponsor the visit to Australia of the Chairman of President Reagan's Grace Commission, which is inquiring into reduction of government spending and government waste. Mr N. A. Brown —And Dr Pirie. Mr HOWARD —And Dr Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute, who has been able to provide such valuable information on the privatisation program of the Thatcher Government. I hope that what those gentlemen have said about the experience in other countries in reducing government waste does not land on deaf ears at either Federal or State government level. I say very seriously that the tax summit is an opportunity to ask the Premiers of the Australian States and also the representatives of the many groups concerned where spending cuts ought to take place. In theory anyway, everybody recognises that there is a link between the level of government spending and the level of taxation. It is about time that those who are loud in their calls for reductions in taxation were willing to put their commitment to that reduction where their principles are and to suggest areas where government spending may be reduced. If those attending the summit were to spend half a day discussing that, we would get a great deal more out of it than I fear we will get. I think there is a great deal of woolly thinking inside the Government on the whole issue of taxation. The taxation debate has got out of hand. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister can no longer exert a great deal of influence, control and discipline within his Party on the subject of taxation reform. That is increasingly emphasised by the plethora of papers and the different positions and different attitudes that are coming from the Government and its different factions. I wish to mention two other matters, the first of which has arisen in the context of the expenditure review exercise that is going on inside the Government at present. There is no better demonstration that this Government has little stomach for expenditure control than when it starts to dress up proposals to increase taxation as exercises in expenditure reduction. I refer in particular to the proposal of Senator Walsh, no doubt inspired by Senator Ryan, with her predilection for radical feminist claptrap, to impose a means test on the dependent spouse rebate. This proposal has been dressed up as being an exercise in expenditure restraint. Let us examine what it really is. It is not an exercise in expenditure restraint; it is a proposal to increase income tax on a narrow section of the Australian community. It is not a proposal to reduce expenditure. To propose the means testing of the dependent spouse rebate is the equivalent of proposing the means testing of the tax free threshold. As I understand it, there is only one group in this taxation debate that is interested in means testing the tax free threshold, and I refer to some members of the Socialist Left. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) looks behind him. Well may there be a mirror behind him because he knows exactly what I mean. The proposal represents an attempt to increase taxation on one section of the Australian community. The dependent spouse rebate is not a welfare payment any more than the tax-free threshold is a welfare payment. The dependent spouse rebate is a recognition of the rather obvious fact that it costs more to keep two people than it does one. Those who advocate the means testing of that rebate are further widening the gap between double and single income earners in Australia. If people such as Senator Walsh and Senator Ryan have their way, the new elite of this country will be childless couples, earning very high government superannuated, tertiary sector-protected incomes. They will become the new elite in this country. If the Government removes from the taxation system every single support mechanism for families, and removes from the taxation system any acknowledgment of the desirability of providing through the taxation system some financial support to those partners in marriage who choose to stay at home to give full time care to their children while they are young, the Government will start to change Australian society. I find it totally offensive that members of this Government should propose a change to our taxation system, in the name of cutting expenditure which, for example, would increase the taxation burden on a single income family with an income of, say, $25,000 a year but which, at the same time, would leave untouched the financial burden of a family where both parties are working, with a combined income of, say, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year and whose tax burden is much lower than that of a single income family on the same level of income, because of the existence of two taxation-free thresholds. I would say to members of the Government that that is not an exercise in reducing expenditure; it is an exercise in a punitive, discriminatory increase in taxation on single income families in Australia. We on this side of the House believe that there is an imbalance in our taxation system between double and single income families at the same level of income. That is why, in the last election campaign, we proposed the introduction of income splitting. Not only is there an imbalance between double and single income families, but also there is an imbalance within the single income families themselves, because some people in our community already are able to split their incomes. We on this side of the House say that the fair and reasonable thing to do is to give every single income family, or double income families with disproportionate incomes, access to income splitting. Why is it that a blue collar factory worker supporting a wife and children should not be able to split his income, yet a farmer or a plumber or other people in business or professional activities are able to do so? I do not criticise the fact that the farmer or the plumber can split their incomes, because their wife or husband makes an enormous contribution to the generation of their incomes, but we say that the factory worker ought to have the same privilege. Those in the Labor Party who criticise income splitting as being some kind of middle class rip-off do not really understand the dynamics of our taxation system. What people like the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, Senator Ryan, are about is imposing a stereotyped behaviour on many married women in Australia. We are about choice, about having a taxation system that says that if people choose, particularly during the years when their children are young, to stay at home and provide full time parental care, which is still the best kind of full time child care in Australia, they should not suffer a financial penalty. That is what a means testing of the spouse rebate would do to a significant number of middle income Australian families. The Government will say to them: 'If you want to go out to work and have two incomes in the household and get the benefit of two tax-free thresholds, okay, we will continue to protect your position. In fact, we will improve your position relative to single income families at the same level of income'. That is what this proposal is about. We on this side of the House are not in the business of imposing a stereotype as far as family behaviour is concerned. We recognise the social change that has taken place. We recognise that something like 50 per cent of married women with dependent children are now part of the work force. That is why in the last election campaign we proposed tax rebates for child care expenses. We are not going to stand by silently and allow this radical feminine claptrap that says-- Mr Maher —Rubbish! Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says: 'Rubbish!' Mr Maher —It is rubbish. Mr HOWARD —It is not rubbish. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member for Lowe will cease interjecting. Mr HOWARD —No, do not protect him. I welcome very much the interjection. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not direct the Chair. Mr HOWARD —I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, in deference to you, as always. I welcome the interjection. Mr Maher —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The legislation before the House does not relate to income splitting. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Lowe knows quite well that this particular proposal is part of the long stream of radical feminist claptrap that comes from people such as Senator Ryan. It is her goal in life to impose a stereotype. She is not really interested in the collective advancement of women's rights in this country; she is interested in the advancement of the rights of a particular attitude on the part of a particular group of women. We have a taxation policy and a taxation attitude which say that we will facilitate choice. We are not saying that people should follow a particular form of behaviour; we are saying that if there are people in our society who want to arrange their family affairs in what could loosely be called the traditional pattern, they should not be subject to a financial penalty in the process of doing that. That is why we advocated a policy of income splitting during the last election campaign and that is why we coupled it with the introduction of taxation rebates for child care expenses. That is a policy which we will continue to advocate and support because we think it is a policy which is not only contemporary, but also consonant with the desires of the overwhelming majority of Australian families. To those who might be gulled into believing that what Senator Ryan and Senator Walsh are proposing on the spouse rebate is some sort of exercise in expenditure reduction, I say it is nothing of the kind. It is an attempt to impose a discriminatory tax increase on single income families in Australia. If the Government wants to put up our tax, why is it not honest enough to say so? Why does it not propose to put up everbody's tax rather than confining this impost to a particular group in the community and imposing it in such a penal and discriminatory manner. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD —There is no better demonstration of its failure to cut expenditure than the dressing up of taxation rises as expenditure restraints. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.33) —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has already had half an hour and I am going to have only 10 minutes, yet he is trying to swipe some of my time as well. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to this as Blue Hills. It is nothing of the kind. Blue Hills went on for longer than this has gone on, but Blue Hills was, after all, somewhat frothy. It was an interesting story of family situations, developing domestic circumstances and love affairs. What is the love affair behind this saga of shame? It is the love affair between members of the Opposition and the tax dodgers of Australia. That is the only similarity, apart from the length of time involved, between Blue Hills and this continuing experience of ours in relation to an attempt to pick up the tax that was lost as a result of the bottom of the harbour schemes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition just made a very good speech. There were some parts of that speech with which I could even agree. But the thing that surprised me was that he did not make similar speeches when he was in a position to do something about those matters, when he was Treasurer. He may have made those speeches in the Cabinet room and in the Party room, but he was probably rolled on each occasion. I know that there were initiatives which the former Treasurer wanted to take. Unlike so many of those honourable members opposite, he is a thinker. He gives consideration to these questions and, as I have said before, he is proud of his integrity. Sometimes it becomes rather tarnished, but he still tries to retain that essential integrity which he brought into this Parliament originally. It has been tarnished because of the way in which he has mixed with those people on the Opposition benches. If members of the Opposition had shown a little more consideration and a little more sympathy for the personal feelings of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition they would not have corrupted him so much. Let him have his head sometimes. When he is motivated by, for example, concern for the blue collar workers in Australia, which he mentioned during his speech-I believe he was expressing some degree of genuine concern-honourable members opposite should let him have his head because he does do a bit of thinking and he will come up with some good ideas. When he was in government he gave us the Old Testament. I ask honourable members to go back through the speeches to see the sort of situation which honourable members locked him into when he was trying to take a different direction. We have just heard heap upon heap of irrelevancy as far as this legislation is concerned, although it was quite interesting and some of it was fascinating. As I have said, I would be happy to support some of it, but that was the New Testament. On the Opposition benches now we have an interesting mix of factional groupings. Probably the most interesting factional arrangement over there is between the wets and the dries. Members of the Opposition gave their Deputy Leader good support. They will be giving him more at some time in the future, and I will say something more about what purpose his speech today was supposed to fulfil. If honourable members opposite take the opportunity to read the Deputy Leader's speech in the daily Hansard tomorrow they will see the interesting marriage between those aspects of the speech which appeal to the wets and those aspects of the speech which appeal to the dries. What he is doing quite successfully is bringing them all together, such as the Spenders from North Sydney. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) is smiling more every day because he can see the way in which it is developing. Today we had a sermon and a philosophical manifesto from the pretender to the Opposition throne, and the honourable member for Bennelong performed very well. I am sorry there were not more on his back bench to hear it. I hope that those people who are at present working hard in their rooms were all tuned in, but if they were not I hope they will take the opportunity tomorrow to read the Hansard and see the way in which the honourable member is able to bring together basic conservatism with the shallow radicalism of the Liberal Party of Australia. That marriage is taking place very well. I wish him well. I refer to this as a sorry saga of shame. The shame started under the previous Government, not just as a result of the legislation that we have introduced. The initial shame started with the previous Government and the Treasurer of that Government when, on 23 September 1982, with a great flourish he came into this chamber with the original unsanitised version of his own legislation which was designed to pick up the lost tax. It was proclaimed to the nation that at long last, after those many years of lethargy, procrastination and resistance, the Fraser Government and the Treasurer were going to make an onslaught on the tax evasion and tax avoidance industries in Australia. It no sooner hit the table than all hell broke loose across the nation. In every State branch of the Liberal Party there was absolute turmoil. All the benefactors, all the supporters and all members of the Liberal Party and some of the National Party of Australia saw that all those ill-gotten gains from their contrivances and connivances would be taken from them under the bottom of the harbour legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall, as we all recall, that the corridors of this building were choked with all the tax dodgers and all of their representatives. They were literally hammering on the doors of the former Treasurer and all the members of the Cabinet and all back benchers. Also, on the Senate side, they were hammering on the doors of Senator Harradine and the Australian Democrats senators. Would honourable members like to know what happened? Can they stand to hear what happened? What happened was that on 21 October l982 the legislation came back. It was not the same legislation. Mr Howard —Oh, yes it was, Bob. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It was not the same legislation as we saw on 23 September 1982. We saw the modified version, the acceptable version, the sanitised version, the version which had been rewritten by the tax dodgers themselves. The officers of the Australian Taxation Office who have been here to assist the Parliament with this legislation have been here on so many occasions that they are now being recognised as members of the House of Representatives. I have seen the attendants around the Parliament extending to them exactly the same privileges because they have seen them here on so many occasions-not only on those two occasions under the Fraser Government, but also on the first, the second, the third, the fourth and now the fifth occasion under this Government. In connection with all of this legislation, when we were in Opposition and, indeed, on two election occasions, we undertook to take significant and effective steps in the Parliament to recover this lost tax. We have attempted to do so. We have attempted to honour the mandate given us by the Australian people. We have been frustrated, not in this chamber because we have had the numbers, but because of the combined efforts over in the Senate of the Liberal Party, the National Party, the independent Senator Harradine and a sufficient number-sufficient by one-of Democrats senators, a contrived number of Democrats senators, just sufficient to defeat the legislation. That is the position they have been able to take until now. After June, when the new Senate sits, the Democrats will control absolutely, in terms of numbers, the situation in the Senate. I have said before that the contrived position which the Democrats senators have adopted in relation to this legislation is nothing short of shameful. They have significantly damaged their credibility before the Australian people. The people know that in this matter, as in most other matters, the Democrats will be seeking to pick up whatever surplus votes are floating around because in their own right, if this Parliament goes its full term-- Mr Hodgman —Which it won't. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The interjection from the honourable member for Denison suggests that he believes that it will not do so. That may well be so. The Democrats themselves may well seek after June this year to precipitate, as early as possible, a situation which would bring about a double dissolution, and we know the way double dissolutions have been precipitated in the past. If the Parliament goes its full term and if there is an election for only half the Senate in three years time, none of the Democrats will get a quota, on present indications. They would need 14 per cent. They did not get it before; they will not get it this time. If they were able to precipitate a double dissolution, they would need only 7.5 per cent in each of the States to get one candidate elected. Double that figure is 15. They might just manage in some cases to get 15 per cent and to get two of them elected. I doubt it very much. By that time, with the position they have adopted hitherto and the position they will adopt in the future, they will not even get 7.5 per cent. I hope that the Australian people become increasingly aware that there is a need that the Democrats, who were elected, as they said, to 'keep the bastards honest' should, in turn, be kept honest by the electors. We undertook to pick up all the lost tax that was not picked up as a result of the sanitised version of the legislation that was introduced by the previous Government when, as I have said before, its members were dragged screaming into this place in order to legislate against it. Had we indexed that, as I have said before, we would have picked up $840m. We decided not to index it but just to collect this tax in current money terms at nominal values and, as a result of that, we would have picked up $570m. That legislation was defeated in the Senate, again, in the way that I have just described. As a result of that we modified our legislation. We brought it back to this place to pick up $270m. It went across to the Senate and again it was defeated. So we modified our legislation again, saying that what we would try to do was just strengthen the former Government's own legislation. That would have picked up only $35m. We got it through this chamber; it went across to the Senate: And it was knocked out again. Even when we were just attempting to strengthen the former Government's own legislation that is the position it adopted. All of that has been well documented. For anyone who wants to check back and see when the legislation was introduced and follow the earlier debates, I will record those dates in Hansard. The first time we introduced this legislation was 10 weeks after we were elected in March 1983 with, as I have said before, that specific mandate. We introduced our legislation on l8 May 1983. We brought the modified legislation into the Parliament on 23 August 1983. We introduced measures to recoup the $35m that I referred to on 3 November l983 and then on 2 May 1984 we reintroduced the legislation that we had previously introduced on 23 August 1984 in order to try again to pick up the $270m. Again we were defeated in the Senate. On this occasion we have reintroduced legislation which is essentially the same. It will, if it is successful, pick up $270m. I hope that it is successful. I have very serious doubts about the legitimacy and genuineness of the position that the Democrats will adopt in the Senate. Again I appeal to them to try to restore their damaged credibility on the tax issue and support this legislation. If they have nothing they can do in their States with the $270m that we should pick up, and that we should have picked up before, they can send it up to my electorate of Charlton. My electors would rejoice at the opportunity to have provided all of the things that they lack. They would rejoice at the opportunity to have further improvements made to their transport system; they would rejoice at the opportunity to have more public sector housing provided to those people who are already on the waiting list and they would rejoice at the opportunity to improve schools and pre-schools or kindergartens. They would rejoice at the opportunity to build up health services and other facilities. We could do a damn lot with that $270m and again I prevail upon and appeal to the Democrats to support the legislation. In conclusion, let me say this: It has been claimed that the Fraser Government was constructive in its approach to the questions of tax avoidance and tax evasion. I have given figures to refute that on frequent occasions and undoubtedly I will do it again in the future. I have said on a number of occasions that the amount of money involved in tax avoidance and evasion under the previous Government was about $7 billion every year. Again the Deputy Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. He refuted that; he denied it before. I have reasserted it. Not only do I reassert it now but also do I draw the attention of the Parliament to the fact that, as well as that estimate being supported by such eminent taxation authorities as Professor Russell Mathews, just recently an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald referred to the fact that the level of taxation avoidance and evasion in Australia is probably still about $5 billion every year. So let us not talk in terms of the tax avoidance and evasion question being closed in Australia. It is nothing of the kind. All those people who are ripping off the nation will be brought to account. A recent paper provided to the Economic Planning Advisory Council indicated that the level of tax evasion and tax avoidance in Australia could still be as high as $8 billion. So there is no sense in anyone trying to deny the figure that I gave earlier of $7 billion. I am sorry that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has left the chamber. I was referring to the supposed reputation that the former Government and the former Treasurer had in connection with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Let me refer to the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald of 24 December last year. I will quote only a couple of small parts of this editorial. It states: But since the election Mr Howard seems to have let his standards slip, particularly on the question of tax avoidance. Then there is a complimentary statement about him which I do not need to repeat. The editorial goes on to state: But now Mr Howard seems to be yielding to the temptation to capitalise on the indignation of smarties whose happy little Friday-Monday income-splitting tax rort has been caught up with by the Commissioner. The editorial is referring to a specific type of tax dodge that we have been attempting to deal with. But we can expand on it. The record stands by itself. The record indicates not only that the previous Treasurer was deficient in the energy and the determination which he brought to this question but also, to a very large extent, that that lack on his part was a result of the Party for which he performed and which he represented in this Parliament, and, in particular, that group of people in the community which that Party defended, protected and represented in this place-the tax dodging community. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(l0.53) —It ill becomes me, I suppose, to refer to the subject of ham, but it was certainly a very hammy speech from the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). He gave a great performance, reminiscent of one of the last of an almost extinct species of circus clowns. Considering the number of times that the honourable member for Charlton must have been to the well on this subject, it is hard to believe that he can still maintain such enthusiasm to ham up this piece of legislation in this House. It seems that the House is condemned to an endless repetition of the Government's attempt to link tax dodgers and the Opposition in the public eye. In the last Parliament the Government's attempts fell on barren ground but, not deterred by the public rejection at the polls of its posturing, the Government returned once again to the well. The Government knows full well that the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Bill l985 and the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill l985 will not pass through the Senate. Therefore, it knows that the reintroduction of the Bills is a waste of the Parliament's time and of taxpayers' money. Talking about the taxpayers' money, the honourable member for Charlton spoke earlier of the needs of the constituents of his electorate and how the $270m which he said the enactment of these Bills would raise could be spent on services and facilities in his electorate. My Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), referred earlier to the lunatic uranium policy of this Government whereby it is fine to mine uranium at Roxby Downs in South Australia but we are not allowed to mine uranium in the Northern Territory or in Queensland. Let me tell honourable members that one of the greatest rorts, one of the biggest wastes of taxpayers' money going on in this country at present, is the expenditure of $250m by this Government on buying uranium yellowcake from Queensland Mines Ltd, which is processing it at Nabarlek for sale under contract to France. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) recently approved a contract with an overseas trading company, apparently for the sale of uranium to France; at least that is what the media reports carried. We now find that this Government is spending $250m on buying back yellowcake from Queensland Mines. If the honourable member for Charlton wants $270m or $250m, he ought to stop the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) from doing this deal with Queensland Mines. He should allow that mine to proceed to perform on its contracts and help the parlous balance of payments situation. That is what the honourable member for Charlton should be doing. He should be using the weight of his faction to do just that. It seems incredible that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), struggling to maintain a facade of governance between the shambles produced by the public policy pronouncements on the taxation issue of the various factions within their own Party, would feel that they have the time to devote to further repetition of an argument which they have already lost and which will take up valuable time that would be far better spent on real tax reform, as enunciated by the Deputy Leader of my Party in this House this morning. They state and restate their arid and punitive argument on the floor of this House. One can only guess that their motivation must be to rehash their excuse that the only reason they do not have enough money this year is that the Opposition refuses to allow this legislation to pass through all stages. The taxpayer has heard all that before. He or she knows that there are very different reasons why the Government is in trouble with revenue today. The Government, in its much abridged first term, blamed the previous Government for all economic misfortunes and congratulated itself for all economic good fortune. Whenever it had to answer the hard questions it stated that it was either because of the deficit that it had supposedly inherited or because members of the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats were protecting tax dodgers. When the news was good-for example, wages were being held down or there was rural recovery-it was all due to the magical powers of the Labor Government and its world champion Treasurer. This Government now has a problem. I certainly agree fully with the plea this morning of the Deputy Leader of my Party for expenditure restraint. Local government, for instance, is in uproar over the threat to its share of the personal income tax arrangements. The promises of this Government stand for absolutely nothing. The Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance has barely got underway; yet, I understand, its findings are being pre-empted by decisions that are being taken at this time in the budgetary context. The State governments and the Northern Territory Government have been warned in no uncertain terms by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to expect the worst. Major projects, such as the Darwin Airport redevelopment, which has been in the pipeline for six years, have been deferred for reappraisal, causing major chaos to commercial activity and investment. Who will this Government blame? No one will believe that this is all due to a problem supposedly inherited from l982. No one will believe that it has all been due to tax dodgers. The Prime Minister has talked of the greatest economic recovery in the history of Australia. The facts are that the problems that are about to be reflected in the coming Budget are of this Government's creation. There is no one else to blame now. The Government will just have to wear it. This Government has locked Australia into an inflationary spiral with its wage indexing. It has failed to deregulate the labour market at the same time as it moved to deregulate financial markets. It has failed to provide the necessary information on monetary targets. It has dithered on productivity claims. It has backed down and it has backed off. The Australian Council of Trade Unions is taboo. What is at issue here is this Government's attempt to impose a retrospective penal sanction on Australian companies, to take from them money that was not due at the time and to tax them a second time on the basis of an imputed distribution of profits. This legislation is born out of a desire to punish, not to recoup tax moneys owing, which was already done under the legislation introduced by the Fraser Government. The effect of that move, should it happen, will be to weaken further, if that is possible, the much eroded confidence that the business community may have once had in this Government's ability to manage the economic affairs of this country. It will further weaken the ability of the business community to contribute to an economic recovery of this country. This week we have heard continued calls from the Labor Party for greater taxation of the rich, the levelling mentality of socialism which seeks to provide for the disadvantaged by ever-increased taxation on the advantaged. It is this same levelling mentality which is the philosophy behind these Bills. But the Treasurer and the Government would do well to note the experience of the United States of America where a reduction in tax rates has led to increased productivity and increased receipts for inland revenue. Affluent Americans increased their share of the tax burden as the marginal tax rates were decreased. To be precise, following cuts in the marginal rates, those with incomes of less than $50,000 saw their share of the tax burden decrease while those above that figure increased their share, in some cases dramatically. Those earning between $50,000 and $l00,000 raised their percentage of overall tax contribution by l.5 per cent; those earning more than $l00,000 raised their share by 4.6 per cent; and those above the $lm mark more than doubled their contribution from l.7 per cent to 3.6 per cent. The reasons for this are quite understandable. Entrepreneurs in America have switched their entrepreneurial talent from tax avoidance to profit generation. Given the right encouragement, Australians will do the same. Add to that fact that reductions in tax rates stimulate growth in business and thus growth in the tax base and we have a formula for success. This Government has attempted to woo business, but the business world is now seeing this Government's true colours. We are seeing a government in trouble. I suggest that the Government does not create still more trouble for itself by insisting on proceeding with this pointless exercise which only adds to the generalised and increasing disillusionment that the people of Australia now justifiably feel for the abilities of this Government to grapple with real tax reform in the remainder of its term of office. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.03) —The Government is not, as the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) said, engaged in a pointless exercise. We are fulfilling an election undertaking to the people of Australia that we will re-introduce the bottom of the harbour Bills. We have done that today. I am appalled that the honourable member for the Northern Territory should say it is a waste of money. Fortunately I was recently in Darwin. I saw the enormous cultural centre being built at great expense in that city which has not even one permanent theatre company. If the honourable member for the Northern Territory wishes to discuss waste of public funds, I could tell him a few things about that. There is also the question of the salaries of members of parliament in the Northern Territory. Their large electorates average 2,500 people. Their salaries are equivalent to the salaries of members of this national Parliament. It is an appalling waste. The electricity subsidy in the Northern Territory, paid for by the taxpayers of Australia, is something in the vicinity of $67m. This legislation is introduced in the hope that honourable senators will find their consciences, that they will do the right thing, that there will be some decency in Australian politics and that the Senate will let these Bills through and recoup and recover the ill-gotten gains in the sum of $270m from the tax cheats. In 1982 and earlier they got away with an appalling situation-highway robbery of this nation. The people who sit on the Opposition benches are the ones who are responsible. I was in this House in 1982 when it all broke. We had the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union presented in this Parliament and the McCabe-Lafranchi report on tax avoidance in Australia presented in the Victorian Parliament. I well remember sitting here until 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning while the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the then Deputy Leader of the Government, talked at great length in pious platitudes about tax reform and yet did nothing in all the years he was in government. The honourable member for Bennelong is listening, so I draw to his attention his error in stating that his Government-the Government of which he was a Minister-did something about reducing the size of the Australian Public Service. Between June 1975 and June 1983 the Public Service grew by only 2.3 per cent. That is true. However, when the records are examined, it is seen that the number of Second Division officers actually grew by 19 per cent, Third Division clerks by 12 per cent and Fourth Division permanent clerical assistants by 15 per cent. The reduction was achieved when the Government sacked the labourers in the Department of Housing and Construction. The numbers of such workers went down from 8,600 to 3,800. There was a 50 per cent reduction literally in the tradesman's level or ordinary day labourers. That is how the Government kept the number of public servants down. So it was all a thimble and pea trick. It is absolute nonsense for the honourable member for Bennelong to talk here today about what the previous Government did and what we are doing now. The Australian people were outraged when the bottom of the harbour scandal broke. No prudential person, business manager, taxation official or accountant, if they were at all honest and properly trained, could have taken part in the scheme that was involved-the burning of books, destruction of records, appointment of sham directors who might have been prostitutes or painters and dockers. Criminals were put in as directors of these companies and the money was just stolen. This largely resulted in the Labor Party coming to office. There is nothing surer than that the Australian people rejected the Liberal-National Party coalition on that basis. Then we had the appalling deficit of $9.6m. The Liberal-National Party Government was proved to be incompetent. It was an incompetent manager and has been also so adjudged; in the last election it was so adjudged. Its crazy proposal for income splitting was also rejected by the Australian population. Income splitting is one of the most common tax dodges in our nation at present. The salary we receive of $38,000 is about 1.5 times average weekly earnings. In 1955, 55 per cent of the income tax came from people who were earning 1.5 times average weekly earnings. Now these people pay only 21 per cent of the personal income tax. That means that a lot of the people who are on reasonably high incomes are into tax minimisation. They are into negative gearing and all sorts of tax shelters, but mainly they are into income splitting. When the honourable member for Bennelong talks about the married couple without children being lucky Australians, they are not lucky if they are public servants getting high salaries because they are paying tax at the marginal rate of 60c in the dollar plus the Medicare levy. They are not lucky if they are on average weekly earnings because they are paying tax at 46c in the dollar. So if a person is paying half his income in tax I do not know how that person is lucky in this country or any country. This situation was left to us by the outgoing Government. The whole basis of taxation has been eroded and personal income tax is being avoided as never before. Today we have had another attempt by the Liberal-National Party coalition to defend tax cheats and tax frauds-people who are, again, being protected and defended. They are being defended in the Senate by the Australian Democrats, much to their shame, and by Senator Harradine. I have a cutting from an Australian Financial Review of 1981. The heading is self-explanatory. It says: 'Government chickens out of tax reform'. It would do nothing about tax reform. It knew that the whole basis of taxation was collapsing, that those who were on one and a half times average weekly earnings were not paying their tax. This graph did not just drop suddenly; it started down from the mid-1950s, until at present it is down to 21 per cent of personal income tax. That means that people on high incomes are avoiding paying their tax. The legislation before the House, which will recoup $270m, aims to catch, as it were, the second payment of tax on a company's profits. A big complaint from companies is that their profits are taxed twice. A company pays tax on any profit it makes and, when the profit is paid to the shareholders by way of dividend, it is taxed again as income earned by the shareholder. This matter may well be raised at the taxation summit; I am sure it will be raised. In this country we have more companies registered per head of population than any other nation in the world. Company tax while it is a very big issue in this nation nevertheless has a declining base. However, the profits of every company in Australia are taxed twice. They are taxed when the company declares its profit and when the shareholders receive their dividends. This legislation aims to catch the deemed dividend. The crooks who avoided tax by bottom of the harbour schemes took all the profits of the companies; every penny was taken, purloined and put into their pockets, and they walked away. Under the threat of exposure, of having their names published, many of these companies have paid the company tax which was robbed from the Treasury. This Bill will recoup the personal income tax of the shareholders on the income which they received illegally. Thus this legislation is about the second bite at the cherry. How Opposition senators, many of whom are decent, honourable people, can reject this legislation is beyond me. The company's part of the taxation has already been paid and recouped. I cannot understand, and I know the public will never understand, how the Senate can keep rejecting this legislation. It is defending the indefensible. I know that many members of the Opposition benches are decent and honourable people. As the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) said, many of them are competent and add much to public life. But how they can come into this House and oppose this legislation is beyond me and beyond members of the Government. The Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill and the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill are brought forward today in fulfilment of an election undertaking by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to resubmit the bottom of the harbour legislation. The Australian public expects this legislation to be passed by the Senate. It believes there should be justice and equity in payment of income tax. The Australian electorate believes and knows that the people involved in the bottom of the harbour schemes were tax cheats. They were not only cheats; they were crooks. They took part in a series of actions which any prudent person would say were dishonest. Such action was not just a tax dodge like income splitting, which of course the Opposition never costed in the election campaign but which would have left a bigger Budget deficit than was left to us in 1983; the bottom of the harbour schemes were unconscionable. They involved a series of acts which any person with a shred of decency would disapprove of. Without delaying this debate, I call upon members of the Opposition to rethink their attitudes in this matter and to support the Government. I call on the Australian Democrats particularly. They make such a show in the electorate of being fair dinkum and all things to all men, but they cringe and crawl into a corner and, with independent Senator Harradine, reject this legislation to recover money from the tax cheats. Dr WATSON(Forde)(11.15) —I support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in opposing the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill. I also wish to correct some of the nonsense that has just been spoken by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). I support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I believe it is critical, for the development of Australia, to encourage savings and to encourage investment in Australia's future. Under the taxation system as it is presently designed, company taxes and personal taxation are not allowing savings to develop in Australia and are holding back the development of this country. One does not have to look very far to see how critical it is to encourage savings of any country. One can look at the amount of savings in our major competitors around the world and at their growth in the last few years. One sees quite clearly that those countries which are saving a great proportion of their national product, which are investing a great proportion of their national product, are those with the greatest increase in growth. It is instructive to realise that investment comes from three basic sources. One is company profits; one is the depreciation provisions that governments give to companies for the replacement of their assets; and the third is from personal savings. The problem with our present taxation system and with the company taxation system that we have is that it is destroying the incentive for profit and is destroying the incentive for personal savings. This is what this Bill is about; it is about reducing, ripping off, the profits and the savings of individuals. It is about ripping off those savings that have already been invested in Australia's development. Of course, it is interesting to look at the progressive taxation system which has come to dominate Australia and many other countries around the world. The intent of the progressive taxation system is to create vertical equity, to ensure that those who have the capacity to pay actually end up taking the greatest burden of taxation. That is the intent. But the outcome, the effect, is otherwise. Why should those who sacrifice current consumption, who sacrifice current income-those Australians who invest now in either capital goods or their own education-be punished? Why should those who postpone the getting of income, who organise their lives in such a way as to ensure that they have a higher income in the future, who sacrifice current consumption and invest in Australia, pay a higher tax in total over their lives than those who squander or who choose to take leisure and not to invest in Australia's development? Of course, that is the outcome of the progressive taxation system that we have at the moment. That is one of the problems of our current taxation system. Why should anyone deny himself current consumption and risk not only losing his investment but, more importantly, risk a money hungry socialist government introducing retrospective taxation and ripping off those investments? Why should anyone do it? Of course, they do not want to. We see a change in the way people are taking their income in Australia. Of course, many of these are members of the trade unions and are workers who perhaps even sometimes support the Australian Labor Party. We see a movement away from people taking incomes in the form of cash to incomes in other ways. Workers are not stupid. They understand what the taxation system is doing to them. When they start bargaining, they start concentrating on a post tax income. Of course, the effect is to transfer the effects of the taxation system away from the employees to the employers. The progressive taxation system not only discourages personal savings but also transfers, through the wage negotiation process, part of that taxation to employers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member because previous speakers roamed all over the place, but I suggest that we are discussing tax recoupment. Dr WATSON —With all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was getting directly on to that subject. The impact of taxation and wage negotiation is to raise the costs of production, which raises prices and, of course, tends to accentuate inflationary pressures. That is critical because we are talking about company tax recoupment. Some of the previous speakers, particularly the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he was quoting the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), spoke about the effects of high marginal tax rates and the choice between leisure and work. What he was talking about and what the Minister suggested were that there was an income effect and a substitution effect. This is complicated in our present system by the relationship of our income tax and our welfare payment system. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations was quoted as saying that there has not been very much evidence on this matter. In fact, there is substantial evidence. There is substantial evidence in the United States concerning the substitution and income effects. The evidence suggests that the substitution effect dominates and that there is a transfer from work to leisure. That is complicated particularly by the welfare system. The problem is that such a system requires the imposition of higher taxes. Increased taxes in a system not only discourage work but also encourage people on the welfare system to reduce the amount of work effort. That is the effect of this kind of Bill. It continually attacks the basis for savings in both the company and personal sectors. That is the reason this kind of Bill must continue to be opposed. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(11.23) —The practices proscribed in the legislation before us, the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1985 and the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1985, are one of the reasons why the Australian system of taxation has been described as one of the most redistributive in the world, redistributing from the less well off to the well off. The aim of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill is to proscribe those kinds of practices, to make our taxation system fairer. I regret that today the Opposition again has simply defended the tax avoiders, as it did when this identical Bill was introduced in 1983 and again in 1984. The Opposition has formed in exactly the same way today. It has now become the defence of the tax avoiders in this country. This measure is a specific election promise of the Government announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Australian Labor Party policy speech prior to the recent election. In that policy speech the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Labor Party's policy of smashing the tax avoidance industry. That policy was pursued relentlessly by this Government throughout our previous term. Notwithstanding whatever the Opposition does here today or does in another place, we will continue to pursue this policy throughout this term of the Government. This legislation will recoup for the Australian people hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue from those people who avoided tax that, as shareholders or other former owners of shares in companies, they ought to have paid on dividends and other profits liberated from companies sent to the bottom of the harbour. The people of Australia are entitled to those moneys. They gave this Government a mandate to collect them on their behalf. We intend to pursue that course as relentlessly as we pursued it during the term of the last Parliament. Let us hope that those in another place who have in the past obstructed the passage of this legislation finally come to their senses. I mention three specific matters. First, these Bills also seek to remove the so-called Liberal Party innocence clause, the infamous section 3(12). There is absolutely no reason why some tax avoiders, simply by the luck of the draw, should escape their responsibilities to recoup evaded company tax because the promoter with whom they dealt used a particular technique to send the company to the bottom of the harbour. That is what occurs under the existing Liberal Party legislation. We opposed that clause in 1982 when the Liberal Party legislation was enacted with our support. We immediately embarked upon legislation to repeal it when we were first elected to government in 1983. The second point I make is that the Bills contain some essential drafting corrections that do no more than correct matters of a technical nature in the existing legislation. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) claimed that the legislation was penal legislation. The legislation is not penal in character. No penalties or additional taxes are imposed, as might have been done. The legislation simply seeks to recover tax that ought to have been paid years ago when the profits were stripped from the company. In particular, the legislation does not impose any additional amount to compensate for the fact that repayment of escaped tax will be in today's money values and not in the money values of the year when the tax should have been paid. I conclude by saying to the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) that, although it seemed to me that his rather irrelevant economic lecture did not forward the debate in any way, there are two points on which I agree with him. Firstly, I agree that savings are important to any economy. However, we have to ask ourselves, in relation to this Bill, whether we want savings based on tax cheating. I think the answer the Australian people will give to that question is no. Secondly, the honourable member said that this Bill was about 'ripping off'. It is certainly about ripping off-the ripping off of ordinary Australians by these types of tax avoidance proposals. We are determined that these kinds of propositions and tax avoidance procedures will be ended in this country. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.28) —The comments by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) have provoked me to say something about the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill l985, whereas I had intended to sit and let others speak on it. The Minister began with what might be said to be the direct, habitual, characteristic and oft repeated misrepresentation that the Opposition is a group of people who support and defend tax avoiders. We have never done so. We have said again and again that we have not done so. The best proof is to be found in the fact that this Government, which came to power on a surge of promise back in l983 and which crawled back into power in the last election, has not been able to put before this Parliament one general anti-avoidance measure. The reason-I have said it previously and it has been acknowledged by the Government-why not one single general anti-avoidance measure has been put before this Parliament is very simple. It is that it was done under the previous Treasurer. Nothing remained to be done save selectively to try to deal retrospectively with certain practices. One does not have to defend the practice, or take a view as to whether it is socially desirable or undesirable, to conclude that retrospective legislation is dangerous. It is dangerous to the fabric not only of the tax system but also of our whole society, which is built, although some of the Government members seem not to realise it, on views as to certainty of the law. Whether one likes the law or not, one should be able to arrange and organise one's affairs and to act in accordance with the law as it exists. It is the merest sophistry for the Minister for Health to come in here and talk about a mandate given by the people to the Australian Labor Party, which never really explained what it was seeking to do. The Minister used that very evocative term 'bottom of the harbour'. We have heard it repeated time and again. It is the new McCarthyist smear. No matter what happened, no matter what kind of transactions were entered into, they were termed bottom of the harbour deals so as to conjure up in the mind of the electorate the vision of groups of people surreptitiously destroying tax records in the middle of the night, shredding them and sending them to the bottom of the harbour, and engaging in activities which are illegal. They are classed as illegal because the records were destroyed. Nobody has any sympathy with or any brief for those people who engage in fraudulent activities. If one evades tax, if one engages in fraudulent activities, one must be subject of the fullest rigor of the law. It is a quite different matter-this is always blurred by Government speakers-if, for whatever reason, one has chosen to take advantage of the law. One does not have to commend such action, as I have said, but it is a quite different proposition. Here again for the fifth time, as the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has pointed out, this same set of measures has come before this House. It will suffer the same fate in another place, and so it should. The Minister for Health spoke about the so-called innocence clause as though it was perfectly impossible for any of the people involved in these schemes to be innocent of any intention deliberately to defraud the revenue. I should have thought that most people of common sense and decency and with a sense of fairness would distinguish very clearly between two separate cases. The first case is that of a person who fraudulently sets out to defeat the revenue and deliberately to strip a company of assets so that it is not able to pay its taxes and who knows what is involved. The second case is that of a person in an entirely different situation. Again, one does not have to moralise about these matters because we can moralise about many issues in this House. I refer to the case of a person who is unaware of what is happening and believes that what is being done is being done honestly and in accordance with the law as it stands. That is really the effect of the so-called innocence clause. I noted without surprise, however, that the Minister for Health said nothing about tax reform. Recently the Government has been somewhat quiet on the subject of tax reform. When it was put to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-I believe it was during a talk-back program on a radio station in Perth-that a tax summit might be a good idea, like Senator Gareth Evans he said in an off-hand manner that it sounded like a good idea at the time. So a tax summit became part of the mystique of the electoral campaign. Mr Griffiths —But it is a good idea. Mr SPENDER —I will come to that. As the Prime Minister had one good public relations exercise in the National Economic Summit Conference, he thought he would have another. What do we have? We have the Prime Minister going distinctly cold on the whole subject. We find that the three factions are split. Representations are being made by members of the different factions who are putting up different views. That is, of course, entirely understandable because what we are looking at is not the Australian Labor Party; it is three factions entrenched within it, who combine and deal with each other as separate political entities. I hope that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be able to come up with a tax reform proposal which is sensible and which helps the Australian people. We all hope that that will take place, but the prospects appear to get smaller and smaller as the Prime Minister's diminishing will to face up to the difficulties of tax reform becomes only too apparent. We on this side of the House have seen all the evidence of the Prime Minister's diminishing will to face difficulties of any kind, just as those who sit behind him know how unwilling he is to face up to unpalatable decisions. He should understand that the good times are past and the times ahead are hard and they are getting harder as this Government lurches its way towards political oblivion. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S.P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. RCadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Carlton, J. J.Jones, Barry Macphee, I. M.Hurford, C. J. McGauran, P. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.48) - I continue my remarks from yesterday on this important piece of legislation, when I was describing the purpose of the legislation, particularly the establishment of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. The main function of that Committee will be to provide advice to the Minister for Primary Industry on projects which will be funded under the national soil conservation program. The Committee also, of course, will give advice to the Minister on overall priorities and strategies which are to be pursued in the area of soil conservation. It should be emphasised that the total appropriation of moneys under the Bill is not fixed at any level. It provides for separate appropriations to be made to the States and to Commonwealth departments. Funds which are appropriated for use by individuals and community groups will be paid into a trust account, which will be the national soil conservation program fund. That fund also has another important function; that is, it will be legislative based, it will give security to funding and it will, of course, be the location of many gifts and bequests which are provided for soil conservation projects. There is a most important rationale for this legislation before the House and that rationale is that the problems of land degradation throughout Australia are very serious and costly and they are worsening. It is the Government's view that by establishing a statutory basis for funding we can protect to some extent soil conservation programs from the future political and perhaps economic vagaries that might otherwise lead to the Commonwealth withdrawing from soil conservation funding. In that sense, the passage of this legislation will ensure that, if future governments refuse to commit funds to soil conservation, an explicit decision of the Parliament will be required to refuse the appropriation of money under this Bill. In effect, the purpose of this legislation is to enshrine into legislation a permanent commitment, or as close to permanent as we can get, to tying governments to the future funding of soil conservation. Given the enormity of the problem that faces Australia in terms of soil conservation, I for one applaud that initiative. During this debate many speakers have dwelt and elaborated on the seriousness of the problems of soil conservation in Australia. There is a natural limitation of Australia's land resources. Australia simply does not have a lot of highly stable or productive land. We have a fragile soil base which, on average, has a relatively low productivity. Those basic limitations of our resources are exacerbated by the often harsh and certainly highly variable climatic conditions that exist throughout Australia. All those factors-that natural predisposition, the harsh climatic conditions-predispose Australia's soil to a number of elements, such as wind and water erosion, salination and the depletion of chemical and physical fertility. If we add to that predisposition a history of what could be described as poor, or at least indifferent, agricultural land management over a century or more and certainly a history of overclearing, overgrazing and often overirrigation, we have an outcome that is very severe and rapidly worsening. This needs the attention of all people throughout Australia and certainly the attention of governments. There are a number of consequences of that worsening degradation of the soil. The costs to the nation are enormous in terms of lost productivity and economic hardship. They also induce permanent changes to the Australian environment. It is worthy of note that the Commonwealth and State Governments collaborative soil study, which was undertaken between 1975 and 1977, found that more than half of Australian land in use for agricultural or pastoral activities required treatment for land degradation if productivity was to be maintained. At that time, in June 1975, it was estimated by that collaborative study that necessary treatment works to control land degradation throughout the affected areas was of the order of $700m. That was back in 1975. If we apply some increases in prices and costs that have occurred since, we see that as a result of that study the cost of repairing land degradation in Australia in current money values is $1.6 billion. That is a staggering figure. But it is even more staggering when we realise that that estimate deals only with the treatment and control of land degradation. The figure does not include the untold billions of dollars which have no doubt already been lost to the nation because of soil degradation and the consequent reduced agricultural productivity. While there has been general support for this legislation from the Opposition parties, a number of speakers have been quick to attempt to criticise the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that the enormous magnitude of the problem, and the threat which it represents to Australia's land resource base, demands active and positive consideration by the Commonwealth Government. Since we took government in March l983, we have demonstrated an active and determined concern to tackle land degradation. The national soil conservation program and the Bill now before the House which will strengthen previous legislation are tangible evidence of the priority that our Government has given to soil conservation. I have referred to the number of Opposition speakers and I think it should be stressed that their own policies in these areas left a great deal to be desired. Our Government has introduced this program and we have been able to contribute limited budgetary commitments of the order of $4m. But it must be emphasised that the Opposition when in government completely turned its back on the issue of soil conservation around Australia. In particular, the National Party of Australia is on record in a number of forums as saying that the Commonwealth has no role or responsibility in overall land management or soil conservation. Members of that Party have argued that that is the responsibility of the States or the individual land owners. The States have a responsibility but it must be a shared responsibility with the Commonwealth because land conservation is not a matter which stops within State boundaries; it traverses State boundaries and, therefore, it is genuinely a national problem. In relation to the claim that it is an individual or private responsibility, I would say that many farmers know and understand the value of their land and their resource base. But in terms of profitability, many farmers are squeezed and are often forced to overgraze or overstock their properties. They overproduce and in a competitive sense they are often stretched to find adequate or available resources to reduce the pressure on their own pastures and to put funds back into soil reclamation and conservation. Therefore, there needs to be a joint co-ordinated approach, a partnership approach to soil conservation throughout Australia. That is what this Government has attempted and is doing. We have put money, legislation and resources into this national program. It is a joint program and it works in conjunction with the States and individual land owners. It is a successful program. In that respect I wish to mention the local project funded under the national soil conservation scheme which is in my electorate of Bendigo. I have had the pleasure of visiting that project on two occasions and have spent some hours assessing in a detailed way the value of the program. It is a soil salinity treatment and soil conservation project and it is based on the small catchment area philosophy. The project is located on private farms at Burke's Flat between Wedderburn and St Arnaud and it is the product of co-operation between the Commonwealth, the State and individual land owners. Over a two-year period-including work which is scheduled for the autumn months-more than $50,000 has been committed by the Federal Government to fencing, tree planting, pasture establishment, deep drilling and monitoring of bore and rainfall levels. I have visited the project twice and I have spoken to the farmers and the soil conservation officers responsible for it. The farmers involved have put in a great deal of time, effort and money, giving labour, fencing materials and seed. They have also given considerable strategic and planning input to the development of the project. I certainly commend all those local farmers and local officers of the Victorian Soil Conservation Authority on the energy and commitment that they have put into the project. It is already starting to show results in an area of my electorate which is, tragically, the site of enormous dry land salting or salinity. I have mentioned the partnership approach which I think is crucial to any concerted attempt that we make throughout Australia to address this massive problem of soil conservation. It is not only a problem of preserving a future resource. It is a major environmental problem for all Australians. I believe it ought to be the subject of much greater publicity, interest, knowledge and action by the majority of Australians who are concerned about environmental issues but who perhaps on occasion tend to be diverted to those more glamorous areas of environmental concern. This is a major concern in the environmental sense and if not addressed-and we need increasing resources to do so-it will become an almost insoluble problem in the future. In conclusion, the establishment of this program provides a degree of certainty to the forward planning of local soil conservation projects such as the one I have described at Burke's Flat. This Bill formalises the strength of the Government's commitment to soil conservation and it brings a previously absent longer term stability to the funding base of soil conservation work in Australia. I think it is a very timely piece of legislation. It is a very forward looking piece of legislation which is of vital importance to the well-being of this country. I commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that in future Budget appropriations the Commonwealth is able to continue to increase its commitment on an ongoing basis. I note that the Victorian Government recently contributed $32m of funding for salinity control over a four-year program. That is a great initiative by the Cain Government. Again it is putting something into action where previously only words existed. In co-operation with the Victorian Government and farmers throughout Australia, I am sure that this legislation will be effective in redressing this massive problem that confronts us all. Mr MILES(Braddon)(12.02) —I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985, which recognises the importance of the maintenance of Australia's most valuable physical resource, although I have certain reservations about it which will be outlined as I go through my speech. Soil is our most valuable physical resource because it is an integral part of the ecology of any district environment. I believe it is important for people to realise that it is not only the Government or fringe environmental groups which have a good understanding of environmental issues. There are many people within the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia who have a very basic understanding and a very strong feeling for these issues. They have worked the land for generations and they understand from the grassroots level what it really means to conserve the soil. They know at first hand the problems that are involved. We, as a Party, understand that the soil is very important for plants and their growth. The soil provides us with many of the minerals for both our plants and our animals. It is vital for holding water so that the water resources can be used in the photosynthetic process, which in turn is the basis of food for humans and all other forms of animal life. It provides resource materials for both humans and animals. That is its importance in a biological sense. Soil is also important in an economic sense. Approximately 40 per cent of our exports are directly dependent on the existence of a good soil structure, fertility and texture. It is very important to realise that our nation depends so much on this resource. The Bill makes financial provision for projects initiated not only by government bodies but also by individuals and non-government organisations. I trust that this will be well advertised so that not only government departments but also individuals who have a real interest in maintaining our soil will gain from it. This legislation will be of particular interest to the farmers and others in the rural community who for over 150 years have been dependent on the productivity of our soils. Many in this House will be aware of the pressures that heavy stocking, seasonal variations, floods, fires and frequent cultivation place on maintaining the soil structure. Two-thirds of the land area of Australia is used for agricultural and pastoral activities, and consequently this Bill should encourage farmers and pastoralists to appreciate that governments are concerned about the long term maintenance of soil, even if only in a small way. As one must recognise, the funds that are needed to encourage the research, maintenance and revitalisation of the soils around Australia are but a drop in the ocean. Of course, the conservation of soil has always been a primary objective of the people who own land. It had to be because so many were dependent on it for their living. Today people in some circles give the impression that they are the only ones concerned about the environment. I refer to the greenies and the various environmental groups. They also tend to think they are the first. Many pastoral and agricultural practices of farming people have been specifically designed to maintain soils. Although this Bill encourages people to keep up the good work, I hope the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee will not become just another part of the bureaucracy that consumes part of our wealth but that it will contribute significantly to ensuring that agricultural production is maintained and improved in the future. That does concern me because there are various illustrations of where government structures have been set up and so much money has been used in their administration that very little filters through to the real place of need. If this Bill raises the hope and belief that government bodies are more able to manage wisely the soil and environmental resources than are 180,000 rural producers in Australia, let me remind people that it was governments which set up the Ord River scheme, which has been beset with major environmental problems from its inception. The Murray Valley irrigation area, which is now beset with salinity problems-we have heard so much about it in this debate-was also a government project. This teaches us that, even though we may have the best intentions in the world to achieve laudable and highly commendable goals in the area of soil conservation, our knowledge is always limited, particularly when viewed in hindsight. We might have the best will in the world to go ahead with soil conservation, but when we look back in 60 years time we will probably say that we actually went about it in the wrong way. Nevertheless, I believe we have to go ahead and do what we can. According to L. E. Woods in the publication Land Degradation in Australia, there are four main categories of land use that are pertinent to land degradation. They are: Arid grazing, non-arid grazing, extensive cropping and intensive cropping. When we have a look at some of the figures we notice that intensive cropping involves only 16,000 square kilometres. However, I think it is very important that we recognise the significance of that area of land because, in terms of economic importance to this nation, it probably produces equally with the other areas mentioned and therefore deserves the same sort of consideration under the soil conservation measures. At first glance one would think that this Bill was directed towards preventing soil erosion mainly by wind and moving water, and many speakers have alluded to that. These are the main forms of erosion with which most people are familiar and they occur mainly in the non-arid and extensive cropping areas. However, this is not the case. I would like to highlight some of those areas requiring conservation that do not yet appear to have much prominence in literature and in the public's mind. One fears that, like the increasing salinity problem in certain areas of Australia, it will not receive adequate attention until it is too late and we have to spend millions of dollars to get the soil back to its correct texture. I refer honourable members to the structural breakdown occurring in some of our intensive cropping areas. Many of those areas of Australia are subject to regular and frequent cultivation with the consequence that the texture of the soils is gradually broken down to a point where they become non-porous and very difficult to work. This occurs due to the frequent use of particular types of implements, such as rotary hoes and discs, that tend to make the particles smaller and smaller until water will not pass between the particles and thus a clay base develops in the soils. This is a serious breakdown in the soil structure and it deserves, from the Advisory Committee established by this Bill, equal financial consideration with the more visually obvious areas. Intensive cropping takes place in areas where sugar cane, vegetables, fruits, vines and other irrigated crops are grown and affects coastal regions of Queensland and irrigation areas of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and much of Tasmania. The problem of soil structure breakdown is beginning to be recognised by land owners, but I fear that far too little is being done to conserve the soils affected. This is very important because it is not visually obvious to people driving along roads; it is obvious only to the people who are working these intensive crop areas of Australia's farming industries. They understand that something is going on. For financial reasons, they are pushed to work the soil to the limit, and they do not know of avenues such as this for getting assistance. Even though we cannot actually see the problem, it is there and it is very detrimental. In my electorate of Braddon in Tasmania people are now having to plough down to about two feet to make sure that they break up the clay pan which is developing from overuse. As a nation we have to ensure that we do not let this go on to the same extent as we did with the salinity problem. Another invisible factor of soil, which is critical to maintaining Australia's soil, is its chemical composition. Again, it is an invisible problem. We do not see it; it has to be analysed. The chemical composition of soil is complex and, as yet, it is not fully understood. Certainly it is not understand to the extent that we understand all the changes and consequences when any one factor in the soil is modified, let alone if several factors are modified. Certainly, as farming people, we are modifying many of these factors all at once, but we do not know the full implications of doing so. It is hoped that this Bill for financial assistance will remedy the degradation that is occurring. I believe that the Advisory Committee, to be formed under Part IV of this Bill, should always have at least one person, and more if possible, who has had experience at the grass roots level of soil conservation; not just people who are well educated and who are in the bureaucracy, whether it be in the State, in institutional bodies or in the Federal Government, but people who have really worked the land and who understand it. It is only when we have such people on these types of committees that we can use the knowledge that is built up in resource banks around Australia for practical purposes and have it act for us. So often people who form such committees are well qualified on paper but lack the practical skills required to put their knowledge into practice. That is very important. Consequently, priorities are set and decisions taken without fully appreciating the problems and practicalities involved. So often we have policies developed by governments-not just by the present Government but sometimes by the coalition-that do not really get to the basic level of where things must operate. Finally, the coalition is proud of its conservation record. I should like to highlight a few instances. The coalition parties developed the national conservation strategy for Australia. They increased protection for endangered species, including whales. They were involved in the control of sea and air pollution. They initiated reafforestation programs for Australia which, of course, are very important in preventing soil erosion. They were involved in the establishment of major national parks of world significance, such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park-- Mr Uren —What is in the record on South West Tasmania? Mr MILES —If the honourable member for Reid comes to the debate this evening, he will hear me talking about the South West. The coalition supports world conservation strategies. To answer the honourable member, however, South West Tasmania has always been managed very well by the Tasmanian Government and its forestry department. I have just read some of the comments from the real impact study put out by the Forest Action Network, an arm of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. When one reads some of these documents one starts to realise how ludicrous a lot of the statements are about the South West. I am enjoying reading some of that literature. I should like to say that the South West of Tasmania has always been managed very well by Tasmanian people. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(l2.l5) —As many speakers have already said in this debate, soil is Australia's most valuable asset, after its people. Soil conservation is now urgent. I compliment the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) on his common-sense data, although I remind him that many farmers, the people about whom he speaks, are the most fervent conservationists. In fact, some farmers I have known have taken a lead in environmental movements, simply because of their close relations with the soil. The Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill recognises the importance of government action in preventing soil erosion and also provides a statutory basis whereby the Commonwealth can contribute to soil conservation nationally. It will provide financial assistance to the States, the Commonwealth and other institutions, and to individuals for this purpose. The Bill 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. Soil erosion should concern all Australians because experts have warned that soil erosion is so bad that by the end of this century there will be one-third less soil per person than there is now. That will vitally affect the wellbeing of all Australians. Soil is the basis of our very existence. Most of our present wealth comes from being self-sufficient in agriculture and from lucrative rural exports. When we lose top-soil, we lose agricultural production. There are areas of Australia of rich fertile land now under pressure from severe soil degradation, resulting from intensive cropping and grazing, that could be virtually unproductive in as little as 50 years. A study initiated by the Whitlam Government resulted in a recommendation for the establishment of a national soil conservation program by the Federal Government. Despite the acute seriousness of the problem and these recommendations, the Fraser Government withdrew all Commonwealth funding for soil conservation in l980. In an unbelievable turn-around, the previous Government took back the entire $3m set aside for soil conservation three months after it had been allocated in the l980-8l Budget. How can members of a government that provided nothing for the urgent job of saving our life-sustaining soils be taken seriously on any matters to do with our primary producers? Not only did the previous Government cut all Commonwealth funding for essential conservation measures, but it continued to support tax arrangements, such as deductions for tree clearing, which encouraged felling when it was not required. The previous Government also failed to take notice, on some occasions, of environmental impact studies which were available to it. This Government not only has eliminated tax measures that encouraged soil degradation but also has reinstated Commonwealth funding and a national involvement in soil conservation. It is listening to the voices of those who write the environmental impact studies. A national commitment first made by the Whitlam Labor Government, only to be abandoned by the succeeding Liberal-National Party Government, was to fund a national involvement in soil conservation. As we come into the Budget period once again I challenge the perpetrators of Budget cost cutting to look at the enormous financial dividend returned to the economy by sound investment in soil conservation. Sir William McKell, as Labor Premier of New South Wales, recognised this in the 1940s and his programs in rural New South Wales prevented what would have been further tragic degradation of our lands. Under Labor, that State had one of the first soil conservation programs in the world. This rural support also had the side effect of keeping Labor in government in New South Wales for many years. Two-thirds of the total land area of Australia is used for agriculture. No other land use even approaches this dominance in area used. The actual area of land disturbed by mining, for instance, is only around 320 square kilometres. A study undertaken by the then Department of Home Affairs and Environment in 1983 indicated that as much as 52 per cent of rural land in Australia needs treatment for land degradation. Twenty-two per cent can be treated by better management practices and the remaining 29 per cent needs treatment by works as well as management. The area already treated, only 2 per cent, is minute in comparison with the area still requiring treatment. That treated area includes my property-I should quickly add that it did so well before I came into Parliament-as a result of work done in New South Wales on the Googong catchment area for the city of Canberra. I applaud the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for recognising the urgent need for Commonwealth assistance in preventing further land degradation. Government soil conservation assistance and public awareness of the dangers of soil loss were made particularly important in Australia by the economic recession, which was felt most by the farming sector. Economic pressures on agricultural producers have in turn ultimately led to pressure on the land itself. Farmers have not been able to afford sufficient outlay on soil conservation measures and are often forced to stock to maximum capacity for a reasonable return. In the electorate of Eden-Monaro there is widespread soil erosion, as in other parts of Australia. Particularly bad is the Monaro, where treeless paddocks show signs of severe soil degradation and recovery from each drought seems slower and slower. I include areas which have never grown trees, such as the Monaro frost plains. Eden-Monaro is fortunate, however, in having a very capable Soil Conservation Service. People working under the technical jobs for women program-Mary Bell is one from my electorate-along with other workers, such as Graeme Clifton, Greg Harris and Steven Eccles, form a hard-working team with their field officers in the Queanbeyan region, and in Cooma there is John Rogers, the district soil conservationist, and Corinne Unger. In Bombala, David Thomas and Matthew Corbett provide essential services that are designed to prevent the loss of our life-sustaining soils. These services depend on continued Commonwealth support for their overall effectiveness. This Government has always recognised that devastating pressures are placed on the land by economic hardship. It has shown this through the reintroduction of a soil conservation program. There has been some alleviation of this pressure, first by the overcoming of the drought and then by the deregulation of the dollar, which has worked for better export markets. It is important to understand the historical background to soil degradation. Without that understanding any attempt at forming a perspective on current land use pressures will not take into account some of the important causes of these pressures. Before European settlement, land in Australia was grazed only by soft-footed marsupials and 'managed' by the Aboriginals through the use of fire and customs which dictated to some extent how and when animals and birds should be harvested and vegetation burned. An equilibrium existed between the land and its use. The use was sustainable. European settlement brought with it new and radically different forms of rural land use. Grazing pressures were greatly increased by the build-up of large numbers of sheep and cattle, and by the introduction of the rabbit. The use of fire changed, being used for short term gain to get rid of inedible dead vegetation and produce a green pick. Large scale clearing began. This capitalised on plant nutrients built up under previous ecosystems and was done without much regard to land degradation potential or long term effects. However, if our pastures are well managed they will maintain their productivity, cover and composition. Those which are over-grazed or badly grazed will degenerate, with reductions in vegetative cover and the proportion of desirable species. A reduction in vegetative cover is the prime cause of land degradation in grazing areas. The soil, with its protective mantle reduced or lacking, becomes stripped of its surface layers through sheet erosion by water and wind. Runoff increases and drainage lines erode into gullies as a result of the increased flow. Gully erosion is accentuated where extensive tree clearing has occurred to make way for grazing. Such clearing may also result in increased sub-surface flow of water, leading to problems of tunnelling, salinity and even land slips. The answer to some of our soil conservation problems caused by farm management practices is to discourage over-grazing practices by placing reasonable limits on stocking, to prevent unwise land clearing, to engage in a national awareness program, and to provide government assistance with stabilisation and preventative measures. Land has traditionally been regarded by European society as an indestructible object for ownership and use. Landowners used to be free to use and manage their land as they wished. These attitudes are now changing in several very important ways, not only within governments but also amongst land-holders themselves. 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. The traditional Aboriginal philosophy that 'the land doesn't belong to me, I belong to the land' is one we might ponder. The land's limitation and fragility are becoming more appreciated. Australia does have very poor soil resources and I cannot stress too strongly the urgency of the need for soil conservation. We see television programs about people starving in drought-stricken Third World Africa and some parts of the Middle East. We provide short term, stop-gap assistance in the form of food aid, which is essential for the maintenance of life, but do we understand the fundamental cause of these famines? The starving refugees we see on television are a new type of refugee. They are not fleeing from wars or political oppression, although these often do cause famine, but from the barren earth itself. Their land, stripped by poor cultivation techniques and over-grazing, and subsequent poor rainfall, can no longer support them. In Australia this Labor Government has reacted to the need to provide assistance to prevent soil degradation and our march towards ever-increasing unproductive areas of land and more devastating and frequent droughts. I therefore commend the Minister for Primary Industry for his foresight in introducing this Bill. The Government has provided $5m for soil conservation since coming to office. It has future generations in mind with the introduction of the Bill, and a desire to see that our land continues to provide us with sufficient food, and a healthy export income-not to mention rural-related employment for many thousands of Australians and a way of life that is free from turmoil. The Government is in partnership with the State governments, with local authorities and with the people who live on the land. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(l2.30) —I am sure that all sections of the Parliament welcome the Government's efforts to address the problems that are affecting the farmlands of Australia. There is little doubt in anyone's mind that agriculture in particular is still one of the major producers of finance and overseas funds for the Australian economy. It is interesting to note that in my period as a government back bencher I made a speech in the grievance debate on this very subject on l9 August l982. On reading that speech again I find that all the things I said then are particularly relevant today. In that speech I reminded the House that in my electorate of O'Connor, which is basically the wheat belt of Western Australia, the percentage of salt-affected and wind-eroded land in particular is high and it is presenting great problems to agriculture in that State. I mentioned then: The Western Australian Department of Agriculture has recently completed a salt land survey based on returns submitted in l979 by farm owners. The survey showed salt encroachment increased by 35 per cent per annum. A total of 263,753 hectares of previously arable land is now salt affected, which is l.75 per cent of the cleared farmland in Western Australia. A more recent assessment, to which I will refer in a moment, talks of 2 per cent of cleared farmland. It is interesting to note also that I stated: A further 378,000 hectares of land is classified naturally as saline. That is a huge area of land. We are well aware of what that land can produce. There must be an absolute commitment on the part of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Government in this regard. Let me read from the Minister's second reading speech. He said: This Bill will allow for the provision of financial assistance for soil conservation projects undertaken by the Commonwealth, by the States- this is the point that pleases me most- by individuals and non-government organisations. It also provides for a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee- The whole push of the speech I made in August l982 was to identify that the people in Western Australia who had done the most to address the problem of salinity in the farmlands in my electorate were the individuals and the non-government organisations. In fact I was at pains-I was later criticised by the Director of Agriculture in Western Australia for my pains-to give a layman's opinion that, of those who were active in the field, the Western Australian Department of Agriculture came last in terms of effectiveness. I have a cousin who is deeply involved in that Department so I was not even being protective of the family when I said that. That was a decision I had come to which was in contrast with another speech I had made in this place where I had been very congratulatory of the Western Australian Department of Agriculture on its efforts to combat another scourge that we now know as rye grass toxicity. I was trying to take that Department's efforts on an individual basis. Governments, by nature, tend to want to give money to other governments. I am arguing very strongly today that the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee should be looking very closely in Western Australia at least at the efforts of the private sector-the farmers and the non-government organisations. In this regard, the Whittington Interceptor Salt Affected Land Treatment Society, known as the WISALTS group, has addressed this problem and has been effective in resolving the problem of salinity in particular. It is interesting also to note that I received correspondence just the other day from Kojonup, where a group of private citizens sought a community employment program grant to try to effect some reafforestation, which is one of the necessary aspects of any soil conservation. But they were told that, because that was on private land, it did not fit the guidelines. To be quite honest, if we are going into the field of spending government money to create jobs-private land or not-I can see no better way of spending some of that CEP money than to take people out on to the land, show them the problem and get them to help rectify it by tree planting. I think it is quite silly for government members to make the statement that somebody else might gain. The biggest gain to the community would be in two areas: Increasing the amount of land that could go back into productivity and, of course, teaching young people some form of employment. I think it is time that we looked a little further at how we spend CEP money. Its primary purpose is to create jobs. I think they should be created in the most productive and effective way. Land conservation is certainly such a program. The WISALTS group in Western Australia, which was related originally to the efforts of Mr Harry Whittington, who resides in my electorate, recognised that it was not correct, as the Agriculture Department claimed, that the problem generally was the result of rising watertables. It was a problem of waterlogging caused by the removal of trees and the lack of growth that would otherwise have either used the water or held it on the slopes. The Western Australian Department of Agriculture has argued that the water finds its way down into the subsoils and this raises the level of the watertable. The WISALTS people say that that is not so, that the water flows generally along the surface, or just below the surface, and eventually it gets to the lowest point and waterlogs and compacts the ground. Salinity is the result of the evaporation of that water. Both sides still agree to disagree on that. My observations are that, generally in the drier areas, WISALTS is right. Its approach is different from the Department's approach of trying to plant some salt tolerant and very low value feed, trees or something that will grow in those conditions but provide very little productivity. The Department has stated that the land continues not to support crops. I have seen crops growing on land that just two years ago was salt affected. Since I have been a member of parliament I have seen an area of land that was completely non-productive become productive. I will refer to the treatment of that area later. The WISALTS group literally has put up contour banks. It has appointed and trained its own surveyors. It put up contour banks to hold the water on the slopes, to stop it from running to the lowest point. This has been quite successful but it is not the total answer. This group has achieved major successes and it has put a lot of land back into production. Mr Whittington, who experimented with this matter 30 years ago, had reached a stage where the land on which his home was built was about to be engulfed by salt. That property is now highly productive. That is just a single effort. Today the WISALTS group has almost l,000 members. Those members are ideological and they almost treat their business as a religion. When we see what they have achieved we cannot blame them for that. They are very committed people. I think they need support. I am putting a case for them in this debate today. As this is a non-government organisation in which individuals are involved, I am hoping that substantial amounts of money that would otherwise be directed to the Western Australian department will find their way to these people. They have been successful and, in my mind, their theories work. The other group that is very active in Western Australia operates around the Watheroo area north of Perth where there is a substantially higher watertable. That group is proposing to drain the land to get rid of the water. It is doing this by excavating natural creeks. In recent times it has reached a point where a private enterprise operator has put in quite substantial machinery to do that. He has become an expert. I recently had the pleasure of assisting him in the importation of a laser-operated Canadian plough which will lay the proper plastic agricultural drainage pipes dead level underground. At one stage this plough was going to attract $l0,000-worth of duty, which I thought was a little improper considering the purpose for which it is to be used. I am pleased to say that the Australian Customs Service was able to agree with my submissions. That plough was eventually imported at the 2 per cent flat duty rate which saved this contractor a substantial amount of money. He is now laying a plastic pipe for that underground drainage. That is much more in line with what the Department of Agriculture sees as the answer to the problem, but I am pointing out that this is in much wetter country. The WISALTS proposal seems to work extremely well in the drier areas. Incidentally, holding the water up on the banks also creates large quantities of stock water, which is also required. It is an extremely interesting proposal to recover land. A submission from WISALTS which was sent to the Minister on 11 February talks about a lot of the problems that it believes are of concern to the farmers in West Australia. It says that waterlogging is a problem that has been created by clearing. I think it has also been created, to a great degree, by other government entities-the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee should be looking at this-by the people who make our roads and our railway lines. In my electorate one does not have to drive very far along a road before one comes across a section that has been raised slightly, with a substantial area of salt degradation on one side. It is there because the road has stopped the water following its natural course. We have done this throughout Australia, particularly with railway lines, where we are trying to keep the line as level as possible. It is natural for an engineer to protect his railway line or his road. If he thinks a bit of water is flowing through there, he will build up the road. Australia being a fairly flat country, and Western Australia in particular, we have a situation where there are shallow depressions along which water flowed naturally in the days of the forest, the kangaroo and the Aboriginal, to which the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) referred. Water found its way to the creeks and the sea through very shallow depressions. We have blocked off a lot of them. Only a substantial aerial photography program will identify those problems for us. The road and rail authorities have to get back to letting the water flow along. We are well aware of some of the problems that have been created in our cities and our metropolitan areas by people saying, 'Oh, the water flows there. I can soon fix that. I will build a house on a substantial foundation'. They block it off and suddenly half the countryside is flooded. This is a common practice and it should cease. The WISALTS submission then talks about soil degradation and the declining levels of soil health, as well as the declination of balanced pastures, with poor quality grasses becoming dominant-just another problem in all this-and reduced pasture production. I must identify this situation. When we talk about soil conservation, surely we are talking about returning it to productivity, not putting it aside and trying to grow some useless product on it. In the Watheroo area when I was first introduced to their method of attacking the problem, I was taken into an area of probably 200 acres which the farmer had just set about draining properly. I was back there when the plough I just mentioned was given its first test run. We walked on to that land and all but about five acres was growing barley about one metre high. That is excellent. I cannot quote many examples of such speedy recovery of land. Yet the farmer told me that the land was like that when he took over the farm from his father and for as long as he could remember as a child. There are methods available to alleviate this problem. I am sure that the Committee the Minister proposes will go a long way towards that, provided it goes past the government sector and talks to the various groups which have had success in Western Australia. No doubt there are groups in other States as well. The submission from WISALTS indicates concern about reduced grain yields and says that Western Australia's production is being maintained by increased plantings and not by increased productivity, which is happening throughout the world. It refers to the leaching of nutrients that goes with this problem. We know that dying trees result in wind erosion. WISALTS tenth and last concern is lack of co-operation between farmers, scientists and others working in the field in researching solutions to the problems in the field. This submission has been made by this dedicated group who have given of their time to solve a problem in both their own and the community's interest. These people have made some suggestions for action by the Federal Government to encourage land users in conservation practices which I would like to put forward from their submission. They are: Continuation of an increase in allocation of Budget moneys for soil conservation-something this Bill is doing- consideration-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with Sessional Order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Tangney. Mr SHACK —Mr Speaker, I do not think the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is here. Is he on strike? Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member should proceed with his question or I will call someone else. Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has a responsibility to be here for Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is not the responsibility of the Chair to enforce that. Mr SHACK —I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Now that the blockade of Queensland has started, does the Federal Government still stand squarely with the unions against the people of Australia who reside in Queensland? Mr HAWKE —It is a great pity that those on the other side of the House cannot exhibit to the Australian people that they have a real interest in this issue rather than their continuous political posturing with no concern for the real issue. I said yesterday and I repeat it in this House that I and this Government do not believe that all right is on the side of the unions in this dispute. In this, as in just about every industrial dispute that exists in this country, there is normally an allocation of right and wrong on both sides of the dispute. This dispute is no different in that respect. In that case, if one is serious about wanting to settle the dispute and not trying to score political points, one adopts the course of procedure which is most likely and most calculated to achieve that result. The course of action which is most likely to bring about a resolution of this dispute in favour of the people of Queensland and of the people of Australia is for the two governments with a concern, that is, the Queensland Government and the Federal Government, to sit down with those on the union side who are capable of bringing influence to bear. In those circumstances, if the two governments were to sit down-- Mr Sinclair —Well, why don't you talk to the unions? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —If that were to occur, if the Government of Queensland were to sit down with us, no interests of the people of Queensland and no part of the public interest in Queensland would be disadvantaged. No part of the public interest would be disadvantaged if the two governments were to sit down together. If we are looking at the public interest, there is only one way in which that public interest can be served and that is to try to get to a position in which there can be negotiation. All the evidence of history, including that period of history when these miserable people on the other side of the House had responsibility for the regulation of industrial relations in this country, shows that ultimately the two sides to a dispute have to sit down and talk. No dispute is ever resolved until the two sides sit down and talk. The previous Government's record was abysmal. Mr Sinclair —Well, why don't you talk to the unions? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party has been given a good deal of tolerance because of his position. I suggest that he set an example. Mr HAWKE —As I have said, the record of history shows that ultimately the two sides have to talk. It is much more sensible and much more in the interests of the people of Australia and the people of Queensland that that process of negotiation and talking starts sooner rather than later. All the powers and the resources of this Government are available, without allocation of blame in this matter, to do just that. If that course is followed, we can soon resolve this dispute. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I direct my question to the Minister for Transport. I refer the Minister to the answer he gave to the House yesterday concerning the allocation of record levels of funding to be made available for road construction and maintenance next year. Can the Minister inform the House of the allocation to be made to local governments for roads which are under their control and for which the continuity of guaranteed funding is so important? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question. It is a very important issue, the level of funding from Federal governments-- Mr Sinclair —Why don't you make a statement about it? Mr SPEAKER —I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr PETER MORRIS —The level of funding to local government to work on local or council roads is a very important issue. The honourable member's question is similar to matters raised yesterday by the honourable member for Herbert. Councils across Australia are under increasing pressure to meet their responsibilities for improved road systems. Some of the councils in some of the States have revenue limits set for them so their ability to raise revenue to increase expenditure is fixed. That causes problems for them. In some States there is an overflow of traffic from arterial roads because of inadequate levels of expenditure by the States concerned; that contributes to the burden. In addition to that, there has been residential development which may not have been planned for in the road systems. If the Ministers for roads in Queensland, New South Wales and particularly Victoria had their way, the level of Federal expenditure for local government would be reduced next year. What they are asking this Government to do is to give less money to local government and to spend less money on the national highway system. To the honourable member for Herbert, the honourable member for Capricornia and the honourable member for Leichhardt, in Queensland the national highways are the Bruce Highway to the north and the Landsborough Highway to the west; in New South Wales it is the New England Highway and the Sydney-Newcastle expressway; it is the Hume Highway in Victoria and New South Wales; for South Australia and the Northern Territory it is the Stuart Highway. What those State Ministers want is for us to reduce the level of expenditure there, give less money to local government and give that additional money to the State Ministers for roads so that they can dispense their largesse at our expense and at the expense of local government and of the national highway system. Frankly, that is not on. We will maintain the real level of expenditure on the national highway system to the end of the land transport program. From next year we will maintain the real level of expenditure to local government under the new land transport program. That will make a major difference for local government. I deplore the utterances by the State Ministers for roads and the approach that they are taking. Local government has its responsibilities. We will make sure that it is assisted in carrying out those responsibilities. I just remind the States that building and maintaining the roads system is a joint responsibility. It is a partnership of Federal government, State government and local government. This Government has lifted its share of expenditure to about 40 per cent. We have lifted our game and it is up to the States to do the same. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to the Australian Council of Trade Unions reported hit list of 5l companies employing tens of thousands of people who are to be subjected to alleged guerrilla attacks by trade unions. I ask the Minister: Will he act against this campaign of industrial lawlessness or will the Government once again abdicate its responsibilities to Australians? Mr WILLIS —In dealing with responsibilities in this place, I state that responsibilities rest not only on the Government but also on the Opposition. If the Opposition were really concerned about this matter and not concerned just to make political capital out of it, it would use its special relationship with the Queensland Government to try to bring about a change of approach on the part of that Government and try to bring about a situation in which this dispute could be settled. The Leader of the Opposition knows that he could take action to get the Premier of Queensland to try to change his approach in a way which would simply be for him to agree to discuss this whole matter with the ACTU. That would mean that there would be no hit lists and no blockade and that all this industrial action would be off. He is in a better position than the Government to influence the Bjelke-Petersen Government and he is refusing to do so. So the Opposition should not say that we are not carrying out our responsibilities. We are most certainly-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I have warned a number of honourable members to cease interjecting. If the interjections persist, I intend to name the next offender without further warning. Mr WILLIS —The Government has been thoroughly responsible in its approach to this matter. It has devised a means of ensuring that there is no blockade and no industrial action. Any reasonable government would have accepted that as being a way of avoiding such action because there would be no loss of face for that government at all. It simply means that the government would have to discuss with the trade union movement the way in which the dispute would be settled and listen to approaches which could be put to it. If the Opposition in this place were constructive and responsible it would be encouraging the Queensland Government to take that approach. What it is doing, however, is simply seeking to make as much political capital as it can from this whole matter. This Government adheres to its approach. It is a thoroughly responsible approach. We will not be going down the path of adopting draconian measures in order to try to settle this dispute because that would not succeed. The Opposition knows it would not succeed. What it would do would be certainly to move us into a situation of a massive national confrontation. That is something which the Opposition probably thinks would be a good thing to happen. However, certainly this Government is not in the business of bringing that about. Our actions are responsible. We are taking all the action which can be expected of a Federal Government to prevent this blockade and industrial action. We have proposed a constructive approach. We call on the Opposition to change its policy and to try to influence the Queensland Government to see reason. If it had any responsibility that is what it would do. Ms MAYER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Does the current state of dwelling approval and lending figures show that the prediction of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry of l47,000 dwelling commencements for l984-85 will be met? Mr WEST —Yes, the Government does expect that the figure of 147,000 dwelling commencements predicted by the Indicative Planning Council for this year will be met. That figure compares very favourably with the abysmal figure of 105,000 dwelling commencements achieved by the Opposition in the last year that it was in government. If one compares the figures for private housing approvals for the 12 months to February 1985 with the figures to February 1984, one finds that they rose by 14.8 per cent. Approvals for private flats and units rose by a massive 40.8 per cent. From January 1984 to January 1985 the number of housing loans for all significant lenders rose by 17.5 per cent. Figures for savings banks rose by 22 per cent and those for permanent building societies rose by 26 per cent. In the three-months period leading up to January 1985, compared with the same period to January 1984, figures for savings banks were up by 16.4 per cent at the expense of the building societies, whose figures were down by 15 per cent. This shows that, as the savings banks experience an easing of the recent exceptional increase in the rate of deposit growth to a more conventional long term figure, the permanent building societies should be exceptionally well placed to pick up their lending rates. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. On an issue such as this the custom of this place has been that statements be made to the House. The Minister is obviously reading from prepared notes. I suggest that this is an issue we would like to debate. Would it not be more appropriate if the Minister made a statement in this place instead of answering a Dorothy Dix question? Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order; it is a matter of opinion. Mr WEST —I was saying that approval rates by local government authorities and lending rates indicate that we will reach the level of l47,000 dwelling commencements which the IPC predicted for l984-85. This is in direct contrast to the boom-bust figures achieved by the previous Government. Back in l980-8l the previous Government achieved the respectable figure of l49,000 dwelling commencements, only to see it crash to l05,000 in l8 months-a boom figure and a bust figure. Our policies have increased commencements from 105,000 to l37,000 dwelling commencements in l983-84. We expect to reach l47,000 this year and l39,000 or l40,000 in l985-86, which shows that we not only are achieving growth in the industry but also are achieving stability. That is what the industry wants. Mr Hodgman —Mr Speaker, I ask the Minister to table the document or cue cards from which he has just been reading. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr West —I was referring to my own notes, Mr Speaker. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I refer you to standing order 32l wherein the words used are, 'documents of a confidential nature', not a 'document on public affairs'. Mr SPEAKER —I refer the honourable member to House of Representatives Practice and also to the ruling given by my predecessor, Sir Billy Snedden, on this matter when the matter was one of two questions. One question was whether the document was a document on public affairs. If it was, the question was whether it was confidential. If it was confidential, the papers were not tabled. I should also add that there was a clear statement in that ruling that it did not apply to a member's personal notes. Mr SHACK —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: In light of the Minister's refusal, the Prime Minister's refusal and the Government's refusal to protect the people of Queensland from the effects of the action of militant trade unions, what does the Minister intend to say to the tens of thousands of employees and the thousands of shareholders of the companies that are being targeted by unions for this especially vindictive persecution? The entire House knows, the entire country knows-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is entitled to ask a question, not to make a speech. Has he come to the point of his question or does he intend to continue in the same vein? Mr SHACK —Everyone knows that the Government has the power under the Trade Practices Act. Why does it not use that power? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Tangney will resume his seat. Mr WILLIS —The honourable member for Tangney works on the presumption that taking action involving the use of draconian legislation by this Government would resolve this dispute. That is a patently false assumption. On the contrary, it is the view of this Government that the use of that kind of approach would lead to a much greater industrial conflagration than we are heading towards as a result of the actions of the Queensland Government. I repeat: If we are to resolve this matter, the solution quite simply is in the hands of the Queensland Government. Rather than putting it on this Government to take action which would only worsen the situation, Opposition members would be much better off approaching the Queensland Government to act reasonably in this matter. The double standards of the Opposition are also something which need to be highlighted in this place. We see great concern about the effect on people of industrial action by trade unions. But, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, there was no such concern when doctors took action in New South Wales to affect the rights of Australian citizens living in New South Wales, to use the terminology of the honourable member for Tangney. Indeed, honourable members opposite encouraged them and said they fully supported them in their actions. So the Opposition has totally double standards in this matter. It has no credit whatever from this whole episode. Mr GRACE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the Government's strategy for ensuring that the potential benefits of depreciation are not eroded by inflation? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. As I emphasised recently, the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar provides an opportunity for us to correct current account balance problems and to promote further sustained growth in domestic production and employment. It is quite clear that the challenge to us as a society is to prevent the initial rise in consumer prices leading to some inflationary spiral which would erode the potential benefits of depreciation. It is quite clear that all parties in this community need to share in some degree the initial processes of adjustment. Fortunately for Australia this Government, in responding to this challenge, is able to work within the processes of the prices and incomes accord, an accord which, I remind members of this House, has produced the following results: It has resulted in a halving of the inflation rate we inherited from the incompetent economic managers sitting opposite. It has led to substantial increases in employment as against the record unemployment under their policies. As I pointed out earlier, in 23 months we achieved within the framework of the prices and incomes accord an increase of 34l,000 in the employment figures. It took 23 months for us to do it, but it took honourable members opposite 88 months to do it. Also, under the operation of the prices and incomes accord we have had the production of a situation in which we have had the lowest level of industrial disputation in this country for l7 years and the restoration of profitability to the levels of the late l960s and early l970s. We have the opportunity, and we will exercise the opportunity, of working, in regard to the questions posed by the devaluation of the Australia dollar, within the accord that has produced that result. I ask the House to recall what happened in l976. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order l45, which deals with relevance. The Prime Minister is now making a speech in answer to a Dorothy Dix question. I ask that he make his answer more relevant to his stature-short. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —The community will contrast the capacity of this Government to deal with this problem within the framework of the accord with what happened after the l976 devaluation, when the Fraser Government, after a significant devaluation, slammed on the fiscal and monetary brakes. It did that because it had no other framework within which to operate. Subsequently the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, with some benefit of hindsight, said: 'The problem with us was that we had no incomes policy'. Of course, he was right. I would have thought that, having diagnosed the problem, the Opposition would have had the good sense to say now: 'We need an incomes policy'. It does not have one. The Opposition would return this country to the disastrous situation that operated in l98l-82. I remind the House of the disastrous situation regarding the metal trades round under the previous Government's lack of policy. Awards grew by l6.9 per cent. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 85, which deals with tedious repetition. The Prime Minister has given this speech l0 times in the last three weeks. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HAWKE —I can well understand that it is tedious for the honourable member. One thing that the Australian people would not want would be the tedious repetition of what happened in l98l-82, because what happened then under the approach of honourable members opposite-- Opposition members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! A general warning has been given. Some honourable members have not been observing it. They have one last chance. Mr HAWKE —In the absence of policy, awards grew by l6.9 per cent in the year to March l982. During l982 inflation was more than l0 per cent. Employment figures fell by l86,000 in the last year of the Fraser Government, and there were historically high levels of industrial disputation. The simple fact is-it is about time the Opposition understood it; the Australian people understand it-that there is only one framework within which one can have any policy designed to deal with the problems of devaluation and that is within a centralised wage system. It is within that system that policy can be applied. How can one possibly talk about applying an economic policy if one has abandoned a whole incomes policy situation and said that wages and salaries in this country will be determined not within a centralised system but by allowing negotiation and the exercising of bargaining strength to take place in industry after industry and in enterprise after enterprise? How can any policy approach be applied in that framework? The Australian people have witnessed and have suffered from the bankruptcy of economic policy of those who sit opposite. They have benefited from the operation of the prices and incomes accord. They have been protected. Their interests have been advanced. That will continue to occur under the policies of this Government in this year and beyond. Mr HOWARD —Does the Prime Minister regard the continuation of at least the current profit share as being critical to the maintenance of present employment levels? If so, will he assure the House that the Government will strenuously oppose any wage increases on productivity grounds which will have as a consequence any erosion of the current profit share? Mr Keating —Tell us what you did to profit shares? Mr HAWKE —It is a line ball between my good friend and colleague the Treasurer and me as to who derives the most amusement when the honourable member for Bennelong gets up and asks questions about the management of the economy. The honourable gentleman presided over the most calamitous decline in the Australian economy, including the most calamitous decline in profit levels, in this country since the Great Depression. As Treasurer, he was the man who had control and prime responsibility for economic policy, including looking after the question of the levels of profitability. What happened in that case? He had all the control but we had the worst recession for 50 years, profit levels went down and people were being sacked. This was being done all the time on the basis of his espoused policy of controlling inflation first. Did he have any success in controlling inflation first? It went through the roof. He failed in terms of controlling inflation. As he mismanipulated economic, fiscal and monetary policy, with no incomes policy at all, he not only failed to achieve his primary objective but also brought about the worst level of unemployment that this country had experienced for 50 years. After two years of economic management under the responsibility of the world's best Treasurer-- Honourable members interjecting-- Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition said something about a stewards inquiry. He knows where a stewards inquiry is needed. I refer to Queensland. I would not talk about that if I were him. Let us just test the relative performance of the honourable member for Bennelong when he had the responsibility for economic policy against what has happened under this Government and with this Treasurer. The Opposition had inflation running at ll.2 per cent, double the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. What has the Government done? It has halved inflation and got it down to the OECD average. What did the Opposition do about unemployment? It had it at levels above l0 per cent; the Government has got it down. What happened in regard to the creation of jobs? The Opposition took 88 months to create 340,000 jobs. The Treasurer did it with this Government's policies in 23 months. What has happened under this Government in regard to the levels of profitability? The economic policies of this Government have halved inflation and brought about the highest rate of employment growth ever recorded while halving inflation. At the same time, under this Government there was a restoration of the levels of company profitability for the first time, including the seven years of Liberal Government, back to the levels at the end of the 1960s. These things have not happened by accident. They have happened because this Government has a coherent view of economic policy making within which the instruments of wages policy, monetary policy and a fiscal policy are integrated. Because we so integrate those instruments we have been able to produce those results which make the Opposition's performance look so abysmal. We are not going to abandon that approach of coherent economic policy making. We will continue to apply that policy in a way which will continue to produce the results. Let me finally make this point: We are continually conscious of the fact that the health of the Australian economy depends very much upon the health of the private sector. I have consistently said that we recognise the fact that three-quarters of the Australian jobs are provided by the private sector. Therefore, it is fundamentally important that the private sector be healthy and profitable. As distinct from the Opposition's rhetoric, when it talked about profits but only plunged this country into bankruptcy and put more and more businesses out of work, we do not go on with the rhetoric; we produce the goods and will continue to do so. Mr MARTIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism who is at present representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to an article published in the Australian Financial Review on l5 April l985 concerning the apparent rejection by the Steel Industry Authority of any recommendation to cut protection for the Australian steel industry. Can the Minister advise, first, what is the current position in respect of the market share enjoyed by cold rolled strip and sheet products? Secondly, what effect has the removal of the developing country preferences had on this sector of the market? Thirdly, what further action is proposed to fulfil the Government's commitment to the steel industry plan in respect of these products? Mr JOHN BROWN —I commend the honourable member for his question-a legitimate question without notice, I might add. As the purpose of Question Time is to provide information, and as the honourable member is obviously vitally interested in a proper answer to this question-and quite deservedly so, as he represents a large steel region-rather than give my view of the answer, I will take the question on notice. I will refer it to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce for a full and comprehensive answer. Dr WATSON —I refer the Prime Minister to the story in today's Australian Financial Review in which the world's best Treasurer is reported to be denying his Cabinet colleagues access to the economic figures compiled by the joint economic forecasting group. I ask the Prime Minister whether these figures are important to a proper consideration of the Budget and whether, in the interests of good government and business confidence, he will intercede to ensure that this information is provided to Cabinet Ministers who are involved in areas of macro-economic policy, in particular to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was a Treasurer. Does he share the view of his current Treasurer that even his most senior Cabinet colleagues should not have access to such vital information? Mr HAWKE —I am not altogether surprised that there is a question on this subject. I want to say quite straightforwardly that I have had correspondence from the two Ministers concerned and I am considering the matter. Indeed, Cabinet will consider it and a decision will be made. Let me say, however, that I assume that what is in the mind of the honourable member because he would not be trying to score some nasty little partisan point-- Mr Hunt —Nor would you. Mr HAWKE —No. He would be concerned to try to get an understanding of what is done about making available publicly information in the economic field, so that the people of Australia will have an opportunity to understand properly what is happening. As I know that that is the thrust of the honourable member's question, not some miserable concern with petty point scoring, there are a couple of points I would like to make. As a result of this Government being in office, the Budget documents now contain a richer set of information than has ever been available before to the people of Australia-more information than ever before. Not only do we have that situation, but also the Treasurer and I regularly make available in public speeches a range of information which is relevant to the operation of the Australian economy. We have institutionalised, in the form of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, a framework whereby there will be the dissemination of information beyond just a few privileged individuals in the bureaucracy. Information will be made available to the major elements in the economic decision making process in the community. I conclude on this point: If members of the Opposition, vicariously through the honourable member for Forde, want to advocate the release of detailed and conditional economic forecasts by officials, there is one very simple question which they need to put to themselves: Why did they not do it themselves when they were in government for seven years? Mr KEOGH —I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of recent reports that Queensland's economic performance is lagging far behind that of other States. If so, does he see any relationship between this fact and the fanatical attitude towards industrial relations adopted recently by the Queensland Premier? Furthermore, could this in turn, in his opinion, have any carry-over effects on our national economic situation? Mr Coleman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question asked for the Prime Minister's opinion. That is not permitted under the Standing Orders. Mr SPEAKER —I did not see the question as asking for an opinion. Mr Coleman —He used that expression. Mr KEOGH —Those words in fact were included in my question. I will rephrase that last part of the question to satisfy the honourable member for Wentworth. Furthermore, could this in turn-I will drop those little words that upset the honourable member for Wentworth-have any carry-over effect on our national economic situation? Mr HAWKE —I can understand why honourable members opposite will adopt any subterfuge or attempt to avoid the facts coming out. When the facts do come out in the answer that I will give, members of not only this House, but also the Australian public, will have very considerable cause to start to ask some serious questions about what is happening in Queensland. I said to this House a couple of weeks ago, as we saw the beginning of the creation of this state of siege as a result of the actions of the Queensland Premier, that what we were seeing was an attempt to divert attention from the fact, which is becoming increasingly obvious, that the Queensland Premier and his Government are the worst economic managers in Australia. So that honourable members opposite and the people of Australia can have the chance to test that assertion, I ask the House to take note of these economic indicators, against which they can make a judgment about what is happening in Queensland and why the Queensland Premier is attempting to divert attention. Let the House take note of these statistics. Let us look at employment, and I guess we would all agree that that is a pretty fundamental indicator. Comparing the l2-month period to March l985 with the same period to March l984, we find that the Australian picture shows an increase in employment of 2 per cent; in Queensland the increase is 0.3 per cent. Now let us look at the other side of the coin. What has happened in unemployment? In the same period the Australian picture shows a decline in unemployment of 4.l per cent, while in Queensland there has been an increase of 7.3 per cent. Let us have a look at another significant indicator-the registrations of new motor vehicles over the three months to February l985 compared with the three months to February l984. In Australia there has been an ll.9 per cent increase while in Queensland there has been a 0.5 per cent decline. Now let us look at the number of new dwellings approved. The Australian picture shows an increase of 9.5 per cent while in Queensland the increase is only l.7 per cent. As to the value of other building approvals, in the three months to January l985 compared with the same period in the previous year, the Australian picture shows 67.4 per cent, the Queensland picture, 36.8 per cent. For new dwelling commencements for the September quarter of l984 compared with the September quarter of l983, the Australian figure is 27.l per cent and the Queensland figure is l3.9 per cent. The one statistic-I will not leave it out-which gives Queensland a slightly better picture is the value of retail sales. Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submit to you that this is an abuse of Question Time. The Prime Minister is giving lengthy and extended answers to prevent members asking further questions. Secondly, he is not game to make a statement which can be debated. I submit that it is an abuse, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member is well aware of the Standing Orders relating to answers. Mr HAWKE —I admit I was under a misapprehension. I thought that the honourable member for Denison was getting up to claim that there was no way in the world that Queensland could take the title away from Tasmania; but it is possible. I want to be completely fair because there is just one statistic for this period in which Queensland has done a little better, and that is in the value of retail sales. Queensland did slightly better than the Australian average, with 9.9 per cent compared with 7.3 per cent for Australia as a whole. Let us look quickly at the last four relevant indicators. For actual new fixed capital expenditure, the Australian picture for the September l984 quarter compared with the previous year shows an increase of 2.3 per cent; in Queensland the figure is down by 20.6 per cent. What about the question of working days lost due to industrial disputes? In the l2 months to January l985 compared with the previous l2 months-I urge honourable members opposite to listen to this-in Australia there was a fall of l5.6 per cent while in Queensland the figure was up by 83.9 per cent. The figures for working days lost per 1,000 employees due to industrial disputes are 6.4 per cent in Australia and 80.2 per cent in Queensland. Finally-the fact that this is final makes it no less important; if one has a glimmering of understanding this figure might stick in the gullet most-let us have a look at what has happened in relation to bankruptcies. Opposition members talk about companies and the private sector, so let us see what has happened in this area in Australia and in Queensland in the l2 months to December l984 compared with the l2 months to December 1983. As a result of the economic policies of this Government, there has been a decline in bankruptcies in Australia of 8.2 per cent. What has happened in Queensland? There has been an increase of 26.4 per cent. When we look through that range of relevant comprehensive economic statistics, it is little wonder that the Premier and the Government of Queensland are trying to divert attention from the gross ineptitude of their economic management. Mr McVeigh —I ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he quoted. Mr SPEAKER —The document is tabled. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is directed to the Treasurer. The Prime Minister predicted a lowering of interest rates in l985. When will this commence? Mr KEATING —Apparently George wants to tell me about his interest rate record. I am quite happy to go over that. His Government managed to bring about the highest level of nominal interest rates in Australian history. One only has to ask someone who is paying a mortgage or funding a business whether he wants to pay 23 or 22 per cent for that money-or l6 or l5 per cent. One will soon get the answer. I have answered questions on this matter on a number of occasions in the Parliament. I do not want to say too much more than I have said in the past. I was asked in the election campaign whether I agreed with the views of most market commentators about an interest rate step fall ahead in Australia in l985. I said that, after the tax rundown period, basically I agreed with the views of those commentators. I stick to that comment. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Foreign Investment Review Board report l983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for February l985. Motion (by Mr Holding) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 32 (3) of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act l949, I present the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority annual report for l983-84. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members, I present an information paper on the outlook for the aviation industry. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I present the report, dated 24 September 1984, provided to me by the Auditor-General pursuant to section 63P of the Audit Act, on the conduct of the audit of accounts and records of the National Aboriginal Conference. I seek leave to make a statement in respect of the report. Leave granted. Mr HOLDING —Yesterday, the report of the Auditor-General was tabled in this place. On pages 223 to 224 of that report the Auditor-General has informed the Parliament of an Audit he conducted last year of the records and accounts of the National Aboriginal Conference. That audit was made at my request because I became aware of serious deficiencies in the financial and related procedures of the NAC. The Auditor-General's report confirms the concerns I then had. However, I now feel it appropriate to provide to the Parliament the full text of the Auditor-General's report to me so that the public and all National Aboriginal Conference members may be completely informed of the nature of his inquiries and their outcome. Consistent with the principles of Aboriginal self-management, to which both this Government and honourable members opposite have subscribed, I have supported the NAC to the maximum and have been most reluctant to look behind its conduct of its own affairs. However, when it became apparent last year that severe deficiencies in financial administration were being experienced, I arranged with the NAC an agency arrangement under which officers of my Department were provided to the NAC. These officers assumed a shared responsibility for financial and administrative matters. The report which I have just presented to the House shows quite clearly that the financial administration of the NAC commenced to improve substantially once my Department's agency arrangement was in place. I announced on 2 April that the NAC would be terminated as from 30 June this year. Necessary administrative and financial arrangements to give effect to that decision are now being made. The administrative and financial difficulties experienced by the NAC were of course a factor in the Government's decision to terminate the NAC, but other factors were of more importance. A prime consideration was the finding by Dr Coombs, in his report which I presented to this House on 27 February this year, that the NAC was not adequately representative of Aboriginal community opinions and aspirations. As I said in my statement of 2 April, the new organisation to replace the NAC will be more closely based on Aboriginal community aspirations. Consultations with Aboriginal community groups and organisations now under way are devoted to that end. I present the following paper: National Aboriginal Conference-Report and Ministerial Statement, 17 April 1985. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(2.54) —The report of the Auditor-General tabled today by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) on the National Aboriginal Conference is a massive indictment of the National Aboriginal Conference. It is an absolute disgrace and it shows a real and serious abuse of funds and public moneys by the National Aboriginal Conference. It is also a serious indictment of the Minister and his administration of his Department and the National Aboriginal Conference through his Department. The report shows massive negligence by the NAC. The Minister has obviously known for some considerable time that all was not well at the NAC. He knew of the problem and my colleague the former shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), has endorsed my criticism. The Minister knew of the problem but time and again he put off making a decision. He has been hiding behind the philosophy of self-determination and self-management to excuse himself and his Department from gross incompetence in failing to oversee and manage funds appropriated to the NAC through his Department. The Minister and the Government nearly doubled the funds available to the NAC in the first Budget of this Government-an 87.42 per cent increase. Any organisation would have difficulty in absorbing such an increase. One would think that the Minister and the Department would have put procedures in train to see that those funds were expended properly but they were negligent in not seeing that this money was well spent and that appropriate audit procedures were followed. It is interesting that the Minister has not yet revealed when he first knew that all was not well at the NAC. The Auditor-General's report and investigation were requested in March 1984. I ask the Minister in the House today to tell us when he first knew of the maladministration of the National Aboriginal Conference. The whole NAC business is a saga because the Minister has failed to exercise proper ministerial responsibility throughout the investigation into the future of the NAC. First, in July 1983 he commissioned Dr Coombs to report on the NAC. That report was presented to the Minister in May 1984, recommending the abolition of the NAC. Mr Porter —Nearly a year ago. Mr SHIPTON —Nearly a year ago, as my colleague interjects. Despite this the Minister did nothing until July last year when he commissioned a task force-again putting off a decision-to investigate the Coombs report, to investigate the restructuring of the NAC. Another nine months or more passed until, without notice, the NAC was unceremoniously abolished without a replacement body being announced and without any alternative proposal. Everyone knows that all is not well. We have seen that the Minister is incompetent and here he is just putting off the matter and duck-shoving. We do not know what the replacement body will be. During these months of the Minister's indecision and procrastination the NAC is being allowed to indulge in gross mismanagement and in a waste of public moneys. Part of this I think is due to the Minister's obsession with and pursuit of uniform land rights across this nation. This obsession has not only created a backlash and divisions, tension and ill will in the community but also it has diverted the Minister's attention from some of the real problems of his administration. The Auditor-General's report shows that his attention has been diverted from the real issues facing the Aboriginal people in Australia today. The Minister, in his statement, makes no mention of the role of the NAC or its Chairman. I suggest to the Minister, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the reputation of the Chairman of the NAC has been destroyed by this report. The Minister makes no criticism or statement about this. He has come into this House and made a very brief statement on the NAC. That is an insult to the Parliament and it is typical of the Minister's conduct in the administration of this portfolio to act only when he is forced to do so and to avoid debate in this Parliament at all costs. This Parliament has been insulted by the Minister because he makes Press statement after Press statement and does not come into this House. He has not even brought the Government's preferred uniform land rights model to this House because he is afraid to do so. He comes in here today with a very brief statement, hoping we will not notice and that it all will go away. The report tabled by the Minister today is also an indictment of the Aboriginal leadership in Australia. Mr Hand —Oh! Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member for Melbourne interjects. The Aboriginal leadership stands responsible. The NAC leadership cannot go round saying it wants more and more by way of land rights claims when it has this massive misuse of government and people's funds, as is set out in this report today. The NAC will be condemned by the whole Australian community. The NAC's reputation- Mr Holding —Do you support land rights, by the way? You are the shadow Minister. What is your policy on land rights? Mr SHIPTON —I did not interject on the Minister when he spoke, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am suggesting to the Minister and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) that the National Aboriginal Conference's reputation is in tatters. Its credibility must be zero because its actions and its negligence make it harder for those in government and in opposition who are really trying to achieve improvement in the real living standards of Aboriginal people to look at the real needs in health, welfare and housing. Their task is made that much harder by this massive abuse by the National Aboriginal Conference. The NAC stands condemned for its actions as revealed by this report. I shall briefly refer to some of the matters mentioned in the Auditor-General's report because, whilst the Minister has tabled it, we owe a duty to this House to reveal to the public some of these areas. Let us look at 'Procurement Cash Payments' in the Auditor-General's report. He says: Deficiencies included the fact that a significant percentage of paid claims and supporting invoices which this Office desired to examine were missing. Four cheque forms had also apparently been taken without authority and fraudulently negotiated. Then there is the matter of a co-ordinating office being set up in Mexico to facilitate the Conference's participation in the Fourth General Assembly of the World Council of Indigenous People. There is also the question of salaries and members' remuneration. The report states: . . . the processing of members' remuneration and the payment of allowances were deficient. Then there is the matter of travel. I quote from the report: Significant deficiencies were noted in the system and procedures for the processing of payments of travelling allowances. As to motor vehicles, the report states: There was significant failure to comply with directions given by the Minister in relation to the purchase of motor vehicles in the 1983-84 year. I will not take the time of the House unnecessarily but there is a responsibility to reveal this matter in the Parliament. The report refers to procurement cash payments in the attachments. It states that deficiencies included the hire of commercial rental cars without purchase orders being raised. Twenty-six instances were noted during audit test checks. Other examples were an instance of unauthorised Commonwealth car hire, a reimbursement of taxi, bus and airfares without an appropriate approval, and the charter of a plane by a member without approval, which was subsequently approved. Let us look at the payment of unauthorised expenditure as revealed by the Auditor-General's report on the National Aboriginal Conference. It states: Several amounts approved for payment did not appear to have been authorised by the terms of the Conference's Charter, Rules and Accounting arrangements. Let us look at some of these. They included: Payments to some employees for accumulated flex-time. Approximately 300 payments in the period July 1983 to April 1984 (almost 10% of total payments) of a salary nature had not been processed as intended . . . At least 40 payments classified as salary advances were in fact in the nature of small, short-term, interest free loans . . . 22 payments of parking and speeding infringements-- to NAC members- The payment of travelling allowances to Members' wives totalling $3,150. This is an indictment of the Minister's administration and of the NAC leadership. I go on: The hire of a commercial rent-a-car by a member from June 1983 to approximately February 1984 at a total hire cost of $4,200-- that must have been fun- The hire of a commercial rent-a-car for the Canberra Secretariat- Mr Howard —Not as good as John Brown, but getting there. Mr SHIPTON —Almost as good as the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, as my colleague reminds me. I am reading aspects of the Auditor-General's report on the NAC. I am giving examples of unauthorised expenditure. I was saying that another example is: The hire of a commercial rent-a-car for the Canberra Secretariat for an indeterminable length of time although the Secretariat also had the use of Department of Administrative Services cars. Here is another interesting example for which the NAC leadership must really stand responsible and condemned. It is: The hire of a bus for Members for a day trip to the snowfields. The payment for a day tour and lunch for Members' wives. The payment of membership subscriptions to the TAA 'Flight Deck Club' and Ansett 'Golden Wing Club' for the then Deputy Chairman and 2 staff members. These are most serious matters. I have read them from the report tabled in Parliament today. I refer briefly to other matters in that report. On salaries and members' remuneration, it states that the accounting arrangements were not complied with in that: Members' remuneration was sometimes not in accordance with the relevant Remuneration Tribunal Determination. Other deficiencies in the audit included: Salary was frequently advanced for other than an approved purpose. In numerous cases no evidence was sighted on their personnel file of approval for the appointment of officers. No documentary evidence was sighted that an employee worked overtime for which she was paid. Frequently no evidence was available on personnel files to confirm dates of resignation. I could go on. Concerning deficiencies, I conclude by quoting: Overtime and higher duties allowances were not always paid promptly. This is a massive indictment, as I have said, of the NAC leadership and of the Minister. It makes it harder for those really trying to achieve real progress in the serious problems, of which there are many, facing the Aboriginal people today. The NAC leadership screams about uniform national land rights. for the leaders to carry on in the way they have, as indicated in this report, shows that they do not have the interests of the Aboriginal people at heart. They have at heart their own interest in feathering their own nest. Their actions unfairly bring the attitude of many non-Aboriginal Australians to one of doubting the seriousness of Aboriginal claims. Further, the actions of the National Aboriginal Conference as shown in this report will make it harder for those trying to achieve progress because non-Aboriginal Australians will say that Aboriginals have not deserved the trust and respect of the community. The NAC itself, by its actions and by its mismanagement and misappropriation of funds, will lead to more divisiveness, more tension and more misunderstanding in the community. The NAC stands condemned, as does the Minister and his administration of his portfolio. Motion (by Mr Maher) proposed: That the debate be now adjourned. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Baldwin, P. J Kelly, R. J.Beazley, K. C. Kent, L.Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J.Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C.Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H.Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, John Lee, M.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDubois, S. G. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W.Keating, P. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen, (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanConquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Darling, E. E. Carlton, J. J.Jones, Barry Macphee, I. M.Hurford, C. J. McGauran, P. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. 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 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 Baldwin,Mr Beddall,Mr Lindsay,Mr Mountford and Mrs Sullivan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Ruddock,Mr Shipton and Mr Staples. 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 USA by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Beddall,Mr Cross and Mr Gear. 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. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Dobie and Mr Langmore. 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 Governments 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 pensioners, 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 and Mr Drummond. 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 we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test will mean the sale of homes, of cars, and treasured possessions which have been accumulated over many years of hard work and saving; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of old people is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the 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 requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned and in particular the Student Association of the Canberra School of Art respectfully showeth: That we, in particular the Students of the Canberra School of Art, firmly express our strong opposition to the haste with which the National Institute of Tertiary Education proposal has been assembled. We the undersigned, request time to examine the proposal and an opportunity to discuss the ramification thereof. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned that action by the Government to: (a) extend entitlements and allowances to de facto relationships as outlined in the August Budget (b) to granting of overseas travel entitlements to other than spouses of Federal members of Parliament (c) failure of the Government to prevent the granting of privileges and travel allowances of homosexual partners of members of the A.B.C. has imposed on the Australian community a moral standard fundamentally opposed to the principles of the Christian Church and the majority of the non Christian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take immediate action to ensure that these allowances and privileges are withdrawn and that the Government should do all in its power to consolidate the position of the traditional family unit in the Australian community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the right honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ''existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the West Coast of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That we recognise the constant need for adequate funding for the Special Education Programme of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. 2. That such funding is essential for the remote West Coast area of Tasmania if our children are to enjoy the same degree of special training available in urban areas. 3. That we are concerned by the recent cuts in the Special Education Funding being made available to Tasmania. We therefore pray that the Federal Government reconsiders its reduction in the Special Education Programme funding in the forthcoming Budget determinations in the interest of our children's future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Westbury in Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That we recognise the constant need for adequate funding for the Special Education Programme of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. 2. That such funding is essential for this rural area of Tasmania if our children are to enjoy the same degree of special training available in urban areas. 3. That we are concerned by the recent cuts in the Special Education Funding being made available to Tasmania. We therefore pray that the Federal Government reconsiders its reduction in the Special Education Programme funding in the forthcoming Budget determinations in the interest of our children's future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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 certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the assets test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the assets test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take appropriate steps in the wake of the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(3.20) —During Question Time today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) treated us to a veritable avalanche of economic statistics. We were given retail sales figures, unemployment figures, inflation figures, capital investment figures and profit level figures. We had figures adjusted for Queensland, we had seasonally adjusted figures, we had every conceivable economic statistic under the sun bar one that is very relevant to every man, woman and child in Australia at present. That is the statistic that tells us that, since November 1984, there has been a cumulative decline of 21.6 per cent in the value of the Australian dollar against the trade weighted index. It is the statistic that tells us that since the same date there has been a cumulative decline of 22.6 per cent in the value of the Australian dollar against the United States dollar. The Prime Minister, in all his rantings and ravings and hectoring and lecturing and moralising at Question Time today, could not bring himself to tell us about the one statistic I have just quoted. In other words, the world's greatest Treasurer has given us the world's weakest dollar. Mr Keating —You have given us that. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) does not like to be reminded of this. He is a little sensitive about it. Not only has the world's greatest Treasurer given us the world's weakest dollar, not only does the Prime Minister cut and run in the face of the unpalatable statistics, not only is the Prime Minister the most selective statistic quoter that this Parliament has seen for many years, but also, even worse than that, the Prime Minister leads a government which is unable to address in a proper manner the consequences of the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar. If ever the Australian community has witnessed a devaluation in a Prime Minister, they saw it last week. On three separate occasions the Prime Minister went public and tried to tell the Australian people what the Government was going to do in the wake of the devaluation of the dollar. He grants an exclusive interview to Max Walsh on the National program. He runs hot and strong about the productivity case. The next day Simon Crean rings him up and says: 'Hey, Bob, what is all this nonsense about not giving us past productivity?' The Prime Minister cuts and runs and says: 'Maybe at some time in the future we will trade off the price effects of devaluation against a future productivity case'. He then has a Press conference and says that there is no difference of opinion between himself and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He further confuses the issue and leaves it hanging in the air. He then goes to Western Australia and waxes lyrical before a Western Australian audience about the marvellous benefits of devaluation. The Prime Minister says that 100,000 manufacturing jobs can be created. I see the Treasurer nodding his head. I tell the Treasurer that that reminds honourable members on this side of the House of that famous, that memorable, that never-to-be-forgotten response of the former Labor Treasurer, Jim Cairns, after he had been arguing that the purpose of running an expansionary monetary policy was to reduce unemployment. He was asked by the former member for Wakefield, Bert Kelly: 'If that is the case, Treasurer, why do you not turn the handle a bit faster and get rid of unemployment altogether?' If the Treasurer and the Prime Minister think they are talking economic sense in the vein that the Prime Minister was using last Friday, I may well ask the Prime Minister and the Treasurer why they do not devalue the dollar a bit further and get rid of unemployment altogether. We should not have the sort of nonsense the Treasurer is going on with and the sort of nonsense the Prime Minister went on with while the Treasurer was in Paris talking to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I am not criticising the Treasurer for doing that because, frankly, I think the Treasurer of Australia ought to be spending a bit of time overseas at the moment, reassuring international investors that the leadership of the Prime Minister is not quite as devalued as they imagined it to be. We should not have the sort of economic cant, humbug and nonsense that the Prime Minister was going on with last week. He made three attempts and he still did not get it right. He ran up to it all right. He analysed the problem all right. He said: 'If we have a devaluation we get benefits from it, and we have to be careful that we do not lose all those benefits'. But having analysed the problem, having walked up to it and boldly stated the problem, the Prime Minister then ran away from it. The fact is that a depreciation of our currency is not costless. It bears upon all sections of the Australian community. It represents, perhaps temporarily, but that depends upon future international assessments of the strength of the Australian economy, a depreciation of the national assets of this country. But it does involve some advantages. Those advantages are principally to be found in the competitive gains it affords to our exporters and to our import competing industries. In a sense, a devaluation of the Australian dollar acts as a readjustment of the competitive position of those industries. Mr Keating —Do tell. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer says: 'Do tell'. After the void in economic logic through the Treasurer's absence and the Prime Minister's meanderings over the last few months, the Australian people are entitled to some kind of explanation. This Treasurer has copped out on explanations about the value of the Australian dollar. It is all right for a Treasurer to say 'I will not talk about the value of the Australian dollar', when we have an administered exchange rate, when the Treasurer is actually fixing the market value of the Australian dollar; but when we have a floating exchange rate it is an absolute cop out for the Treasurer to run to silence and say absolutely nothing. It is a cop out for him to say: 'I cannot talk about the Australian dollar because, if I do, it will be absolutely improper'. That is a phoney excuse. It is a cop out, and it is an example of the Treasurer running from his responsibilities. Those gains to our import competing industries and our export industries will be retained only if the right policies are followed consequent upon the depreciation when it takes place. If the wrong policies are followed those gains will not be retained and, once again, we will face a further depreciation of our currency. If the gains to our import competing industries and our export industries are to be retained, it is imperative that those industries not pay the additional cost burden of full indexation of their employee's wages. Unpopular though that may be to many honourable members on the other side of the House and to many people in the trade union movement, if there is a full compensation through the wage indexation system the comparative gains of those industries will be lost. The depreciation has restored their competitive position. It has given them a second chance, a breathing space. The economic challenge for this Government is to make sure that that breathing space is not squandered and that that second chance is grabbed hold of. If the Government stands by and allows a full indexation of wages to take place, through the prices and incomes accord, that competitive gain will be lost. What did we hear from the Prime Minister last week and again today? It was implicit in the way in which he dodged the question I asked him about company profitability. It is all right to rant and rave about profitability levels over the last couple of years. The truth is that, if we have a future increase in wages on the basis of past productivity which is what Simon Crean wants and what the Prime Minister was browbeaten into agreeing to last week, we will erode the present level of company profitability and, therefore, interfere with employment levels. If there is not an equal sharing of the burdens of depreciation on all sectors of the Australian community, the competitive gain to our industries will be lost. The Prime Minister and the Australian Labor Party seem to have some idea that the prices and incomes accord represents a monumental sacrifice by the trade union movement in the interests of economic recovery. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are always lecturing us about the great contribution the prices and incomes accord has made to economic recovery in Australia. We are always being told that the drop in the inflation rate is due to the prices and incomes accord. We were told that again today. The truth is that the principal reason for the drop in the inflation rate over the last couple of years was the 9 per cent reduction in real wages produced by the wages pause, which was opposed by the ACTU and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who was then Leader of the Opposition, and by many people in the Opposition at that time. It was due also to the depressing effect of an economic recession on price competition and price levels in Australia. It is an absolute historic and economic untruth for the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to keep saying that the reduction in the inflation rate that occurred through 1983 was due to the prices and incomes accord. The prices and incomes accord did not come into operation until September or October of 1983. How on earth could it have had an impact on inflation rates in the June and September quarters of 1983? It is one of the great myths that has been peddled around by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer about the contribution of the prices and incomes accord to the reduction in our inflation rate. So, far from the prices and incomes accord representing a sacrifice by the trade union movement of this country, the truth really is that trade unionists in this country would not have obtained in the open market place in 1983 the sort of wage increases that have been given to them under the prices and incomes accord. It is no wonder that Bill Kelty said to the socialist forum at the beginning of this year that the Australian trade union movement is the luckiest in the world because it has got the prices and incomes accord. There is a very clear obligation resting on this Government, in a climate where business-both domestic and international-perceptions of this Government have changed dramatically. Our dollar has gone down for a combination of reasons. Let me say, in fairness, that not all of those reasons are within the control of this Government. I do not hold this Government responsible for the decline in international commodity prices which have had an adverse effect on our dollar. This Government is not responsible for the fact that the United States dollar is at record levels, but this Government and this Prime Minister in particular are responsible for the MX fiasco. The MX missile fiasco has had a catastrophic effect on international financial perceptions of this country. This Government and this Treasurer are also responsible for a series of economic decisions over the last few months that have added, in a cumulative way, to the growing doubts and growing misperceptions of international and domestic financial markets about Australia. Last week the Prime Minister had the nerve and the gall and the cheek to say that financial markets in Australia had been behaving in an irrational manner. Madam Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that it is the Prime Minister who has behaved in an irrational manner about financial markets. After all, it was the Prime Minister and the Treasurer who wilfully and wantonly and in a most deceitful manner promised the Australian people lower interest rates at the time of the last election campaign. The Treasurer crawls and slinks in here and now he tries to say that he was merely echoing what people in the financial markets were saying. He said: 'Oh, it was not really Paul Keating. I was really repeating what the people in the financial markets are saying. You know they are very impressive. Every time they say something I have a pavlovian instinct to echo, on interest rates, precisely what they say'. The fact is that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer both promised the Australian people that there would be lower interest rates before the last election. They have been caught out. They have been found to have misled the Australian people on the question of interest rates. No wonder we have a devalued Prime Minister; no wonder we have changing perceptions about economic management in Australia; and no wonder we have declining international financial confidence. But that is of the past. What is more important is the current and future reaction of the Australian Government to the depreciation of our dollar. There are two things that the Government must do: Firstly, it must make it perfectly clear that it will argue at the next national wage case for a full discounting of the wage indexation process for the consumer price index effects of the depreciation, and secondly, it must make it perfectly clear that it will argue strenuously in any productivity hearing this year, or indeed next year, against any situation where past productivity gains are to be reflected in future wage increases, because if that occurs we will have an erosion of the profit share and we will have a resumption of the increase in levels of unemployment. Last week the Prime Minister addressed the problem, but he completely ducked the answer. We now have the Treasurer back in Australia. We welcome him back. We wait with keen anticipation for the Treasurer to tell the Australian people right now what the right response is to the depreciation of the Australian dollar and to tell us the things that the Prime Minister, through his weakness and failure, so clearly was unable to tell us on three separate occasions last week. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(2.35) —We have all these crocodile tears about inflation from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is worried about the inflation portents of a decline in the value of the Australian dollar when this Government has succeeded in getting inflation down to 5 per cent and when he left us a legacy of just on 12 per cent. So Mr 12 Per Cent here, who presided over the collapse of the Australian economy and record post-war inflation is now terribly worried about the fact that we might lift inflation above 5 per cent. He is horrified, aggrieved and shocked at the portents for the Australian economy if inflation should move over 5 per cent, but he was quite happy to stand up here for two years and defend 11 per cent and 12 per cent inflation figures when he was in government. In opposition, we talked about the disastrous state of Australian competitiveness-the fact that we were being wiped out in markets all around the world, with inflation rates of 11 per cent and 12 per cent. But it took this Government, this Government's policies and the prices and incomes accord to get inflation down from 11 1/2 per cent, which we inherited, to 5 per cent. But now he is terribly worried about the fact that it might move over 5 per cent again. All I say to him is: 'Do not worry about it. We will worry about it. We have got the job of worrying about it and we will concern ourselves about the inflationary portent of these particular changes'. But we have this extravagant language of the motion, 'The failure of the Government to take appropriate steps', as if when there is a change in the market situation the Government has to race out straight away and fix it. There is this sort of crazy notion that the Government responds a minute after things happen to get things fixed. The next national wage case which the honourable member for Bennelong has been bleating about is not till six months away. We do not know where the trade weight will settle down in the medium term. Yet we have this crazy, extravagant language about how we have to race in now and take appropriate steps to fix inflation, after he left us 12 per cent. You can imagine just how impressed I am with that little performance, Madam Deputy Speaker. At least I will say this for him: He did at least have the decency to say that the correction in the Australian dollar will improve the competitiveness of the Australian economy, which is more than the other buffoons behind him even understand. They think the Australian dollar is some sort of index of economic virility. If we do not have 85c, or whatever it is, the currency is no good. That is the sort of simplistic nonsense that is in their minds. At least he disabused some of his own colleagues of that. Let me just make this point, and it is one of the most important points: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaks as though, all things being equal, under his policies he could deliver some adjustment in respect of the devaluation, which would maintain inflation at the level this Government has secured it at. Let me say this to him first and foremost: Under his policies we would have already had the increase that he fears; we would have had the increase in 1984. Is he suggesting that through a year of massive growth, of massive pickup in profits, he would have had a no increase in award wage outcome like we had? He would not have had a chance. He would have had increases in wages in 1984 under his policies, more than the ones he is now saying he fears. So he should not go talking about what we have to adjust to keep inflation at 5 per cent. In the first place, he would not have got it there and even if he had got near it, he would not have been able to hold it in 1984 because, in the classic circumstance, in the classic mode of this economy, in a period of strong growth and a lift in profits, wages would have lifted. So he cannot come to us. We have had two years of the best back to back wage restraint in decades. That is why we have inflation at 5 per cent, and we will have the same in 1985. This Government understands that the depreciation presents a challenge and as a responsible government we will address it, but we will do what is feasible. We will not be responding to some theoretically foolish proposition the Opposition might mount about what it would do because when it was in government it could secure no wage outcome at all. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was Minister for Industrial Relations, he presided over the biggest post-war blowout in wages that we have seen. That is why the current account deficit is substantially the way it is. That is why Australia's loss of competitiveness is the way it is. The competitiveness of the Australian economy was revealed when the economy became taut once more under some sort of growth situation. Before we saw the growth attach itself to the economy, it was not evident what degree of damage had been done by the wage explosion presided over by these two vandals. Now they come in and tell us how to manage the economy and keep wages under control. They were never able to secure any wage outcome. Under the industrial relations policy that they now support they would now be able to go to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and say that they wanted to discount wages because there would be no commission; there would be no centralised wage system. Mr Howard —No, we wouldn't. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has confirmed that he has no solution. If that is the case, why does he think that in some deregulated labour market he can produce a better outcome than the result that we produced in 1984? Mr Howard —Far better. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says that he could do better than our no wage increase in 1984. Mr Hodgman —A lot better than you. Mr KEATING —We have had no increase for a year. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Both gentleman at the table will cease talking across the table. Mr KEATING —Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a feature of these matters of public importance that this clown from Tasmania sits there and interjects right through the debate. He should be sitting in his own seat. Mr Hodgman —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order on this 60c in the dollar Treasurer for always making statements reflecting on Tasmania and Tasmanians. I ask him to withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is no point of order. You may ask him to withdraw. Mr KEATING —I will withdraw if he desists from interjecting. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison is interjecting continually. He is interjecting from the table which is outside his seat. Mr Hodgman —I am on duty. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are on duty; I beg your pardon. But will you please cease interjecting? Mr KEATING —The fact is that under the coalition's policy it could secure no wage outcome at all. It does not believe in centralised wage fixing. It would abolish the Commission. It could seek no discounting, and yet it has this sort of view that in some deregulated situation some adjustment in wages would not occur. What is the evidence for that? What was the history in 1981-82 of deregulation? We saw a 17 1/2 per cent increase in wages in 1981-82, and we would see it again. The Opposition talks about wages drift. Who gives wages drift? It is not the Government; it is not the Arbitration Commission; it is the employers who provide wages drift. It is employers who pay wages drift. Why does the Opposition think they would not pay it now? Why does it think that, if the Arbitration Commission did not exist, if centralised wage fixing did not exist and the prices and incomes accord did not exist, we would not see a movement in wages? Of course we would see a movement in wages. The Opposition has a crazy assumption that in some deregulated nirvana situation there would be no increase in wages. How can those fools over there ever believe that they would get no increase in award wages for a year, as we have done, with such strong conditions in the economy? We had a 2.6 per cent increase in award wages in the year to April. The previous Government had an increase of 17.6 per cent in the year 1981-82. That is its record. Opposition members do not have a leg to stand on, and yet they come in here and talk about how we ought to be taking steps. We had the courage to give Australia the flexible policy option of the floating exchange rate-something that the coalition Government did not have the courage to do. That change in the value of the dollar is affecting for the better the competitiveness of this country. That will mean that our export industries can compete in the world again; their competitiveness will be enhanced. It will mean that our import competing industries will recover, as they should. Why were they in this position? It was because of the mismanagement of policies with relation to competitiveness. They were not competitive. That is the reason why they were in that position. That is the value of seeing a competitive adjustment in Australia's trading position. It is a ridiculous notion that the coalition has any answers to competitiveness; the coalition's policies were the root cause of the particular troubles in terms of competitiveness. The reason was that it was running an overvalued currency. It was running an overvalued dollar for years. Why was that? It was because the Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia ran it for the coalition. Why was that? It was because they did not believe that the former Government had a credible anti-inflation policy. They took the policy out of the previous Government's hands and ran an overvalued exchange rate because the former Treasurer blew the money supply targets for five years in a row. The previous government had no fiscal discipline and no incomes policy. Today the former Treasurer even admitted again to the Prime Minister that he said in a television program last year: 'The major failing of the Fraser Government was that we had no incomes policy'. He has repeated it and he confirms it again with a nod. The previous government had no incomes policy. It had no decent monetary policy. The Reserve Bank and the Treasury said: 'OK, at least we will do something for Australia. We can overvalue the exchange rate and keep some sort of anti-inflation discipline on the economy'. But in so doing, by that distortion in the policy mix, it rendered uncompetitive our export industries and our import competing industries. This Government has provided a mechanism to change that. Let me put to rest this bunkum that we cannot have deregulated financial markets beside a so-called regulated wage market. That is saying that, if we have a regulated wage market, we should continue with the constipation of financial and monetary markets. I reject that absolutely. This Government has taken the view that we should get the best from financial markets-the maximum flexibility in financial markets-and at the same time the maximum result from the labour market. There can be no free market for labour in the country. The labour market is not organised to provide a free market. We did not see wage increases being granted to the strongest industries, the ones with the greatest capacity to pay; they were granted to the strongest unions, regardless of industry's capacity to pay. This labour market cannot function and is not organised as a market; it cannot operate as a free market. It is a simplistic notion that deregulated labour markets and deregulated financial markets go hand in hand. We cannot have deregulated financial markets and a centralised wage system. Who could possibly argue that a deregulated labour market last year or in 1983-84 would have provided a better outcome than this Government secured with no increase in award wages for a year? How could that sort of result possibly be delivered in a deregulated environment, if that could be provided? How could we get a deregulated market? How would we smash the 300-odd unions in Australia and the industrial organisational base of Australia so as to get work place negotiation, industry unions or any of the other things which would have to be part and parcel of some flexibility in the labour market? It cannot be done. What happens in our labour market is that the prizes go to the strong unions, not to the strong industries or on any evaluation of capacity to pay. They go to the people with the muscle. That sort of situation is dealt with in the way that this Government has chosen to deal with it, that is, through a centralised system by an agreed basis between the trade union movement and the Government. That is why it is totally harmonious and totally consistent to have the best from deregulated financial markets with the kind of incomes policy this Government has. It is an absolute furphy for anybody to argue-- Mr N. A. Brown —But you have to discount then, do you? Mr KEATING —What would he know about it? He is just a failed lawyer. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the honourable member cease interjecting? Mr KEATING —Why does he not keep quiet for a moment? Mr Howard —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it really consistent with proper standards of debate for the Treasurer to use these constantly personal denigratory expressions such as 'failed lawyer' to my colleague? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr KEATING —Will he just let me finish my point, please? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will remain silent for a moment. The honourable member for Menzies will cease interjecting while the Treasurer is speaking. It is the intention of the Chair for the person who has the call from the Chair to be heard. The Chair does not need any instruction from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr N. A. Brown —What about discounting? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Menzies. If he interjects again, I will name him. Mr KEATING —He is an ignorant Establishment pig, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will withdraw that remark. Mr KEATING —I will withdraw it if he will stop interjecting. Mr N. A. Brown —I did not ask you to withdraw. Mr KEATING —He should just stop interjecting and shut up for five minutes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair asks for a withdrawal. Mr N. A. Brown —I did not ask him to withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will you please resume your seat. There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —Madam Deputy Speaker, it is entirely consistent to get the best from financial markets in a deregulated mode by addressing the structural problems of the Australian labour market with an incomes policy. It is a complete furphy for anybody to argue that there is some dichotomy or some competitive position between deregulated financial markets and regulated financial markets. I say to the Opposition that it is responsible for Australia's loss of competitiveness. We have put the instruments in place to regain it. The Government, like any sensible government, will approach the problems which may arise from a change in the parity of our currency with other currencies within the context of the incomes policies which we have set up for that purpose. We reject absolutely the proposition mounted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SMITH(Bass)(3.51) —The contribution by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to this afternoon's debate is summed up by the last exchange, which was particularly unpleasant. It is always the answer of those who resort- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer withdrew the remark. It will not be commented on. Mr N. A. Brown —It was probably the best part of his speech. Mr SMITH —It probably was the best part of this speech. I thank the honourable member for Menzies. As I was saying, those who resort to talking about matters that do not necessarily relate directly to the debate in trying to answer questions that are raised about matters of public importance really give away the fact that they are not arguing the central issues we are trying to discuss. The question that is really raised by this debate is what is happening with the fall in the Australian dollar. When members of the public see the Australian dollar fall they know there is a reason for it. The reason we have seen for it in Australia is the perception of the lack of quality of the leadership and of the economic management this Government is giving. One has only to look at some of the things that are being said by economic commentators about what is happening. There are some benefits in the devaluation of the dollar. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has pointed those out. One is that our export competing industries and those industries within Australia that compete with importing industries get a comparative advantage. If we want to capitalise on that, the essence of the argument is that we should be looking to discounting the consumer price index effects of the devaluation at the next national wage case. The Treasurer says that the national wage case is six months away. However, we are talking about the intervening period and the perception by the international monetary markets of the value of the Australian dollar. As early as 15 February 1985 an article appeared in the Australian Financial Review which states: . . . when the balance of payments figures show that if anything there is a strong case for real wage reductions across the board. For this is what the current account deficit, the growing debt-servicing burden, and the decline of the dollar together mean-the capacity of the Australian economy to maintain the present level of living standards, let alone wage increases, is declining, not increasing. That is the essence of the argument. That is what the housewives understand. They know what is going on. If we completely ignore the problems that are caused by the devaluation of the dollar and we do not capitalise on the advantages it gives us, we will find that the ordinary people in this community, as well as those in the international financial markets, will lose all faith in this Government. The broad test for this Government is whether it can seize the issue, whether it can get to the nub of the issue, which is to give to Australia the benefits that we can accrue by discounting, at the national wage case hearing, the consumer price index increases because of the devaluation of the dollar. It is no good saying that the national wage case is six months away. We have to let people know now. People want to know now. That is what is important. The Far Eastern Economic Review is a magazine that is read throughout East Asia. The Ferris report of the National Export Marketing Strategy Panel indicates to us that that is the direction in which we ought to be going. We ought to be trying to capitalise on those markets. We have been told by many a commentator that East Asia is the quickest and fastest growing economic area in our region, yet are we participating in it? The answer probably is that we are not doing so to the best of our capacity. We now have the opportunity to do so. But what has happened? We had the MX missile debacle. We have had other debacles. I show the House the front page of the 7 March edition of the Far Eastern Economic Review. What does it have on it? It has Tasmania right at the top of the page as Australia is upside down. The caption reads: 'STOP THE WORLD, WE WANT TO GET OFF'. The reason that is so is that the magazine perceived, when discussing the MX missile issue that Australia and, to a large extent, New Zealand were blinkered in their approach, that they wanted to ignore completely the reality of the situation in the region in which we find ourselves. The 7 March edition of the Far Eastern Economic Review adds to the perception in a region where we ought to be working hard and trying to get financial people involved in our economy that this Government is not in control. That is exactly what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said. We have a Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who is ridden with factions. He is unsettled by them. He is unable to give the direction in which he wants to go because he is overly concerned that the factions within the Labor Party will not go along with what he wants to do with regard to depreciating the next CPI national wage case adjustments. Of course, the Australian Council of Trade Unions also does not want to be involved in going along that route. That is very unfortunate for Australia because, if we do not capitalise on the very good opportunity we now have, States such as Tasmania-a State which has, ever since Federation, shown an export credit rather than a deficit and been a net exporter for the nation-will lose the advantages which our economy could have. Whenever the Treasurer comes into the chamber-the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) raised this point-he always seems to ridicule Tasmanians. That is unfortunate because the Government will not do any good in Tasmania until it starts to realise the benefits that Tasmania brings to the economy of this nation. I hope that in future the Treasurer will take more care as to how he addresses debates that are so important to this country. I shall quote from the editorial of the Canberra Times of 12 April 1985. The appearance by the Prime Minister on the National television program-there was another appearance in Western Australia-was somewhat lacking in substance. It has been perceived by most commentators as evidence of the fact that we still do not know where we are going. Did the Prime Minister's appearance allay any fears? The answer clearly is no. Let us look at the overall question. The Canberra Times editorial states: . . . the most important cause of the depreciation has been the sudden deterioration in expectations about the future behaviour of the currency. Individual causes of the deterioration in perceptions are a familiar litany-the Government's retreat on the matter of the MX missile-- that is evidenced, as I have just shown, by the Far Eastern Economic Review- the Parliamentary Labor Party's refusal to countenance the restoration of tertiary-education fees . . . Let me stop here and take that point. The night before the tertiary education fees debate the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan)-a left wing member-read to us in the House from the platform of the Australian Labor Party telegraphing his punches to his colleagues regarding what he was going to do the next morning in the Caucus room. When that sort of activity is seen by the broader community it gives rise to the fears that this Government does not know where it is going. We all agree that when the Government came to office it had a massive 20.3 per cent surge in income. It has not capitalised on it. It has frittered it away. Now the dollar has done something the Government never expected it to do. It now does not know what to do. That is just not good enough. What are the other causes of the deterioration in perceptions as mentioned in the article in the Canberra Times? One is the abandonment of monetary targets. I remember that some time ago the Treasurer said: 'Do not worry about it. I have it under control'. He said that in this very House. That is what he said again today. He said: 'Do not worry about it. I will get to it in good time'. There may not be time for Australia if we continue along this path. What are some of the other causes of the deterioration in perceptions? The article continues: . . . and the Australian Council of Trade Unions' refusal to consider discounting for depreciation in the wage-indexation procedures. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition so aptly said, Simon Crean rang up the day after the Prime Minister appeared on the National and said: 'Wait. You cannot do that to us. We are the ones who are keeping you in power. Remember, we helped you write your Budget'. What is to happen this time? Who is running this country? Is it to be Simon Crean, the de facto head of the ACTU, or is it to be the Prime Minister? When the Prime Minister comes into the chamber he speaks volumes to his left wing back bench to try to appease its members. He is spending all his time trying to marry the disparate factions within the Labor Party and ignoring the broader issues of what ought to be his task in running this country. The article in the Canberra Time finally states: Collectively they add up to the perception-- perception is the key word; that is what we are talking about; let us know now what the Government is going to do- that the Cabinet will not be able to maintain control of moderate economic policies, but will lose control to a militant caucus with detremental inflationary effects and further depreciation. That says it all. Mr Hodgman —Moscow corner. Mr SMITH —Moscow corner. I quote from the 12 April edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, a journal respected in most quarters. The editorial states: This 'trust me' and 'wait and see' approach is hardly ideal from the public's viewpoint and might be quite unsatisfactory to a gloomy foreign exchange market . . . That really encapsulates the problem. The Government does not know what it is doing and it does not know where to go. If it does not let us know whether it intends to allow for the effect of depreciation at the next national wage case and if it does not indicate now that any past productivity gain will not be included in full wage increases, this country's export industry will not benefit at all from the effects of depreciation. This, as we all know, is the direction in which this country ought to be going. It ought to be concentrating all its efforts on being much more competitive in a region of the world where we have the opportunity to contribute to a large extent not only to stability but also to an overall increase in our living standards. When something like this occurs, what must all those involved in industries throughout South East Asia think when they see that Australia has turned itself upside down? They say: 'Ah, Australia stop the world we want to get off'. Somebody ought to say to the ACTU: 'Maybe you ought to get off and let the rest of us get on with the job'. If we do not get on with the job, good States like Tasmania-I have to defend Tasmania because it is always being attacked-will lose the advantages. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(4.01) —Once more, it seems that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in proposing and speaking to a matter of public importance in the House this afternoon, has displayed his regular mathematical gymnastics and some of his associated illogicality. To be fair to him, he is slowly beginning to get his propensity for illogical analysis under control. Informed sources have attested to the fact that he has come to the conclusion that if both a horse and a table have four legs, there must be a very definite connection. His essential difficulty now is to establish the exact nature of this connection. Given the fact that he and his Party will have a long time in opposition I am sure he will eventually get it right. It is interesting that this afternoon there has not been a contribution to the debate on this matter of public importance from the National Party of Australia. That intrigues me to some extent. Having read today's edition of the Australian Financial Review, I am sure that many members of the National Party in this chamber would be somewhat embarrassed to contribute to this debate. One headline in the paper stated: 'Dollar's fall softens farm income drop'. This is very good news for the rural sector. It indicates that there will be a record level of farm export earning in 1984-85. There will be an increase of 9 per cent on the earnings of the previous financial year. The level of depreciation has added a projected $530m to rural Australia's net value of production, a not insignificant amount or benefit from the effect of devaluation. Taking into account the expected decline in farm income in Australia this year, which was predicted to be 17 per cent, the depreciating dollar has in fact reduced this rate of decline to 14 per cent. The basic reason for such a decline is not related at all to the economic performance of Australia but is a reflection of the market forces in world-wide commodity prices, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition admitted during the course of his remarks. I suggest that the record speaks for itself. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) enunciated some of the points on which we differ quite sharply from our conservative predecessors. We have gone from double digit inflation under the Deputy Leader's stewardship as Treasurer to a level commensurate with that of our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development trading partners. I am speaking of the previous Treasurer and the previous Government who talked about their 'Fight inflation first policy'. From skyrocketing unemployment, which was out of control at a level of 11 or 12 per cent, we have reduced the level considerably to a more acceptable figure of around 8.8 per cent. From negative economic growth, for the first time in 30 years, we have achieved a continuing, strong rate of economic growth. The previous Government said: 'Let us abandon a centralised wage fixation system; it does not work'. What did we have then? We had a wages explosion, as the Treasurer indicated in the debate today, approaching an annual rate of increase of 17 per cent. We now have a more responsible wages policy. We have an incomes policy that is embodied in the prices and incomes accord. A week ago, we saw the first rise in 12 months in wages in Australia of 2.6 per cent. Another sharp contrast between the Government of which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a senior member and our Government may be seen as its confrontationist approach versus our approach of consensus. We went from a high level of industrial disputation, encouraged by the sort of Darwinian approach of survival of the fittest in the industrial jungle, to the lowest level of industrial disputation since 1968. During Question Time today, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a number of comments about the effects of the depreciation of the dollar. One of the points that he made was that the depreciation gives the Government an opportunity to correct current account balance problems as well as to assist in domestic job creation. I was pleased to see that the Opposition speakers referred to some of those points during their contribution to the debate today. At least they mentioned them even if they did not agree with the Prime Minister's assessment. The framework of the accord allows us to adjust responsibly to changing circumstances as opposed to the wage spiral that characterised the period under the previous Government-the Fraser Government-in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition served as Treasurer in 1981-82 during that incredible wage spiral period. The only approach available to the Fraser Government at that time was the hastily conceived and politically motivated wage freeze. The Opposition has criticised the accord in this chamber on countless occasions. The reason for that criticism is a very simple one. The Opposition has never had an incomes policy. From comments made today by Opposition speakers, I feel certain that it does not have an incomes policy that is least comparable with, if not better than, the accord which has operated so successfully. I turn to some of the positive benefits of devaluation to the rural sector that I mentioned earlier. I referred to the article in today's edition of the Australian Financial Review. I now refer to some of the specific principal commodities that were mentioned in that article. In the case of wheat, more than half of the rise in the gross value of rural production in 1984-85 of $295m has been because of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. In the case of sugar, notwithstanding the problems of finding markets for our troubled sugar industry, the devaluation will result in an injection of an additional $5m in 1985-86, despite a fall in production. With respect to the important Australian wool industry, the Australian Wool Corporation has a stockpile of 300,000 bales of wool. The devaluation of the dollar will help at wool auctions to the tune of a price increase of 45c per kilogram of clean wool. In other words, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has suggested that $60m will be added to the gross value of wool production in 1984-85. I now turn to the beef industry. The average sale yard prices will increase by 10 per cent this year. This has been suggested by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. A further rise of 11 per cent is predicted for 1985-86, bringing the gross value of beef exports next financial year to more than $1,266m. In other words, given that rural exports contribute to nearly 50 per cent of total export income for Australia, the depreciated dollar will assist in the process of continuing economic improvement under this Government. I suggest that it can be assumed that the Opposition's approach is to have government intervention in the economy. Is this what it means by 'appropriate steps'? I believe that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on record for congratulating the Government for the courageous step it took in December 1983 in floating the Australian dollar. I suggest to the Opposition that it cannot have things both ways. We can either float the dollar or not float it. If we float it, we cannot have the sort of government intervention in the economy as was suggested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. In the context of the discussions that have taken place in the dairy industry, it is interesting to note that the Executive Director of the Dairy Farmers Federation, Clay Manners, was reported as saying recently: The devaluation will have a greater impact on the Dairy Industry than the Kerin Plan. Despite all the recent controversy about the Kerin plan for the dairy industry, we have an industry spokesman commenting in a very positive way, recognising that the benefits of devaluation may help with the surplus of Australian manufactured milk products on the international market. At least there is a recognition within primary industry of the importance of the depreciated dollar. Hence, my comment this afternoon that I am totally amazed that the National Party, the so-called agrarian socialists in this chamber, has not been prepared to make a contribution. It has been prepared to let its coalition partners take all the running in this debate, yet clearly its so-called rural constituency would benefit from devaluation. Once more, the Opposition has demonstrated its extraordinary inability to learn from the lessons of its past economic mismanagement. This matter of public importance is a total sham, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows it. The National Party must be embarrassed by its submission for debate this afternoon. Although, to be fair, while in coalition government it was obviously happy to see its political bedfellows govern with a consistently overvalued dollar, that was a poor substitute indeed for any responsible monetary and/or fiscal alternatives for spiralling inflation. The result was reflected in the international uncompetitiveness for exporters, particularly in the mining and primary industry sectors. The Hawke Government is not prepared at all to pull the economic wool over the eyes of Australians or, indeed, the world. The problem with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is his Gillies-like similarity to Ronnie Corbett. When Ronnie comes on television he likes to think that there are lots of people watching and having a laugh. On the other hand, the honourable member for Bennelong is hoping that there are only a few people looking at him, when he is being funny, and hoping they will not laugh too much. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Banks (Shareholding) Act 1972 in order to facilitate the establishment of new banks in Australia as well as to improve the ongoing administration of the Act. A Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill 1984 was introduced into the previous Parliament but had not been passed when Parliament was dissolved for the December 1984 election. The current Bill incorporates the amendments from the 1984 Bill and also makes some additional amendments to facilitate the ongoing administration of the Act. The Government believes that the establishment of new banks will bring substantial benefits to the Australian community through the development of a more innovative, efficient and competitive financial system. Ultimately, a more dynamic financial sector will help to promote a higher rate of economic growth, providing more jobs and a higher standard of living for the people of Australia. The Government has already taken significant steps to improve the competitiveness of the Australian financial system and, particularly given the central role of the banking industry, to encourage the establishment of new banks in Australia. One largely local group, Macquarie Bank Limited, has recently commenced business as a new bank and another group, NSW Building Society, is taking steps to convert itself to a savings bank. The Bank of China is in the process of re-establishing banking operations in Australia. The amendments to the Banks (Shareholdings) Act contained in this Bill will facilitate the establishment of banking operations in Australia by the 16 new banks announced on 27 February 1985 as being potentially eligible to receive formal authorisation. The amendments will also help interested and capable domestic interests to establish new banks. The Banks (Shareholdings) Act currently limits any one shareholder or group of related shareholders to a holding of less than 10 per cent of the voting shares of a bank. The policy presumption in favour of dispersion of shareholdings in banks implied in this requirement is an important prudential safeguard which is designed to protect depositors. The amended Act will continue to reflect that policy presumption but will increase the size of an individual shareholding in a bank which may be held, without the Governor-General's approval, from 10 to 15 per cent of the voting shares of a bank. The Bill also makes more specific the circumstances in which the Governor-General may grant an exemption to the limit on individual or related shareholdings in a bank by permitting such an exemption where it is considered to be in the national interest. Under the present legislation the Governor-General has the power to grant such an exemption but the circumstances in which the power is exercisable are not stated. The Government considers that it would be in the national interest for an exemption to the 15 per cent limit to be granted if it facilitated the establishment of a new bank that could be expected to provide strong competition, subject to the bank meeting the high prudential standards of entry into banking. In this regard, it is intended that an exemption would be proposed only where the shareholder concerned had demonstrated an extensive record of undoubted financial strength and stability, clearly had the financial resources to maintain the bank's viability in the longer term, and would give an unqualified commitment to the prudent development of the bank, and where there was no conflict of interest arising from other activities of the shareholder. In the main such shareholders could be expected to have been predominantly involved in the business of banking and finance. The proposals by the 16 new banks which the Government recently selected as being capable of being developed such that a recommendation could be made to the Governor-General for the granting of a banking authority, all involve exemptions to the 15 per cent limit on individual shareholdings. In all cases the shareholders concerned would meet the criteria for the grant of an exemption as outlined above. Consequently, the Government would be prepared to make recommendations to the Governor-General for the required exemptions. While the Bill increases the threshold limit on an individual or related shareholding in a bank from 10 to 15 per cent, it does provide that the Treasurer's approval is required to take a shareholding beyond 10 per cent but not greater than 15 per cent. However, the Treasurer shall not refuse to allow a person to take an interest in a bank exceeding 10 per cent unless he is satisfied that such a holding would not be in the national interest. The need for the Treasurer's approval for individual shareholdings to move beyond 10 per cent will provide protection against the possibility that a shareholder who may be judged to be incapable of providing the necessary ongoing support for a bank seeks to obtain a holding of up to 15 per cent, which might then allow that shareholder to exert an undue influence. It also provides a mechanism to avert possible conflicts of interest or an undesirable concentration of power which might arise from a shareholder having significant interests in more than one bank. In this regard, the general policy presumption will be that individual or related shareholders should not have an interest greater than 10 per cent in more than one bank. The Bill also provides scope for some desirable flexibility in the application of the 'association' provisions of the Banks (Shareholdings) Act, which provide for a person to be deemed to have an interest in a bank even though that person is no more than an associate of another person. While these are complex provisions necessary to ensure that the main intent of the Act is not undermined by the indirect holding of interests in banks, they can operate in a more restrictive way than was originally intended. For example, as these provisions now stand a person may be prevented from being a director in two different corporations that each have a shareholding in the same bank, even though such directorships may result in no significantly greater degree of concentration of ownership or control of the bank. One particular aspect of the association provisions which is addressed in the amendments in the Bill is the position of officers of a corporation when the corporation itself receives an exemption. Rather than every officer also requiring an exemption along with the corporation, a consequence of the association provisions of the existing Act, the Bill provides that the Governor-General will be able to exempt most officers of a corporation from the various limitations in the Act where they hold an interest in a bank only through their association with the corporation. This amendment was not contained in the 1984 amendment Bill. The other major change introduced by this Bill is to make governments and their agencies, insofar as they are shareholders in banks holding an authority granted by the Governor-General under the Banking Act 1959, subject to the provisions of the Banks (Shareholdings) Act. As an interim measure, where a government or government agency that will be covered by the Act by virtue of the Bill has an interest in the voting shares of the bank in excess of 15 per cent, the Governor-General will be deemed to have given an exemption fixing that percentage which the government or government agency has immediately after the commencement of the Act. I repeat, however, that this is only an interim measure. The shareholding that any government or government agency has in a bank which is covered by the Act will be reviewed and, depending on the outcome of that review, any exemption that has been deemed to have been given may subsequently be varied or revoked. In such a situation the government or its agency would then have a three-month period in which to dispose of its excess shares in an orderly fashion. The Government believes that this Bill will facilitate the establishment of banks without weakening the protection of bank depositors. It will help with the early establishment of relatively large and strong banks which will bring more competition and innovation into our financial system. At the same time, the Bill improves the ongoing administration of the Banks (Shareholdings) Act. There are no significant costs, revenue or savings to the Government arising directly from the Bill. I commend the Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill 1985 to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985 is to give effect to the Government's decision to ensure the economical and efficient use of Australian Federal Police personnel by the enactment of redeployment and retirement provisions directly comparable to those which apply to Commonwealth public servants under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. The Government's industrial relations policy requires the maintenance of a nexus between early voluntary retirement and management initiated retirement. The former was introduced into the AFP on 13 August 1984 following an amendment to regulations made under the principal Act. The maximum retirement age for members of the AFP remains at 60. Existing sections 38 and 39 of the principal Act provide for the management initiated redeployment or retirement of AFP personnel, but they do so in a less comprehensive manner than provisions applying to Commonwealth employees under the Commonwealth Employees' (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. At present the grounds for redeployment or retirement action do not correspond to those applying to other Commonwealth employees; the terms used are not defined; and decisions are not subject to appeal. This Bill aims at consistency with other areas of Commonwealth employment and adapts the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees' (Redeployment and Retirement) Act only to the extent necessary to meet the special requirements of the AFP, which derive from its disciplined character, command structure, functions and operational requirements. These requirements make it inappropriate to include the AFP within the ambit of the Commonwealth Employees' (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. The amendments to existing sections 38 and 39 accord with recommendations made by the Administrative Review Council. Broadly, these will require the efficient and economic use of AFP staff; require the publication of administrative procedures; require that staff affected by management initiated redeployment or retirement decisions be notified; require that reasonable action be taken to redeploy a member by transfer within the AFP, and introduce a right of appeal against such decisions. The most significant departure in the Bill from the schemes of the Commonwealth Employees' (Redeployment and Retirement) Act is that the Appeals Board established to review decisions about the redeployment or retirement of AFP members is to be of recommendatory rather than determinative in character. This departure was recommended by the ARC as a desirable means of ensuring the ultimate authority of the Commissioner. The existing AFP Promotion Appeals Board is of similar character, and the new Appeals Board will also consider promotion appeals. Unlike the Commonwealth Employees' (Redeployment and Retirement) Act, which contemplates the redeployment of public servants between departments, redeployment of AFP members under the Bill will be possible only within the AFP. In a further departure, the Bill includes provision, recommended by the ARC, that a member of the AFP should be permitted legal counsel before the Appeals Board. The opportunity has also been taken to make several other amendments to the Australian Federal Police Act. The amendments are: To section 15 to clarify the powers of delegation of the Commissioner; to section 19 to take account of the appointment of two deputy commissioners; to section 24 to remove the requirement that the Public Service Board be consulted on rank numbers; to sections 25, 26 and 35 to reflect the change from a rank-based organisation to a position-based organisation; to sections 25 and 26 to exclude members who are the subject of a redeployment declaration from normal transfer arrangements; and to sections 29 and 37 to take account of subsequent amendments. The purpose of the amendment to section 16 is to provide the Commissioner with all the powers of a Secretary to a Department under the Public Service Act. The powers will relate only to public servants who have either been appointed, or are employed, under the Public Service Act 1922 and who now work within the Office of the Australian Federal Police attached to my Department. The provision of these powers ensures that the Commissioner has full responsibility for and control over the administration and operation of the AFP and will clarify the rights of Public Service staff in the Office of the AFP in relation to grievance and other appeal mechanisms. The purpose of the major amendment to section 40 is to enable the establishment of an Appeals Board, which is to hear and determine appeals lodged by a member against the selection for promotion of another member and appeals against redeployment or retirement action, and to make recommendations to the Commissioner. Other amendments to section 40 will enable the making of regulations to enable the re-appointment to the AFP of a person who was retired on invalidity grounds but who has regained good health, and to provide for pre-embarkation interviews for those members posted overseas. The amendment to section 68 of the Act, which provides for certification of a number of matters in relation to membership of the AFP, arises from a suggestion by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It will assist in legal proceedings against persons who misrepresent themselves to be members of the AFP. While it is not possible at this stage to estimate the use likely to be made of the retirement provisions of the Bill, there is no reason to suppose that the financial implications are other than minimal. The Bill includes transitional provisions to ensure that delegations will continue to be effective and that promotion appeals lodged prior to the date of effect shall continue to be considered under the existing provisions. It also includes minor machinery provisions such as deletion from the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act of reference to the Commonwealth Police, and deletion of matters which were previously included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1983 but which have not been proclaimed and are now superseded. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985 is to clarify the procedures which govern internal investigations within the Australian Federal Police so as to protect the rights of members of the Force and improve the operation of the procedures. The Bill is based upon recommendations put to the Government by the Australian Federal Police Association and addresses matters raised in the 1982-83 annual report of the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal. The Association made detailed submission to me and to the then Attorney-General in 1984. It was principally concerned at what it considered the inadequacy of protection afforded members of the AFP under internal investigation, and at the possibility that its members might, in certain circumstances, be penalised twice for one offence. The protection afforded members under investigation-section 7 of the principal Act-will be increased by an amendment which more closely defines the method of giving a direction that a question put by a member of the Internal Investigation Division must be answered, and which clarifies the focus of that direction. Under the new provisions a direction must be clearly identified as such, shall specify particulars of the complaint and, where practicable, shall be in writing. The possibility that a member of the AFP might be charged with both a criminal and a disciplinary offence as results of the same transaction is to be dealt with by an amendment now being made to the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations. The Regulations are also being amended to require the application of the criminal standard of proof-that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt-to all disciplinary offences. This change will contribute to the protection afforded members of the AFP who are under investigation. It is appropriate to mention these matters here since the amendments to the principal Act and to the regulations constitute a single package of improvements. The Bill, which has no financial impact, includes an amendment suggested by the AFP extending the provisions for conciliation of complaints, section 19, and a number of amendments suggested by the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, new section 11A, sections 67, 68, 69, 71 and 79. Broadly, the purpose of those amendments is to: Clarify the right of the Commissioner to withdraw proceedings; ensure that all parties affected by the Tribunal's decisions have an opportunity to be heard; allow extensions of time for appeals to the Tribunal; overcome practical difficulties in the issue of summonses to witnesses; and institute a right of appeal to the Federal Court on penalties imposed. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Representation Act 1983, which increased the number of senators for each State from 10 to 12, provides for the additional two senators for each State elected to the Parliament in December 1984 to receive remuneration from the date of the first meeting of this Parliament, that is, 21 February 1985. However, the additional new members of the House of Representatives elected on 1 December 1984 were paid from that date. This difference between the additional newly-elected members of both Houses was drawn to the attention of the Government following a question asked in the Senate in February in the context of the nexus requirement between the two Houses. Honourable members will be aware that the major redistribution effected last year and the increase in the size of the Parliament arose from a recommendation by the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that the number of senators representing each original State be increased from 10 to 12, with a corresponding increase in the size of the House of Representatives of 23. Given the circumstances of the increase in the size of the Parliament, the Government has considered the question of the date of commencement of remuneration and believes that there should be no difference between the additional newly-elected members of both Houses. I wish to make it clear that this measure relates only to the additional two new senators for each State elected in December 1984. It will not alter in any way the existing provisions in respect of senators whose terms will commence on 1 July next. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of the Export Inspection Charge Bill is to consolidate the existing export inspection charging Acts for primary products other than meat, where charges are imposed on the basis of an export permit. The Bill does not encompass export inspection charges for inspection of livestock and wool as these are not readily amenable to consolidation. The Bill is a consolidation of the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982, the Dried Fruit (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1981, the Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982, the Fish (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1981 and the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1979. Its provisions will provide a consistent basis for the imposition of charges. The Bill also includes provisions which will enable charges to be imposed for inspection of canned and processed fruit or vegetable products. Honourable members will recall that last February the Government announced its intention to impose such charges for the 1985-86 financial year. Consolidation of the 10 existing charge and collection Acts is consistent with government policy to reduce the total volume of legislation which comes before the Parliament. This consolidation builds on proposals for the consolidation of research legislation. I believe that this trend is particularly desirable in relation to the quite large number of Acts that are administered by the Minister for Primary Industry, I think some 137. In relation to the imposition of charge on canned and processed fruit or vegetables, the provisions of the Bill apply in the same way as for other products. The Bill provides for the maximum charge that may be prescribed in relation to the products. With respect to fruit or vegetable juice the maximum charge that may be prescribed shall be 1c per litre or per kilogram, whichever would result in the lesser amount of charge becoming payable. Over the past two years the procedures for inspecting non-meat products have been under review in close consultation with the industries concerned as well as staff. For a number of products covered by this Bill, inspection is progressively moving to a system whereby the intensity of product monitoring is varied according to the performance of individual firms in complying with export requirements and standards. Orders under the Export Control Act introducing the new procedures and covering dairy products, eggs and fish will be introduced shortly. Under this Bill each product can be divided into classes specified according to the type of packing, the form in which the commodity is exported, and the inspection regime applicable in its manufacture. After some experience with new inspection procedures this will allow charges to be varied according to the intensity of product monitoring undertaken by the inspection service. Such a system of charging should lead to a more cost effective use of inspection resources with the potential for an overall reduction in the cost of inspection to industry. The weight or volume of goods on which the charge is calculated does not include the weight of any covering in which the goods are packed. Where goods to which the Bill applies are packed in a can with another substance to which the Bill would not otherwise apply, the weight or volume of the other substance will be regarded as goods to which the Bill applies. These other substances are, of course, subject to inspection during manufacture. Before closing this speech I should give the background to the reasons for charging for export inspection of fruit and vegetables and for the omission of honey inspection charges from the Bill. Honourable members will recall that inspection charging Bills for honey and canned and frozen fruit and vegetables were deferred in the Senate on 1 May 1984 until reports on export inspection arrangements for these commodities were received from the Interim Inspection Policy Council and the Department of Primary Industry. The Senate resolution also sought consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission report on honey. I received the IIPC and departmental reports in July last year and preparations were advanced to have them tabled in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved prior to the 1 December election. As far as the inspection of export honey is concerned, the IIPC and Department of Primary Industry reports recommended that the need for inspection should be kept under review. Honourable members will recall that I recently announced that the export inspection of honey ceased from 4 March except where inspection is a requirement of an importing country. It is worth noting that the IAC report on the honey industry has no real relevance to export inspection matters. As far as canned and frozen fruit and vegetables export inspection is concerned, the IIPC and Department of Primary Industry recommended inspection regimes which reflect technological advances and would enable a reduced intensity of inspection. In this regard honourable members will be pleased to learn that a system of inspection involving less intensive monitoring of product, premises and processing operations will shortly begin field trialling. I seek leave to table both reports. Leave granted. Mr KERIN —I now turn to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. It is expected that the Bill will come into effect on 1 July 1985. The operative rates of charge in relation to products that are already subject to export inspection charging will not change. The operative rate of charge for canned and processed fruit or vegetable products is expected to be 0.5c per kilogram or per litre which would recover $330,000 in a full year. New rates of charge to apply from 1 October 1985 will be considered in the Budget context. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for collection of charge to be imposed as a result of the enactment of the Export Inspection Charge Bill 1985. The person to whom an export permit is issued for goods upon which charge is imposed will be required to self-assess and record the particulars on which the calculation of charge is based. This continues arrangements that already apply for dairy products, dried fruits, eggs, fish and grain. Returns containing these particulars will need to be lodged with the payment of charge at a specified office of the Department of Primary Industry. Twenty-eight days after the month of issue of the export permit will be allowed for payment of the charge. The Bill provides that no further export permit will be granted to an exporter who has not paid charge by the due date in relation to a past permit until payment has been made. Provisions in the Bill dealing with penalty for non-payment of charge, access to premises and recovery of unpaid charge are in similar terms to existing inspection charge collection arrangements for primary products. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the Export Inspection Charge Bill and the Export Inspection Charge Collection Bill. The last mentioned Bills will consolidate existing export inspection charge and charge collection legislation that applies to dairy products, dried fruits, eggs, fish and grain. The consolidated legislation will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation. In order to be able to continue to collect charge imposed before the coming into effect of the new legislation, the existing Charge and Collection Acts will remain in force but the Charge Acts will be amended by this Bill so that charge will not be imposed under them on or after the day on which the consolidated legislation comes into effect. The Bill will also repeal the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Act 1982 and the Edible Oils (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Act 1982. There is no charge outstanding in relation to edible oils inspected for export. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The principal purpose of the Bill is to provide clear and legally-based powers for the development and implementation of management plans in accordance with the stated objectives of the Fisheries Act 1952 of ensuring that the living resources of the Australian fishing zone are not endangered by overexploitation and that there is optimum utilisation of those resources. The Fisheries Act 1952 falls short in many respects of providing the necessary legal powers for implementing fishery-specific management plans utilising modern management concepts and practices. These management plans are required in order to contain increases in fishing effort in Australian proclaimed waters, thus enabling us to avoid depletion of our marine resources and prevent overcapitalisation and persistently depressed earnings in particular fisheries. Appropriate plans based on administrative arrangements have already been adopted in the rock lobster, northern prawn and southern bluefin tuna fisheries. The major amendment proposed in this Bill will give full legislative backing to those plans and provide the Commonwealth with much greater flexibility in their development and implementation having regard to the requirements of individual fisheries. Management plans will be able to deal with the determination of the manner of measuring the fishing capacity in a fishery, the total fishing capacity for that fishery, the allocation of that fishing capacity among licensed fishermen by way of units and the regulation, recording and evidencing of transactions involving units of fishing capacity. The capacity of a fishery can, for example, be measured in terms of outputs such as the allowable catch or inputs such as permitted quantities of fishing gear, such as lobster pots, or the size and engine power of the fleet in the particular fishery being managed. Management plans will also provide a basis on which fishermen will be able to plan their business arrangements with greater assurances of continuity over a period of years. At present, fishery licences are re-issued annually. The Bill will provide a basis for longer periods of licence validity and for renewal of licences, overcoming a major difficulty faced by the fishing industry in the existing legislative arrangements. This Bill will enable the implementation of the major recommendations on fisheries management which were unanimously adopted at the recent Australian Fisheries Conference. I would also like to stress that the development of new management plans by this Government for specific fisheries will continue to be undertaken in close consultation with the State governments and industry groups involved. While management plans will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance and will have the force of law, the Bill preserves the established techniques of licensing of master fishermen and boats and of regulating the operations of the fleet through prohibitions by notice. Examples of prohibitions are closed seasons, legal minimum sizes and fishing gear controls. The Bill thus combines the established practices of, when necessary, regulating individuals in their fishing activities with the flexibility that management plans will provide for regulating the capacity of the fleet as a whole in any particular fishery. The detailed scheme of the Bill is set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. As well as providing for management plans, the Bill reviews the penalties under both the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 and brings them into line with current Commonwealth legal policy and contemporary monetary values. It provides for a number of specific amendments of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act to deal with administrative details revealed in the bringing of that Act into operation and a number of miscellaneous amendments of both principal Acts. This Bill and the accompanying Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill have no direct implications in themselves for revenue or expenditure. The Fisheries Levy Bill will authorise the collection of levies based on units of fishing capacity in specific fisheries on a basis that will be determined for each such fishery. In practice this means that levies will normally be imposed and collected on a pro rata basis according to the number of units of capacity held by individual fishermen rather than on a flat amount per licence. The Bill is an important step in the development of one of Australia's important food producing and export industries and in the conservation of our marine resources. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is associated with the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill. It amends the Fisheries Licences Levy Act 1984 to incorporate a number of provisions consequential on that Bill. The Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill 1985 enables levy to be imposed on the allocation, or the renewal of an allocation, of units of fishing capacity in a prescribed class of units, that are not assigned to a boat. Levy can also be imposed on the renewal of a boat licence under the Fisheries Act 1952 in a prescribed class of licences or on the variation of a boat licence under either the Fisheries Act 1952 or the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 in a prescribed class of licences. This Bill and the accompanying Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill have no direct implications in themselves for revenue or expenditure. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amalgamate existing rural industry research legislation and provide one Act for the administration of rural industry research funds, known as RIRFs. The Bill will bring about improvements in the organisation and administration of existing RIRFs, it will revamp the Commonwealth special research grants scheme and will place rural research funding on a secure footing. I will also be introducing associated legislation on poultry and tobacco and a Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendment Bill, all of which are necessary to give effect to this Bill. At present there are 14 trust accounts covering barley, chicken meat, cotton, dried fruits, dairy, fish, honey, oilseeds, pigs, poultry, wheat, wine, wool and tobacco. The trust accounts are funded and administered through separate legislation by research committees, although in the case of poultry and wine research special arrangements apply. The research programs of smaller industries are funded under the Commonwealth special research grants scheme. Government and industry presently each contribute about $32m annually to industry research through these arrangements. The Government also provides additional funds to rural research through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities, colleges, and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I spoke about the need for government action in the area of rural research in my second reading speech on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985 on 20 March. As I pointed out in that speech, there have been a series of reviews and discussions in recent years about the adequacy of rural research in Australia. The Balderstone Working Group on Agricultural Policy examined the role of research and development in the process of agricultural innovation in its report in 1982. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources reported, in the same year, on the Commonwealth's role on rural research and extension services. In 1983 there was a joint management review of the administration of research schemes in the primary industry portfolio. Within industry, various groups, including the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, have also been giving attention to rural research policy. All these inquiries have acknowledged that research and development is vital to the profitability of rural industries and that considerable benefits flow to rural industries and the community generally from expenditure on such research. It is necessary, therefore, that rural research is organised in a way which will ensure that there is adequate research investment, that the greatest possible returns are achieved from each dollar spent, and that those who administer and undertake research are fully accountable to the providers of funds. The Government has made a detailed assessment of these issues. Rural research is, and will continue to be, a high priority of this Government. In November last year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced that the Government would increase its financial contribution to rural research, and in February I provided the details of that commitment. I also announced a major upgrading of the organisation and administration of rural research. This Bill will give effect to those decisions. Concerning the issue of funding, the Bill makes provision for increased Commonwealth funding up to a maximum contribution of 0.5 per cent of the annual gross value of production for each of the industries concerned. The current Commonwealth contribution averages around 0.25 per cent of GVP over all industries currently receiving Commonwealth funds. Encouragement will be given for industry investment in research through a continuation of the dollar for dollar matching arrangement up to the Commonwealth's maximum contribution. The Government will seek to increase its funding to the maximum rate over a five-year period but this is dependent on an increase in industry contributions. In the case of tobacco research where the Government's contribution is above 0.5 per cent, the level of funding requested by industry in 1984 and agreed to by government will be maintained. Under the new arrangements it will be possible for an industry to contribute in excess of 0.5 per cent of its GVP to fund research. As expenditures above 0.5 per cent of GVP will not be subject to government matching there will be no delay in approval arising from the Government's budgetary process. In such instances the Government will make legislative amendments or changes to regulations concerning levies as quickly as possible. This will enable industry to increase funding without being held back by the need for a government decision on matching. I mentioned earlier that there are two other areas of concern to government apart from funding. One is to ensure that the greatest possible returns are achieved from each dollar spent on rural research. The other is to ensure full accountability of those who administer and undertake research to the providers of funds. This Bill makes provision for the effective planning, organisation and administration of research and for effective accountability arrangements. It will apply to 11 major rural industries commencing on 1 January 1986. At this stage wool and wine research will be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. In the case of wool research, the Government has not completed its consultations with the Australian Wool Corporation and the Wool Council of Australia concerning the future operation of the Wool Research Trust Fund. This fund has been successfully administered over the years by the Wool Corporation to the benefit of woolgrowers and the community generally. In a number of respects the trust fund has provided an appropriate model for the reform of other RIRFs, and obviously I do not want to disrupt unnecessarily the present successful arrangements. However, the Wool Corporation has agreed to adopt many administrative arrangements outlined in the Bill for other RIRFs which presently do not apply to the Wool Research Trust Fund. In the case of wine research, honourable members will be aware of the inquiry being undertaken into the grape and wine industries. It would be inappropriate for the Government to introduce changes to the organisation and administration of research in these industries while this inquiry is proceeding. For this reason I have deferred consideration of applying the provisions of the Bill to wine research until the inquiry is completed. I expect to receive a report shortly and then consultations between government and the industries will be needed before arrangements for the wine research are finalised. In addition, the Bill will not apply to the meat and livestock industry or to fisheries. In the case of meat and livestock, I have already introduced and discussed legislation for setting up the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation, which will take research in that industry outside the ambit of the Rural Industries Research Bill. In the case of fisheries, discussions have been proceeding with the fishing industry to reach agreement on the necessary organisational and administrative agreements for research in that industry. I will announce future arrangements for fisheries research when industry consultations have been completed. Under the provisions of the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985 the existing RIRF research committees will be replaced by research councils. The objective of the research councils will be to increase the commercial returns to the industries concerned by improving the production, processing, storage, transport or marketing of relevant agricultural commodities. The councils will seek to achieve this general objective by clearly identifying specific research objectives, by setting priorities for the promotion and funding of research and development, and by establishing research programs which will meet the specific objectives. The Bill provides for each research council to develop a five-year strategic research and development plan which specifies the broad strategies the council will adopt in meeting its objectives. The councils will be required to consult with industry in developing these plans and will submit them to me for approval. They will also prepare annual research and development programs for submission to me. I will consider these programs to ensure consistency with the five-year research and development plans. The Government considers that this strategic planning process will enhance the councils' capacity to actively direct research and development activities towards achieving industry endorsed objectives. It will ensure the councils do not simply play a passive role of allocating moneys but will evaluate projects submitted to them for funding against their priorities, needs and objectives for the industries concerned. Research councils will comprise five to nine members, including the chairperson and a Government member. The actual size will be determined by me in consultation with relevant industry organisations. The Government recognises the key role to be played by members of the research councils. The legislation, therefore, makes provision for a selection procedure which will ensure that the councils are comprised of the best available people, who together have a mix of expertise and experience related to the council's activities. Relevant expertise and experience includes commodity production, processing and marketing, science, technology and technology transfer, economics, administration of research and development, finance and business management. The Bill provides for the establishment of a Research Council Selection Committee to select all members of the research councils, except chairpersons and Government members who will be selected by me. This Committee will be required to develop selection criteria and procedures for the indentification of people likely to meet those criteria. The Committee will be empowered to employ the services of a professional personnel consultant to assist in the identification of suitable people. The Selection Committee will comprise an independent chairperson appointed by the Minister, a core group of three members, which will be involved in the selection of members for all research councils, and up to three industry representatives who, along with the core group, will select members for specific research councils. The core group will include one member nominated by the National Farmers Federation, one member nominated by the Australian Agricultural Council, and one member with knowledge of and experience in scientific matters, research and development and/or marketing, who will be selected and appointed by me as Minister. The involvement of the core group in all selections will enable a body of experience to be developed in selecting council members and it is more cost-effective than setting up a completely new committee for selecting members to each council. For the industry specific part of the selection committee, there is provision for up to three members, with the actual number being determined by me after consultation with the relevant industry organisation. This part of the Selection Committee recognises the need for a strong industry view on desirable membership attributes for particular councils. As I mentioned before, the Selection Committee will not select the chairperson of a research council or the Government member. I will make these selections on the basis of merit. The government member on the research councils will be selected specifically on the basis of his or her personal qualities, expertise and experience of government policy and procedures relevant to each council's activities. I will continue to appoint this member for a number of reasons. First, appointment by me is necessary to ensure that the member is knowledgeable in the area of government policies. The Selection Committee will not be constituted in a way which would suit it to make such an assessment of the potential appointee. Secondly, government involvement in this appointment reflects its desire to play a role in council activities commensurate with its matching financial contribution. It should be recalled that the Government is not substantially involved in the selection procedure which will apply to council members other than the Government member. Thirdly, it may be desirable in the interests of the industries concerned and of the Government, for the Government member to be a person with an explicit policy formulation and advising role outside the research council. Choice of such a person can only be made by me and not by a selection committee acting on my behalf. Selection of the Government member by me will also reduce the cost to industry of the selection process. The selection procedure I have described will not apply to the selection of members for the State-based research committees of the wheat and barley industries. For these industries the Commonwealth's financial contributions are administered through national barley and wheat research councils and the industry contributions are administered through State-based research committees. The Government's intention is that this arrangement will continue and that the proposed Research Council Selection Committee, as I mentioned, will not operate in respect of the State research committees. Given that these committees operate under Commonwealth legislation I will appoint the chairperson of the committees. I will, however, make the appointment on the recommendation of the relevant State Minister who, I expect, will consult with relevant industry organisations. On the other hand, the strategic planning and accountability provisions of the Bill will apply to the State committees. These committees will be encouraged to devise arrangements for selecting members on the basis of relevant experience and expertise. There will not be a government member appointed by the Commonwealth on the State research committees. The provisions of the Rural Industries Research Bill will presently apply to 11 major rural industries. In future other rural industry research funds will be able to be established through regulations according to the provisions of the Bill. For some small and emerging industries, which are essential to a dynamic and innovative agricultural sector, establishment of research councils or research and development corporations would not be cost-effective for such industries and would not allow sufficient flexibility. In addition, there may be a need for research to be conducted in areas which concern a number of RIRFs, but which are not attractive to any one RIRF. This intercommodity or multidisciplinary research requires special arrangements as does research undertaken in the national interest. In view of these requirements the Government will strengthen the role of the existing Commonwealth special research grant, which has provided limited funding for research into the small and new industries. The Bill provides for the establishment of the special research grant on a statutory basis and renaming it the Australian Special Rural Research Fund. The Government will increase funds available to the new Research Fund. In 1984-85 it virtually doubled its financial allocation to the special research grant to $0.5m and it will aim to increase this further in subsequent years. The Bill will apply the general principles governing research councils to an Australian Special Rural Research Council. This will ensure that the Council has statutory status presently not endowed upon the Commonwealth special research grant; is comprised of a mix of the best people available with expertise and experience relevant to its activities, and has consultative and accountability requirements along the lines of the research councils. Other councils, together, will also be able to participate in multi-industry research and there may be potential for co-operation elsewhere, for example, in administrative procedures and in the common use of specialised staff resources. The Bill provides for an annual co-ordination meeting of all chairpersons of research councils to discuss matters of common interest. This will also include the Australian Special Rural Research Council, the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation and the Wool Research Trust Fund. With regard to the accountability of the research councils, they will continue to prepare an annual report for tabling in parliament. This will be the principal means of accountability to both parliament and industry. It is expected that the annual report of each council will address performance against the key elements identified in its strategic plan. In addition, the chairperson of each council will formally present the Council's annual report to an executive meeting of the industry body deemed to most fully represent that industry. The chairperson will also discuss the performance and plans of the Council with the executive of the industry body. The Council's annual report, together with the comments of the industry executive, will then be presented to industry. Under this planning and consultative mechanism there will be no need for me to approve funding of individual research projects and minor alterations to approved budgets, as I do at present. This will increase the operational flexibility and autonomy of the research councils. Concerning the administration of the RIRFs, at present most are administered by the Department of Primary Industry, although for the larger RIRFs-wool, dairy and meat-their secretariat services are handled by the relevant statutory marketing authority. This Bill will allow administrative and secretariat support services for other RIRFs to be devolved from the Department, providing that cost-savings and appropriate accountability can be demonstrated. Councils who wish to take this course of action will need to apply to me for approval. To ensure that the costs of RIRF administration are clearly visible, that efforts are made, where necessary, to improve efficiency, and that there is equity across all RIRFs, the Government has decided to recover the costs of secretariat and administrative support services, financial management, or other necessary services provided by my Department to the RIRFs. Where secretariat services have been divested from the Department, the Government will only recover the cost of financial management functions which must be performed on behalf of the RIRFs. It should be noted that in relation to the wool, dairy and meat RIRFs, the relevant statutory marketing authorities recovered about $1.4m from the trust funds in 1983-84 for secretariat services. In 1984-85 the Government expects to recover about $600,000 from all RIRFs for services provided by my Department. Cost recovery will not significantly affect the funds that are available for rural research. Not only will the additional amount collected be fairly small, but the Commonwealth will be providing 50 per cent of the funds expended on administration through its matching arrangement. Let me emphasise that it is essential that the costs involved in administration are identified and made visible, so that the cost-effectiveness of rural research can be assessed and, where necessary, action is taken to reduce these costs at their source. The cost recovery provisions of this Bill will assist this process. I have already referred to the financial impact of the legislation in terms of the funding and cost-recovery provisions. As I stated earlier, the Government will be providing funds on a matching basis up to a maximum contribution of 0.5 per cent of the gross value of production for each of the industries concerned. This will be phased in over a five-year period in line with industry requests for levy increases and will result in a very significant Government contribution to rural research. In 1984-85 the Government will provide $32.6m for rural research and recover costs of the order of $600,000 for administrative and secretariat services provided by my Department. The Rural Industries Research Bill will do much to strengthen industry involvement in, and influence over, the direction of rural research. Whereas the present role of industry has been described as passive, in future industry will be actively involved in many ways. The objectives of the Bill have been defined specifically to identify industry interests. The principal objective is to increase the commercial returns to the industries concerned through research and development in a broader range of areas than previously covered. These include improvements in production, processing, storage, transport and marketing of agricultural commodities. Industry will be heavily involved in the selection of members to research councils which will administer the RIRFs. They will be well represented on the Research Council Selection Committee and will be able to select producer members to the research councils on the basis of merit. In developing research and development plans, the research councils and committees will be required to consult industry to ensure that its priorities, needs and objectives are taken into account. Research councils will also be required to present formally their annual reports to relevant industry organisations showing how they have performed in relation to those plans. These arrangements will ensure two-way communication between industry and the councils. The major impact of the Bill will be in establishing rural research and development on a sound administrative and financial footing, in ensuring that the greatest possible returns are achieved from each dollar spent on research and in making sure that those who administer and undertake research are accountable to the providers of funds. This is vital if rural industries are to remain progressive, competitive and profitable in years to come. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is complementary to the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985 which I have just introduced. The purposes of the Bill are to amend complementary legislation where necessary, to repeal existing legislation no longer required, and to provide transitional provisions necessary for the enactment of the Rural Industries Research Bill. The Bill will amend research Acts relating to barley, cotton, dairying and oilseeds. In each of these Acts both the levy collection and research trust account and committee arrangements are contained in the one Act. Parts I and II of the Acts, which relate to their interpretation and levy collection arrangements, will be retained. Part III of the Acts, which concern the establishment of a trust account and research committees, will be repealed as these are now covered in the omnibus Rural Industries Research Bill. The Bill also repeals the research Acts relating to chicken meat, dairying, dried fruits, honey, pigs, tobacco and wheat. The transitional provisions in the Bill are designed to ensure a smooth changeover of responsibilities from the existing research committees to the new research councils. Provision is made for moneys and investments which belong to the existing research trust accounts to be credited to the new rural industry research funds from the day they are established under the Omnibus Bill. Payments will also be able to be made from these funds for work carried out under the previous legislation. This includes remuneration and allowances for members or deputies of the research committees, for consultants or advisers, and any other expenses incurred in the performance of functions. In addition, agreements entered into by existing committees, on behalf of the Commonwealth, with other parties will continue in force. This will provide for research projects which are approved prior to the new legislation to continue without disruption for the remainder of the financial year. The Bill also establishes transitional provisions for the preparation of an annual report where a new research fund and council are established during an annual reporting period. The Bill also provides that only one annual report covering the 12 month period to 30 June 1986 need be prepared. The Rural Industries Research (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 does not have any direct financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.11) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 1) 1955. The Bill makes provision for the continued funding of the Australian Tobacco Board to take effect from when tobacco research is brought under the new legislative arrangements for organisation and administration of rural industry research funds. The Bill is therefore complementary to both the Rural Industries Research Bill 1985 and the Rural Industries Research (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. That legislation provides for the repeal of the Tobacco Industry Act 1965, which currently allows the operating expenses of the Australian Tobacco Board to be met from income derived from levies paid by tobacco growers and manufacturers under the three tobacco charge Acts. The Tobacco Charge Act (No. 1) 1955 imposes a levy, currently set at 3.5c per kilogram, on tobacco leaf sold to a manufacturer. This Bill makes provision within the Charge Act itself for a proportion of the amount of the tobacco charge to be set aside by regulation to meet the expenses of the Tobacco Board. The balance of the charge will be directed to the tobacco research trust fund to be established under the new rural research legislation. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. It essentially continues arrangements already in place for funding tobacco research and the expenses of the Tobacco Board. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 2) 1955. The Bill makes provision for the continued funding of the Australian Tobacco Board from levies paid by tobacco growers and manufacturers, to take effect from when tobacco research is brought under the umbrella of the new rural industries research legislation. The Tobacco Charge Act (No. 2) 1955 imposes a levy, currently set at 3.5c per kilogram, on tobacco leaf purchased by a manufacturer. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Tobacco Charge Act (No. 3) 1955. The Bill makes provision for the continued funding of the Australian Tobacco Board from levies paid by tobacco growers and manufacturers, to take effect from when tobacco research is brought under the umbrella of the new rural industries research legislation. The Tobacco Charge Act (No. 3) 1955 imposes a levy, currently set at 3.5c per kilogram, on tobacco leaf grown and processed by a manufacturer. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Poultry Industry Levy Act 1965. The Poultry Industry Levy Act 1965 imposes a levy on all hens, in excess of 20, kept for commercial purposes. Funds collected are used to provide financial assistance to the States and to make an industry contribution to poultry-eggs-research. This Bill seeks to abolish the hen levy with effect from 1 July 1987. Certain provisions of the Act are continued beyond that date to facilitate collection of any outstanding levy which is due and payable prior to 1 July 1987. When such latter action is completed, legislation to repeal the Act will be introduced into the Parliament. The Commonwealth hen levy was introduced in 1965 with the aim of providing financial assistance to the poultry industry to help it meet trading losses experienced by the State egg boards in disposing of eggs surplus to local demand. It was imposed at a time when the industry was faced with a critical economic situation and was designed to provide a measure of stability at the request of the States and industry. During the 20 years in which the scheme has operated the aim has largely been achieved. In excess of $260m has been collected as levy and most has been returned to the States as assistance payments. In the past few years a number of reviews and reports on egg marketing, including studies by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, State government inquiries and Standing Committee on Agriculture working parties, have raised doubts about the need for continued Commonwealth involvement in equalisation levy arrangements. Industry actions and decisions re-affirmed the doubts on the need for such a levy. Industry agreed last year on a plan aimed at reducing, progressively, the level of excess production through the already available mechanism of hen quotas, which are administered by State-Territory authorities. In accordance with this plan egg production is to be reduced, by 1 July 1987, to a level which will provide a minimum surplus, sufficient to meet seasonal domestic demand. The Commonwealth, in the light of these events, and after discussion with the States in the Australian Agricultural Council, decided to phase out the hen levy by 1 July 1987. Removal on that date will help to reinforce State measures to reduce production and is in line with the industry plan to achieve a minimum surplus level. As mentioned earlier, a small portion of the hen levy receipts provided an industry contribution to research programs. Alternative methods of providing the industry contribution after 1 July 1987 are being canvassed with relevant industry bodies and will be implemented after agreement is reached between the Commonwealth, States and industry. In the meantime, to bring poultry research arrangements into line with those for other rural industries, provision is made in the Bill to divide the hen levy and cater for a specific research component. This will ensure continuity of funding for poultry research, involving the guarantee of continued Commonwealth matching of funds under provisions of the omnibus rural industries research legislation. Administrative costs of the hen levy were met from the levy receipts. The Commonwealth, however, provided at no charge the necessary general and financial administration, at its level, of the levy arrangements and there will be some savings in the time of a number of officers when the arrangements are concluded. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965. The Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965 provides for the establishment of a trust fund into which proceeds of the hen levy are paid. It also provides the authority for expenditure of such money on assistance to the States and the Australian Capital Territory and for poultry research. Funds expended on research are matched by the Commonwealth up to a limit of $150,000 in any financial year. Prior to 1982-83 research programs involved expenditure of less than $300,000 and despite the ceiling on Commonwealth contributions still enabled industry funds to be matched equally. Since 1982-83, however, the total research program has exceeded that level and resulted in the industry contribution being a greater amount than the Commonwealth's. The Government decided as part of its 1984-85 Budget deliberations to match dollar for dollar industry funds on poultry research putting it on the same basis as for other rural industry research funding. This Bill removes the present limiting provision in the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965 to enable that decision to be implemented and the Commonwealth matching funding to apply this financial year. The Commonwealth contribution is expected to be increased in 1984-85 by $41,000 to $191,000 and to increase by $90,000 to $240,000 in 1985-86 as a result of this change. Poultry research funding and administration are to come under provisions of the omnibus rural industry research legislation. The amendments therefore provide authority for the transfer of funds from the Poultry Industry Trust Fund to a separate research fund, if necessary, and repeal research expenditure provisions of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act, effective when the omnibus legislation becomes operative. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the number of specially qualified members of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation to be increased from two to four. Following receipt of the Industries Assistance Commission's report of 11 October 1984 on the dried vine fruits industry, the Government considered the arrangements applying to the industry. In view of the increasing complexity of international marketing of dried vine fruit, and in line with its objective of enhancing the effectiveness of statutory marketing authorities, it decided to provide for the appointment of two additional specially qualified members of the Corporation. The additional members are to be selected for their skills in commerce, finance and/or marketing matters. Currently, apart from the Chairman, the Corporation has four members to represent producers of dried fruit-a government representative and two members with special qualifications in the marketing of dried fruit. The addition of two members with special qualifications will considerably widen the expertise which can be brought to bear within the Corporation in the performance of its functions. The quorum for Corporation meetings is being increased from six members to seven. This legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. The Corporation's administrative costs including members' remuneration are met by a charge on exports of dried vine fruit. The opportunity is being taken in this Bill to make certain minor amendments of an administrative nature. In accordance with arrangements adopted by the Government about a year ago for the approval of borrowings by primary industry statutory authorities, the Bill provides that Corporation financial borrowings will be subject to approval by myself as Minister for Primary Industry, not by the Treasurer as provided in the current Act. I shall, however, consult with the Treasurer before giving any such approval. The Bill also amends gender-specific references in the present legislation, and provides for repeal of a redundant section of the Act relating to the rights of Corporation staff, which are now provided for staff of statutory authorities generally in the Superannuation Act 1976. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.26) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Dried Sultana Production Underwriting Act 1982 to take account of recent Government decisions on future assistance arrangements for the dried vine fruits industry. The present underwriting scheme for sultanas covers the 1982 to 1986 seasons, relates to the average ex-packer returns for the whole dried sultana production of a season, and guarantees a minimum return at a proportion of the estimated average of equalised returns for the current and two preceding seasons. This Bill will continue present arrangements up to and including the 1985 season only. Between the 1986 and 1990 seasons the Government will underwrite the overall production of each season on the basis of the average export return at the free on board-f.o.b.-level. The guaranteed minimum export return rate for a particular season will be 80 per cent of the average of the f.o.b. export returns for the preceding three seasons. If the average export return for the particular season is less than that guaranteed minimum, an underwriting payment is payable over all sales at the amount per tonne by which that average export return falls short of that guaranteed minimum. The new arrangements are expected to provide roughly the same amount of assistance on average as at present. However, with the system being based on returns from exports only rather than returns from all sales, underwriting will be more sensitive to sharp falls in world market prices and thus will be more effective in providing the protection intended. Basing the system on f.o.b., rather than cost including freight-c.i.f.-as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission, removes the freight and insurance costs, which are not specific to the dried vine fruits industry, and enhances this sensitivity. Also the new arrangements make it possible to determine the guaranteed minimum return for underwriting much earlier than under existing arrangements. It is not feasible at this time to estimate reliably the dried sultana production or average export returns for the 1986 season, or the average return over the three seasons 1983 to 1985 inclusive. Accordingly no reliable estimate is available of the cost of the new arrangements to the Government through any underwriting payment in respect of 1986 or later seasons. However, a comparison of the new and the current systems on the basis of data for the 1982 season, the latest for which an underwriting payment has been made, indicates that an underwriting payment of $61 per tonne would have been payable under the new arrangements. Under the current arrangements, $16.38 per tonne was paid. As 1982 production of sultanas was 80,655 tonnes, $4.92m would have been payable under the new arrangement, compared with $1.32m actually paid. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(5.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Act 1978 to take account of recent Government decisions following a report on the dried vine fruit industry by the Industries Assistance Commission. The Government had requested the Commission to inquire into the assistance needs of the industry because world market prices had fallen sharply under pressure from a major surplus of fruit and the industry was experiencing considerable financial difficulties. At present, returns for each variety of dried vine fruit-sultanas, currants and raisins-are equalised by imposing a levy on domestic sales and distributing the proceeds over all sales. The levy has in practice served to defend a particular level of domestic price by reflecting the difference between the domestic and estimated average export returns. Until recently, the domestic price has been able to move roughly in line with consumer price index movements irrespective of prices on export markets. In the 1984 season for sultanas, the dominant variety of dried vine fruits, the expected domestic return was 120 per cent above the expected average export return and the equalised average return at packer level is expected to be 37 per cent above the average export return. The difference between domestic and export prices made sales on the Australian market highly vulnerable to import pressures. The present equalisation arrangements provide for levels of assistance that fluctuate widely and that in recent times have been very high. The Industries Assistance Commission commented that these arrangements enable domestic prices to subsidise export sales, disguising the true return from exports and encouraging a greater level of dried vine fruit production than is most profitable for the industry. The industry itself recognises the need to reduce the level of production to that which can be sold profitably. The Government considers that assistance provided through equalisation payments should be more stable and should make the industry more responsive to market signals. To achieve this the Government has decided to reduce progressively the maximum proportion of equalisation payments to average export returns. From the commencement of the 1986 season equalisation assistance to the industry will be reduced at uniform rates for each variety so that the equalised returns at the ex-packer level in 1990 will be no more than 15 per cent above the average export returns. While the new arrangements will ensure that the domestic price is closer to the international price, considerable assistance will continue to be provided through equalisation. The Government has not reduced the $200 per tonne tariff and thus the industry will continue to have a substantially protected home market. After careful consideration, the Government decided against adopting the Australian Dried Fruits Association's market entitlement proposal. The Government was concerned in particular that the immediate effect of the industry scheme would be to transfer substantial surplus production on to the wine-grape market which is already in surplus. These measures will encourage ongoing adjustment within the industry to place viable producers on a stronger footing in the long term. However, numerous producers of dried vine fruits earn very low incomes from their farms and, for reasons such as inadequate farm area or excessive debt structure, have no prospects of becoming economically viable in the future. To help such growers adjust out of the industry, the Government intends to provide, in conjunction with the governments of producing States, on a $2 Commonwealth-$1 State basis, up to $5m total funding for adjustment assistance additional to that being provided through the rural adjustment scheme. These funds are intended primarily to facilitate a vine pull program, but could also be used for other adjustment purposes. Half the funds will be made available forthwith, and any amount unspent in 1984-85 and the balance of the Commonwealth commitment will be available in 1985-86 and 1986-87. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes a range of measures to enhance the role of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The Corporation is a government-owned commercial enterprise. It operates as a business undertaking in competition with other insurers. It is the largest mortgage insurer in Australia and insures lenders against loss on loans for owner-occupied housing, rental housing, land development and housing estates and loans for the purchase, construction or refinancing of non-residential buildings. The Corporation has been instrumental in gaining industry acceptance of mortgage insurance as a substitute for large deposits, conservative valuations and short repayment terms. This has directly assisted many Australian families to achieve home ownership. There has already been a very positive industry response to the announcement of the Government's initiatives relating to the HLIC. We are very grateful to have that support. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has earned an outstanding reputation throughout the housing and finance industry. It has matched these achievements with a first class record of commercial success. In 1983-84 it returned a net profit of $5.4m and paid a total of $2.9m to Government revenue. One of the earliest initiatives taken when this Government came to office was to confirm our commitment to retain the HLIC in public ownership. At that time we indicated we would be looking to further ways in which the Corporation could play a greater role in assisting with the Government's housing objectives. The Bill includes four major initiatives which extend the Corporation's charter and a number of other operational changes. Perhaps the most significant area of new business for HLIC relates to the emerging secondary mortgage market. There is now general acceptance of the potential for such a market to attract new funds into housing. That potential was recognised by the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System and has motivated recent initiatives by State governments. This Government places a high priority on ensuring that there is an adequate supply of housing funds to enable Australian families to satisfy their home ownership aspirations. We consider it important that the secondary mortgage market develop in a rational, orderly way and that it have the highest possible standards. We accept the view of industry organisations that the HLIC can make an important contribution in this area and we expect to see it complement and support initiatives already taken by State governments and the private enterprise participants in those ventures. The Bill provides for the HLIC to facilitate the development of the secondary mortgage market by insuring pools of mortgages against loss. Presently, the Corporation is empowered to insure only single mortgages. With this new insurance, investors in secondary mortgage securities that are backed by an insured pool of mortgages can take comfort that their security position is unchallengeable. I emphasise, however, that under the Government's proposal the Corporation will be insuring only the performance of the underlying mortgages. It will not be guaranteeing those who pool mortgages for sale or the market securities themselves. I emphasise, too, that the HLIC will conduct this new aspect of its business on a strictly commercial basis. The Corporation's powers to insure traded mortgages in this way are to be found in clauses 4 (b) and 4 (d) of the Bill which define an 'approved dealer' and a 'negotiable mortgage security' and in clause 9 (a) which authorises HLIC to insure against losses as defined by regulation. These provisions of the Bill have been broadly drawn so that the Corporation will be in a position to respond flexibly to new security instruments as they emerge in the evolving market. I repeat, however, that the Corporation will be confined to the insurance of losses on the underlying mortgages and not the range of other commercial risks that form part of any market transaction of this kind. The Government genuinely appreciates the very positive industry response to this measure supporting the development of the secondary mortgage market in Australia. The second major change to the Corporation's charter involves extension of its insurance services to include all loans secured by mortgage, including loans where the purpose of the loan is not directly related to the mortgage security. This initiative is in line with recently announced changes to State legislation involving widening of the lending powers of permanent building societies. While the legislation makes clear that the major focus of the Corporation's business will relate to housing, it also provides for the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to meet more fully the wider insurance needs of its clients. This further extension of HLIC's operations is provided for by amendment of the definition of 'insurable loan' in clause 4 (c) of the Bill. The amended definition will remove some existing restrictions which unduly limit the Corporation's operations. It will permit the Corporation to insure loans where the mortgage is vested in a party other than the borrower, where the mortgage security is held against some other property, or where part of the loan proceeds are for associated domestic or commercial purposes not presently provided for; for example, home loans that extend to the consolidation of existing debts on furniture and furnishings. Removal of the present restrictions also has very important policy consequences. It will enable the Corporation to provide mortgage insurance services to lenders for a range of alternative mortgage instruments such as shared appreciation and shared equity mortgages. The Government hopes that HLIC's coverage will facilitate the development of more innovative mortgage instruments. As such this initiative is a positive response to the Martin Committee's recommendation for government action to encourage development of alternative mortgage instruments as a means of assisting low income families to achieve home ownership. The third major initiative provided for in this Bill is to empower the Corporation to act as an agent for other insurance companies underwriting mortgage repayment insurance for borrowers in the event of death, sickness, unemployment and so on. This kind of insurance cover can be important in the first years of mortgage repayment. It is, of course, a service which will continue to be utilised at the discretion of the borrower. Power for the Corporation to operate in this area is provided for under clause 9 (c) of this Bill. The Bill provides for the Corporation to operate in the same way as some private mortgage insurers by entering into agency agreements with general underwriters operating in the field. Introduction of a new 'special interest' provision is the fourth major initiative relating to the Corporation's charter. This is covered under clause 9 (c) of this Bill, which provides power for the Minister to direct the Corporation to provide insurance of loans falling within a specified class of loan deemed to be of special interest in terms of the Government's housing policies. The Bill provides for prior consultation with the Corporation and consideration of its advice. It also requires that all directions issued by the Minister will be tabled in Parliament. The Government envisages that use of the 'special interest' provision will be strictly limited. It will be used only where proposals have particular importance in terms of the Government's housing policies and where mortgage insurance will not otherwise be provided because of the application of strict commercial principles. There is a precedent with a similar national interest provision in the Export Finance Insurance Corporation Act. Examples of proposals that might be covered by a special interest determination include housing in remote areas and multiple occupancy developments, including communal housing. Operational changes covered by this Bill include introduction of a new special annual payment by the Corporation to place it on an equal commercial footing with other mortgage insurance firms. This is covered by clause 16 of the Bill, which requires payment by HLIC to Government revenue of an amount related to the insurance costs or other mortgage insurers. In all other respects the Corporation already competes on an equal commercial footing with other insurers. Clause 15 of the Bill involves amendment of the terms of the Government's guarantee of the Corporation. The amended wording is similar to the amendment made in the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Act 1984 in respect of the guarantee for that organisation. Clause 6 of the Bill introduces entitlement to age 55 retirement for the two full time statutory office holders of the Corporation. The entitlement is already available to HLIC staff and is standard throughout the Australian Public Service. Finally, clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill revise provisions relating to membership of the Corporation and disclosure of personal interest by members in line with the recommendations of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. The Government's standard procedures for appointment to statutory office and the revised provision relating to disclosure of interests by members provide comprehensive protection against any possible conflict of interest by members of the Corporation Board. It is particularly pleasing to advise the House that the very positive measures which I have outlined are also expected to result in a net gain to Government revenue. It is possible that some minor losses may be incurred by the Corporation in connection with business written under the new special interest provision. However, any such loss should be more than offset by other initiatives. The net gain to Government revenue will be achieved in part by increased taxation and dividend payments by the Corporation arising from growth in business volume. The overall result will be further enhanced as a result of the introduction of the new special annual payment covered by clause 16 of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, this Government has worked with industry and unions to bring about the most impressive housing recovery in Australia's history. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and this legislation are integral to the continuation of that proud record. The past success of the Corporation in assisting Australian families achieve home ownership deserves our recognition. We are confident that the measures provided in this Bill will ensure that it retains vitality and is responsive to the challenges ahead. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(5.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to extend the bounty assistance currently provided to the shipbuilding industry in Australia to vessels constructed or modified for export from Australia. The extended bounty assistance is part of a new shipbuilding industry package announced by the Government on 11 October 1984, following consideration of the report of a task force on the Australian shipbuilding industry released in January 1984. The task force was established by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce following representations from the Australian Shipbuilders Association concerning the long term viability of the local shipbuilding industry and its grim forward order situation. The task force made several recommendations aimed at increasing the throughput of Australian shipyards. Concern was also expressed at the substantial increase in the number of yards constructing bountiable vessels since the introduction of the current bounty scheme on 1 July 1980. It was recommended to government that it explore the possibility of prescribing conditions for the registration of shipyards. I am happy to report that since the task force report a series of discussions have been held between the industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and both parties have agreed that they will try to achieve an industrial agreement covering a range of issues. This agreement represents a significant contribution by both the industry and trade unions. The Government, as part of its contribution, has decided to remove the 2 per cent revenue duty from imported goods used in the construction or modification of bountiable vessels, to introduce certain registration criteria for eligibility for bounty, and to extend to vessels constructed or modified for export the bounty assistance currently provided to the industry. It is proposed that the bounty be extended to vessels built for export for which construction was commenced on or after 10 December 1984. Bounty is currently payable at a rate of 25 per cent of construction costs for vessels commenced between 1 July 1984 and 1 July 1985. The bounty rate is to phase down to 22.5 per cent for vessels commenced between 1 July 1985 and 1 July 1986, then phasing to the long term rate of 20 per cent from 1 July 1986. There will be an annual limit on bounty payable on ships built for export, the limit being $6m in 1984-85 and $10m in 1985-86. The Government believes that the extension of the bounty to vessels built for export combined with the recent improvements to the operating arrangements of the Export Finance Insurance Corporation will be very beneficial to the Australian shipbuilding industry. Exports should develop those sections of the shipbuilding industry most deserving of encouragement and should improve efficiency. There are significant export prospects for the type and size of vessel built by the local industry. It has also become apparent that local yards may have lost potential export contracts to third markets because competing overseas yards appear to have received government subsidies in addition to the usual export finance arrangements. I mentioned earlier that part of the Government's shipbuilding package is the introduction of registration criteria for the purposes of bounty eligibility. These criteria will ensure that bounty is paid only to those shipbuilders with a clear long term commitment to the industry. The criteria will not, however, prohibit entry into the industry by a shipbuilder prepared to undertake the necessary commitment. It is proposed that the regulations prescribe the criteria to be met by applicants for registration and to this end clause 13 of the Bill includes suitable provisions in the new registration sections to enable the regulations to prescribe conditions to be met by applicants for registration. There has been a significant increase in the number of registered shipbuilders since the introduction of the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 on 1 July 1980. While it is difficult to estimate future domestic demand for ships, it is apparent that there will be insufficient work to maintain the number of yards currently registered. The criteria should have a significant impact on the structure of the industry and it is estimated that when it is fully operative the 80 shipyards currently registered will be reduced to less than 30. The result should be a smaller, but more viable industry structure. The proposed registration criteria were announced by the Government on 11 October 1984 in the context of the new shipbuilding industry package. To qualify for registration on or after 10 December 1984 a shipbuilder must: (a) be a registered Australian company or organisation; (b) demonstrate financial and commercial capacity by way of an independent auditor's report to build a bountiable vessel; (c) employ directly, or through nominated sub-contractors, or have demonstrated clearly that an average of 20 persons will be dedicated to shipbuilding throughout the period of construction for the purpose of building the bountiable vessel; (d) have an ongoing apprenticeship scheme employing a ratio of at least one apprentice to eight tradesmen directly employed by the shipyard, and encourage all sub-contractors to maintain a similar scheme, and (e) own or have access to shipbuilding facilities including a waterfront site which are assessed as adequate for building the vessel or vessels for which registration is sought. Registration may also be restricted to vessels of up to a specified size and, if appropriate, of a specified hull material. It is also proposed that the registration be valid only for a period of 12 months but may be renewed. I should point out, however, that any registration in force at the date of implementation of the proposed criteria will remain valid until completion of any bountiable vessels currently under construction or modification. There is one other aspect that I would like to make clear. If a shipbuilder was registered prior to the introduction of the new criteria and was not successful in gaining a new registration because of the inability to meet one of the above criteria, the Minister will have the discretion to register. The Government places great importance on continuing progress in the discussions between the industry and the unions. Because of the importance of these discussions to the long term viability of the industry a Shipbuilding Consultative Group-SCG-has been established to monitor rogress. This body consists of an industrialist, a unionist and a Government representative. The Group will report to the Minister at least every three months. If the reports from the SCG indicate that continual progress towards rationalisation is not being achieved, the Government will review the augmented assistance package. Whether the export bounty is paid beyond the 1985-86 financial year will depend on the degree of progress achieved. Subject to the combined industry and union response the Government will consider whether the general bounty assistance should also be reviewed. The SCG is also responsible for advising on applications for registration from shipbuildings under the new criteria but the Minister will decide whether to grant or refuse registration of premises after report from that Group. Finally, the Bill includes a number of provisions particularly in Parts III and IV which are designed to update the administrative provisions in the existing Act. These provisions are modelled along similar lines to provisions in recent bounty legislation. Financial Impact Statement The cost of the bounty assistance to vessels constructed or modified for export is limited by the provisions of clause 8 to $6m in the period commencing on 10 December 1984 and ending on 30 June 1985 and to $10m in relation to the financial year commencing on 1 July 1985. The assistance, if any, beyond the 1985-86 financial year will depend upon the degree of progress achieved by the industry. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Scholes, and read a first time. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)(5.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to bring up to date the laws applying in the territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. These islands were placed under the authority of the Commonwealth in July 1931 by an imperial order-in-council and were declared to be accepted by the Commonwealth as a territory under the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act 1933. The laws currently operating in the territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands are the laws in force in the Northern Territory immediately before the Northern Territory was granted self-government on 1 July 1978. This means that the laws in force in the Ashmore and Cartier Islands were effectively frozen at the date of the granting of self-government to the Northern Territory. The territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands is one of the most northern parts of Australia. The Islands are about 350 kilometres north-west of Western Australia in the Indian Ocean, approximately 800 kilometres from Darwin and 200 kilometres south of Timor. The territory consists of four small islands, three of which are in the Ashmore Reef and descriptively called East, West and Middle Islands while the fourth, Cartier Island, is approximately 70 kilometres south of the Ashmore Reef. They are uninhabited except for visits by Indonesian fishermen between about March and November, and by mineral exploration parties operating in nearby seas. Royal Australian Navy patrol boats also visit the islands, while aircraft associated with the coastal protection unit overfly the area. The islands in the Ashmore Reef area abound with bird life. In recognition of the environmental significance of the area the reef was, in 1983, given the status of a nature reserve under the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Regular visits are made to the reef by officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The requirement to up date legislation reflects, in part, the increased activity of oil companies in the area. The laws which apply in the territory also apply to the territory's adjacent area and there are several exploration companies either operating in the area or examining the area with a view to undertaking exploration activity. Honourable members might recall that the Jabiru 1A well is located in this area. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 applies to the territory's adjacent area the laws that apply in the territory. By bringing these laws up to date, it will be possible, for example, to apply a modern code for workers compensation and industrial safety to supplement the provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Honourable members will note that the amendment Bill extends all the laws in force in the Northern Territory from time to time to apply to the Territory. However, when the Bill has passed through all stages in the Parliament, I propose to recommend to the Governor-General the making of a Territory ordinance specifying that certain Northern Territory laws shall not apply or are to be modified in their application to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. For instance, there are some Northern Territory laws of a purely local nature that should not apply. Also the Criminal Code Act, which contains provisions that the Commonwealth has opposed, would be modified in its application to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands to conform with Commonwealth policy. The Bill also empowers the Minister to make appointments to all non-judicial offices, with that power being capable of delegation. Under the principal Act the Minister holds all non-judicial offices. Proposed new section 11A of the Bill enables the Minister to arrange with Northern Territory Ministers for Northern Territory officials to exercise powers and carry out functions in relations to the laws in force in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The Bill has no financial impact. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(6.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Public lending right is an internationally recognised concept of compensation paid to authors to recompense them for income lost by the free multiple use of their books in public lending libraries. Schemes embodying this concept first emerged in Scandinavian countries in the 1940s, and have since been introduced in eight other countries. In the English-speaking world, New Zealand introduced a scheme in 1973, Australia in 1974 and the United Kingdom in 1979. The Australian public lending right scheme was introduced in 1974 by the Whitlam Government, following recommendations by the Literature Board of the Australian Council for the Arts. The Board had undertaken a study at the direction of the then Prime Minister, in response to representations from Australian authors and publishers seeking recognition of the principle that the community as a whole should compensate them, at least in part, for the loss of potential income represented by their books being borrowed, free of charge, from public libraries. The public lending right scheme operated initially under the control of the Australian Authors' Fund Committee within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. An Australian Authors' Fund Bill was drafted to establish a statutory base for the scheme, but this legislation lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament in November 1975. From that time the public lending right scheme has continued to operate on a purely administrative basis, being funded within the appropriation for its administering body. In 1976, the scheme was placed under the control of the Australia Council, but this arrangement proved unsatisfactory and in 1980 it was transferred to the then Department of Home Affairs. The scheme currently operates within my Department under the control of a Public Lending Right Committee, appointed by me, comprising representatives of authors, publishers, libraries and the Government. These changes in the organisational arrangements for the public lending right scheme, and the numerous reviews of its functions which have occurred in the last 10 years, have not allowed the establishment of a firm and clear basis for its continued operation. The scheme has lacked a coherent framework of accountability for the expenditure of the public funds allocated to it, and a clear source of authority for the decisions of the Public Lending Right Committee. These deficiencies have also induced great uncertainty among the various literary interest groups, who have maintained strong pressure for formal establishment of the scheme as a guarantee of its continuation. In 1983, before the Federal election of that year, the Australian Labor Party made a commitment to Australian authors and publishers that, if elected to government, it would place the public lending right scheme on a statutory basis. Within its first year of office, the Government initiated the legislative drafting processes necessary to fulfil this commitment. I therefore take great pleasure in introducing the Public Lending Right Bill 1985 as formal recognition by the Government of the principle of public lending right. This Bill has been drafted with the advice of the Public Lending Right Committee, and contains the following provisions: It delineates the scope of the scheme, restricting it to compensation payments only in respect of Australian books held in Australian libraries; it describes the powers to be exercised by myself as Minister in approving and modifying the public lending right scheme as necessary, and in appointing members of the Public Lending Right Committee to advise me; it formally establishes the Public Lending Right Committee, describing its constitution and operation, including membership, terms of office, powers of delegation and conduct of meetings; and it provides appropriate mechanisms for review of decisions by the Committee, thus ensuring a right of appeal for claimants. The operational details of the public lending right scheme, as it will function under this legislation, will be promulgated in a notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette immediately after proclamation of the Act. These details will include information on eligibility requirements, claim mechanisms, rates of payment and so on. This Gazette notice is currently being prepared by my Department, and I intend to invite the various literary interest groups to comment on its provisions, so that their views may be taken into account before the document is finalised. The public lending right scheme, as it currently operates, has a budget of $1.78m and distributes payments to some 4,500 authors and publishers. For this financial year, I was pleased to be able to increase the basic rates of payment to 70c per copy for authors and 17.5c for publishers. These funds are provided as an item within the annual appropriation for my Department. There will be no change in the funding procedure or in the level of funding as a result of this legislation. Public lending right payment rates are reviewed annually in the Budget context, and may be increased should that be considered appropriate in the prevailing budgetary circumstances. In the 10 years of its operation, the public lending right scheme has established wide acceptance and support from authors, publishers and libraries. The actual amounts of compensation range from the very small for part-time authors to larger amounts for recognised and full-time writers, but, whatever the amount, it represents a modest contribution by the community in return for the considerable pleasure and enlightenment provided by books, even in this electronic age. The public lending right scheme applies to the whole spectrum of literary endeavour, imposing no restriction on content or style. The class of 'author' includes illustrators, translators, compilers and editors-anyone who has made a substantial contribution to the creation of a book. Honourable members will be interested to know that there are probably a couple of members of Parliament who have received such compensation. One is the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones. Perhaps the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will write a book one day and gain the benefit of the scheme. The principal requirement is that the creator of the book be an Australian citizen, or at least resident in Australia, thus ensuring that the economic benefit of the scheme remains within this community. I believe that the Public Lending Right Committee, as constituted by this Bill to represent the principal interest groups of authors, publishers, libraries and the Government, will ensure that the public lending right scheme remains accountable and responsive to changes in publishing and library practice. I would like to mention the names of a few people who have been major forces behind this piece of legislation. So often in our society people who struggle to get changes made to legislation are never recognised. Bodies such as the Australian Society of Authors and the Fellowship of Australian Writers and individuals such as Colin Simpson, the author, Nancy Keesing, Barbara Jefferis and my old friend Alan Ashbolt have all played a leading role in getting the legislation to this stage. I look forward to working with the members of the Committee and I hope that we will enjoy the support and confidence of the Australian literary community in our administration of the public lending right scheme under this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Tuckey) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.10) —by leave-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Augmentation of taxiway system, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The proposed work is for construction of new taxiways, reconstruction of an existing taxiway and provision of larger fillets at taxiway and runway intersections to facilitate more efficient handling of aircraft on the ground and to reduce taxi-ing delays and operating costs. The main elements of the proposal are: Firstly, construction of additional entry and exit taxiways to both runways; secondly, enlargement of fillets at taxiway-runway and taxiway-taxiway intersections to allow higher runway entry and exit speeds and increased taxi-ing speeds; thirdly, reconstruction of existing taxiway G; fourthly, construction of partial length of parallel taxiway to the existing 07/25 runway; and lastly, associated reconstruction of sections of the Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board main sewer, additions to the existing stormwater drainage system and various roadworks and re-establishment of disturbed areas. The proposed work was referred to the Committee in September 1984 but the Committee was unable to complete its inquiries and table a report before the dissolution of the House in October. The reference therefore lapsed. The Government now desires that the proposal be again referred to the Committee for consideration and report. The estimated cost when previously referred was $16m at June 1984 prices. The current cost, at January 1985 prices, is $16.4m. The increase is due solely to increased costs over the period as measured by my Department's building price index. I present plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.12) —The Opposition supports the motion. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has said, this matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Works last year and with the general election the reference lapsed. It is appropriate that the matter be referred back to it and hopefully it will bring down a report as speedily as possible. I simply say in supporting the motion that the Opposition joins with those who have complained about the continuing problems of taxi-ing delays at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Many of us have been directly involved. It is a problem which has gone on for some time and it should be rectified. I say that with no recrimination against this Minister because it is not his fault but it will be understood by the House that there is some feeling from other parts of Australia in relation to expenditure of $16m on this airport when tragically the Hawke socialist Government refused to give one cent to the upgrading of Hobart International Airport, from which airport, as honourable members know, a regular international twice-weekly service operates between Hobart and Christchurch. We would like the Minister, if he is going to talk with his colleagues, particularly the Ministers directly responsible, to see if it is not too late for the Hawke socialist Government to find its conscience and start putting a bit of money into Hobart International Airport. I am certain that if the Minister is prepared to refer this issue to the Public Works Committee he would have my wholehearted support and would be most welcome to attend the hearings of the Committee in Hobart. But until we get the money there will not be any such inquiry or hearing. We do support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the amendment be taken into consideration in Committee of the whole at the next sitting. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.15) —I indicate that the Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1985. Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985. Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1985. Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1985. Debate resumed. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(6.16) —When the debate was interrupted I was reading from some recommendations sent to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) by the Whittington Interceptor Salt Affected Land Treatment Society Inc., otherwise known as WISALTS. I pointed out the very great value of this voluntary organisation in Western Australia and, of course, was putting a very strong case for the new Soil Conservation Advisory Committee to look towards assisting that group in the future both in research and other activity because so much of its research involves getting out and reclaiming salt land, as is another group of farmers in the Watheroo area. Amongst the things it asks is: Consideration of individual- the word individual is underlined- farmer assistance alongside continuation of assistance to community benefit projects and group assistance. It goes on to ask for the: continuation of soil conservation costs being fully deductible farm expenses in the year of expenditure. Introduction of an Investment Allowance . . . Alteration of Taxation Depreciation Regulations to allow full cost deductions incurred in connection with soil conservation work in the year of expenditure (not on an annual percentage basis spread over many years). I think all these requests should be heeded by the Minister in due course because they are necessary to get people to spend their money, which is very hard these days, to help overcome this problem. On that very page it is pointed out that: (1.2 per cent of Australia's population are farmers; they provide 45% of Australia's export earnings). Honourable members can see how disastrous it is when we lose these acres of land. The submission goes on and asks that the parliamentary committee keep the Minister informed on WISALTS and to have the system checked out independently and objectively. This is because at times there has been quite a lot of criticism of the organisation by the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia. The group wants its work to be the subject of an independent study because it believes that would be beneficial for the farmers of Australia. This legislation makes allowance for funding for development and assessment of a machine for the construction of the interceptor banks. As I mentioned earlier, the group is very interested in satellite telemetry research capable of defining underground streams. I think the Government should take up the points that I raised earlier and conduct a national aerial survey of Australia. I do not think we would have to put the planes back in the air as I think the satellite and aerial photography is available to see where man, through his construction activities, has blocked off the natural waterways, many of them very shallow. In this way we could ensure that we get rid of the water that drains into these low lying areas, which is the base problem in salinity control. The submission mentions finding and developing perennial plants suitable for use in Australian conditions which will make full use of all the rain which falls, that is, those which start growing with early rainfall. In other words, the research goes past the mechanical stage and into agronomy. It is necessary for Australia's research which has not been the best in years gone by in this area. It is time the Government found out what the private sector can do there by reintroducing the plant variety rights legislation. It has not done anything about it since it came to power. That, of course, would open up new areas for invention taken on by the private sector. It is interesting to note that in the Minister's second reading speech he referred to the fact that the Bill provides that separate appropriations can be made for the States, for Commonwealth departments, and for other persons. Those other persons are the people I have been talking about. He said they include groups such as research or education bodies, tertiary institutions, private companies or researchers. That is a pretty broad definition. I sincerely hope that it includes the people I have talked about today. Another person who must consider this area is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), the Minister who carries responsibility for Customs. A lot of the drainage pipe necessary to drain these soils is a fraction of the cost overseas that it is in Australia. It is very difficult to find out why this is so, but it seems that there must be a burden placed on some of the chemicals or other things that is not making it easy for people to buy this pipe, to recover the land they have lost to salinity control. The Minister makes another point in his speech: If future governments refuse to commit funds to soil conservation, this can no longer occur by convenient administrative measures. I reject that point. We know that the local government funding proposals are about to be brought back into this Parliament. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(6.24) —The Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill presently before the House is a constructive move by the Government to approach and remedy the extremely serious problems of land degradation which confront our nation, a nation which is so reliant on the produce from our soil. There is absolutely no doubt about the seriousness of the problem. Our soils exist in a finely balanced state, and it is our responsibility to care for and nurture these limited resources for they do not exist in an infinite supply. The damage to these soils started when the first settlers began cultivating the land and using it for agricultural purposes. The damage is very evident and action must be taken with the utmost immediacy. Erosion, salinity and tree decline are afflicting over half of all agricultural land and poisoning major waterways in this country. The Bill will allow for 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 concerning allocation of financial assistance and the Commonwealth's role in soil conservation in general. The Government is approaching the problem of soil conservation in the most serious manner and attributing to it the great emphasis which it urgently needs. Unlike the Opposition, the Government wishes to battle the problems associated with land degradation. The Opposition's record in dealing with this matter is pathetic. It has used soil conservation as a political football, promising the world and delivering nothing. Its approach to the problem of the degradation of the lifeblood of Australian agriculture-soil-has been pitiful. All initiatives in this area have been undertaken by the Australian Labor Party, from the earliest days, and we have seen the seriousness of the problem and attempted to rectify it. The pioneer of soil conservation in this country was that great Australian, a former Premier of New South Wales, the late Sir William McKell. McKell appreciated the significance of the problem of soil degradation. He recalled once how he was reading the then newly published novel by John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath. He said that he remembered how the book started with an old farmer in the United States sitting on his verandah watching his farm blow off in a dust storm. He realised that the same things would happen in Australia but nobody ever said anything about it. McKell was truly concerned by the problem and his efforts to battle it transcended party lines. Thomas Keneally referred to McKell's efforts in this regard in the 1985 McKell Lectures. He indicated that in 1938 McKell used his influence with Jack Lang to ensure Labor support for the Soil Conservation Bill which was introduced by the Government that year. One interesting highlight of the passage of that Bill was the opposition to it offered by the Country Party. In the debate on the question, the Country Party MLA for Liverpool Plains, a Mr H. C. Carter, offered one of the most absurd statements ever voiced in a parliamentary debate. However, I am sure there are members of the present Opposition who may one day rival him. He said that action against property owners who were guilty of practices which encourage erosion was 'contrary to the best traditions of a Government of British speaking races . . . to empower a committee to order the owner of freehold property not to destroy his timber and do certain other things is altogether wrong. Anyhow, erosion has been going on in Great Britain for thousands of years'. These may have been the ravings of an eccentric member of parliament, but the responses to the problem by the Country Party and the National Party since have been no more productive. Their record speaks for itself. Their approach to soil conservation has been one of political point-scoring and broken promises. The Commonwealth Government's administrative involvement with soil conservation began shortly after World War II during the period of Labor Government under Ben Chifley, and in 1946 a Standing Committee on Soil Conservation was established. During the following years of coalition rule the problem was starved of attention. In 1975 a national study of land degrading and soil conservation was begun. The study was begun on the main condition that the State and Commonwealth governments 'should collaborate in a study program to establish a basis for a long-term national program of soil conservation in the context of an integrated approach to land management'. In 1976 the Liberal-National Party Government reduced funds available to the States for soil conservation, which program was established in 1974 by the Whitlam Labor Government. This program was intended to be an interim program of financial assistance for the States to step up their soil conservation activities during the period the aforementioned study was prepared. The Labor Government intended the interim grants to be for the beginnings of continued funding for soil conservation programs in the States. In 1979 the then Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, stated in Parliament: 'My Department will now enter into discussions with the States on a proposal for a national soil conservation program, under which financial assistance would be provided for approved projects. Mr Newman made this statement when tabling the completed study on soil conservation titled 'A Basis for Soil Conservation Policy in Australia'. In another grandiose statement, which was, incidentally, made prior to the 1980 election, the coalition promised, as a first step towards a national soil conservation program, an initial $3m in funds for 1981-82. The $3m was to be for the first year of a five-year program, where $12m was to be provided in the fifth year to be matched by State expenditure. However, as has been proven in the past, the electorate could not expect too much from the coalition's promises. In April 1980, the Government's infamous razor gang said that since soil conservation was the responsibility of the States, the Federal Government should leave the field. Subsequently, the Government abandoned the national soil conservation program despite the fact that the States had already had programs prepared for Commonwealth funding. The ridiculous aspect of this move was that the Government included the promised $3m in recurrent grants to the States for the States to use as they wished. The razor gang also called for the abandonment of the Commonwealth extension service and so Commonwealth soil conservation funds in this area were stopped. In 1983 the coalition staged another one of its pre-election about-faces. The then Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, made another fly-by-night promise regarding soil conservation. While in the Riverina, on his first day of the official campaign, he pledged that if re-elected the Liberal-National Party Government would institute a Commonwealth-funded national soil conservation program. However, Mr Anthony, when making the announcement, would not indicate how much money was to be included in the new plan. The Opposition's performance in regard to the all-important problem of soil conservation has been one gigantic bungle. It has approached it continually as a political vehicle, regardless of the consequences to the Australian environment. The Hawke Labor Government has produced a Bill which confronts some of the serious problems of land degradation. We will attempt to halt the soil degradation, which is reaching disastrous proportions, and attempt to restore presently degraded land. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(6.29) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill is a most important piece of legislation. It underlines a most important principle, which we ignore at our peril: Our land will continue to produce our sustenance, our wealth and our agricultural and pastoral exports only if we are careful in our husbandry. It is a tragedy that, in a country where agriculture has been engaged in for less than 200 years, we have vast areas of salt pans, gullies and scourings where once we had rich, productive crop beds. We have cleared and ploughed and sown; we have reaped and profited, often without a thought for tomorrow. Wind, water and sun have depleted and often carried away the rich topsoils in which our crops and pastures grow. This is preventable and in our time of stewardship we have a responsibility or trust to manage and preserve our great asset, the land. A very pertinent letter was written to the editor of the Australian on Wednesday, 27 March, by the Chairman of the Water Research Foundation of Australia, Mr Jack Beale of Sydney. The letter, headed 'Our erosion as bad as Ethiopia', said: Scant attention is being given to crucial landscape rejuvenation in the lead-up to the 1985-86 Budget. Cost-effective proposals to revegetate eroded catchments have been ignored while new degradation continues to outpace reparation under low priorities of the Hawke Government. Either the government does not recognise the economic and social benefits of interconnected water, soil and tree-planting programs or it has deliberately chosen to fund 'quick fix' electorally popular programs rather than take the statesman's harder option of investment in Australia's future. For example, in two years the Government has cut water works funding (by $70m), investigation (by $3m) and research (by $3m). Soil conservation expenditure has fallen $4m short. Amenity tree-planting is $1m behind and native species reafforestation down by $10m. Ill-advised policies are denying both the young and older people stimulating jobs and job training in programs to increase productivity and enhance the environment. Governmental credibility is at risk. Stark facts are that some Australian eroded areas are as bad as publicised trouble spots in Ethiopia and that continued neglect threatens the living standards of city and country folk alike. I am very proud to say that some decades ago, in the rich red volcanic loam covering the South Burnett district, the farmers faced up to this responsibility, at their own cost, which was considerable, almost crippling, but urgently necessary. I was part of the group who were among the pioneers of contour farming, and as well as contours to prevent scouring of water, wind breaks and grassed banks were established. That was timely and necessary if those rich red soil slopes were to continue to produce their bounty for the farmers, not only then but, also for the generations to follow. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) underlined in his speech the great priority of conserving our soil and has produced a Bill which, although entitled a financial assistance Bill, encompasses a concept of Federal Government, State governments, farming and other bodies combining and co-operating in this national task. I am not sure, nor is the Minister, how much money we need to provide. Certainly the provision of huge amounts of money is not always the total answer-it is how that money is applied and to whom it is entrusted that matters. We do not want or need a great bureaucracy eating up funds that may be better applied to ensuring that practical and responsible farmers and advisers have the wherewithal to do the job. We dare not provide too little, or we and posterity will suffer irreparably because of our negligence. I am not sure whether this Bill, which encompasses governments, farmers, the community, departments of primary industry, tertiary institutions, advisers and so on, goes all the way. I do not say that carpingly or critically because it is a beginning. It will need refinement in the light of experience, and will need the dedication and good will of all if it is to progress towards its goals. The Minister knows, as we all know, that in a program like this vast amounts of money can be swallowed up in administration and in bureaucratic oversight before any of the dollars ever reach the hands of those who will physically perform the work in the field. This is a problem to be faced and overcome or all of the expressed purposes of the Bill, the Minister and the Parliament may be retarded or prevented. I am not critical of the Minister's admission that he cannot quantify the Budget allocation; indeed, I would have been suspicious if he could. What is important is that the amount budgeted is enough to accomplish the task effectively and that it is directed to the proper, practical, productive sources and organisations that can achieve that goal. He will need to be flexible to listen to advice from those who know, till and husband the soil-not the ivory-towered bureaucrats and impractical theorists who have no trouble in spending copious sums of money with little to show for it. I hope, indeed I believe, that this is his intention and in goodwill I suggest that this must be a bipartisan endeavour and resolve. I hope he will, in monitoring this total operation, be willing to listen to and not reject advice and suggestions from all members, particularly from those who have association with the soil and expertise in its husbandry. The Minister was critical of his predecessors because of what he called their negligence in this area. I do not intend to enter into partisan political argument because it is counter-productive and advances us not one centimetre along the way. For that reason I am trying to be constructive in my consideration and comment on the Bill. However, I want to make some comment on other matters canvassed by the Minister at some length in his speech, which seem to be important in discussion on a Bill designed to achieve effective soil conservation. The Minister mentioned water conservation and indeed this is an integral part of any total soil conservation program. I hope in the light of his comments in the second reading speech that the Government will now reconsider and reverse its abandonment of the bicentennial water conservation program. I cannot see how we can continue to neglect proper planning and provisioning for the conserving of water if we want to use and husband our soil properly. It is not enough to build dams willy-nilly because a particular position lends itself to the construction of a dam wall. The flow of water in rivers, the amount and type of irrigation permitted, and the construction of dams, weirs and reservoirs as part of a total, well researched program is essential. Every dam must be part of a total planned scheme, not an isolated project, otherwise we will not, in this driest of all continents, make the best and fairest use of our rivers, our rainfall and our run-off. Soil conservation cannot be isolated from water conservation, the best of soil will not grow crops without water. Nor will the soil continue to produce its bounty unless its conservation is undertaken hand in glove with the conservation and provision of water. So I say to the Minister that all of those aims and hopes which he has expressed, and which we want to see attained, cannot and will not be realised until linked with his plans are plans for the provision and conservation of water. Nor need I point out that one of the greatest agents of erosion is the wind. Its ally is the sun, and dry, powdery, parched soil is quickly lost to these agents. To combat drought, a period of great erosion, to counter the loss of protective grasses and pastures which hold our soil, surely it is evident that management and husbandry of our water is vital. It is a false economy and counter-productive to all of our efforts to conserve our soil to discard, in order to save a few dollars, a water conservation program long overdue, very imaginative, and urgently needed. Let us not argue about who did too little in the past; let us not cavil about the politics of the matter. Our soil and our water are precious resources and we can lose both if we are bad husbandmen. Dollars saved now will be translated into resources lost forever. So in welcoming and supporting any endeavour or initiative to conserve our soil, I ask that the bicentennial water resources program be very carefully considered within this endeavour. In a bipartisan spirit I say that we must work diligently to protect our resources. A political point scored today might bring us the condemnation of the generations which follow and rely on the productivity of our farm lands. That is why I appeal to the Minister to consider again the water program. If I failed to present constructively as honestly and clearly as I can the vision I have for conservation of our soils, I would be as guilty of neglect as the Minister would be if he rejected on political grounds alone the proposition I put to him now. I understand time is short, so I will now conclude. I wish the program well for too much time has been wasted and we have little time to arrest the damage and insure for the future. Mr GEAR(Canning)(6.40) —In rising to support the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill, which deals primarily with farming land, I am mindful of the popular perception in many parts of Australia that a Labor government places a low priority on rural matters. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Government recognises the importance of primary industry and the need to look after the natural resources from which our primary produce is derived. It was many decades before non-Aboriginal Australians understood that the ecology of this country is delicately balanced, that the soil is fragile and arable areas are very limited. Our Government, in its short term in office, has acted to redress the damage done to our productive lands, damage caused largely through ignorance. The national soil conservation program, established in 1983, was an important initiative in the restoration and maintenance of healthy and viable agricultural areas. It demonstrates the Government's understanding that agriculture and conservation are inseparable, interdependent mirror-image concepts. The establishment of the program reflects our philosophy of long term planning and of investment in the future for our rural industry. In the 1983-84 Budget the Hawke Government allocated $1m for this program. In 1984-85, $4m was provided. The program makes funds available to State government bodies and non-government groups involved in soil conservation research, training, education or development, or co-ordination of conservation initiatives. The Bill now before the House is a further step towards the rejuvenation and enhancement of Australia's soils. The Bill sets up a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee which will establish funding priorities for the national soil conservation program. It will give advice and make recommendations on strategies for co-ordinating soil conservation projects nationally. Non-government groups will be encouraged to contribute to discussions about soil conservation issues, and to apply for funding under the program. An organisation in my electorate, Men of the Trees, has developed an idea which is the sort of project which might be considered by the Advisory Committee. Men of the Trees is an international organisation which has as its patron His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It is very active in replacing trees in many country areas of Western Australia on a voluntary basis. As I will show today, that organisation has visions that extend beyond that task. It is committed to greening Australia and conserving our soil. Because of this, the Men of the Trees is planning a tree farm project. The benefits of its proposed project are two-fold: To increase and broaden the food production base of Australia but with the important environmental advantages of regeneration and conservation of soils. It is now widely accepted that trees aid in the prevention of soil erosion. The root system holds the soil in place and a bank of trees will act as a wind break. Trees are considered important in limiting and reversing salt encroachment patterns and in sustaining soil fertility. Water utilisation is enhanced through reduction of erosion. Humus production associated with the tree areas aids water absorption and retention by the soil. The need to understand the value of trees and to develop remedial programs is critical. It is estimated that Western Australia alone is currently losing 25,000 hectares a year through salt encroachment. This represents an annual production loss worth about $26m in the wheatbelt. An estimated $38m has been lost through wind erosion; the cost of water degradation is estimated at $19m; and loss of soil structure is estimated to cost $11m annually. It is also estimated that only 30 per cent of the land in the Western Australian wheatbelt region can be considered stable. The tree farm proposal recognises the potential dual role of trees as a soil conservation medium and as a food producer. It also acknowledges that there is little comprehensive and practical documentation available on this dual role, and that farms are not geared to take full advantage of this potential. The proposal therefore includes a research component which would aim to build up this database and make it available to farmers. It would also provide valuable information on trees suitable for our climate and soil conditions. The organisation expects that new hybrid varieties, more suited to Australian conditions, may be developed. As a productive enterprise, Men of the Trees envisages the tree farm project will ultimately produce, per year for human consumption, double the protein that can currently be produced by the wheat and sheep farming regions. The tree project would run on existing wheat farms. It would not replace the wheat crops but it would be established as a part of the total farm management system. The tree areas would produce protein through the harvesting of pods or seeds. By using trees which are capable of fixing nitrogen in the soil and which return other nutrients and humus, the development would be contributing to the reclamation of degraded areas and to the maintenance and conservation of arable areas. In developing an alternative agriculture for degraded wheatbelt areas, the project also aims to stabilise the soil, gradually increase fertility and improve soil health generally. The Bill under consideration will make provision for financial assistance for projects dealing with soil conservation issues. The tree farm project is an example of a proposal which might be considered for funding under the provisions of the legislation. The Bill gives vital recognition to the depleted and deteriorating condition of our soils-the fundamental element upon which our whole primary industry is based. The Government's commitment to the agricultural sector is reflected in the aim of the Bill-the aim of directing money into soil conservation programs for the protection of this basic resource, and for the future benefit of our primary industry. In conclusion I wish to congratulate the Government on its initiative in bringing in legislation such as the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill. I would also like to congratulate the Men of the Trees organisation through its tree farm project co-ordinator, Barrie Oldfield, for its proposal to tackle this national problem. I wish it every success for its proposal and will inform the House of what I hope will be its success on soil conservation. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(6.46) —It would be wrong for the House to conclude that the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill will benefit only farmers. Indeed, the impact of this important legislation on soil conservation will assist the community at large in many direct and indirect ways. I point out to the House that many town and city water supplies are very fragile in themselves and rely on a degree of soil conservation to prevent their deterioration. For example, a dam which was connected to the Newcastle water supply scheme some years ago completely silted up through bad soil conservation practices in the area involved. As a consequence, that dam was taken out of the water supply resource of the lower section of the Hunter Valley. I am referring to the Chichester Dam, which I know will be known to my colleagues. It has now been restructured and is in the process of being revamped. It follows that progress from improving soil conservation in Australia flows through to communities at large, towns and cities large and small, and also assists State and Federal governments through the plethora of departments which hold land in one form or another. I charge the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales and other related bodies throughout the different States of Australia with just as much responsibility to exercise proper husbandry of their soils as I do the agricultural community and farmers directly. Of course, farmers, if they have any sense whatsoever would exercise every care and restraint in soil conservation. As has been mentioned by honourable members, this measure is primarily two-fold in its impact. Firstly, it reaffirms the overall objective of reducing soil degradation in Australia through validating funding from the Federal Government. Secondly, it sets up the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. I have no quarrel with this funding. I only hope that the funding will lead to effective benefit and progress in reducing soil degradation. In respect of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee, I believe strongly that State and Federal members of parliament, to name one category of people, should not be automatically barred from membership of that Committee and participation in the Committee should it be the wish of the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to appoint members of parliament to the Committee. I made some inquiries of the Minister and his officers as to whether membership of that Committee would constitute an office of profit under the Crown and, therefore, there would be a statutory bar to members of parliament being appointed or taking up membership and holding a seat in this House, in the Senate or in a State parliament. I am advised that, as long as they did not accept any remuneration, it might not constitute an office of profit under the Crown. But this seems to be a grey area and one in which one would need to exercise maximum caution. However, I make the point that there are members of parliament who have a wealth of experience in the area of soil conservation. No matter whether they sit on the government side or the opposition side, I do not for one moment think that just because they are members of parliament they should be banned from serving on such an important advisory committee. In fact, one of the new senators elected on 1 December, Senator David Brownhill, has chaired a valley management soil conservation plan for many years. He has done a lot of work associated with the catchment in the valley involved. He is recognised as an authority on soil conservation. I realise the political realities, that the likelihood of his appointment at present would be somewhat minimal. Nevertheless, the opportunity should be there for parliamentarians to fulfil roles, extended beyond the more traditional role, by being eligible for appointment to the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. I hope it is confirmed-if not in this place in another place when the Bill is debated there-that that can be the case. The question of salinity has been raised repeatedly in this debate, and quite correctly. The honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) has commented on and criticised the Victorian National Party for its contribution on soil conservation and salinity. I reject completely the remarks made by the honourable member for McEwen on this matter. The Deputy Leader of the Victorian National Party, the member for Rodney, served on the Salinity Committee of the Victorian Parliament which produced this most excellent report entitled 'Salt of the Earth'. The member for Rodney, Mr Eddie Hann, the Hon. Bill Baxter, MLC, and many others have led the fight in terms of upgrading the profile of soil conservation and the fight against salinity and are continuing to carry on that work since the most recent Victorian elections. I further point out that the salinity problem in Victoria exists in every other State, particularly the Darling-Murray basin. It is the Victorian State Government which has failed to act very quickly since the election on the recommendations of the Salinity Committee contained in the report 'Salt of the Earth'. The real lack of activity is with the State Labor Government in Victoria, rather than the Victorian National Party, which has had a very strong track record on this particular issue. However, I do not want to dwell on that because it is a measure which enjoys bipartisan support and the debate, by and large, has evoked bipartisan comments. There has been a general recognition in recent years of the massive impact of salinity on the Darling-Murray basin embracing the States of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. It has reached the stage where New South Wales, Victoria and part of Queensland are contributing 1.1 million tonnes of salt in suspension each year to the Murray River at the point where it flows into South Australia. South Australia adds another half-million tonnes of salt. The maximum salt load carried in suspension in the Murray River is 1.6 million tonnes. A lot of that is salt naturally occurring, but a lot relates to soil degradation and incorrect farming practices. It is a complex area which I will not go into in detail other than to point out that a lot of the laser work being carried at at present is very constructive. It has done much to reduce the waterlogging which adds to salinity and has improved soil composition. Laser land planing is very costly work, especially when carried out in a sophisticated form. The biggest cost component associated with that work is the cost of fuel. I reject what the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has said, that the Government has taken care of rural areas. Since 1 December there has been a massive increase in the cost of fuel and that is boomeranging right across the whole agricultural situation adding to the cost-price squeeze on farmers. Above all, it is adding to the cost of carrying out laser land planing which, in turn, does help reduce soil degradation, a matter relative to the measure before the House. The thrust of the Bill in terms of validating funding of soil conservation on the one hand and of setting up the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee on the other is most welcome. In conclusion, I repeat my appeal that members of parliament, whether they be from the Government side or the Opposition side, might be considered for appointment to the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee should they have the experience. I can say only that Australia would have been a more mature place politically if, in fact, Malcolm Fraser had acted shortly after 1976 by extending an appropriate ambassadorial appointment to the then former Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. It would have been appropriate if the current Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, had seen fit to appoint Malcolm Fraser to an appropriate ambassadorship. I kindly suggest that that might have been a place such as Zimbabwe. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(6.55) —Australian primary producers rank with the most efficient in the world, yet despite many technological and commercial achievements, Australian land users have generally failed to develop or adhere to land management systems that are consistent with long term sustainable utilisation of soil resources. Australian soils are developed on an ancient landscape and the soils are often leached and infertile. Because of Australia's unique and fragile ecological environment, many Australian soils are unable to support a robust vegetation. There is a great range of climate, soil and land forms in this country but, despite its wide open spaces, Australia has relatively small areas of fertile soils in areas of medium to high rainfall. Over the past 100 years little allowance has been made for the frequency of droughts, floods or for limited slope soil structure or ground water hydrology in land management. Farmers and graziers have been able to do very much as they pleased in the name of progress and productivity. The strength and diversity of Australian primary production owes an enormous debt to the pioneers who settled and tamed the wilderness. Historically many farmers and graziers have been burdened by a long established legacy of environmental neglect and misuse which has threatened their profitability and in some instances, their very existence. The magnitude of the problem is difficult to grasp. In 1978 a joint Commonwealth-State study found that some 270 million hectares, or just over half the area in agricultural and pastoral use, required treatment for land degradation if its productivity was to be maintained. The alternative to taking action is a continued loss of productivity of agricultural land. Many of our pastoral lands are seriously or even critically degraded. Infertility in many tropical soils now supporting crops such as sugar-cane and bananas appears to be a significant problem. Soil erosion is a problem of major concern in the semi-arid tropical region of Australia. The Queensland Government has not developed measures to arrest accelerating soil degradation in northern Australia. An example of a region with an incipient erosion problem is the Burdekin catchment area of north Queensland. The major form of land use in this area located in the semi-arid tropics is extensive grazing by beef cattle. It has been the major form of land use since the land was first settled by Europeans around 1870. The area is generally unsuitable for cropping not only because of the unreliability of the rainfall and the short growing season but also because of infertile soils. Those pockets of cropping which do exist are small in area and are likely to herald an expansion of production. However, crop production in southern Queensland has expanded over the last 15 years and consequently the northern areas of Queensland are becoming more important as beef producing areas. The beef industry in northern Australia was originally developed at low stocking rates using British breed cattle-for example, Shorthorns, Herefords and Devons. This form of land use lasted for nearly 100 years but apparently without a great deal of damage to the soil. Some Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists of the Davies Laboratory at Townsville believe this was because British breeds of cattle were poorly adapted to the semi-arid tropical environment where high temperatures and the poor quality of the native pastures kept their numbers in check. During the droughts, large numbers of these animals died and the reproduction rate of cows was very low, frequently averaging 55 per cent. Economically, this situation could not persist and a method of improving production had to be found. During the last 20 years there has been a radical change in the breed of cattle. This has been brought about by the infusion of Zebu bloodlines into the herds by the use of suitable bulls. These cattle, which originated in India, are much more tolerant of high temperatures and also appear to have a better survival rate on poor quality feeds than British breed cattle. At the same time another important development has occurred. Chemical supplements to the poor quality pasture have become readily available. In north Queensland, the grazing industry is seizing on both of these developments in order to obtain economic viability. The success of these developments is evident in the greater survival of the cattle. The north Queensland region now supports almost twice as many cattle as it did in 1960. But there has been an environmental cost. The native grasses in this area were able to persist under the light stocking of 20 years ago and they provided a sufficient cover to protect the soils. However, because the environment is a stressful one for plant growth, that is, with low soil fertility and semi-arid climate, the grasses are not able to cope with the heavier grazing which now exists. Native grasses are losing vigour and dying. The result is that soil in many areas is becoming exposed. Rainfall in the semi-arid tropics is general low and variable. However, the region also has very high intensity rainfall. Torrens Creek, for example, has an average annual rainfall of 550 millimetres, the great bulk of which falls between December and March, often in heavy falls of short duration. In one case a rainfall of 42 millimetres in just 24 minutes was recorded. Ideal conditions for sheet erosion then occur. In 1976 the Burdekin project committee estimated that 12.4 per cent of the Upper Burdekin catchment, which contains an area of 5.9 million hectares, had suffered sheet and gully erosion of up to approximately 28 tonnes per hectare per year. There are many examples which establish that it is possible to carry heavy stocking rates without severe loss of cover by using improved pastures. Improved pastures are well known in southern Australia but in northern Australia they are a comparatively recent development. Improved pastures rely on the use of fertilisers, especially phosphorous, and the discovery of legumes adapted to the environment. One important discovery is the new process for making phosphorous fertiliser from the deposits at Duchess in north Queensland. Equally important is the discovery by the CSIRO of legumes from South America which are adapted to the semi-arid tropics and which increase cattle growth more effectively than chemical supplements. The stocking rates which can be achieved on improved pastures are in the vicinity of ten times greater than on native pastures. This represents a quantum leap in capacity and would provide a method of reducing grazing pressure on native pastures. At present few graziers have introduced this technology, partly because it is new and partly because they are uncertain of the financial benefits. Clearly the pace of scientific study of the semi-arid region of northern Australia must be accelerated. The CSIRO laboratory at Townsville is well equipped to carry out this research. Scientists at that laboratory are involved in the study of pastures, soils and tropical cattle. This urgent research is being hampered by a lack of financial support. Another example of soils at risk of erosion are those of the wet coast in northern Queensland. In this region intensive cropping is practical on soils which 120 years ago carried rain forest. Measurement of soil loss in this region has been estimated at 150 tonnes per hectare per year, and one measurement showed a loss of 382 tonnes per hectare in January 1981 after rainfall of 2,742 millimetres. The cause of erosion on the tropical soils is associated with the loss of organic matter which occurs after clearing and intensive cropping. This problem, incidentally, is unique to Australia but the cause has been identified only recently. Here again we need to use technology if we are to maintain the resource and also our standard of living. It would appear that the solution to this problem will involve adding organic matter to the soils as well as other additives which will prevent the losses of plant foods. Without these, root development is impaired and soils are not as effectively held during the period of high rainfall. In addition, it is probable that there will have to be new methods of cultivation using less machinery. These are known as no-till methods and have been shown to be effective in reducing surface erosion. In north Queensland soil erosion probably has another undesirable effect, that is, that soil pollution of the sea probably has an effect on the growth of the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists at the Australian Institute of Marine Science have shown that the past climate of the continent is reflected by cores taken from the reef. This proves that the reef is not a separate ecosystem which is divorced from the land. Protection of the reef is clearly of paramount importance to our national heritage. The Federal Government can influence the course of events of soil conservation by providing special purpose financial assistance subject to whatever conditions it thinks fit. This long overdue Bill will provide a statutory basis for Federal Government involvement in this area. The Bill will provide the necessary machinery to give leadership for interstate co-ordination and co-operation. This Bill has three major functions: First, the regulation of financial assistance for soil conservation measures; second, the creation of a Commonwealth soil conservation program fund; and third, the formation of a Soil Conservation Advisory Committee to advise on priorities and the operation of this Bill. Financial assistance will now become available for soil conservation projects undertaken by the Commonwealth, by the States or by individuals and non-government organisations. Clause 6 of the Bill is of particular interest in that it allows wide scope for the Minister for Primary Industry to develop soil conservation measures with associations, statutory authorities, or other organisations and private individuals. Agreements to provide assistance made between the Minister and such organisations or other persons must be in writing. Clause 7 of the Bill deals with conditions that are to be applied to such agreements and the supervision of such expenditure. Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill establish the National Soil Conservation Program Fund. The fund will be a trust account for the purposes of section 62A of the Audit Act 1901. Income will be received from, inter alia, amounts appropriated by Parliament, interest, gifts and bequests. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, established the national soil conservation program in 1983 and made $1m available to the program in 1983-84. Recognising the success of this program, the Hawke Government made $4m available for the program in 1984-85. This Bill will now enable further assistance to be made available. Clauses 10 to 17 create the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. Clause 11 details the membership of the Committee. Up to four persons with special knowledge of soil conservation can be appointed to the Committee. I call on the Minister to appoint a suitably qualified north Queenslander to this Committee. The land, no matter who the owner, is the one true asset when everything else is stripped away. The land belongs to the entire community no matter who, for the time being, may own pieces of it. It goes to make up the topography and the substance of what we call Australia. In that sense this Bill will help safeguard this resource through responsible control. The link between agriculture and conservation is fundamental to a healthy rural sector. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has been indefatigable in his crusade to have the Commonwealth take an important role in actively encouraging and co-ordinating conservation of our land resources. The successful implementation of this Bill will earn for him the enduring gratitude of all Australians conscious of their responsibility to preserve, protect and defend their national heritage. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(7.06) —I was very pleased to hear the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) emphasise the importance of our soil to the nation. I know he is most genuine in his approach. I was also pleased to listen to the address of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I recall the honourable member for Farrer, when he was in the New South Wales Parliament, taking me on a tour of his electorate when I was the Minister responsible for agriculture and water resources. We went to the Wakool area, which is an irrigation district along the Murray. We saw people reclaiming land that was affected by salinity, pumping water one and a half times saltier than the sea into the drains as an experiment, and actually reclaiming the land. That makes one appreciate just how important it is that we care for the soil we have. I know that the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) has often spoken in this chamber of his concern for this area because it is a part of Australia that is very seriously affected by salinity. Soil is very precious to a nation. I believe that, as the years have passed, individuals have appreciated the responsibility they have in the building up and retention of the quality of our soil. I am pleased to see the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill before the Parliament. I believe that as a Commonwealth we should be involved with soil conservation. I must say that soil conservation departments in the States-I speak principally of New South Wales-are very responsible in the work they are doing. Over the years they have reclaimed quite an amount of land that certainly by today would have been washed away to sea or blown away, with their contour drains, or damaged by some of the other things that are taking place on the land. The departments have given encouragement to land owners generally to undertake soil conservation works on their properties. I would be very pleased to know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has in mind-he mentioned this in the second reading speech on the Bill-spending some of the money on the promotion of better means of soil conservation on the farm. Every person who owns land in Australia has a great responsibility to ensure that the crops he is planting and the way he is working his property combine with an overall plan to retain the soil and the soil quality we have. I mention the New South Wales Soil Conservation Service principally because I know of the work it has done, even in the Captains Flat area near Queanbeyan on the Molonglo River. Certain works were carried out there in 1975-76 that have had a lasting result in that part of the State. But emphasis must be placed on the fact that, as well as soil conservation departments, in conjunction with the Commonwealth, carrying out their work, encouragement should be given to individual land owners in order that they can adopt the necessary means to improve their soil. I refer to taxation measures and the general subsidies that at one time-I am not sure whether they are provided today by the States-were provided in New South Wales for land owners to undertake their own work under the supervision of the conservation department. More will be achieved by that individual approach to conservation throughout Australia than by all the work that either State or Commonwealth governments can do. That is why I emphasise the fact that no matter what we do as governments, State or Commonwealth, the important things are to encourage the farmer to know more about the prospects of improving and saving the soil and to present to him incentives to enable him to do the things that are necessary for his own good and for the good of the nation. It concerns me greatly when looking at the Budgets of the Commonwealth and States to see that greater emphasis is not placed upon water and soil conservation. The emphasis appears to have drifted away from these important things which are the life-blood of a nation. Today, most of our financial resources appear to go to other fields, such as social security and Medicare. I do not condemn those very necessary things, but what this country will prosper from in the years to come will be the retention of the soil, which will enable the farmer to produce more upon his land. Even though we now have problems with the dairy industry, the sugar industry and so on, in five years time things may be different. The situation can change overnight. This country will have a great responsibility to export food, whether it is butter, grain, sugar or some other income earner, to feed a world that wants food. That is the important thing. If our soil is good we will be able to do that. We should encourage the farmer to stay on his farm, by offering taxation deductions, a small subsidy of some kind, by letting him see that everybody wants to help him. He will learn from his neighbour or from the fellow further down the stream what measures he should adopt. These are the practical things we should do as a nation. That is why I emphasise once again the importance of the farmer. As for the person in the street, why can he not plant more trees? The sesquicentenary is approaching and the bicentenary is coming up. Why cannot planting trees be undertaken as a project? I know that many people are thinking of this. Is it not important to encourage everyone to plant more trees, whether one has a block of land in a metropolitan area, out west or on the coast, and no matter what one is producing? I can remember seeing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation television channel about a year ago satellite pictures showing how, over the years, we have denuded Australia of trees, how our desert area has encroached on the agricultural lands of Australia. I do not know where those early pictures came from, but they record what has happened. I do not question them. All I want to say is that this is something that is happening within Australia. The best way we can avert a situation such as I have described and change the system is by encouraging people who own land to plant trees and undertake the conservation works that are so important. One can help to conserve the soil by planting certain types of grasses. Up and down the coast I have seen what the soil conservationer has been able to achieve with the sand dunes, yet I see our coastal streams silting up because dirt is washing down from the mountains. One should appreciate the work the forestry commissions are doing. They are the greatest conservationists one could find anywhere. I certainly support the Bill, which I believe is a move forward. I was sorry to see the Commonwealth at one time ceasing the provision of assistance to the States for soil conservation. I trust that the Minister will appoint to the advisory body people with a knowledge of agriculture. That is very important. People with the knowledge of agriculture also have a knowledge of soil conservation. I hope that the emphasis in this area does not go to the way-out conservationists but ends up in the practical field where it ought to be. If it does not, the assistance the Commonwealth gives might as well go down the drain. I hope that the advisory body will not be a bureaucratic-- Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Kerin-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(7.15) —I have just about concluded my speech. I am glad of the opportunity to speak to the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill and congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry. I hope that in working with the States the advisory body will have on it people of practical resource, who know the land and who, maybe, will be nominated by the farmer-producer organisations within Australia. I hope that it will not frustrate but will assist the various State bodies responsible. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(7.16) —in reply-Time does not allow me to respond in full to all the points made in this very full and long debate on the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill. Basically, the debate was marked by a lack of politics. Of course, what the Commonwealth is doing is involving the State governments, the farmers themselves and experts in the field of soil conservation. A lot of the politics has been taken out of the debate. However, I point out to the House that there was a lot of politics involved in this matter when I debated it previously as Opposition spokesman for primary industry with the now Leader the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). Of course, he opposed vehemently any involvement by the Commonwealth in soil conservation. Mr Punch, the Leader of the National Party in the New South Wales Parliament, also said that the Commonwealth had no business in soil conservation. I think we all owe a great debt to Prime Minister Whitlam and Minister Cass for the role they played in soil conservation and its study in this country. I mention, for example, the 1978 study which was the most comprehensive work ever done in Australia on soil conservation. Of course, all that work was sabotaged by the previous Government and the unhappy person who had to do that sabotaging was Mr Newman. That was all a result of the razor gang. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) has just made a point on practicality. I say in reply that we are working with farmers and conservation groups. I point out that tax deductibility is not always practical in regard to soil conservation matters because one man's soil conservation problem could be caused by someone way up the catchment area some 20 miles away. This Parliament will have to accept that if we are to do constructive work on soil conservation and prevention of land degradation, which is a more important concept, we will have to do something in a comprehensive way about the Murray-Darling system and not always resile from the vapid arguments of States rights. However, we do not have to go along with the Fraser gimmickry in backing the Bradfield plan which would have turned north-west Queensland into a saltpan. Also we are going to have to stop this nonsense which is occurring at present in the Daintree. Of course, the soil conservation measures which are taking place are all policies of absolute destruction and all in the interests of real estate development. Therefore, let us not pretend that there is not still some politics involved in this. What the Commonwealth is doing is working with the States and the farmers and trying to give a lead. It is not just a question of spending money; it is a question of getting the policies right. I will respond in writing to the points made by honourable members where further clarification is required. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), as Opposition spokesman, posed specific questions which I will reply to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Kerin) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(7.21) —The Australian community, in its nearly 200-year history, has achieved much as a peaceful, just and compassionate democratic capitalist society, proud of its achievements in defending freedom in overseas wars, in developing its economy to the point where the country has one of the highest standards of living in the world and in ensuring its social programs are used largely to assist those in greatest need. The bases for our achievements have included our British heritage, alliances with overseas democracies, our constitutional monarchy, freedoms of speech and association, Christian values, rule of law, the major role played by private enterprise and our entrepreneurs, the strength of the family unit and the successful assimilation of all peoples into a relatively socially harmonious society. In these circumstances, Mr Speaker, it comes as something of a considerable surprise to read 'Bicentenary '88: Special issue', released by the Australian Bicentennial Authority, which outlines the program for the celebration of our 200 years of history. The theme 'Living Together' is bad enough-it is insipid, uninspiring and reminiscent of the political tortures of the past two years-but to have discarded in its favour the theme 'The Australian Achievement' is unthinkable. Then we have the emphasis on the 'diversity of cultural groups that have settled here in successive waves of immigration', without any emphasis on our extraordinary achievement in coalescing those groups to produce a free and unified society. The program focuses on concepts of race, religion and age, without any mention of the critical role played by our Christian values, constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, federalism and other institutions. In particular, Mr Speaker, you will be disappointed, perhaps appalled, to learn that at no stage does the program give any attention to the roles of free elections, this Parliament, the way we make our laws or the peaceful nature of their implementation. Needless to say there is, however, one institution that is favourably featured for its role in building the nation, and that is the trade union movement. Mr Downer —Come on. That is a nonsense. Mr BEALE —I will go on. It is doubtful whether our forebears would any longer be proud of the trade unions, which were originally established to protect the weaker worker and which now, in their role as creator of the insufferable job protection cartel, positively discriminate against him. But nowhere in the program do we have a comparable reference to market freedoms, private enterprise and the role of the entrepreneur in creating the wealth that has made it possible for us to institute advanced social programs. The booklet on the proposed program for the Bicentennial seems to gloss over our historical performance and hard work in harsh natural conditions for a positive adulation of recreation and leisure, neglecting the tough truth that our ability to have leisure activities results only from the proper application of the virtues of productive work. Women's activities receive much emphasis but there is virtually no mention made of the most important role women play in our society, namely, the establishment of, and the succour and support they give to the family unit. Finally, our Australian flag, which is highly regarded by the vast majority of Australians, appears nowhere in the booklet; rather the Bicentennial Authority has adopted its own mishmash version. Our flag, showing our historic links to Great Britain, our unity of States and Commonwealth, and our geographic position under the Southern Cross, is a symbol of the Australian achievement and all that this society stands for and will move toward in the future. Furthermore, nowhere is there any mention of the many thousands of our citizens who fought under the flag to protect our freedom. The Authority's emphasis on the cultural disorganisation of our society and the divisive rather than cohesive themes to be emphasised in the celebrations is in urgent need of review. The sense of having inherited a worthy past is essential to a feeling of having a worthwhile future. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(7.26) —I would like to take a few minutes tonight to speak about some research that has been conducted in recent years into the possible problems associated with coming into close association with the herbicide 2,4,5-T. There appears to be some sort of linkage-although nothing is yet proven-between exposure to 2,4,5-T and central nervous system defects. There is possibly a closer link to the incidence of talipes. This was shown in some research which was conducted in New Zealand. There was also some research in Sweden, and again in New Zealand, which showed a possible connection with exposure to 2,4,5-T and the incidence of soft tissue sarcoma. There have been some interesting results with exposure of chickens. There is possibly a connection with exposure to 2,4,5-T and a drop in the level of mental effectiveness. I refer members who may be interested in this to a number of articles in the New Scientist in 1981. Oral toxicity also varies quite markedly in animals, but there are no known toxicity levels for man. Toxicity can occur at a chronic exposure rate lower than a single dose. Interestingly, rats will show an acute toxicity reaction at 500 milligrams per kilo of body weight, but chronic exposure also exists with rats between 50 and 500 milligrams per kilogram body weight. I make these comments in response to some comments made by a member of this House in the adjournment debate on 26 March. I quote from an article that appeared in the Forbes Advocate on 4 April 1985. It is entitled 'Peace Studies Again', and reads: Speaking in Parliament last week the Member for Parkes, Mr Michael Cobb, attacked the 'Sam Lewis Peace Awards', presented by the New South Wales Teachers Federation to school children working for peace. The article went on to say that Sam Lewis was a communist and was an inappropriate idol to hold up for children. It stated further: But as the Member for Calare, Mr David Simmons, pointed out during debate in the house, he didn't consume strange substances. They then listed some of the incidents from the Hansard debate. It reads: COBB: Sam Lewis was the President of the NSW Teachers Federation. SIMMONS: He did not drink 2,4,5-T. COBB: This will be a little hard for the honourable member (Mr Simmons) to swallow. The interjection from Mr Simmons was a reference to the fact that Mr Cobb drank a glass of 2,4,5-T at a National Party Conference some years ago to prove it harmless. In view of Mr Cobb's comments about setting up a good example for children, the question is, as the article went on to say: The question is: is drinking 2,4,5-T a good example to set children? Mr NEHL(Cowper)(7.29) —The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) last night spoke in the adjournment debate and suggested that I was being far too emotional about the assets test. If I was emotional, it was with very good reason. That very good reason is that I care about the vast procession of people coming before me and most other members of this House. We on this side of the House care about those people. That is why I make no apology for becoming emotional about something that I believe is absolutely vital. As far as I can see the assets test is being choked up with a vast number of pensioners who are losing their pensions or having their pension reduced by the valuations of the Australian Taxation Office. Many of the valuations are just totally unrealistic. In many cases, if not most cases, the house and curtilage valuations are reduced by at least 50 per cent and the value of the remaining land is inflated. It appears this is done so that the pensioners will be persecuted and lose part or all of their pension. I give one example at Boambee near Coffs Harbour, where a house and curtilage was given a taxation value of $55,000, whereas the real value was $138,000. On the three-acre orchard attached to that, with a shed and tools, the tax value was inflated to $107,000 whereas the real value was only $24,000. That is absolutely typical of so many cases that I am finding every day of every week since this has come about. What is worse, we have the situation of rubber stamp valuations. There are files which bear the stamp 'assessment made from local knowledge-no inspection made'. We have a situation where valuers are sitting at a desk and thinking of a number. The Minister for Social Security continually speaks of the hardship provisions, and so he should because there is a great deal of hardship. He has already told us that the Government has no provisions for emergency funding for destitute pensioners. He refuses to tell us how long the hardship hearings will take and how long the taxation valuation appeals will take. This may be unimportant to him, but to pensioners who are anxiously waiting to see whether their pension will be restored, it is all important. We need to know how long the hearings will take and how long pensioners will have to survive without income. Will the pension payment be backdated if it is reinstated under the hardship provisions; how many cases have been heard so far; why is it all being kept secret; and how many dejected and destitute Australians are waiting despondently in the queue of despair? Why will the Minister not tell us. What is the assets test really about? As far as I can see, there are four significant factors. First, it penalises people for wanting to live on land which they have worked all their lives and on which they have raised their children. Secondly, it is a policy of forced relocation, faintly-I agree only faintly-reminiscent of South Africa and Russia, whereby pensioners are being forced to sell up and buy a house in town, or to live off the proceeds. The third point is that it imposes a gift tax on pensioners. Why are they being discriminated against? The rest of us in this society do not pay gift taxes or gift duties, but if a pensioner couple give away more than $4,000 a year to their children or to charity, they are being taxed on it. The fourth point, which I believe is the most important, is that it provides the framework and the basic data for the reintroduction of death duties. Is this the real reason for the assets test-the easy introduction of death duties? The Government has established the Doomsday Book of Australian pensioners. Like a flock of circling vultures, it is sizing up all of our parents and grandparents, recording their assets, so that when the time comes the Government can rush in and get its greedy claws on the fruits of a lifetime of work by so many decent Australians. The assets test must go. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(7.33) —I want to say a few words in relation to the assets test and to take up the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) on some of the points he raised. We are consistently hearing the rhetoric of members on the other side in relation to the assets test, yet we do not seem to have anything constructive coming from them. Let me put before the Parliament a few facts and figures which should be made clear. The number of pensioners affected by the assets test is 2.6 per cent of all pensioners in Australia. That is only slightly above the original estimate of 2 per cent. Some 97.4 per cent, or more than two million, of the pensioners have not had their pensions reduced by even one cent. We are talking about 2.6 per cent of the pensioners in Australia. We have in that 2.6 per cent a minute group who are having some difficulties which need to be ironed out, because of valuations and other small adjustments, and we are prepared to admit that. But there were many pensioners and many people in the community who were avoiding the income test. Those people actually forced the position whereby the assets test had to be brought into operation in order to ensure that those people who avoided the income test did not receive a pension if they are not entitled to it. They are the great majority of the 2.6 per cent. Some 30,291 pensions out of more than two million have been cancelled-a very small number indeed. Another 23,000 to 24,000 people have had their pensions reduced. For those 23,000 or 24,000 people there are some problems in relation to valuations, but we must always remember-- Mr Cadman —What do they live on in the meantime? Mr CUNNINGHAM —In the meantime provisions have been made and fine tuning of the administration is taking place. Regional directors around Australia-- Mr Cadman —Big deal! Mr SPEAKER —Order! An amount of interjection is expected in an adjournment debate, but excessive interjection affects my visual acuity. Mr CUNNINGHAM —The regional directors around Australia are now in a position to access many of the cases, the details of which are sitting on their desks and which they know from local knowledge there are problems with. I recommend to members of the Opposition that they do the same things as members of the Government do on behalf of their constituents. When they have problems with pensioners, the first priority should be the care and concern of the pensioners who have been mistreated or whom the wrong decision has been made. It appears to me that a great deal of attention is being paid to playing politics rather than to doing the correct thing by the pensioners. Members opposite should take cases to the regional offices of the Department of Social Security so that where there are anomalies-we admit that there are clear anomalies in some areas-they can be fixed with local knowledge. We expect that that will be done quickly. It is of no help to the pensioners of Australia to have a constant barrage of politicians using them for vote winning purposes at their expense. The pensioners should not be used in that manner. Over two million pensioners, or 97.4 per cent, have not been affected by one cent. Another group should never have been getting pensions in the first place. Surely those opposite do not support the dishonest pensioners who were avoiding the income test. Surely none of them supports the person who had assets totalling $909,000 in addition to another property valued at $905,000 declaring no income and thus being entitled to a pension. I cite another case of a person who had assets worth $560,000, including a property worth $267,000, with cash in various bank accounts of $279,000. He was getting a full pension because he declared no income. Those opposite cannot defend people who were cheating the system. Let us be honest about the people we are concerned about. We on this side of the House are just as concerned, in fact more concerned, because we are taking the problems we receive directly to the Department where something can be done about them. I suggest to members of the Opposition that, if they want to support the pensioners in their areas, they should take the problems to their regional directors. They have the opportunity to do something about those problems, but they cannot do anything about them unless they are told. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(7.38) —On 22 March, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) made some allegations about my conduct whilst I was Acting Attorney-General in 1982. I have now examined the papers in the Attorney-General's Department on the matter and wish to correct the record. The Attorney-General on 22 March referred for some reason to the case of a man who is still awaiting retrial. I will refer to this man as 'X', although the Attorney-General had no qualms about giving his name in public. The man had been committed for trial on two charges, conspiracy and forgery. The substance of the Attorney-General's allegation was that I had decided in 1982 not to prosecute 'X' on the forgery charge. In fact, he repeated the allegation several times. That allegation is false. The Attorney-General also said: There was a decision on 1 November 1982. The honourable member made the decision, unilaterally. Let us make that very clear. That allegation is also false. The Attorney-General also said: It is a matter of record. There were two charges and you dropped one, by your own indications. That allegation is also false. The Attorney-General then referred to a document which he described as 'the record' and it was subsequently tabled. He said that this record showed: On 24 September 1982 a submission was made to Acting Attorney-General Brown indicating that the latest representations did not change the earlier recommendation; that is, the two charges stand. The Attorney-General has misled this House because the record, which is a chronology prepared by Mr B. H. Leader of the Attorney-General's Department, does not say ' . . . that the two charges stand' or anything like it. The Attorney-General then went on to quote from this so-called record again: The Acting Attorney-General obtained the Solicitor-General's opinion that the trial should proceed. On 1 November the Acting Attorney-General decided that the trial should proceed on the conspiracy charge-one charge, not two. Again, the record does not say that I decided that the trial should proceed on one charge, not two. There is no doubt that what the Attorney-General was putting to this House was that a submission was made to me that this man should stand trial on the two charges of conspiracy and forgery; that that recommendation was supported by the opinion of the Solicitor-General; that I rejected the submission and the opinion, and that I ordered that one charge be dropped, the forgery charge, and that the man should stand trial only on one charge, the conspiracy charge. Each of those allegations is false; each of them is a misrepresentation. None of them is supported by the record the Attorney-General pretended to quote from or the file in the Attorney-General's Department. The Attorney-General then repeated all of this by saying: The point is that the committal was on two charges and the trial was on one. The discretion not to proceed on the other was the decision made on 1 November. That allegation is false. But the matter is far worse than these simple falsehoods. The Attorney-General omitted from his attack on me any reference to the fact that the question of whether the trial should proceed on the forgery charge was not before me. It was not a decision for me to make, as it had already been made by the Crown Law officers in Sydney. Let me establish this by referring to the Departmental papers on the case. First, the same Mr Leader made a submission to the then Attorney-General on 10 August. This said that the accused was charged with conspiracy and with forgery. It then said: The Deputy Crown Solicitor has advised, however, that as the forgery charge is subsumed within the conspiracy charge, if the trial is to proceed it is proposed to present an indictment on the conspiracy charge only. Secondly, one of the documents supporting that submission came from the Deputy Crown Solicitor and that said: . . . it is proposed that as the forgery charge is subsumed within the conspiracy, an indictment would be presented on the conspiracy charge alone. It is clear from all the documents in the file that the question of whether to proceed on the forgery charge was not before me or before Senator Durack. The Deputy Crown Solicitor in Sydney had decided that this man would not stand trial for forgery and that was that. The Attorney-General should table all of the papers, so that all honourable members can see the facts. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(7.44) —I come from an area in the western central highlands of Victoria which is, perhaps, one of the most historic areas in Australia. In fact, in many respects it has given the democracy which we hope we enjoy the basis for its development. This is a most significant tourist area as well. The city of Ballarat is the most beautiful Victorian city and probably has no equal in the Commonwealth. Because of its current tourist industry and its potential, I mentioned some time ago to Mr Kevin Irving, who is the manager of the Goldfields Tourism Authority in Ballarat, that we should establish a seminar on tourism to attempt to get some kind of co-ordination into the tourist industry in that community. It was not as though some organisation was not already in existence, but the organisation did not go right across the whole spectrum of those people who were concerned-those involved in the hospitality industry through to the food outlets; in fact, everybody who had something to sell which would encourage tourism. I suppose my primary motive in doing this was to provide opportunities for the development of more jobs in that area. I am pleased to say that Mr Irving has taken up this idea, along with Mr David Newton, Chairman of the Ballarat Promotion Committee, and a number of others, and that on 30 May a seminar will be held. It will be attended by people from all sorts of organisations, including local government. I think it is extremely important that ideas of this kind be encouraged. I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) will be opening that seminar. Mr Cadman —Don't let him use a hire car. Mr Hand —The honourable member for Denison knows all about the use of a company car; ask him. Mr MILDREN —Yes, I think the honourable member should direct his comments elsewhere. I suggest that people in other areas might well take up initiatives of this kind. Ballarat, which has Sovereign Hill and a great range of existing tourist facilities, is a city with an old industrial base. That industrial base, while currently thriving under the economic policies of the present Government, nevertheless will not provide the job opportunities it provided in the past. Fifteen per cent of our population are unemployed and many of these are the unskilled and the young. Tourism is a most significant industry for us. Possibly $60m comes into the Ballarat community from tourism, with 430,000 people per annum passing through the Sovereign Hill Historical Park alone. I have raised this matter tonight because there must be other people in other places who recognise that this industry will provide for many of those with few skills who have left school early the opportunity to gain a job in a new career industry. I hope that we will have something to offer to other members of the House as a result of the success of this seminar. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(7.48) —This summer Australia suffered yet another disastrous bushfire season. Many homes, a great deal of property and a number of lives were lost as a result of the bushfires in this country. In the Goulburn area, in the electorate of Gilmore, some 28,000 hectares of property was destroyed as a result of these bushfires. These bushfires are costing the nation a great deal of money. When one looks back to the summer of 1982-83 one can see the cost that this nation is suffering as a result of bushfires. In the 1982-83 summer some two million hectares of forest were destroyed; approximately 5 per cent of the total forest area in Australia. In that summer 2,528 homes were destroyed, 77 lives were lost and the damage bill for bushfires in the State of South Australia alone came to some $209m. What are we doing in this country to try to overcome these losses incurred as a result of bushfires? What is this Government doing to instigate legislation to create some sort of activity in this country to minimise the losses that we suffer, seemingly every summer, as a result of bushfires? We heard last night the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) speak about the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia introducing the innovative idea of using helicopters and aircraft to save lives. That is a good idea, and I think the Government ought to be doing something as innovative as that. The previous Government introduced a project called Project Aquarius, which was set up to carry out research into bushfire fighting and in particular to research the use of large aircraft in that field. Unfortunately, in its so-called wisdom this Government decided to cease the operations of Project Aquarius and, as a result, there will be no further activity. The research that has been carried out will not be completed and work that could have done something useful for this country will not be instigated. As I said, Project Aquarius was looking into the possible use of large aircraft to fight bushfires. In the United States of America, Canada and France large aircraft such as the Grumman Tracker have for some time been used to fight bushfires. They have been used effectively, efficiently and safely, and have been proven to have a cost benefit advantage to those countries. The Grumman aircraft have a proven track record, and honourable members might wonder why we do not utilise them. Australia does have 17 Grumman Tracker aircraft. They are currently stationed at HMAS Albatross at Nowra and since August of last year this Government has been trying to sell them to the highest bidder. I point out that the highest bidder is probably going to bid only somewhere between $70,000 and $100,000 for each of those aircraft. Yet since August last year Australia has been going up in smoke. We have had one of the worst bushfire seasons ever. Since January of this year I have been in constant contact with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Ministers of this Government, pleading with them to stop the sale of these Tracker aircraft, to keep them in Australia and to convert them into bushfire fighting units, so that we can save property, homes and lives to the benefit of all Australians. I plead now with this Government to stop the sale of these aircraft. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that while this Government fiddles Australia will burn. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(7.53) —I had the opportunity in Question Time this afternoon to put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in regard to the present state of the Queensland economy. The Prime Minister, in his very concise answer to my question-it was not possible for him to go into any great detail about the economic situation in Queensland due to the time available-dealt very briefly with a few of the facts that I am sure illustrated very clearly to honourable members the disgraceful situation into which the Queensland economy has deteriorated due very much to the deliberate actions of the Queensland Premier, who of course just happens to be also the Treasurer of Queensland. With all those facts that were given to the House today by the Prime Minister, that man, Bjelke-Petersen, must bear a heavy share of responsibility for the disastrous state of the Queensland economy. In the final part of my question I asked the Prime Minister whether he saw any relationship between the situation in Queensland and the present industrial turmoil that has been manipulated, manufactured, brought about, by the actions of the Queensland Premier and by his failure to show any measure of preparedness to conciliate and come to agreement with the unions in Queensland that were affected in the initial industrial stoppage in the electricity industry. I asked the Prime Minister whether he could say that in any way the situation in Queensland could have a carryover effect on our national economic situation. As I said a few moments ago, because of the shortness of time, the Prime Minister was not able to go into any detail. I propose to touch briefly on that situation this evening. I believe that the recent actions of the Queensland Premier have been deliberately directed to allowing the economy of Queensland to reach a ruinous state in the hope that there will be a flow-over effect to the national economy and that this will be to the detriment of this Government. Mr Speaker, this is an absolute fact. What is happening in Queensland today has been deliberately planned by the Premier of Queensland and his Government in an endeavour to manipulate a flow-over effect from the disastrous Queensland economy to the national economy. Let me tell the Queensland Premier that he is going to miss out. He is wide of the mark because the Prime Minister and this Government have the ability to ensure that the effect that he deliberately believes will flow over to the national economy will not result in a downturn of the Australian economy. So he is going to have to find some other way of sorting out his problem in terms of the disgraceful economic situation in Queensland today. I also want to take one or two moments to show that the mind of this man has become quite senile in recent times. There is no doubt about that. Those who observe and listen to him are well aware of this senility. He has even reached the stage of abusing such people as the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is paying a courtesy visit to Queensland for some days. The Premier, who professes to be a great Christian, is in fact one of the greatest hypocrites that we have seen in this nation. The Archbishop of Canterbury made some very balanced remarks about the industrial situation in Queensland. All he suggested was that these problems can be resolved only by a measure of conciliation by the parties that are involved in the problem, but the Premier told the Archbishop to get out of Australia and go home. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.58) —I raise a matter of national importance. The Hawke socialist Government has been caught out on a deliberate deception with respect to the visit to Australian ports of United States ships. In short, it has been doing a Lange secretly in relation to the visit of United States ships to certain ports. Earlier today a joint statement was issued by the five Tasmanian Liberal members of the House of Representatives welcoming the current visit to Hobart of the USS Texas. Mr Hand —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr HODGMAN —The Soviet Embassy again. Mr Hand —I am just wondering whether the five Tasmanian members do in fact have the right to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Speaker, the matter was fully reported by Australian Associated Press. Mr Cunningham —I take a point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne may not have heard the remark that the honourable member for Denison made as he sat down. That remark reflected on the honourable member and I think it should be withdrawn. Mr HODGMAN —The matter was fully reported by Australian Associated Press. The report added a paragraph which I think honourable members opposite-- Mr Hand —I take a point of order. I am offended by the remark and I wish it to be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —What remark was that? Mr Hand —I am not going to repeat it. I find it offensive. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr HODGMAN —The Australian Associated Press report is as follows: A Government- that is the Federal Government- source today told AAP the USS Texas was scheduled to visit Brisbane as its next Australian port of call rather than Melbourne or Sydney where its presence could embarrass the Cain and Wran Labor Governments. So we have a Prime Minister who says that ships are welcome-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of terminal area, Townsville Airport. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of State Head Office building for Telecom Australia, Sydney. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 17 April 1985: Defence Act-Determination-1985-No. 17-Travelling Allowance and Outfit Allowance in Lieu of Issues of Uniforms. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 94) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Have a number of meat processing companies in Australia failed to pay slaughter levies by the due date; if so: (a) what is the name of each company, (b) what is the period of default, (c) what amount is owed to the Government, and (d) what action is the Government taking to recover levies still in arrears. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Government collects levies on the slaughter of livestock at abattoirs and meatworks under: the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1964, and the Pig Slaughter Levy Act 1971 A number of abattoirs and meatworks have failed to pay levies by the due date. In this respect I would remind the honourable member of the difficult economic climate within which operators in the industry are working. (a) In these circumstances I am sure you will appreciate my reluctance to name individual companies, particularly given the precarious financial situation of many operators and the adverse commercial effect that this would have on them. At the date of the honourable member's question (25 February 1985) there were seventy two (72) operators that for various reasons had failed to pay levy by the due date. Of these twenty five (25) had ceased operation and were in liquidation or receivership. (b) The periods of default range from less than a month up to 8 years for companies in liquidation and receivership. The tables below provide an analysis of the situation. (c) The amount owed by the 47 current operators in the industry was $781,405. Of that amount: $204,380 has since been paid, clearing the debt of 14 operators and reducing the indebtedness of another 5 operators $156,984 is being recovered by time-to-pay arrangements currently in force with 7 operators $218,741 owed by 14 operators is subject to departmental recovery action $146,710 owed by 10 operators is subject to recovery action via the Australian Government Solicitor's Office and the formal legal processes $54,590 owed by 2 operators is in dispute as to liability. In addition to the above, the 25 companies in liquidation or receivership owe a further $1,416,230 which will be reduced when dividends are declared. This situation is also summarised in Table B below. (d) The Government considers the matter of arrears of levies with the utmost concern and accordingly, my Department is constantly working at reducing the amount of those arrears. However, any action in this regard must take into consideration the full ramifications of recovery action. Obviously it would be unconscionable to instigate the winding up of a company for a debt which may be recoverable by a time-to-pay arrangement. The measures which currently operate include legislative provisions to both encourage and coerce the honouring of obligations including the imposition of a 20% penalty on arrears. My Department also employs normal credit control procedures incorporating the use of courteous but firm reminder letters and telephone calls, visits by investigation officers and finally recourse to litigation through the offices of the Australian Government Solicitor. Table 'A' ANALYSIS OF DEBT RELATING TO COMPANIES CURRENTLY OPERATING No. of Amount Period operators involved $ 1 month 8 90,446 2-3 months 13 95,995 4-6 months 7 (a) 207,345 7-12 months 12 (b) 275,090 1-2 years 5 (c) 43,903 2-3 years 1 (d) 20,045 3-5 years nil nil 5-8 years 1 (e) 48,581 Sub-total 47 781,405 (a) 4 departmental action; 1 paying by instalments; 2 with Australian Government Solicitor (b) 1 paid since; 5 paying by instalments; 6 with Australian Government Solicitor; (c) 1 paying by instalments; 4 with Australian Government Solicitor (d) Paying by instalments (e) Awaiting Victorian Supreme Court Hearing Table 'B' ANALYSIS OF DEBT RELATING TO COMPANIES IN LIQUIDATION AND RECEIVERSHIP (pending the declaration of dividends by the liquidator/receiver the Department is unable to pursue these debts further) No. of Amount Period operators involved $ Under 1 year 2 55,458 1-2 years 7 215,701 2-4 years 8 947,362 4-8 years 8 197,709 Sub-total 25 1,416,230 Total 72 2,197,635 (Question No. 97) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Does the Government intend to pursue the proposal to establish an Overseas Trading Corporation. (2) What has the reaction been of major business associations, such as the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce, to the proposal to establish an Overseas Trading Corporation. (3) What percentage of the total equity in the Overseas Trading Corporation is proposed to be held by the private sector. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No definite decisions have been made. Discussions with interested parties are proceeding on an exploratory basis pursuant to the Press Statement of the Minister for Trade dated 13 April 1984. (2) The public attitude of those bodies is no doubt known to the honourable member. As to their privately expressed views they remain confidential. (3) See answer to (1) above. (Question No. 100) Mr Adermann asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) How many Medicare offices are established in the Electoral Division of Fairfax and where are they situated. (2) Has his attention been drawn to widespread concern on the Sunshine Coast from Caloundra to Tewantin that there are insufficient offices to adequately meet the needs and requirements of the residents of this populous and fast growing region. (3) Has he declined requests for the establishment of additional offices on the Sunshine Coast. (4) Has his attention also been drawn to the difficulty of many aged, infirm, and disadvantaged citizens not having reasonable access to an office because of limitation of transport facilities and their cost. (5) Will he review urgently the siting and number of offices on the Sunshine Coast with the object of providing improved and increased access to a Medicare office for all residents of the Electoral Division of Fairfax. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are three Medicare offices in the electorate of Fairfax. These offices are located at Caloundra, Nambour and Kawana Waters. (2) Some requests for additional offices in Fairfax have been received as have requests for other areas. (3) In the past, requests have been declined as it was felt that three of the 45 offices in Queensland are located within Fairfax and that the distribution adequately covers the needs of the people. (4) The Health Insurance Commission has reviewed the location and number of Medicare offices in the Sunshine Coast area and continues to be satisfied that the residents of the area have reasonable access to Medicare services. The level of acceptance of direct billing by doctors in the Sunshine Coast area has been good and the doctors in Maroochydore and Noosa/Tewantin direct bill a high percentage of their patients. Where a doctor does not direct bill, the Commission's ability to provide a pay doctor cheque within five working days of receipt means that the residents of the electorate of Fairfax are able to obtain a cheque payable to the doctor with minimum difficulty. (5) The Health Insurance Commission continues to monitor levels of service and claiming, and it is not intended at this stage to provide further cash offices in the area. (Question No. 105) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: What action has he, his Department or any government agency acting on his behalf, taken to ensure that (a) unfounded rumours and allegations, asserting that Stanley Wong was a victim of a crime committed by a Vietnamese or Chinese Vietnamese are rebutted effectively and (b) that any suggestion of a greater tendency to criminal activity by Australian permanent residents of Asian descent, not supported by available evidence or studies, is rebutted. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In response to the honourable member's question of 26 February 1985 I wish to state that: (a) In terms of immediate and practical assistance, officers of my Department moved very swiftly to assist the NSW Police by providing immigration records through which a man was ultimately detained over the murder of Mr Wong. The NSW Police identified the man as a Malaysian national. This was made known to the press and published. This is the most effective rebuttal possible. (b) I have this year visited each State and Territory capital to meet ethnic community leaders and in speeches and radio broadcasts have made a point of emphasising the notably low rate of criminal activity among first generation migrants. My Department has a continuing role in reducing misinformation about migration issues, providing factual background to opinion leaders and in other ways fostering understanding, tolerance and social harmony. (Question No. 107) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Were Change of Status applications to permanent residence approved (a) in 1979-80 for 6844 cases, (b) in 1980-81 for 4470 cases, (c) in 1981-82 for 5358 cases, (d) in 1982-83 for 7669 cases and (e) in 1983-84 for 9534 cases. (2) In each year what was the number of approvals by country of citizenship. (3) In each year and by country of citizenship what was the number of approvals by each relevant sub-section of Section 6 of the Immigration Act. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The figures cited as approvals for Change of Status are correct for each of the years shown. (2) The answer to this question is provided in the attached table-'Applications Approved for Resident Status Following Entry for Temporary Residence' for the financial years 1979/80 to 1983/84. (3) Statistical information is not available in the form required by this question. Information showing basis of policy under which approved is, however, available in summary form and is provided as a separate tabulation -'Applications Approved for Resident Status Following Entry for Temporary Residence by Basis of Policy' for the financial years 1979/80 to 1983/84. APPLICATIONS APPROVED FOR RESIDENT STATUS FOLLOWING ENTRY FOR TEMPORARY RESIDENCE BY BASIS OF POLICY Financial Years 1979-80 to 1983-84 Financial years Basis of policy 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 Political Asylum . . . . . . . . . . Spouses, Children, Aged Parents 3,417 3,221 3,007 5,049 7,434 Refugees 469 46 20 12 13 Authority to Work 1,800 434 1,112 1,491 936 Compassionate Case 1,101 753 1,101 991 994 Not Stated 57 16 118 126 157 Total 6,844 4,470 5,358 7,669 9,534 Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. APPLICATIONS APPROVED FOR RESIDENT STATUS FOLLOWING ENTRY FOR TEMPORARY RESIDENCE FINANCIAL YEARS 1979/80 TO 1983/84 Financial Years 1979/80 to 1983/84 Country of citizenship 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 U.K. 1,653 945 1,658 2,885 3,078 Ireland 82 39 62 121 149 Northern Europe: Austria 29 15 12 25 30 Belgium 9 11 11 16 19 Denmark 23 12 5 20 30 Finland 11 10 7 5 22 France 86 48 51 94 121 Germany 134 123 185 262 341 Netherlands 70 60 86 83 146 Norway 10 9 7 4 13 Poland 128 119 421 486 353 Russia 10 14 12 16 12 Sweden 29 14 22 32 41 Switzerland 34 32 32 36 42 Other Northern Europe 49 34 27 28 52 Total Northern Europe 622 501 878 1,107 1,222 Southern Europe: Cyprus 46 35 24 40 76 Greece 226 253 147 192 299 Italy 283 203 304 237 331 Malta 24 26 21 14 30 Portugal 37 42 15 17 22 Spain 14 16 17 28 17 Yugoslavia 264 281 252 314 456 Other Southern Europe . . . . . . . . . . Total Southern Europe 894 856 780 842 1,231 Middle East: Arab Rep. of Egypt 20 32 24 29 56 Iran 59 62 37 36 68 Iraq 28 38 9 36 26 Israel 35 47 38 33 43 Jordan 9 12 1 3 9 Kuwait . . . . . . . . . . Lebanon 66 80 30 45 120 Saudi Arabia 10 . . . . 1 . . Syria 43 6 2 8 30 Turkey . . 54 70 82 103 Other Middle East . . 1 . . 1 9 Total Middle East 270 332 211 274 464 North America: Canada 135 86 124 226 295 U.S.A. 366 239 278 368 542 Total North America 501 325 402 594 837 South &Central America: Argentina 40 5 9 11 15 Brazil 11 9 6 20 16 Chile 34 17 26 36 38 Colombia 6 6 4 6 18 Ecquador 3 1 1 1 4 Jamaica 3 . . 1 . . . . Mexico 8 3 2 12 1 Paraguay . . . . 1 1 1 Peru 11 11 3 12 26 Trinidad &Tobago 2 1 . . 6 2 Uruguay 22 9 4 8 14 Venezuela 2 . . . . 1 2 Other S &C America 5 7 8 8 28 Total S &C America 147 69 65 122 165 Africa: Ethiopia 1 2 3 7 3 Kenya 1 . . 3 . . . . Mauritius 22 16 12 21 68 Nigeria 3 2 6 6 4 Seychelles 1 4 5 3 9 South Africa 76 43 37 58 66 Tanzania 1 2 2 . . 5 Zambia 1 . . 1 1 1 Zimbabwe 5 5 4 12 9 Other Africa 13 16 9 25 25 Total Africa 124 90 82 133 190 Asia: Bangladesh 17 7 6 9 11 Burma 2 3 4 6 13 China 221 109 81 111 242 Hong Kong 244 145 50 41 93 India 86 73 67 101 95 Indonesia 147 93 98 136 155 Japan 80 40 64 80 73 Kampuchea 4 1 . . 4 . . Korea 60 35 19 19 44 Malaysia 531 343 300 357 388 Pakistan 23 15 17 21 20 Philippines 121 93 170 292 399 Singapore 100 58 56 58 96 Sri Lanka 59 16 42 26 53 Thailand 69 31 48 69 87 Vietnam 488 60 21 35 44 Other Asia 28 31 26 11 31 Total Asia 2,280 1,153 1,069 1,376 1,844 Oceania: Christmas Is. . . . . . . . . . . Cocos Is. . . . . . . . . . . Fiji 166 93 70 96 154 Kiribati . . 1 1 2 . . Nauru 3 1 1 1 . . New Caledonia . . . . . . . . . . New Zealand . . 1 1 8 11 Papua New Guinea 32 8 27 20 43 Solomon Is. 8 1 2 1 8 Tonga 55 50 39 63 94 Tuvalu . . . . 2 . . . . Vanuatu 4 2 1 1 1 Other Oceania 3 3 7 23 29 Total Oceania 271 160 151 215 340 Not Stated . . . . . . . . . . Stateless . . . . . . . . 14 Grand Total 6,844 4,470 5,358 7,669 9,534 Source of Information-Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Question No. 118) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 February 1985: (1) Can he advise how ABC radio station 2CR obtained a copy of the proposed electoral boundaries for NSW in advance of their release by the Electoral Commission in Sydney, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 July 1984. (2) Has an inquiry been conducted into the leaking of these confidential maps; if so, who conducted this inquiry, and what were its conclusions. (3) If an inquiry was completed, (a) were any employees of the NSW Central Mapping Authority found to be implicated and (b) was any action against any Central Mapping Authority employees recommended, if so, what was the recommendation. (4) If any action was recommended by such an inquiry, was the recommendation implemented; if not, why not. (5) If no inquiry has been conducted into the leaking of these confidential maps, why not. (6) What action has he taken to ensure that a similar breach of security will not occur in the future. (7) Did he discuss the leaking of this map and the implications of the proposed boundaries with any other member of the Government; if so, when. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2), (3) and (4) The Electoral Commissioner has advised that prior to notification of the proposed redistribution of New South Wales, a number of press and electronic media reports predicted with considerable accuracy some of the new boundaries which were subsequently made public. Since at least one press article mentioned an ''authoritative report emanating from the Central Mapping Authority'', the Director of that agency was asked to investigate the matter. In addition the Australian Electoral Officer for New South Wales, who was also a member of the Redistribution Committee for that State, made inquiries among the Divisional Returning Officers in the sixteen rural divisions in the State. None of those enquiries shed further light on the matter which was then referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice. The advice essentially was that no more need be done unless more detailed allegations were made which might give rise to particular avenues of inquiry. (5) See above. (6) The Electoral Commissioner has advised that all possible precautions were taken to prevent unauthorised access to information prior to the official release of the proposed maps. However, given the number of persons who have to play a necessary part between the final decisions of the Redistribution Committee being made and the publication of the maps and the Committee's statement of reasons, it would be difficult to prevent unauthorised disclosure by a person should he or she be determined to do so. (7) I do not recall having the details drawn to my attention, or discussing the matter with anyone. (Question No. 142) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) What is the average delay from when an appeal is lodged with the Immigration Review Panel and when it is heard. (2) How may appeals are currently awaiting hearing. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The average time taken to complete cases is 6.3 months. Ninety per cent of cases are finalised within 12 months. (2) At 21 March 1985 there were 1541 unresolved requests for review to the Immigration Review Panel. (Question No. 130) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: What financial contributions is the Minister's Department making to a fitness survey of Australian secondary schoolchildren to be conducted by the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Research. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Nil. My Department is, however, assisting in aspects of questionnaire design, data control, processing and analysis of the survey data. (Question No. 138) Mr Beddall asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Is it a fact that there have been cutbacks in the availability of prescribed drugs to aged pensioners; if so, are the cutbacks part of Government policy. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme aims to have a comprehensive range of drugs and medicinal preparations available on a subsidised basis to all persons being treated by a medical practitioner in Australia. There is an ongoing process of review of the drugs available as benefits. Drugs are added to or removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits list following recommendations made on therapeutic grounds by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). The PBAC is the statutory committee established under the National Health Act to provide me as Minister for Health with advice on the drugs and medicinal preparations that are to be made available as pharmaceutical benefits. Drugs may also be removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits list if discontinued by their manufacturer and no longer available on the market. There are no pharmaceutical benefits specifically listed for the treatment of pensioners. Routine amendments to the Pharmaceutical Benefits list affect all categories of persons, including pensioners. The Government is not pursuing a policy of cutback in the availability of prescribed drugs either to pensioners or to other persons. (Question No. 140) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Has the Government made a decision on the abolition of (a) the Imperial Honours system in Australia and the right of a State to recommend persons for those honours, (b) appeals to the Privy Council from the State courts and (c) the right of State Governments to advise the Queen directly upon the appointment of State Governors, by the Government. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Discussions are continuing with State Governments and appropriate authorities in the United Kingdom on the severing of residual constitutional links with the United Kingdom Parliament, government and judicial system, including appeals to the Privy Council. The role of the Queen as Queen of Australia is not being in any way weakened. There are no proposals for removing the capacity of any State Government to make recommendations for imperial honours if it wishes. The appropriate channel of advice in relation to the appointment of State Governors (a matter for which State Governments currently do not have the right to advise the Queen directly, as the honourable member's question implies) is one matter being discussed. (Question No. 145) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: When will the Sugar Summit meeting between the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier take place. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The meeting between the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier will take place on 1 April in Canberra. (Question No. 148) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Is it a fact that (a) farmers who have decreased their work on the farm to an extent to free them for full-time work are not considered 'unemployed', (b) farmers' wives who normally assist their husbands in farm work when they are freed to be available for full-time work elsewhere, are considered as 'unemployed' and (c) the children of farming families who normally assist their families in farm work, even if they are freed to be available for full-time work elsewhere, are not considered 'unemployed' within the terms of the Social Security Act. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) To qualify for unemployment benefit, an applicant must be unemployed, capable of undertaking and willing to undertake suitable paid work and be taking reasonable steps to obtain such work. Each application for benefit is considered on its individual merits but the above requirements of the Social Security Act mean that it is unlikely that farmers who are committed to maintaining their farms as ongoing enterprises will satisfy these criteria. The Federal Court has indicated that in considering whether a person may properly be regarded as unemployed, it is necessary to have regard to the person's commitment to their current activities. In the case of a self-employed primary producer this involves an examination of whether there is a commitment to continue farming or to obtain alternative work. Consistent with this view of continuing commitment, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has found that farmers cannot be regarded as unemployed merely because they have arranged their continuing farming activities in such a way as to be available during the normal working week for full-time, off-farm employment. (b) The wife of a farmer who normally assists her husband in farm work who claims unemployment benefit must satisfy the same eligibility criteria to establish entitlement. (c) Similarly, children of farming families who normally assist in farm work must satisfy those same criteria. (Question No. 191) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) When does he expect the report on the inquiry into the grape and wine industries to be completed. (2) Will the findings and recommendations of the report be made public; if so, when. (3) If not, why not. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I believe that the inquiry will be in a position to provide its report to me by the end of April 1985. (2) and (3) The matter of public release of the report will be considered following its receipt. (Question No. 210) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (3) No employees in the Department of Primary Industry receive a language availability performance allowance (LAPA), since there is not a continuing requirement for a particular linguistic ability, and the frequency of demand for any specific language is low. Under Public Service Board guidelines both these requirements have to be met for LAPA to be paid. (2) A record is kept of the languages spoken and/or read by the employees of the Department of Primary Industry. (Question No. 213) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The table below gives the number of employees of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs throughout Australia who receive a language availability performance allowance (LAPA) Location No. of Employees New South Wales 43 Victoria 39 Queensland 7 South Australia 5 Western Australia 7 Tasmania 3 Northern Territory 3 Australian Capital Territory 9 Total 116 (2) and (3) Records are kept in all offices of the languages spoken by the staff. Language skills and regularity of use are monitored to ensure eligibility for LAPA. (Question No. 214) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) A record is kept of officers who have written and/or spoken proficiency in foreign languages. (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 215) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Two (for sign language). (2) A register is maintained and updated regularly. (3) The Department's Central Office keeps a record of all officers in the Department who can communicate in a language other than English. This record is updated periodically by way of a Department-wide survey for the purpose of identifying the skills available to Departmental clients and employees of the Department, whether or not the persons concerned are eligible for payment of the annual Allowance. Departmental staff identified by the periodic survey are nevertheless eligible for payment of an allowance for occasional interpreting/translating work performed in addition to their normal duties. This payment is based on the actual time spent on interpreting/ translating work. (Question No. 218) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Forty-five. (2) Yes. (3) Procedures in place are those set out in the Patent Office Patent Treaty Examiners Manual. The allowance is paid only to examiners who have been directed to perform translations on a regular and continuing basis in accordance with Public Service Board Determination 63 of 1984. (Question No. 227) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Were officers of his Department informed that British businessman, Ronald Charles Fry, who departed Australia from Brisbane Airport on 25 January 1985, under the supervision of an official from his Department, was under investigation by the Queensland Police fraud squad for his connection with a million dollar deal involving north Queensland farmers. (2) What are the usual procedures for liaison between his Department and the Australian Federal Police to ensure that deportees are not under investigation by an Australian police force and were these procedures adhered to in this case. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that Ronald Charles Fry left Australia on 25 January 1985 of his own volition. He was not deported. (2) My Department is in continuing contact with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence and the various Police Forces and other law enforcement agencies throughout Australia, including the Australian Federal Police. It is not unusual for the Department and the Police authorities to be in discussion about persons of mutual interest. There is no automatic procedure for checking whether people who have been ordered deported are of current interest to any of the law enforcement or investigative bodies in Australia. (Question No. 231) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many pensioners in each of the postcode areas 2478 to 2490 have had their pensions reduced or cancelled as a result of the assets test. (2) How many people have been affected in each category of pension. (3) What percentage of pensioners, in each of these postcode areas prior to the introduction of the test, have been affected by the assets test. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) &(2) The information sought is shown in tables 'A' and 'B' below. The data relates to Social Security pensioners and to the position as at 8 March when the conversion to the assets test was made for pay-day 21 March. (3) See table 'C'. The number of pensioners affected by the assets test has been related to the distribution of pensioners by postcode areas as at December 1984. A distribution of pensioners by postcode areas, immediately prior to the introduction of the assets test, is not available. Table A PENSIONS CANCELLED DUE TO ASSETS TEST Postcodes 2478 to 2490 Pension Type Age Invalid Widows Widows Supptng Postcode District (a) (a) Class A Class B/C Parents Total 2478 Ballina 39 0 0 0 0 39 2479 Bangalow 12 4 0 0 0 16 2480 Lismore 86 10 1 3 1 101 2481 Byron Bay 12 0 0 0 0 12 2482 Mullumbimby 11 5 0 0 0 16 2483 Brunswick Heads 16 0 0 1 0 17 2484 Murwillumbah 30 6 2 1 0 39 2485 Tweed Heads 18 4 0 0 0 22 2486 Tweed Heads South 21 0 0 1 0 22 2487 Kingscliff 3 1 0 0 0 4 2488 Bogangar 1 0 0 0 0 1 2489 Hastings Point 2 2 0 0 0 4 2490 Tumbulgum 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total 253 32 3 6 1 295 (a) Includes wife pensioners and spouse carer pensioners. Table B PENSIONS REDUCED DUE TO ASSETS TEST Postcodes 2478 to 2490 Pension Type Age Invalid Widows Widows Supptng Postcode District (a) (a) Class A Class B/C Parents Total 2478 Ballina 22 10 0 1 1 34 2479 Bangalow 12 4 0 0 0 16 2480 Lismore 72 16 4 1 1 94 2481 Byron Bay 3 0 0 1 0 4 2482 Mullumbimby 11 3 0 0 0 14 2483 Brunswick Heads 18 3 0 1 1 23 2484 Murwillumbah 39 1 0 1 0 41 2485 Tweed Heads 29 1 0 1 0 31 2486 Tweed Heads South 22 1 0 1 0 24 2487 Kingscliff 14 2 0 0 0 16 2488 Bogangar 2 0 0 1 0 3 2489 Hastings Point 1 1 0 0 0 2 2490 Tumbulgum 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 245 42 4 8 3 302 (a) Includes wife pensioners and spouse carer pensioners. Table C PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PENSIONERS AFFECTED BY ASSETS TEST Post codes 2478 to 2490 Pension Type Age Invalid Widows Widows Supptng Postcode District (a) (a) Class A Class B/C Parents Total % % % % % 2478 Ballina 3.6 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 2.8 2479 Bangalow 11.4 10.8 0.0 0.0 9.3 2480 Lismore 4.4 2.9 2.1 2.4 0.3 3.5 2481 Byron Bay 2.3 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.6 2482 Mullumbimby 4.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 3.6 2483 Brunswick Heads 5.6 1.5 0.0 7.7 0.8 4.1 2484 Murwillumbah 5.0 1.9 2.3 3.7 0.0 3.8 2485 Tweed Heads 3.6 1.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.8 2486 Tweed Heads South 5.3 0.4 0.0 4.5 0.0 3.7 2487 Kingscliff 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 2488 Bogangar 3.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 2.5 2489 Hastings Point 3.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 2490 Tumbulgum 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Total 4.3 2.3 1.0 2.5 0.2 3.3 (a) Includes wife pensioners and spouse carer pensioners. PENSIONS CURRENT AT DECEMBER 1984 Postcodes 2478 to 2490 Pension Type Age Invalid Widows Widows Supptng Postcode District (a) (a) Class A Class B/C Parents Total 2478 Ballina 1711 494 101 85 243 2636 2479 Bangalow 210 74 14 8 37 344 2480 Lismore 3568 911 242 165 704 5598 2481 Byron Bay 644 185 35 36 127 1027 2482 Mullumbimby 529 147 34 15 117 842 2483 Brunswick Heads 607 195 33 26 122 986 2484 Murwillumbah 1370 360 87 54 231 2104 2485 Tweed Heads 1316 289 58 75 149 1888 2486 Tweed Heads South 809 228 53 44 104 1239 2487 Kingscliff 667 209 31 35 120 1063 2488 Bogangar 99 31 7 4 22 163 2489 Hastings Point 101 39 2 3 20 165 2490 Tumbulgum 50 9 5 1 10 75 Total 11681 3171 702 551 2006 18130 (a) Includes wife pensioners and spouse carer pensioners. (Question No. 235) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: What was the cost of meeting requests for information from his Department under the Freedom of Information Act in 1983/84. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Salary Cost $2 404 708 Other $67 500 Total Costs $2 472 208 (Question No. 236) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Has the form and style of citizenship certificates issued to those awarded Australian citizenship been changed; if so, why were the certificates changed. (2) Was one of the reasons for the change the cost of production of the certificates formerly issued. (3) Has his attention been drawn to (a) the concern and complaints, particularly amongst local municipal officers who present certificates, about the lower standard of quality of the certificates now awarded and (b) the concern amongst individuals who have received the new certificates and who have asked Council officers whether they could change their certificate for one of the former type. (4) Is consideration being given to re-introducing citizenship certificates, of the standard and quality of those previously issued; if not, why not. (5) If cost is the factor, what amount is involved. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The main reasons for the changes to the certificate were: (a) to make it compatible with an automated system introduced to streamline the processing of citizenship applications, including the printing of certificates and associated letters, and to contain costs following substantial increases in the application rate over recent years. (b) to comply with recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking that certificates of Australian citizenship be made more secure. (c) to ease the workload of local Government authorities. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) No. I consider the new certificate to be of acceptable quality. It is secure, versatile and attractive and befits the Australian citizenship status it signifies. (5) To continue the older style citizenship certificates would have required the purchase of another printer at considerable additional cost, or the employment of up to 20 additional staff to prepare the certificates manually. (Question No. 237) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: With respect to the detention of prohibited immigrants, what progress has been achieved in examining the feasibility of developing a separate department custodial service to integrate custodial and administrative responsibilities. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Since October 1984 the custodial function at the Immigration Detention Centres has been undertaken by officers of the Australian Protective Service which is within the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The custodial staff operate in accordance with guidelines and instructions prepared by my Department in consultation with the Australian Protective Service. Each detention centre has a manager provided by my Department to attend to all of the local administrative matters and to sort out day-to-day problems as they occur. (Question No. 238) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Did the Auditor-General in his efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration note as a shortcoming in passenger clearance at airports, that at Sydney Airport departmental officers lacked control over the collection of passenger cards and were therefore unable to ensure that all cards collected from passengers by customs officers were despatched for ADP processing in Canberra. (2) Did his Department suggest to the Australian Customs Service that from 1 September 1983, clearly defined procedures for checking, access to and despatch of passenger cards should apply. (3) Following this suggestion did the Auditor-General state that the question of control over passenger cards had not been resolved. (4) Has this question now been resolved in such a way as to ensure that all cards are collected and despatched for processing. (5) Did the Auditor-General also state that, while his Department had been installing forgery detection equipment at major airports since 1981, it had yet to confirm that this approach to forgery detection is efficient and cost-effective. (6) Has his Department now been able to confirm the efficiency of such equipment by way of field trial, if so, what was the result of the trial. (7) Is he now satisfied that his Department's forgery detection equipment is an effective means of examining documents at airports to detect forgeries, and has his Department now sufficient staff appropriately equipped for routine document examination. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) The matter has not been resolved; discussions with the Australian Customs Service are continuing. (5) Yes. (6) My Department equipped each of the major international airports in Australia with one item of forgery detection equipment which it had developed in conjunction with an Australian firm. The equipment was intended to assist Immigration Inspectors at airports, to have a first ''layman's'' view of the documents and, if more technical examination by an expert was necessary, then to refer the documents for forensic examination. Following successful trials of the prototype, the production model was provided to the airports for immediate operational use from the outset. Since that initiative, the Department has been successful in its campaign to recruit trained Document Examiners and additionally, some equipment suitable for their use has been developed commercially overseas and is in operational use. Since the audit the Department has therefore been able to move further towards its goal of a system of routine examination of documents at airports based on improved training for Customs Officers in the detection of fraudulent documents, wider provision of relatively inexpensive equipment for Customs Officer use with supporting technical services provided by trained Document Examiners. (7) I am informed that the Department's forgery detection equipment program is based on equipment assessed by leading technical experts in this field within the immigration services of several countries. Within the limits of the money and the staff that can be made available for this particular area of my Department's activity, I am satisfied that the Department has upgraded its activity, technology and expertise as an appropriate response to the growing concern about the use of fraudulent travel documents. Whether anything more or less needs to be done can only be decided, in due course, on the basis of results and these are being monitored closely. (Question No. 240) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Did the Auditor-General in his efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration recommend that his Department, while adequately recognising privacy considerations, actively explore with other government authorities the development of procedures to assist in the location of prohibited immigrants, and that other Commonwealth authorities assist to the extent possible in locating people who are in Australia illegally; if so, what action has his Department taken on this recommendation, and what have been the results of its discussions. (2) Has his Department received adequate co-operation and assistance from other Commonwealth departments and authorities in implementing this recommendation. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Yes. My Department advises that it has approached Commonwealth and State authorities over a number of years to provide information which would assist in locating people who are illegally in Australia. While there have been useful results in the past, it has encountered increasing reluctance to provide information because of privacy provisions and aspects of administrative law such as freedom of information legislation. Nevertheless the Department has renewed a number of contacts in writing and in senior officers discussions. I am informed that the responses are mixed, most authorities wanting to be helpful but feeling limited by legislation or policies. When the round of officer level contacts has been completed I will consider whether there is any further action I should take. (Question No. 241) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Did the Auditor-General in his efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration advocate the use of a less costly reporting system for prohibited immigrants. (2) Was his Department unable to provide statistics on the use of the reporting system, outlined in his Department's residential control manual, or its failure rate. (3) Does his Department now collect such statistics on the use of the reporting system and its success or otherwise. (4) What has resulted from this information being collected. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Auditor-General's report states, inter alia, at page 49 that ''Audit explored the potential for greater use of the much less costly 'reporting' system''. (2) Yes. While information on persons put on reporting arrangements is held in regional offices of my Department, it was not in a form conducive to the ready extraction of the statistics sought by the audit team. (3) Statistics about people in custody and those not placed in custody and some form of ''Reporting Register'' have been maintained in each region for many years. These provide the basis for surveys from time to time. My Department considers this adequate rather than an elaborate on-going system of daily statistical reporting. (4) In mid 1984, following the Auditor-General's views, more extensive use was made of the reporting system as an alternative to custody in a detention centre. This experiment and survey of results revealed that more than half of the illegal immigrants put on report absconded. As a result of the analysis of the information obtained at the time instructions were issued to guide officers in deciding whether a person should be detained. Further surveys will be conducted from time to time on the information subsequently being recorded. (Question No. 242) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Did the Auditor-General in his efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration report that (a) a computer-generated movements data base of overstayed visitors compiled since 1973 has not provided an accurate and up to date record of overstayed visitors and (b) there was a backlog of approximately 250,000 unmatched movements in the data base. (2) Did his Department outline additional steps to reduce the backlog of unmatched movements, if so, has each of these steps outlined in the report been put in place. (3) What is the present backlog of unmatched movements. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) Yes. (2) Yes; but the steps have been implemented to the following extent: additional staff have been engaged in this work since August 1983; planning for the on-line input of extensions of stay and change of immigration status has been continuing but the systems are not yet fully operational; the ''pre-movement'' data system is being implemented progressively at overseas posts as part of a large, complex and long-term program. (3) The so-called backlog of unmatched movements is not a once only backlog. As the matching of records of passenger data requires computerised checks of names, date of birth, nationality and other travel details, when there is not an exact match recognisable to the computer, manual checking is necessary. This is a continuous daily activity. From an input of approximately 5 million records per year, about 50,000 mismatches per year require manual checking. As at 28/2/85, 26,298 unmatched records were awaiting final manual checks. (Question No. 243) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Did the Auditor-General in his efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration report that it was not possible to extract individual characteristics of those on the Migrant Alert List (MAL) warning system. (2) Did the Auditor-General also report that management was not using the scheme's full potential. (3) Did his Department respond that a program, to produce the information required, was scheduled for development. (4) Has the program now been developed; if not, why not and when may it be expected to be in place. (5) Did the Auditor-General in his report suggest that guidelines and criteria for developing and up-dating the MAL warning system should be adopted and did his Department respond that a set of specific criteria covering the review for the removal of names had been drafted and that guidelines had been under development for 18 months. (6) Did the Auditor-General recommend that this development and consequential implementation be completed promptly. (7) Has the project been completed; if not, why not and when may it be expected that it will be in place. (8) Did the Auditor-General recommend that a control deficiency existed in the MAL warning system in that there was no reconciliation in relation to additions or deletions from the warning list and those which had been requested. (9) Did he recommend that such a procedure be implemented. (10) Has the procedure been implemented; if not, why not and when may it be expected to be in place. (11) Did the Auditor-General's report state that his Department had not developed a profile of overstayed visitors which could be used to identify intending visitors who should be subjected to additional checks. (12) Did his Department advise that it routinely feeds back to overseas posts copies of papers connected with the eviction of illegal immigrants, and that posts in 'high-risk' areas can develop their own analyses and profiles. (13) Did his Department later advise that it would implement a reliable movements data base permitting a much wider range of computerised analyses. (14) Has the movement data base been established; if not, why not and when may it be expected to be put in place. (15) What areas has his Department identified as 'high-risk' and, without disclosing information relating to individuals or having security implications, what is the nature of the specific checks developed in each instance. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (6) Yes. (7) Yes, it has been completed. (8) and (9) Yes. (10) Yes, a procedure is in place. (11) to (14) Yes. (15) The Department does not single out particular areas which it identifies as 'high-risk' requiring special attention. Standard procedures as outlined in departmental instructions apply to all posts. (Question No. 244) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Has his Department examined and put in place the recommendation of the Auditor-General in his efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration that a deportee's taxation refund from employment in Australia, be assigned to his Department. (2) In how many instances has his Department successfully obtained such an assignment. Mr Hurford — The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has examined the recommendation of the Auditor-General that a deportee's taxation refund from employment in Australia be assigned to the Department to defray expenses of detention. The matter was taken up with the Australian Taxation Office which has advised that given the average size of refunds and the resources which would be required to positively identify and trace the particular taxpayers (who often work under assumed name), the diversion of refunds would not make a significant contribution towards defraying deportation costs. (2) No assignments have been obtained for these reasons. (Question No. 257) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost, of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) to (5) The Department of Community Services was created on 13 December 1984. At present there are no facilities within the Department for the production of films and videos. (Question No. 269) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Arrangements for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are usually handled, or at least oversighted, by the Information Section of the Secretariat and Information Branch. Production is arranged in consultation with Film Australia, and may involve a private film company being employed under contract. The Department also has dealt on occasions with the Special Broadcasting Service to produce community announcements in various languages for use on television. Such undertakings may be jointly funded by the Department and the SBS. (2) Some capacity exists in the Department for minor in-house video production. This is used for training purposes. (3) Three films or videos were produced by the Department in 1983/84, namely: ''Information About Australia'', a counselling video for use at overseas posts, which was produced in 21 languages. The production was finalised in 1983/84 with a part payment of $20,000 (but was commenced in 1982/83 and cost $170,000 overall. ''Medicare'' up-date segment for use with the ''Information About Australia'' counselling video. Cost $30,000. Multilingual editions of ''Pregnancy and Birth'', a video produced previously in English only. Cost $24,000. (4) The department holds the following film/video production equipment: 1 x 16mm movie camera-disposal action under way; 1 x film editing table-held in Central Office and used occasionally to preview 16mm films; 1 x Sony U-Matic Portapack system-held in the Melbourne Office and used for training activities; 1 x Sony U-Matic Portapack system-held in Central Office and used for training and other in-house activities; 1 x Sony Video Editing console-held in Central Office and used for training and other in-house activities; 4 x Sony U-Matic Player/Recorders with two monitors-held in Melbourne and Central Offices and used for screening, training and editing purposes. (5) No one position in the Department is specifically dedicated to film/video production activities. Various officers in the Information Section are involved in aspects of film/video production from time to time, mainly in respect of script-writing and liaison with production organisations. Elsewhere in the Department, two training officers have received some instruction in video production techniques, and a portion of their workload involves producing in-house training videos. Their salaries are $26,330-27,806 and $31,531-35,255. (Question No. 270) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department of Social Security has a two person production unit to make training and information videos for internal use. Productions which are used primarily for external use are generally contracted out to an external production agency. (2) Yes. (3) Fifteen videos were produced during 1983-84. Of these, nine were produced in-house for internal use and six were produced externally. Titles and costs are as follows: In-house Productions:(for training and information purposes) Stratplan Report 2-$3215 Counter Officer Role Plays-no on-cost Field Officer Training-$630 Aboriginal Community Child Care-$2245 Freedom of Information-$1210 Interviewing Skills (two programs)-no on-cost Stratplan Report 3-$2293 More than Sitting, Occupational Safety and Health-$2700 Externally Produced:(for use by the department with certain community groups) Social Security Story-$4746 Externally Produced for Broadcast:(for S.B.S. television transmission) Direct Deposit-$9025 Family Income Supplement-$9025 Assets Test-$9025 General Pensions &Benefits-$34,629 Disabled-$34,629 (4) The following video production equipment is held within the Department. Its primary use is for the production of training and in-house information programs. Equipment: 2 video editing recorders; 1 editing control unit; 2 portable video recorders; 3 colour video cameras; 3 monochrome video cameras; 2 portable lighting kits; 5 camera tripods; 2 video mixers; 1 time base corrector; 1 waveform monitor; 1 vectorscope; 5 video recorders for dubbing; 2 portable lighting kits; 3 colour video monitors; 4 monochrome video monitors; 3 reel-to-reel audio recorders; 1 cassette audio recorder; 2 audio mixers; 1 parametric equaliser; 5 microphones; 1 receiver/amplifiers; 3 speakers; 1 record turntable; 1 high speed audio cassette duplicator; 1 super 8 mm film camera; 1 super 8 mm film editor. Ancillary equipment; battery chargers, power adaptors, equipment cases etc. (5) The Department has two full-time staff members employed in this area. They are a Clerk Class 8 at $30239 per annum and a Clerk Class 7 at $26330 per annum. Other staff may be required on a part-time basis on aspects of this work. (Question No. 291) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Has his attention been drawn to the arrest of Ramon Martinez, Executive Director of the Young Social Democrats in Nicaragua; if so, does he have any evidence to indicate that he was arrested because of his intended visit to the International Youth Conference in Kingston, Jamaica, in April 1985. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On receiving information that the Executive Director of the Young Social Democrats in Nicaragua, Ramon Martinez, had been arrested, I instructed that inquiries be made through the Australian Embassy in Mexico City, which covers Nicaragua. The Embassy has advised that Martinez was released on 17 February. However their inquiries have not so far provided information on the reason for his arrest. (Question No. 302) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 9; (b) 39. (2) Details of sex are 47 female, 1 male. Types of duty performed-43 Keyboard, 5 Clerical. Number of claims accepted 33. Number of claims rejected 1. Number of claims finalised 34. (3) 8 employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated. Steps in rehabilitation included: Sick leave while undergoing treatment. Counselling on preventive measures against possible recurrence of RSI. Replacement of furniture, where advisable, with ergonomically designed work stations. Temporary re-deployment to other duties, if medically recommended. (4) Steps being taken to prevent this type of injury include: Development of departmental policies on the prevention of RSI and the management of RSI cases, including introduction of rest breaks and the designation of an RSI Liaison Officer to counsel staff. Hiring of professional physiotherapist/ergonomist to give advice and run training courses for keyboard staff and to raise, among supervisors, the level of awareness of RSI and its causes. The courses are designed to help staff identify the initial symptoms of RSI, and emphasise the importance of taking regular rest breaks and of proper posture for keyboard operators. The provision of ergonomic furniture and other equipment aides. (Question No. 355) Mr Beddall asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What amounts from the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Fund have been directed to the Rosenthal Shire, Queensland since the scheme began. (2) To which projects have funds been allocated and what were the amounts involved. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An estimated $2.5 billion will be made available for roads over the life of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program, of which an estimated $59,535,450 will be provided for local roads in Queensland. Of this amount, 52.7% will be directed to local authorities for roads under their control. Rosenthal Shire's total indicative entitlement under the Bicentennial Road Program is $97,000. The amount directed to Rosenthal Shire to date is $10,800. (2) ABRD projects approved and the allocation for Rosenthal Shire: ABRD Location/Road Job Description Allocation $ Warner and Newby St Intersection Construct multiple pipe culvert 8,600 Back Creek Road Clear, form, drain and gravel for 1km 10,800 Montrose Lane-section immediately south of existing bitumen Gravel and seal 13,500 Mountain Par Road-section immediately north of existing bitumen Gravel and seal 16,800 Pikedale Road-section immediately south of existing bitumen Gravel and seal 21,000 Back Creek Road-extend bitumen Gravel and seal 26,300 Total ABRD allocation 97,000 (Question No. 356) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) Has Dr Albert Galea, a rebel egg producer in New South Wales, and or members of his family, been assessed by the Commissioner of Taxation as having understated his income by $430,000. (2) What action is being taken to recover lost moneys. (3) When is the matter expected to be resolved. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The secrecy provisions of the income tax law prohibit the Commissioner of Taxation from divulging information about the taxation affairs of any particular taxpayer. I am therefore unable to answer the honourable member's questions. (Question No. 433) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the memorandum referred to by the honourable member. (2) The memorandum was brought to the attention of all staff in my Department and in the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs (AIMA) by the circulation of copies of the memorandum via Heads of Divisions and Branches in the Department and the Chairman of AIMA on or about 11 June 1984, and the memorandum was reprinted in the Department's Staff Bulletin of 15 June 1984, which is circulated to all staff in the Department. A copy of the memorandum and information about relevant unions was placed on the staff notice board in the office of AIMA. (3) The Department has allocated time on its induction courses to allow union representatives the opportunity to speak to all new staff. Since this initiative was taken a number of courses have been conducted. (Question No. 434) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what date or dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delay, taking constructive action to encourage union membership and on what date or dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Department of Transport (2) The PSB memorandum of 1 June 1984 concerning encouragement of union membership was circulated to all staff on 25 June 1984. (3) The Department of Transport had a standing practice of facilitating staff organisation representatives contact prospective members, while leaving the matter of union membership to the individual concerned. This practice included: display of staff association recruitment material by personnel sections notifying staff of the staff organisation representatives within the Department processing payroll deductions of subscriptions to staff organisations provision of segments on union membership in induction and other appropriate training courses On 23 September 1984 the Department reviewed its practices and adopted a policy which includes: provision of staff lists to staff organisations distribution of recruitment material by personnel sections assisting staff organisations in conducting meetings with staff interested in taking out membership Inter-State Commission (2) The PSB memorandum concerning encouragement of union membership was circulated to all staff on 25 June 1984. (3) The Inter-State Commission is still in the process of assembling a permanent staff. Consideration is being given to appropriate methods of encouraging union membership. Australian Shipping Commission (2) No. (3) Membership of the appropriate staff organisation is a prerequisite for most categories of employment in the Australian Shipping Commission. Australian National Railways Commission (2) No. (3) Australian National (AN) has taken no specific action to encourage union membership since the issue of the Board's circular because such action is not considered necessary. Railway employees have a long-standing tradition of strong union membership and no encouragement is necessary. Only a handful of employees of AN would not be members of the appropriate union and may have personal reasons for their views. From a management point of view no obstacles have been placed in the way of union membership at any time during the history of AN. Union subscriptions are deducted from employees' pay where they request it. (Question No. 440) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in (A) June, (B) July and (C) August 1984. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (i) Employees under the Community Employment Program in my Department: June July August 1984 1984 1984 (a) Males 47 8 6 (b) Females 128 27 20 Total 175 35 26 (ii) No employees were engaged under the Community Employment Program in any statutory authority reporting to me. (Question No. 450) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Has the Government approved the presence of students from Vietnam in Australian universities and colleges. (2) Under what programs are these students studying in Australia, how many students are involved in each program and how long will each student be in Australia. (3) Will there be any further students accepted under these programs. (4) Who selects the students for enrolment in Australia, the Government of Vietnam, the United Nations or some other body or agency and does the Australian Government have any say in the students admitted. (5) Are fees paid to the Australian institutions at which the students are enrolled; if so, are they paid by the Government of Vietnam, the United Nations, Australia under one of its aid programs, or by some other agency. (6) What are the fees and are they charged on the basis of the overseas students charge or full cost recovery. (7) What is the full cost to the institutions for each course of study undertaken by these students. (8) Have additional arrangements or costs been incurred by Australia for bringing these students to Australia or for undertaking any special measures associated with their presence, including the costs of any special security arrangements; if so, what are the details. (9) Are these students billeted in university or college student accommodation, if so, are charges levied for this accommodation and are the charges paid for by the sponsoring body or by the Government. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) At present there are 24 students from Vietnam in Australian universities and colleges. All are studying courses of up to one year under awards administered by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (22 students) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) (2 students). (3) Yes. (4) Students nominated by the Government of Vietnam undergo final selection by the administering agencies (UNDP and WHO) and the institutions in Australia. They are also subject to Australian Government visa requirements. (5) and (6) WHO paid the institution fees and the overseas student charge for students whom it administers. UNDP has paid the full charge for a special course for students it administers; because this covers all direct costs and management fees, the overseas student charge is not applicable. (7) The full cost (including indirect costs) to the institutions has not been calculated, but direct costs are covered as closely as possible by the charges made by the institutions. (8) A grant of $700,000 has been made to UNDP to cover costs of its Indo-China program, including those of the Vietnamese in Australia. No special security measures have been undertaken other than minor and routine arrangements in relation to some students following an assault on them. (9) The students have been billeted in university and college accommodation charged to the relevant UN administering organisation. (Question No. 458) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) What special arrangements have been made by his Department to handle appeals expected under the assets test. (2) How many Social Security Appeals Tribunal members are there in each State and what are their qualifications. (3) Will there be an increase in the number of members to handle appeals under the assets test. (4) What is the average time between the submission of an appeal, the hearing of the appeal and the handing down of the appeal from the tribunal. (5) Will priority be given to the hearing of appeals which arise from the assets test and what is expected to be the average time taken by the tribunal in handing down its decision. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The existing appeals and review system, with some slight procedural modifications mainly involving valuations by the Australian Taxation Office, will accommodate asset test appeals. Seminars for Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) members have recently been held in all States and Territories to acquaint them with the assets test. Officers of the Department have been instructed to handle assets test appeals quickly. Guidelines to assist officers to correctly and quickly handle assets test appeals have already been issued. (2) Qualifications of SSAT members: NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Legal qualifications 14 7 4 2 4 1 1 1 Welfare qualifications or experience 10 9 4 1 5 1 1 1 Medical qualifications 5 4 4 2 3 3 1 1 Seconded from Department of Social Security 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 (3) At this stage it is not possible to ascertain the rate at which assets test appeals will be lodged. There have been just over 400 requests made for review. The situation is being constantly monitored and, if the need arises, additional members will be appointed to SSATs to ensure appeals will be dealt with quickly. (4) Finalisation of non-medical appeals, of which assets test appeals will form part, took an average of 22.7 weeks during the quarter ended December 1984. Over 50% were finalised within 17.7 weeks. (5) Priority is given to any appeals which involve hardship and this will apply equally to assets test appeals. My department and the SSAT's endeavour to handle all appeals quickly and, as mentioned in answer to question (1), instructions have been issued to ensure assets test appeals do not cause delays in the appeals system generally. It is not possible to assess an expected average time which will be taken by Tribunals in assets test appeals. Tribunals are independent of the Department and their procedures are to a large extent at their discretion. Nevertheless all SSAT members have been informed of the need for speedy resolution of all appeal matters including assets test appeals. (Question No. 461) Mr Maher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: What quantity of antique furniture has been imported into Australia in each of the years 1975-76 to 1983-84. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Imports of antique furniture are not recorded separately for purposes of official statistics. However, furniture is included, in terms of value only, in the Import Statistical Item 'Antiques of an age exceeding 100 years' (Item 896.06.00 of the Australian Import Commodity Classification). The value of Australian imports of this Item for each of the years 1975-76 to 1983-84 is as follows: Value Year ($A'000) 1975-76 6,605 1976-77 9,992 1977-78 10,030 1978-79 11,327 1979-80 18,466 1980-81 34,481 1981-82 37,577 1982-83 30,408 1983-84 28,157 (Question No. 463) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1985: (1) Which areas of Australia have been identified by State or Territory Governments as designated areas for settlement by migrants. (2) Do all areas so designated attract a scale of 6 on the migration points system; if not, what points have been awarded for each designated area. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The application of bonus points for designated areas is under review but, pending the outcome of the review, the following areas of Australia have been identified by State/Territory Governments as designated areas for settlement by migrants: Northern Territory Western Australia, outside Perth metropolitan area Queensland, outside Brisbane city area. (2) All designated areas attract 6 points on the migration points system provided the applicants can produce convincing evidence that they intend to settle in these areas. (Question No. 482) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: Has the Australian National Railways Commission considered the provision of side clearance lights to all rolling stock; if so, what was the decision and the reasons for that decision. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has investigated using side clearance lights on freight wagons. AN found this to be impractical owing to the difficulty of providing a suitable power source and the necessity to uncouple trains into single wagons and re-marshall. As the freight wagons of the rail systems are intermingled in operations, any decision to fit side clearance lights would need to be made by the Railways of Australia (RoA) Committee, on which all State railway systems and AN are represented. I am advised that RoA's attitude to this matter has been not to illuminate wagons due to practical and legal problems inherent in such a proposal. Nevertheless, AN has indicated that it intends to reopen the issue within RoA in an endeavour to achieve some change. AN considers its new corporate livery of green with vertical yellow bands and black contrasts should make its rollingstock considerably more visible at night. (Question No. 553) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Is the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program fuel levy money paid into a trust account which attracts interest. (2) Is this interest required to be used for road construction and maintenance purposes. (3) How much interest has accrued since the scheme began, and how much has been paid out for roads. (4) Is there a regular payment procedure; if so, what is it. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Fuel levies paid into the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund (referred to as the Road Fund) which are not immediately required to meet payments to the States and the Northern Territory are invested. Interest earned from such investments is payable into the Road Fund. (2) Interest received from investments forms part of amounts standing to the credit of the Road Fund from which payments are made by way of financial assistance for the construction of approved projects. Road maintenance is not eligible for assistance. (3) Total Road Fund interest received to 31 March 1985 was $26,531,248-86. As indicated in response to part (2) payments are made from available credit balances of the Road Fund which include interest received. Total Road Fund payments to 31 March 1985 were $806,687,277. (4) Yes. Road Fund payments are generally by way of reimbursement of monthly expenditure in each road category. Provision exists for advance payments of approximately a month's estimated expenditure for each road category. Advances are adjusted in line with the value of work completed against approved projects in progress. The article went on to say that Sam Lewis was a communist and was an inappropriate idol to hold up for children. It stated further: But as the Member for Calare, Mr David Simmons, pointed out during debate in the house, he didn't consume strange substances. They then listed some of the incidents from the Hansard debate. It reads: COBB: Sam Lewis was the President of the NSW Teachers Federation. SIMMONS: He did not drink 2,4,5-T. COBB: This will be a little hard for the honourable member (Mr Simmons) to swallow. The interjection from Mr Simmons was a reference to the fact that Mr Cobb drank a glass of 2,4,5-T at a National Party Conference some years ago to prove it harmless. In view of Mr Cobb's comments about setting up a good example for children, as the article went on to say: The question is: is drinking 2,4,5-T a good example to set children? Mr NEHL —The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) last night spoke in the adjournment debate and suggested that I was being far too emotional about the assets test. If I was emotional, it was with very good reason. That very good reason is that I care about the vast procession of people coming before me and most other members of this House. We on this side of the House care about those people. That is why I make no apology for becoming emotional about something that I believe is absolutely vital. As far as I can see the assets test is being choked up with a vast number of pensioners who are losing their pensions or having their pension reduced by the valuations of the Australian Taxation Office. Many of the valuations are just totally unrealistic. In many cases, if not most cases, the house and curtilage valuations are reduced by at least 50 per cent and the value of the remaining land is inflated. It appears this is done so that the pensioners will be persecuted and lose part or all of their pension.