Thursday, 9 May 1985 Madam ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.01) —Madam Acting Speaker, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Communications making a statement to the House forthwith to explain whether he will issue a direction under section 8 of the Postal Services Act 1975 to require the Australian Postal Commission to deliver mail to and from Queensland without interruption to services in accordance with the duties of the Commission laid down under that Act. Under the Postal Services Act 1975 the functions of the Australian Postal Commission are laid down. Clause 7 (1) of the Act, on page 4, states: The Commission shall perform its functions in such a manner as will best meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services and shall, so far as it is, in its opinion, reasonably practicable to do so, make its postal services available throughout Australia for all people who reasonably require those services. All people in Australia have been advised that mail services to and from Queensland will be interrupted until the close of business on 13 May. That is not a decision which is outside the responsibility of the Postal Commission. There are ways and means by which mail can be delivered. Indeed my office, in inquiring of the Postal Commission this morning, was told: 'If you wish to get mail to and from Queensland you can use the private services'. There are a number of private companies operating in the field and the time has come for the Government either to remove the monopoly that is now available to Australia Post and ensure that there are alternative ways by which mail can be delivered around Australia or to require Australia Post to fulfil its proper responsibilities. There is no basis by which the people of Australia can be held to ransom simply because the Australian Council of Trade Unions and this Government are not prepared to take actions to provide those public services which a statutory authority, in this instance Australia Post, is called on to provide. Section 8 (1) of the Postal Services Act states: The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission, in writing, such directions, with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, as appear to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest. We contend that this interruption to a public service to the community has gone on long enough. We know that the Government has given lip service to its concern about the blockade of Queensland. However, we know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is, in private, as the Premier of Queensland said this morning, putty in the hands of the power brokers of the ACTU. We know that the Transport Workers Union, the TWU, and unions affiliated with the State rail authority of Queensland have placed bans on all deliveries until midnight on Friday. We know that that is outside the proper exercise of the responsibilities of Australia Post in meeting its obligations under the Postal Services Act. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) will recall that, as Postmaster-General in 1975, he was a party to litigation which was determined by the High Court of Australia. He will recall that in the case of Bradley v. the Commonwealth the High Court-in the judgment of the former Chief Justice and the present Chief Justice-decided that no authority exists for the giving of directions in relation to the refusal to deliver mail, in that instance to one particular client. There are a number of obiter dicta within that judgment which I think are worth canvassing before the House. Page 566 of the High Court judgment by Chief Justice Barwick and the then Mr Justice Gibbs states: . . . it is right to start from the assumption that if the Parliament intended to confer on the Postmaster-General an arbitrary power, subject to no condition and to no review, to deprive any person of the liberty to use the postal and telephone services, with all the grave consequences that might ensue, it would use clear words for that purpose. Although the Act has been replaced, that purpose has not been written into the new Act. The judgment continues: The Act abounds with indications that it is intended that a letter which is properly addressed and stamped and which is received at a post office for transmission and delivery shall be transmitted and delivered to the address indicated or, if letter carriers are not provided, to the nearest post office, except in cases for which express provision is made. The delivery of mail has been regarded as sacrosanct. This Government is now running away from its prime responsibility to provide services to the Australian public. It is saying to the people of Queensland that it does not matter that the mail services can be disrupted. It is saying: 'We are going to walk away from exercising our responsibility in this instance to give directions to a prime statutory authority to execute its responsibilities'. We all know the genesis of the dispute in Queensland. There was a power dispute. The reason the people of Australia are so strongly behind the actions of the Queensland Government is that the Queensland Government has said that where there is a public service-in Queensland's instance, the electricity supply-it is prepared to ensure that those services are provided. We have a marked contrast between the Federal Government and the State Government. The Federal Government is saying: 'We do not mind if people do not get the services for which we are responsible'. The Federal Government is responsible for providing all the mail services through the Australian Postal Commission. The Federal Government should take a leaf from the book of the Queensland Premier and be prepared to take the same stance in relation to the provision of services to the people of Australia as the Queensland Government has shown that it is prepared to take with power supply. It is not good enough for a government that has responsibility for public services to say that it is not prepared to take action to ensure that those services are provided. That is what this motion is all about. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is at the table, has power under the Act to require the Australian Postal Commission to ensure that mail is delivered. The Postal Commission has an obligation to deliver the mail. The High Court has decided in the case to which I referred, as recently as 1975, that that obligation should be met. A government which has a clear obligation cannot now come into the House and say: 'We will wipe our hands of the whole affair'. This is a prime area where the Federal Government can show where its responsibilities lie. Of course we know that the Prime Minister is a slave to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the unions. We know that the left wing calls the shots. We know that the Government is not really concerned about interruptions to trade and commerce. We know that it is not worried about the rights of the average citizen. We know that the pensioners do not matter to the Government. We heard the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) yesterday tell us about how the introduction of a new assets test is really in the best interests of the poor. What absolute rubbish! Indeed, in this instance the Government cannot absolve itself from its responsibilities. There is a clear provision within the Postal Services Act for the Minister to issue directions. The Australian Postal Commission has a responsibility to provide services. We believe that the Minister at the commencement of today's proceedings, in the light of the notice that has been given to the public of Australia, has a responsibility to make a statement in this House to tell the people of Australia that the Australian mail will get through. In the days of the penny post it used to be regarded as sacrosanct. Section 94 of the Act provides a penalty of 12 months gaol to anyone who obstructs delivery of the mail. Coincidentally, that is the period of imprisonment that precludes a person from entitlement to sit in this Parliament. Under section 94 there is a penalty for people who obstruct the delivery of mail. The Minister has a responsibility. He should tell this House that a direction will be issued to Australia Post so that the mail will get through. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.11) —I second the motion. Last night I went to the Parliament House post office to post some mail to Queensland. It is not surprising that any member from Queensland who presents to the post office letters to be sent to Queensland expects that service to be provided. I have said before, in response to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), that something should be done about the workings of the post office in Australia. It is not good enough for the Minister to stand around wringing his hands, saying: 'You are really not doing anything, boys. I cannot do anything because my hands are tied. I will leave it to you'. That is what the Minister says about the post office in Australia. The Opposition says: 'Bring back the no work no pay clause. Direct the board of Australia Post to come to terms with its management and set a target date for performance. If there is a failure to perform, fire the board and try again'. Australians are sick and tired of having to stand back and have their basic essential services ignored. How many people complain to members of parliament about the services of Australia Post? Complaints come in every day. There would not be anyone in Australia who can genuinely say that he gets a better service from Australia Post today than he did 10 years ago. Mr Sinclair —Even the Minister said Australia Post had to lift its game. Mr MOORE —That is right. In response to those complaints we have had nothing but a weak-kneed display from the Minister, who is purely a tool of a government dominated by the trade unions. It is government for the trade unions, by the trade unions and not of the people. That is what has gone wrong. That is why in Queensland today one sees the beginning of the great crack in trade unionism in Australia. It is the antics of the tactics, particularly the lead which is being given by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which will bring about the downfall of trade unionism in this country if the unions are not careful. This incident in relation to the moving of the post within Australia is very important. Australia Post is dominated and run by the trade unions because it has been too fearful to interfere and enforce management. Many millions of dollars have been spent on the production of new techniques and machinery which have been put to one side and totally ignored because of the fear to confront the union management of the day. The people of Australia have had enough. Members of this Parliament, particularly Queenslanders, have had enough in relation to the mail services in Parliament House. Why should we, as servants of our electorates, be held to ransom by a few trade unionists? It is time that the Minister issued directions to Australia Post to call in private contractors to move the mail to Queensland. The Minister should not allow the circumstances whereby our mail will sit here and not be shifted until next Monday. While this occurs we have a Government which fumbles with the ball. It is not concerned with what goes on in Australia in relation to the services to ordinary people. It is concerned only with delivering to its own particular audience. There would not be any person representing a rural electorate who is not concerned about the appalling services occurring there. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) and the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) must be wondering what is going on in their areas. They are not here at the moment but they are very dependent on how they communicate with their electorates and the services that are provided in those areas. But they are not here this morning to hear this debate and in that way they are not registering their concern to the Government. This is a matter of great concern to the whole nation. It does not matter whether one lives in Melbourne or Cape York. The Minister of the day must do his job-administer the Act which he is sworn to administer. He has totally failed to do that, he has totally failed the Australian public and the Government has failed the whole of the nation. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.17) —The Opposition has been agonising in its tactics committee for some days as to what issues it should raise in this Parliament. For the third day in a row the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been done over. He continues to want to talk about the major issue in Australia, which is tax reform, and all the other wildcats-members of the National Party-overrule him. They even got the poor old member for Ryan (Mr Moore) in today. He was called upon by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) to take a leaf out of Joh's book and reluctantly he brought himself to the dispatch box to associate himself with that great Queenslander, the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The President of the Liberal Party in Queensland finally found an issue upon which he could associate himself with the Premier of Queensland. We in government are doing exactly the same as the Opposition did when it was in government. There was one thing lacking from the contribution made by the Leader of the National Party in the presentation of this resolution to the House this morning: He did not detail all the actions that were taken by the Liberal and National parties when they were in government and had an industrial dispute in the post office. Did anyone hear any precedents set before the House about the action that they took when the postal services may have been cut off? There was not one illustration of interference by the then Minister. It is highly dubious what powers the Minister has. I call on honourable members not to use the opinion that has been given by the Leader of the National Party; he is not looked upon as a top Queen's Counsel in these areas. His opinions are not widely sought by the community outside and the only reason I can find for his being upset because the postal services to Queensland may have been cut off is that his cheques might not be getting through; he may have sent a lot of letters to Queensland that are not getting through. This is the second day on which the Opposition has felt that there is some political push in picking on an issue. Yesterday the assets test got priority over taxation; today it is Queensland. These bans or any previous bans that have been imposed by the trade union movement because of the conflict which has been brought about in the South East Queensland Electricity Board have been a direct result of the Queensland Government's decision to sack nearly 1,000 workers and not give them their jobs back. All this Government has said is that there should be some negotiations about the livelihood of those 1,000 people. We are not in fascist Germany or South Africa where 17,000 people have just been sacked recently. We live in a democracy. We do not live in one of those countries where those sorts of actions may be taken unchallenged. There is a challenge to the action that has been taken by the Queensland Government. People all over Australia resent such action. We do not support the bans that have been imposed by the trade union movement in trying to bring an end to this conflict. We continually say that there must be negotiations between the parties that are affected-the unions, the Queensland Government and Queensland businesses-to try to bring some rationale and sanity back into the situation in Queensland before it goes any further. The contributions that have been made today by the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Ryan do nothing to assist. They did nothing in the same circumstances when they were in government. They did not have their Minister for Communications rushing into every industrial dispute that came up in the postal services area or the communications industry in this country. As I said, not one precedent was set by them in this Parliament upon which, perhaps, we could rely for our actions today. Of course the action has been taken by the trade union movement in order to apply greater pressure on the Queensland Government. Whether or not it succeeds history will tell us. One thing we can be sure of is that the union movement-organised labour-acting in a democracy will not accept that a thousand of its members can be sacked arbitrarily, that their superannuation, their leave, all the payments that may have been due to them from their life-long service to the Board, can just be diminished as a result of an industrial dispute. Sanity will prevail in the long run because the union movement will not allow those laws to creep over the border. We have seen in this Parliament the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party associate themselves with the worst elements of these laws by saying, quite unilaterally, that at a national level they would do exactly the same as Joh is doing in Queensland. All I can say is that if they ever get the opportunity of doing that in the national Parliament, with the national laws of this country, they will start a bushfire in the industrial relations area the like of which we have not seen since Federation. Hopefully the Australian people will understand what they are promising them. I note that the Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, Mr Greiner, is attracted to the same thing. Liberal leaders all over the country are saying that they would like to do the same as the Queensland Premier has done in Queensland. That is not the way to bring about the sort of economic sanity and economic growth we need in this country to put the kids back to work and to do the sorts of things that we hope to do in this country. It is no good trying to win political points our of this issue. Sooner of later there will have to be negotiations over the turmoil that has been caused by the industrial dispute in the South East Queensland Electricity Board. For the Opposition to say today that it wants to suspend Standing Orders so that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) can come in here and give a definition of what powers he may have under the Act is an absolutely useless proposal. Honourable members opposite know that, because they never did anything in a similar situation when they were in government. In spite of their obvious dislike of the trade union movement and their willingness at every opportunity to do something detrimental to the trade union movement, they cannot give one illustration of an occasion when their Minister would have taken the action that they now call upon our Minister to take. As I said, it is highly dubious what powers the Minister may have in an industrial dispute of this nature. In the case of postal services, as in the case of almost every other industry, there are dispute-settling procedures. Obviously the relevant arbitration commission will be trying to get the dispute settled as quickly as possible, because that is part of its task and responsibility. It cannot be said that the union movement in Australia has not been provoked into taking some of the actions which it is taking today. Unless we get some negotiations on this matter, these disputes might continue. It is not in our interest in government, it is not in the interest of honourable members opposite as parliamentarians and it is not in Australia's interest that this matter should continue, but the Australian people cannot totally ignore the fact that 1,000 people have lost their jobs, their livelihood, and all the benefits that they may have built up, some of these after a lifetime of service to the Board. This has to be taken into account when considering these matters. Another thing which has to be taken into account is that honourable members opposite have taken a much stronger view on this issue than they did on the doctors going on strike. The doctors' action was a different matter. The right honourable member for New England did not get up here and say: 'Let's get the Minister for Health and see how he can flog the doctors back to work'. It may be that honourable members opposite feel that the doctors vote conservative. But when 1,000 people, who may be Labor supporters, have lost their jobs at the Electricity Board, Opposition members say: 'Let's stick the boot into them'. It is quite a different ball game. It depends on who is involved. We did not find Opposition members a few years ago asking the then Minister for Aviation to kick the pilots when they went on strike. The pilots directed the cut-off of their services directly at members of parliament; they said that they would not fly parliamentarians in or out of Canberra because of the action the Parliament had taken on lump sum superannuation. We did not have the right honourable member for New England at that time saying to the Minister for Aviation: 'Let's lock up the pilots'. It is a question of who is in the group. The precedent is who might be in the group and where their political allegiances might lie. If their political allegiances lie with the majority, the Australian Labor Party, Opposition members want to kick them. But, if they happen to be an elite conservative group, like the pilots or the doctors, Opposition members want to be silent. They behave like Marcel Marceau; they put their hands over their mouths and forget to say anything. They have no conscience at all. Let me conclude on this point: The Government does not support the bans, but the Government is taking the same action as the previous Government took. The previous Minister did not take action. It is highly dubious whether a Minister has power to interfere in an industrial dispute of this nature. It is to be hoped that sooner or later there will be negotiations in Queensland which will bring some sanity back into this area. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I point out to the Special Minister of State that the time for the debate to expire was 10.26 a.m. The question is that the motion be agreed to. There is no further debate. The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no; I think the noes have it. That is it. Mr Sinclair —You are gagging your own Minister again. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —There is no gag. The whole debate has now concluded. Mr Sinclair —Madam Acting Speaker, you put the question as the gag. We said no to the gag. The Leader of the House moved the gag and we voted against that. We did not divide on that. You now need to put the question which you did not put. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —That was what I was going to do. All right, the question is that the motion be agreed to. Question put: That the motion (Mr Sinclair's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Acting Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC.Everingham, P. A. E. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, 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.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AlanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S.Gayler, J. Punch, G. F.Gear, G. Saunderson, J.Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Grace, E. L. Scott, J. L.Griffiths, A. G. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. H.Hollis, C. Staples, P. R.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Hodges, J. C. Hurford, C. J.Rocher, A. C. Mildren, J. B.Cadman, A. G. Holding, A. C.Fife, W. C. Hayden, W. G.Aldred, K. J. Jenkins, H. A.McGauran, P. J. Tickner, R. E.Goodluck, B. J. Darling, E. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.38) —The Opposition supports this legislation for the introduction of a public lending right in legislative form. The public lending right is a scheme designed to compensate writers for multiple use of their works held in Australian public lending libraries. The scheme was originally pioneered in the Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Sweden in the early 1950s. In those countries payments to writers were based on annual returns made by each library showing every book by a native writer either on its shelves or in storage. Books with more than one writer are, in some countries, not eligible for the scheme. Australia and New Zealand were the first English speaking countries to implement the public lending right. The campaign for this began in 1966 when it was led by the Australian Society of Authors. A survey at the time showed most writers' income to be well below the average minimum wage in Australia. Some writers believed that they were regarded as public property, like parks, gardens or public utilities with the notable exception, in the case of the writer's product, that the public did not have to pay. Although the public library system has helped considerably in exposing Australian writers to the Australian public prior to the public lending right being introduced, they effectively received no recompense from that source. This situation was obviously unfair to writers because comparable artists, such as composers of music, did receive a royalty every time their work was performed in public. By depriving writers of book sales, the library system made it difficult to earn a living from writing in this country. This must have proved a major disincentive to aspiring writers and in 1973 the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, directed the Literature Board of the Australian Council for the Arts to implement this program. A committee of inquiry was established, convened by the Literature Board's Chairman, Geoffrey Blainey, a noted Australian historian. The committee included representatives of the Board, writers' organisations and publishers and librarians, as well as an observer from the Department of the Attorney-General. In 1974 a PLR committee began to implement and administer the scheme through a body called the Australian Authors Fund. The first PLR program began in 1975, and the following year its administration passed to the Australia Council-the successor to the Australian Council for the Arts-with members of the existing committee continuing under a new chairman. The scheme was transferred to the predecessor of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment in 1980, following changes to the Australia Council Act. In order to be eligible for payment under the public lending right a writer must be an Australian citizen resident either in Australia or elsewhere, or must be normally resident in this country. The writer should have his work registered in the Australian National Bibliography entry. Australian writers are eligible even if their works are not published in Australia. When a writer registers for PLR he or she is paid 70c for each book held in public lending libraries, while publishers of Australian works receive 17.5c in the dollar. In 1984 the PLR scheme cost $1,435,000, of which $1,156,000 went to 3,910 writers and $279,000 to 255 publishers. It will be seen, therefore, if that is averaged out, that the actual amounts involved are very small. In January 1985 there were approximately 5,800 claimants, and 21,600 book records are being held. Unlike the payments made in some Scandinavian countries, payments to Australian writers are not based on borrowings; they are based on annual book stocks held in public libraries surveyed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Approximately 60 libraries are surveyed and the data gathered from the survey is consolidated and used to produce estimates of holdings throughout the country. The PLR represents a public acknowledgment of the writers who bring so much pleasure and learning to the Australian community. The scheme should be regarded as a right, not as a gift. It is a means of which Australian writers can achieve greater financial independence. Authorship must become a profession like any other, subject of course to market forces and public interest, and it should be, wherever possible, less vulnerable to the changing climate of sponsorship or grants. We are seeking to develop a system of reward for writers of excellence. Their success should thus be tied directly to public appreciation through sales of their work. Writers have long decried their insecure status in the Australian society. Henry Lawson, for example, gave aspiring writers depressing advice when he recommended that, before beginning to write, they should shoot themselves carefully with the aid of a looking glass. The position of the creative writer in Australia's early history was in fact a difficult one. Lawson became a hopeless alcoholic, Adam Lindsay Gordon shot himself-taking that earlier advice-while Barcroft Boake hanged himself with a stock whip. While one hopes that the situation has improved, the question has to be asked: Is today's writer much better off? A popular misconception is that Australian writers are the recipients of great fortunes. Some people believe that if a writer has one best seller his future is assured. On the contrary, statistics gathered by the Literature Board of the Australia Council indicate that most Australian writers may be better described as being an acutely impoverished minority. For example, for the average novel selling some 2,500 copies, the 10 per cent royalty for the author comes to about $3,250, and that may be for two years work. An Australia Council report claimed that only 5 per cent of writers surveyed made more than $6,000 from royalties in 1982, while a further 4 per cent made more than $6,000 from grants and fellowships. Such earnings do not exactly represent a realistic income, let alone a fortune. Another popular misconception is that good writing requires little time or mental effort. In truth, it probably takes at least six months-usually longer-to complete a full length novel of any virtue. We still have 10 Australian Prime Ministers, for example, for whom no biographies have been written. A major biography such as that may require three years to research and complete. It is worth noting that most work of this nature has been done by academics who are already receiving subsidies through the institutions for which they work. We can hardly expect an independent writer to devote approximately three years and probably the equivalent of $90,000 of otherwise employed time to a biography for which the rewards are uncertain. The sad fact is that for the overwhelming majority of writers it is impossible to exist as a full time writer in Australia under the present conditions. The Literature Board attempts to redress writers' problems by providing direct assistance through writers' fellowships, research grants and emeritus fellowships, formerly known as literary pensions. The Board allocated 62 per cent of its 1983-84 funds to programs supporting initial creativity. It aims to help writers buy time to pursue their work from gestation through to the completion of manuscripts. In 1984 the Board awarded grants to 131 individual writers through the aforementioned three programs. For these some 692 applied, with a success rate of 19 per cent. The Board admitted in its 1983-84 annual report that under current funding levels it cannot even provide writers with income parity relative to those professions it believes comparable, such as journalists, teachers and mid-range public servants. It is worth noting, I think, that in 1973 a fellowship was worth $9,000. In retrospect that was probably too high compared with relative wages. At the same time a Federal parliamentary backbencher's salary was $9,500. By June 1983 a fellowship was worth $18,750 and a backbencher's salary was $36,000, a level comparable to that of the lower ranks of the Second Division of the Australian Public Service. I hope the Government, in its next Budget, will consider sympathetically the difficulties faced by the Australia Council in its ability to fund adequately the Literature Board to overcome some of these problems. In 1985 the Board is providing two grants to new writers: The new writers' fellowship for developing writers, a grant of some $17,000, which requires the recipient to leave full time employment and devote themselves completely to the work of writing; and the new writers' assistance grant of $8,000, which may be regarded as a part-time salary. If we are to develop greater cultural independence and not be subject to excessive cultural colonialism, as has been the case in the past, further consideration must be given by government and the private sector to see what additional support should be provided to encourage the development of Australian writers. The Literature Board has also provided subsidies for local publishers to ensure the availability of Australian works of literary merit. It has also contributed indirectly, through royalties, to the incomes of writers. Those of us who have ever put pen to paper-for example, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman)-would be conversant with the fact that creative thought cannot be forced, that a train of thought born at midday, for example, cannot be easily resurrected by 7 or 8 o'clock in the evening after a hard day's work in one's other occupation. We expect professionally written books from part-time writers, and this is perhaps in many cases asking too much. What is required is the political will to address the problems facing Australian writers and publishers to see what can be done to assist them both to become more self-reliant. There is no reason why government should be the writer's main benefactor. That is surely the responsibility of the market-place as a whole. The possibility of private enterprise participating in promoting Australian authorship should not be overlooked. The Americans have successfully institutionalised private enterprise support for writers through such bastions as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation. In terms of the bicentenary, I see no reason why private enterprise should not be encouraged to sponsor a bicentenary literary fund. Such a fund may follow the guidelines prescribed by the Literature Board of the Australia Council, providing grants and fellowships to Australian writers, and of course the funds contributed would be tax deductible. Until recently, culture has taken a back seat in the overall development of Australia. It is time that company sponsorship of the arts was directed to Australian writers, who contribute so vitally to our cultural development. Many industries benefit from the product of the writer, and perhaps none so obviously as the film and television industry. The Australian author may be said to be the nucleus around which our film industry evolved. So important to the film industry is the novelist that the Australian Film Institute employs a writer to read all Australian novels and report on each one's film potential. Many of our better known and internationally successful films and mini-series have been based on Australian literature. For example My Brilliant Career by Miles Franklin, Thorn Birds by Colleen McCullough, The Year of Living Dangerously by Chris Koch. Bliss, a new film based on the book of the same name by Peter Carey, has been invited to participate in the Cannes Film Festival. The internationally respected Australian director, Peter Weir, had his first success from Picnic at Hanging Rock by Joan Lindsay. It seems ludicrous that writers who are regarded as the grass roots of our film industry can frequently expect less than 10 per cent of the wages received by the scriptwriter who adapts the original work for the screen. The picture, however, is not entirely grim. An author can increase his or her income by being included as a script adviser, but it is doubtful that this would approximate the $75,000 to $125,000 often received by some script writers. This is but another example where authors are not being adequately recompensed for their work. We have to acknowledge that the written medium has been upstaged by radio and television, especially the latter in terms of mass audiences. Nevertheless, all media to a very large extent are still dependent upon the quality of the original written work. There is much criticism of the quality of Australian soap operas, usually because of the weakness of the plot and the failure to develop the characters sufficiently. Much of this can be directly attributed to our inability to develop the capacity to write good scripts, and it is worth noting that the best are often taken from works by Australian authors. There can be no doubt that to improve the writer's and publisher's lot we need to become more competitive in the international market. It is the responsibility of Australian writers to produce material of high standard for which there will be local and international demand. It is government's role to establish secure structures through which writers can achieve their artistic and financial independence. Australia has a population of some 15 million and one of the highest literacy rates in the world, but we have a maximum potential English speaking readership about the size of the population of Sweden. However, unlike the Swedish author, the Australian author has to compete with books imported from other English speaking countries, notably Great Britain and the United States. Imported books make up 51 per cent of the Australian market. Something like 75,000 new titles a year are published in Britain and the United States and many if not most of these, are available here. Britain's publishing industry could not possibly exist in a domestic market of 56 million people. That is why they have to export, and the same can be said for the United States of America and Canada. The small Australian domestic market prevents industry from introducing economies of scale which would assist in lowering costs overall. It costs approximately 10 per cent more to produce a book in Australia than it does in some of our neighbouring countries. Fifty per cent of Australian books are currently being published overseas. However, this legislation should go some way towards encouraging change in this situation to the advantage of the Australian publishing industry. The important fact must be emphasised that much of the cost factors in the Australian market are to be attributed to the fact that we have a regulated labour market, where the publishing industry effectively is controlled by one trade union, and it is there that the Australian industry is so different from overseas competition, especially in South East Asia. The percentage costs of publishing the average book in Australia are as follows: Royalty to authors, 10 per cent; editing, 10 per cent; design, 6 per cent; typesetting, 10 per cent; printing, 21 per cent; overheads-electricity, rent and so forth-9 per cent; transport, about 7 per cent; marketing, 15 per cent; and profit before tax, 12 per cent. The need to develop an export oriented market could be the key to establishing a mature and vital Australian publishing industry. But, as I mentioned earlier, it will require a much closer relationship between the trade unions involved in the industry, writers and publishers, to achieve what is obviously a common good, that is, to remain competitive both in Australia and overseas. Writers' earnings are limited by a small domestic market and overseas sales are thus essential if we are to see more successful authors such as Colleen McCullough with her Thorn Birds, which sold millions of copies. The export of Australian novels is increasing, and some of our novelists have enjoyed great overseas success-this is a great credit to them-in both English and non-English speaking countries. For example, Nancy Cato's All the Rivers Run has been translated into French, with 360,000 copies being released in France alone. Rodney Hall's Just Relations has enjoyed success in the United States, Britain and France. David Malouf's novel An Imaginary Life has been translated into French and Norwegian. The mini-series 1915, based on the book of the same name by Roger McDonald, has been sold to some 37 countries. The current economic climate will force the Australian film and television industry to rely more on local productions, and this should help the Australian author. Costly foreign soap operas and productions will soon lose their appeal for programmers, who may well have to pay in excess of 20 per cent on existing costs because of the recent devaluation of the Australian dollar. The devaluation will mean increases of between 20 to 50 per cent in the program costs of the three Australian television networks which currently commit about $US120m between them annually on the purchase of overseas programs. There may be some good news for local production houses with increased demand for Australian-made programs which rely so heavily upon the talent and creativity of Australian writers. Therefore, it should undoubtedly be in the interests of the film and television industry to encourage excellence in Australian writing. It is obvious that we have the potential to export. The question should be asked as to how we can internationally promote our writers. The Literature Board has gone some way towards promoting Australian writers overseas with some creditable success, given the available resources. However, as the Literature Board receives only 6 per cent of total Australia Council funding, it is clear to me that the publicity industry, in particular, and the publishing industry, which usually has affiliated companies in most major English-speaking capitals, have a major role to play in this area. The second reading speech of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) noted that the present deficiencies in the public lending rights scheme in terms of the accountability of expenditure of public funds allocated to it 'induce great uncertainty among various literary interest groups'. We were surprised, therefore, to see that under the Public Lending Right Bill 1985 the Minister may, by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, approve the rate of payment to Australian authors and publishers. Under such arrangements there is, therefore, the risk that the rate of payment to authors and publishers may be subject to ministerial change entirely at the Minister's discretion and therefore not be subject to parliamentary review. In view of the fact that this legislation was introduced for the specific purpose of giving security to Australian writers, the Opposition believes that there is a strong case for an amendment to this clause. Therefore, at the appropriate time during the Committee stage of this Bill I shall move an amendment that clause 5 of the Public Lending Right Bill be altered to allow alterations in the rate of payment to be fixed by regulation and to be subject to parliamentary approval. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(10.58) —I preface my remarks by commending the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) on his interesting and informative speech. A lot of the information included in it would be quite useful for many people looking at the field of literature in Australia today. The introduction of the Public Lending Right Bill 1985 into this House means that another tick can be put beside the list of election commitments fulfilled by the Hawke Labor Government. Whilst the latest commitment was made at the 1983 election, it is not new. It is now 10 years or more since the Australian Authors Fund Bill was drafted by the Whitlam Government to establish a statutory base for the then public lending rights scheme. Unfortunately, as with many incentives that were on the drawing board and in operation at that time, this legislation was discarded along with a very large portion of our pride and privilege as a democratic nation on 11 November 1975. Since that time, in the typical, slack administrative manner of the Liberal-National Party Fraser Government, the public lending rights scheme has operated without a clear basis and without truly effective practices of accountability and authority. It is nice to see the Opposition now joining the Hawke socialist Government-as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is so fond of calling this most successful and effective Government-in support of this Bill, despite its foreshadowed amendment. It is about time the Opposition supported a Bill such as this. It has had plenty of time to do it-10 years or more. Unfortunately, this is another example of the big talkers that Opposition members seem to be in opposition when they have such an appalling record in government, whether it be in any of the areas of tax avoidance and evasion, unemployment, inflation, defence, industry development, road and transport funding, youth and crisis accommodation, education, housing and, particularly, the arts. The former Government was not a credible government in the area of the arts or in many other areas for that matter. Because of that, as much as anything else, I believe that it is not so effective in opposition today. Fiscally, this Bill is only a very minor piece of legislation. It controls the expenditure of only about $1.78m. However, behind it is a clear commitment to the arts which has not been seen since the Whitlam years. The Whitlam period was a very rare period of cultural development and soul in this country. While researching this speech for today I looked back to 1976 when the Fraser Government was introducing the Australia Council Amendment Bill into this House, a Bill which covered the Australian Authors Fund as it was known then. Mr Tony Whitlam, the member for Grayndler at the time, spoke on the Bill and pointed out that the Budget allocation for the Australian Authors Fund was only $300,000 and that the rates at that stage, 1976, had not been altered since 1973. That reflects a point in the speech by the honourable member for Bradfield, who showed his concern for the recompense to authors which the previous Government was not prepared to follow at the time. When the Liberal-National Party Government left office in 1983, with this country clearly in economic chaos, the value of payments on public lending rights was only $1.227m, certainly an improvement on the figure of $300,000 for 1976-77. However, considering the ravaging inflation Australia suffered in those years, it was a very meagre effort. By direct comparison, with inflation clearly under control, the Hawke Labor Government in two Budgets, not in seven Budgets, has raised the value from $1.3m to a budgeted expenditure for this year of $1.78m. That is just a clear symptom of this Government's fine record in the arts. In the last two Budgets the Hawke Labor Government was working to peg back the effects of the disastrous monetarist policies of the former Liberal-National Government, the remnants of which now sit opposite. Even chained with that burden, the Hawke Labor Government has been able to restore arts funding in Australia to almost two-thirds of the 1975-76 level-the most highly regarded Hayden Budget. Part of that increase in arts funding has been to the public lending rights scheme, which today we are seeking to protect with its own legislation-this Bill. When in government, the Liberal-National Party coalition had plenty of opportunities to strengthen our nation's literary arts and industries. It is fair to say that it clearly failed. It is worth noting that Australia, again under the Whitlam Government, was the second government in the English-speaking world-after our tenacious little neighbour, New Zealand, did so in 1973-to attempt to introduce such a scheme. Public lending rights now return to our writers and publishers some recompense for the fact that their works are available without direct cost to the consumer, through public lending libraries, to many millions of Australians who would otherwise be in the market to purchase their works directly. This is another example of the clear recognition of the Australian Labor Party of the value of our cultural heritage, our authors, publishers and workers in the publishing industry, such as the members of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union. It is also fitting that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) introduced this Bill during Heritage Week this year. Our literature is one of the most vital and immortal aspects of our heritage. Our National Library has a magnificent collection of illuminated manuscripts which are the heritage of other nations of a hundred years, a thousand or more years gone by, works produced in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages by artisans who might have spent their lifetimes producing a single work. Our own culture contained Aboriginal art, an art that goes back thousands of years and, in many places, further than the time of the illuminated manuscripts which adorn our National Library. We should be seeking to protect that art as a very important aspect of our culture and heritage. Today, with the power of the printing press and the ability and opportunity of so many more people to read and enjoy literature, the world is a very different place than it was 10 years ago, 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. Australian literary works and artists-our authors, illustrators and printing tradespeople-deserve our greatest respect. We must protect their work and the heritage they produce for us, just as we protect and value the heritage of the illuminated manuscripts of other ages and exotic cultures in our National Library. The public lending rights scheme and the 4,500 or more artists and publishers it supports-albeit in a small way-is now protected by this legislation as it has been waiting to be for 11 years or so. It is not coincidence that matters of such value must wait until Labor governments are elected for such progress to be made in our heritage and culture. Just as we now seek to protect or enhance the rights of our literary workers to be recompensed for their product which is available to most citizens through public lending libraries, so we must now direct our attention to areas of art that today's technology has now opened up to a wider community. One could almost call it electronic literature or electronic art. Just as Caxton brought information, enjoyment and culture to the world with the invention of the printing press and Edison extended the world of music from the elite orchestral concert hall to the common family living room, a world which today has been further extended by the portable tape recorder, the stage-live theatre-has been transformed to the movie screen and, with recent technology, to the video cassette. That opens up new problems for our artists. It is estimated that every recording produced is reproduced two and a half times by pirate or private taping. Movies also can be pirated by parasitic entrepreneurs or private individuals from video cassette to video cassette. There is no real recompense or protection for Australian musical artists who lose income through retaping of their works. There is no real compensation or protection for Australian film artists or film makers whose work is pirated through commercial or private copyright abuse. This is a dilemma for this Government, for the Opposition and for the general community. I urge the Government, in considering this Bill and the arts and artists in Australia, to address itself to this problem so that our cultural electronic industries can be developed and protected from such parasitism. Let me make the point, before the Opposition calls for the Government to protect the industry from the public purse, that, unlike public lending libraries, which are a publicly funded service to the community, musical recordings, tapes and video tapes are very much more the property of the individual. Whether an amount is built in to the price of the product from the outset, or there is a regulated add-on to protect copyright, is a matter for consideration, but we should all be aware of the extent of the problem and the restrictions it places upon the development of our new cultures, new heritage and new industries. Australian movies, videos and music recordings can rapidly flow across to international markets, as so many have successfully done over the past decade or so. Australians are very proud to see the way in which their films and music have reached into the international markets. The problem with Australian literature, as has been pointed out, is that published books have a very much smaller and restricted market in Australia. They are in competition with works in the most widely read language in the world-English-and in competition with huge quantities of cheap books from overseas, as the honourable member for Bradfield pointed out. Australian publishers face the problem of getting books into many outlets, such as newsagencies. This Bill goes a long way towards providing order and justice for authors and publishers. By 'author', I mean anyone who has made a substantial contribution to the development of an Australian book; the writer, illustrator, translator, compiler or editor. The requirement that the person be an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia will mean that the vast majority of the public lending rights payments will remain in Australia to further encourage and develop Australian literature. The arts have always been an important facet of our lives, whether or not we have been fully aware of them. In so many ways the arts are an expression of our society and times. The Liberal-National Party Government concentrated its arts expenditure, I am sad to say, on the so-called areas of excellence, such as opera and ballet. That was to the great detriment of community-based art forms available to the common person. The common person could never afford the highly priced art forms of opera and ballet, where there is a $45 subsidy from the taxpayer on every seat. This Government is very concerned that the arts funding reaches out to all Australians, so that all Australians will be free to participate in, enjoy and contribute to our cultural heritage. This legislation is essential in order that Australian literary works may continue to grow and enrich our lives. The Public Lending Right Bill 1985 is a long-awaited and valuable piece of legislation. I believe it should be passed as presented by the Minister. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.10) —Listening to the opening remarks of the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), I had to ask myself whether this was an animated mummy who had been disinterred from some crypt, since he painted a picture of the Australian literary and cultural scene which would have us believe that nothing at all was done by the previous Government in this area. Might I remind him of three or four actions by the previous Government: First, the introduction of extremely generous-to my mind, far too generous-tax incentives for the Australian film industry; second, the implementation of the building of the Australian Art Gallery-a very expensive project which, had we been the Philistines he sought to paint us, we would have no doubt knocked on the head; third, the extensions to the Australian War Memorial; and, fourth, setting in train the Australian Museum. As has been said by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the Opposition supports the Bill. It is grounded in justice and it provides for compensation to authors for loss of potential income. Authors are not highly paid. Their income is intermittent and their effective working life is variable. It is notorious that some authors write themselves out at a very early stage; that inspiration dries up, and originality of conception becomes harder to summon up. It is only right that they should be compensated for the use of their books which are borrowed from public libraries. That is a use which is probably increasing, so that there is all the more need for the kind of scheme at which the House is looking now, which has been in place in an administrative form for some time. I know that the Australian Society of Authors welcomes the scheme. I have spoken to the Society which believes-and I think it is right-that it is better and more secure that this kind of scheme should be on a statutory basis. I have a personal interest in compensation to authors for the use of their works when those works are not bought over the counter from a book shop. In 1975 I appeared as junior counsel for the University of New South Wales in the case of Moorhouse v. University of New South Wales. Some copying had taken place of a work of Mr Moorhouse at the University of New South Wales. Action was brought for infringement of copyright. The High Court of Australia eventually declared that copyright had been infringed. That is an example of an author-backed by the Australian Society of Authors-who took action to protect his own work and livelihood. The rates of payment under the existing scheme will need to be looked at. I am sure the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has those in mind. If one looks at what has happened, it is apparent that the authors have been losing out over the years. In 1975 the rates of payment per book were 50c for the author and 12.5c for the publisher; in 1983 they were raised to 60c for the author and 15c for the publisher; in 1984 they were 66c for the author and 16.5c for the publisher; and in 1984-85 they were 70c for the author and 17.5c for the publisher. I do not suggest for a moment that we should seek compulsorily to link the benefits provided by the scheme to the consumer price index, but it is perfectly plain that it is only just that compensation should take account of movements in the CPI so that the authors and publishers-but mainly the authors-are justly compensated for what is an actual loss of income, because when people go to public lending libraries and borrow books they do that in preference to buying the books. There are one or two questions I want to raise with the Minister. The first is the length of the appointment of the Public Lending Right Committee. The Committee is set up to administer the scheme and, as I understand it, members can be appointed for up to eight years. It seems to me that an eight-year tenure is too long and I would be glad to have the Minister's views on that. The second question arises out of the particular provision in clause 5 (4) (d) which, in effect, provides that where an author dies, the widow, widower or child of the deceased author or a person having relationship or association with the deceased author of a kind specified in a scheme is entitled to certain benefits under the scheme. I have no quarrel with the rights of people in this country to enter into whatever relationship they wish to do so-that is entirely a personal decision-but I do wish to know whether it is the intention of the Government that benefits under the scheme should go, for example, to de facto homosexual partners. What kind of relationship will the scheme extend to? We should know this. The Minister must have clearly in mind the kind of relationships that will be brought within the confines of the scheme and will receive the benefits under the scheme. For my part, I hope that it is not a case of the Government being afraid to describe in detail and to tell us who these beneficiaries will be. We are entitled to know this. We are voting on this Bill and we should know what we are voting on. We should know what kind of relationships will come within the scheme which will be promulgated by the Minister. My next question relates to the scheme itself. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the Minister may, with certain specific limitations, by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, approve a scheme and modify the scheme so approved. We do not know what kinds of schemes will be put for our approval. I would have thought it was perfectly simple to state in general terms in the Bill or to the House today the general outline of these schemes, even if the detail of particular matters has to be dealt with by gazettal or by regulation. It is, after all, asking the House to vote in support of a proposal which has, as a central part of it, a scheme about which we do not yet know. I ask the Minister to tell the House the general nature of the scheme that he will propose. My last point is this: The scheme applies only to public libraries; it does not apply to universities or schools. I know that the Australian Society of Authors wants an investigation into the extension of the scheme to universities and schools. I do not express a view one way or another on the merits of whether the scheme should be extended to schools and universities. That may be something that the Minister has looked at. I would be very glad to hear his views on the subject and whether he believes it is worth while examining the question without, at this stage, expressing a view on behalf of the Government one way or the other. I wholly support the general concept that there should be a statutory code or statutory rights for authors so that they can be compensated for the use of their books when otherwise they would be compensated by the sale of those books. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(11.20) —Labor governments have a long-standing commitment to the arts. This is nowhere more evident than with the introduction of the Public Lending Right Bill. The public lending right scheme was originally introduced by the Whitlam Government in 1974. It is in accordance with Australian Labor Party policy and it is yet another reminder today of the major commitments made and introduced during the Whitlam years. The campaign to introduce the scheme was launched by the then Vice President of the Australian Society of Authors in 1963, Mr Simpson. Despite receiving promises from the McMahon Government to introduce the scheme-one of the many promises the McMahon Government made and failed to keep-it was not until 1972 when Gough Whitlam put public lending rights in Labor's 1972 election policy that Australian authors saw a real commitment by government. After being introduced in 1974, the scheme operated initially under the Australian Authors Fund Committee as a prelude to the passing of the Australian Authors Fund Bill. As with much of the reform legislation of the Whitlam years, that Bill lapsed with the 1975 dissolution. I suppose it is fair to recognise that the Fraser Government continued the scheme but on an administrative basis, funding the scheme with the heritage, arts and environment appropriations. Whatever recognition may be given to the Fraser Government for continuing the scheme, it must be pointed out that that Government, despite strong pressures over those years to formally establish the scheme as a guarantee of continuation, failed to do so. It has taken another Labor Government, the Hawke Labor Government, to take up the 1972 policy commitment and to formalise the Labor Party's commitment to the principle of public lending rights. This scheme supplements the Copyright Act which protects authors from unauthorised use of their publications and which also makes payment for the use of those works. Since 1982, that Act has given authors a right to payment for multiple copies of their works made in educational institutions. This Bill will formalise a system of paying authors and publishers fees for their books stocked by public libraries and should be seen as supplemental to those 1982 amendments to the Copyright Act. The system originated in Scandinavian countries in 1946, but it has been advocated successfully by authors in only a few other countries. It should be emphasised that the scheme is limited to Australian authors and publishers. The Bill provides for payment at the present rate of 70c a year for each copy of an author's book held by a public library, provided the number exceeds 50. Publishers will also be compensated at the present rate of 17.5c a book. It is of interest to note, after listening to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) pointing out his Party's commitment to the arts, that when the scheme was established in 1974 the author's rate was 50c a book and the publisher's rate 12.5c. It took the Opposition in government six years to increase the rate to 60c to authors and 15c to publishers. In 1983, less than a year after Labor gained government, the rate was increased to 66c to authors and 16.5c to publishers. As I have indicated, the rate is now 70c for authors and 17.5c for publishers. That indicates the real commitment that this Government has to the arts as opposed to the hypocrisy that we hear from honourable members opposite. I should point out that the Australian Museum is a Labor Government initiative and that the National Gallery got off the ground during the Whitlam years. I do not see any commitment from the Opposition on those principal projects for the arts in Australia. Without question, the record and attitude of the Labor Party stand in direct contrast to the platitudes of the Opposition. Entitlement to public lending rights expires on the death of the author or 50 years after a book's first publication. After death, entitlements will continue to be paid to an entitled author's spouse or children for the remainder of the 50-year period. That marks a fundamental change to the original 1974 scheme, which limited payment to spouses and dependent children. I am concerned about the present provision in the Bill. It seems to me fundamental that an entitlement provided for by a statutory enactment should create a proprietary right for an author that could be passed on in his will or left as any other asset can be left through the law of succession. This is not provided for in this Bill. I hope that some time in the future this matter will be looked at and some change will be made. If an author has a proprietary right under the Copyright Act which is carried on after his death, I see no reason why under the Public Lending Right Bill the same position should not apply, why on his death that proprietary right should not be an asset of his estate which he may leave in his will to be distributed to, say, literary foundations or other institutions, just as he can with any other assets that he may have. There is not much that I wish to add to that. I believe that the Bill has been very well covered by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples). The fundamentals have been adequately explained. I am proud to see that by putting statutory effect to this fundamental proposal the Hawke Labor Government is following the example set and fulfilling the promises made in the Whitlam years. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(11.26) —in reply-I wish to pick up some of the comments that have been made in this debate on the Public Lending Right Bill. First of all, I commend all the speakers who have spoken in this debate. We had a very thoughtful contribution from the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). I apologise for not being here when he spoke, but I was asked to go to meet Fess Parker of Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett fame and, unfortunately, due to the fog, I was delayed in getting back. I heard part of the shadow Minister's contribution and I congratulate him on it-not that I agree with everything in it. It was a very thoughtful speech. He has obviously done a lot of work on this subject since the Public Lending Right Bill was introduced. I take the opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples). I congratulate also the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) and, of course, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I particularly congratulate the honourable member for Jagajaga, who has been extraordinarily interested in this Bill. He has been to see me about it a number of times. He made the very important point that, while minor criticism of the Bill has been made by the speakers on the Government side, in the 7 1/2 years that the Opposition was in government nothing was done to extend the scheme to provide a statutory basis for it. The public lending right scheme was introduced by the Whitlam Government and it has been extended considerably by the Hawke Labor Government, so I really do not think that honourable members opposite are in a position to throw too many brickbats on this issue. A number of questions were raised. I understand the honourable member for Bradfield will move an amendment at the Committee stage. I will deal with that later. A question was raised by the honourable member for North Sydney about the appointment of members to the Public Lending Right Committee for a term of up to eight years. This period is a little longer than normal-three to six years is more usual. The reason for this proposal is that there is a need to build up expertise in this area to fully understand it. I am not sure that many people will stay on the Committee for eight years, but the major reason for this proposal is that it is a highly skilled area and specialist people are required for it. Incidentally, I notice that present in the gallery today is one of Australia's distinguished librarians. I refer to Mr Harrison Bryan, who is about to retire. I am delighted that he is here. He has done great public service to this country. Naturally, he is very interested in this Bill. A question was raised about de facto homosexual relationships. To be perfectly frank, we do not take people's sexual preferences into account. It is irrelevant to us. Another question was asked about how the scheme will operate. It will operate as it has done for the last 10 years. Without going into all the details of it-- Mr Spender —Without proposing any real changes? Mr COHEN —No. The essence of this Bill is to enshrine the scheme in legislation so that it will be difficult for future governments to change it without repealing legislation. At the moment it is simply a Budget item. Having been through a number of Budgets now, I understand the process. As a Budget item it would be much easier for a government suddenly to decide to do away with it. No government will be able to do away with this without repealing the legislation, which would be a much more difficult thing to do. Questions were asked about expanding the scheme to take into account universities and other places. That may be a possibility in the future but it is a question of funds, of what moneys are available. At the moment it is not being considered. It may be considered in the future. The shadow Minister, in his speech, raised the question of scriptwriting. It is not really relevant to this Bill, but I totally agree with what he said. We have a deficiency in that area. I am moving away from the subject of the Bill, but this is something that the Australian Film Commission is very conscious of. Earlier this year a scriptwriters' conference was held in Melbourne. I went to it, not because I could make a great contribution to it but simply because I wanted to indicate to the industry that I was extremely interested. One of the major problems of the film industry is that the quality of scripts universally is not as high as it could be. So I completely agree with the honourable member for Bradfield. That is something we will be working on. I will not go into the whole debate about who did what to whom regarding the arts. I think that this Government and the previous Labor Government have a very proud record. I am not sure that we can take all the credit for the Australian National Gallery. I believe we can take credit for the Museum of Australia. However, I do not think the debate ought to be about who did what in the past. I thank honourable members for their contributions. We will see what will happen from now on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.33) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, line 4, omit from the definition of 'scheme' 'approved', substitute 'determined'. (2) Clause 5, page 2, lines 24-27, omit sub-clause (1), substitute the following sub-clauses: '(1) The Minister may, by instrument in writing- (a) determine a scheme for and in relation to the making of payments to persons in respect of books; and (b) determine modifications to the scheme determined pursuant to paragraph (1). '(1A) Sections 48, 49, 49A and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply in relation to determinations under sub-section (1) as if in those sections references to regulations were referenced to determinations, references to a regulation were references to a determination and references to a repeal were references to a revocation.' (3) Clause 5, page 2, line 28, omit 'approve', substitute 'determine'. (4) Clause 5, page 2, line 35, omit 'approving', substitute 'determining'. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) was aware, from my earlier discussions with him, that the Opposition would move a substantive amendment to clause 5 of the Public Lending Right Bill. We have done this, really, to add substance to the remarks made by the Minister, both a few minutes ago in this House in response to comments made by other speakers in debate on the Bill and in his second reading speech. The Minister said in his second reading speech: The scheme has lacked a coherent framework of accountability for the expenditure of public funds allocated to it, and a clear source of authority for the decisions of the Public Lending Right Committee. He went on to say: These deficiencies have also induced great uncertainty among the various literary interest groups, which have maintained strong pressure for formal establishment of the scheme as a guarantee of its continuation. Those latter words are the ones upon which I put the most emphasis. A few moments ago the Minister said that it would be difficult to change the public lending right scheme without amending the legislation. I have put to him before, and I do so again finally in this House, that while it is true that the legislation would remain on the statute books for an indefinite period, depending entirely on the intentions of the Parliament, there is no doubt that clause 5 as it is currently constituted gives the Minister virtually absolute power to change the scheme significantly simply by a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Clause 5 quite clearly states that the Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, approve a scheme for and in relation to the making of payments to persons in respect of books, and modify the scheme so approved. It does not even say 'the scheme'-that is, this piece of legislation; it simply says 'a scheme'. The concept of modification opens up, I believe, an extraordinarily wide range of initiatives, not necessarily for the current Minister, who I have no doubt is interested in this subject, but for any future Minister of any future government effectively to emasculate this program without going anywhere near the Parliament. It was simply for that reason that we put forward this amendment to ensure that if that did occur in the future, it would be up to the Parliament to determine whether it believed the amendments so proposed were consistent with the overall purpose and spirit of the legislation. I am surprised to be advised by the Government that it does not wish to accept this amendment. Frankly, I suspect that it is again an example of a bureaucratic desire to have in place legislation which is sufficiently flexible to enable public servants effectively to control the manner in which the spirit and desires of this Parliament are to be carried through both in terms of regulation and of the effect they may have on those sections of the community which are meant to benefit from them. In my final observation, I remind the Minister that, as he so rightly said in his speech, it is the Australian writers who have for some years asked for a degree of certainty as a guarantee of the continuation of this program. If the Government is to put in place legislation which effectively means that, subject only to the budgetary process, this or any future Minister could significantly alter both the method and substance of payment and in fact the whole philosophy underlying this program. The legislation is sufficiently loose and open to enable that to take place. I believe that in whatever field which passes legislation through this Parliament, ultimately should depend on the wishes of Parliament. In this case the Government is asking us effectively to hand to public servants, through the Minister of the day, the capacity to emasculate this program if they so wish. It is specifically for that reason that we are asking for this modification which would require that any significant changes to the legislation in terms of the form of payment and so forth would come through the Parliament in the form of regulations and would thus be subject to the normal procedures of this chamber. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(11.38) —We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other, from having no legislation, which would enable governments literally to strike out payments without being answerable to Parliament in any way, shape or form, to the Oppositions's now wanting to have total control by the Parliament, taking it completely out of the hands of the Government. I am sure the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) has been a member for long enough to know that thousands of decisions made by government do not have to come into this chamber; otherwise the country would be unmanageable and every cent of funds allocated would have to be accounted for on a day to day basis. One literally could not run the country in that way. The amendments moved by the Opposition have the effect of removing the control of the public lending right scheme from the hands of the Minister, and the Committee responsible to him, from administering the scheme. The Public Lending Right Committee is specifically constituted from representatives of the literary and library communities to provide expert technical advice on the administration of the public lending right scheme. The value of this advice would be undermined if it were subject to the possibility of being disregarded by Parliament, even though it had been accepted by the Minister. As the Bill is drafted, the Minister and the PLR Committee provide a focal point of accountability for all groups affected by the scheme. This would be diffused if the Parliament assumed control over the operation of the scheme. The Bill as drafted will not radically alter the effective operating system which has been worked out over the 10 years since the scheme's inception. The amendments would alter and unnecessarily complicate the system by making even the most simple changes subject to a lengthy process of legislative drafting and parliamentary ratification. for example, if as is typically the case, the need for a modification of the scheme became apparent halfway through the public lending right year, the change would need to be formulated, agreed to and published at least two months prior to the beginning of the next public lending right year. This timing would be impossible to achieve of these modifications had to await further a suitable parliamentary sitting in order to be reviewed and ratified. Any disallowance would exacerbate the situation. To give a concrete example of the type of modification which can arise, the definitions of 'eligible author' and 'publisher' have been expanded and refined several times since the scheme began, to ensure fairness in the scheme's application and to reflect changes in publishing practice. Modifications of this nature must be dealt with in a timely manner so that the scheme remains responsive and dynamic. The inbuilt delay of parliamentary review would militate against this. The situation with rates of payment under this scheme is even more critical. Rates of payment have to be determined as part of the annual budgetary process that can be promulgated only after the Budget is brought down. It would be clearly inappropriate for them to be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny and possible disallowance. Furthermore, rates of payment are only one of the factors involved in the calculation of the annual appropriation of the PLR Scheme. They cannot be changed in isolation after the Budget without affecting other elements of the appropriation. The Public Lending Right Bill was designed to be an essentially simple piece of legislation, providing a statutory base or skeleton to an already existing and successfully operating scheme. That is the point that seems to have been missed. Under the Whitlam Government, under the Fraser Government and under this Government the scheme has operated successfully and now we are simply giving it a statutory basis. I think the fear of the shadow Minister is unwarranted. The Bill has to be kept in perspective. It is not a major piece of legislation, concerned solely with the mechanisms for disbursement of funds allocated to the PLR scheme. It delegates no legislative authority. The amount of funds allocated to PLR in a particular year is a matter for decision by the Government. An opportunity for scrutiny by Parliament is provided in the context of the Budget. Subsequent disbursement of these funds should not be made contingent upon further review by Parliament after the Budget has been handed down. I want to emphasise to honourable members that the operation of the scheme under the Act will be kept under regular review by the PLR Committee. Should any amendment to the Act appear necessary, it will be given prompt consideration. I am confident that this legislation as drafted reflects the aspirations of such early proponents of the PLR scheme as the publisher George Ferguson and Dick Hall, whom I failed to mention in my second reading speech. Dick Hall, as honourable members will recall, became the inaugural Chairman of the Committee. In rejecting the amendments, I say that I am thankful for the thought that has gone into this contribution by the Opposition but, for the reasons I have explained, we will have to reject the amendments. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.45) —The Opposition opposes the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. This Bill is a classic opportunity to note in very sharp focus the philosophical differences between the Hawke socialist Government on the one hand and the Liberal-National Party Opposition on the other. We, as an Opposition, are totally committed to smaller government and lower taxation. Quite frankly, we believe that the overwhelming majority of Australians are sick and tired of big government and sick and tired of heavy taxation. We therefore find the Bill, which proposes a four-directional expansion of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, totally unacceptable. It completely cuts across the philosophy of liberalism and the spirit of private enterprise. Let me say at the outset that, upon our return to government at the next election, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporations will be transferred to the private enterprise sector, subject only to one condition-that the level of services presently provided will be maintained. We reaffirm, therefore, both in principle and in practice the decision we took in government in 1981. Notwithstanding the fact that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is operating at a profit, it must be accepted that the HLIC is carrying on its functions as a statutory corporation when the job could be properly done, and we believe more effectively done, by private enterprise. The Liberal and National parties have a firm and unequivocal commitment to smaller government and lower taxation. I believe that my fellow Australians listening to this broadcast would certainly agree with both those propositions. The people of Australia are sick and tired of big government and they are certainly sick and tired of heavy taxation. Mr John Brown —Why didn't you do something about it in your seven years in government? Mr HODGMAN —Notwithstanding the interjections of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who is at the table, this Hawke socialist Government, in the period it has been in office since March 1983, has taken away from the former Whitlam socialist Government the record of being Australia's heaviest taxing government since Federation. We have no doubt that the functions currently being performed by government at a cost to the taxpayers of Australia will be and shall be wherever practicable transferred to the private enterprise sector upon our return to government after the next election. This is the second significant decision that the Opposition has made in recent weeks. The first was to decide quite categorically that, upon return to government, we would transfer the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to private enterprise. Similarly, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will also be transferred to private enterprise, where it rightly belongs. This Bill proposes a four-directional expansion of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Let there be no doubt that it is the policy of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and the Hawke socialist Government to make the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation bigger. Of course, that is not surprising because this Minister-he has never denied the fact-is quite unashamed about his socialist commitment. In fact he is the senior Socialist Left Minister in the Hawke socialist Government. Let me refer to the four areas in which it is proposed that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will be dramatically expanded. What we are seeing in this Bill today, the exact antithesis of our commitment to smaller government, is a four-directional expansion of a statutory corporation of the Commonwealth of Australia. Principally, the Bill will enable the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to participate in the secondary mortgage market by insuring pools of mortgages against loss. The Minister, in his second reading speech, emphasised that 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. Whilst insisting that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will conduct this new aspect of its business on a strictly commercial basis, the Minister contends and the Hawke socialist Government argues: . . . 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 claims that there is 'very positive industry response to this measure supporting the development of the secondary mortgage market in Australia'. Secondly, the Bill extends the Corporation's insurance services, as stated in the Minister's second reading speech, 'to include all loans secured by mortgage, including loans where the purpose of the loan is not directly related to the mortgage security'. The Government has stated that this complements 'recently announced changes to State legislation involving widening of the lending powers of permanent building societies'. Thirdly, the Bill provides for the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to be empowered 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, particularly during the first years of mortgage repayment. Fourthly, and lastly, there is an interesting provision in the Bill, about which I will have some comment to make later, for a new special interest provision whereby the Minister of the day is empowered to direct the Corporation to provide insurance of loans falling within a specific class of loan deemed to be of special interest. Those are the words used in the Government's housing policy. In political terms, the Minister can direct, and the Housing loans Insurance Corporation will be obliged to respond accordingly. The Minister's direction or directions will be tabled in the Parliament. Let it never be forgotten that, during the dark Whitlam years of 1972 to 1975, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was seen by the extreme socialist elements of that Government as the means whereby the insurance industry of Australia would be nationalised. Let me put it bluntly on the line. In terms of commitment to socialism, this Government is far more dedicated and far more determined to get its way than even the Whitlam Government was. The present mob in office makes Mr Whitlam and Dr Jim Cairns look like a couple of choir boys. I have no reason to disbelieve the intent and the commitment of the first Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of this country to acknowledge publicly that he is a socialist and proud of it. Mr Whitlam was never prepared to say that, but the present Prime Minister is on the public record. In fact I note with interest the presence of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) at the table. The Prime Minister made his statement at a campaign meeting for the man who is now Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) when the Minister first stood for parliament. The star performer at the opening of that campaign was Mr R. J. L. Hawke, the then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In a passage which I have quoted to this House on a number of occasions and which I will continue to quote on future occasions, the present Prime Minister said that he had no qualms at all about publicly proclaiming his commitment to socialism. Mr John Brown —So what? Mr HODGMAN —The Minister says: 'So what?'. That will go down well with the Right in New South Wales. Whether on land or at sea those people in New South Wales will be very interested in the Minister's comment. Is he switching sides? Is he going from the Right to the Left? He has gone in so many directions that he is the most multi-directional Minister that the Parliament has ever seen. Having said that, let me come back to the point that I was making. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was the vehicle whereby the Government of Mr Whitlam had plans to nationalise insurance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted that you are in the chair, as I know that you have followed politics closely, both before and subsequent to your entry into the Parliament. You will remember that the word was around the traps: 'We will not make the mess of the insurance industry that Ben Chifley made of the banking industry. We have the means whereby we can nationalise it, and we will do it via the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation'. So bluntly, while the HLIC continues to exist as a statutory corporation, it is the means whereby the Hawke socialist Government can move-I predict that it will move if given half a chance-to nationalise the insurance industry of Australia. Mr West —Ah! Mr HODGMAN —The Minister for Housing and Construction says 'Ah'. It is almost impossible for me to imitate him. Mr West —Oh, nonsense. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister says 'nonsense'. The Minister is the senior Socialist Left Minister of the Hawke socialist Government. He has never hidden his light under a bushel. Asking the Minister in this chamber to disallow his commitment to socialism is like asking a small boy to have free rein in a lolly shop but not to eat anything. Let us just get back to reality. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is a very interesting subject for debate. This Corporation has carried out its activities, in my opinion, with considerable distinction. It is one of the few government public sector enterprise corporations which has been operating at a profit. As the Minister at the table will no doubt remind us when he comes to reply, it was initiated in 1965 during the term of a man regarded by many as Australia's greatest Prime Minister, the late Sir Robert Menzies. Nobody could accuse Sir Robert Menzies of being a socialist, and I certainly do not. It would be very prudent to remember why the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation came into existence. Despite the vocal encouragement I am getting from the somewhat depleted ranks of the Hawke socialist Government in this chamber, let me remind the House how it all came about. Mr John Brown —There aren't many of your lot. Mr HODGMAN —The quality is on this side of the chamber. I would rather have six of mine than 25 of the Ministers, particularly the 22 who forgot how to vote on the Hawke assets test yesterday. But that is another story. I turn to the concept of mortgage insurance. I do not need to restate this but I will restate it for the sake of those listening to this debate: No parties in Australia have a greater and more positive commitment to home ownership than the Liberal Party and the National Party. During our term in government in the post-war period there was the greatest development of home ownership this nation has ever seen. Home ownership rose dramatically and consistently under the progressive policies of consecutive conservative coalition governments. The plain fact is that our commitment to home ownership has been on the basis that every Australian should have the right to own his or her home. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would be well aware, very few people have the capacity to buy a home without access to finance. Therefore, with every home almost inevitably comes a mortgage. Our parties have a firm commitment to giving young home purchasers protection from illness, a death or unemployment, particularly in their early years of home ownership. It was in that context in the mid-1960s that the concept of mortgage insurance was first discussed in Australia. A United States company, a very substantial one at that, the Mortgage Guarantee Insurance Corporation, decided it would like to involve itself in the private enterprise sector in Australia. Quite properly it did so. It would be fair to say that the Australian insurance at that time was at least sceptical, and one might say reluctant, to enter the field. It was in that context, in order to ensure that the home purchasers would have the option, that a coalition government brought in the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. Had it not done so, there would have been but one insurer. I remember this quite clearly because I was a member of the Tasmanian State Parliament in 1966 when similar legislation- Mr John Brown —I wish you had stayed there. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member might wish I had stayed there. I am very pleased to be here and I am going to be very happy to be back on that side of the House after the next election. Mr Braithwaite —You'll be a very good Minister. Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for his confidence. I must say I am getting distracted, without any disrespect to the two Ministers who are at the table. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I would appreciate it if the honourable member kept to the content of the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I would be most delighted to, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am starting to look pretty good. I will pass on to other matters. If the honourable members opposite can contain their enthusiasm, I will come back to the concept of home mortgage insurance. It was in the context that I have outlined that the Bill was brought into the Parliament in 1965 by the Menzies Government and, I might say, had bipartisan support in the House. In the intervening period the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has operated efficiently and effectively. It is the largest mortgage insurer in Australia today. When one reads its report-I am referring to the twentieth annual report, for the year ended 30 June 1984-one can only be impressed at how well it has done. I refer to page 13 of the report under the heading 'Operating Profit'. It states: At $7.4 million, investment income was only a little above the 1982-83 figure. Funds invested were larger especially with the record volume of new business but interest rates were lower. Gross profit was $10.3 million and net profit $5.4 million after providing $4.9 million for income tax. Both gross and net profit are the highest yet achieved by the Corporation. I turn to the balance sheet. With all due respect to the socialist guffaws on the other side of the chamber, the balance sheet is also interesting. It reveals-the pages are not numbered-the payments made to the Commonwealth in respect of both income tax and payroll tax. The Minister, in his second second reading speech, referred to payment to government revenues of $2.9m. I think the figure is really $4.9m after tax had been taken out. The people of Australia might ask: 'Why is it that this Opposition would be proposing to transfer to private enterprise a statutory corporation which everybody agrees has done quite a good job, which is operating at a profit and which to date has not represented a drain on the funds of the taxpayers of Australia? People are often asked why they climb Mt Everest. The answer is an impressive and empirical one: 'Because it is there.' I use that analogy to say that the reason why the Opposition will transfer the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to private enterprise is that 'that is where it should be'. It is carrying on a function which could be carried on by private enterprise without constituting a risk to the taxpayers of Australia and a drain on the funds of the Commonwealth. Philosophically it can be said with no reflection on the Corporation that it is in fact in 1985 a socialist wart on the face of private enterprise and that like any wart it should be removed. The Review of Commonwealth Functions of 30 April 1981, which represented a substantial period of inquiry by senior Ministers of the then Fraser Government reached the unanimous conclusion, which is incorporated on page 24 of the report, that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, HLIC, should be sold subject to the understanding that the purchaser maintain the level of services presently provided. That decision, both philosophically and pragmatically, is as relevant today as it was back in 1981. I am proud that the Opposition on this matter has been prepared to make a decision similar to the decision it made in relation to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, that upon our return to Government it should be transferred to the private enterprise sector. Mr Goodluck —You have had a lot to do with it. Mr HODGMAN —I am obliged to the honourable member for Franklin for his commitment to home ownership. He has helped the poor members of our community such as pensioners and the underprivileged to get into their own homes in the electorate of Franklin, which is very much to his credit. Mr Deputy Speaker, you came originally from the United Kingdom. I am certain you have followed what has happened in the United Kingdom since 1979. In 1979 the newly elected Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, decided that she would make an attack on the continued expansion of public sector spending. She looked for areas in which she could cut back or at least hold spending. She looked at areas in which she could make government slimmer and more efficient and at the end of one year she was the first to concede that the strength of the bureaucracy is such that almost everything she attempted to do to cut back in public spending-and, therefore, cut back the tax on the people of Great Britain-had failed. If the bureaucracy was told that a particular department's appropriation was to be reduced by 10 per cent, it would immediately recommend cuts in areas which did not affect one single public service job but which had great political and emotional significance. The other day I witnessed a videotape of a speech delivered in this country only a few weeks ago in which the example was given of a particular department that it would pick the most heart-rending, emotional and traumatic area and say: 'We will cut back and put that area out of business'. Of course, the Minister in charge would say that he could not accept that and consequently the cut would not occur. So what did Mrs Thatcher decide to do after 1980? She decided that the only way to reduce the size of government and the already enormous burden on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom was to transfer, whenever and wherever possible, to the private enterprise sector those functions of government which were being carried on at cost to the taxpayers-functions which never should have been carried on by government in the first place. She has dramatically and effectively displayed to the world, as indeed the Reagan Administration is now doing, that the people of Western democracies will get lower taxation only when there is smaller government. Mr West —What about subsidies? Mr HODGMAN —From the noises from the other side of the House, it is very clear that Senator Cook, a Labor senator from Western Australia, is correct. He publicly stated the other day that the implementation of the Hawke socialist Government's policies would involve higher taxation. Mr Reith —He supports them. Mr HODGMAN —Of course he does. Does any member of the Hawke socialist Government seriously argue that, after the tax summit, this extraordinary theatrical operatic exercise we are about to enter into, the totality of taxes will be lower? Of course not. Mr Braithwaite —Expenditure will be up, taxes up. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Dawson is quite right. He is an accountant; he knows the figures. Why does this Government not start talking about cutting back on expenditure? This is the Government of big spending and high taxing. It is in this area that this Bill affords the opportunity for the people of Australia to see the arguments on both sides clearly exposed. If they want bigger government and higher taxation they will support the Hawke socialist Government, whose approval rating is dropping now faster than the Australian dollar-heaven knows, that is bad enough! But if the people would like to see smaller government and lower taxes, that will be the prime reason why at the next election the Government will be thrown out and we will be put back in. The decision taken by the Opposition is one of which we are proud and one which we believe the community will accept. It involves no reflection-I emphasise that-on the personnel of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I note in passing that three of the members of the Corporation have very long and commendable records of service in performing their functions. One was appointed by the Menzies Government, a second was appointed by the Gorton Government and the third was appointed by the Fraser Government. The remaining three have been appointed subsequent to the change of government. Therefore, I emphasise that this is what can be fairly described as a clean debate because, as I am aware, there will be no suggestion of mismanagement, inefficiency or even impropriety on the part of the HLIC. The question becomes one of principle. The Minister is totally committed to expansion of the public sector. He would like to see it grow, at the obvious cost to private enterprise. We have started, with two small steps, to return to rational government in Australia, to smaller government and lower taxation. Mr West —It is paying a dividend; it is paying taxes. Mr HODGMAN —I say with respect to the Minister that he displays a naivety occasionally which is almost shattering. The fact that the Corporation is paying a profit at the moment does not mean that it will continue to do so even with the best management and with the best will in the world, and it does not mean that it should be operating in the public sector at the taxpayers' expense. The Minister's commitment is to bigger public sector activity because that is the ultimate objective of one committed to socialism. He has never denied it. Our commitment is to free up the public sector, to get as much of it as possible back into private enterprise and to bring about a lowering of the incredibly heavy tax burden on all Australians. This is the Government which promised back in March 1983 tax cuts for 96 per cent of Australians. What do we find-a piddling, fiddling, tiddling little tax fraud con cut in 1984. This is the Government that promised to bring back rational economic policies. What have we seen? We have seen the Australian dollar, which under Malcolm Fraser was worth $US1.20, drop now to 64c. In the old days we used to say that somebody was only '19 bob in the pound'. We have a Prime Minister today who is only 63c in the dollar. We have the 'world's greatest Treasurer' who received a gold medal last year; it is going to be repossessed before Christmas this year. The Hawke socialist Government's economic policies are directed along three clear and recognisable lines-a bigger public sector, bigger government and higher taxation. One only has to look at the Press reports of comments in recent weeks about taxation. Now we see government members coming out of the closets-the capital gains tax disciples of the Hawke socialist Government. But that is not all. Gift duties and death duties are being proposed, so the Government is not just driving people off their little farms because of the wicked, disgraceful Hawke assets test, it is following them into the grave because of its pay as you die scheme. This is a government which is committed to socialism. It is about time that the Australian people realised that this is the most dangerous government that has ever been inflicted upon this country. We have in power the most dangerous Prime Minister whom this country has ever had. It is because he sees the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation as the medium through which he can nationalise the insurance industry of Australia that today-- Mr Goodluck —Our Leader is in the chamber to listen to you, Michael. Mr HODGMAN —That is right; he is in the chamber. Today, the Hawke Government proposes a four directional expansion. Do not tell me that this has not been done with malice aforethought. If the Whitlam Government thought that the HLIC was the means by which the insurance industry could be nationalised in 1973, is there anybody in Australia who is connected with the insurance industry who would not be trembling in his boots, or in her shoes, if he or she had seen this Bill, because the bigger the Government makes the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation the easier it makes it for the ultimate move, according to the commitment of a socialist Minister in the Hawke socialist Government, to nationalise the insurance industry. I ask honourable members and the people of Australia to contemplate what Australia would be like if our private enterprise insurance industry were nationalised, because this legislation is the medium by which it could be done. If this Parliament sits by idly and permits this expansion to occur, it will create a situation where the HLIC becomes the catalyst for the ultimate move. The Government will not make the mistakes that Mr Chifley made when he took on the banks. Today it could be argued-in fact it is argued by some economists-that the way to bring about a nationalisation of Australian private enterprise is to by-pass the banks and go into the other areas of the tertiary sector, in which the prime target is the insurance industry. In the debate to follow, honourable members will have the opportunity to say whether they have a genuine commitment to smaller government and lower taxation for all Australians. We on this side of the House have made our decision. We have hoisted our colours to the mast. Let us watch how the apologists for the Hawke socialist Government try to dress up this Bill as being innocent, indeed benevolent. We know what they are on about. The people of Australia nearly knew what they are on about by 1 December last year. By heaven, they now know for sure, and come the next election Government members will be back on this side of the chamber where they rightly belong, and they will be there until the millennium. We oppose the Bill. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(12.15) —We have just heard the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) attempt to tell us what the Opposition has to say about the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. In the half hour that he had at his disposal he made a lot of remarks about how the Opposition was in favour of smaller government and less tax. He then went on to expose pretty well to the House the fact that he and other members of the Opposition have the economic attitudes of a nineteenth century robber baron. The honourable member for Denison was in the rather unique position of saying to the House that the Opposition wanted people to pay less tax, but also saying that to facilitate the payment of less tax the Opposition proposed that the Government sell off a very profitable public corporation. Anyone with even a moderate amount of intelligence would see that there was some inconsistency in that. If a public corporation is making a substantial profit one would think that its contribution to revenue would allow the Government to need less income from elsewhere. It is important to note the contribution to revenue that is made by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. In 1983-84 that Corporation contributed $7.8m to the Commonwealth coffers. It paid $4.9m in income tax, it paid a dividend to the Commonwealth of $2.5m and it made a special payment to the Commonwealth of $0.4m-a total of $7.8. One could ask what the situation will be this year. The honourable member for Denison said 'Of course, the Corporation might not continue to make that profit'. I can tell the honourable member, before he runs out of the House, that the Government is going to benefit even more from the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I admire the honourable member for Grayndler in many ways, but he does need his eyes checked. I was not running out of the House; I was going to speak to an adviser. I think he ought to tell the truth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr LEO McLEAY —I am glad that the honourable member for Denison is going to stay, because he will be pleased to hear that this year the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is going to make even more revenue for the Commonwealth. In fact, the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) advises me that he expects that this year the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will lift its investment income to $8.6m, an increase of $1.2m on that for 1983-84. The Corporation this year will provide the Commonwealth with a dividend of $2.75m and a special payment of $1m, and it will pay $5m in income tax. I would have thought that even the Flat Earth Society, which masquerades as an opposition in this country, would have seen that that was an intelligent thing for the Government to do; to support a corporation such as that. I am sure that the people of Australia will be interested to know how the Opposition proposes to lower taxes when it intends to sell off profitable public corporations. The honourable member for Denison, in his dissertation, also tried to convince the House that the level of housing ownership in Australia continued to increase under conservative government. Of course, honourable members in this House have frequently said that the Opposition has never learnt from history. It would seem that it does not even read any of the historical facts. One need only consult some of the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to see that, for instance, in the heyday of conservative government in this country-the years between 1966 and 1971-private ownership of houses fell from 79.2 per cent to 75.8 per cent. So not only does the honourable member for Denison not understand economics; he does not even know what happened in the past. The Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill is part of the Hawke Government's housing strategy. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is a market leader in the mortgage insurance business in Australia. Some 60 per cent of residential business mortgages and some 20 per cent of commercial business mortgages are covered by the Corporation. The Corporation has widespread support in the industry. The availability of loans from it ensures that low income earners can have access to funds that they would not normally have access to because of their necessity to have a higher gearing of deposit to borrowings. The Hawke Labor Government's support for the Corporation is based on its commitment to help more Australians to own their own homes-a laudable goal. The Corporation has done a lot to assist that. It is therefore important that it remains in public ownership so that it can continue to be part of the Government's housing strategy. I am sure the honourable member for Denison and the Flat Earth Society members on the other side will be happy to know that implementing the proposals put forward by the Minister in this Bill will cause no costs to be incurred by the Government and will even result in a net gain to revenue. I would have thought that even the conservatives would have believed that a government proposal which costs nothing to implement and which provides a gain in revenue for the Government was something that they should support and not oppose. But the Opposition, in the half hour that was available to the honourable member for Denison to speak on this Bill, did not really let us know where it stands on a lot of issues in relation to this Bill. In fact, the honourable member for Denison, in his dissertation, did not mention the secondary mortgage market. The Corporation is heavily involved in assisting the secondary mortgage market. Where does the Opposition stand on this? Is it in favour of supporting the secondary mortgage market in Australia or is it opposed to it? We did not hear anything about that from the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —You weren't here. Mr LEO McLEAY —I was sitting here all the time. No one else in the House heard where the Opposition stands on that very important part of the operation of the housing market in Australia. The Government supports the secondary mortgage market and, through the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, is going a long way towards providing stability for it. About 80 per cent of the Corporation's business-I point out that the Corporation has consistently maintained a profit in its underwriting and I am sure that it will continue to do so-is in underwriting loans from permanent and other building societies. The main part of its business is connected with loans for the purchase, construction or alteration of houses-including home units, town houses and the like-for occupation by the owner or for rental or sale. The Corporation does not only address itself to private owner occupation; it also assists those who are creating more housing, both in the private rental market and in other commercial activities. At present the Corporation insures 68,000 housing loans. I do not know how reliable any private enterprise organisation would be if we allowed this Corporation to be sold off to it. If market forces operated and one company managed to drive its competition out of business the Government could be back in the situation that caused the previous conservative Government to set up the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. It was set up so that we could have competition in the market-place. We hear many Opposition speakers in this Parliament talking about market forces. If market forces operated and we ended up with only one insurer in the market, as we had before the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was instituted, where would we be? I think the Opposition has failed to make its point on any of the matters relating to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill. I would like to go back for a few moments to the secondary mortgage market, because I consider the Corporation's involvement in it to be an important activity of the Corporation. There is a need for the Commonwealth to be involved with an organisation that has to do with the secondary mortgage market, because a broadly based secondary mortgage market has significant potential to attract new funds into housing. Part of this Government's strategy has been to try to free up some of the funds from banks and other financial organisations to ensure that there is more money in the housing sector in Australia. Keeping the secondary mortgage market alive and flourishing is an important factor in investors being willing to loan money for mortgages. The Opposition has not told us what it thinks about that. I hope the Opposition is in favour of that type of proposal. The honourable member for Denison also did not address himself to what I thought would have been a matter that would have really sent the robber barons of the Opposition to the wall; that is, the Government's public interest provision in the Bill. There is a great need for a public interest provision. From the silence of the honourable member for Denison I can take it only that the Opposition is in favour of that provision in the Bill. The reason for the national interest provision is to ensure that the Corporation is involved in supporting the Government's housing objectives. There are some areas where the Corporation's mortgage insurance might well obviate the need for direct government outlays-for instance, in commercial housing projects with private sector financing, housing in remote areas and housing co-operatives. The insertion of a national interest provision in this legislation will go a long way towards assisting the Government's housing strategy. The honourable member for Denison said at the beginning of his speech that the Opposition would sell the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The activities of the Opposition in this area go back to 1979. It is interesting to note that in the desperation of the Opposition to develop so-called new policies it is going back to old policies. The Lynch razor gang in 1979 decided that the Government would sell the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. It did not. In April 1981 it reaffirmed that it was going to sell the Corporation. It did not. Obviously, wiser heads in the Opposition prevailed. We now have the more voracious of the Opposition members making policy. We see that in going back they were unable to learn from the sins of their past. What they are doing is repeating those sins. We are finding that they, in their desperation to try to present some sort of a new face to the Australian people, are going back to what they thought were the good old days of 1979 and Phil Lynch's razor gang. They will find that they will not be successful even if, on the off-chance, they do become the government of Australia in the near future. The honourable member for Denison, in his contribution to this debate, said that after the next election he would be on the Government benches. I must say to the honourable member for Denison on behalf of my Party that we are often not fussy regarding whom we have as a member of the Party but we would definitely not make an exception for the honourable member for Denison. There is no chance of his joining the Australian Labor Party after the next election. So he will not be on the Government side. In the few moments I have left I would like to say a few things about the Government's other major housing initiative, the first home owners scheme. With the permission of the House I will incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the characteristics of successful first home owners scheme applications to March 1985. The table shows the wide range of people who have been successful in achieving grants under this scheme and the great benefit the scheme has provided for Australians to enable them to purchase their own homes. Leave granted. The table read as follows- CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS The following table provides Australia-wide data on the characteristics of approved applicants with contract dates before and after the 1984 Budget. They indicate the impact of the changed income criteria. CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL FHOS APPLICANTS TO MARCH 1985 Contract dates 1.10.83 From to 21.8.84 22.8.84 Per cent Per cent Married or engaged couples 63.3 82.7 Sole applicants without dependants 34.0 9.4 Homes located in metropolitan areas 59.5 55.8 Purchases of existing dwellings 79.9 82.4 Applicants with at least one dependant 41.4 63.2 Applicants choosing to receive option 3 (the largest lump sum payment) 84.1 85.4 Average cost of homes purchased ($) 48,958 46,969 Average household income ($) 16,963 15,719 Total approvals (number) 104,595 14,525 Mr LEO McLEAY —It is interesting to note that under the previous Government, according to the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, commencements of housing construction had sunk to a 20-year low. That shows how badly off the country was under the previous conservative Government. The Hawke Government's first home owners scheme has been instrumental in helping thousands of Australians achieve home ownership. The Government has also provided $510m to the States for this year and the next financial year for public housing. That is an improvement on the $200m which was the base level of funding provided in the 1981 agreement that was undertaken by the previous Government. We are providing $510m for two years. The Fraser Government, of which the honourable member for Denison was a Minister, provided a base grant of $200m. The Opposition's commitment to home ownership in Australia does not exist. It has been found lacking in the past and lacking by its opposition to this legislation. The present Government has a very strong commitment to providing housing for Australians. As I mentioned previously, the Commonwealth Government's housing scheme for 1984-85 contains a number of special allocations which will help a wide range of Australians. An amount of $52m has been made available for rental housing for Aboriginals; $35m has been made available for pensioner rental housing; $27m has been made available over three years for a new local government and community housing program which will, for the first time, provide local government and community groups with sufficient funds to provide innovative, low cost rental accommodation. The Government has provided $13m for a new, short term crisis accommodation program and $22m for mortgage and rent relief. That is in the public housing area. In the private housing area, in particular through the first home owners scheme, the Government has provided massive amounts of funds. By the end of June this year the first home owners scheme will have helped approximately 142,000 households to buy their first homes, with $431m being provided to recipients. In my opinion and, I am sure, in the opinion of the House, that is a giant step forward to turn around the rather regrettable housing situation that existed under the previous, conservative Fraser Government. With the permission of the House I will incorporate in Hansard a table that shows a break-up of applications received and amounts paid over five years for the period 1 October 1983 to 3 April 1985 under the first home owners schemes. Leave granted. The table read as follows- FHOS FUNDING Since its inception on 1 October 1983 FHOS has generated approximately 161,000 applications, of which 122,000 have been approved at a total 5 year cost of $596 million-of which $372 million has already been paid. A detailed breakdown of applications and approvals, by State, is as follows: PERIOD 1 OCTOBER 1983 TO 3 APRIL 1985 Amount Amount over paid State Received Number 5 years to date $m $m New South Wales 40,118 29,769 146.1 85.5 Victoria 41,649 31,180 148.7 95.2 Queensland 30,106 23,128 114.1 71.1 Western Australia 23,765 17,983 89.2 57.3 South Australia 14,673 11,987 57.7 37.0 Northern Territory 1,393 1,114 5.2 3.4 Tasmania 5,515 4,369 21.3 14.0 Australian Capital Territory 3,760 2,851 14.0 8.5 Australia 160,979 122,381 596.3 372.2 In first 9 months of 1983-84, 55,000 assisted at cost of $141 million. In 1984-85 Budget anticipated 80,000 assisted at cost of $265 million. In February increased to $290 million and 87,000 assisted-by June 1985, 142,000 will have been helped with $431 million paid out. In 1985-86 a further 82,500 will have been assisted. Thus by end of 1985-86 financial year nearly 225,000 will have received assistance. Mr LEO McLEAY —I thank the House. This table shows in a lucid fashion that the present Government has met the obligation it saw. We have delivered the goods to Australians to help them into homes. We have delivered the goods to Australians who were in rental accommodation. Under the present Government, the Australian people can see that there is a government that really has an approach of doing something substantial to help Australians get a roof over their heads. It is interesting to look at the rhetoric of the Opposition and compare what it did with what this Government has done. With the permission of the House I will incorporate in Hansard a table which shows a comparison of first home buyers assistance since 1980. It compares in tabulated form from the practice of the previous Government and the practice of this Government. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is leave granted? Mr Hodgman —In a spirit of co-operation, Mr Deputy Speaker, we will grant leave. I have not seen any of these tables. The honourable member should show them to us in future, which is the practice. We will not be difficult, however; we will grant leave. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF FIRST HOME BUYERS ASSISTANCE (SINCE 1980) Present Scheme Previous Government Schemes Special tax FHOSHDAS HSG* rebate scheme (Lump sum and interest(Lump sum (Lump sum (over subsidy) from 17.4.85only) only) 5 years 18.3.82 1.10.80 1.7.82 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 to 30.9.83 to 2.6.82 to 30.9.83 $ $ $ $ $ $ Home buyers without children- Lump sum nil 1,200 2,000 2,500 2,000 nil Interest subsidy 4,000 2,300 1,250 nil nil 1,500 Total 4,000 3,500 3,250 2,500 2,000 1,500 Home buyers with one child- Lump sum nil 1,200 2,500 3,000 2,500 nil Interest subsidy 5,500 3,800 2,250 nil nil 2,500 Total 5,500 5,000 4,750 3,000 2,500 2,500 Home buyers with two or more children- Lump sum nil 1,700 3,000 3,500 3,000 nil Interest subsidy 6,000 3,800 2,250 nil nil 2,500 Total 6,000 5,500 5,250 3,500 3,000 2,500 *A nine month waiting period for payment applied over the operation of this Scheme. Mr LEO McLEAY —I thank the honourable member for Denison and the House. The reason I was unable previously to ask the honourable member for Denison for leave to incorporate the tables was that I was so busy trying to work out where he stood on the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. His flights of fancy so taxed my powers of concentration that I never had the chance to ask him for permission to incorporate these tables. In conclusion, the facts speak for themselves. This Government has delivered the goods to Australians for housing. The Opposition provides only airy-fairy rhetoric and the mentality of the nineteenth century robber barons. The House should pass this legislation which will expand the activities of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to allow a very profitable, efficient and effective public corporation to get on with the job of ensuring that the housing industry of Australia continues to profit from the Hawke Government's economic policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.35) —I am delighted to see that the Chairman of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Mr Jim Fitzpatrick, is in the chamber today. I pay tribute to the work of Mr Fitzpatrick and his team at the HLIC over a long period. They have been assiduous in following the legislation that they have been required to follow. They have managed their organisation with great ability. The amendments to the Housing Loans Insurance Act proposed by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) are a complete sham being perpetrated on the HLIC. By offering the HLIC entry into the secondary mortgage market with the guarantee of this Government, the Minister has given a complete monopoly of that market to the HLIC. The Minister has not been prepared to make this offer to the housing loans insurance industry at large. The Minister has not provided a mechanism for those private enterprise organisations currently in the market to guarantee themselves through a fidelity fund or any other process. The Government has shown blatant favouritism to one instrument of government in regard to the secondary mortgage market. That is bad for the development of that market in Australia. The Minister claimed in his second reading speech that this is a brand new day for Australia's finance, for the process of assembling funds for release into the building and housing industries. He is absolutely wrong. The most significant factors preventing the development of the secondary mortgage market in Australia today are the charges placed on the transfer of mortgage documents by State governments. Whilst there has been some movement by some State governments to relieve the burden on people wishing to transfer mortgages, I wish to enunciate for the House the facts as they stand. Every State is different; every State has variable charges; every State does its own thing. The Minister has not consulted one of them. Most States have Labor governments, with which the Minister should feel he has a particular affinity, and the Minister should have negotiated with those governments before coming into this Parliament with a change to the legislation. This legislation allows the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to enter into the secondary mortgage market field by underwriting the losses that could occur on packages of mortgages. The situation varies greatly in different States. In Queensland, whilst there has been a reduction in the charges for transfer of mortgages, the stamp duty at the moment stands at 25c for each $100 or part thereof. In the State of Victoria, which seems to be the jewel in the crown of the socialists, the charges are indescribable. Most home buyers have to borrow sums of over $10,000. I have calculated the charges on a loan of $35,000, which is an average loan. There is a charge of $11 for the first $10,000 and a charge of $100 for the following $25,000. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr CADMAN —A charge of $111 just to transfer a document. That is a considerable variation to the amount charged in Queensland. I have searched the documents in New South Wales. Unless the transfer comes under the area of agreements or memoranda, which are not otherwise charged, there is a blanket cover of 50c per $100 in New South Wales on the transfer of mortgages. South Australia is a brilliant State which is really going for this in a big way. It is ripping off citizens and preventing the establishment of a secondary mortgage market. In South Australia, for a loan of $35,000, one would pay a transfer fee of $1,030-an incredible amount. The Minister says everything is right for the development of secondary mortgage markets because his big, socialist government has come in and solved the problems. That is untrue. There is a great impediment to the movement of mortgages and the provision of funds around Australia by the process of packaging mortgages, insuring them properly and then trading in mortgages. The real impediments are the State governments. The Minister in his speech gave no real hint to the impediment of this process, yet he has been prepared to give a government guarantee to a government instrumentality which will provide for that organisation a monopoly opportunity. That will not be conducive to the extension of secondary mortgage markets in Australia. The Minister could have adopted plenty of other processes and mechanisms to achieve the same objective. The underwriting of losses is Government guaranteed. I do not see any reference to the Insurance Commissioner or his role in this field. Has the Minister had discussions with the Insurance Commissioner about this factor? How do the other two private enterprise organisations stand in this business? What is their function? They will go down the tube on this. The additional business being given to the HLIC is not fair and equitable, nor is it a commercial process. The Minister mentioned in his speech time and again the commercial attributes being ascribed to the HLIC, yet when one reads the fine print there are not the commercial attributes which the Minister would have us believe there are. I refer to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporations twentieth annual report, for 1984. It mentions something the Insurance Commissioner had to say in his 1983 annual report about the HLIC and the fact that he should have some say about mortgage insurance. I quote one short paragraph: I am not in a position to recommend the authorisation of companies conducting mortgage insurance because of the inappropriateness of the Act to supervise mortgage insurance business. Consequently the 3 companies entitled to carry on insurance business as at 30 June 1983 with applications current are mortgage insurance companies. There is the situation of the Insurance Commissioner, who has not in any way been brought into the changes in the legislation. I would have thought that consequential amendments to the Insurance Act would be necessary from the Minister's action on this matter. I refer also to the initiative within the Bill whereby underwriting companies may reinsure with the HLIC in regard to events such as death, sickness or unemployment. I would have thought that was completely unnecessary, because this mechanism is providing a reinsurance process which, surely, lies outside the scope of the HLIC. That is the way I read it. I cannot see anything but a reinsurance power being taken on. I quote from the Minister's speech: The third major initiative provided for in this Bill is to empower the Corporation to act as 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. I would not quibble with the Minister's concern for individuals in that case, but the Minister has empowered the HLIC to reinsure other insurers. The real gem of this Bill is the special interest provision which will allow the Minister, after some consultation, to direct the HLIC into areas of special interest nominated by the Minister. Is this the welfare housing provision? Is this to buy a boat to run around Sydney Harbour? Is this to give mates in government positions special loans? What is this provision for? It is not specified. Why has it been incorporated? Is the Government going to bleed the HLIC dry, as the New South Wales Government has bled its instrumentalities dry in order to fund its massive, ludicrous, fantastic programs which ignore completely the interests of the people of New South Wales? That process deserves full explanation. The special provision that allows the Minister to direct the HLIC is a disaster. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(12.45) —I move: That this House reaffirms its policy to welcome visiting ships and aircraft of nuclear allies, subject to our allies meeting the safeguard conditions laid down by the Fraser Government. This notice was given at the commencement of the proceedings of the House. There is no doubt among any of us that the circumstances of the Labor Government's attitude towards visits of ships of our friends and allies has perhaps been at the key of defence policy consideration. We know that it is on that issue that New Zealand has walked away from its ANZUS commitment. We know that it is on that issue that the former Minister for Defence bungled his way through the whole of that Invincible fiasco. We know that it is on that issue that there has been considerable vacillation between different sectors and factions within the Labor Party. We know that on the question of the visits of ships of our nuclear allies, Labor Premiers have consistently taken attitudes which show little regard for the responsibilities that our international alliances place on us. We know that it is on that issue that the Labor Party itself is perhaps best demonstrated as being at the very least an uncertain friend and ally; and it is on that issue that the public at large in Australia judges the credibility of this Labor Government. I think perhaps it is because of that issue, indeed, that the Australian dollar is at the level it now suffers. It is a matter of international perspectives to determine whether a government's word can be believed. It is certainly a matter of very great regret to the members of the Liberal and National parties that the Government of Australia seems uncertain in a field which so profoundly affects international perspectives of our reliability as a nation, as a friend, and as an ally. Of course, sadly, all this happens just after the fortieth anniversary of VE day-Victory in Europe. We need to remember that the last World War was an occasion when Australia was certainly under threat; when areas of Australia were subject to aggressive bombardment by a hostile foe. We need to remember that were it not for the visits of ships of that same ally for which elements of the Labor Party would seek to deny the right of visits to Australia, we would now probably be hosts entirely to another nation. Indeed, those who suffered in Darwin, those who were subject to bombardment throughout northern Australia, and in Queensland, and those who were subjected to a mini-submarine attack in Sydney, recall that it was only because of the alliance with the United States and the success of the American forces in the battle of the Coral Sea that the democracy and freedoms, which we all take for granted, were preserved. Sadly, the circumstances of the Labor Government's record as an ally are constantly being thrown into question because of the incredible behaviour of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). Indeed, at this very moment we have a Foreign Minister who made a great to-do, before he left Australia, about his concern about peace and disarmament. He told the people of Australia in this Parliament that he was going to call on the Soviet Union and the United States to enter into disarmament talks and that he was going to enforce in some extraordinary way the Australian imperative that they meet and do something furthering disarmament around the world. Disarmament is something that we happen to believe in. We do not just believe in rhetoric. Of course, the Foreign Minister, at the very moment that I am making this speech, is over in India and the Indian sub-continent on what seems a tour remarkably light on official duties. A visit to Bangladesh, a country which is extraordinarily important in the Indian sub-continent, is not even on his agenda; but have no fear, Kashmir is. He is going to Katmandu. He has been to Penang. He is spending a month just travelling around, and I have no doubt that there will be many nights of pleasant and leisurely entertainment. That is all very well, but while he is there he should properly not be saying, as I heard him say this morning, that Australia's role in international peace keeping forces was going to be reviewed. I believe that one of the great contributions of Australian servicemen and of past Australian governments has been our preparedness to act as a reliable friend and ally and to try to promote peace in the world. One does not promote peace by running back to one's burrow. One does not promote peace by questioning Australia's participation in United Nations forces. One does not achieve peace by not being prepared to defend one's country and not being prepared to take a stance to ensure that those who show aggressive intent against it will be contained. Yet, sadly, that seems to be the attitude of the Foreign Minister, and as a result it is a perspective that others take of Australia. Government members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —I am delighted to see you in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I speak of the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I think it is important that we realise that the whole of Australia's security system is now being attacked by this Labor Government. ANZUS is still relevant, and while members of the Labor Party are running around the country and saying that it should be scrapped or changed, the 'nonsense' remark that I heard interjected a moment ago frankly just is not correct. One cannot have the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) saying that there should be a review of ANZUS. One cannot have the Foreign Minister saying that ANZUS needs to be changed. One cannot have the man who is now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) but who was at the time the Federal President of the ALP and of the Australian Council of Trade Unions signing an advertisement calling for Australia to end the ANZUS military alliance and expect the Labor Party to have any credibility in the field. Honourable members might say 'nonsense'; but what does his Prime Minister say? It might have been a few years ago but, surely, is the Prime Minister so subject to change in his fundamental attitudes in a defence alliance that in the last 10 years he has done a complete about face? I know he does an about face every time he sees the winds of change in the Labor Caucus, but surely to goodness, on something that is fundamental to Australia, even the Prime Minister is not going to change his mind. If he meant in 1976 that the ANZUS military alliance should be terminated, why now is his word to be believed when he says that he wants to preserve it? That is what this motion is all about. It is not just a matter of facilitating visits of ships and aircraft of nuclear allies; it is a matter of ensuring that our defence alliances and our treaty obligations are fulfilled. I feel very sad that the Labor Government was not prepared to go out and do something about trying to get the New Zealand Government to change its mind. In fact, it is incredible to me that the New Zealand Prime Minister and the Labor Party, whether it is in Australia or New Zealand, claim to have some great consensus within their ranks. Mind you, not too many of us have seen signs of it. But if it has consensus, why did the Prime Minister of New Zealand leave it almost until the very end of his international jet-setting to call on Australia? Then he did so for only a few hours, because he had to rush home to decide an issue about the visit of the All Blacks to South Africa. Frankly, the Prime Minister of New Zealand has shown what little regard he has for the Australian Prime Minister and for the Australian Labor Party. But what the Australian Labor Party should be doing is listening and working to try and ensure that if there are actions being taken by the New Zealand Government that will hinder progress in Australia and affect our national security, it does something to correct it. I believe that it is not sufficient just to blame New Zealand for what has happened in the whole field of the setting aside of the ANZUS Treaty. The Federal Labor Government has equal responsibility, and I believe it is very much to be regretted that we now find the ANZUS Treaty in a state of disarray and suspension, with, incredibly, the 1985 exercises, which are customarily set down for the tripartite involvement of Australia, New Zealand and the United States, to be split, with one exercise between the United States and Australia and another between New Zealand and Australia. Frankly, the whole set-up just is not good enough. It does put Australia's security at risk, and I think it creates doubt about the future integrity and security of this nation. I do not believe that is a charge which is too lightly laid. In this place we have said before that we are concerned about the rundown of the defence forces under Labor, and, sadly, day by day it happens. We read, only today, that Project Waler is to be shelved for five years. There were the doubts about the re-equipment of the navy with the new Sea Hawke helicopters. There have been very real doubts cast upon the capability of the navy since the fixed-wing aviation component of the Fleet Air Arm was scrapped, and, frankly, the Government has not accelerated the refit of the FFGs so that they would be able to get their stabilisers and be able to receive helicopters. There are many matters in the three Armed Services that are of great concern. We have no airborne early warning radar. Even the 707s that are required for aerial refuelling have not been refitted; they are not even on the program. Last year, two of my colleagues raised quite seriously the problems that existed in the shortfall of equipment in the Australian Army. So we have, in the three Services, circumstances where there is a less than adequate defence capability in the Australian defence forces. Yet while this is happening, our overseas defence alliances are being set aside. We cannot expect others to come to our assistance, or to work with us, unless we are prepared to work with them. There is no right unless there is an exercise of responsibility. We cannot go to the Americans, to the British or to any of the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and say: 'Come and defend us; we cannot do it for ourselves'. Frankly, that is about the state of play we are reaching in this Labor Government's approach to defence. We need to understand that this motion is really indicative, therefore, not of just an isolated circumstance, but of a condition that, regrettably, stretches right across the whole field of the defence relationship. It is one that goes to the core of the international perspective of Australian integrity. It has been compounded because of that incredible circumstance that led to the non-dry-docking of HMS Invincible, the circumstances in which we had a document, which I do not think any clear-thinking person could comprehend, from the then Minister for Defence on the basis by which there would be dry docking facilities provided in Australia. Indeed, it will be recalled that we had a circumstance where the HMS Invincible came to Australia and its captain expected it to be dry-docked, the navy having spent money preparing the Captain Cook Dock to receive the ship, and then suddenly the Minister said: 'We cannot do that; we were not really asked'. Really, the whole thing was so incredible that if he did not have egg on his face, I am afraid the Australian nation did, and Australian credibility to boot. The sad result of that was not only the problems in the non-dry-docking, but the total uncertainty about any circumstances in which a nuclear capable vessel-remember, it was not nuclear powered; it was nuclear capable-would be allowed to be dry-docked in Australia. I believe that circumstances of our alliance with the United States and with the United Kingdom and the five-power treaty are now very much in doubt because of the prevarication of that former Minister and the fact that the present Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has made no comment to in any way reverse that stance. As I explained, though, I think there are other circumstances about which this place also needs to concern itself. For the developments in the whole field of our reliability as an ally were, regrettably, extended very much by the Prime Minister's overseas change of heart with respect to the MX missile testing program. We need to remember that for nearly 12 months after the election of Labor, there was an acceptance by the Americans and by the Australian Government that the testing would go on. But what happened? Suddenly the National Times published an article. As a result of the publication of that article, there were, suddenly, a few telephone calls between Australia and Brussels. It was not a matter of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers considering whether the testing should have gone ahead. The Prime Minister did not bother to tell his Cabinet. Mind you, I can understand why he would not want to tell half of them, but, at the same time, he appointed them, and if he does not believe in their credibility, their integrity or their capabilities, then they should not be there. We have been telling him that ever since they were elected. But regrettably the message has not yet got through. What happened was, of course, that he suddenly thought that he was not going to have the numbers. It will be recalled that when he was winging his way across on that 29-hour flight to Brussels, the MX story appeared in the National Times. Then, on Sunday, 3 February, the Prime Minister's suite began to receive a few telephone calls, and by the end of the trip, eight days later, the Prime Minister's phone bill must have been horrendous, because seemingly he had consulted everybody about what he thought everybody wanted him to do. How is that for a Prime Minister to behave? The MX missile, relations with our ANZUS partner-and he claims that he is going to maintain his ANZUS relationship. I ask you! What he did with the MX missile testing program was equally as bad, in my view, as what New Zealand did in refusing visits of ships and aircraft of nuclear allies. Frankly, the ship issue was exactly emulated by the Prime Minister changing his mind, not in proper consultations, not by going into consultations with his Cabinet colleagues and discussing it with the Americans, but just because he was too jolly weak. Indeed, I heard Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen talk about the Prime Minister and the degree to which he was quite subject to the influence and power of the ACTU, and he compared him to putty. He said: 'He is just like putty in the hands of the ACTU'. How true it is, because it is exactly what happened with the MX missile. He did not do what was right for Australia; he did not do what he knew he should do; he did not do what he told the Americans he was going to do for 12 months. He did what he said the Caucus forced him to do. Of course, what happened was that by 7 a.m. on 5 February, Prime Minister Hawke decided that he really had to change his mind. So he told the Reagan Administration that Australia would not help in the MX missile tests. We know that at 8 p.m. on that day the Prime Minister met United States Secretary of State George Shultz in the 15th floor suite of the Madison Hotel. We know that the basis of a deal was sorted out. We are told repeatedly by Ministers of the Government that the Americans really said that everything was still okay. But we know what really happened. The United States decided that it would not publicly humiliate Mr Hawke, but that it would of its own volition say it does not need Australian support for the MX test. No quid pro quo was asked for, but the rub apparently came, I think, in the announcement next day. Next day, there was a joint agreed statement in the foyer of the United States State Department. The communique stated that both men-that is, George Shultz and Robert James Lee Hawke-held a continuing discussion on strategic deterrence and mutual efforts to achieve nuclear arms control. Then comes the key paragraph: They agreed on the importance of both of these objectives, to which the strategic modernisation program being carried out by the United States is directed. Now we remember what happened. Bill Hayden got on the phone to say, 'Hey, look, hang on there Prime Minister. We can't wear that', and before we knew what was what he even changed his mind on that. The officials, without any doubt, accepted that that meant that the Australian Government accepted as was stated in that first communique, the importance of both objectives-that is, strategic deterrence and nuclear arms control-and it accepted that in achieving those two objectives, the strategic modernisation program was important. Not only did the Prime Minister then change his mind; he came back, and then he even rebuffed the United States on their request for Australia to participate in the strategic defence initiative research. It was not participating in SDI; it was participating in research to develop a strategic defence initiative. I think it is a sad indictment of Labor that it is just not prepared to put its action where it knows principle should lie. Whether it is a matter of strategic defence initiative, or whether it is a matter of MX missile testing, or whether it is a prevarication on the terms and conditions of visiting ships and aircraft, it is about time the people of the world knew that this Parliament knows where we should be going. The motion that I am now moving would ensure that the people of the world, including our friends and allies, knew our position. People also need to know that whilst the Labor Party is no doubt about to rise and say, 'Ho, ho, we are behind these visits of nuclear ships', the USS Texas was, as will be recalled, recently in Australian waters. I am not too sure, indeed, whether she has yet left them. The USS Texas was initially scheduled to visit Melbourne and Sydney. The USS Texas is not nuclear powered but is nuclear capable. The United States Administration was told that its presence could embarrass the Cain and Wran Labor governments. Thank goodness we have got Joh Bjelke-Petersen, and thank goodness we have got Robin Gray and Ian Tuxworth from the Northern Territory. Thank goodness we have got some States in Australia. Thank goodness there are some Australians who are prepared to stand up and put their money where their mouth is and are prepared to act on principle and not on expediency. The fact that the USS Texas was not allowed to visit either Melbourne or Sydney because two Labor governments were too weak, too uncertain and too unprepared to stand up to the left wing of their Party, frankly, puts the Federal Labor Government in its proper perspective. This House needs to reaffirm its policy of welcoming visiting ships and aircraft of nuclear allies. There are proper safeguards. I laid them down as Minister. I commend them to the House. They are proper. They take account of the needs and cares of security and safety. Unless we are prepared to reaffirm this policy, frankly, I believe that anybody who says the ANZUS Treaty is still in operation just is not speaking truthfully while there is a Labor government in Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr WHITE(McPherson)(1.06) —I second the motion, which states: That this House reaffirms its policy to welcome visiting ships and aircraft of nuclear allies, subject to our allies meeting the safeguard conditions laid down by the Fraser Government. What we are talking about here is this Government's commitment to ANZUS. As the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) has just clearly pointed out, when it really comes to the crunch, despite what it says, when these ships come and the Government is put on the spot, it ducks the issue, as he has just demonstrated by talking about the USS Texas. We are talking about a commitment to a treaty that has been in existence for 34 years. It is no use the Government piously saying that it supports ANZUS, but not meeting its responsibilities under that Treaty. As was mentioned a few minutes ago by the Leader of the National Party, the biggest demonstration of that, of course, is when we re-examine the MX missile decision, because there we saw an ally asking another ally, under the Treaty, whether it would give some very limited help-very limited; a few aircraft staging through one of our airfields. The answer initially by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was yes-which would be a natural answer from a Prime Minister of an allied country to another. But then, after a few phone calls and a bit of pressure, the Prime Minister got very nervous. What happened, in fact, was that he put his own skin right ahead of the requirements of this nation. His own survival suddenly became much more important than the rights of the country that he is purporting to lead, and he threw in the towel. What the world saw was a weak example of leadership. Unfortunately, that is what the world will never forget. We see it today in the result of the float of the dollar. 'Float' is hardly the word to describe it, because ever since that decision it has been sinking steadily. The problem is that Australia has now become an unreliable ally, and not only in American eyes. Any country would look at us with suspicion now-'How good are they? Will they stick?' That is the question they are asking. It is quite clear that we having dumped the Americans over visits of ships and over the MX missile decision, they would regard it as their right, if it was in their national interest, to dump us just as quickly. The reality now is that we must ask what we should do. What we have to do is become more self-sufficient in terms of defence. For two years the Ministers for Defence have been talking glibly about becoming more self-sufficient. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) goes roving around the world saying 'Yes, we are becoming self-sufficient in defence', and the current Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) keeps talking about the Guam doctrine and our responsibilities for self-sufficiency under that doctrine. But the reality is that for two years the defences of this country have been run steadily down, down and down. Mr John Brown —Rubbish. Mr WHITE —And the honourable member knows that is true. Firstly, let us look at the ANZUS Treaty. The ANZUS Treaty is in disarray. If that is not a significant weakening of the defence forces of this country, then I do not know what is. If the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence is to speak on this matter, I should be interested in what he has to say about that. It is partly because of the MX decision. It cannot be blamed entirely on the New Zealand decision, bad as that was. It is because we, as a country, refuse to acknowledge our responsibilities under that Treaty. So if that is not a significant weakening of the defence of this country, I do not know what is. Let us look at another matter that has significantly weakened the defences of this country-the Prime Minister's attitude towards defence and defence forces. Those of us who were in this House on Tuesday during Question Time saw a prime example of what I am talking about when the Prime Minister responded to a question about peace and he got on to the Vietnam war. Speaking about the Government of that time, he said: . . . the way they manipulated the people of Australia for those obscene purposes. He was talking about all those who were associated with the Vietnam war-'obscene purposes'. It is of some interest and some shame for fellow Australians, particularly those 47,000 who served in Vietnam, to hear their Prime Minister describe their involvement as an 'obscene' purpose, and it will not be forgotten. Even those who disagreed with the war, the purpose of the war and certainly its outcome, would have the decency to at least acknowledge that those who were sent to Vietnam were sent by the elected Government of this country. To denigrate 47,000 servicemen and service women by talking about their involvement in an obscene purpose is something he will not be allowed to forget. That is the second example of why the defence forces of this country are becoming steadily weaker. It is because the Prime Minister sets the example of this country as to what he thinks about its defence forces. If anyone thinks that that involvement was not an honest attempt to turn back a communist government, then I invite them to go to Vietnam today. I was lucky enough to be there 12 months ago. It is a country totally in the grip of a totalitarian government. My visit just reaffirmed what I had always thought-that the attempt by Australians and Americans and other democratic countries to roll back that tide was worth the effort. So, that is the Prime Minister's attitude to the defences of this country. Let us look at the Government's attitude. It has spent the last two years kicking the defence forces to death. Like it or not, what we have now throughout our defence forces is an air of disillusionment and malaise. They believe that the Government does not care-and they are right. One has only to look at the resignation figures for officers in the armed forces. On current figures for this financial year, up to June 1985, resignations will certainly exceed 700. Last year it was 679. This year, if it exceeds 700, which it will, it will be the second highest figure for 10 years; and it is not without interest to note that the highest figure in the last 10 years was in 1974-75 the last year of the Whitlam Government, when it reached 799. It is more than coincidence that we get the highest resignation figure when the Labor Party is in power. One of the things that I would suggest to the Minister for Defence, to put some guts, determination and sense of objective back into the armed forces, is that he should have a good look at the number of the armed forces and the civilians in defence in Canberra. Seven hundred and ninety-one majors serve in this city-majors or equivalent ranks throughout the three Services-and 523 lieutenant-colonels. There is an enormous number of officers in Canberra-not to mention the 4,600 public servants in Canberra in the Department of Defence, an increase of nearly 400 since last year. While talking in some detail about the Services, let me just mention that one of the reasons for this sense of disillusionment and despair is that Service people's conditions of service have fallen so far behind what might be regarded as the norm. For years there has been no adjustment of their pay. I was told yesterday by a welfare organisation in this city that it has identified 400 junior servicemen existing on their pay plus supplementary handouts, because without the supplementary handouts they would be starving. Their housing throughout Australia gets worse and worse. Despite--- Mr John Brown —You did a lot of good for them when in government! You ignored the problem totally. Mr WHITE —The blame may not lie entirely with the Government, but what has it done in the last two years to correct matters? Absolutely nothing. What is happening is that the Government is forgetting that in the end it is people, men and women, who man the fighting machines of war, and if it does not look after them, it will not have any defence. While talking about fighting machinery, let us have a quick look at what we have. The First Brigade in Townsville, the cutting edge of our Army, is poorly armed and unable to move. Today, I understand that Project Waler has also been cancelled, although it is absolutely essential in terms of mobility in this country. The other brigades are, in fact, worse off. The reserves have become almost non-existent. I am told, 'If you can find 10,000 active reservists in this country, you would be very lucky'. The Air Force has modern planes without armaments. It is given a range of tasks that 10 air forces could not meet. There is no capacity for aerial refuelling, and certainly no airborne radar. The Navy is reduced almost to a coastal patrol force. It is interesting that in the last few days this is what Air Marshal David Evans, the retiring Chief of the Air Staff, is reported to have said about the defence forces of this country: The Australian defence forces have no agreement on how to defend the country. There isn't a concept. We don't know where we are going. Air Marshal Evans is one of four senior officers of our defence forces. The problem is that Australia will not meet its commitments under the ANZUS Treaty. It will not allow allied American ships into its ports. Mr Cross —Nonsense. Mr WHITE —Why did the Texas not go to Sydney or Melbourne? Mr John Brown —There was no request, you dummy. Mr WHITE —Because honourable members opposite dodged the issue, as they did with the Invincible. They put out some Press release saying that they had not been asked. What a lot of nonsense! How do they expect our American and United Kingdom allies to get port access here when they will not allow it to get that far? How are they going to operate in this part of the world without some sort of port access. We either fulfil our obligations under this Treaty or we let the Treaty go. If we let it go and the Government thinks we are going to defend this country with what we have got, it is mad, or stupid, or both. Either way, we need more self-reliance. We have never before fought a war without a major ally. We could not fight a war at the moment without a great deal of assistance from a major ally. If the Government is cynical, as it is about the ANZUS alliance, I presume that it will not accept the support that is offered if it is needed. But I know, and honourable members know very well, that, should we want it, should another 1942 come, we would accept it. It seems to me very strange that we allow our navy to exercise with nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered ships, but we will not allow such ships into our ports. It is all right for our servicemen to be put at risk at sea, but when they come home it is a different matter. That just about sums up the hypocrisy of this Government towards the ANZUS alliance. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence)(1.21) —I apologise for the absence of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is presently at the Australian American War Memorial, laying a wreath in conjunction with our American visitor who is here to honour the Coral Sea battle. Obviously, the Minister cannot be in two places at once; so I apologise for his absence. In my role as the assisting Minister, I am here to respond on his behalf. I think it is rather significant that this debate, in fact, takes place at the exact hour when that ceremony is being conducted at that Australia-United States War Memorial, because the ceremony highlights the fact that the alliance between Australia and the United States, in terms of defence, was forged at a time of desperate situation in the Pacific, in the early 1940s. I think it is fair to note that that alliance was forged under the auspices of the Labor Prime Ministers Mr Curtin and Mr Chifley, after the conservatives had skied the white at the first advent of war and the Labor Party was called to office to save Australia from what was then the most threatening period of our history. So, when we are debating the ANZUS alliance today, and the motion moved by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair)- That this House reaffirms its policy to welcome visiting ships and aircraft of nuclear allies, subject to our allies meeting the safeguard conditions laid down by the Fraser Government. I think it is reasonable that I should point out that the ANZUS alliance is, in fact, a product of that alliance that was forged between a Labor Government and the United States when Australia was faced with a real peril. I emphasise from the start that this Government regards the ANZUS alliance and the maintenance of defence co-operation with the United States and other Western allies as being fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. The House will recall that one of the first actions of the Government on taking office was to review the ANZUS Treaty in light of Australia's priorities and regional developments. That review concluded with an unequivocal reaffirmation that ANZUS remained fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies, but did not absolve member countries from the primary responsibility for their own defence, which is a point that I will reiterate as we go along. Our policy on visits to Australia by defence units from our allies takes full account of these considerations, which is something about which the Opposition should think fairly thoroughly before it starts criticising this Government's actions with regard to ANZUS. I would like to make a few specific observations about visits of ships of our allies. The Government has concluded that it is very much in Australia's interest, as well as that of the United States and the West in general, for United States and other allied vessels to be able to operate freely to and through the area around Australia. Ready allied naval access to Australia and the maintenance of a secure passage between the Pacific and the Indian oceans is important to the West's capacity to maintain the global balance. Allied naval operations through Australian waters also underline in a very clear manner to any potential opponents that Australasia is not an area of low cost, low risk opportunities. Any opponent considering operations against Australia would have to take full account not only of our indigenous defence capacities but also of those of our friends and allies, not least those that routinely operate in this area. Naval visits by our allies and friends therefore significantly reinforce our own national capacity to deter hostilities. They also contribute to the operational capabilities of our allies, and therefore to the deterrence capacity of the Western alliance as a whole. Welcoming visits by allied defence units also facilitates the conduct of a very valuable range of exercise and training activities with the advanced technology units of our allies. Combined training with our allied forces is essential to the maintenance of the Australian defence forces' operational skills. It is important that we talk about the safety procedures that are involved with these agreements. This Government has endorsed the guidelines which have been developed for visits to Australia by nuclear-powered warships and which are designed to safeguard the public, particularly in the extremely unlikely event of a reactor accident. As the Opposition is aware, no berth or anchorage can be considered for use by a nuclear-powered warship until it has been surveyed against strict environmental and safety criteria and assessed as suitable. Nuclear-powered vessels cannot simply sail into any port in Australia. This is well understood and accepted by our allies. Once a berth or anchorage in a port has been assessed as suitable for such visits, detailed safety plans must be developed. I will not reiterate fully the conditions of entry for nuclear-powered warships which were endorsed by my colleague Senator Gareth Evans, in the Senate on 15 December 1983, and which must be satisfied before any nuclear-powered warship can visit an Australian port. However, let me remind honourable members of the condition most relevant to safety planning. It states: An operating safety organisation, competent to conduct a suitable radiation monitoring program and able to initiate actions and provide services necessary to safeguard the public in the event of a release of radioactivity following an accident, must exist for the port being visited. I would emphasise that safety arrangements provide for stringent radiation monitoring of all visiting nuclear-powered vessels under the supervision of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. They also provide for contingency arrangements in the unlikely event of an emergency, involving radiation monitoring and protection, co-ordination of emergency services, public information plans, evacuation plans and removal of the vessel concerned to a remote location. Safety planning is the responsibility of a State or Territory planning committee, which includes representatives of police, fire, emergency services, port authorities and health organisations. Commonwealth authorities assist in the provision of technical advice and services and in arrangements for wider emergency support through the National Disasters Organisation should this prove necessary. I emphasise that these emergency plans address what is, in reality, a very remote contingency. While a very wide range of foreign warships have visited Australia since the Second World War, including many that have been nuclear powered, there has never been an accident involving the weapons or the nuclear propulsion systems on board these vessels while in an Australian port. Moreover, our very stringent radiation monitoring arrangements for visiting nuclear powered warships have never revealed any leakage of radioactive material. We also have a very strict set of arrangements for aircraft visits. The Government's approach to visits by allied aircraft to Australia takes account of similar national interest and strategic priorities. We permit B52 aircraft undertaking low level navigation training and sea surveillance flights to transit Australia in the knowledge that this action contributes to the overall capacity of the West to maintain an effective deterrent. The Opposition will be well aware of the arrangements and conditions under which these aircraft operate, but let me highlight they key points. There are three types of B52 operations which Australia permits. 'Busy boomerang' flights involve low level navigation training flights over North Queensland. Aircraft on 'Busy boomerang delta' flights follow the same routes over North Queensland but then visit Darwin and undertake low level navigation training flights over north-western Australia. 'Glad customer' flights involve low level navigation training over northern Queensland, following which the aircraft visit Darwin and then conduct long range, sea surveillance operations over the Indian Ocean. All B52 aircraft visiting Australia are unarmed and carry no bombs. Flights by United States B52 aircraft to or through Australia for any purpose other than those I have described would require the prior and specific agreement of the Australian Government. Of course, other allied aircraft, mostly transport aircraft, enter and leave Australia on a fairly frequent basis. These flights operate in support of specific projects and activities which are part of our ongoing defence co-operative activities with the United States and other friendly allies. Some critics of visits by allied ships and aircraft argue that brief visits for rest and recreational and training purposes could make the hosting installations, the Australian ports and airfields nuclear targets. Were a war to erupt in Europe, the Middle East or north-east Asia, I seriously doubt that the United States would have its combat ships and aircraft on the other side of the world at such a time. The possibility of an attack in such circumstances is so remote as to be discounted. With regard to arms control, I would emphasise that the close defence relationships with our allies, which our ship and aircraft visit policy supports, in no way constrain this Government from speaking its mind on the range of international, economic and foreign policy issues on which we differ from the United States and other Western allies. In fact, our close alliance relationship with the United States is a real asset in this context, as in many areas it strengthens our hand in influencing United States views and policies. In particular, our close relationship with the United States enhances our say on the critical issues of global arms control and disarmament. I will not speak in detail about the importance we attach to this issue or to the difficulties and complexities in pressing for multilateral arms control agreements which are balanced, equitable and able to be verified. I will, however, mention simply that amongst our top priorities are the promotion of treaties to end nuclear weapons testing and to strengthen measures against the spread of nuclear weapons. Australia has consistently urged the United States and the Soviet Union to seek agreements to limit and reduce their nuclear stockpiles and has supported their negotiations to this end. I want to underline the great importance of our special influence with the United States and with other key actors in securing the progress in arms control that we all desire. One of the more recent indications of the success of this approach was the valuable discussions that Ministers and senior Foreign Affairs and Defence officials held last week with the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and his visiting delegation. During these talks the United States delegates indicated that they valued very highly the opportunity for such a direct wide-ranging and thorough exchange of views and were keen to make the talks an annual event. This Government's approach to defence co-operation with our allies is well rounded. The review of ANZUS conducted by this Government made clear that as a member of the Western alliance we clearly have our commitments and our alignment is frequently and convincingly demonstrated. Our independence and national interests are greatly served by our association with our allies, but within them we exercise independence of judgment and are prepared to disagree with our allies where it is in the best interests of the alliance, and certainly where it is in the best interests of this nation. The fact that these things can be done and the alliance remains intact and healthy is an indication of the maturity of the relationship. This Government supports visits by allied ships and aircraft to Australia because these forms of co-operation with our allies are clearly in our own national security interest, as well as the security interest of our allies in our broad region. But as I have indicated, this is not the totality of our alliance relationship. We also work closely with our allies to press forward the goals of arms control and disarmament in order to secure a better world for ourselves and our children. This is the path along which we are pressing. It is designed to maintain our security and to keep the peace. There is no question as to the strength of our alliance with the United States. Despite the ramblings, the ravings and the rantings of the poor man's Napoleon, a former Minister for Defence, who a few minutes ago was sabre-rattling as usual, our alliance with the United States is in a healthier condition than it ever was, and anybody who wants to question that has to question the veracity of the President of the United States, President Reagan, of Mr Weinberger and of Mr Shultz, who have consistently stated that our alliance with the United States is as healthy and as strong as it was in those early days in the 1940s. It is simply not right for the Opposition to come in here and spout the sort of nonsense that is in most ways calculated to deceive the Australian public. I think the record of the Labor Party in terms of defence of Australia is well documented. Certainly when the conservatives were unable to run this country, the Labor Government did-in the First World War. Opposition talk about a rundown in our defence forces is in fact talk about their Government, which has been in power in this country for 31 of the last 36 years. In that context, I must say that Opposition members should look with great shame upon their involvement in Vietnam; and despite the statements of the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), Australia's involvement in that war was one of the dirty parts of our history. I am sure that the Vietnam veterans to whom he alluded are much happier with the treatment they have got from this Government than they were with the Government that sent them to Vietnam in the first place. Australia- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(1.36) —I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). This motion goes beyond the question of just allowing ships and aircraft to use our ports and facilities. This motion bites at the very heart of our nation's defences. This Federal Government has the sole responsibility for defending all the men, women and children who make up this nation of Australia, and in order to do that it needs to give whatever support it can to our allies. This Government has a moral obligation to support and assist our allies, because without supporting and assisting our allies in times of peace, how can we expect our allies to come to our assistance in times of need. It is a simple fact of human nature that if we as individuals do not help somebody over a period of time, we cannot expect them to help us, and this is the same in international relations. We must assist our allies, and to deny them the opportunities to use our ports and our airfields in the normal operations of their own defence forces would be to deny future Australians the opportunity to have an adequate defence force for the defence and security of our nation. The motion refers specifically to ships and aircraft using ports and facilities in this country. Looking back over the years, we have had a long and healthy relationship with our allies and they have used, in years gone past, our ports and airfields in the operation of their defence forces. It does not cost us as a nation, very much indeed. It does not cost us anything as far as finances are concerned. Looking at the possible cost about which people talk, of perhaps an accident occuring in one of our ports or near one of our airfields, we find, as the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) quite rightly pointed out, that there is no history of accidents in or near Australia, and of course, we have a very good, sound and stringent set of safety requirements established by the people involved in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which were passed as legislation in this House during the previous Federal Government. It is because of those safety regulations and because of the history of no accidents, no mishaps, and no damage, that we as a Federal government should be sticking wholeheartedly to this policy. We are privileged to live in a time of peace, and in order to maintain that peace we must have strength. In my own life, which has gone 30 years, I am of one of a very few generations of human beings who have been able to spend 30 years on this earth without having to fight any man's war, to join any man's army or to fire any shots in anger at anybody. One of the reasons why I, as an Australian, and the generations of Australians next to my age group and, indeed, below my age group, have been able to enjoy the privilege of peace, is that we have had the privilege of strong security-strong security greatly bolstered by the ANZUS Treaty. The ANZUS Treaty was drawn up by men who knew the horror of war and who valued the privilege of peace. It is because of the wisdom and far-sighted nature of those who drew up the Treaty that generations of Australians like myself have been able to live in peace. But in order to live in peace we must earn that privilege; and like all privileges, we have to work for them. Our work to enjoy the privilege of peace is to give co-operation to our allies, who help to ensure that we live in peace. If we do not give assistance and co-operation to our allies, we will not continue to enjoy the privilege of peace. Without the assurance of the ANZUS Treaty, Australia will be a weak nation. We will find ourselves reliant upon our own defence forces. In recent times we have seen the New Zealand Government go out on a limb and decide not to co-operate with the United States and fulfil its part of its commitment under the ANZUS Treaty. As a result of the New Zealand Government going out on a limb, an even greater responsibility has been placed upon this Federal Government to ensure that ANZUS remains as a sound and solid Treaty, because without Australia's commitment to the ANZUS Treaty there will be no ANZUS Treaty, and without an ANZUS Treaty, Australia's defences will be greatly weakened. This Federal Labor Government has already greatly weakened the ANZUS Treaty. The MX missile fiasco has brought under question this Government's commitment to ANZUS and to our security. As a result of the MX missile dispute, we have seen the strength of the left wing greatly enhanced within the Federal Labor Party, and that, once again, reduces Australia's commitment to our Defence Force, a commitment to a defence force that is sound and secure and a commitment to a treaty that ensures a sound and secure defence force. Australia is a small nation living in a big country. Because of that, we have a large area to defend but we have few resources with which to defend it. We also happen to live in the south-east Asian region, a region which, undoubtedly, is still politically unstable. To ensure that Australia, with its large area to defend and limited resources, and situated in a politically unstable region, has a sound defence, we must have strong allies. We will not have those strong allies unless we give firm evidence of our commitment to those allies by allowing them to use our ports and our airports for their ships and their aircraft. History tells us that throughout the period of mankind, at some stage or another, with not too great a distance between those stages, there has always been confrontation. There has been confrontation between man right through the ages. History tells us that it requires only one man to change what may be a passive nation into an aggressive nation, and to use the resources of that nation to fulfil its aggression towards others. It would be naive of anybody to deny that this is correct. History also shows us what happens when people try to deny what history shows us so clearly. For example, Neville Chamberlain assured the people of Great Britain that they would have 'peace in our time'. 'Peace in our time' proved to be wrong. Peace, in what Neville Chamberlain thought would be his time, turned out to be war. It turned out to be war because there were people who were naive enough not to believe that mankind can go to war. It was not the peace movement that freed the Jews who were imprisoned in Germany. It was not the peace movement that won the war. It was not the peace movement that released our prisoners of war. It was done by those people who took a realistic understanding of human nature, and it was those people who saved what we know today as our own heritage, the British nation and our own nation, and, indeed, the United States. History also shows us that any aggressive nation will always attack a weak nation first. The easy example of that, of course, is to remember Germany's attack on Poland at the beginning of the Second World War. Madam ACTING SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. In accordance with standing order 109, as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr John Brown) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended until 2 p.m. Mr SHARP —When looking at our defence forces, we must ask ourselves: How strong are Australia's defences? That question was answered last year by a report of the Sub-committee on Defence Matters of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, tabled in this Parliament, called the Cross report. I refer to a section of that report, which was reported in the Australian on 9 January of this year. It takes a quotation from the Cross report, saying that our defence forces are: . . . inadequate in terms of short-term deployment capacity and combat sustainability, expansion potential and operational command structure. That report was tabled by an honourable gentleman I see sitting in this chamber now, a member of the Labor Party. It points out that our Australian defence forces are not as strong as they ought to be. If they are not as strong as they ought to be, then we in Australia need a strong ally to ensure that our nation's defences are maintained. I also refer to a letter that was tabled in the same Cross report, a letter that was sent to the then Minister for Defence, Mr Gordon Scholes, from the Chief of the Defence Force Staff, Sir Philip Bennett, in which he said: I can no longer guarantee the Australian Armed Forces' ability to cope with even a low level threat, under the present cutbacks and economies. He was referring to the fact that this Government is making cutbacks and economies in the defence forces of Australia and that this is causing our inability to cope with even low level threats to our shores. If we do not have an adequate defence force, we must have access to a strong and stable defence alliance, an alliance which must, of course, come from the United States. If we are not prepared to co-operate with the United States and allow the Americans to have their ships and their aircraft using our ports and facilities, our defence forces will be as strong or as weak as is described in those two excerpts, one from the Cross report and one from a letter from the Chief of the Defence Force Staff. The cutbacks that this Labor Government has made in our defence forces are quite evident at HMAS Albatross, stationed at Nowra, in the electorate of Gilmore, which I have the honour of representing. In the term of this Government, HMAS Albatross has seen the fixed-wing component of the navy's air wing axed. We have seen the personnel of HMAS Albatross cut from 2,000 to about 1,000. Despite the cutbacks that have been made at HMAS Albatross, which are indicative of the cutbacks and economies that this Government is imposing upon all Australia's defence forces, we find that the defence personnel at Albatross are still trying to provide a dedicated, honest, hard-working service to defend our nation. I give great respect and a great deal of compliment to the personnel of HMAS Albatross. I would like to take this opportunity to quote from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner and remind this Government of what you can do if you fiddle around with an albatross. As every Australian school child knows from the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, 'dreadful things can happen to people who kill an albatross'. If this Government is going to try to kill an albatross, this nation will suffer the consequences of that. We will find that we will be killing our defence capability and we will be reducing the security of our nation and its future. This Government has a moral responsibility to protect every man, woman and child within Australia. This Government is, I believe, going about that in the wrong way. The MX missile dispute has weakened our defences and it has weakened our ties with ANZUS and our ties with the United States. The cutbacks and economies which are so well reflected at HMAS Albatross are indicative of what this Government is doing to our total defence capability. The only way to ensure that this nation and every man, woman and child within it will have a secure defence and a happy and prosperous future is to co-operate with our allies so that they can use our ports and our facilities to ensure a sound and strong alliance with them. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(1.51) —In the nine minutes available to me before time runs out in this debate, I would like, first, to deal with some of the matters that have been raised by the honourable members who have already spoken. A number of points were made by the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), arising out of his local situation, representing, as he does, HMAS Albatross, as if to convey that the decision to rundown the former Fleet Air Arm was occasioned by decisions made by the Hawke Labor Government. The truth is the very reverse. When under the former coalition Government Mr Killen-Sir James Killen, as he is now-the Minister for Defence in that Government, announced that HMAS Melbourne would be taken out of the active navy, he said at that same time that the planes associated with the Melbourne would no longer be required. So we are living, in that particular matter, with decisions made by the former coalition Government. The point has been made by the honourable member for Gilmore that there have been cutbacks. Allow me to say that in both of the Budgets of the Hawke Labor Government there has been an increase in real terms, although a modest increase, in the amount made available for the Australian Defence Force. I am sure that a similar increase will be made in the year ahead in these fairly difficult economic and budgetary circumstances. When the member talks about cutbacks he should look at the history of former coalition governments, because in 1976, when the then Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, produced a white paper, he spelt out a scenario for a five-year rolling program, and then in 1980, following the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, he spelt out on behalf of his Government a further five-year rolling program, and the whole history of defence procurement since that time has been cutting out of that program. The coalition Government made commitments to the Australian Defence Force which it never kept. We, in government since March 1983, have had to address those problems. The point was well made by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that one cannot blame the Labor Government for deficiencies of the Australian Defence Force, because people cannot expect us, in two years, to undo a generation of neglect by the previous coalition Government. The point was made by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) that access for the USS Texas to Melbourne and Sydney was denied. I want to state quite categorically that the Australian Government responds to requests by the United States Navy and other allied navies to visit specific ports. The United States Navy, at no time, for this visit of the USS Texas, requested that the USS Texas be allowed to visit Melbourne or Sydney. The request was made-- Mr White —They knew they wouldn't get in. Mr CROSS —That is untrue. The facts are that no request was made for a visit to Melbourne or Sydney. A request was made for a visit to Hobart and to Brisbane, and both of those requests were approved. I think it is quite shocking that the Opposition should seek to make some party-political capital out of support for the visits of allied ships and planes, which are supported on both sides of this Parliament. I was one of the people who made an inspection of the USS Texas during its visit to Brisbane. I had made an inspection of that vessel on a previous occasion when it visited Brisbane. During the visit that has just concluded, on 24 April, I was accompanied by Senator MacGibbon, who is the Vice-Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Defence Matters, which I chair, and by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who was the previous Chairman of that Committee. There were also two other Labor members of this Parliament, the honourable members for Griffith (Mr Humphries) and for Bowman (Mr Keogh), so that all the major parties were represented. Indeed, people on both sides of the political fence at other levels of government were present. It is quite wrong for the Opposition to try to make political capital out of a visit taking place in accordance with a well-established program. This gives me the opportunity-- Mr White —What about the Invincible? Mr CROSS —With very great respect, the Invincible came into Sydney Harbour. I paid a visit to HMS Invincible. It was a very interesting visit. I do not really understand the point. The visit of HMS Invincible was not denied. Naturally, if it had sought to come to some other port, such as Townsville or the like, as it is a rather large vessel, that would have been looked at in terms of the safety guidelines. Mr White —Why could it not go into dry dock in Sydney? Mr CROSS —Well, I want to get back to the motion, because all of the debate on the Opposition side of the Parliament has not been about the motion moved by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). I am really at a loss to understand why he should have moved the motion, because ANZUS is part of the Labor policy. Access by allied aircraft and ships to Australia's airfields and ports under conditions specified by the Australian Government was reaffirmed by the Labor Party Conference as recently as July last year. In addition, our policy is consistent with the policy of the previous Federal Government and agreed to by the States. Labor accepts that it is in Australia's interests and the broad Western security interests for United States and other allied vessels to operate freely in our region. Availability of Australian ports enables United States vessels to range longer and further in the surrounding oceans. We further accept that our allies need not disclose which vessels are nuclear armed-again, in their own interests and for overall Western security interests. We understand that nuclear propulsion, which powers over 40 percent of the United States combatant fleet, substantially enhances their ability to operate far into the Indian Ocean. Within strict safety guidelines, this Government allows vessels of nuclear allies to visit our ports for crew rest and recreation purposes, not only for the benefit of the Western alliance. Any potential opponent, when weighing up the cost of threatening Australia, could not exclude the assistance our allies might give us. Allied naval units, routinely passing close to Australia, calling at our ports and exercising with the Royal Australian Navy, could easily provide assistance at short notice and would not be overlooked by potential aggressors. The influence of our allies in any assessment of Australia's ability to resist major invasion magnifies and multiplies the value of our own defence effort. It means our defence forces can concentrate on the wide variety of more likely lower level threats in their training and force structure. Without it, Australia would have to spend significantly more of the national budget, at the expense of other national objectives, than is spent at present. The Government is satisfied that safety precautions on board visiting warships effectively preclude nuclear accidents. To back up these procedures, ports open to nuclear-powered vessels must have particular features, and limitations are placed on the movement of the vessels in and out of the ports for safety reasons. The water and berths around such vessels are monitored for radiation under the supervision of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The results of this monitoring program are published annually by the Department of the Arts, Heritage and Environment. I am sorry that time will not allow me to expand further on the safety measures that are taken to ensure that the visits made to Australian ports are carried out in circumstances that are safe for the ships that use our ports and, of course, for our Australian citizens. I would like to affirm again what I said when I started: The ANZUS Treaty was brought about by the initiative of the Labor Party, and it is Labor Party Policy. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! It is now 2 p.m. In accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Brisbane will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Yesterday during Question Time, following an answer given by the Prime Minister on the situation in Lebanon, the Leader of the Opposition made a comment supporting the Prime Minister's remarks. I quote his comment: First of all, I would concur with the remarks made by the Prime Minister on Lebanon and I would like to place that on the record. I am pleased to hear that the matter will be taken further, hopefully in the Security Council of the United Nations. This comment was edited from the broadcast in accordance with principles governing the delayed broadcast on Question Time. Long-standing practice is that extraneous matter is removed and only questions and answers are broadcast. However, given the bipartisan nature of the comment in this particular instance, I think the remarks could have remained as part of the broadcast. Mr HAWKE —With your indulgence, Madam Acting Speaker, I want to indicate my total endorsement of the course you have followed in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is appropriate that this should be so because I appreciated the endorsement by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr WHITE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask it on behalf of all those who served in the defence forces of this country. The Prime Minister will recall his condemnation on Tuesday of all those Australians associated with the Vietnam war, which he described as 'an obscene purpose'. I remind the Prime Minister that this was a war against communism by Australians. The Prime Minister will also recall that yesterday was the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Europe and that a little over one week ago it was the tenth anniversary of the end of the war in Vietnam. In view of the Government's failure to recognise the sacrifices of Australians in either of these two wars, will the Prime Minister at least state in clear and unequivocal terms the Government's attitude to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, who is reported to have attended a dinner last week arranged by the Communist Party to celebrate the communist victory in Vietnam, thereby denigrating the 47,000 Australians who served in that war? Mr HAWKE —I appreciate very much the opportunity I have been given by the honourable member with this question. With regard to my colleague, the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, there is no one in this Parliament who is entitled to question the integrity, the commitment and the readiness of this man to lay down his life for his country. It ill becomes any Opposition member to bring into question the integrity of the Minister. Now, let us examine the question in a little more detail. It starts with a gross misrepresentation. That is no surprise, coming from the other side of this House. There was not one word in what I said in this place the other day or in anything that I have ever said at any stage in my consistent opposition to the Australian commitment in Vietnam-made under false pretences by a conservative government-against the men and women who with honour, integrity and commitment of purpose went to Vietnam. Never once in my consistent opposition to the then Government's adventurism did I say anything against the soldiers who were conscripted to go there; I spoke out against the Government which sent them. It is a gross misrepresentation for the honourable member or anyone else to suggest that I or this Government have ever said anything-one word-against the men and women who were involved in that commitment. Just as consistently as we have not said a word against the people who were involved there in service, we have condemned those who, under totally false pretences, sent those people to Vietnam. The Government of the time lied- Honourable members interjecting- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw that word. Mr Tuckey —That is an unparliamentary word. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will withdraw the word 'lie'. Mr Tuckey —Is that a parliamentary word? Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for O'Connor. If he interjects again, I will name him. Mr HAWKE —The Government of the time misrepresented-- Mr Aldred —On a point of order, Madam Acting Speaker, the Prime Minister's use of language was clearly unparliamentary and I ask for a withdrawal. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister withdrew his comment. Mr HAWKE —The Government of that time grossly and deliberately misrepresented the basis on which our troops were sent into that conflict. That is now a well-established fact of record and history. The honourable member in his question said that it was a war against communism. At the time the then Government said that essentially it was a war against the downward thrust of ruthless Chinese communism. That is what it said. It was wrong when it said that. It betrayed an abysmal lack of understanding of the facts of history and of current events. Anyone who had any understanding of the facts of history would not have confused and identified the interests of China with those of the Vietnamese. Anyone who had a rudimentary understanding of history knew that. But because the then Government was prepared to divert attention in this country by trying to get the United States involved in a land war in Asia, it had no concern for the truth, it misrepresented the facts and it tried to have the people of Australia believe that what it was doing in sending young men from Australia to Vietnam was protecting Australia from China and Chinese communism. The Government of the day was blatantly wrong then. Even if Opposition members did not have the good sense to know that they were wrong then, one would have thought that they would have had the decency 10 years later at least to confess their mistakes. But they have never had the decency to confess their mistakes. Let us understand the depth of Opposition members' hypocrisy even more; let me point out two simple facts which further demonstrate that hypocrisy. At the very time they were saying that young Australian men should be in Vietnam and were conscripting them to fight there against the downward thrust of Chinese communism, how sincere were they? At the very time they were saying that China was the enemy whom our men were fighting against, they were exporting Australian steel to China. They claimed we were fighting in Vietnam against China, yet their commercial considerations could not interfere with their patriotism; it was much more important to endorse the sale of steel to China-to the enemy-than to speak truthfully about the issue. That is point one in their hypocrisy. Let us get to the very depths of the hypocrisy of honourable members opposite. They were the people who sent young Australian men to Vietnam, to die and to be wounded. When the survivors returned from service in Vietnam-having gone there at the command and direction of honourable members opposite, under the total pretence and misrepresentation of the facts that honourable members opposite created-they asked for reasonable recompense and understanding of their condition created by their service in Vietnam. They wanted a royal commission into the conditions of their service and into what they and their wives and children may have suffered as a result of their having been sent to Vietnam. Would honourable members opposite meet their reasonable demands? No. Honourable members opposite conscripted young Australian men to die under false pretences. When the survivors came back and asked for nothing more excessive than a reasonable examination of what happened to them honourable members opposite refused. It was not until the Australian Labor Party came to government that we, as a government of principle, agreed to their request. Honourable members opposite expect to be taken seriously when one of them gets up and asks a question like that which I have just answered. They will be laughed out of court, as they should be. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Singapore, led by Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister of State for Home Affairs and Community Development. On behalf of the House, I extend to the delegation a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PRICE —I ask the Prime Minister: Is the Government satisfied that the assets test is not hurting ordinary Australians and others genuinely in need? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question and I can say unequivocally that the Government remains committed to the basic principle which underlies the introduction of the assets test, and that is that pensions in this country should not be directed to those not in need. I will not go into great detail, but I would have thought that the overwhelming majority of Australians would have found it obscene, as we did, that the people of Australia were actually paying a pension to an Australian who had two villas on the Mediterranean, that it was thought appropriate that a person who had so arranged his affairs as to have two assets on the Mediterranean should still receive a pension. I say quite clearly that we do not believe in that. It is the case that in introducing a change of these dimensions some problems have emerged. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I say to the honourable members in cockies corner that their formal extra-parliamentary organisation, the National Farmers Federation, supported the introduction of the assets test and applauded it. They should not sit on the Opposition benches and try to put a cloak of morality around themselves. The National Farmers Federation supported the test, but to its member's credit, being reasonable men, they came to us and said: 'We don't want the test abolished'-unlike the hypocrites opposite-'but it has come to our attention that there are some difficulties'. They were not asking for its abolition. I simply say that we are taking account of these difficulties, and I can assure this House that they will be remedied. Our principal approach in this matter stands in contrast to the cynical, opportunistic approach of the Leader of the Opposition. His pathetic efforts yesterday to secure not the amendment but the abolition of the test marked his final, pitiful retreat from his principled position of 1981 when, I remind the House, he said that he supported-- Mr Hodgman —Why do you hate the pensioners? Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite do not wish to hear this, but they will hear it. In 1981 the Leader of the Opposition said that he supported Budget measures which 'avoided the situation where those who don't need government assistance are given help at the expense of those who do'. Could we have anything more unqualified than that statement by the Leader of the Opposition? Very significantly, today's Melbourne Sun reveals it all, because it tells us that the Opposition Leader's pursuit of the course he took yesterday to try to get the abolition of the means test-a course which, I may say, has been conceded by his colleagues to have been a miserable failure-was pursued against the advice of his Deputy Leader. Mr Howard —Nonsense. Mr HAWKE —I hope the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not let us down now because I am going to give him some praise. We all recall that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition remained a consistent supporter of the needs-based approach to welfare. I will take one of his several quotes. Even as late as 27 November 1983, what did he have to say? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, a consistent supporter of the assets test principle, said: I'm personally in favour of a needs approach to the payment of welfare. He went on to say: I have been for some time and I don't walk away from that. Obviously, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is still not walking away from that position of principle. He is trying his best, among this sea of cynicism, to stick to his principles. Whatever the facade may be that the Opposition is putting up on the rift that exists within its ranks, the simple fact is that the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy are at odds. We have the situation where the Leader of the Opposition himself has decided to lead in matters economic. Is that not incredible? The Leader of the Opposition is going to lead in matters economic. It is hard to believe, but he is going to. I ask the House rhetorically: What was the sin of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he should suffer this disgrace? He did two things. Firstly he has been prepared to impose upon himself some limits to cynicism and political opportunism. But, even worse, his major sin is that at times he has been prepared to congratulate the Government on economic decisions which it has taken. That is a sin which cannot be countenanced by his colleagues. Politics is a tough business and one hopes at times for a bit of luck. But not even I could have hoped for as much luck as this. Despite the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went through a period of discreditation, at least it is acknowledged that he knows something about the subject. But he is to be pushed aside and replaced by a man who is barely numerate, an exposition of whose knowledge in matters economic would impose no severe strains upon the back of a postage stamp. The sound we can hear in the background is the sound of the business community laughing. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the studies conducted under the Orani model at Melbourne University which show that a rise in indirect tax will mean a decline in real gross domestic product of more than 3 per cent? What are the implications for welfare beneficiaries? Is his concern for these beneficiaries the sole basis of his opposition to a broadly based indirect tax? Mr HOWE —I can understand why the honourable member is not asking any more questions about the assets test. He has done so on three or four occasions and neither he nor the Opposition has made any progress. Essentially, they have made no progress because they are not prepared to debate within their parties serious issues and to develop serious policy positions. That has been remarkably evident in successive days in debate on the assets test. The assets test is about the achievement of a fair distribution of very limited resources. Mr Braithwaite —I take a point of order, Madam Acting Speaker. I did not ask about the assets test. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister is answering the question. Mr HOWE —In government, hard decisions are necessary. The difference between the Government Party and the Opposition parties is that, when we face difficult decisions, we allow open, democratic and serious debate within our party room and within the community. The issues of taxation and taxation reform raises quite fundamental questions not only for the future of taxation and the distribution of wealth but also for social security beneficiaries for a very long time in the future. It is true that I have made various remarks in terms of that debate. But the fundamental point that I made in my speech last Sunday is that it is not a case of one particular measure being important when one addresses the relationship between taxation and social security; it is the fundamental direction, the question of redistribution overall, the question of gains and benefits not in relation to any particular measure but to the overall result that is achieved. That is an extraordinarily difficult issue which the Government faces. The Government is doing so in a way that I believe is responsible and extraordinarily open. I wonder why it is that the Opposition appears to be too scared to expose its arguments within the context of the taxation summit. Mr HUMPHREYS —Will the Minister for Communications inform the House what powers are available to him under section 8 of the Postal Services Act in respect of mail bans currently affecting postal services into Queensland. Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Griffith for his question. As honourable members are probably aware, this morning in this place the Leader of the National Party of Australia demanded that I issue a direction under section 8 of the Postal Services Act requiring the Australian Postal Commission to perform functions specified in section 7 of the Act. The Leader of the National Party suggested that the failure of the Government today to indicate that it would take that step would show that the Government was unwilling to take what was a legally available option to bring that dispute to an end. Because of that suggestion, it is necessary to explain the position according to the advice currently available to me, which I think would have been to the knowledge of the Leader of the National Party in any event. The fact is that no direction can be given by me which interferes with the Commission's function of forming a subjective judgment which is antecedently connected with the exercise of a power or duty vested in the Commission. The duty cast on the Commission to make postal services available throughout Australia for all people who reasonably require those services is set out in legislation. It is dependent on the formation of a decision on the part of the Commission that it is, in its opinion, reasonably practical to perform that duty. Accordingly, as far as I can judge, the ministerial direction power is not available in respect of the part of section 7 to which the Leader of the National Party referred this morning. The interesting aspect of this is that I am in a position to inform the House in these terms because the Leader of the National Party, when he was the Minister for Communications, sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department on this very point and that advice forms the basis of the answer that I have given here today. As I said earlier, the Leader of the National Party knows, or ought to know, that the position that he was putting this morning in this place is not supported by legislation. In fact it is illuminating to see how the Leader of the National Party performed during the unprecedented industrial turmoil which destroyed communications services during his period as Minister. Mr Sinclair —Precisely. Now tell me. Mr DUFFY —The right honourable member can interject. But, if he had spent more time attending to the matters of Australia Post than he spent arranging for telephone services to be connected for his relatives on Lord Howe Island, Australia Post would be in a much better position than it is now. The memorable period of industrial relations under the then Minister was in 1981-82. I will tell honourable members what happened. Australia Post lost 323,000 work hours because of industrial disputation. It was the worst record in the history of Australia Post. At that time the Leader of the National Party was the Minister. We saw the way he carried on in here this morning. I will refer to the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 December 1981, when he was the Minister. What was the front page headline? It was 'Communications chaos'. That shows his performance. The very next day the headline was 'Mail walkouts block pensions'. That is not a bad record at this stage. These headlines followed: 'A million mail items pile up', 'long distance calls hit' and 'telex exchange sit-in goes on'. All that occurred during his period as Minister. But did he issue a direction under section 8? No, he did not, for the reasons that I outlined earlier. One of the few sensible things that I can find that he did say with regard to a Telecom dispute is reported as follows in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 December 1981: . . . the Government supported the idea of another hearing in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is a strange sort of situation but it seemed fairly sensible to the right honourable gentleman, who had the gall to come into this chamber this morning and put on a theatrical performance. Finally, the current position is that the section 25 notification of the dispute lodged by Australia Post on 7 May has been listed for hearing before Commissioner Grimshaw of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 10 May 1985 at 10 a.m. Mr Cadman —Madam Acting Speaker, the Minister read from a number of documents. I require him to table them. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Are the Minister's documents of a confidential nature? Mr Duffy —No, Madam Deputy Speaker. They are my written-over notes which the Opposition is welcome to have if it wants them. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Notes do not have to be tabled. Mr Cadman —Madam Acting Speaker, the Minister said that he would table them. Will he table them please? Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister does not have to table them. He may table them if he so wishes. Mr Cadman —He offered to table them. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! He may table them if he so wishes. If he wishes to, he may do so. Mr Cadman —He will not table them; it is obvious. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The Minister is under no requirement to do so but if he desires to do so he may do so. Mr Duffy —Madam Acting Speaker, on the point of order, I indicated that I was referring to my notes which are written on. I said that, if the Leader of the National Party wants to have a look at them later, I will be quite happy to give them to him. Mr WEBSTER —Does the Minister for Social Security stand by his statement made to the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service on 20 March that the imposition of a consumption tax 'could very well trigger a financial crisis in Australia's low income household'? Does this include welfare beneficiaries? Does the Minister agree with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that compensation for the imposition of such a tax would be just about administratively impossible? Mr HOWE —I do not have a great deal to add to what I said in relation to the previous question. Quite clearly, any form of tax depends on the circumstances, the rates and the whole range of factors with which it is introduced. It is true that I have been concerned about the question of compensation in relation to an indirect tax, it would be very surprising if a responsible Labor government did not concern itself with that question. Whatever aspect of taxation change occurs will have implications for a whole range of people, which is why the Government has been very concerned, in terms of the preparation for the possibility of changes in taxation, to ensure that all the arguments and implications are examined and that the various interests that will be principally concerned with any tax change are not only properly consulted but also have the opportunity, within the context of a tax summit, to address their arguments with respect to information provided by the Government in the form of a White Paper. If the Opposition looks back at its record in government with respect to tax I think it will see that that Government not only imposed a massive increase on indirect taxation, in particular in the oil levy, but also showed no concern to look at the compensation question and all the implications for the lower income sections within the Australian community. That is not the way that we go about government. We go about it on the basis of putting the cards on the table, allowing people to see the information and make their own assessment and their own judgments. I believe that many people on the opposite side of the House will be involved in a fairly keen debate when that information is available. It is unfortunate that they do not have the guts to turn up at the summit and put their argument there. Mr LAMB —Is the Minister for Health aware that blood glucose meters, costing around $200 each, are now in widespread use for the monitoring of blood sugar level in diabetics and are considered essential by many medical specialists in the treatment of diabetic patients? Can the Minister inform the House why no private health insurance benefits tables in Victoria provide any cover for the acquisition of these meters, yet cover is available in the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales? In particular, why does Medibank Private not provide in Victoria cover similar to that which it provides in other States? Will the Minister take this up with Medibank? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the widespread use of blood glucose machines for monitoring the blood sugar content of diabetics and I recognise that a high cost is involved in their use. I have to point out that it is up to individual funds in each State to determine what benefits they will make available on their ancillary tables. These are the tables which, in some States, cover such items as these glucose machines. The funds necessarily limit the number of items they cover in order to keep the costs of those contribution rates down as much as possible. Insofar as Medibank Private is concerned, each State Medibank Private determines its own range of items that will be covered by ancillary benefits on the basis of the community demand and the range of items offered by its competitors. So we have a somewhat different situation in each State. However, Medibank Private carries out regular reviews of its ancillary benefits. I have asked the General Manager of Medibank Private as a matter of urgency to arrange for the Victorian State executive of that fund to have an immediate discussion with the Victorian diabetics association on the need and the possibility of having these meters included on its ancillary tables. I urge the other private health funds in Victoria to take the same action. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Treasurer to the comments made by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions indicating the ACTU's present opposition to a broadly based indirect tax. I ask the Treasurer: Does the Prime Minister's seventh principle of tax reform mean that the Government will not proceed with the introduction of a broadly based indirect tax if such a tax is opposed by the ACTU? Mr KEATING —I did not hear precisely what the President of the ACTU said this morning on the radio. I think the intent of his remark was to indicate that there was no agreement between the Government and the ACTU on the nature of the tax mix that will apply after the tax summit in July this year. That is true; I am happy to confirm that. I am also happy to confirm what the Leader of the Opposition said in respect of the Prime Minister's principles outlined in the course of the election campaign. The whole point of the taxation summit is to try to arrive at some major consensus of view-in focusing on the same problems and the same data-on possible national solutions to the question of the Australian taxation system. Nevertheless, the question is interesting because it shows that the Leader of the Opposition is determined to be a negative influence on tax reform in this country. The matter of public importance which is listed for debate after Question Time today is the third or fourth such matter listed in the same terms designed only to be mischievous about the prospect of tax reform in this country. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy seek to pick the eyes out of tax reform and agree to the things that only they, with their own ideological obsessions, would be inclined to agree to. They ignore the fact that there may be a need to bring a package to the table and simply hammer a case for the things which they prefer. My colleague, the Minister for Social Security, has already indicated the unwillingness of the Leader of the Opposition, his Deputy and his Party to be represented at the national taxation summit. They are determined to be anything other than constructive on the question of taxation. The whole point of the question is not to help the process of reform, which they showed themselves incapable of doing, which they had no guts to do, it is only designed to cause trouble. I make this point: At least this Government has a framework to discuss not only the broad thrust of economic policy, but also taxation policy within the framework of the prices and incomes accord. The relationship which the Government enjoys with the Australian Council of Trade Unions is such that this sort of an issue can be discussed. That is not a framework which the former Government ever wanted to establish. In fact, it attacked the ACTU as virulently and as often as possible. We will leave it to the Australian people to make a judgment over time about who will deliver on tax reform in this country, who has been constructive and who has been opportunist. I will be very surprised at the end of the section if the Leader of the Opposition does not end up being as opportunistic on tax reform as he has been on the assets test. Mr KEOGH —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House what are the prospects for resolution of the current electricity dispute in Queensland? Mr WILLIS —The industrial situation in Queensland that has led to widespread industrial action is a matter of great concern to this Government and we certainly want to do everything we can to bring that industrial action to an end and to bring a resolution to the basic issue in this dispute. In that regard it is recognised by everyone that one of the great achievements of this Government in its period of office has been that we have been unable to reduce the level of industrial disputation in this country to the lowest level in 17 years. That record is being somewhat upset at the moment by this action in Queensland which is substantially outside our control. The developments in Queensland are of concern to us not only because of the industrial disputation which is now occurring as a result of it, but also because of the prime nature of that dispute involving a great infringement on the democratic rights of the people of Queensland. We are concerned to bring this matter to a resolution and are working assiduously to bring that about. I must say that it appears that there is no desire on the part of the Queensland Government to bring this dispute to an end and to bring an end to the industrial situation which is now occurring. I think there would be no real concern by the Opposition in this House either; it supports unqualifiedly the position of the Queensland Government. The position of the Queensland Government was revealed to everyone this morning on the AM program when the Premier of Queensland was interviewed about this dispute. He was asked: 'Will the Government negotiate at any time on this issue?' He said: 'No, we won't negotiate on it'. Then the questioner said: 'I suppose there is some feeling that perhaps your interest in bringing the Hawke Government down might be above your interest in resolving this dispute'. The Premier replied: 'Well, my main objective is to get rid of the Hawke Government. That is the main, prime objective'. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr WILLIS —Opposition members are all saying: 'Hear, hear!' It is very interesting that they are all saying that. The Premier of Queensland was saying that he was not prepared to resolve this dispute. That was not his main concern; his main concern was to bring this Government down. In other words, this whole business is being played for political mileage and not to resolve an industrial situation which is inconveniencing not only the people of Queensland but having an impact on the whole of the country. Members of the Opposition say, 'hear, hear'. They say that the Premier should be out there playing politics, that he should be out there trying to exacerbate industrial action and industrial disputation. When honourable members say, 'hear, hear' they support that. We are very interested to note their reaction. They are not really concerned about resolving this industrial dispute, they are concerned- like the Premier of Queensland to whom they give unqualified support-to make political mileage out of what is going on. They support entirely his refusal to negotiate despite the fact that leaders of business, such as Mr Williams, who is the head of the Confederation of Australian Industry, say that negotiation is the only way to settle this dispute. The Premier of Queensland says no to that for political reasons and members of the Opposition say, 'hear, hear'. They are revealed for what they are on this matter absolute charlatans with no real concern about resolving this industrial matter, but rather seeking to make political mileage out of it. On the other hand, at least this Government is working assiduously to try to resolve this industrial situation and to resolve the underlying dispute. I am not at liberty at present to reveal exactly what we are doing. The course of action that we have embarked on will, I believe, provide very good prospects of a resolution of the industrial action and a resolution of the underlying dispute within the next few days. I cannot be absolutely certain that that will be the case, but I have good reason to think that we will be able to bring that situation about. It is nonsense to argue, as the Leader of the Opposition and others have argued, that this Government is not undertaking any action at present. We are doing everything in our power to try to bring the underlying dispute to a point of resolution and to stop the industrial action that is going on; unlike members of the Opposition, who are not concerned about the situation at all but concerned about only the political mileage they can get out of it. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I understand the honourable member for Kingston intends to lodge a request for detailed information relating to the administration of the parliamentary departments? Mr Bilney —That is so, Madam Acting Speaker. I seek information in relation to the operation of the parliamentary departments. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to hand his request to the Clerk. If the request is in order, it will be printed in today's Hansard. In due course I will provide a written answer which will also be printed in Hansard. Mr McVEIGH(Groom) —Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr McVEIGH —Yes. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr McVEIGH —On page 1734 of Hansard, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in answering a question on the film industry, is recorded as follows: I would like to go to Cannes, but the Prime Minister thought that I was needed more here. My predecessor went. I advise the House that I have never been to Cannes and obviously could not have gone there. Mr Cohen(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Madam Acting Speaker, I was referring to the honourable member's predecessor, Mr Ellicott. I just could not imagine the honourable member in Cannes. He could go blind in a week. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —I do. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The right honourable member may proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —During Question Time the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) got his act wrong on a series of counts. Firstly, as we all know he was gagged this morning by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and consequently could not do as he alleged I suggested; that is, make a statement with respect to the direction making power within the Postal Services Act. I asked that he make a statement to the House about issuing a direction- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Will the right honourable member get on with the personal explanation. Mr SINCLAIR —I am, Madam Acting Speaker. That happens to be the first point. He said that I said he should issue a direction. I asked that he make a statement regarding the issuing of a direction. So, the first matter on which I was misrepresented was that, apart from the fact that he was gagged, he did not make that statement, and I believe that he should have. The second matter is that in the course of the Minister's remarks he referred to industrial disputation within Australia Post and Telecom Australia while I was Minister for Communications. It is of interest that during that period we took steps to replace the Redfern Mail Exchange and as a result the new Rushcutter facility has been opened recently. That has resolved much of the industrial trouble within Australia Post. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman is not showing the House how he has been personally mis- represented. Mr SINCLAIR —I was misrepresented because the Minister alleged that in some way I had accepted industrial disputation within Australia Post, as a result of which I did not issue a direction. I am explaining to the House what I did instead of issuing a direction. We introduced the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, which enabled us to stand down public servants who did not fulfil their obligations to provide those services which they were employed to provide. That legislation has been revoked by this Government. Were it in place now, it would enable the mails to be delivered. The third area in which I have been mis- represented- Mr Simmons —Madam Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 64, which clearly states that in the making of a personal explanation such matters may not be debated. I suggest that the Leader of the National Party is seeking to debate the matter. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The Chair is aware of the standing order. I ask the Leader of the National Party to be relevant to the matters in respect of which he claims to have been personally misrepresented. Mr SINCLAIR —The third reason why a direction was not issued under section 8 of the Postal Services Act was that at that time we called on private contractors to deliver the mail. That is exactly the course that should be followed by the Government at the present time. I recommend it to the Minister for immediate implementation. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule showing Government responses to House of Representatives and joint committee reports for the period 1 April 1984 to 23 April 1985. Copies are being made available to honourable members. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report on the forward estimates of Budget outlays and staffing for the period 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present a report by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Mr H. R. Hudson, on the review of the structure of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and arrangement for co-ordination and consultation with States and institutions. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present a document entitled 'Memorandum of Understanding on Logistic Support between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present details of special purpose flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 January 1984 to 31 December 1984. Limited copies of the document are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Parliamentary Library. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —by leave-I am delighted to announce the Government's decision to select the design of Australian Shipbuilding Industries, of Jervoise Bay, Western Australia, for the construction of the boats to be acquired under the Pacific patrol boat project. The successful design-known as the ASI315-is for a 31.5-metre, 165-tonne vessel. The ASI company has succeeded against competition from 12 other designs submitted by 10 companies from Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. The ASI design is based on a requirement, prepared after consultation with participating countries, to take account of characteristics most important in the envisaged roles-including range, speed and accommodation. The Government's decision is the culmination of a process which began in late August 1983 when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), with the support of Pacific leaders, announced the project at the Canberra meeting of the South Pacific Forum. I have already informed Ministers of participating countries of the Government's selection. Five countries-Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga and Western Samoa-have already indicated an intention to take part in the project and the Government is examining options available to assist other countries in the region with maritime surveillance. I should like to remind honourable members of our purpose in pursuing this project, as part of the Australian defence co-operation program with regional countries. Primarily, the Pacific patrol boat project is intended to provide Pacific Forum states with an effective means of surveillance and enforcement in their maritime exclusive economic zones. For many countries in the region, fisheries are a major resource. The Pacific patrol boat will contribute to the deterrence of illegal fishing and to the monitoring of the activities of licensed operations. The boats can also be used for a range of other tasks, including police work, immigration, quarantine, and search and rescue. Australian and regional countries' strategic interests are complementary. The Pacific patrol boat project supports common defence interests and common resolve to maintain a secure and stable environment in the region. The Pacific patrol boat project will assist with the establishment, or further development, of regional naval capabilities to support national security concerns, and the creation of a regional maritime support infrastructure. We also hope that the project will further encourage co-operation between countries of the region, particularly in surveillance of their often adjacent maritime resource zones. These things are of value to the countries concerned and they are of value to Australia. As maritime capabilities are introduced or expanded in regional countries, they will provide potential for direct and continuous linkage with Royal Australian Navy operations in the region and the Royal Australian Air Force P3 Orion surveillance flights that now take place on a regular basis. The single, standard design approach provides benefits of commonality of support and maintenance in the region and economies of scale. On the Australian side, the contract with ASI will include design and construction of patrol boats, with an initial two years support package and operational and technical training. The RAN will provide training and, as necessary, long term advisory assistance in country, as well as operationally managing the project. We are also discussing with the New Zealand Ministry of Defence how we might take up its offer to assist with the project. For their part, participating countries will be providing the necessary national infrastructure to support the boat, such as wharves, workshops and operational headquarters and national surveillance administrative systems to permit effective use of the vessel. They will also pay all operating and support costs for the vessel. The project should provide work in Australian industry for about 60 people for about four years and give ASI a strong basis for winning additional sales in Australia and overseas. The final cost of this multi-million dollar project will be determined in negotiations with ASI. Current financial planning is based on the expectation of building up to 10 boats. Prior to the completion of negotiations with the company, my officials will visit participating countries to provide details of the ASI design and why it was selected, and to discuss the work the countries are doing to develop support facilities and command and control arrangements so as to make effective use of the boats when delivered. I congratulate the ASI company on its outstanding response to the Pacific patrol boat tender and I congratulate RAN and departmental officials on their diligence and efficiency in evaluating all responses and preparing recommendations for Government. The ASI315 design is longer, larger and more spacious than that of the next ranked tenderer. Its hull is more easily repairable and its seakeeping and survivability capabilities are assessed as being better, particularly in extreme sea states and winds. The ASI project also has a $5m advantage on price over that of that tenderer on the cost of 10 boats. I also congratulate the other tenderers. Many of the submissions were for excellent vessels. Some exhibited a high degree of expertise indeed and would have provided a satisfactory vessel. The Government commends the project to the House as a most appropriate use of defence resources to assist regional countries in developing capabilities to protect their sovereign rights, to support major Australian defence interests in the region and to provide Australian industry with an opportunity to participate in the largest and most complex project ever attempted under the defence co-operation program. I am issuing a Press release today providing more details on the project. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-It was with some incredulity that I read this document and heard the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) make his statement, because there is another matter on which he gave a Press conference earlier today which is of at least as much interest to the community as this one. I notice that in this instance he has made the statement in the House and is issuing a draft Press release outside it. I believe it is totally inappropriate for major policy statements to be made outside the Parliament on matters relating to the acquisition of land in the Orange-Bathurst area for defence exercise purposes and for us not even to be extended the courtesy of having some comment on it in the Parliament. Mr Beazley —Ask me a question. Mr SINCLAIR —As the Minister knows, it is appropriate for him to make policy statements in the House. The practice of this place has always been for statements on matters of high policy content to be made in this place and not for a Press statement to be issued outside, unless the Parliament is not sitting. The circumstances are that the Minister thinks he will get a few brownie points on this statement whereas on the other statement he knows he will not. He knows he has got himself in a position where the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said one thing and he is doing another. It is a difficult issue and it is one that should be debated. This statement relates to progress with the Pacific patrol boat project. It is regrettable that the Minister has in no way analysed in this statement the circumstances of the retention of the Attack class patrol boats in the Royal Australian Navy. As all honourable members would know, a number of these boats have been made available to countries in our region. I understand that there they have operated satisfactorily. They have been refurbished within Australian shipyards. In the Royal Australian Navy they have been replaced with a upgraded patrol boat, which is the general class patrol boat now in service with the RAN. The Attack class boats, however, have generally proved not to be satisfactory in the deeper waters and where high sea states are possible around the Australian coastline. I believe that before this statement was concluded it would have been appropriate for the Minister to tell us what his intentions are with the balance of the Attack class patrol boats. I think there are four or five remaining in service. Undertakings have been given by the Prime Minister about further patrol boat orders with North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd in Cairns. I believe that honourable members in this place would like to know whether those Attack class boats are to be taken out of service and whether further Fremantle class patrol boats are to be built and tenders are to be called for them. I would have thought that would have been phase one of any statement to be made in this House regarding patrol boats. The second matter that I believe should have been discussed in this statement but which regrettably is not is that of coastal patrol generally and the extent to which these new patrol boats are intended for use within Australian waters to supplement facilities already available in the RAN. I point out to the Minister that many State patrol boats-fishing boats and whatever-operate in closer waters. I would have hoped that in considering a boat-something which, in general terms, as I will explain in a moment, I support-we would look towards Australian orders as well and, if the boats are not suitable for the RAN we would see whether they might be able to fit into some of the requirements for coastal surveillance which, as all honourable members know, is a very important present duty of the patrol boat elements within the RAN, taking up a good deal of their operational time. They do an excellent job, but perhaps instead of replacing the Attack class boats with more Fremantle class boats we might introduce some of these new Pacific class patrol boats, the ASI315s. In that way we might be able to conserve our assets. The third area I wish to comment upon is within the general category of the ASI315, about which this statement sets out the details. There are a number of elements in it that I think are commendable. There is no doubt that all of us support very much the design and construction of patrol boats in Australia. I hope that we also support the principle-we certainly do on this side-of co-operation with New Zealand and other countries in our region in the design and construction of defence facilities. As the Minister has explained, this project is within the defence co-operation program. That program does not, in our conception of it at least, amount only to the giving of physical aid; it involves trying to develop capabilities within our region to assist in the development of a defence capability against external aggression. One way by which this can be done is to ensure that in our region those countries that have a common defence interest-they include the Pacific islands, which are specifically mentioned, and the countries of South East Asia-can work together in procurement and the development of a design an manufacture capability. I believe that in this project's development many of those elements are present, and for that reason I believe it is very commendable that the project is being developed as it is. I notice that the Western Australian shipyard has been successful in gaining a tender. I congratulate Australian Shipbuilding Industries (W.A.) Pty Ltd on its success in this respect. I believe it to be a capable shipbuilding yard and its principals are to be commended, not only for their design ingenuity but also for their record. However, I put it to the Minister that there is a wider problem which needs to be taken in hand by the Government. It involves, of course, not only the Minister's responsibility but also that of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). I think we need to look at the shipbuilding yards around Australia to try to see whether a program of future shipbuilding intentions can be developed so that around our coastline we can try to preserve those existing shipbuilding capabilities. I believe it essential that we develop a shipbuilding capability in Western Australia and, as I have said, I congratulate the Australian Shipbuilding Industries company for its success in this project. However, I am concerned that the record of Australian shipbuilding has been a success only up to a certain point. We have had yards such as the Adelaide ship construction yard, which in the past did a great deal of excellent work in building earlier patrol and supply boats for oil fields, but which is now virtually out of business. The Whyalla shipyard is now out of business. Around Australia at the moment we have a few yards. I believe that governments of whatever complexion, would do well to try to take out, for example, the needs of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Antarctic research vessels to see whether we can try to program so that those yards that are in existence can continue, not only in the interests of those employed in the yards, who of course would benefit, but also to assist with the procurement requirement of the Australian defence forces. There is an enormous problem in the decline of capability generally in the manufacturing industries in Australia as far as the repair and maintenance of Australian defence equipment is concerned. I believe this statement today by the Minister addresses one area where some capabilities could be developed, and I hope they will be there for the future. But I commend to the Minister the idea of trying, in conjunction with his colleagues, to develop some type of schedule which might assist other shipyards which are functioning to try to retain their capability. This is a project which would certainly have the support of members of this side of the House. I repeat that in that respect I know that NQEA is getting to a very serious stage of its operations. I hope that in the Minister's examination of those facilities which might be possible within the funds available to him its needs can be taken into account. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —I have pleasure in tabling the 1983-84 annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the report. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —This is an attractive publication highlighting the research achievements of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and setting out its policies in some detail. CSIRO has been of invaluable service to the nation in the past in making a major contribution to the success of our primary industries, which are the very foundation of our economy. It now offers a powerful tool for the task of restructuring and revitalising our manufacturing industries, which is essential to our future prosperity. We now need to identify and breakdown the inhibiting factors which so far have held back the manufacturing and service sectors from taking advantage of the high levels of expertise available in CSIRO. The annual report shows that, in the four years from 1979 to 1983, the number of scientific staff within CSIRO engaged in research for manufacturing industry rose from 630 to 710, an increase of 12.5 per cent, that is to 28.5 per cent of the total research staff. This growth was achieved by CSIRO's realisation of the importance of the manufacturing sector, even before the change of government, and indicates a willingness to co-operate fully with this Government's program of revitalising industry. It is not widely appreciated that CSIRO has also already given substantial assistance to secondary industries. Without CSIRO's contributions over the past few years, the prospects for increasing our competiveness on the international market would be much bleaker than they now are because of the low level of private investment in research and development in this country. In this context I quote a comment of a recent Japanese visitor, an official from the Tsukuba Expo '85 who said: 'without CSIRO Australia would be a Third World country'. One example of CSIRO's role in boosting our technological capacity is the formation of the company Austek Microsystems Pty Ltd arising from CSIRO's very large scale integration program in Adelaide. Four years ago, we had no indigenous capability in integrated circuit design. Within two years, over 200 application-specific chips, that is, dedicated or 'custom' chips, had been designed by Australians through CSIRO adopting a central co-ordinating role for newly trained designers. Having established the mechanism to ensure Australian capability in integrated circuit design by early 1983, the VLSI program went on to concentrate on the design and construction of a '100 k' chip, that is, a chip with 100,000 components. The new developments were incorporated into CSIRO training courses, ensuring that Australian designs will continue to be competitive with the best available from Silicon Valley or anywhere else in the world. According to plan, the researchers then left CSIRO to set up their own company, Austek, to exploit the capability commercially. We are now seeing the beginning of a flourishing new industry in Australia. None of it could have happened without the CSIRO environment. It needs to be emphasised over and over again that in many divisions of CSIRO there have been dramatic changes in emphasis in the past five years. The world research is changing with unprecedented speed and CSIRO is changing with it. Biotechnology is a notable example. In 1980, CSIRO had 57 professionals in this area. By 1985 there are more than 200. Fifty-one per cent of those additional positions were found from redeployment of resources, 30 per cent from priority funding-areas designated by the executive in consultation with me-and 19 per cent from external funding. In the Division of Plant Industry as much as 65 per cent of additional positions have come from external funding. The number of professionals in Molecular Biology has doubled in five years. CSIRO is carrying out pioneering work on the chemical interaction between metals and ceramics, a field of increasing international interest and with close collaboration with industry. The work on partially stabilised zirconia is now being developed in the private sector and has created a high degree of interest in the United States and Japan. The annual report for 1983-84 details some of the actions taken by the CSIRO Executive to ensure that this kind of success is repeated. These include: The formation of a new commercial company, SIROTECH Ltd, to bring marketing and industrial expertise to bear on the problems of transferring CSIRO technology into industry and to communicate the real research needs of industry to CSIRO scientists; the implementation of new criteria for promotion of scientists, giving greater emphasis to research achievements of direct benefit to industry and the community; the establishment of a new policy on manufacturing industry research, emphasising the need for increased short-term tactical research to support CSIRO's main role of long term strategic research; the formation of a new Division of Information Technology to conduct research on the acquisition, storage, processing and dissemination of information by computer technology and other means for the benefit of industry and the community; the formation of a research unit to stimulate the development of a space-technology industry in Australia; and the encouragement of industry groups and individual firms in the manufacturing sector to communicate the strategic research needs of their industries. Discussions have taken place at top level with numerous companies, including members of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and of metal and chemical industries. Pressure is frequently brought to bear on the CSIRO executive for the Organisation's scientists to concentrate on the problems of the moment. Their response, quite rightly, is that CSIRO should be doing part of its work on short term tactical problems so that it can get to know industry and its needs, but that the majority of such problems should be tackled by industry itself. It is often insisted that CSIRO's research must be relevant, but relevance has a disconcerting habit of changing from year to year. The priorities of 1980 may look absurd by 1985. The proposition that in 1985 we could carry out only research which could be applied to 1985's industries is a guarantee of failure. When do we begin thinking about 1990? Must we wait for another five years? If we do, we will be doomed. There was a telling illustration of this point on 6 March, 1985 when Rod Carnegie assisted the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to launch SIROTECH Ltd, CSIRO's new technology transfer company. Rod Carnegie said that we must put more emphasis on relevant research, and the illustration he gave was biotechnology. But when did biotechnology jump the hurdle to become relevant? Very recently. Even two or three years ago biotechnology would have been regarded-although not by me-as a classic example of pure research, on the frontiers of knowledge. It is essential that industry lift its currently deplorable performance and make a serious effort in applied research. At the recent Venice Conference on Technological Innovation and Job Creation, President Reagan's science adviser, Dr Jaye Keyworth, said that between 1981 and 1985 administration expenditure on basic research had increased by 60 per cent. The Republicans reversed the Carter Administration's policy of increasing funding of applied research as a means of bailing out companies and now put the entire responsibility for this on industry. The percentage of expenditure by CSIRO in basic or fundamental research is difficult to estimate precisely. There is a considerable degree of overlap in many areas between fundamental and applied. I would define basic research as an inquiry into the way in which the universe and its systems work, without a product or practical application in mind. Strategic or mission-oriented research, such as the work on PSZ, involves fundamental research into physical properties, but with an end product-a new industrial material-in view. The best estimate is that 10 to 15 per cent of CSIRO's research expenditure is basic, or fundamental. CSIRO's main role is strategic-to lay the foundations for technologies and industries for the future. This kind of research is not aimed at solving the immediate problems of any one company. Instead, its aim is to come up with research results that will be profitable to a large number of Australian companies. Strategic research is appropriate for government-funded institutions because it is usually beyond the scope of any single company to perform. It is the sort of work government should be involved in and it is the sort of work CSIRO has been doing superbly. To be successful, it must be accompanied by a certain amount of fundamental research which has no apparent application to any existing industrial product or process. CSIRO research should continue to cover the whole spectrum, from the most fundamental to the most immediately technical, with the middle ground of strategic research being its speciality. I commend the CSIRO annual report to honourable members. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-This Labor Government has earned a great deal of controversial publicity for its handling of science and technology matters. This statement by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) fuels the controversy, because his is a brave statement and a correct one. Let us look at the record in summary. The Government took a vigorous public relations position to say that it would promote scientific endeavour in this country. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report demonstrates the ongoing strength and significance of the CSIRO. The Labor Government started its term in office with an integrated portfolio of Science and Technology, including the CSIRO. It appointed one of its most eloquent members to be the Minister for Science and Technology-eloquent but, unfortunately, lacking political clout in the Cabinet. Science seemed under this Government to have a rational policy future. The Minister has taken a great interest in CSIRO, and that is manifest in his statement today. The fact is that the statement is a statement in defence of CSIRO as much as it is an advocacy. It is not a defence against statements from this side of the House; it is a defence against attacks on CSIRO made by the Government leadership, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Senator Button. It is a defence which can only stand to the Minister's permanent credit, because the issues raised cut right across factional lines. Support for basic research funded by government and support for strategic research funded by government are fundamental to our economic future. I feel that support for the Minister's statement today and its implied rebuke to the Government will commend itself to the great majority of members of this House and the scientific community. For these reasons, the constructive treatment of science seemed earlier much better than in other areas, where the blood-letting and the battles between the factions reach fever pitch and provide the inside dopesters of the Australian Labor Party, the journalists and the National, which is a bitser television program, with a welter of political material feeding the fraternal warfare of the factions. We thought CSIRO and science would be free of strife, but unfortunately they are not, although it is a different sort of hassle. The Budget decisions of last year were plainly vindictive against CSIRO and against the Minister as punishment for some of his more frank admissions and some of the exaggerations which are the characteristics of his eloquence. The CSIRO budget was sliced by $9m. Then, when the Government was returned last year, we found the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, was given technology as part of the dismemberment process of the scientific area of government. No one denies that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has some very pressing problems which need technological support for their solution. Senator Button unfortunately sees technology as an instant product to be laid on. He does not see it as the end product of a process which will draw upon the reservoir of intellectual strength which a nation builds around basic research and the strength of well chosen project research strategically related to our long term industrial future; for example, new welding technology. The Minister for Science in his statement is properly eloquent on this point. The spin-off of skills from this fundamental world will become available for problem solving of short term problems, but the intellectual environment for short term problems does not have a life of its own. It is organic to the more basic outreach of intellectual effort. Thus, Senator Button, who has taken over the argument for the Government attack on CSIRO and university research, embraced a dangerous fallacy when he said: 'To endorse basic research, however, is not necessarily to say that it has to be at the same level as at present'. The fact is that basic research is not high. Its current rate is 10 per cent, and it may go up to 15 per cent, although there is some doubt about that. How can politicians step in and tell scientific bodies what basic scientific research is worth while and what is not? We have to create a reasonable environment for the leaders of the scientific community to do that. Governments can set guidelines for funds, and that is prudent, but for the Government to slash and cut in the best toe-cutting tradition of the Labor Party is not a process which commends itself to anyone, least of all the scientific community. Not only has Senator Button taken over from the Minister for Science the vital decision making power in the area of technology, but he has also set himself to warn the scientists of Australia that this Government thinks that too many of them are wasting their time. What is Senator Button's input into the current dispute now developing over a review of CSIRO? The basic issue is the effort of the Government to shift research effort from fundamental areas to problem solving for industry. There is an important connection and a need, but the Government needs to encourage industry to do more. That is the matter which should be in the Government's mind when it considers taxation reform. The system of licensing imported technology for manufacturers in Australia has a life of its own, independent of CSIRO and scientific policy. The remedy for building a better system of incentive for Australia to do more research and development lies squarely in Senator Button's hands. The patents and licence system can be greatly improved, but that is not a cause which grows out of CSIRO's functions, although it can be ably assisted by CSIRO as it stands ready to assist industry. The Minister rightly calls for industry to lift its game, but the administration of the Industry portfolio should give firm commitments now to the creation of a broad system of incentives, including tax relief, promised by the Prime Minister prior to the last election. As recently as last Tuesday, Senator Button was still unsure when the 150 per cent tax write-off would be introduced. He went further, proclaiming that the Government does not in general approve of these tax concessions. What hope then is there for the economic future of Australia through research with a Minister such as this? Whether such ambiguous statements are intended to pave the way for a backdown is unclear, but the situation certainly needs to be clarified. The Minister for Science understands these things, but the Prime Minister and Senator Button do not understand them. They prefer the Medicare approach of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett)-destroy before you create. That is the Prime Minister's approach in things he does not understand. The statement of the Minister for Science carves the message: 'No review of CSIRO is necessary'. One only has to look at the statement. The Minister said: CSIRO has been of invaluable service to the nation in the past in making a major contribution to the success of our primary industries, which is the very foundation of our economy. It now offers a powerful tool for the task of restructuring and revitalising our manufacturing industries, which is essential to our future prosperity. One could not get a more ringing endorsement of what CSIRO has done and what it is doing. Where is the argument for this review, which is now being undertaken against the advice of the Minister? Despite criticism, CSIRO has continued to get on with the job, including the vital job of servicing the needs of the manufacturing industry. The headlines in the Age of 7 May are not far off the mark: 'Review threat to CSIRO-Hawke, Jones clash over Probe on Government-funded studies'. I think there is proof enough of that in the Minister's statement today. He thinks the review is mistaken-if he does not, he certainly should. Of course, we are not really talking about studies; we are talking about a vital ingredient of Australia's economic future. That is what we are dealing with here. We do not think that the pressure of the Government's concern is well placed. The problem is not CSIRO, but a Government which cannot get its policy-making house in order. That is the point of real concern. That is why the scientists, so difficult to stir, as the Minister has found, came to Canberra a few weeks ago to warn Australia what was going wrong in this area-an unprecedented gathering of scientists saying that it is not good enough. The Government wants its mistaken attitudes to find the favour of a dim public memory. An inquiry is to proceed in its horse-drawn way, so that the Government's blunders can be buried in yet another report. The real inquiry required is an inquiry into the reasons why research and development has declined in the private sector. An inquiry into CSIRO is irrelevant to the national requirement. It is clear that Senator Button seeks to brutalise CSIRO's established priorities, which place emphasis on strategic research; that is, the creation of basic technologies to give Australia a sound technological leadership. The Government is diverting the energies of the leadership of CSIRO in a contest made equal only by the fortunate fact that there will be a considerable lapse of time which will allow the Government to rethink its basic hostility to science. If the portents are right-this is the most hopeful thing-a coalition government will be given the task of sifting through the debris from the inquiry, and a coalition government will give proper support to the CSIRO and science. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) the Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) the large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Hawker,Mr Lloyd,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the 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 Ruddock. 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 Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. 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 humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their effort to achieve a Nuclear-Free South Pacific and such declaration being endorsed by the people at a General Election. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the US Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of Zones of Peace and Nuclear-Free Zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Scott. 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 follows the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the house of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that they view with deep concern the desperate plight of famine victims caught in Eritrea and Tigre between the now-closed Sudanese border and the escalated bombing attacks of the Ethiopian government, and the undersigned citizens beg the Australian government with the utmost urgency to take all possible steps towards inducing the Ethiopian government to cease fire on refugees and to co-operate in facilitating aid deliveries, and the Sudanese government to re-open their border, and further that the Australian government allocate aid to the Sudan and increased aid through non-government channels to organisations engaged in relief operations in the northern regions above mentioned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not ''windfall gains'' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. 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. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography; 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications; 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board; 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse affect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a committment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. 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. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the introduction of the Federal Government's plan for the Dairy Industry will put thousands of Dairy farmers and even more people associated with the Dairy Industry out of work. Australian Dairy farmers, in particular Victorian and Tasmanian, are the most efficient in the world, the loss of such an efficient industry to the Australian economy would be devastating. The undersigned humbly petition the Federal Parliament to carry out an impact study with the Dairy Industry before any introduction of the proposed Dairy Industry Plan. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. 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 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 Maher. 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: (1) That it was announced in May 1982 that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission is to provide $2.7 million over the next three years to institutions in all mainland States and the ACT to specially fund the study of certain modern foreign languages. (2) That the study of the Lithuanian language was excluded from the said allocation. (3) That the Lithuanian community in Australia was led to believe that Lithuanian would be taught at at least one Australian university as a result of the findings of multicultural and migrant education published by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs in September 1980. (4) That Lithuanian is taught at secondary level in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and apart from its relevance to the present Lithuanian community is an extremely significant language in linguistic theory. (5) That Monash University in Victoria already has a teaching staff suitable for incorporation of a Lithuanian language department and already provides a course in Slavic and Baltic studies. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will make an immediate appropriation of funds to ensure the study of the Lithuanian language at one of the Australian universities, preferably Monash. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That it is proposed Australia Post's Post Office Agency on the corner of Green and London Streets, Joondanna, Western Australia will be closed down on 30 June, 1985. Your petitioners therefore pray that this Agency be kept operating for the benefit of the many people who avail themselves of its services and who appreciate the convenience of its location. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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 three 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 ''the 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 petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the undersigned, request that Anna Barbara Gatehouse from the United Kingdom be given permission to legally migrate to Australia as soon as possible. Anna Gatehouse has previously visited Australia for 18 months with a working holiday visa, she is presently in the country on a holiday visa. She is willing to return to the United Kingdom at the end of her visa and will apply for migration on her return to the U.K. It is the undersigned's wish that she be able to return to Australia as soon as her papers can be processed. Anna Gatehouse is a woman of good character and will be an ideal migrant as she will settle well in this country. Your petitioners humbly pray that: As present regulations do not cover this case, we ask that you accept Miss Anna Barbara Gatehouse as a migrant to Australia as soon as her application is submitted in London, England to Australia House Immigration Department. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the undersigned, request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the North-West Coast of Tasmania shows: 1. That a significant section of the local community is totally behind the establishment of a Christian broadcasting service in this region. In particular, this support is given to Christian FM broadcasters Tasmania inc. 2. That there is considerable concern at the long delay in the calling of licence applications, and, therefore, request the Minister for Communications to take positive action enabling Christian FM broadcasters to make application to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles. 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 on 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 sources 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of the division of Eden-Monaro shows: That we, the undersigned residents and property holders of Dr George Mountain and surrounds in the Parish of Tanja, Bega Valley Shire, object to the proposed siting of a Telecom tower on the mountain for all of the reasons referred to in the attached correspondence. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will be moved to direct those responsible to urgently consider the suitability of the suggested alternative site. by Mr Snow. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill 1985 Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1985 Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill 1985 Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1985 Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Bill 1985 Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1985 Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1985 Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1985 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1985 Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Bill 1985 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) — Madam Acting 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 continued confusion and chaos surrounding the Government's tax reform proposals. 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)(3.34) —I think I could begin today's debate in no more appropriate way than to say on behalf of the Opposition: 'Welcome back Cliff Dolan'. Over the last few months, for a combination of reasons-one of them ill health, about which we are very sorry, and we are pleased to note Mr Dolan's restoration to full health, together with visits overseas and the like-we have not heard a great deal from Cliff Dolan. But over the past 24 hours Cliff has really become the silent man, the sleeper of the great tax debate. Remember all those headlines last week? It was only a week ago, but a week really is a long time in politics, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has found out today. The headlines included: 'Optimism after tax talks', 'PM on tax: full speed ahead'. That was in the Sydney Morning Herald. The Australian Financial Review had 'Consumption tax now looks certain'. 'Government-ACTU near deal on taxes'. That was even better and that was in the Australian. 'Unions ready to give tax the nod' was in the Sydney Morning Herald. Look at that beautiful photograph of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer. Look what the caption says-'likely to make port safely after a dangerous spell at sea'. Finally, we have the marvellous headline which says 'Unions veer to new tax'. All that was while Cliff was away. He had left the shop to the ambitious Simon and the ever present Bill. They sat down and had a bit of a talk and true to form the Treasurer did not come out and say exactly what was discussed at that meeting. Remember the dictum of this Treasurer when it comes to discussions with his party colleagues. It was very well summed up at his Press conference after the granting of licences to 16 foreign banks. The Treasurer was rolling around congratulating himself on what a great fellow he had been in conning his mates into throwing away their historic opposition to foreign banks. This is a report of what the Treasurer had to say: Mr Keating went so far as to admit that the ALP conference resolution to issue only a ''limited number'' of (banking licences) was never intended to be honoured. Asked whether he had engaged in a ''ploy'', Mr Keating replied 'not so much a ploy, but one is not bound to be frank always'. It would appear that the Treasurer was less than frank when he was talking to Mr Crean and Mr Kelty and he was less than frank in the leaks that he authorised about those discussions. However, he has been caught out by Cliff Dolan. Cliff Dolan belongs to the old Labor school. I do not agree with his policies, I think they are out of date, but he is honest and he has been consistent. Cliff Dolan's only mistake in this whole debate is to believe that if the Labor Party says in an election campaign that it will do something or that it will not do something it means it. Throughout this whole debate the policy chameleons on taxation have been those who now sit on the Government front bench. They are the people who have bobbed and weaved, dodged and ducked from one position to another. Cliff Dolan has consistently maintained the historic Labor Party opposition to indirect tax. Why would he not do so? Why would he not maintain that historic Labor Party opposition to indirect tax? He was encouraged until very recently to believe that that was the policy supported by all leading members of the Australian Labor Party because year after year leading members of that Party have gone around Australia stirring up hysterical emotional opposition to a sensible change in our taxation system. If, as a result of that, the attempts of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister fail they will have only themselves to blame. They will not have us to blame because it is they who have gone around the country over the last few years stirring up, on a totally dishonest and irrational basis, opposition to a sensible change in our taxation system. Who could blame the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in the face of such a campaign, for saying: 'I believe this. I am a simple believer in the old Labor Party faith of opposition to indirect tax'? He heard the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) year after year when he was shadow Treasurer in the last Labor Opposition criticise indirect tax. The Minister said that my faith in indirect taxation was 'absolute nonsense'. The Minister said that indirect tax was regressive, highly inflationary, would exacerbate economic recession and would be a totally unsatisfactory means of dealing with taxation reform. Those are the unrepudiated words of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. That is not the end of the matter. At the National Press Club on 25 August 1982 the Minister said: We have indicated a general opposition to or dislike of increases in indirect taxes. He said again on 8 September 1982: Increases in indirect taxes are likely to reduce the equity of the tax system. They are not the words of Cliff Dolan on AM this morning, although they sound very like them: They are the words of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, spoken a bare two years ago. No wonder the President of the ACTU cannot quite kick the habit of being opposed to indirect taxation. His only crime is that he was converted to the cause. His only crime is that he believed that when an Australian Labor Party leader got up and said 'We are against a broadening of the taxation base' that would remain Labor Party policy. Of course, he did not count on the philosophical flexibility of the present Treasurer. He did not count on the policy chameleons of the present Government that now sit on the front bench. He did not count on their capacity to repudiate the things that he thought they believed in. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), that great friend of freedom of choice in the Australian education system and that great friend of all sorts of other causes in the Australian education system, said that indirect taxation was iniquitous, that it was inflationary, that it could not be justified in any economic or social way and that the range of people affected by it would be enormous. One could almost imagine that we were hearing the words of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). So it goes on. The then Leader Opposition, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), said: . . . I intend to strongly oppose what I regard as the misguided proposition that Australia should be moving towards a greater reliance on indirect taxation. That was said in November 1982. If we go back over the last five years we finds that virtually every prominent ALP spokesman had something to say in opposition to indirect taxation. Is it therefore any wonder that Cliff Dolan should state the attitude that he stated on AM this morning? It is a wrong attitude. It is an attitude that I have always repudiated. It is an attitude that the Opposition repudiated in the last election campaign. It is an attitude that is out of date but at least Cliff Dolan, unlike his colleagues, is showing a germ of consistency on this matter. If any people are to blame for Cliff Dolan espousing that view, and if any group of people is to blame for the difficulties that now exist in persuading the Australian community and the trade union movement of the desirability of changing our taxation system, it is the very people who are now trying to undertake that persuasion. They are the people who, year after year, fed the lie to the Australian people that some kind of indirect taxation system was wrong, inequitable and nasty. They are the people-the present Treasurer is one of them; the Prime Minister is one of them; the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is one of them-who, when we in the former Government were talking about changing the taxation system, went around the countryside stirring up every kind of emotional hostility. Yesterday in the Parliament the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) pointed his finger at us and said: 'There are difficult choices that have to be made in Australia and everybody has to behave responsibly'. Government members did not behave responsibly when they were in Opposition. They did not give a darn about the need to bring about a change to our taxation system. They were interested simply in a short term political expedient. It is now coming back to bite them, because some of the people they were talking to listened to them. Many of the people they were talking to in the trade union movement listened to them. On the AM program this morning, Cliff Dolan was asked about the discussion between the Treasurer and the ACTU. What did he say? He said that the Treasurer either was lying or did not understand. That is what the President of the ACTU said when he spoke on AM this morning. He said that the Treasurer was either telling a lie or could not understand the plain, ordinary meaning of the English language. I do not mind which charge the Treasurer pleads guilty to. It has to be one of them. What did we hear from him today? What did we hear from the lamb today? He said: 'Well, you know, there really isn't any agreement between us'. I notice the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) grinning and nodding in approval of that. There is no agreement between the ACTU and the Government on taxation reform. The Treasurer went one step further and said: 'Not only is there no agreement; but if we can't get the ACTU to come to the party it's not on'. That is what the Treasurer said. Yet last week he was the greatest fellow in the world. We read all those beautiful headlines about how he had broken through and the armies of opposition were in retreat. He did not count on General Dolan, who was called back in to service. What did he say? He said: 'Look, Paul, it's not on, mate. It's not our policy'. So the General came back and the whole issue is now back in the melting pot. There's no one happier, of course, than the good old honourable member for Melbourne. He has been consistently wrong on the question of taxation reform, but at least he has been consistent as, indeed, has the President of the ACTU. There can be no clearer difference on a matter of principle than that which exists on this issue between the Government and the Opposition. The coalition was the only group of parties in the last election that had the honesty to say what we would do in regard to taxation. We went to the people and we said: 'We have a tax policy'. We said that first and foremost that it must be based on the proposition that unless spending is reduced overall taxation cannot be reduced. This present Treasurer has produced the biggest taxing and the biggest spending Budget since Federation. This Treasurer has increased spending at three times the rate at which it rose under the Fraser Government. This Treasurer has had some forward estimates dragged out of him today. Do honourable members remember the forward estimates of two years ago? They were sacrosanct. They were holy writ. Everything that was stated in them was right. A year later they were illusionary and a bit shonkey. A year later still the Treasurer did not even want to let them see the light of day until he was forced to do so by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. We have to reduce spending if we are to improve the taxation system. We said we favoured a broad-based consumption tax. We made that perfectly clear during the election campaign. We were candid, we were frank about it; unlike the Treasurer, who was devious and deceitful about it. On 28 November 1984 the Treasurer appeared in a debate with me on The World Today. I ask honourable members to listen very carefully to what he said. I bet Cliff Dolan heard it and that is why he has gone a bit sour on the Treasurer. He said: The only people promising a broadly based consumption tax in this election is the Coalition parties under Mr Howard. Let me make this quite clear. We've got no plans for any new taxes, we are not campaigning in this election on any new taxes. Those were the words of the Treasurer during the election campaign. They were worth as much and were as honest and as candid as the words he used at the opening of the ALP campaign in Dundas on 7 November. Those words have an ironic sweetness in view of what is to come on Tuesday night. He said: I have completely ruled out any mini-budget next year. Those were the words of the Treasurer when he opened the ALP campaign. No wonder Cliff Dolan does not trust him. Good old honest Cliff might be wrong, but he sticks to his principles. I heard him say many times before the election: 'We're in favour of capital gains tax. We're in favour of wealth taxes. We're in favour of death duties. We're dead unimpressed with indirect taxes'. That has been Cliff Dolan's position all along. The difference in policy between us and the Government could not be clearer. We have a policy. We support a broadening of the tax base and a lowering of personal tax. We support income splitting. We will have none of this radical feminist claptrap from people such as the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who want to discriminate against single income families. We will have none of that kind of inequity. We believe in the introduction of tax deductions for child care expenses to facilitate choice and, of course, we are unalterably opposed to capital gains taxes, death duties and gift duties. That is a coherent package. We were candid enough. We had the guts to put it to the Australian people at the last election. We won marks, we won seats, we won votes because we put it forward. By comparison this Treasurer and his Prime Minister ducked for cover. They deceived, they fibbed, they dissembled, and it is now coming back to haunt them. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.49) -I was amused to hear the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), refer to lambs. Yesterday, the Sydney Morning Herald had a front page headline claiming that it had the Government's tax package. Yet we had not one question from the person in the Opposition responsible for taxation the honourable member for Bennelong. As I walked by the table at Question Time, he said: 'What about Ross Gittins?' He did not have the guts to get up and ask a question. Today, at the end of Question Time, he said to the Prime Minister: 'I've got a harder question for you'. We know that as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he could have had that question placed first or second on the list today, but he did not. Why was this so? It is all revealed in the Bulletin in an article entitled: 'Why Peacock has isolated Howard'. There is reference to his questions. This was not by sudden chance or indolence. The article states: Peacock is sitting on Howard, as firmly and discreetly as he can. Yet in the honourable member for Bennelong came today. He was unable to ask a question yesterday and unable to do so again today. The lame duck waddles into the House to put up the third proposition, in the same terms, that he has put up in the last two months. We find now that he is relying upon Cliff Dolan and is taking his name in vain-as though Cliff Dolan would have anything in common with the honourable member! But, of course, this is the person who, at the first whiff of grapeshot on tax reform, went straight into the bunker. The great coward of the Australian tax debate, the honourable member for Bennelong, the spruce goose of the Australian tax debate, was all revved up but could not get off the ground. For years he told us how he would reform the tax system. A couple of weeks ago I got a request from him for access to his papers when he was Treasurer. He asked for material about sales taxes and retail taxes. We find that he has given that material to Laurie Oakes. An article in the Bulletin this week states: How John Howard did the spadework for the sales tax. This is how desperate he is to get his name on the maker's label. I will tell honourable members what he did. He made tax reform in this country so hard by putting up propositions and then having them shot down and dragged into disrepute. He did the spadework all right. He dug a great big hole for everybody who was serious about tax reform in this country. He did so through his cowardice in raising the issues and then ducking into the bunker the moment that the first whiff of grapeshot came by him. He should not talk about his having any credentials on tax reform. He never at any stage attempted to get tax reform. The first no he got from Malcolm Fraser was the final no. He got back into his hole in the way that he is in his hole now under the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Good on the Leader of the Opposition, if he can keep on top of the honourable member. That is where the Leader of the Opposition ought to keep him. The honourable member for Bennelong was suggesting that he had something sensible to say about tax reform. All that can be guaranteed from the coalition with relation to tax reform is that the coalition is determined to be a negative influence. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said: 'We will pass this Government's tax package no matter that we may be opposed to measures in it'. He said that. I understood what he said. He was saying: 'The Government has a mandate for it. The Government campaigned on it. The Government said that it would have a tax summit and that it would review the tax system. It has a mandate for its changes' by implication, he said 'I am prepared to give the Government its changes and take my chances in the electoral market place at the next election' I respect that view. If he thinks he can beat us on our tax reform measures, that is fine. But for how long was he allowed to stand by the statement that he would pass a capital gains tax if it were part of the Government's program or that he would pass a broadly based consumption tax or any other changes to the income tax base? For how long was he able to stand by that statement? He was nobbled within three days. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent three days persecuting him within his own Party and then, at the Thredbo meeting, the Leader of the Opposition was forced to back off from his statement of principle that he would allow the Government to pass the package for which it had an electoral mandate. That is where the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his Party stand on tax reform. They will pick the eyes out of any Government reform package. They will support the things in which they can find comfort-the things about which they are ideologically obsessed-but they will do nothing but that. They will oppose everything else. As with the assets test, they believe in means tested welfare but do not agree with the assets test that we have. The same sort of double standard and hypocrisy that we have seen with the assets test we will see with relation to tax reform. That will extend even to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition trying to derail any process which the Government has under way in terms of tax reform. I do not mind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition making the stupid point that I am supposed to have said last Friday that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government are in perfect agreement on tax reform. I never said such a thing or intimated such a thing. The fact that some journalist on AM cannot get the information straight does not impress me at all. The fact is that on Friday I said, and I will repeat it, that we had had a useful meeting with the ACTU. The whole point of tax reform is to try to get groups focusing on the same problems and the same set of data so that people of goodwill can hope to draw the same conclusions. That is the difference between this Government's approach to tax reform and the approach of the former Government. We have been doing what has to be done to get structural change in this country. One has to talk to the various constituent groups. One cannot hope to do it by running an idea up the flagpole and then diving back into the bunker the first time the grapeshot goes over one's head, which is what the previous Government did for years and what its cowardly Prime Minister and leader did also. That is not what we are doing. I understand the risks in terms of newspaper headlines, speculation and the sort of stupid, idiotic point scoring such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now engaged in. I understand all of those costs. That is the price one has to pay for consultation. But some of the roadblocks in the Australian economic system can be pushed to one side. Without that kind of consultation and that focusing on the appropriate data and the appropriate arguments, that structural reform is not possible. At no stage did the coalition speak to anybody, not even business. Leaving aside the ACTU, it did not even speak to business. Let us not kid ourselves that the coalition ever spoke to business. it said: 'Business has nowhere else to go; it will not go to the Labor Party. We will not consult it. We will treat it with contempt'. The coalition Government had given business an inflation rate double everybody else's, a 20 per cent interest rate and had driven its profits into the ground. It did not consult with business. It never tried to get reform. The former Treasurer hid behind the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System as though all he had to do was to commission someone to do a study. Anybody can do a study and put his conclusions on the ground. But the former Treasurer could not get the changes in and he proved that. That is what this is all about; it is about getting the changes through-not about knowing what to do. Anyone can work out what to do but it is a different matter to get the changes through. The previous Treasurer had no framework to get them through. The business community holds him in contempt. The trade union movement holds him in complete contempt because his record with trade union members was one of virulent attacks on them from the day he took office. How dare he take Cliff Dolan's name in vain as though Cliff Dolan would have any sympathy with the honourable member or any point of accommodation with him. Cliff Dolan would hold in contempt every last member of the Opposition, including the former Treasurer. We have had enough of that hypocrisy. The fact is that the coalition Government at no stage ever sought to do anything about tax reform in this country. One of the problems of the current tax system is the breakdown of compliance with the system. That breakdown of compliance has accelerated through the 1970s as the system was left and dragged into disrepute by the inactivity of the former Treasurer and the former Government in sanctioning blatant tax avoidance through paper schemes-knowing about them in 1975 but doing nothing about them until 1982. That is the reason why the tax system is in a position of major disrepute. It is also in that position because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was using the inflated tax dollars to give the promise in 1975 and 1977 of tax indexation. He took in the tax dollars and watched the massive compression in the scales, the massive increase in marginal rates, so that now we have a narrow income base with massive marginal rates of taxation. Whom can we thank for that but the coalition Government. The coalition has governed this country for 30 of the last 35 years. The tax system is in the state it is in because of the coalition's failure to do anything about it. The high marginal tax rates in this country are a consequence of the coalition's complete disinterest in the state of the tax system. The coalition fudged its way through the 1970s with $3 billion from the crude oil levy, which allowed it not to do anything about marginal tax rates. This got the coalition off the hook of indexation. The coalition slid through the 70s, taxing people through stealth, through the taxation system and through inflation. That is the problem that we face today. But did the former Treasurer come in with an indirect tax, with a trade-off proposition for tax cuts? Never! He came in with an indirect tax as an add-on to the tax system. There was no talk of a tax package. There was no talk of knocking the rorts out of the system. There was no talk of removing the tax shelters, of removing the rorts, or of wiping out the paper schemes. The former Treasurer was driven to wipe out the paper schemes by Mr Costigan and Mr La Franchi, who produced their reports and embarrassed him. He then tried to hide behind the secrecy provisions of section 16, only to be flushed out by Bill O'Reilly when he published his telephone book of letters against him. That is the record of the former Treasurer and the former Government. The former Treasurer never at any stage tried to do anything about tax reform. He never sat down and said: 'The system is in disrepair. Let us try to agree on the basics for change. Let us talk to business, the unions, the various constituent groups and the social security lobbies to try to find a solution to this seemingly incurable problem in taxation'. We had one pathetic attempt to talk about indirect taxes and then it was straight into the bunker. We then had broken promises on tax indexation and tax cuts and inactivity on tax avoidance and evasion. The former Government left the smelly heap on our doorstep for us to do something about it. As with a lot of other challenges, we are facing this one. The former Treasurer might think that it is clever to come into this chamber and score off us because we are in a consultative process and because there have been material leaks in newspapers. That is all well and good. But the point of the matter is that nobody outside this Parliament will be impressed by what the honourable member for Bennelong had to say or by what he is doing. I noticed yesterday-this is a point I have made before-that the small business organisations were misreported in a Taxation Commissioner's report which stated that there were losses of $4 billion in unincorporated income. I corrected that point and I said that is was $1 billion. One of the small business lobbies said that I have charged the small business community with tax evasion. That statement about unincorporated enterprise was made by a Taxation Commissioner, not by me. I thought I had made that point adequately. The fact that it has not penetrated the minds of some of those lobby people is more a commentary on them than it is on me. The fact that we now have massive under-reporting of income, evasion of the system and non-compliance is just a manifestation of the problem. How can we expect people to comply with the system when over the years, they have seen everybody who has received any tax advice ripping off the system and the Government sitting by and watching it happen, as it did right through the 1970s and the early 1980s? We on this side of the House will continue to press ahead with our electoral mandate for tax reform. We will continue to press ahead with the tax summit to seek as much agreement as possible. I will continue to consult with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and every other relevant body. We will not be deterred from this important but difficult mission to try to secure some important and lasting changes to the Australian taxation system. At the end of this Parliament the Australian people can make a judgment about the end product of our work compared with the end product of the work of the former Government. They can make a judgment about the bona fides of the Opposition when they look at its failure to develop a constructive attitude to tax reform and they look at the kind of opportunism which it is displaying today with this mealy-mouthed, stupid attack on me, Dolan and everybody else involved in the question of tax reform. We will let the public be the judge, but the people will judge honourable members opposite harshly, as they did last year and as they did two years ago. After the next election they will remain where they are-on their backsides in opposition, where they deserve to be; the grubs that they are; the people who could do nothing with Australia; the people who shirked all the challenges. The public will leave them where they are-rotting in opposition. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(4.05) —It was interesting to hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) claiming that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) has some difficulty in getting some questions up. My recollection is that the first time the Treasurer popped the question it cost him money. If he wants some more answers like that he should continue to call us grubs because that is where we can put him any time we like. I have a message for the Treasurer from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who said in the Senate: . . . obviously it would be a very serious matter, if there was a likelihood or a significant risk of the sort of CPI increase which could flow from some of the levels of consumer tax which some people are suggesting, that is a CPI increase of the order of 7 per cent or even higher, feeding back via the indexation into wages. The Treasurer can tell us what message he has just got from the Senate in that regard. Mr Deputy Speaker, welcome to the day of tax confusion. A check of today's status of our tax future, as revealed in recent newspapers, tells us that we have a Treasurer who wants a 12 1/2 per cent retail tax. We have a Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and leader of the Left who does not want a retail tax but believes that he will reduce the Budget deficit by harassing pensioners. We have the convenor of the Centre Left, Senator Peter Cook, who just wants higher taxes. We have that redoubtable numbers man, Senator Robert Ray, who wants death duties. We have the leaders of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who do not want retail taxes and would prefer higher wages. We have that noted media spokesman for the Left, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who wants increased taxes on wealth. Then, of course, we have the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and all he wants is to be popular. He wants to be popular with the people. He wants to be popular with the Caucus factions. He wants to be popular with President Reagan. The harder he tries the less popular he gets. We all know that because no one trusts him any more. His popularity is declining with his continued indecision. We call him 'backdown Bob'. His inability to keep his promises is now matched by his inability to make decisions. He just wants to be popular and he does not know on whose side he wants to be at the moment. Let us have a look at some of the U-turns made by this Prime Minister, this man who must make the final decision on tax. We have had the MX missile reversal and the Sinai reversal. We have had the Age tapes reversal, the tertiary fees reversal and the Medicare reversal. We have had his statements on productivity from which he backed down the following morning after Simon said. We have had the interest rates reversal and his promises that he would reduce interest rates. What a total lack of decision and leadership. Let us have a quick look at that very topical business of Queensland and the role of the Prime Minister there. He has two choices: He can attack the Queensland Government, as he frequently claims in this chamber that he can, with his foreign affairs power-something of which I do not approve but which he can do if he likes-or he can attack the unions through section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. But what does he do? He does neither. He has two different options and he chooses neither. Not for him the political hara-kiri of some positive moves in the tax debate towards reform. He is sitting down, hiding away, waiting for the fight to be over. That is what he did in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Nothing has changed. His program is simple. First, he wants to get approval from the ACTU. Second, he wants to try to flatter those non-union guests to the summit to approve the ACTU line, as he did at the National Economic Summit Conference. Third, he wishes to convince Australians that such approval is tantamount to the approval of all Australians. Those 100 people he will invite to the summit will be presented to Australians as their community representatives. Of course, during that summit, he will go on with the line that we hear every day that all the Opposition is trying to do is to make political points. We are not here to make political points; we are here to protect the public from people who are as extravagant and as irrational as honourable members opposite. They go on about the assets test as the Treasurer just did. The assets test is an attack on poor people who have property. Honourable members opposite have never been able to make that link. The tax summit is a sham and those attending who have any illusions that the Government sees this summit as a learning process must think again. But let us have a look at who will get to the tax summit. In the Australian the other day, all printed up for us, we find that 27 of the approximately 100 people attending the summit will come from the ACTU executive, not solely from the trade union movement. They represent 2.9 million Australians-many unwilling contributors-out of the 100 people invited. Of course, we had a very similar situation when he had that so-called farce, the Economic Summit. Small business, which I try to represent in this place, will have approximately five representatives; yet between 1978 and 1982 its 700,000 employers generated 310,000 jobs while big business shed 288,000 jobs. That is all the attention that this Government will pay to small business. What about the other sectors? Who is getting all the consultation in this tax debate? Day after day we read in the newspapers that the Australian Council of Trade Unions said this, or the Treasurer rang up the ACTU; someone is always consulting the ACTU. It is entitled to be consulted. What about the small business community? What consultation is it getting? What real consultation is the Australian Taxpayers Association getting? The farmers have been heard and have been told to go away because the Government does not agree with their figures. Why has not small business been consulted on the great financial and administrative burden that the implementation of a retail tax will impose upon it? It would not have been a bad idea had the Treasurer or the Prime Minister bothered to respond to a telex which I sent to them. It stated: Your reported intention to introduce a retail sales tax raises the need for sympathetic and sensible consideration of those in business who will be obliged to collect your tax. The present wholesale sales tax places excessive burdens of both administration and liability upon the business involved. The extention of such a tax system to the retail sector will vastly increase the number of voluntary collectors and extend to relatively unsophisticated business administrations. Further, the community does not expect a repeat of the asset test fiasco where total administration costs exceeds saving. I seek your assurance that these business proprietors will be either compensated for their efforts or if not, that your government will A Not demand payment of tax before it is collected from the consumer B Place the onus of collection of tax lost through genuine bad debts with the Commissioner and not the retailer C Produce a simple taxing regime that can be administered without the small business operator having to give substantial amounts of valuable time to preparing returns and statistics. Small business already carries a disproportionate burden of government charges and it would be intolerable to place further burdens upon them. My telex has not even been acknowledged or replied to. No doubt that very sincere effort was also considered as a political ploy. The Government proposes to appoint 5,000 more tax collectors. That is what the Government talks about when it talks about the problem that it will impose on small business. That is quite unnecessary. The tax can be collected simply and the administrative burden can be very small. I do not think that the Government would know how to do that as it has shown with the assets test-get the 1,500 employees first and worry about the details later. Let us have a look at an average weekly earnings graph which was published in the Weekend Australian recently. It is very interesting. There are two massive peaks in the marginal tax rate. The first peak occurred in 1973-74 in the Whitlam years. The other peak, which has taken the marginal rate for average weekly earnings into the 40 cents tax bracket, occurred in 1984-85. Thirty years ago an average weekly earner paid 10.2 per cent of his salary in income tax. Today he pays 24 per cent. At that time his marginal rate was 19.2 per cent; today it is 47 per cent. Today, if a person on average weekly earnings wants to buy a modestly priced new motor car, at $10,000, he must earn $18,870 on overtime to be able to afford it. Out of the $10,000 he will pay $1,300 in sales tax. If he wants to work overtime to buy the car he will pay dollar for dollar to the Government. This situation has been created as follows: Tax revenue was raised by 9 per cent in one Budget and 17.9 per cent in another Budget, an effective 30 per cent increase in two years. Expenditure went up by 15.6 per cent in one Budget and 13 per cent in the other, an effective 31.25 per cent increase. The Government's trilogy promise is based on that record. I shuddered when the Prime Minister promised things were not going to get worse. How could they get worse? The Government has increased taxes by 8 to 10 per cent since the previous Government was in office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(4.15) —We have witnessed, once again, the charades in the acting out of what is purported to be a serious debate on tax reform during this discussion of a matter of public importance. If honourable members look at the former Treasurer's contributions in previous matters of public importance debates they will notice that they have a certain repetition about them. I am reminded of a Michael Jackson film clip: The former Treasurer steps out on to the stage, waves his arms around, makes comments about the graveyard of tax reform in the 1970s, waves his arms around a little more and goes back off-stage again. The reality is that during the period that the former Treasurer had the responsibility for tax reform, nothing was done. When we have these debates we are simply repeating arguments that we have had very often. This Government is seriously approaching the fundamental issues of tax reform in a co-ordinated and responsible way and consulting widely with the community. It is my confident hope that at the end of that process there will be a more equitable, simple and productive tax system. Quite recently a very learned commentator on tax reform issues, Professor Russell Mathews, described the current situation thus: In Australia, it is no longer necessary to be rich to be liable for penal rates of income tax. There is a popular conception of the tax system which views it as a kind of Robin Hood taking away from the rich to give to the poor. This must be recognised, like Robin Hood himself, as pure fantasy. I must demur from this learned gentleman's opinion. It is my very strongly held view that there is not a popular conception that the system is in any way progressive. That may have been the case some 10 or 15 years ago, but it is certainly not the case now because of the widely held view that too many people have the option of paying tax and that increasingly, as is empirically the case, the burden of payment of tax revenues is falling almost totally on the shoulders of ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers. Much has been said in this House about the increase in the level of payments over the last decade or so. I will not traverse that ground again. Professor Mathews continued: Because of the widespread tax avoidance and evasion which characterises the Australian tax system, the nominally progressive rate structure is inoperative except for wage and salary earners. Far from emulating Robin Hood, Australian taxation policies have more in common with the protection rackets operated by the Mafia, where relatively poor and defenceless citizens are taxed for the benefit of the rich. Professor Mathews has very articulately summarised the current state of the art in terms of taxation policy in Australia. In a very lucid address to a tax forum recently held in Sydney he went into the complexities of our tax system and offered some propositions for reform. It is sad indeed that when members of the Opposition debate these issues they tend to confine themselves to personalities, they tend to embrace hyperbole and exaggeration and they never try to address the very serious issues that we are attempting to confront in terms of tax reform. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has been in this House for a long time. Did we hear him argue against the people who were ripping off our tax system in the previous Government? Of course we did not. Members of the Liberal and National parties ought to be ashamed of their record on tax avoidance and evasion. Tax avoidance and evasion literally exploded under the previous Government. In June 1975, under the Whitlam Government, a total of 861 individuals and companies were identified by the Commissioner of Taxation as being involved in tax avoidance schemes. The sum of money involved was $973m. Compare this: By June 1983, at the end of the period of the Fraser Government, the number of individuals and companies involved had grown to 34,944 and the tax in dispute amounted to $1,666m. That ought to be a matter of considerable shame. Mr Cadman —How much now? Mr GRIFFITHS —It is no good the honourable member interjecting. He likes to interject. He was silent in this House when these rip-off merchants were carrying money away from various schemes in a wheelbarrow. It fell on to the shoulders of the ordinary PAYE taxpayer to provide the revenue for roads and schools, et cetera. It became optional to pay tax under the previous Liberal Government. Opposition members ought to be ashamed of that. Mr Hodgman —You have a million dollar tax cheat on the front bench of your Government. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Denison interjects in his gutless way. I suggest that if he proposes to do that he should at least have the courage to confront the person against whom he addresses those allegations. I shall recall a couple of comments made during that period. In 1978 the President of the Taxation Institute of Australia said: During the past year or two, tax avoidance became big business in Australia. It became a disease which, being allowed to go unchecked, reached epidemic proportions. Nothing was done. In 1980 Professor Russell Mathews stated: Tax authorities, governments and the courts have allowed tax avoidance to flourish on such a scale as to make personal income tax a voluntary tax for the rich non-salary earner. Frank Costigan, the Commonwealth Auditor-General, Phillip Lynch as he was in those days, and Mr Gyles, QC, the Special Prosecutor, have also made statements on the matter. The Australian Taxation Office estimates that 6,000 companies were involved in bottom of the harbour schemes and that their promoters alone earned about $150m in commissions. Currently before the courts are some of those who have been caught up in the whirlwind of this Government's legislation which has attempted to ensure that tax is paid on an equitable basis and that those prepared to rip off the system and break the law go where they should, that is, before the courts to be properly assessed by a judicial forum. The Hawke Government's response, by comparison, has been worthy of commendation. In both opposition and government the Australian Labor Party served notice that the tax avoidance industry would be seriously challenged. Indeed, sales tax legislation will be brought into this House later today which will attempt to recoup approximately $400m avoided by those not prepared to contribute their fair share to Australia's welfare and future. It will be interesting to see whether the Opposition parties, both here and in another place, are prepared to treat that sort of legislation on its merits to ensure-at least to a marginal extent-that the ordinary PAYE taxpayers of Australia can obtain some relief. One can go through the changing of attitudes to section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act-another area in which this Government has taken some initiative. There has been a significant increase in the penalities for avoidance and the pursuit of tax avoidance individuals in this country. We could talk for a long time about our commendable record on these matters but it is worth getting back very briefly to the fundamental principles that will guide the tax summit. I note, without comment, that the honourable member for O'Connor, when he was not invited to the National Economic Summit Conference, had the temerity to come into this chamber and squat. He severely embarrassed his colleagues because he did not have an invitation although he alleged that he should have had one. Now he has an invitation and he is not prepared to take that up, quite simply because the Opposition parties will be obliged to put up or shut up. They will not have the luxury of being able simply to address themselves to personalities or to repeat tired jargon that they have been pursuing, at least during my membership of this chamber. That is why they have not accepted the invitation. They do not have any ideas. They want to have the luxury, as soon as a tax package is produced before this House, to oppose that package for the most base of political motives. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I understand that the honourable member for O'Connor seeks to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —During the speech of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths), he made a statement which I am sure you heard, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not raise matters regarding tax avoidance in the previous Parliament, of which he was also a member. I draw the honourable member's attention to my identifying the tax evasion of $70,000 and tax avoidance of over $1m of probate which was undertaken by the now Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 in two main respects. Firstly it will enable Telecom Australia, in specified emergency situations, to intercept a telephone call in order to establish the location of a caller so that appropriate assistance can be given. Secondly, it will enable formal evidence of acts done by Telecom employees in enabling members of the Australian Federal Police to execute an interception warrant to be given by certificate in court proceedings. The Telecommunications (Interception) Act permits a Federal Court judge to issue a warrant to members of the Australian Federal Police to intercept telecommunications in the course of investigating narcotics offences. The warrant is given to Telecom whose employees take the technical steps necessary for police to conduct the interception. Initially, material obtained by interception was used for criminal intelligence purposes. However, as it is admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings, there are cases where it is appropriate and necessary to put the material into evidence. Strict proof of actions taken by Telecom employees would require those employees to give evidence in court. Telecom management has been advised that employees are unwilling to give such evidence because public identification of their involvement in narcotics interception would cause fear for their own safety, that of their families and that of their fellow workers. Telecommunications interception is of great assistance to the Australian Federal Police in the prevention and detection of drug offences. It would be contrary to the public interest for the lawful interception of telecommunications to be reduced or prejudiced. In this Bill, the Government proposes that evidence of acts performed by Telecom employees to enable the execution of an interception warrant be given by a certificate signed by the Managing Director of Telecom. Such a certificate would be conclusive proof of the matters contained therein. The matters which will be contained in the certificate are formal matters of evidence only and do not go to any issue before the court. The Government recognises that there is an objection to a prosecutor seeking to establish, by certificate or averment, an element of the prosecution case going to the conduct of the accused. However, proof that a warrant was executed strictly in compliance with its terms is a purely formal matter. Further, proving compliance by certificate would not conflict with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee has taken the view that Parliament should enact legislation to ensure that averment provisions are only resorted to by prosecutors where the matter which the prosecution is required to prove is formal only and does not relate to any conduct on the part of the defendant. Further support for this proposed amendment is to be found in the reports made by Mr Frank Vincent, QC, and Special Prosecutor Redlich. I turn now to the other major amendment. A number of organisations and individuals have requested that Telecom be allowed to conduct emergency interceptions in order to locate the origin of a call where life appears at risk. The classic situation is where a person informs another, by telephone, that he or she proposes to commit suicide. As the law currently stands, such interceptions are unlawful. The Government accepts that any interception of a telephone call is an invasion of privacy and is cautious in extending lawful interception. However, it is clearly desirable to locate the origin of such calls as soon as possible. It is also desirable for police to be able to communicate the location of the distress call to persons who can assist in preserving life. Accordingly, the Government proposes that the Act be amended to provide that, where a member of a police force forms the view that the tracing of the location of the caller is likely to assist in dealing with the emergency, he may request Telecom to intercept the telephone call and to provide the location of the caller to police. The amendment also provides in effect that the police may lawfully communicate the whereabouts of the caller to people such as ambulance officers or doctors who can assist in preserving life. The use of this power of interception will be monitored. The Bill requires the Managing Director of Telecom to report annually to the Attorney-General on the general circumstances of each intercept. The Bill also provides for the Attorney-General to table that report in Parliament. The Act also makes a number of minor amendments. The first is to rectify an omission in the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1985 passed by the Parliament earlier this year. The amendment in question referred to documents or information which may be given to the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. It included a definition of 'unlawfully obtained material', as meaning certain documents or information which disclosed the commission or possible commission of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a law of a Territory. This Bill adds to that class certain documents which disclose the commission, or possible commission, of an offence against a law of a State. The Bill also provides that this amendment be deemed to come into operation on 29 March 1985, the date upon which the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1985 commenced operation. Sub-section 7 (6) of the Act provides that material obtained by an interception may be lawfully given in evidence in certain prosecution proceedings. This Bill makes it clear that those proceedings include committal proceedings. Finally, the Bill provides that this amendment, and the amendment enabling certain matters to be proved by certificate, apply in relation to proceedings instituted before or after the commencement of the Bill. This Bill has no financial implications and I commend it to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1), continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each period of sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and up-date existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. The Bill amends some 65 Acts to remove obsolete provisions relating to the rights of Commonwealth public servants. Those provisions were made redundant by the repeal on 15 March 1981 of the Officers' Rights Declaration Act 1928. Officers' rights are now preserved by section 87TA of the Public Service Act 1922. Administrative changes to the Commonwealth Public Service were made following the elections last year. The changes included the renaming of departments, the creation of a new department and the transfer of functions. Amendments to 25 Acts have been included in the Bill as a consequence of these changes to the machinery of government. The Bill also amends a number of Acts by removing any references to 'British subject' by reason of the passage in 1984 of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984. Also, in accordance with Government policy, the Bill amends a number of Acts by replacing gender specific terminology with epicene terms. Amendments are proposed to bring certain penalties in legislation up to date with present economic values and present day perceptions of the nature of the offences to which they relate. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing the more noteworthy changes included in this Bill. Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 Consistent with long standing Australian support for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora, the amendment to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 enables the ratification of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 The amendment will permit the making of standing acting appointments to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, thus obviating the need for Executive Council action to be taken in relation to every absence of the Director. Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 The Act currently requires the Security Appeals Tribunal, subject to one qualification, to give copies of its findings to the applicant, to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and to the Commonwealth agency concerned. The Tribunal has recommended that it should have a discretion to furnish copies of its findings to the Attorney-General. The Government accepts the spirit of the recommendation, but considers that the Attorney-General should be given a copy of the findings in every case because he is responsible for ASIO and for the administration of the Act. The Act is amended accordingly. Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 The amendment empowers the Commission to invest its funds, subject to Division 2 of Part XI of the Audit Act 1901, instead of Division 3 of Part XI as at present. This will enable the Commission to make the best possible use of any surplus funds and to keep its accounts in accordance with normal commercial practice. Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984 The amendments permit adjustment levies imposed under this scheme to be recovered in the same way as if they were excise duties. Also, the responsible Minister may notify proposed levy adjustment alterations when Parliament is not sitting. Bounty (Electric Motors) Act 1984 The amendment will ensure that the value added figure applied to a bountiable motor includes the cost of any process or service-if provided by the manufacturer at registered premises-unless research, development or design costs apply. These latter costs, if incurred in Australia, attract a bounty irrespective of whether the work was undertaken on registered premises. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 The amendment will enable the making of ordinances for the operation of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and will provide easier access to that Court for members of the public Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 The amendments concern the financial accounting and reporting requirements under Part VIIIAA of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 for registered organisations and their branches. Organisations or branches whose annual incomes do not exceed $10,000 will be able to apply to the Industrial Registrar for a certificate of exemption from the existing financial and reporting requirements of the aforesaid Part of the Act in relation to accounts. Instead, less onerous and costly requirements will apply to those bodies. Defence Act 1903 Under the common law, members of the Defence Force cannot sue the Commonwealth for moneys owing to them in respect of their service. Section 12 of the Defence Act 1903 varies this position to a limited extent by permitting members to sue after leaving the Defence Force. This situation is changed by extending to serving members of the Defence Force the right to sue. Because garnishee proceedings do not lie against the Crown this procedure is not available to creditors of members of the Defence Force. The amendments create similar statutory rights and obligations regarding garnishee proceedings in relation to members of the Defence Force to those that apply to other Commonwealth employees. The Bill also makes other amendments to this Act. Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 The provisions of this Act provide for the issue of summonses and warrants on the basis of sworn information or affidavit. The amendments power authorised officers of the Defence Force to swear informations. Under the Act a commanding officer may direct that a subordinate summary authority is not to deal with a particular charge against a person. The amendments will enable a commanding officer to direct that a subordinate summary authority is not to deal with a class of cases. There is a requirement under the Act that legal officers, to whom convictions by summary authorities are referred for legal advice, should be authorised or appointed for this purpose. The amendments omit the requirement for such authorisation or appointment as this will create an unjustifiable administrative burden. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Following consultation with the Northern Territory Government amendments to the Act are proposed to ensure that appeals from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory will lie to the Northern Territory Court of Appeal instead of the Federal Court of Australia. The amendment is expressed to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. A date will be fixed after appropriate consultation with the Northern Territory Government and after that Government has taken the necessary steps to establish its Court of Appeal. Health Insurance Act 1973 A number of amendments to the Health Insurance Act are being made as a consequence of the replacement of the Capital Territory Health Commission by the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, which was effected by the Health Services Ordinance 1985. Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 The amendments provide for wrecks and articles lying above the low-water line to be protected under section 5 of the Act provided the Government of the State concerned has no objection. Provison is made for States including the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island to make a general declaration on all wrecks over 75 years old; in addition, the time limit for a provisional declaration is extended to five years and the protected zone of a shipwreck increased to 200 hectares. The amendments also make provision for wrecks straddling Commonwealth-State waters. Insurance Contracts Act 1984 The amendments overcome minor problems relating to the provision of information or advice to insurers. The amendments should facilitate the operation of the Act when it comes into operation later this year. Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 The amendments will enable the Minister to provide guardianship to minors, who have entered Australia with a supporting relative, when care arrangements have broken down. The consent of the supporting relative is required. A person whose interests are affected by a guardianship decision may apply for a review of the decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Life Insurance Act 1945 The main amendment will enable life offices to transact business, relating to the issue of annuities for purposes of roll-over of lump sum termination payments, in the same statutory fund in which superannuation schemes are transacted. Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 The principal amendments to this Act increase the time limit applying for the filing of annual returns by licensed management investment companies, to allow a more reasonable period for compliance. There is a consequential change in the expiry date for licences. National Gallery Act 1975 A number of amendments are proposed which will enable the Australian National Gallery to be more efficiently administered, enable it to undertake additional functions and activities, and establish an Australian National Gallery Fund with a power to invest funds. The need for the amendments, which are largely of an administrative and machinery nature, has become apparent now that the Gallery has been operating for more than two years. Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 The amendments give effect to minor technical amendments recently adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation's International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973-78. Sex Discrimination Act 1984 The amendment will enable 'class' exemptions from the Act to be granted to avoid a multiplicity of applications for exemption in certain circumstances. Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975 The Bill provides for a number of amendments to overcome administrative problems which have arisen since the Act was extensively amended in 1978. The proposed amendments have the general support of the National Labour Consultative Council. I commend the Bill to the House. Bill (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.43) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the main Bill in a package of six Bills that together will amend the sales tax law in a number of important respects. Included in this Bill are measures necessary to counter arrangements under which wholesalers are avoiding sales tax by selling goods by retail under agency and other marketing arrangements. The Bill also reflects this Government's firm resolve to stamp out tax evasion. Substantial sales tax evasion has recently come to light based on abuses of the present procedures for registration of sales taxpayers and their right to obtain goods free of tax by quotation of a certificate number. The Bill therefore contains a number of measures designed to strengthen the existing sales tax registration and quotation procedures. Some proposals of the former Government announced on 20 August 1981 that will correct deficiences in the existing machinery and liability provisions of the sales tax law are also covered by this Bill. I turn now to the details of each measure. Indirect Marketing Arrangements This Government's views on tax avoidance are well known. We came to office on a promise to smash tax avoidance in all its forms. Sales tax has not been immune from the influence of the promoters of tax avoidance schemes. But sales tax avoidance, once it takes hold in a particular industry, is cancerous in its growth. The level of sales tax payable directly affects the ultimate price of goods and its avoidance by one firm in an industry gives an unwarranted competitive advantage in the market-place to that firm. Others in direct competition with that firm are often forced to engage in similar sales tax avoidance or go under. One particular avoidance arrangement that has gained currency relies on the fact that sales tax is generally payable on the last wholesale sale in the marketing chain. The amount on which the liability for tax is calculated is intended to include all the costs and profit-margins of those in that chain up to, but not including, the retailer. Known as agency schemes, these arrangements are based on a wholesaler appointing a normal retailer as agent. As a result, the wholesaler technically becomes the retailer for the purposes of the sales tax law. Prior to entering into the scheme, the wholesaler's goods would be sold to the retailer who, as owner of the goods, would sell them to customers of the retailer's store. Under the scheme, the wholesaler retains ownership of the goods, but places them in the retailer's store alongside the retailer's normal stock. The retailer, as agent of the wholesaler, then sells the goods to those same customers of the retailer. This complex and highly artificial arrangement is claimed to have the result under the existing sales tax law that sales tax is payable, not on the wholesaler's former price to the retailer, but on the price at which the wholesaler purchases the goods. This price is, of course, much lower and excludes all of the marketing costs of the wholesaler and the wholesaler's profit margin. The cost to the revenue of these arrangements is estimated to be at least $200m per annum. There is another variation on the same theme. In this case, the wholesaler obtains permission to use a section of the retailer's store from which the wholesaler's goods are sold direct to the public. Again the goods are displayed alongside the retailer's goods. From the retail customer's point of view there is no distinction to be seen between the two. As with an agency arrangement, the wholesaler assumes for sales tax purposes the mantle of a retailer. Floor-plan arrangements, like agency arrangements, are claimed to exclude from the taxable sale value of the goods concerned the wholesaler's costs and profit margin. The considerable savings in sales tax sought to be obtained by these schemes are used to achieve a competitive edge in the particular market for the wholesaler's product and to inflate the profits of those firms engaging in them. Those wholesalers who, on principle, resist the temptation to enter such schemes and who continue to market their goods in the traditional manner suffer as a result. That is not a situation that this Government will tolerate. At the same time, the Government recognises that some businesses have for many years, and for genuine commercial reasons, sold their goods to the public through agents and, to a lesser extent, under floor-plan arrangements. While there is no sales tax avoidance purpose present in this situation, the revenue is affected in the same manner and to the same degree. The Government sees no valid reason for excluding from the amendments those who, although their use of agency and floor-plan arrangements can be justified on sound commercial grounds, benefit from similar reductions in the amount of sales tax payable. For this reason, the amendments will not require that there be a sales tax avoidance purpose, nor will they be retrospective in effect. (Quorum formed) Under amendments proposed in this Bill, where any person, other than the manufacturer of goods, sells goods by retail under these arrangements-referred to in the Bill as indirect marketing arrangements-sales tax will in future be payable on the fair wholesale market value of the goods. In other words, the sales tax advantage sought to be achieved will be removed. This is done by treating persons who sell goods under indirect marketing arrangements as wholesale merchants for sales tax purposes. A similar result to this is already achieved in the case of a manufacturer under the existing law. Some consequential changes to the sales tax regulations will be required and these will be submitted to the Federal Executive Council for approval after this Bill has been passed by the Parliament. The new basis for taxing sales of goods under indirect marketing arrangements will apply to sales of goods made after the date of royal assent to the Bill. This will allow time for those who will, under the Bill be now treated as wholesalers to become registered for sales tax purposes. Registration and Quotation Procedures Once a person becomes registered as a sales tax payer, that person has to meet a number of obligations that arise under the sales tax law. There are, also, certain privileges associated with being a registered sales tax payer. The most significant is the ability to purchase goods, sales tax free, in certain circumstances, by quoting the number of the sales tax certificate that is issued upon registration. Substantial sales tax evasion is occurring because registered persons are abusing this privilege by quoting, or purporting to quote, a certificate number when purchasing goods in situations where they ought not to do so because they do not intend to meet their sales tax obligations. At the same time, unregistered persons are known to be quoting bogus numbers when purchasing goods and obtaining those goods without payment of the sales tax due on them. So far as the vendors of the goods are concerned, it is more often than not a case of complicity by studied indifference to the false quotation. Those vendors claim that, under the present law, they need not be concerned about whether or not the purchaser's quotation is lawful. A feature common to such practices is that payment is made in cash of a substantial amount and the purchaser often gives a false name and address to avoid being traced. These fraudulent practices are of the worst kind. Every taxpayer in Australia is a victim of the unprincipled participants in these frauds. The cost to the revenue is estimated to be upwards of $200m annually. Action is currently being pursued by the Taxation Office, with the assistance of the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, to bring the participants in the frauds before the criminal courts. That is, however, a long and complex task and the Government cannot, and will not, stand idly by while the criminal law takes its course. Stricter administrative arrangements are, in the Government's view, called for. Measures in this Bill will, therefore, strengthen the registration and quotation procedures in several ways to counter these evasion practices. First, the maximum level of security that the Commissioner may require from a registered taxpayer, or a person seeking registration where he considers the revenue is at risk, will be increased from its present level, set in 1930, of $2,000 to $25,000. Secondly, the Commissioner will be authorised to refuse or revoke a sales tax registration where the basis of the application was false or misleading, or where security is not provided when called for. Thirdly, the Commissioner is to be given the authority to prohibit a registered person from quoting his certificate where the Commissioner is satisfied that the person has abused, or has aided or abetted others to abuse, the certificate quotation procedures. Another feature of the new arrangements will be that the Commissioner will be authorised to publish in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, or to circulate vendors with, details of certificate numbers that have been cancelled, revoked or withdrawn. The most significant measure against evasion to be put in place by this Bill will be a positive duty on vendors of goods not to accept quotations for sales tax purposes if the circumstances surrounding the transaction appear to be suspicious. More particularly, in future a person will be liable to make good any sales tax evaded where, upon receiving a quotation from a purchaser of goods, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the purchaser is not a registered sales taxpayer. The quotation is unlawful, the quotation is false or misleading, or the certificate number quoted has been published or circulated by the Commissioner. Where a suspected quotation turns out to have been valid, the Commissioner will be able to remit or refund any tax payable or paid by the vendor. As a corollary to this measure, a collector of customs is to be authorised to retain imported goods that have been the subject of a quotation, where the collector entertains doubt about the bona fides of the quotation, until sales tax is paid. Decisions of the Commissioner in relation to registrations or quotations of certificates that will be made under these new arrangements are to be subject to the usual rights of objection by affected taxpayers with a further right of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These changes will also operate from the date of royal assent to the Bill. I turn now to mention certain proposals of the former Government that are also the subject of the Bill. The proposals are among those announced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as Treasurer on 20 August 1981 and which my colleague the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) indicated in a statement of 30 March 1983 that we would proceed with. Drafting resources have not permitted some of the more complex proposals of the former government to be included in this Bill, but those of an anti-avoidance nature have been included and the remaining proposals will be made the subject of a later Bill. The first measure I mention concerns a technical problem with the definition of manufacture contained in the sales tax law. One particular aspect of that definition has been exploited by some manufacturers in a way at variance with the intention of the legislation. This will be overcome by a re-expression of the definition in this Bill. This measure will, as announced by the former Government, apply with effect from 20 August 1981. This change is expected to lead to the recovery of approximately $1m in avoided sales tax. Another measure will bring the provisions of the sales tax law relating to returns and payment of sales tax on imported goods into line with the Customs law and procedures. This is to be achieved by applying, from the date of royal assent to the Bill, sales tax on imported goods at the rate applicable at the time the goods are entered for home consumption under the Customs law. The transitional provisions applicable to certain anti-tax avoidance amendments of the sales tax law made in 1978 have also been found to have an unintended operation. These transitional provisions are, as announced by the former Government, to be terminated with effect from 20 August 1981. This termination will prevent further indeterminate revenue losses. Finally, the Bill provides for a broadening of the information gathering power of the Commissioner to ensure that it extends to access to goods and gives taxation officers the right to examine, take samples of and analyse goods. The opportunity is also being taken to ensure that persons are required to provide reasonable assistance to the Commissioner in the exercise of this power, thus overcoming in relation to sales tax a limitation on the information gathering powers of the Taxation Office imposed by a recent decision of the High Court of Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, an explanatory memorandum containing detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill is being made available to honourable members and I do not therefore propose to further address the matters covered by the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.57) -I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains a further measure to counter sales tax avoidance. Together with the three remaining Bills in this package, it will ensure that royalties paid in connection with the manufacture, sale or lease of goods, but under arrangements that have the effect of excluding them from the taxable sale value of the goods, will not escape the payment of sales tax. Since its enactment in 1930, the sales tax law has contained a general provision designed to include in the taxable sale value of goods royalties paid in respect of the goods. Sales Tax Assessment Bill Avoidance arrangements have developed under which the intention of the present law can be readily circumvented. The result is that royalties that ought to form part of the taxable value of goods are freed from sales tax. The arrangements in question, which are particularly prevalent on the recording industry, were described in some detail in statements by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 20 August 1981 and 6 January 1892 when, as Treasurer, he announced the then Government's intention to amend the sales tax law to counter these particular avoidance arrangements. Under one arrangement, a retailer engages a manufacturer to manufacture goods to order and the retailer sells the goods either by mail order or direct to the public, often via an agency or floor plan arrangement. I have spoken earlier about these practices. Under the arrangement the retailer has the responsibility for payment of, and pays, the royalty on the goods. The amount of the royalty is therefore not included in the taxable price for which the goods are sold to the retailer by the manufacturer. Under measures contained in the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1985, royalties paid by retailers who sell goods under indirect marketing arrangements will be subject to tax under the present scheme of the sales tax law. This Bill will cater for the additional situation where a royalty is paid in respect of goods, but the person who pays the royalty is someone other than a person who has dealt with the goods. Without such a measure, the royalty amendments in the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill could be easily circumvented. Because of the definition of 'royalty' in that Bill which is to be applied for the purposes of the Bill, royalties paid for the performance or exhibition of matter subject to copyright, such as a musical work or a motion picture, will not be subject to tax under the measures in either Bill. The cost to date to the revenue in relation to goods sold under royalty arrangements, other than indirect marketing arrangements, has been around $2.5m. This Bill, because it is not retrospective in its effect, will not recoup that lost revenue, but it will prevent further revenue losses. For constitutional reasons, and to conform with the existing structure of the sales tax law which is contained in nine separate assessment Acts, each with its complementary taxing Act, this Bill proposes the enactment of a further assessment Act that will be entitled the Sales Tax Assessment (No. 10) Act. It contains the necessary machinery provisions for the assessment, collection and administration of the new tax on royalties. The measures contained in the Bill will apply to royalty payments made on or after tomorrow in respect of goods, notwithstanding that the goods may have gone into use or consumption in Australia, provided that the goods on which the royalty is paid were the subject of a taxable transaction or act for sales tax purposes under one of the other Sales Tax Assessment Acts. Explanations of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.04) -I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the first of three taxing Bills that I mentioned in introducing the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 10) 1985. It is a requirement of the Constitution that a law imposing taxation shall deal with only one subject of taxation and that laws imposing Customs duties and laws imposing excise duties deal only with those duties. This Bill will, respecting that requirement of the Constitution, formally impose sales tax payable under the Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 10) on royalties in cases where that sales tax is technically a duty of excise. As I explained in introducing that Bill, the sales tax will be payable by the person who pays the royalty. The rate of tax on such royalties is declared by the Bill to be the rate of tax applicable to the goods or which the royalty is paid. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.06) -I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is the second of the taxing Bills associated with the new tax on royalties. By this Bill, sales tax will be formally imposed on royalties paid on goods where the tax is in the nature of a Customs duty. This could occur, for example, where the payment of the royalty is connected with the importation of the goods. In other respects, the Bill is identical in effect with the Sales Tax Bill (No. 10A) 1985. I also commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I come to the sixth Bill in this package of sales tax Bills and the third taxing Bill associated with the new tax on royalties. In cases where the sales tax on royalties is neither a duty of excise nor a duty of Customs it will be imposed by this Bill. With the exception of the nature of the tax, the Bill has the same effect as the last two Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is closely related to one of the measures contained in the Sales Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1985, about which I have just spoken. By Part VI of that Bill, the law relating to the payment of sales tax on imported goods, that is contained in the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 5) 1930, is, as I have explained, to be brought into line with the Customs law. Under the structure of the sales tax legislation each assessment Act has a complementary taxing Act, in this instance the Sales Tax Act (No. 5) 1930. This Bill will amend that Act to formally impose sales tax on imported goods at the rates of tax in force when the goods are entered for home consumption. There will be no alteration by this Bill to the rates of sales tax payable. The rates of tax to be imposed by this Bill are the same as those currently in force. Details of the Bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the 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)(5.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The amendments proposed in this Bill largely relate to section 20 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, which empowers the Authority to require information from Commonwealth agencies. Certain information, often of a sensitive and personal nature, obtained under various legislative provisions is specifically exempted from the ambit of section 20 by virtue of that legislation being listed in the Schedule to the Act. Sixteen Acts were included in the section 20 Schedule when the Act was passed, but an exhaustive examination of all Commonwealth legislation prior to the Act being passed was not possible. Subsequently, all Commonwealth departments were invited to submit views as to what further Acts should be included. As a result of this detailed examination, this Bill proposes that a further number of Acts now be included in the Schedule. Generally, inclusion of the additional Acts is proposed to protect information in the following categories: Sensitive personal information, such as medical information held under the Health Insurance Act 1973 or information derived from the use of listening devices under the Customs Act 1901; sensitive commercial information such as that held under the Prices Surveillance Act 1983 and the Reserve Bank of Australia regulations; and information given to courts, tribunals and like bodies; for example, information held under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. While affording protection to this sensitive information, simply adding these matters to the Schedule would, under the existing provisions of the Act, prevent all such information from being made available to the Authority, irrespective of the circumstances. Of course, much of this information may not be of relevance to the Authority's investigations in any event. In view of this and after carefully considering the balance between the duty to protect sensitive and personal information and the need for the NCA to have access to information which could be relevant to its investigations, the Government has accepted a suggestion from the Authority that Commonwealth agencies immune from the Authority's powers under section 20 of the Act should have a discretion to pass on relevant information to the Authority. Clause 5 of the Bill inserts in the Act a new section 19A, which will allow a Commonwealth agency exempt from the section 20 requirement to provide information to the Authority to comply with requests by the Authority for information and documents relevant to a prescribed investigation. In conjunction with these legislative proposals, the Government will introduce a number of administrative measures to ensure that the right balance is struck between access by the Authority and protection of personal privacy. Guidelines will be developed, in consultation with the NCA and the various agencies concerned, covering the types of information which could be released and which ought not be released. The guidelines could, for example, indicate that, in relation to information under the Health Insurance Act, patient medical histories ought not, as a general rule, be released whereas details of a person's name, address and whereabouts could be released. In addition, after one year, the Authority will report to me on requests made under the proposed section 19A, including on the number, nature and outcome of requests, the information obtained and the use to which it had been put. A copy of that report will also be forwarded to the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Should any problems emerge under the arrangements in proposed section 19A, the Government will move quickly to take appropriate action, whether it be revising the guidelines, amending the Act, or both. The Bill also establishes a particular framework for dealing with information held by the Australian Taxation Office. Honourable members may recall that, parallel to the legislation to establish the Authority, the Government amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to enable the Authority to have access to income tax information. Given the comments of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union on the usefulness of this type of information in pursuing its investigations, the Government was concerned to ensure that this information was also available to the Authority. Access to income tax information is currently available to the National Crime Authority under a two-tier scheme: For the purposes of a tax-related investigation, information may be passed to the Authority by the Commissioner of Taxation or a royal commissioner who has received the information under section 16 (4) (k) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; and for the purposes of a special investigation not related to a tax matter, information may be obtained by the Authority under a judicial warrant. Before access is given to the National Crime Authority under judicial warrant, the judge must be satisfied that the information is relevant to the Authority's investigations and that the information is not readily obtainable elsewhere. In addition, the judicial warrant may prohibit the National Crime Authority from communicating the information other than to the person, and in the manner, specified in the warrant. Such access arrangements are currently limited to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. They do not extend to other taxation Acts. A number of these are excluded from the provisions of section 20 by virtue of being included in the Schedule and, as a result, the Authority has no avenue of access to all the tax information covered by the presently scheduled Acts. Again, after giving careful consideration to the balance between the duty to protect sensitive information and the need for the National Crime Authority to have access to information which would be useful to its inquiries, the Government has decided to extend the access arrangements set in place for information under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to those taxation Acts within the meaning of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 definition of 'taxation law'; that is those taxation Acts currently listed in the Schedule to section 20 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. This is the purpose of clause 11 of the Bill, which inserts in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 a new section 3D. Clause 13 ensures that the National Crime Authority access arrangements currently set out in section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 will continue to apply in relation to information passed to the Authority before commencement of the new section 3D of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. I stress that the Government is conscious of the sensitivity of this type of information but considers that the safeguards built into the access arrangements, particularly that of a judicial warrant where the information is not relevant to a tax-related investigation, are appropriate. The Bill also covers a number of minor matters. Section 48 of the National Crime Authority Act 1984 is amended to allow the Authority to engage consultants without the need to obtain the approval of the responsible Minister. This follows the arrangements introduced by the Public Service Board for government departments whereby Public Service Board approval of consultancies is no longer required. General financial control will, however, be exercised through the budgetary process. This proposal is in line with procedures being adopted for other statutory authorities. There is also a slight amendment to section 53 of the Act. This is a further tidying up measure raised by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. A number of corrections and editorial amendments are also made to section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. No additional costs should be incurred as a result of the amendments proposed in this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(5.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to adjust 1985 grants to government and non-government schools in the States and Northern Territory in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's schools programs. These arrangements provide school systems and authorities with the confidence to plan ahead in the knowledge that grants will be maintained in real terms. This will involve a further appropriation of $15m. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(5.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to adjust grants to the States and Northern Territory for universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions in line with the Government's agreed procedures to supplement the programs of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for cost increases. Under these procedures wage and salary increases occurring during the program year are met while increases in non-salary and capital costs are adjusted to the levels applying at the beginning of the program year. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $219.58m, comprising $60.43m for 1985 programs, $79.226m for 1986 programs and $79.924m for 1987 programs. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(5.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to supplement for cost increases the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory in 1985 to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program which the Government introduced in 1984. This adjustment is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made by the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which are also before the House today. This supplementation will involve a further appropriation of $1.518m in 1985. This Bill will also extend the delegation arrangements set out in the principal Act to allow the Minister to delegate powers in respect of technical and further education to the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. 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)(5.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and the other related Bills is to establish new marketing arrangements for the Australian dairy industry. The Australian dairy industry is once again faced with a serious financial crisis. This crisis affects the dairy industry in all States. However, Victoria and Tasmania, which produce a higher percentage of milk for manufacturing purposes, are the worst hit. Victoria produces nearly 60 per cent of Australia's total milk production of which 87 per cent goes into manufactured products much of which is exported. While new marketing arrangements are not a panacea for the industry's present troubles, they are nevertheless essential if a proper basis for a return to long term industry profitability is to be established. It should be remembered by honourable members that the Commonwealth's involvement in the dairy industry is essentially limited to the manufacturing sector. Market milk, for largely historical reasons, has been the responsibility of individual State governments. The division of the industry along State lines and between market and manufacturing milk sectors makes the development of sensible policies for a national dairy industry extremely difficult. It has also led to the situation where there are two broad classes of dairy farmers-those with access to the more lucrative market milk sector and those supplying the manufacturing sector where returns are heavily influenced by developments in the international market. One result of this division is that some farmers are receiving farm gate returns of around 11c a litre while others receive over 30c a litre for producing effectively the same product. Let me outline for honourable members, very briefly, some key facts which illustrate the genesis and dimension of the problem facing the industry today. Export prices for Australia's major dairy export items have plummeted-butter, for example, by over 30 per cent in just the last two years. The basic cause of this collapse in world trade prices has been the irresponsible production and export subsidy practices of a number of major dairy producing countries, particularly the European Economic Community. Unfortunately, despite strenuous efforts, there is little that Australia can do to change these practices in a fundamental sense. However, the Australian industry's position would not have been nearly as serious if it had not been for the corresponding rapid increase in our own milk production in recent years. From 5.2 billion litres in 1980-81, Australia's milk production is expected to reach 6 billion litres in the current production year. But why should such an increase have been occurring while world trade prices were collapsing? There are two basic reasons. First, in a somewhat irresponsible and cynical exercise the previous Government increased the minimum support level, known as domestic value for levy purposes or DVLP, for butter by around 40 per cent in the two-year period from July 1980 to July 1982. Other dairy products also received similarly large increases. This would have been sufficient in itself to stimulate our own milk lake, remembering that there is a production lag of at least two years before supply responds to changed market signals. The second reason is that, even when world prices began to decline, present marketing arrangements continued to encourage production increases. I will expand on this point in my second reading speech on the Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill. In the meantime honourable members may care to contemplate the insanity of a marketing arrangement which rewards individual manufacturers for continuing to produce for export, when these exported products in some cases return less than half the cost of production of the milk used in their manufacture. The situation also was not helped by State governments, particularly the previous Victorian Liberal Government, which effectively encouraged increased milk production by such measures as freely granting licences to new entrants into the industry. This was despite the harsh lessons of the mid-1970s and the realities of the market. That the present arrangements introduced in 1977 are inequitable and inefficient is generally accepted. In essence these arrangements stimulate overproduction, while discouraging domestic consumption; the correct product mix for both the domestic and export market is made difficult to achieve; exports to the worst possible markets receive the greatest assistance; imports are encouraged and the industry is constrained by the heavy hand of regulation. It is sometimes said, as the present arrangements cost the Government very little: 'Why all the fuss?' Well, in the past two years the Government will have committed in direct budgetary contributions around $18m to the dairy industry. This is on any basis a very significant outlay. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The real cost of the present arrangements is far greater. Australian consumers, in effect, support the dairy industry through paying higher prices for their dairy products than would be the case in the absence of the marketing arrangements. I hasten to add that, given that world market prices are grossly corrupt, this Government accepts that it is both reasonable and appropriate for the dairy industry to receive a measure of assistance in the form of higher domestic prices. However, in the present situation of a growing exportable surplus, much of the assistance provided by consumers is wasted. In other words, the farmers do not get it. In effect Australian consumers are, through low priced exports, simply subsidising foreign consumers. This makes no sense either for the industry or for the unwitting Australian consumer. The cost of the present arrangements extends even beyond these readily quantifiable factors. In a speech to the National Agricultural Outlook Conference in Canberra earlier this year, Sir Roderick Carnegie, Chairman of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd, expressed his concern at the tendency in Australia for economic gain to be sought through essentially political processes-by playing the system-rather than through true entrepreneurship. As the Industries Assistance Commission and others have highlighted, the truly numbing complexity and the web of regulation which characterise present dairy marketing arrangements encourage within the industry precisely the type of activity of concern to Sir Roderick. The IAC, in its November 1983 report on the dairy industry, pointed to many of these defects in the present arrangements and put forward recommendations for fundamental changes to the industry's marketing arrangements. The industry considered these, for various reasons, to be unacceptable and developed an alternative approach centred on an entitlements scheme. Given the considerable role and powers of the States in this industry, the issue of new marketing arrangements during 1984 and 1985 was the subject of extensive debate within the Australian Agricultural Council. Despite four formal meetings of the AAC, plus two others, it was unable to reach agreement on new arrangements. While regrettable, this should not surprise anyone familiar with the political history of dairying in Australia. The AAC was not even able to agree on the present arrangements introduced in 1977. In fact there is a history of vigorous disputation on dairying between States going back 50 years or more. The Government's new arrangements aim is to lead to a more truly national dairy industry. This Government accepted its responsibilities and has made the hard decisions, commensurate with its powers. Not to have done so would have condemned the industry to a future of recurring crises with increasing dependence upon government assistance for its survival. In taking its decision the Government's basic objective was the development of a more efficient and profitable industry, able to respond as quickly as possible to changing market conditions and technology. The Government seeks to achieve this through reducing the burden of regulation, while maintaining a level of support for domestic prices. In contrast, proposed marketing arrangements put forward by the industry sought to achieve reform by imposing further government regulation on an already heavily regulated industry. This would have added to the industry's cost structure, increased its rigidity and seriously reduced its ability to compete against fair imports and in the export market. The new arrangements, the key features of which are incorporated in the Bills I am placing before the House, will replace, from 1 July 1985, present stabilisation and equalisation arrangements with a system of market support for the dairy industry funded by a levy on all milk and a levy on certain dairy products. A number of other significant changes to present arrangements are also being made, including the termination of export pooling, and the system of allowances to manufacturers; repeal of the unproclaimed Dairy Industry Assistance Act 1977 and Dairy Industry Assistance Levy Act 1977; upgrading of the financial and operational capabilities of the Australian Dairy Corporation; and a reduction in other unnecessary regulation which constrains the dairy industry. The Government's marketing arrangements have a sunset provision set at 30 June 1991, with a major review being held within four years of commencement of the arrangements. Arrangements contained in the four Bills are augmented by two other measures agreed to by the Government. The Government has decided to continue underwriting arrangements but, as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission, in respect of export returns only. Average export returns in each year will be underwritten at a level of 90 per cent of a three-year average of export returns. This is expected to lead to a similar level of assistance as under present underwriting arrangements. Importantly, the Government recognises that the dairy industry is yet again going through changes. As an integral feature of new dairy marketing arrangements the Government commits itself to helping individual farmers and factories adjust to this change. It needs to be recognised by honourable members that structural adjustment in the industry is inevitable, no matter what form of marketing arrangements are adopted, given the present level of domestic production and the depressed international market. The Government accepts its responsibilities in this area, and is willing to work closely with State governments and industry to ensure that adjustment occurs in a fair and efficient manner. When I announced the new dairy marketing arrangements on 22 March, I indicated that the Commonwealth was willing to participate with the States in an adjustment assistance program for the industry of up to $40m. This is in addition to adjustment assistance already available to the industry under continuing rural adjustment scheme measures. We also recognised that pressures will be felt at the factory level, as adjustment to lower production levels and new product mixes takes place. The Commonwealth has made it clear that the adjustment assistance program will not be limited to farmers. Rather, we are quite prepared to discuss with State governments, industry and unions extending adjustment assistance to factories. We have in fact already approached State governments seeking their advice as to the best means to provide such assistance. I had talks today with the Victorian Minister on this topic. There is widespread acceptance in the dairy industry that production must come down. Incidentally, despite reports suggesting that the Government's plan has a specific production target, this is not the case. Rather we are putting in place arrangements under which production will be free to adjust to profitable market opportunities. In recent weeks different sections of the industry have expressed interest not only in the Government's proposed adjustment assistance program but in pursuing their own totally industry funded adjustment programs. These programs are directed at easing and speeding the process of adjustment at the farm level, but more work needs to be done to fully develop these ideas. The Government is certainly willing to listen to such ideas and, indeed, will facilitate their development if requested. The industry has expressed concern over imports of subsidised and dumped cheese. The Government's position on this is clear-we will not allow dumped or subsidised cheese to damage the Australian industry and if existing arrangements do not work satisfactorily other measures will be considered. While on the subject of imports, a great deal of nonsense has been spread over alleged secret deals with New Zealand. There is simply no truth in this. The Government's arrangements do not interfere with the existing arrangements negotiated under the previous Government with respect to trade in dairy products between New Zealand and Australia. Now let me turn to the particulars of the Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Bill 1985. This Bill provides for the imposition of a levy on the milk fat content of relevant dairy produce-whole milk and whole milk products. The maximum levy rate is 45c per kilogram of milk fat, with the operative rate being established by regulation following a recommendation by the Australian Dairy Corporation. The levy is payable by the producer of the dairy produce. The use of a levy on all milk to provide funds for supporting domestic prices of dairy products is more equitable and efficient than the present system's sole reliance on levies on a limited number of dairy products. Such a levy was recommended by the IAC and is supported by Australian Agricultural Council and the industry generally. There are no direct financial implications for the Commonwealth. Costs associated with administration of the market support levy are to be met from levy receipts. 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)(5.37) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains amendments to the Dairy Produce Act 1924 and the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958. The most significant provision is that which discontinues export pooling for production on or after 1 July 1985. Since existing export pools will continue until finalised, appropriate savings provisions have been provided in the Bill. Given the long history of export pooling I can understand the concerns of sections of the industry at the prospect of its abolition. I briefly mentioned the problems stemming from export pooling in my speech on the Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Bill 1985. However it is difficult to overemphasise the distorting and debilitating effect of export pooling on the industry. Its termination is the only means to ensure that manufacturers produce only for those markets which are seen as profitable, seek to maximise prices from individual sales and actively seek new, profitable markets, and seek to produce the best product mix. Any system which allows a manufacturer to export at well below the cost of production of the milk he uses in manufacturing a dairy product, and yet still end up with a profit on the sale, must generate overproduction and other distortions. Under export pooling, we have been continuing to produce butter and cheese for export for a return, in some cases, of only around 5c a litre for the milk used. This is clearly absurd from the industry's viewpoint but in fact quite rational from an individual manufacturer's viewpoint. I must say that I find it difficult to understand how some honourable members who claim to believe in the virtues of private enterprise and individual initiative can support the continuation of an arrangement whereby the benefits of an individual exporter's efforts in finding and developing a profitable market are, in effect, appropriated and spread equally across all dairy exporters. Exports will continue under the Government's plan. Indeed, by removing the existing distortions in support levels provided to dairy products, and with presently non-prescribed products now being eligible for market support payments, and supplementary market support payments, a very concrete encouragement is given for the development of new products and new export markets. This will, of course, not happen overnight and our heavy dependence on exports of traditional bulk dairy products will continue for some time. The present system of allowances to manufacturers whereby the industry as a whole bears certain costs-for example, interest and storage charges-incurred by individual manufacturers also creates serious distortions and is to be terminated from 1 July 1985. For example, with the aid of a freight subsidy paid for by industry moneys, some Victorian manufacturers have been able to sell butter in Queensland cheaper than in Victoria. A number of amendments have been made to the Dairy Produce Act 1924 designed to increase the commercial and operational flexibility of the Australian Dairy Corporation-ADC. These include: Expansion of the means by which the ADC can raise money to include a wider range of contemporary financial instruments A specific provision to enable the ADC to engage in futures trading within appropriate guidelines A provision to enable the ADC to invest money which is temporarily surplus in the short term money market as appropriate Empowering the ADC, subject to certain conditions and with ministerial approval, to borrow from internal sources-that is, from funds which it administers-rather than externally A specific power for the ADC to act as an agent for manufacturers in respect of export sales An ability for the ADC to sell, with ministerial approval, on the domestic market A clarification of the power of the ADC to lend money to manufacturers of dairy products; and A clarification and upgrading of existing provisions relating to the ADC's power to purchase and dispose of assets. As well, and in accordance with the Government's general approach of reducing wherever possible the burden of regulation on industry, a number of other regulatory restraints have been repealed. These include: The licensing of exporters, although I should stress that the need for exporters to obtain an export permit under the Export Control Act 1982 remains The ADC's powers to establish conditions relating to contracts for shipment of dairy products-this has not been exercised in recent years The power of the ADC to control exports for the purpose of ensuring adequate domestic supplies-this is not consistent with the broader aim of encouraging manufacturers to develop a firm commitment to exporting. Finally, a provision is included which requires the ADC to credit any surplus and debit any deficit, stemming from sales it makes in its own right, to the market support fund. The ADC is funded by a levy on milk production. There are no direct financial implications from this Bill for the Commonwealth. 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)(5.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill contains many of the essential features of the new marketing arrangements. The Bill provides for collection and administrative arrangements for the market support levy imposed under the Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Bill 1985 and the dairy products levy imposed under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985; the establishment of a market support fund and the payment of market support payments; and the establishment of a supplementary fund and the payment of supplementary market support payments. Under the new arrangements market support payments will be used to increase export returns to an export target figure, thereby increasing the domestic price at which a manufacturer would be indifferent between an export sale and a domestic sale. Consequently market support payments provide, as do existing arrangements, a measure of domestic price support. When combined with supplementary market support payments, which I will discuss shortly, the level of support provided to domestic prices of major dairy products in 1985-86 will be of the same order as it is now. The rate of market support payment is, for dairy produce prescribed for this purpose, the difference between the export target price and the estimated average export price for that produce in the current year. The export target price is calculated as 130 per cent of the average export price for the relevant dairy produce in the past two years and the year in which the target price is to apply. Market support payments for non-prescribed dairy produce are to be determined by the Australian Dairy Corporation-ADC-having regard to the rates of market support payments applicable to prescribed dairy products. The market support payments will be paid from a market support fund established by legislation principally to receive funds collected from the market support levy. The system of market support payments proposed under which the assistance to each type of dairy product is approximately uniform, and the funds for this purpose are raised on a broader basis, is widely accepted as being both more equitable and less distorting than present arrangements. All dairy products which are exported will benefit directly, and a base level of support is provided for the industry as a whole. At the same time the funds for this support are sourced from all milk produced, rather than through a levy on a limited number of major dairy products as is presently the case. The Government's mechanism is, honourable members will be interested, essentially as recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission -IAC-and adopted by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference for its recommended marketing arrangements. However, the Government is proposing a number of changes to the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations, including a higher level of market support, 30 per cent against 20 per cent, for support to be slightly countercyclical as a result of the use of a three year average rather than the current year only-this means the industry will get more support when it is most needed-and additional support for a transitional period. Provisions to enable the Australian Dairy Corporation to establish special market support payments in particular circumstances are included, along with provision for the Australian Dairy Corporation to guarantee a rate of market support payment in advance of actual export. This latter provision recognises practical commercial features of trade in dairy products. As I have already mentioned, supplementary market support payments will, as a transitional measure, be paid to manufacturers to raise export returns above the export target price level, or its equivalent for non-prescribed products. This will provide further support for domestic prices of dairy products. These supplementary market support payments will be funded by the proceeds of the dairy products levy with a new supplementary fund being established to receive the proceeds of this levy. Supplementary market support payments will be determined as a percentage of the export target price and consequently paid in line with international price relativities for dairy products. A number of provisions relating to the administration of the arrangements are included; for example, access to premises, provision for returns and information to be supplied. Penalty provisions are also necessary and have been included in respect of both non-payment of levy and offences in relation to applications for payment and in relation to returns. One point to note is a provision for a court to be able to order that any payment falsely obtained be repaid, as well as imposing a penalty. Procedures for the consideration and review of decisions directly affecting the right of an individual are also incorporated. The funds for the making of market support payments and supplementary market support payments will come from industry sources and hence there are no direct financial implications for the Commonwealth. Any underwriting contributions by the Commonwealth will be paid into the market support fund. Underwriting arrangements agreed to by the Government are however not provided for in legislation. Any payments required as a result of underwriting will be by means of an appropriation from Consolidated Revenue. As honourable members will appreciate, the amount of underwriting contributions, if any, cannot be determined in advance as they will relate to the actual market circumstances arising from time to time. As I shall note in my speech on the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill, this Bill also provides for the repeal of the Dairy Industry Assistance Act 1977 and the Dairy Industry Assistance Levy Act 1977. 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)(5.48) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill amends the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977 and is an integral element in the overall package of marketing arrangements. The Bill imposes a levy on certain dairy products produced at a factory, with butter, butteroil and cheddar cheeses likely to be the only products, in practice, to attract a significant levy. The rate of the levy will be determined by regulation in the first year and for subsequent years by a formula which is detailed in the legislation. Funds from the levy will be used to provide further support for domestic prices of dairy products in addition to that funded by the levy on all milk under the Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Bill 1985. Levies imposed under this Bill form part of a transitional arrangement designed to ease the movement over time to a lower level of support for domestic prices of dairy products. The levies will be phased out under the formula, with the timing of the phase-out being determined by the extent to which production and/or market milk prices fall. The aim of the formula is to abate the rate of decline in levies and hence support for domestic prices if milk production or market milk prices fall rapidly. A rise in either market milk prices or production would, incidentally, under the formula have the same effect as no change in these factors. This is necessary to ensure that support for domestic prices of manufactured dairy products is not adversely affected by the actions of one or more State governments in increasing market milk prices. Honourable members will be aware that the regulation of the market milk sector of the industry has been and remains the responsibility of State governments. However, the Government, in the Dairy Produce Market Support Bill 1985, provides for the repeal, given that, of the Dairy Industry Assistance Act 1977 and the Dairy Industry Assistance Levy Act 1977. These Acts, which were passed in 1977 but never proclaimed, have been seen by the dairy industry as inhibiting interstate trade in market milk. In the view of the Government, it is inappropriate for the Commonwealth to impose artificial impediments to rational sourcing of milk, whether it be market milk or manufacturing milk. The only direct financial implication for the Commonwealth is the cost associated with collection of the dairy products levy, which will be in the vicinity of $120,000 per annum. Given that the Commonwealth in the past has met the cost of levies imposed under the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Act 1977 and the imposition of the levy under this Bill is for a limited time period, it was not considered appropriate for collection charges to be met from levy receipts. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(5.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is for an Act to establish the Australian Sports Commission as a Commonwealth Statutory Authority. The Bill sets out the objectives, functions and powers of the Commission. It also covers a wide range of issues relating to its management and operation. The Bill defines the relationship between the Commission and the Government within which the Commission will undertake its tasks. It also authorises the establishment of an Australian Sports Aid Foundation. Background Federal government involvement in sports development assistance began in earnest a little more than a decade ago. Under the guidance of the late Frank Stewart in the Whitlam Labor Government, the Federal Government established a sports assistance program under the auspices of the first national department with direct responsibility for sport. The program covered assistance to sporting organisations as well as an attempt to increase the number and improve the quality of sports facilities throughout the community at various levels. I am pleased to point out to you, Madam Acting Speaker, that one of the people who worked very closely with Frank Stewart in that first sports ministry, Graham Dempster, is sitting in the gallery. He is now one of the leading officers in my Department. I guess it would be fair to say that our former colleague, Frank Stewart, will be smiling at us from that great sporting field in the sky when we introduce something which I know was very dear to his heart. Under the previous coalition Government, the pattern of funding and support from the Commonwealth Government was erratic and unreliable. Indeed, in 1976, just before Australia's undistinguished performance at the Montreal Olympic Games, the Federal Government withdrew entirely from direct support of sports development. Our performance at those games, together with some concerted pressure by the sporting community, saw a measure of support reinstated. The decline in funding came to an abrupt halt in 1983. Since the last year of the Fraser Government total sports funding through my Department has increased enormously, to reach $54m under this Government in 1984-85. It has often been suggested that Australia's sports effort has been fragmented and that consequently we have been unable to realise fully the basic objective of developing opportunities for sporting excellence and participation for all Australians. The Federal Government, the argument continues, should take a stronger leadership and co-ordinative role. Prior to our election in 1983, we published a major policy statement outlining our plans and objectives for sports development assistance. Central to those plans was the creation of the Australian Sports Commission to draw together more effectively our national sporting effort. In September 1983 the Government appointed an interim committee to advise on the role, functions and responsibilities of the proposed Commission. The interim committee reported to me in March 1984. During its investigations, the interim committee identified a range of problems and issues confronting contemporary sports development in Australia. Although the priorities and emphasis placed on those problems understandably varied between a range of groups and individuals, two persistent themes emerged: (i) The need for a mechanism that allowed a much greater direct involvement by sport itself in determining needs, priorities and strategies for action; and (ii) The need to develop alternative sources of funding for sport both to supplement existing public sector sources of funds and to provide a measure of certainty and stability in the flow of resources. Undertaking those two fundamental reforms provides the most effective foundation upon which to build a more cohesive, co-ordinated sporting system throughout Australia. While it is generally acknowledged that the departmental structure that has existed in the past has serviced governments well in their programs of support for sport in Australia, it is also recognised that there are some restrictions on the flexibility of such a structure. The Commission, on the other hand, will be able to forge stronger links between the sporting community and the decision-making process as well as to operate, through the proposed Australian Sports Aid Foundation, in the entrepreneurial and highly competitive world of private sector sponsorship and fund raising. The Australian Sports Commission will be able to provide the necessary flexibility and autonomy to address those major reforms, while working within a framework of stated Government polices. Government Announcement On 13 September last year, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the Government's intention to establish the Commission as a statutory authority. He also indicated the membership of the Commission, to be chaired on a part time basis by Mr Ted Harris, the Managing Director of Ampol Petroleum Ltd, who had chaired the interim committee. The part time Deputy Chairman will be the former Olympian, Mr Herb Elliott. Current members who will be confirmed are: Mrs Vicki Cardwell, the former world squash champion; Mr Pat Clohessy, who is well known as the coach of Robert De Castella; Mr Phillip Coles, the former Olympic canoeist, who is now the Secretary-General of the Australian Olympic Federation; Miss Betty Cuthbert, the fabled and famed Australian olympian; Mr Mike Fitzpatrick, the former captain of the Carlton Football Club; Mr Neale Fraser, the former Wimbledon champion and now the captain of the Australian Davis Cup Team; Mr Colin Hayes, probably the world's greatest horse trainer; Mr Grant Kenny, one of the greatest surfers Australia has ever produced and currently an olympic canoeist; Mr Andrew Lederer, the manager of the Australian soccer team; Mr Ray Lindwall, the former test cricketer of great fame; Mr Bruce MacDonald, the Secretary to my Department; Mr Roy Masters, the coach of the St George Football Club in Sydney; Mr John Newman, the Chairman of the Australian Karate Association; Mrs Glynis Nunn, whom all honourable members would know as a gold medallist in Los Angeles; Mrs Wendy Pritchard, the former Australian hockey captain; Mrs Margaret Pewtress, the Chairman of the Australian Netball Federation; Mr Mark Tonelli, a gold medal winner at the Moscow Olympic Games; and Mr Jim Yates, a former Australian bowls champion. They provide a wide range of sporting experience and knowledge, as well as skills in business management and other fields. Since that announcement, the Commission has assumed a number of significant existing policy and program management responsibilities, and has addressed itself to some exciting new priority areas which we believe required urgent attention and action. I shall mention some of these later in this speech. Major Features of the Bill The Bill-which builds on the experience of the last seven months-outlines the Commission's objectives, which are to maximise funding for sport from the private sector, to provide leadership in the development of Australia's performance in international sport and to increase the level of participation in sport by all Australians. It also defines the functions of the Commission, which include program management, the co-ordination of our national sporting effort and the requirement to consult widely with the sporting community. The Bill also describes the powers that the Commission will have to undertake its work. These include the vital provision to establish and operate an Australian Sports Aid Foundation, through which to increase the volume and value of funds for sports development from the private sector. I draw the attention of honourable members to those aspects of the Bill that define the powers and responsibilities of the Minister. The Government is anxious to ensure that the Commission operates within the framework of overall government objectives and policies, which will guide the strategic plan to be prepared by the Commission for consideration by the Minister. These provisions make it clear that the Commission will remain directly responsible to the Government. Together with the provision to allow the Minister to issue directions to the Commission, they will ensure a due and proper degree of ministerial overview and responsibility. The Bill contains the usual sorts of provisions relating to a range of administrative and operational issues, including membership and appointment, the committee system, remuneration and financial management. It should be noted that the Commission will be required to submit estimates in respect of its proposed budget. It will be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and the production of an annual report. Financial Impact Statement Following the establishment of the Commission on 13 September 1984, the administrative and operational expenses relating to staff, travel, meetings and day-to-day running of the Commission are estimated to be $937,000 in 1984-85. These costs reflect the Government's concern to ensure that the Commission has sufficient funds available in this important establishment phase to undertake a number of projects in line with government sports development priorities. In addition, the funds cover the payment of fees and allowances to Commission members. At the same time, the Government recognises the environment characterised by a need to control overall levels of government spending. The cost in 1985-86, being the first full-year operation of the Commission, will be determined in the Budget context. Under the legislation the Commission will have the power to set up a company to be known as the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, whose prime function will be to raise funds from the private sector to supplement public funds made available for sports development. This Bill, especially those provisions relating to the Commission's strategic plan, places the organisation in the vanguard of the Federal Government's commitment to overall management improvement within the public sector. Within the context of the strategic plan, which has to be endorsed by the Minister, the Commission will be required to develop objectives for its programs and activities, to define measures against which it can test performance and to subject all aspects of its operations to regular evaluation. In broad terms, of course, the provisions of the legislation itself, to the extent that they set out the objectives and functions of the Commission, will offer a primary measure against which constantly to monitor its performance. Achievements and Priorities I mentioned earlier that since it commenced operations in September last year the Commission has addressed itself to a number of priority areas which we believed required urgent attention. For example, it has advanced considerably in the development of a major children in sport campaign. This has involved extensive consultations with the sporting community, with State and Territory education and sport departments, and with expert researchers in the field. The result has been the publication of an action plan entitled 'Young Sport 88'. The plan, itself the subject of wide consultation amongst the various groups that will play an important part in its implementation, is directed towards a series of specific outcomes or targets. These targets are based on the simple, but vital, objective of providing every child in Australia with the skills and experience in a range of sporting and fitness activities. The plan is to introduce a high proportion of those children to those skills by 1988, Australia's bicentennial year. Depending on availability of funds in the Budget, I would want to see an early start made on an agreed program of this sort. At the other end of the spectrum the Commission is developing a plan that will spell out some basic principles to assist the development of programs to cater for the sporting needs of older Australians. By the year 2,000 some 15 per cent of Australians will be over 65. We have heard much of the trends in our technological age towards earlier retirement and increasing leisure time. These changes impose priorities to which it is imperative we respond right now. The Commission is doing just that. The Commission has undertaken two major commitments-the Sports Aid Foundation and the provision to allow sportspeople with short, high-earning careers to average their incomes-and is urgently developing specific proposals for our consideration. With reference particularly to the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, the Government recognises that it is essential to provide sufficient incentive to ensure that the Foundation receives the maximum support possible from individuals and corporations within the community. In line with a commitment given during the last election campaign by the Prime Minister, the Government is giving full consideration to the provision of full tax deductibility for donations to the Foundation. As well as these and other major new areas of activity and involvement, the Commission is running major programs of sports assistance taken over from my Department-the sports development program and the national athlete award scheme, for example. In 1984-85, the sports development program will provide some $7m to national sporting organisations and other bodies to assist with, among other things, administration, junior development programs, coaching development and travel to international competition. This year the national athlete award scheme will allocate more than $700,000 to over 155 individual athletes and 18 teams to assist with training and competition expenses. A major new program of assistance to our top sports people-the sports talent plan-has been foreshadowed and its full development will occur as soon as funds are available. Consultation Perhaps most importantly, the Commission has already developed avenues of consultation through which the sporting community can become closely involved in, and fully informed about, the Commission's activities and decision-making processes. Consultation is necessary, not only with other organisations within the Commonwealth, such as my own Department and the Australian Institute of Sport, but also with State and Territory governments, major umbrella groups and individual bodies responsible to such a large extent for the primary delivery of sport to the Australian community. I believe the Commission's conduct, even in these first, brief months of its existence, provides ample and compelling evidence of the co-operation and consultation that will be the cornerstones of its overall approach. The Commission has no power or charter to intervene in or direct, without the direction of the Minister, the affairs of any individual organisation. It has neither the power nor the competence to effect some sort of unilateral 'takeover' of sport. Its charter is clear and simple-to ensure that taxpayers' money is used, and used wisely, to achieve the most effective outcomes for sport and for the community. The Government has no intention of allowing any compromise of the proud tradition of independence and autonomy of sporting organisations that lies at the heart of Australia's sporting achievements. The Commission is to have powers that are independent of my Department and will have primarily an enterpreneurial role, as well as being responsible for recommending the allocation of funding to various sporting organisations and groups and the management of relevant assistance programs. My Department, on the other hand, will continue to provide an avenue of advice on sports policy issues, as well as maintaining responsibility for those areas in sport where co-operation of Commonwealth, State and Territory governments is a major factor. I am referring here to such things as the provision of sporting facilities and assistance with major multi-sports events of an international flavour where assistance could not normally be provided through appropriations available to the Commission. The Department is also to assume a more active role in the development and implementation of the Government's policies relating to community recreation and fitness. A New Era in Sport Australia has suffered in the past from a curious form of schizophrenia about sport. While proud of their sport, Australians have been uncertain as to where it fits into community life. This is despite the fact that we are one of the most sports-crazy nations on earth. Our people spend vast amounts of their time, energy and money playing, watching and enjoying sport. It is widely accepted that sport has been, and continues to be, a major expression of an enormous range of personal and emotional values and experiences, as well as a vital and vigorous element of our national identity and culture. The Prime Minister recognised these values when he commented, in a speech in November 1984 that 'over the years Australia's high performance athletes and coaches have been treated so shabbily by coalition governments'. He went on: Sportsmen and women, through their dedication and sheer hard work, have been great ambassadors for this country and have been great morale boosters at home. It is simply unfair and unjust for governments to underestimate-and hence undervalue-the role played by our sporting community in the projection of our image and prestige overseas and in the focus they provide for national pride and national achievement at home. These values have not been lost on private enterprise and shall not go unheeded by this Government. We already estimate that direct sponsorship of sport by the private sector is at least $50m, and takes no account of the value of sports-related advertising. We will not only help sport, we will also ensure that the efforts of business to promote and assist sport are encouraged. We recognise that sport delivers not only valuable primary products such as fun, fitness and involvement, but also consistently provides such vital secondary outcomes as better health-both mental and physical-a sense of national pride, and one of the most marvellous manifestations of human striving for excellence and performance. However, we are also beginning to understand more accurately the impressive dimensions of the involvement in sport by the community and its contribution to our national life. For example, we know that in 1983-84, registered participants in cricket, Australian rules, bowls, netball, soccer and tennis exceeded a total of 2.5 million people. The total registration of all national sporting organisations assisted by the Government reaches well beyond five million Australians-35 per cent of our population-and takes no account of those who play sport without formal registration with an organisation. A study into recreational fishing-one of Australia's most popular sports-identified a $2 billion contribution to the economy. In the 1981 census, 6 per cent of the population was working in the leisure industry, that is, a 27 per cent increase over the figure in the 1971 census. Sport is becoming a major facet of the advertising industry, the insurance industry and the media-all multi-million dollar activities of immense value to our country. Production of sports equipment alone accounts for over $75m in Australia per year. Sports-related industries, of course, account for far more. Yet, for all that, we have been strangely reluctant to see sport as a serious or significant area for government support and assistance. While we invest heavily in many other areas of our national life, Federal governments have not seen assistance to sport-despite all the enormous benefits it can deliver to our community-as the investment in national development that it truly represents. We will not only look to helping sport, but also to active co-operation with the private sector in its efforts in this field. I have already mentioned the remarkable record achieved by this Government in the provision of more adequate funding for sport. To adopt a particularly apt metaphore, I can confidently say that the runs are well and truly on the board. But money is not the simple or singular answer. There must be a sound infrastructure of efficient and effective management to ensure that what we spend has the most beneficial impact on our community. We must put in place machinery to undertake the increasingly complex task that is sports development in the 1980s, or we shall fail to achieve the high aspirations we have for sport and for what sport can provide for all Australians. The Government believes that the Australian Sports Commission will achieve those vital objectives and, working closely with the sporting and wider community, will become an integral element in Australian sport's brave new world. The Sports Commission is only one of a number of things this Government is doing to promote sport at all levels. I do not think anybody in this House would disagree that sport is an enormous progenitor, first of national pride, secondly of national identity in the international sphere and, more importantly, is the greatest supplier we have of fitness and wellbeing, both mental and physical, within this community. Fortunately, sport in Australia has been basically an apolitical issue. I must pay tribute to one of my predecessors, the Hon. Bob Ellicott, for his formation of the Australian Institute of Sport here in Canberra. I note that the very effervescent and enthusiastic Director of the Australian Institute of Sport is sitting in the gallery. I can assure all members of this House that the Government is truly committed to sport at all levels. The Institute of Sport in Canberra is probably the best of its kind in the world, funded by taxpayers' money under two governments to the extent of $100m. At long last the efforts of our extraordinarily skilful elite athletes who have led the world in the 1950s and 1960s just on raw ability are now being recognised by government, and public support has been put behind them in terms of finance. However, we are not only concerned with sport at the elite level. The job of the Sports Commission will be to see that people at all levels of adequacy and skill in Australia are given an opportunity to play sport. The Bill I have just presented to the House which makes the Sports Commission a statutory authority and gives it new status in terms of the Government's interest in sport is very worthwhile. I commend the Bill to the House. Bill (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(6.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1985 is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory Act 1976) to enable implementation of the Government's decision to grant the land in Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park to an Aboriginal land trust and implementation of the agreement with the Aboriginal traditional owners to lease the area back to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to be managed as a national park. A number of minor amendments are also being introduced to rectify anomalies which have been identified in the Parks Act relating to proclamation of parks and reserves and preparation of plans of management. The Ayers Rock-Mount Olga area was proclaimed as part of the Petermann Aboriginal Reserve in the 1920s. In 1958 the area was excised from the Petermann Reserve and proclaimed as a reserve under the Northern Territory Crown Lands Ordinance. It was then managed for many years by the Northern Territory Reserves Board. When the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, which we now propose to amend, was passed by the Parliament during the time of the Whitlam Government, it was envisaged that the area would be proclaimed as a national park under the Act. Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park was proclaimed in 1977. Uluru National Park, which includes Ayers Rock and the Olgas, is of great cultural significance to the Aboriginal people. The majestic splendour of Ayers Rock and the Olgas has also become a magnetic attraction for tourists from within Australia and overseas and during the past year over 100,000 people have visited Uluru National Park. This figure is expected to increase significantly now that the magnificent tourist facilities at Yulara Village just outside the park are operational. I first became actively involved in the area in the late 1960s when the real potential of Ayers Rock and the Olgas as a tourist destination was beginning to be recognised. Between 1968 and 1978 a number of studies were commissioned dealing with park visitor accommodation, air access, environmental matters and park planning. One report in particular, that in 1969 by Harris, Kerr, Foster and Co. commissioned by the then Northern Territory Reserves Board, proposed a development plan which provided the initial stimulus for the development of the park and associated tourist facilities which has taken place in recent years. The concept of a tourist village was developed during the period of the Whitlam Government to the point where a site outside the boundaries of the park was selected and approved by the Central Land Council, which represented Aboriginal interest. The site was not proclaimed until 1976. The Yulara Tourist Village is thus the culmination of 15 years of planning and effort. Mr Everingham —By the Northern Territory. Mr COHEN —I am tempted to answer some of the fools on the other side, but I prefer to get this speech out of the way. I visited Uluru National Park recently and I must say that White Industries, the design and project managers, and Philip Cox and Partners, the consulting architects, have created a tourist village of world class at Yulara. The village, which has cost over $150m, includes an international standard hotel, a motel, cabin accommodation and camping facilities providing a wide range of accommodation for visitors. The concept and design of the village display a sensitivity to the natural landscape and climate of the area. The architects, working with the environment, not against it, have incorporated the natural vegetation and the red sand dunes as features in the landscape design. A visitor to the village could only be favourable impressed with what has been created. The amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act are necessary for two reasons: Firstly, to enable the deed of grant to be made by including a description of Uluru in the Schedule to the Bill and, secondly, to require the land trust, to which the deed is granted, to lease the area to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife so as to enable Uluru to be managed as a national park under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. Amendments to the parks Act will introduce co-operative management arrangements for Uluru National Park which will provide the Aboriginals with an effective voice in the management of the park and which will ensure the continuing protection of both the natural and cultural values of the park. The granting of title to the traditional owners of Uluru and the leasing back to the Government of that land in order to allow it to continue to operate as a national park is not a new concept. Honourable members will be aware that the previous conservative Government introduced a similar arrangement in the top end of the Northern Territory in respect of Kakadu National Park. The House is in the fortunate position of having a former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), here to bear witness to the fact that the Northern Territory Government has itself granted freehold title to land to traditional Aboriginal owners on the basis that it be used as a national park. I am sure that the honourable member for the Northern Territory will also recall his proposal in his former capacity as Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to give title to Uluru National Park under an arrangement whereby it would continue as a national park administered jointly by the Northern Territory Conservation Commission and the traditional Aboriginal owners. Based on experience with the examples I have mentioned, there is nothing to suggest that the scheme proposed by the Government will not operate to the advantage of Aboriginals and all Australians alike. Thus the amendments will enable Uluru to be both Aboriginal land and a national park. In its latter capacity, it will be available to all who wish to view the grandeur of the rock and the surrounding areas. For traditional Aboriginal people, grant of title to the land will be a recognition in law that it is their land, land which holds their spiritual roots and is to them an outward manifestation of their very being. I take this opportunity to say that the Aboriginal people at Ayers Rock, the members of the Mititjula Association, are listening tonight to this speech. I hope some honourable members might take that into account. The lease-back arrangements agreed with the traditional Aboriginal owners of Uluru provide for the traditional owners to lease Uluru to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife for a period of 99 years, and an annual rental of $75,000 plus 20 per cent of gross park entrance fees to be paid by the Commonwealth. The rental will be reviewed whenever the plan of management is rewritten but, in any event, not less than every five years. The Bill provides for the establishment of a board for Uluru National Park or for any other park or reserve containing Aboriginal land, as defined in the parks Act, that may at some future time be declared by regulation to be a prescribed park or reserve as defined in this Bill. Before a board is established the Minister administering the parks Act and the relevant Aboriginal land council agree on the name, composition and specific requirements for membership of the board. The Minister then establishes the board by notice in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The functions of boards and procedures relating to boards are also set down in this Bill. The agreement reached for Uluru National Park provided for the establishment of an Uluru board of 11 members consisting of six Aboriginals nominated by the traditional owners; the Director of National Parks and Wildlife; one other Commonwealth official nominated by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment; a representative of the tourist industry nominated by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism; and two representatives of the Northern Territory. It is significant in regard to the role of Aboriginals in managing Uluru National Park that they will be in a majority on the Uluru board and that there is a provision in the Bill before us now that they should be in a majority at all meetings. The Uluru board will have an important role in both the development and management of Uluru National Park and will advise the Minister on all aspects of these matters. I expect that, when the board is appointed, it will begin immediately, in conjunction with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, to draw up a new plan of management for the park. The new plan will take effect when the present plan expires in 1987, or beforehand if the new plan is ready. The amendments to the parks Act provide for the resolution of disagreements between the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the board during both the preparation of the plan of management and the implementation of the plan. The amendments provide firstly for a disagreement to be referred to the Minister administering the parks Act for resolution. If the Minister is unable to resolve the disagreement, the Minister is required to appoint an arbitrator suitably qualified to deal with the matter impartially and to report to the Minister. The Minister will determine the matter taking account of the arbitrator's findings. I fully expect that, in practice, a spirit of co-operation will prevail and occasions on which the Minister will need to use these provisions will be very rare indeed. The Government will meet the cost of the rental and certain administrative expenses related to the operation of the board. The total cost is estimated to be $150,000 per annum. These costs are additional to ongoing costs for the management of the park. The payment of rental, which in 1985-86 is expected to amount to $100,000, together with opportunities for employment created by the park and associated tourist facilities, will add substantially to the economic base of the Aboriginal community and further enhance Aboriginal self-determination and self-management. The arrangements being provided for Uluru National Park through amendments to the parks Act are likely to set a pattern that could be followed, at any time in the future, for the management of other national parks containing Aboriginal land. I now refer to the minor amendments to the parks Act which are included in the Schedule to this Bill. These amendments clarify the Act as it now stands and allow implementation of what I believe to be the original intention of the Act. The Act, as it is presently written, is unclear as to whether land can be added to an existing park, reserve or wilderness zone by varying an existing proclamation. Confusion over the meaning of the Act has prevented, for example, the amalgamation of stage 2 of Kakadu National Park with stage 1 of the park. The amendments remove this unintended barrier. They also clarify the public comment requirement in regard to the declaration, amendment or revocation of a park, reserve or wilderness zone. The Act, as it is now written, does not require public comment in regard to the declaration of a park or reserve, within the region. Region, as defined in the Act, includes stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park, and by virtue of this Bill will include Uluru National Park, but excludes Arnhem Land and the Mount Bundy, Gimbat, Goodparla and Eva Valley pastoral leases. Amendments maintain this existing situation. The amendments also provide that public comment is not required for an addition to a park, reserve or wilderness zone within the region, as defined, or the transfer of an area from one park, reserve or wilderness zone to another. The amendments confirm, however, that any proposal to revoke a proclamation or to remove an area from a park, reserve or wilderness zone must be subject to public review and a report to the Governor-General in accordance with the Act. Honourable members will agree that clarification of this issue is vital to the future security of our national parks and reserves. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Mr Shipton —In relation to the debate on which I have just moved the adjournment, may I have the indulgence of the Chair to ask the Minister whether a map will be published with the Schedule of the Bill? Mr Cohen —No. Bill presented by Mr Cohen, and read a first time. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (6.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As I mentioned when I was introducing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, this Bill is very closely related to that legislation. I have already canvassed all the important aspects of the Bill this afternoon. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.32 to 8 p.m. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 226th report of the Committee relating to the activities of the Committee from July 1983 to December 1984. I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —The 226th report is the report of activities of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts for the period from July 1983 to December 1984. It contains a review of the inquiries conducted by the Committee during the period, issues arising from investigations and other matters which the Committee regards as significant in its development. There are advantages in having a review of the Committee's activities over the 18-month period to 31 December 1984. This covers the operations of the Fourteenth Committee. The Fourteenth Committee was appointed in May 1983, and in December 1983 its membership was increased from 11 to 16. The five new members of the Fourteenth Committee then appointed were Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Senator Margaret Reynolds, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent), the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Membership of the Fourteenth Committee ceased, under section 5 (5) of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, when the Parliament was dissolved on 26 October 1984. It is thus appropriate to take the 18-month period as the review period and to inform the Parliament of the Fourteenth Committee's activities. The Committee scrutinises and regularly reviews the manner in which departments estimate their financial requirements and expend the moneys allocated to them by the Parliament. Its primary concern is with the cost effectiveness of administration rather than the determination of policy. However, the Committee is becoming more interested in analysing the process by which policy objectives are determined. This interest and implementation is reflected in the Committee's close relationship with the authorities, such as the Public Service Board, the Department of Finance and the Auditor-General. During the period under review the Committee produced 22 reports. Within the Committee's program particular attention was paid to processing Government responses to earlier reports. Accordingly, 13 of the reports tabled were Finance minute reports, which completed the Committee's inquiry sequence for numerous subjects, including chemists' remuneration under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and coal export duty. The Committee also presented major reports on income maintenance programs, HMAS Tobruk, excise and automatic data processing. Brief summaries of the Committee's 22 reports are presented in our report of activities. In addition to the Committee's investigative activities to the end of December 1984, Committee members have spoken at numerous seminars and conferences, both on the role of parliamentary committees-including the Public Accounts Committee-and on specific issues of interest to it. The Committee considers that these activities supplement its inquiries as a means of increasing public awareness of efficiency issues in public administration. The Committee records its appreciation to its Secretary, Mr Michael Talberg, permanent and seconded staff and its advisers for their efforts throughout the period. In addition, the Committee thanks officers from the Department of Finance, the Public Service Board and the Auditor-General's Office who have acted as observers for our hearings. The Committee is also grateful for the work done by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter and his staff and other officers of the parliamentary departments who have assisted the Committee in its activities. I commend the report to honourable members. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —by leave-I wish to make a very brief statement on the 226th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, which has just been tabled. I take this opportunity to thank the staff members that have been involved in the presentation of all the reports produced in the 18-month period covered by the 226th report. The House would be aware, from the report that has just been tabled, of the enormous amount of work that has gone into the preparation of those reports. The Public Accounts Committee is a very hard-working committee. I believe it has done some very useful work. This is true of some of the reports that I have been involved in for example, the income maintenance report has made a very good contribution in outlining the number of income maintenance programs that exist in this country and also in making some attempts to rationalise them. None of that work would have been possible without the members of the Committee and the staff that backs them up. On behalf of the Government I wish to put formally on the record its thanks to the staff and to the members of the Committee who made the reports possible. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on proposals for variations of the plan of the layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, eighty-third series Item 4, and eighty-fourth series, together with minutes and proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-The report I have just tabled reports on the outstanding item in the eighty-third series and 15 items in the eighty-fourth series of variations to the city plan. The Committee recommends approval of variation 4 of the eighty-third series and the variations contained in the eighty-fourth series, except variation 6. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) advised the Committee that it was no longer his intention to proceed with the Weston Park road additions and deletions proposed in variation 6. The Committee, in considering these variations, took evidence from several organisations, including community groups, as well as two members of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The cost involved in the proposals dealt with in this report is $16.8m. I wish to comment on only six of the variations. The first is variation 8, which concerns the White Industries Ltd convention centre project. The Committee is concerned about a continuing reduction in car parking areas in Civic Centre and would like to place on record its support for public access to the car parks to be located under the office buildings. This would help alleviate some of the problems presently being experienced by shoppers and the work force employed in Civic. A further concern of the Committee is the realisation of the full potential of the convention centre. The lag time from booking conferences and conventions to assembly of delegates and participants may be three or four years. It is therefore necessary for arrangements to achieve initial full utilisation to be set in train immediately. Advice has been received from the Department of Territories that some preliminary promotional work has commenced, but it is essential that firm bookings be taken now so that the centre will not stand idle during its first year of operation, which is targeted for 1988. Variation 10 provides for the development of Isabella Plains North. The area includes about 500 residential sites, a shopping centre, high schools and playing fields. In view of the size of Monash, which has a lower population than adjoining suburbs, the Committee supports the submission of the South Tuggeranong Progress Association to include the area within the suburb of Monash. This would assist in unifying the area and providing a greater cohesion of services. The Committee approves the variation subject to the incorporation of the area into the suburb of Monash. Variation 11 provides access to a site within the Erindale group centre. The new plans for Erindale as a group centre allow for a total of 4,000 square metres of retail space plus 2,100 square metres for a hardware store, a garden centre and catering and drinking establishments, and will provide much-needed retail services for the area before construction of the Tuggeranong town centre. With regard to variation 13, which provides for a major realignment of the extension of Drakeford Drive, the Committee approves works associated with construction of the proposed road from Isabella Drive to Johnson Drive. However, approval is deferred on the section from Johnson Drive to Tharwa Drive pending further information concerning the intersection of Tharwa Drive and proposed land development in South Tuggeranong. Variation 14, which provides access roads in north-western Theodore to new residential blocks, is approved on the proviso that initial purchasers are informed of the lack of bus services and other facilities in the area. Variation 16 proposes to delete some roads from the city plan in order to set aside a portion of the proposed residential area as public open space which contains Aboriginal axe grinding grooves and artefacts regarded as having high archaeological and general heritage significance. The Committee approves variation 16 and stresses the necessity for the development of adequate protective safeguards of the Aboriginal artefact site from acts of vandalism and desecration. I thank the House. Mr KENT(Hotham) —by leave-I present the official report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Mexico and Central America and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr KENT —At the outset I wish to thank our Consul-General in San Francisco, Mr A. J. Melhuish, for his kind assistance to the members of the delegation and for the reception given by him and his wife in our honour. To our perceptive Ambassador in Mexico, His Excellency Cavan Hogue, who is now our Ambassador to the United Nations, and Mrs Hogue, as well as to the entire staff of our Mexican Embassy, I convey our many thanks. They looked after us extremely well in Mexico and travelled with the delegation through Central America. The briefs, written and oral, provided by the Ambassador and his staff were of great value to us. Without the help and guidance of our ambassador, our delegation would not have been as successful as it was. I also wish to express my gratitude to our High Commissioner in Jamaica, where my wife and I made an unscheduled stop. We spent several hours in Kingston in the company of His Excellency Mr R. E. Little and his wife, without previous notice and on a public holiday. It was Independence Day in Jamaica. Our discussions helped me to understand the socio-political and economic situation in the Caribbean, as well as to compare it with the Central American situation. In contrast, I wish to mention that on our return to the United States of America, two other Government members of the delegation, Senator Maguire and Mr Michael Maher and my wife and I spent a day in Los Angeles. To our dismay, the Consul-General in Los Angeles was too busy even to send a driver to assist us, even though we had cabled notification of our arrival weeks before. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Derek Abbott, the secretary to the delegation, for his untiring work and the excellent manner in which he performed his duties, and to express our gratitude to Mr Max Hughes, who travelled with us representing the Department of Foreign Affairs and who is now our Ambassador to Poland. I valued his prudent advice and we all enjoyed his company. In July last year, I led the first Australian parliamentary delegation to Central America. We visited Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The group of countries we visited have many things in common. First of all, apart from local Indian languages, Spanish is the common language and over 90 per cent of the people are Catholics. Ethically there is little difference between the people in the various countries, again except for the Indians. The size of countries in Central America varies, although with the exception of Mexico, which is the size of Queensland with a population of over 70 million, all are small by our standards. Also common to all countries we visited is the fact that most rely on agricultural exports as their main income. Only Mexico has developed an import substitution industry to any sizable extent; it has become a net exporter of petroleum. It is also common to all States that they are all suffering badly from the economic crisis, as the prices of their agroproduce is depressed on the world markets. Of course, in my opinion, the depressed prices of Third World country exports are not a coincidence but are another form of exploitation of the underdeveloped world by the rich North. Manipulation of world prices, coupled with artificially high interest rates payable on loans from the International Monetary Fund and other Western banks, makes the bleak economic situation of countries on the isthmus and the poverty of their people even worse than it otherwise would be. During my travels, I came to the conclusion that the Third World is underdeveloped not by some historical accident, but because the exploitation by the developed world keeps it underdeveloped. Central American countries, of course, have a common history. The Spaniards conquered the area in the sixteenth century. By the seventeenth century the colonial administration was established and the mining of silver and gold brought enormous riches to few. The development of latinfundias, the rich landowner class and the mass of landless peasantry, further enlarged the enormous socio-economic gap that today characterises the countries of Central America. We, as visitors, could not help but notice at first glance, on the one hand, the poverty of the people living in mud huts or makeshift sheds made from cardboard and tin, without sanitary facilities and, on the other hand, the enormous luxury that the rich live in. Without the military, the oligarchy would not be able to maintain its riches and privileges; hence, the long string of various military dictatorships after liberation from colonial rule. It is only the arms, domestic and foreign, that still perpetuate the rule of the elite. It is in this light that one can understand the social instability of the area. The Reagan Administration is trying to brainwash the world into thinking that the revolt of the oppressed people in Central America is due to the communist influence of Cuba and the Soviet Union. Mr MacKellar —It is, too. Mr KENT —I will come to that. It presents in its propaganda the simplistic picture of struggle between East and West. All the evidence that I could gather during the delegation visit convinces me that the struggle of the people of Central America is a struggle between North and South. I cannot emphasise enough that the problems of central America are North-South and not East-West. The United States effort to prove otherwise is belied by its long history of intervention in Central America. Nearly all the countries in the area suffered from United States military intervention long before the communist revolution in Russia. Time and again the United States invoked the Monroe Doctrine-its self-given right to rule and dominate the Central America region-long before United States politicians heard about communism. The problem is not Soviet arms and the Cuban presence in the area, but United States arms and the United States military presence over a century which have prevented progress and supported the perpetuation of oppression and exploitation of the people in Central America through Western transnational companies and domestic oligarchies. One has only to recall the history of the United States invasions and intervention last century and early this century in Panama, Puerto Rico, Honduras, Cuba and Nicaragua to establish who is pulling the strings in Central America. The truth is that as long as there is no resolution of socio-economic conditions in Central America, there will be no peace in the area. The United States has throughout history supported the rule of domestic dictatorships and the rule of the privileged elite and is doing this even more today thus preventing the resolution of the problem and keeping the people of Central America in poverty and deprivation. The United States intervention has in the past prevented, and continues to prevent, the development of political pluralism by its support for the rule of the elite which always reverts to military dictatorship to safeguard its privileges when quasi-democratic means fail. Mr Cadman —We will send you off to Afghanistan and see how you come back. Mr KENT —I see the honourable member for Mitchell is not too pleased with this. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! the honourable member for Hotham will ignore the interjections and continue with his Committee report. Mr KENT —The irony of the situation which the delegation found is that the oppressed people of Central America, who are desperately fighting for freedom, are forced to look for encouragement to the Soviet Union where there is no individual freedom, while the United States, which grants these freedoms to its own citizens, does everything to deny such freedom to the brutally oppressed and exploited people on its own doorstep. United States influence and intervention bring with them oppression and denial of basic human rights. This is nowhere more obvious than in El Salvador where human rights violations are appalling. In Honduras, though human rights abuses are less obvious, they still exist, even though, like in El Salvador, the real power in the country is vested in the hands of the American Ambassador. In contrast with this, we found no evidence of atrocities in Nicaragua. To the contrary, we saw there signs of an emerging democracy. Arriving with us in Nicaragua on the same flight was Arturo Cruz, who had come from the US, where he had lived for some time, to register as a candidate in the presidential elections in Nicaragua. Some 200 of his supporters staged a noisy demonstration at the airport to welcome him. There was no hindrance to the free expression of their support. Can you imagine Solzhenitsyn or the like arriving freely back in the Soviet Union to lead the opposition. Yet the US officials wanted us to believe that there is a Soviet-type dictatorship in Nicaragua. Ambassador Negroponte, in Honduras, as well as the US Charge d'Affairs, Mr Ken Bleakley, in El Salvador, made a point of telling us how the Nicaraguans are supplying the rebels in El Salvador with arms. They forget to mention that El Salvador and Nicaragua have no common borders and that the sea routes are controlled by the US Navy. Overland the only route to supply arms would lead through Honduras, where the US and Honduran Army are in control, not to mention the Contras, the US financed rebels who are active on Nicaraguan borders. The United States intelligence has the means, by electronic surveillance, to pinpoint a pistol on the ground, yet we were not shown any captured shipment of arms which would be sent from Nicaragua to the FMLN in El Salvador, nor were foreign journalists in the past couple of years. It is obvious that the United States has the means to detect the alleged arm shipments, yet no reports of such detection were proven to us or to anybody else. It is beyond doubt that Ambassador Negroponte and other United States officials were not telling us the truth when they alleged that significant arms shipments are taking place from Nicaragua to El Salvador. The truth is that the Salvadoran Army is armed by the Americans, that the United States Army is the real power behind Durate in El Salvador as well as in Honduras, where it is arming the Nicaraguan rebels, and the Honduran forces. In Honduras the United States army is physically present and is conducting exercises Big Pine 1 which took place just before our arrival and Big Pine 2 was scheduled for after our departure-together with Honduran forces and Nicaraguan rebel mercenaries. No one has to be a Rhodes Scholar to work out who is the villain in Central America. The people of Nicaragua do not have surplus arms and military equipment for export. Their only export is agricultural produce-bananas, coffee and excellent rum and cigars. Nor is the Reagan Administration afraid of the military might of a small nation of three million living on a territory twice the size of Tasmania. What the Reagan Administration dreads is the example of Nicaragua that a small nation can shake off the United States yoke, that a small but united people can rid themselves of United States imposed dictatorship of Somosa and elect a popular regime whose aim is to serve the people of Nicaragua and not the interest of foreign monopolies and the domestic oligarchy. The success of the people in their fight against tyranny is the reason for Reagan's obsession with Nicaragua. The President of the strongest and mightiest country in the world is hell-bent on destroying a small nation. When his own Parliament refused funds for such a purpose the President imposed a trade embargo on Nicaragua. Our Government, together with many other governments of the Western alliance, is opposed to Reagan's trade embargo. So are many other countries, especially those in the region, such as Mexico and the rest of the Contadora group. Reagan's policies are counterproductive and are designed to force Nicaragua into Soviet orbit against the expressed wishes of the Nicaraguan leaders. Finally, let me quote from a statement of the Mexican Government relating to the situation in Nicaragua: Mexico is convinced that the only proper way to solve the current conflicts in the Central American Region is through dialogue and through negotiation. Mr Cadman —This is supposed to be a debate on the report of a parliamentary delegation. Mr KENT —This very much concerns our delegation and our observations. Mr Cadman —It is your personal view. Mr MacKellar —Absolute rubbish! Mr KENT —I know that honourable gentlemen opposite are supporting the offensives. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will ignore the interjections and continue. Mr KENT —The statement continues. In view of the recent events, Mexico wishes to express its deep concern that the processes of negotiation in the region may be severely deteriorated. Mexico insists on the solution of differences between the States by means of negotiation and political dialogue, which is the only way to overcome the prevailing tensions. Applying economic sanctions is not compatible with the objectives of the Contadora Group. I fully endorse the statement of our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) disapproving of Reagan's embargo. I also fully support the Mexican stand and all others who support the right of the Nicaraguan people to determine their own destiny. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-I have the report prepared and endorsed by the parliamentary group that went to Central America. Let me say at the beginning that it contains none of the statements just made by the Chairman of the delegation, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) in his presentation of that report. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Perhaps the honourable gentleman would like to give his version? Mr TUCKEY —Madam Acting Speaker, I would, but I think that has to be put on the record. Let me assure you that, had such matters been written, I doubt very much whether another member of the delegation, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), would have put his name to it either because that is not what we saw and it is not what we heard; it is the personal view of the Chairman. In fact, before the delegation left Central America, certain members of the group had to complain bitterly, in the presence of all members of the delegation, as to the political behaviour of the Chairman. We felt that that behaviour showed us as an extremely partisan group, not one that was there to listen, but one that had made up its mind before it arrived. This was no credit to an Australian parliamentary delegation-what is more, the first one that had ever visited there. There was some vigourous questioning from all sides and that was to be welcomed. But when it came to expression of opinions I remember only one occasion when the Chairman decided to change his mind and that was when he started to get a little bit aggressive with Mr d'Aubuisson and he then remembered, of course, that there were two loaded machine guns behind his back. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Perhaps the honourable member would like to report on the delegation rather than the Chairman. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Acting Speaker, I am certainly reporting the facts in a way which you tolerated earlier. You listened to a political statement. As I said, I assure you that what was said earlier is not in this document. If I had the time I would read it to you. This is a well balanced document prepared by Mr Derek Abbott and it has my endorsement, but it does not say any of the things which have just been reported to this Parliament. What we heard was an anti-American statement that had very little to do with the situation. Let me say something about some of the things I noticed when I was with the delegation. I do not recollect many occasions when the Chairman and I were not in the same company. It was suggested that Nicaragua, of course, is the land of milk and honey and that there are no atrocities in Nicaragua. There is no doubt that the whole of the Central American area, with the exception probably of Costa Rica, is a place where violence is not uncommon on a daily basis. It is most tragic to see the level of problems that those people have, particularly when it comes to violence. In many places human life is not worth much. Nevertheless, if people suggest that it is any different in Nicaragua because they do not see guns in the streets they should think again. In El Salvador we were invited to meet rebels in a prison. It was very clear that it was a proper prison, yet we were allowed to go into a cell in that country and, without any supervision whatsoever, talk to people. There were people who claimed to be in detention without trial. There were people who claimed many things against the government. We were allowed to listen to them and we listened to them in detail. There was no interruption to our listening and in all it appeared that we were getting the truth. We requested the same thing in Nicaragua. What were we taken to? We were taken to a model prison that was the next best thing to a holiday camp, specially contained for the purpose of showing tourists such as us. One fellow was a dentist. He was out on day leave all the time fixing up teeth in the other prisons, but it was not the sort of prison that was a prison. In fact, it insulted my intelligence because that is not what we wanted to see. That is the way we were treated there. The Chairman of the Delegation has stated that there is no evidence of arms being taken from Nicaragua to El Salvador. Included in our trip was a visit to Costa Rica. Although the Chairman did not bother to spend much time on Costa Rica, it is as close to a parliamentary democracy as exists in that area. There is a good reason for that. I think it was in 1949 that the Constitution was altered to say that there will not be an army in Costa Rica. To this day there is no army. I felt we would get a balanced judgment in Costa Rica. The Foreign Minister, or a man at least of that order, told us that there was no doubt that Nicaragua was sending guns to El Salvador. In Mexico we talked to the representatives of the rebels. We asked them why they were not participating in the elections that were about to be held and which would be reasonably democratic. They told us that their safety could not be guaranteed. I raised that matter with the Deputy President to Mr Duarte. I asked why these people could not be guaranteed their safety. He said: 'They are lucky. Nobody is guaranteed safety in the political context in El Salvador'. That is a great tragedy. Approximately 20 per cent of their politicians from both sides have been assassinated in the last two years. He said: 'How would you like to be me? I am in the middle. I am a moderate. I get attacked from both sides, but I stood'. We then discovered why these people do not want to participate in the elections. At the very best they could attract 17 per cent of the vote. Only one person tried to tell us differently and that was the Foreign Minister in Nicaragua. He, a priest, insulted my intelligence by trying to tell me that they could attract 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the vote. Everywhere else we went-I repeat, I trusted the information given by the people of Costa Rica-they said that they could attract 12 per cent to 17 per cent of the vote. They will not participate because they cannot win. They are determined to win by the gun. Those guns are coming from Nicaragua. Unfortunately the only thing that will save the El Salvadorean democracy-there are guns on every corner and assassinations are taking place- is the activities of the Contras in Nicaragua. They are taking the heat off El Salvador because Nicaragua is finding that it has got troubles on its own ground. No doubt we were told a lot of lies in many places, but we were told a heap of lies in Nicaragua. I would not like to endanger some of the people who talked to me privately by telling honourable members what they said because I would fear for their lives. There is no doubt that things are not too good there. The situation is that what Somoza stole from the people, Ortega spends on guns. Of course, the people are no better off. The Government makes a big thing about giving them education, but the education is clearly not designed to teach them literacy but to teach them politics. There was a substantial influence of Cubans in that. I was not going to speak on this particular issue. I support the report. I congratulate Derek Abbott on his efforts. He has done his best to give us the history and to try to put forward balanced and sensible remarks. It is a pity that it has been spoiled in this way. I reject entirely the statements regarding the United States of America. We met United States people in the embassies. They gave us the story as they understood it and they were a lot more believable on many occasions than some of the people we met in Nicaragua. I was happy enough with some of those people too. But to suggest that the United States is the only trouble maker in that area is not correct. It is a great pity that when we were there the Nicaraguans wanted to give us history lessons that we would often get from children. They kept telling us about a fellow called William somebody or other who was a pirate. He was not a representative of the United States, he was a pirate. He went there and took the country over. These sorts of things happened at that time. Of course, every kid in school gets taught that and has it poked down his neck. One would think that it had all occurred yesterday. These kids are being taught to hate the United States and yet the people scream like stuck pigs when any sort of embargo on trade is placed on their country. Quite contrary to the Chairman's remarks, the only market the people of Nicaragua have available is the big United States market. That is being proved at the moment. Whether or not they are paid what everybody else believes they should be paid is a matter of market forces. They are not exploited because the United States probably does not need any of the products it buys off them anyway. It is rubbish to say that they are being exploited. Why do they not go to Russia or Europe to sell their goods so that they are not exploited? They are selling on the most convenient and the most profitable market. They just happen to grow things like coffee and bananas and there are a heap of them around. Honourable members might say that they should grow some sugar. Mr John Brown —An awful lot of coffee. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, but that is pretty hard to sell too. These countries have got great difficulties. I thought all of them were very hospitable to us and I thank them for the things they did. We all recognise their problems. It was an extremely interesting and informative delegation. The staff and the delegates worked extremely hard. Anybody who bothers to read the last pages of the report will see the type of itinerary that we followed. I am very pleased and gratified that I went there. It is a great pity that throughout this visit politics and people's views surfaced as to the rights and wrongs of what is happening in a place that we knew nothing about when we arrived. As I said, certain members eventually telexed the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and complained about that situation. At times we were embarrassed by statements that had been made in parliaments and other places. I am embarrassed again now because I thought that had all cooled and gone away. It is a pity that what is not written in the report was reported to the Parliament. Finally, it was suggested that Mr Arturo Cruz returned to Nicaragua. We were there. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) remembers our arrival and the welcome that these people gave us. We interviewed this man two days later and he was already getting ready to leave the country because he discovered there were not going to be free elections. He was not going to have access to the politically controlled media. There is a free newspaper there, but the people have to travel twenty miles with all their editorial matter to submit it to an army base to be censored. By the time they got back it was too late to put it in their newspaper. They would not put a censor in there to make sure of it. They complained to us about that. More importantly, Mr Cruz was concerned that every time they tried to have a political meeting it would be disrupted. They were, therefore, window dressing to the world. He eventually left. He is a very fine man. Nobody would doubt that. He is a man of great integrity. We met many other people who were all in the revolution against Somoza. Many of them were in the original junta. They moved away because they became so dissatisfied with the activities of Ortega. They learned what the Nuclear Disarmament Party has learned in this country just recently; that is, they start off with these sorts of people and they are all in it together. But as soon as they get the opportunity, they want to take over. These are the sorts of things that we learned in that country. That is the way it operates. There is no freedom in Nicaragua. I will admit that there is not much more in other parts of Central America. The people of El Salvador, to my mind, were making some serious attempts to get their freedom. We did not meet Mr Duarte but, as I said, we met his Deputy. These people also had difficulties, but it seemed to me that there was at least a degree of democracy. I thank the House for its time. I again express my disappointment at the anti-American statements and dissociate myself from those statements. I am sure that my colleagues, Mr Groom and Senator Crichton-Browne, who is in the other place, will speak for themselves. I will be interested to hear whether the honourable member for Lowe supports his Chairman in such anti-American statements. He, too, might remember the Chairman's attack on a man of the clergy, a Roman Catholic archbishop. There was an attack made to the Press to which many of us took exception. Although there were rumours regarding that gentleman, there was absolutely no need for our delegation to make asides and remarks about it as were made to the Press. There is good reason for the Chairman to be a little ashamed of his performance on that trip. I am not saying anything with hindsight. As I said, I was one signatory to a telex complaining to the Prime Minister in that regard. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —by leave-The Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Mexico and Central America, as other members have stated, started in Mexico. No one has really touched on Mexico but it is a country of enormous importance to our nation. It is a non-aligned country, a very large country and a country in which, for the first time, I was confronted with some of the appalling problems of poverty, gross pollution and lack of social welfare. This was particularly so in Mexico City, which is probably the largest city in the world. The Government of Mexico was delighted to receive us and made us very welcome. I am very pleased to hear that a delegation from the Mexican Parliament is coming to Australia in a fortnight. I think that it does us great credit that we were able to induce some Mexicans to come here and study how our parliamentary system works. As the report says, Mexico is virtually a one- party state. The Institutional Revolutionary Party has been in power since 1929, and it is the envy of many Western politicians. However, it is a revolutionary party that seems to have calmed down and to have become somewhat moderate. The members of parliament and the Ministers whom I met were people of great ability and capacity. Of course, the Mexicans are leading the Contadora group in its efforts to obtain peace in Central America. The Australian Government has done everything it can to support these moves for peace in that very troubled part of the world. After some days in Mexico, we moved on to El Salvador, where we found an entirely different situation. That country has been wracked with a dreadful civil war in which 45,000 people have died and in which 5,000 people have disappeared. The first day we were there 30 people-mainly soldiers-were killed when a train was blown up; on the second day we were there 18 people were killed when a bus was forced off the road in an ambush; and, on the third day of our visit, a local member of parliament was shot while having his lunch. So I was glad to move on on the fourth day. It was quite a frightening place. We did not meet Mr Duarte, the new leader. He was actually elected President of the country in 1972 but he never took his post. He was deposed and later tortured by the military. However, we did meet a wonderful man, Archbishop Rivera, the Archbishop of San Salvador and a successor of the saintly Archbishop Romera who was murdered while saying mass. Although at page 12, the report states that the rebel guerilla movement is opposed by the 'Roman Catholic Church', that was not what I had in the notes which I made of our conversation with the archbishop. My impression was that he said that there were priests with the rebels and there were priests with the army. He did not quite say what is in the report. I am not criticising the delegation's Secretary; that is from his notes, and I took notes as well. It was my impression that the archbishop was trying to get peace, not take sides and to remain neutral, as his predecessor had done. El Salvador is a country in which there have been appalling atrocities, but I had great hope for El Salvador when we left. I believe that the Americans, who have been that country's ally and have supported it, have been outraged at the civil liberties abuses and at the horrendous events that have occurred in that country in the last five or six years-such as the murder of four American nuns, the disappearance of a young journalist who arrived at a hotel, went down to the bar and was never seen alive again. He was a young man named Sullivan, from New York. Other Americans were shot while having dinner. These are appalling atrocities. As well, a lady leading the civil liberties group was found murdered. It is an incredibly frightening country. El Salvador had hoped to chart its destiny on tourism. It built tourist hotels along its beautiful beaches and in its cities but they are all empty and smell musty. They are totally deserted. However, I believe that the El Salvadoreans, with American tutelage, have started to break through. They have held a trial and have had convicted a member of the army for murdering the nuns. They have been able to protect not only the judge, but also the jurors. They have taught the local administrators how to protect prosecutors. Once upon a time if a judge, a juror or a prosecutor tried to convict somebody in the military in El Salvador, he would be found dead the next day. So the situation has improved. As the other members of the delegation have said, we met people from all sides. Since we have returned from that country elections have shown that the people have opted for the Christian Democrats, and I note with interest that they have received a lot of aid from the European Christian Democrats movement. We had a number of briefings from the American Embassy about rebels in El Salvador. The Americans briefed us on alleged aid from Nicaragua to the rebels but there was never any clear evidence put before us that this takes place. The report touches on this matter. It says that some arms undoubtedly get through but a succinct case has never been put. However the case has not been believably put that aid goes from Nicaragua to the rebels of El Salvador. The delegation also visited Honduras, but I want to touch on the work of Australian immigration officers in El Salvador. As honourable members will be aware, there was an amnesty under which hundreds of people in El Salvador were allowed out of gaol because there was no evidence whatsoever against them. It was dangerous for some of these people to remain in El Salvador because they had enemies in the military, or the left, or the right-who would know? Some 50 of these people and their families came to Australia. In all, we took 200 or 300 refugees from El Salvador. They are wonderful people. When we returned to Australia, I was upset to read in the Press that they came here without a security clearance. As I understand the situation, no refugee who comes to Australia is adequately security cleared. It is not possible when a person leaves his or her country and becomes a refugee to obtain a security clearance. We have received thousands of refugees. I was very sad to read in the Sydney Morning Herald an allegation that we may be at risk because, on humanitarian grounds, we took as refugees a handful of people from El Salvador who were not totally screened. These people were in gaol, sometimes for years. If they were let out, it was because there was absolutely no case against them. I commend any government that brings in people and saves lives, because the lives of these people would have been at risk had they stayed in their country. I should also like to praise the work of Australian immigration officers who work in places such as El Salvador. We met Australian officers there who were most impressive and extremely brave. They have had to leave their families and work in a country where lives are very much at risk. I am extremely proud of our career public servants who go to such places. The other controversial nation to which we went was Nicaragua. All these countries are very small. Nicaragua has a population of only three million people. It is a country in tatters. Its economy is in tatters and the capital, Managua, has never recovered from the earthquake in 1974 in which 40,000 people were killed. Nicaragua clearly united to throw out the dictators. The Somoza family, which was running the country in a most corrupt, appalling and immoral way, was thrown out-driven out of the nation-by a united front of groups including the Left, the Right, the church and the Marxists. However, it is five years since the revolution and because of unnecessary censorship, conscription for the armed services, and other reasons, the Government has become unpopular with a vocal minority. It has fallen out with the church-over censorship, of all things. Even mass on Sunday was censored in Nicaragua. Church officials told us that the archbishop's sermons were censored, which sounded quite incredible. I could not really appreciate why there was a need to censor such things, although there is a tradition in Central America and South America for archbishops to preach on political issues. It is quite obvious that the church is totally off-side with the Sandanistas. We were told that all the foreign-born priests had been expelled. No Cuban advisers had been expelled. We met some wonderful people who were pro-Sandanistas-people who were Jesuits and members of the clergy. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), said, the Foreign Minister there is a priest. Who are we to go into the rights and wrongs of what side people are taking in a civil war situation in a country which has thrown off an oppressive regime? Certainly we could never say that the church is pro-Contra. The Contras are running a war in the northern part of the country. I will comment about that later. It is a very difficult situation. I believe the elections last November will start to put Nicaragua on the road to true democracy. I think the attitude of the Reagan Administration in the USA is not right. I support the Australian Labor Party Government's attitude to Nicaragua, which has been critical of the American boycott on Nicaragua. The United States Administration tried to finance the Contras to the extent of $14m and this was rejected by the American Congress. Having been to Nicaragua, to all of its neighbours and down to South America privately with Senator Maguire, I believe that the Congress's policy is the only policy to adopt. The Costa Ricans, in their small, Utopian country next to Nicaragua, are a very right-wing group of people. They are appalled at the prospect of the war continuing, of the American Government financing the war in that country against the Sandanestas. Although the Costa Ricans take a very conservative stance on all issues, they want the war to end. They told us how the refugees who are pouring into their country from Nicaragua are bringing in all sorts of diseases which the Costa Ricans have previously eradicated. They are bringing in malaria and leprosy. They are creating appalling situations in Costa Rica. Costa Rica's one hope is that the war will end. I am delighted that the American Congress stood up to the President. I believe its policy is the only policy to adopt. I can only say truthfully what I saw and what I was told. I do not feel I have any bias one way or the other, either pro-American or anti-American. We were delightfully hosted and thoroughly briefed by the American embassies in Honduras and El Salvador, but I believe the American Administration is wrong and the Congress is right. That is not just my view; it is the view of all the countries in that region. They want peace. That is their big hope. I will not delay the House tonight. I join the Chairman of the delegation in thanking the other members of the delegation. I felt the Chairman did a very good job. It is difficult to lead members from both sides of the House, people with diametrically opposite views, and their spouses through Central America, when there are civil wars in two or three of the countries. I think he did the job very well. As an Australian who was born overseas he is a credit to our nation and our Parliament. I thank the departmental adviser who came with us, Max Hughes, who is now the Australian Ambassador in Poland. He had great calmness, great common sense and offered good fellowship. Our secretary, Derek Abbott, also did a splendid job. It was hard work moving the delegation around. People became very ill. The previous speaker was extremely ill in one country. We were all sick at some time as we went along. The Australian diplomatic, consular and trade officers really looked after us in each nation visited. I could never say how much I appreciated the assistance of the former Ambassador in Mexico, His Excellency Cavan Hogue, his wife and his staff, who went out of their way to look after us. They accompanied us through all the countries and put themselves entirely in our hands. In San Francisco we were also looked after by the Australian Consul. Later, Senator Maguire and I were met and welcomed in Peru, Brazil and Argentina, when we went at our own expense to study nations in South America. There are many talented Australians working overseas, representing our nation in these foreign posts. Most of the countries we visited lacked civil order. In many places, the embassies are at risk and are threatened with assault and robbery. In some, we found that staff had even been attacked during hold-ups. I think these people are a great credit to our nation. We do not really give recognition to the work of those overseas officers and their families. Their role is not really appreciated by the population. Finally, I thank the senators and members I travelled with. They were a wonderful group of people. We got to know each other well in very trying circumstances. I believe we all worked hard. We spread goodwill overseas and advanced the interests of our nation in Central America and South America. I believe these are parts of the globe that are very significant for the future of world peace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Madam Acting Speaker has received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace) to be a member of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material in place of the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles). Debate resumed. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.57) —The Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Housing Loans Insurance Act, which governs the activities of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. That Corporation insures lenders against losses on loans secured by mortgage, principally housing loans. I was making the point that the legislation seeks to change the Corporation in ways that are unacceptable. Prior to the debate on this Bill being adjourned I made the point that the Corporation is being provided with a government supported reinsurance capacity which other insurers of mortgages do not have and is being given a government supported reinsurance capacity for other insurance companies which is unavailable to private companies insuring mortgages. I also complained most bitterly about the special provisions in the legislation which allow the Minister to direct the Corporation to engage in activities that the Minister thinks are important. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said in his second reading speech: 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. So it is a political direction for the first time in the history of this Corporation, which has a very fine record. I resent the approach that the Government has taken in this matter. I said also that the Government had failed to deal with the difficulties of the secondary mortgage market by having discussions with State Governments on the levels of stamp duties that they impose upon the transfer of mortgages. The secondary mortgage market in Australia will not be encouraged to any real extent by allowing the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to become active in the secondary mortgage market, but the Government should be examining the level of stamp duty which is a real impediment to the transfer of mortgages within States. The role of corporations such as the policy of the HLIC was discussed by the previous Government. It was the policy of the previous Government to sell the HLIC, but it failed to do so. That was a decision which I did not agree with because it seemed to me to be a token gesture of the policy of privatisation. It was one small, profitable organisation that could be used to demonstrate an intent that usually was not strongly felt by the government of the day. I felt that the work being done by the HLIC was so significant I did not agree with its sale. I have had views for a long time about restructuring of government authorities and semi-governmental organisations. If the privatisation or restructuring of the HLIC were to take place in a total, comprehensible policy package I would endorse that approach. The HLIC has a proud history of providing funds, and guaranteeing loans to people who have a low equity in the house they are purchasing. In cases of people with deposits as little as 5 per cent or even, in some instances, no deposit at all the HLIC has been prepared to underwrite and insure the loans provide by building societies and banks. In any restructuring process a criterion that the coalition parties must put in place is a requirement that the low equity purchasers are covered and that the drive to provide an opportunity for home ownership is not altered. I regard that as a process which can take place by legislation and which should apply to the HLIC. There would also be a need, I believe, for a fidelity fund to be established for home loan insurers so that there can be no collapse and no need for government support or guarantee for these organisations. Any decisions by governments to restructure and free up semi-governmental organisations which are conducting business in the name of the Government must be gone about in a comprehensive and sensible way. The stifling provisions of Public Service regulations in regard to employees restrict talent and ability in so many instances. Many corporations and businesses presently operated by the Commonwealth Government deeply resent the strict rules of Public Service employment. Personnel and management alike resent the implication of Public Service provisions. The need to work specific hours, the tight restriction on overtime, the staff cuts, the staff ceilings, the incapacity really to manage effectively stifle talent and ability in many corporations and organisations within government. The absolute frustration of people with ability or drive is dreadful to see. It is a tragedy that those people lose their positions within organisations, fail to be advanced when often they should be advanced and, in other instances, leave the public sector altogether. As an Australian I resent seeing people with potential and capacity being denied the opportunity to advance their talents and careers. The ability of people cannot be recognised properly within the Public Service sector unless they go through a very tight and drawn out process of examination, promotion review and then, often, challenge. In many instances that has taken away the capacity of public sector managers effectively to manage their personnel. We see the effects of it in many instances in low morale, the failure to apply oneself to the task one is given and a very poor public image for some lower level public servants. The propping up by the taxpayer of these organisations by constant contribution is often a detriment and a burden the taxpayer need not bear. I hasten to add that the HLIC has been a profitable organisation. It has not been propped up by the taxpayer. However, many business-type activities run by the Government of Australia are constantly supported and subsidised from the taxpayer's purse. It amounts in a year to millions of dollars spread across the whole sphere of government activity. Workers are supported in positions which they do not wish to hold. The all-embracing attraction of a superannuation scheme that locks people into positions from which they cannot move for fear of losing a benefit, or of not fully realising the results of their efforts at the end of the day, is stifling and debilitating. The way in which employees in some areas are held in positions of no importance when they should be encouraged to retrain and move into other areas is also debilitating. The purchasing policies of these organisations are also somewhat restricted by Australian Government policy. All in all, political interference in corporations and business makes it difficult for them to be effective and to realise high standards of efficiency and operation. If they are business ventures they should be run as businesses. I believe that the welfare of all individuals must be carefully considered in any movement to change the status of or to restructure these organisations. Employees cannot be dealt with willy-nilly. Their interest must be preserved and their opportunities extended. Therefore, any change to privatise or to restructure organisations must be done with a great sense of delicacy and concern, both for employees and for their clients. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(9.07) —The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is now in its twentieth year of operation. It has been an outstanding success. That is undisputed. It has a proud record of being a viable commercial operation contributing substantially to government revenue. In 1983-84 it returned a net profit of $5.4m and paid $2.9m in dividends and special payments to revenue as well as $4.9m in income tax. Consistent with this Government's well-known aim of assisting those most in need, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has been instrumental in enabling many Australians, particularly those in the low income bracket, to achieve the great Australian dream of owning their own home. The people on the other side of this House wanted to sell this asset. The master of histrionics, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is no longer in this chamber, wanted to flog it off. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who has just finished speaking, says that he did not want to flog it off. However, in this chamber he voted to flog it off. So how sincere is the Opposition when it comes to the provision of housing for those on low incomes? The decision of this Government to reverse the Fraser Government's intention to sell the HLIC has certainly been justified. During 1982, when the Fraser Government had reached its nadir, the number of loans insured slumped from nearly 60,000 to 38,000, and slumped even further in 1983 to 36,000. However, due to the confidence instilled in the Australian community by the sound economic management of the Hawke Government, loans insured in 1984 soared to in excess of 68,000. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has won the broad support of the insurance industry and the overwhelming, wholehearted support of the Australian people. It has won the envy of the Mickey Mouse highwaymen on the other side of the other side of the House. They hate it, as they hate every success of the Labor Government-and they have much to hate. There are many outstanding successes of this Hawke Government. The initiatives in this Bill add to the Government's success in the field of housing. These initiatives will allow the development of new lending arrangements which assist low income earners to achieve home ownership. 'Low income earners' is worth while emphasising because that is what this Labor Government is all about-helping those most in need. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) said in introducing this Bill, the Labor Government is achieving success in the housing field because, firstly, it has the confidence of business; secondly, it has the good sense to utilise the expertise of industry; and, thirdly, it can work with union co-operation rather than union bashing. The Opposition started 105,000 housing constructions in 1982-83. The Labor Government saw the commencement of the construction of 137,000 houses in its first year of government; 32,000 more houses. No wonder the conservatives' faces are green with envy. The Hawke Government's turn around of what was a miserable coalition performance has brought considerable economic and social benefits for the nation. Although the HLIC is guaranteed by the Commonwealth, it is self financing. Its funds have been derived wholly from its business activities. It has contributed substantially to the development of the mortgage insurance industry in Australia. Of the four major initiatives contained in the amendments before us now, the most innovative is the entry of the HLIC into the secondary mortgage market. The gap in the secondary mortgage market was recognised in the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and the report of the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System. The Campbell Committee considered the establishment of a broadly based and active secondary mortgage market as a useful development. It saw potential benefits deriving from greater integration between the housing finance sector and other sectors of the capital market; greater mobility of housing finance funds between regions of excess supply and demand, particularly across State boundaries; and greater diversity of choice for investors. The conclusion reached by the Martin Committee was that the development of an active and broadly based secondary mortgage market would assist the Commonwealth's objectives in the housing area. The Martin Committee believed that the development of a secondary mortgage market would be particularly valuable in attracting funds for housing from non-traditional sources, a method much preferred to the imposition of direct controls over non-bank financial institutions or the establishment of special funds. Additional funds for housing are generated in the secondary mortgage market, generally by lending institutions in the housing field gathering together bundles of mortgages and selling them to other institutions. The Corporation's role is to facilitate the development of the secondary mortgage market by insuring pools of mortgages against loss, thus giving investors in the secondary mortgage market unchallengeable security. The Minister in his second reading speech emphasised the fact that under the Government's proposal the Corporation will be insuring only the performance of the underlying mortgages. The Corporation will not be guaranteeing those who pool mortgages for sale or the market securities themselves. The establishment of a secondary mortgage market will provide a number of benefits to the community, mortgage creating institutions and the Government. Apart from the major benefits I have already mentioned, the generation of additional housing finance will increase opportunities for home ownership. Another benefit to the community will be derived by providing a stable and flexible supply of housing finance. It will help home buyers and the construction industry to even out fluctuations of mortgage credit. Increasing the availability of housing finance will also lower the cost of borrowing, on both national and State bases. Advantages accruing to mortgage creating institutions from the secondary mortgage market are derived from greater liquidity because such institutions are able to sell and buy mortgages according to their need for cash. Such lending institutions will be able to increase their profits by holding this cash and other low yielding assets and increasing the holdings of higher yielding assets, thus allowing savings banks and building societies to adjust their holdings of assets in such a way that their earning and liquidity preferences are matched. When financial institutions retain the responsibility of servicing the mortgages for a fee, it generates additional profit. This additional income may be sufficient to service the entire portfolio. I am running out of time, because we have so much legislation to get through and I do not want to deprive others of the opportunity to speak. There is a clear market need for this service. The HLIC has already been approached by major institutions likely to be involved in the secondary mortgage market. The HLIC should be involved in the secondary mortgage market because it is a Federal Government body with an established reputation and could encourage the participation of substantial institutions and influence the development of the market in a sensible way, as opposed to some of the ratbag methods advocated by the rapacious fingerlings on the other side of this House. I know that Opposition members will appreciate the positive benefits of this Bill-or they would if they were fair dinkum. I doubt very much whether they are fair dinkum; otherwise we would have seen from them some appreciation of the first home owners scheme. That scheme brought home ownership within the reach of many thousands of low to moderate income earners, people who would not otherwise have had the chance to buy their own home. Truly it can be said that while the coalition is intent on destruction the Labor Party gets on with the job of construction. I have a great deal of other notes which I would like to use, but I am afraid that my time has almost expired. I conclude by saying that this legislation gives many thousands of Australians the chance of home ownership. I support the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(9.19) —As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) mentioned in his second reading speech, the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill proposes a range of measures relating to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, which is a government owned commercial enterprise. There is no doubt that it is important to have bodies performing the role which the HLIC performs. However, it is the view of the National Party in particular, and the Opposition in general, that this role could be much better performed by private enterprise. Sadly, the Bill does not make any attempt whatsoever to move the Corporation in the direction of having its ownership transferred to the private sector. Shamefully, there is an intention to expand the role of the Corporation as a government instrumentality. This Bill has a number of aims, and I will outline some of them. Firstly, it will enable the HLIC to participate in the secondary mortgage market by insuring pools of mortgages against loss. Secondly, the Bill extends the Corporation's insurance services to include all loans secured by mortgage, including loans where the purpose of the loan is not directly related to mortgage security. Thirdly, the Bill provides for the HLIC to be empowered to act as agent for other insurance companies underwriting mortgage repayment insurance for borrowers in the event of death, sickness, unemployment, et cetera, particularly during the first years of mortgage repayment. Lastly, and most iniquitously, the Bill provides for a new 'special interest' provision which empowers the Minister to direct-yes, direct-the Corporation to provide insurance for loss falling within a particular or specific class of loan, deemed to be of special interest in the terms of the Government's housing policies-I repeat, special interest in the terms of the Government's housing policies. One does not have to have a fertile imagination to imagine how this Government, with its sad and sorry record, will react to this newly- granted power. In effect, the HLIC has become the Government's political puppet on a string with the Minister, a left winger, as the puppeteer. The National Party utterly opposes this Bill including in particular the 'special interest' provision. In my maiden speech in this House I spoke approvingly of Mrs Thatcher's sterling example in the area of privatisation of government bodies. In other words, the British Conservative Government is returning government enterprises to the people. I am pleased that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has pledged that on our return to government the HLIC will be sold to private enterprise in accordance with the philosophies of our parties. The National Party is appalled at the way in which bureaucracy in government has grown under the present Labor Administration. The Hawke Labor Government is the biggest taxing government in Australia's history. It stands for bigger and bigger government and more and more taxation, whereas the National Party stands unashamedly for small government, low taxes and the freedom of society from excessive government interference. I believe it would be advantageous to spend a few minutes looking at the concept of privatisation because this principle is a key element in the reduction of the size of government. Privatisation is most commonly defined as the transfer of government-owned industries to the private sector, implying that the predominant share of ownership in assets on transfer lies with private shareholders. There is no reason for HLIC to remain part of government and I believe the reason the Government has not acted is its philosophy and platform which states that the Australian Labor Party believes in the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. This Government is flying in the face of public opinion-- Mr Hodgman —That is right. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for his support. Public opinion wants less involvement by government in the lives of ordinary citizens. Wherever it is possible to exclude the public sector this should be done without delay. The fact that the HLIC has been operating at a profit-in 1983-84 it returned a net profit of $5.4m and paid a total of $2.5m to government revenue-means that there should be no shortage of proposed purchasers. While privatisation is desirable in itself and respectable arguments supporting such a view abound, it is important to look at the economic implications. Nationalised industries and government instrumentalities sometimes provide various services which at first appearances are uneconomic at present prices and costs. Not all are necessarily uneconomic and many could be made viable by a private company or companies operating with increased efficiency. I believe that if the HLIC were exposed properly and fairly to the market place efficiency would improve, the cost of mortgage insurance would become more competitive and there would be a better economic performance by the HLIC. Privatisation is not merely a matter of selling shares. The underlying intent is to improve industry performance by increasing the role of market forces. To achieve this other devices for promoting competition must also be looked at and adopted. The following general considerations should guide policy: Privatisation schemes should be designed to maximise net consumer benefits, measured primarily by lower prices and improved quality of service, and to promote competition as the most effective means of maximising consumer benefits and curbing monopoly power. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation was established in 1965 under the Housing Loans Insurance Act to insure lenders against losses incurred by secured mortgage, principally housing loans, but its area of operation was extended by Labor in September 1983 to include loans for the purchase, construction or refinancing of non-residential buildings also. While the Corporation may act as a business undertaking in competition with other insurers, great concern has been expressed over the years because of competitive advantages resulting from its government ownership. We on this side of the House believe that it is certainly wrong in this day and age for a government instrumentality to operate in unfair competition with the private sector. It is particularly improper that ordinary commercial operations should be disadvantaged. The fact that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is guaranteed by the Commonwealth provides it with a head start. When the Corporation was established its architects designed it to meet what was then perceived as a gap in the market for mortgage insurance cover for lenders wishing to lend outside the normal lending limits. To some people justification for its formation may be based on the fact that in 1965 mortgage insurance was not readily available in Australia. Cloaked in its armour of government connections, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has grown and grown to be the largest mortgage insurer in this country and in 1979-80 it had successfully cornered over 60 per cent of all new loans insured. Mr Gear —What is wrong with that? Mr SLIPPER —I am absolutely opposed to government involvement in this area. However, while there are those on this side of the House who would justify the establishment of the HLIC in 1965, they would no doubt agree that now in 1985, 20 years later, there can be no sound reason for HLIC to remain a public body. There are in Australia at present three major private mortgage insurance bodies, these being the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation of Australia, the Australian Mortgage Insurance Corporation and AFG Finance. The Fraser Government's intention, announced almost six years ago, to dispose of the HLIC encouraged much healthy public debate on the Corporation's place in society. The Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System looked into aspects of HLIC and its sale, particularly in connection with the availability of mortgage insurance, the degree of competition, the cost of mortgage insurance, the development of a secondary mortgage market and the stability of the private mortgage insurers. It has been suggested that the sale of HLIC could reduce the availability of high loan to valuation housing finance and that premiums could increase, as I will mention later. Because of the present competitive nature of this insurance field, there is no reason to believe that this would occur. I believe also that the major free enterprise insurers are prepared to guarantee that high ratio loans on reasonable terms and conditions will continue to be available. There would be no reason for insurers to leave this area of the market and consequently forfeit the profits which would be made in the long run. It is utter nonsense to suggest that the sale of HLIC would reduce the level of competition. A healthy privatised HLIC could lead to some changes. However, these would occur even if it remained in Government hands as it has been recommended that whether or not HLIC is sold, it should be put on an equal competitive footing with its private counterparts. It could well be that the disposal of HLIC will result in increased, rather than decreased, competition in the long term. I would not support the acquisition of the HLIC by a major existing mortgage insurer as I believe it would not be desirable to reduce the number of companies working in this area. With HLIC no longer tied to the apron strings of the Hawke socialist Government there could be the entry of additional operators into the mortgage insurance arena because the unfair advantage of government association enjoyed by HLIC would no longer exist. In addition, unsuccessful intending purchasers of the Corporation even if they are not successful in acquisition, may enter into the field. Another spurious reason raised quite often to oppose the privatisation of HLIC is the suggestion that without HLIC in the field to minimise rates, insurance premiums could skyrocket. In my opinion, there are no grounds for this concern. HLIC has calculated its flat rate for each loan to valuation category, regardless of location, as the most efficient and economical way to deal with premiums. Separate regional rates would add considerably to the Corporation's administrative costs. I might mention that MGICA and AMIC also have their rates set either nationally or on a State basis and a free enterprise HLIC is therefore unlikely to increase charges for mortgage insurance in higher risk areas. HLIC's belief that its present common charging system contains administrative costs means that a relatively low premium would still secure a high ratio loan. Regional and country areas are already serviced by the private insurers and there is no doubt that this service would continue. Some people have been concerned about the stability of private mortgage insurers in the absence of government control of HLIC. It is a nonsense for the industry to rely on the HLIC by virtue of its market share and government guarantee to provide standards of prudence to be followed by the rest of the industry. It is not contested that standards of prudence by mortgage insurers are required but it is utterly ridiculous to use the HLIC as a pacesetter for this purpose. If the community deems certain standards to be necessary, appropriate requirements should be set under the Insurance Act. Mortgage insurers should be treated in the same way as any other insurers are treated. The Campbell Committee has recommended the sale of the HLIC. The National Party, the Liberal Party and the honourable member for Denison have emphasised that when we return to government in just 2 1/2 years time this recommendation of the Campbell Committee will be carried forward and put into effect forthwith. The important thing is to reduce the size of the public sector. It is essential to diminish the oppression of the public sector. It is absolutely vital to encourage the private sector and to move to it those responsibilities which are quite appropriately within its role. Mr Gear — What about TAA? Mr SLIPPER —TAA should be sold off as well. The Government has reduced the time available to participate in this debate. In the few seconds remaining to me, I want to emphasise that we oppose the Bill. We must remove the ownership of the HLIC from the Government and transfer it to private enterprise-to the people. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(9.31) —Proposals to privatise the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation are out of step with the views of industry. The Opposition's isolation from the industry is evident in its attitude in this debate on the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill, as it is in so many others. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) seem to be blindly opposed to public enterprises, no matter how efficient they may be. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), to his credit, is not so biased against the Corporation. Surely an efficient government enterprise is one worth retaining. Perhaps honourable members opposite are afraid that private enterprise will not stand up to scrutiny against such competition. If they are so lacking in faith in the ability of the private sector to survive and prosper in the face of competition from any quarter, including the public sector, I am not surprised that they are in opposition. Earlier in this debate the honourable member for Denison referred to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation as a socialist wart on the face of private enterprise. As a successful government business enterprise the Corporation could be better described as a beauty spot on the Australian commercial landscape. It belies the continual contention of the Opposition that no government undertaking can run at a profit. No wonder Opposition members want it dismantled. No wonder they want to sell it off, and no wonder they do not want to permit it to compete on equal terms with private industry. Successful government business enterprises are an acute embarrassment to some members on the other side of this House. I reiterate the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) in chastising the Opposition for its failure to make its position clear on the establishment of a secondary mortgage market in Australia. This Government is prepared to support that market by providing the HLIC with the statutory powers to participate in it. This Bill provides for the HLIC to facilitate the development of the secondary mortgage market by insuring pools of mortgages against loss. In contrast to the primary mortgage market, which relates to the origination of mortgages by lenders such as banks, secondary mortgage markets are based on transactions in existing mortgages or mortgage-related investments between lenders and investors. With this new insurance, investors in secondary mortgage securities that are backed by an insured pool of mortgages can be sure that their security position is unchallengeable. There is a clear market need for this service. As was mentioned earlier by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), the HLIC has already been approached by major institutions likely to be involved in the secondary mortgage market. A broadly based secondary mortgage market has significant potential to attract new funds into housing. As such it is consistent with the Government's policy objective of ensuring an adequate supply of housing funds for Australian families. Industry organisations such as the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies and the Mortgage Bankers Association of Australia have strongly supported the Government's initiatives in this area of endeavour. The HLIC should be involved in this market because it is a Federal government body with an established reputation and it could encourage the participation of substantial institutions and influence the development of the market in a sensible way; furthermore, involvement in the SMM is a natural extension of the HLIC's existing business operations. The Government considers it important to assist this emerging market develop in a rational, orderly way, with the highest possible standards. It expects that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will make an important contribution to this and complement and support other initiatives already taken by State governments. Clause 9 (c) of the Bill provides for the Minister to direct the HLIC to offer insurance in respect of special classes of loans involving projects that would contribute to the Government's overall housing objectives but might otherwise fall outside normal commercial criteria. Unlike the honourable member for Fisher, I see nothing iniquitous in this proposal. It is simply something that will help the Government to save revenue on certain types of housing proposals. Such a national interest provision already exists in the Export Finance Insurance Corporation Act. It would ensure that the HLIC is involved in supporting the Government's housing objectives. In addition, there are some areas where the HLIC mortgage insurance might remove the need for direct government outlays, as was previously mentioned, in the case of commercial housing projects with private sector financing, housing in remote areas, mobile housing, housing co-operatives, et cetera. The Bill also empowers the HLIC to enter into agency agreements covering mortgage repayment insurance for borrowers. The Corporation would not assume any additional risk as it would act as agent for one or more of the general underwriters providing cover for the borrower's mortgage repayments in the event of death, unemployment or sickness. Provision for the HLIC to enter into agency agreements in this area will enable it to provide a similar service to its clients and open up competition in this field of insurance with potential benefit to borrowers. I remind the House that the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is a successful government business enterprise established under the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965, which was introduced by the Menzies 'socialist' Government. Mr McVeigh —By what Government? Ms JAKOBSEN —Was it not the Menzies Government? It was introduced in 1965. It was certainly not a Labor government then. It ensures members against loss on housing and building loans. As a self-financing concern it pays taxes and dividends to the Government. Mr Gear —Free enterprise socialists. Ms JAKOBSEN —The free enterprise people opposite seem not to want it to pay taxes and dividends. I do not know how we are supposed to get the deficit down if we squash it and turn it over to private enterprise that does not pay taxes. The changes covered in this Bill should-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I remind the House that we are trying to listen to the speech by the honourable member for Cowan. Mr Cleeland —It is a good speech, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ms JAKOBSEN —I thank the honourable member. The changes covered in this Bill should increase the Corporation's business volume and its overall profitability. This in turn will mean increased government revenue by way of taxation and dividend payments. The major initiatives in the Bill are: Insurance related to secondary mort- gage market securities, as mentioned; insurance of all mortgage secured loans; agency agreements on mortgage repayment insurance; and insurance of special interest loans. Introduction of the new special payment to place the Corporation on an equal commercial footing with other mortgage insurers will also add to government revenue. While some minor losses may result from insurance contracts written in connection with a direction by the Minister under proposed new section 17 (3c), the Corporation will be required to keep a separate note of that business and any losses will be taken into account when determining dividend payments. The availability of HLIC mortgage insurance is very important to marginal home buyers who require high ratio loans and repayment arrangements which reflect their capacity to pay. Presently, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation provides mortgage insurance to lenders throughout Australia. Building societies account for about 80 per cent of its business. The greatest part of this business is providing standard full cover insurance on first mortgage home ownership loans. Such cover protects the lender for the term of the loan against any financial loss arising from it. This form of insurance enables lending institutions to provide low deposit and other loans to low income borrowers without fear of loss. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation competes directly with three private insurers-the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation of Australia Ltd, the Australian Mortgage Insurance Corporation Ltd and AFG Insurance Ltd. It currently holds some 60 per cent of the market for insurance of home ownership loans and around 20 per cent of the market for commercial loans. Naturally, the continued commercial success of the Corporation depends on its capacity to provide services to it clients. It therefore needs to be able to respond to developments affecting the operations of lending institutions. Through the proposals in this Bill, the HLIC will be able to continue to compete on an equal basis with its private sector competitors and to contribute to the support of the Government's housing policies-policies which have been very successful. The proposals contained in this Bill can be implemented without cost to the Budget and will result in a net gain to revenue. They will also ensure that the Corporation is able to contribute to the ready provision of home finance to borrowers. It is hoped that the Corporation will work co-operatively with financial institutions to develop new lending arrangements which will assist low income earners to achieve home ownership. Flexible and innovative policies by government, business and community groups are necessary for the challenges ahead in order to meet the housing needs of all Australians. This Government is committed to that cause. In 1979 the coalition Government planned to sell the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to the private sector. It had the same plan in 1981. In 1984 it was still the Opposition's policy to sell off bodies such as the HLIC and, lo and behold, the honourable member for Denison today confirmed that its intention has not changed. This Corporation is worthy of support, as is the Bill. Dr WATSON(Forde)(9.41) —I wish to support the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), and my colleagues on this side of the House. I should probably briefly explain the concept of insurance for members on the other side of the House. The insurance industry, of course, has been around for a long time. Mr Gear —How long? Dr WATSON —It has been around for at least 5,000 or 6,000 years. It has developed during that time and adjusted to market demands without any government intervention. Insurance developed from marine insurance to property insurance, to fire insurance, to re-insurance and to other concepts that are common today, without any necessity for government legislation. Why then do we need the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill? Why in fact did we need the original legislation? Of course, there is an acceptable economic argument for government intervention, namely, that governments may intervene when markets fail; in other words, when competitive markets do not provide a solution to an economic problem. I was interested to search through the second reading speech by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) and through the explanatory memorandum associated with this Bill to see whether the Minister could provide any such economic justification. Of course, there was no such justification. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case. If one looks at the explanatory memorandum and particularly at clause 16, one finds the Minister introducing a new special annual payment by the Corporation to place it on an equal footing with other mortgage insurers. In other words, there is already a competitive market. There is already a situation in which the market can provide the solution. Thus there is no economic justification for this Bill. Consequently, I decided to go back and look at the original legislation and the original debate. Lo and behold, there was, of course, some indication of market failure at that stage. The interesting things that were discussed at that stage were the limitations on the obtaining of finance-about #3,500 from a bank and #3,700 from a building society. Of course, there was also the problem of insufficient funds for housing. But it is interesting to note that these were problems caused by government interferences in the market-place. In fact, it is rather ironic that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claims is a tremendous Treasurer, has done much to deregulate the financial markets, and by that deregulation, has made this Bill completely irrelevant. On the one hand, we have the Government saying that it is trying to deregulate the financial markets and, on the other hand, it introduces a Bill which is totally irrelevant because the Treasurer has been successful in that deregulation. Why then, if there is no economic justification, is the Bill being introduced? This has already been referred to by the honourable member for Denison and the previous speaker from this side of the House, the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). Clause 13 of the Bill deals with special interest provisions. This Bill is designed to do nothing more than to redistribute wealth in this country. It is designed to do nothing more than to subsidise particular kinds of living standards, for example, communal living, which was mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech. I do not necessarily disagree with the right of people to live the way they want to live. What I object to is the redistribution of wealth through stealth. That is what this Bill is all about. There is no economic justification for these proposals. They are simply an attempt to justify the redistribution of wealth in this society. Let me turn to some of the financial implications of this Bill because, after all, government members, including the Minister in his explanatory memorandum, have made a big deal of them. The Minister, in his memorandum, suggests that one of the advantages of this Bill is an increased government revenue by way of taxation and dividends. That is the assertion but there is absolutely no economic justification provided for that. In fact, if this instrument were privatised, the taxation revenue would be at least the same. In addition, dividend payments in the hands of shareholders would provide further taxation revenue. That would provide further taxation revenue. That would also provide money in the hands of ordinary Australians who could invest it in areas which are productive for our country, rather than its being wasted by this damned socialist government. I return to clause 13. The Minister suggests that there will be a special payment to place this Corporation on an equal commercial footing. Government members have asserted that this is a profitable organisation operating on a commercial basis. How do they know that? What is the risk level involved with this Corporation? What is an appropriate return? How is that determined? How do we know that the assets tied up in this organisation are being used efficiently? Of course, the assertion is that this organisation is making a profit. That is completely irrelevant. The relevant question is not whether it is making a profit; it is whether the organisation is making an appropriate return on its investment. If honourable members on the other side of the House knew anything about economics, accounting or finance they would know exactly that the real test is whether the rate of return on investment is sufficiently high. That is how one compares organisations and makes a decision on whether an organisation is efficient. This Government cannot do it. It does even know what the concepts are. In case honourable members think I am being a little too hard on the Government, it is relevant to note that some of these issues were raised at the time of the introduction of the original legislation by none other than the one time Leader of the Australian Labor Party, the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Gough Whitlam. He understood-I think perhaps better than some of the new socialists on the other side of the House-exactly what some of the problems could be. Unfortunately, he did not go far enough because he did not understand the long term implications of what he was doing. In summary, this Bill and the memorandum provided by the Minister give absolutely no justification for the extension into the secondary mortgage market. In my opinion there was no justification for the original Bill other than interference by the Government in the market-place. This Bill is designed for one thing only-that is, to redistribute wealth without coming back to the Parliament. This is an attempt to redistribute wealth- Mr Gear —How? Dr WATSON —By stealth. In this manner, there is absolutely no doubt that the Government intends to alter the manner of living for all Australians and, because there are particular segments of society which it wants to support, to undermine the moral standards of this society. Mr Deputy Speaker, because of time constraints, I do not think I can educate honourable members on the other side of the House on some of the intricacies of accounting and finance. But I can assure you and my colleagues that there is no justification for this Bill. The only way to deal with this Bill is as the honourable member for Denison has suggested, that is, to oppose it and throw it out. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(9.52) —in reply-This time honourable members opposite have really exhibited how fearfully incompetent they are. During the debate on the Housing Loans Insurance Amendments Bill, they have an excellent opportunity to state their policies on the insurance industry and their attitude towards measures in this Bill and they have failed in a most fearfully inadequate manner. We heard the spokesperson for the Opposition on housing and construction, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), make his usual inept attack on public enterprise. The Opposition's policy goes back a long way. It was first exemplified by the refusal of the National Party of Australia, which used to be called the Country Party. Honourable members opposite have this wonderful economic theory about public enterprise: Capitalise the profits and socialise the losses. The Opposition made an attack on the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation because it has been a profitable and a worthy organisation. The honourable member for Denison said that back in the 1960s when the Menzies Government established the HLIC there was a market but that market was not being satisfied. The private sector would not accept the challenge and so Menzies had to establish the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in 1965, or whenever it was. The private sector then was too timid to satisfy the need. Now that the HLIC has demonstrated its capacity to operate at a profit and now that it has satisfied the market and other private corporations have entered the market honourable members opposite want to sell it off. It was essential back in 1965. Now that it is no longer essential but still a market leader covering 60 per cent of the market and 90 per cent of the permanent building society market, honourable members opposite want to sell it off. The whole problem is that the concept of a successful public corporation clashes irrevocably with their conservative ideology. So they get hooked on this enormous dilemma. They praise the efficiency of the HLIC and they say how good it is, how it established the market and how it is still the market leader. They then turn around and call it a socialist wart and say that we have to sell it off. In their frenzy of hate against the public sector they cannot even stand to see a successful public enterprise. Once again, we have been treated to this farrago of misrepresentation and nonsense which exemplifies their attitude to these housing Bills on every occasion. They will not face up to the real issues or address the clauses in the Bill. I do not think anyone really addressed the clauses in the Bill or stated what their purpose was. I will not go over the Bill but I will remind honourable members of its purpose. It has four major initiatives. Firstly, it will insure the emerging secondary mortgage market security packages that are coming forward in Victoria and New South Wales. The Bill will allow the HLIC to insure the mortgage-backed securities and thus encourage the States in their efforts to develop a secondary mortgage market and encourage more funds into housing finance. Secondly, this Bill will allow the insurance of all loans by the HLIC, if they are backed by a mortgage. I say to my friends opposite that that is just what its competitors do now. All we will do is let the good old HLIC give them a bit of good old honest private sector competition in this area where they have enjoyed a monopoly in the past. Thirdly, we will let the HLIC enter into agency agreements with companies that are already established in the market to insure the borrower rather than just the lender. In that way, we will be able to give some assistance to middle and low income earners who are paying off their mortgages and who may fall into difficulties. The fourth and final major initiative will allow the HLIC to back the Government's housing policies by allowing the insurance of special interest loans. As I understand that an amendment is to be moved in the Committee stage I will leave my comments on this matter until I have heard what the honourable member for Denison has to say, because I know very well that the Government has all the answers. Let me conclude my summing up because there has been really nothing from the Opposition to answer. I will just run over a few points so that there will be no doubt. Since 1965, the HLIC has been enormously successful. It has insured over 700,000 loans since that date. The decision by this Government to retain the HLIC in 1983 was supported by the Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, the Housing Industry Association, the Real Estate Institute of Australia and the Master Builders Federation of Australia. It does not have a monopoly, as was suggested by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman); there are three major competitors. As all these organisations-the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Federation of Australia, the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the Association of Permanent Building Societies, and the Bankers Association-support this Bill, how can the Opposition portray it as an attempt to nationalise the industry? All the major industry organisations and trade unions support this Bill. All the State governments support this Bill. The industry supports it, the State governments support it, the trade unions support it, but the Opposition does not support it. Who is wrong? If all these people, including the industry organisations, are supporting it, how is it an attempt to nationalise the industry? I will just repeat what my colleagues have stressed concerning this organisation's profitability. Payments to the Government-that is, the payment of tax, the payment of dividends and a special payment to make certain that private sector companies are not disadvantaged-totalled $7.8m last year and are likely to total $8.75m this year. So it has been profitable. It is not a drain on the taxpayer and it ought not to be sold. There should be no more talk by members of the Opposition about selling off the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. My last point is that members of the Opposition are doing damage to the morale of a very successful public sector organisation. I do not want to condemn this organisation; I want to praise it. I assure honourable members opposite, the people of Australia and the industry that we will not allow the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to be sold off. I assure all of the people who work there, all of the staff and Mr Fitzpatrick, the Chairman, who is in the chamber tonight, that the Hawke Labor Government will not sell the HLIC. We have said that and we will stand by it. I commend the management and the staff of the Corporation for a job well done over the years since 1965. I assure them of our continued support. We know that they have been serving the industry in the past and after the passage of this Bill, when it becomes law, they will be in an even better position to serve the public of Australia and the building industry. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. 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.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. 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.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J.Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. 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.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hurford, C. J. Hodges, J. C.Mildren, J. B. Rocher, A. C.Holding, A. C. Cadman, A. G.Hayden, W. G. Fife, W. C.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J.Tickner, R. E. McGauran, P. J.Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Corporation to carry on certain insurance business). Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.11) —This is the critical clause of the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill. The Opposition will take this matter to a division because this is the clause under which the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) will be empowered to give a direction to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation in what are described as 'special interest matters'. As the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) pointed out, it is a most sinister clause. Whilst I am about to make my remarks on clause 9, I would like to place on record the Opposition's gratitude-if I can be heard over the noise of the socialist rabble-to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) and the honourable member for Forde for their contributions to the second reading debate. I also offer my congratulations to the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) for his interest, although his excellent speech, unfortunately, was not delivered due to the shortage of time. Clause 9 is the clause under which the Minister will have power to direct the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to carry on business in areas of special interest according to the Government's housing policies; it is the clause under which this Socialist Left Minister will use the Bill in the most damaging and debilitating way. The Minister, in his second reading speech-I want all honourable members to listen to this-said: It is possible that some minor losses may be incurred by the Corporation in connection with business written under the new special interest provision. Honourable members on the other side think this is funny. I will now read what the Bill says and then we will see whether they think it is funny. Clause 9 amends section 17 of the principal Act, which sets out the powers of the Corporation. Those opposite should listen to the following provision that the Hawke socialist Government, by weight of numbers, will put into the law of this land: (3C) The Minister may, from time to time, by instrument in writing, direct the Corporation to enter, under sub-section (2), into contracts in respect of loans included in a class of loans specified in the direction, being loans- (a) made for purposes that accord with the policies of the Government of the Commonwealth in relation to housing; and (b) in respect of which the Corporation would not- I repeat, 'would not'- so enter into contracts in the ordinary course of business. Mr Baldwin —Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —I should like the names of the honourable members who laughed to be recorded, because they are laughing at a provision which says that a Minister for the first time in the history of Australia, will be given power to direct a corporation to enter into contracts into which it would not enter in the ordinary course of business. If that is not the most socialist provision that has ever been brought into this Parliament, I know not what it is. To give such a power to this Minister and this Government is to enable the Minister to drive a truck through every principle of commercial practice which the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has upheld since 1965. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr West-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.16) —I repeat that this clause gives the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) the power to direct the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to enter into contracts which the Corporation would not enter into in the ordinary course of business. I challenge the Minister in his reply to point to any other Commonwealth legislation which gives such a power. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is one vehicle which the Whitlam Government saw as a means of nationalising the insurance industry of Australia. If we legislate to give the Minister power to direct the Corporation-and the corollary is that the Corporation must comply-to enter into business into which it would not normally enter, who in this chamber is to say that this socialist Government will not seek to utilise the same powers in relation to private enterprise insurers? I give honourable members, and particularly the Minister, this warning: If this Government has this power through the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, it will be the first step towards the ultimate power of giving directions to private insurers which will lead to their nationalisation. Honourable members opposite made a muck of it when they endeavoured to nationalise the banks, and the Whitlam Government had in mind using the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, back in 1973, to nationalise the insurance industry. This legislation provides for a four-fold expansion under which the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will be expanded in four separate and very significant directions. It is an opportunity to get a foot in the door leading towards the eventual nationalisation of the insurance industry. We Opposition members have logic on our side. We are prepared to debate with the Minister and the Government, on a philosophical basis, the impropriety of this legislation and the track down which they are seeking to take the people of Australia. We on this side of the chamber are committed to smaller government and to lower taxation. We therefore opposed most strenuously the second reading of the Bill and we now oppose clause 9. To avoid any need for me to reply to the Minister, I challenge him in his reply to point to any other Commonwealth legislation in which a Minister is given the power to direct a statutory corporation to do things which it would not usually do in normal commercial practice. Tonight is for the Minister a watershed in socialist legislation. If he cannot provide any other case, honourable members will be left to draw the conclusion that this is his bid for power and to nationalise the insurance industry of Australia. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.20) —The Government will be insisting upon maintaining the integrity of clause 9 because it allows me, as the Federal Minister, to direct the Corporation to provide insurance on loans deemed to be of special interest in terms of this Government's housing policies. We make no apologies for that. The Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill provides for prior consultation with the Corporation and for consideration of its advice. It also requires that all directions issued by the Minister will be tabled in this Parliament. The Government envisages that the use of the special interests provision would be strictly limited. It would be used only where proposals have particular importance in terms of the Government's housing policies and where mortgage insurance would not otherwise be provided because of the application of strict commercial principles. I take up the challenge issued by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He said we would not be able to point to any other piece of Federal legislation in which a similar provision applies. There is a precedent with a similar national interest provision in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, section 35C (3) of which states: Where, in relation to an application referred to the Minister . . . the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the national interest that the Corporation should enter into a contract of indemnity in respect of the matter . . . the subject of the application, the Minister may, by writing under his hand, approve the entering into by the Corporation of such a contract. There is the precedent-the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act. Mr Hollis —Withdraw. Mr WEST —Exactly. Mr Hodgman —Oh, come on. I will not withdraw. You are prolonging the debate for half an hour. You are an absolute idiot. Mr WEST —Well, there it is. I really think that the Opposition ought to think about what we can do with this power, because this is the sort of thing we want to do. Examples of proposals that might be covered by a special interest determination include housing in remote areas, housing that might not otherwise proceed, multiple occupancy developments, housing co-operatives, pensioner housing, Aboriginal housing projects in remote areas in the outback, and probably most importantly, demonstration projects by government with the private sector for more affordable housing. There are a number of such projects proceeding in Melbourne and Brisbane in co-operation with the private sector; that is, with major construction developers such as Jennings Industries Ltd. That is the sort of thing that in future this special interest clause would cover and it is a most laudable activity. In some cases the use of the special interest provision could remove the need for direct government outlays; for example, by enabling housing co-operatives to obtain private finance instead of being financed through the public housing funds. I conclude by once again condemning the Opposition and its spokesmen today for the fearful misrepresentation that they have once again put forward in debate on this Bill. They have suggested it might be the start of nationalisation of the insurance industry and all sorts of other ratbag suggestions. I repeat that all of the major industry organisations and the State governments have supported this legislation. The Real Estate Institute of Australia, hardly a socialist organisation, and the Federation of Permanent Building Societies of Australia have not only supported it but lauded it. They have said: 'We want it, get it through the Senate and get it promulgated'. The Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Federation have all said: 'Get this operational. It is the best thing you have ever done for the HLIC and the industry. It will help to get the secondary mortgage market off the ground'. That is what we want to see because it will get more funds into housing funds, that we would not otherwise get without the market. If the States are going to develop the secondary mortgage market they have to have an organisation which will ensure the mortgage-backed securities that will be stamped by the State corporations. But the Opposition does not understand that. It says that it is the start of the nationalisation of the industry. That is nonsense; it is not. This measure is supported by the industry and by the States. The only people who oppose it are the fools opposite. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.25) —It is a very sad day for the Australian Parliament when a Minister misleads the Committee. There are members of the legal profession in the Government's ranks and I just make the point that whether the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) intended to mislead the Committee or not, he grossly misled it. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act does provide for ministerial direction under section 16(G). I am putting this into Hansard so that everybody who reads Hansard, be they members of this Parliament or members of the Australian public, will know that on this night this Minister claimed that there was a power for a Minister to give a direction under the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act directing the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to act against commercial interests. Mr N. A. Brown —Is it there? Mr HODGMAN —It is not there. I can read it into Hansard. Unfortunately the Minister was too clever by half. There is a power given under section 16 (G) of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act for the Minister to give a direction 'in the national interest'. There is no power for the Minister to direct the Corporation to enter into contracts which it would not enter into in the ordinary course of business. So, far from my withdrawing what I said, I would accept the judgment of the former Attorney-General of South Australia, or any other member of the legal profession on this, for the simple reason that the Minister knows that what he has just said to the Committee is not true, and that is a very sad thing to happen on such an important matter as this. I am sorry, but the Minister has forced me to say that, if he is not prepared to tell the Committee the truth about the legislation, we are losing parliamentary democracy in Australia this night. Those opposite can laugh as much as they like. This Hansard will be the record of what was said in this chamber by every member who has taken part in this debate. I said at the outset that this was going to be a clean debate, and it was until the last few minutes, when the Minister misrepresented the position and misled the chamber. The question has to be asked: Why does the Minister do this at the tail end of a debate unless he knows in his heart of hearts that the arguments and the logic are on our side and the only thing that he has going for him is the numbers? The numbers will not be with the Minister for ever. Mr West —They are with us tonight. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister boasts: 'They are with us tonight'. People all around Australia who are listening to this debate tonight will remember that this was a Minister who relied on numbers and not on logic, that this was a Minister who misrepresented the position. It is the saddest thing for me, in 18 years in politics, to see tonight a government which knows that it has lost the debate, a government which knows that on every point it has been defeated. Members of the Government are cocky because they have the numbers now, but their days are running out. The people of Australia nearly woke up to the Government on 1 December. They will most certainly wake up to the Government at the next election. The Hawke socialist Government is in its last term. In conclusion, my prediction of last year, that the Minister would make an even greater mess of housing than he made of immigration, sadly is coming true. We oppose the clause. Question put: That clause 9 be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, 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.Chynoweth, R. I. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, 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.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D.Aldred, K. J. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. 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.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Hurford, C. J. Hodges, J. C.Mildren, J. B. Rocher, A. C.Holding, A. C. Cadman, A. G.Hayden, W. G. Fife, W. C.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J.Tickner, R. E. McGauran, P. J.Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr West)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.37) —The Opposition opposes the third reading of the Housing Loans Insurance Amendment Bill; but, because of the lateness of the hour- Government members-Shame! Mr HODGMAN —This Government really is the thickest government we have ever seen. It will not be in office for very much longer. The stupid, sick, idiotic Hawke socialist Government did not realise it, but I was just about to say that, whilst opposing the Bill, the Opposition will not take it to a division because Government members are all very overtired, tense, emotional and crabby. We oppose the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.40) —In considering the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill, let me declare on behalf of the Opposition our sincere and earnest belief in the importance of occupational health and safety. The Opposition deplores the loss of life, limb and livelihood that occurs in work places across the nation because of industrial accidents and disease. Much attention is given to the economic cost of physical misfortune in the work place. This is quite properly so. A figure of $6 billion is cited regularly as the estimated annual cost to Australia of industrial accidents. The spiralling burden of the workers compensation component of on-costs borne by employers is a widely recognised consequence of industrial accidents and illness. It is clearly acknowledged also that increases in the supplements component of wages growth over the last decade has been largely the result of a dramatic increase in the value of workers compensation claims. Workers compensation claims and premiums have skyrocketed. This affects all employers, from the individual entrepreneur and small business person right up to the largest corporate unit, and is yet another cost detracting from Australia's economic international competitiveness. All honourable members in this House are aware of the negative employment consequences of this state of affairs. The $6 billion figure which is cited so often is an inadequate indicator of the seriousness of the problem. The really terrible cost, the human cost, of occupationally derived injury and illness cannot be encapsulated in a neat figure, phrase or formula. There is no financial award adequate to compensate a family for the loss of a loved one. There is no monetary remuneration sufficient to make up for the diminishment of an individual's ability to live life to the full because of the consequences of industrial misadventure or disease. The coalition feels the utmost compassion for the victims of such misfortune. Occupational health and safety is a matter that has exercised the minds of people wherever and whenever they have toiled. At the crudest level it is basic common sense and mortality that leads one to work in a manner that is not dangerous to oneself or to others. This has been true from the simplest original acts of work. In the building of shelter and the hunting of food it was logical, practical and moral not to injure yourself or your neighbour who was a partner in the endeavour. Here lie the very origins of the social obligations due to one's fellows when coalescing in a community with other human beings. Neither is occupational health and safety a modern preoccupation. There have been epochs of particularly terrible labour exploitation as manifest in, for example, slavery and other forms of forced labour. Unfortunately, in some countries today the unjust exploitation of labour still exists. The forced labour camps of the Soviet Union spring readily to mind. Generally, those who have organised labour into productive units have seen the logic and practicality, if not always the morality, of ensuring safe work practices. Nor is concern about occupational health and safety a new concern which has just cropped up at this advanced stage of the free enterprise system's development. Since the early excesses of the Industrial Revolution, where even children were drawn into dark mills and mines, there has been a steady and continuous progress which has lead to safer, cleaner and more pleasant working environments. This is laudable. One can say with confidence that workers in Australia are not chewed up and spat out, drained and damaged in the process of production. Employees in Australia enjoy working conditions on a par with, if not superior to, those of any other country in the world. Those on the left of the political spectrum sometimes try to argue to the contrary and state that employers are, by definition, exploitative and have no interest in the health and welfare of their employees, whom they regard as inanimate, expendable and easily replaced factors of production. Even if this were so-and the coalition strongly disagrees with these assertions-it ignores the substantial body of common and statute law which has built up over many decades in a concerted effort by those concerned to ensure that our moral and social obligations to each other in the workplace are fulfilled. Such a body of law cannot accumulate unless there is broad community agreement, amongst employers as well as others, that an obligation exists for them to ensure the safety and well-being of those in their employ. One important judgment in the area states that employers must take reasonable care for the safety of their employees by providing proper and adequate means of carrying out their work without unnecessary risk, by warning them of unusual or unexpected risks, or by instructing them in the performance of their work where instruction might reasonably be thought to be required to secure them from the danger of injury. It states that the standard of care for an employee's safety is not a low one. Under common law employers must discharge this responsibility through the provision of competent staff, adequate materials and a proper system of effective supervision. They are obliged to provide employees with a safe place in which to work. No employee, except perhaps in the armed forces, is obliged to obey an employer's directive if it endangers his or her safety. Employers take these responsibilities seriously. A number of industries and individual companies have long been active in promoting occupational health and safety for both equity and efficiency reasons. Various companies and organisations provide training services to equip those who oversee work practices from a safety point of view with sound knowledge and solid information. Common to many private enterprises are employees responsible for accident control, fire control, industrial health and hygiene, the inspection of equipment, the investigation of accidents and injuries, the heightening of safety consciousness amongst the work force and so on. In addition, State governments have intervened in the area to provide the statutory protection of employees at the work place. There are over 160 separate statutes regulating occupational health and safety in Australia. This proliferation of statutes is not desirable. Simple, coherent and effective legislative guidance provided within a single statutory framework in each State is clearly preferable. If the States can liaise with one another and come up with a single national health and safety code, so much the better. One must add the proviso that they lay down sensible minimum standards and avoid overregulation and unnecessary interference with reasonable management prerogatives. Several State governments are presently reviewing their existing occupational health and safety legislation. South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have all taken steps towards the creation of a single authority within their States solely responsible for occupational health and safety matters. I intend to make some more comments about the State legislation shortly. For the moment, it can be seen that this Bill arises out of a similar impetus for review and revision on the part of Commonwealth. Further, it arises from the Government's belief that, while occupational health and safety is the legislative responsibility of the States, it is, nevertheless, a national issue which must be addressed by Australia's national government. The coalition agrees with the Government that occupational health and safety is a national issue which the Commonwealth must address. The coalition also agrees with the Government's Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission on the 'desirability of developing appropriate consultative machinery at the Federal level, and the need for further examination of Commonwealth-State responsibilities and mechanisms for co-ordination in the implementation of occupational health and safety legislative requirements'. The coalition does not agree, however, that the establishment of a statutory commission is the appropriate instrument for the Commonwealth's achievement of those goals. The coalition believes that occupational health and safety is first and foremost the business of those who are directly involved in and affected by it-employees and employers. A few minutes ago I conveyed a broad brush historical continuity of the consultation and negotiation that has taken place between those who organise productive activities and those who participate in them. The concrete, modern manifestations of this are the work place consultative arrangements involving employees and employers or their representatives. As the Interim Commission notes: 'many workplaces in Australia have joint health and safety committees sorting out problems and constructing preventative measures on a daily basis. The National Labour Consultative Committee recently endorsed such arrangements. On top of this layer of activity, we have the State judiciaries, the State governments and their bureaucracies all busy constructing health and safety guidelines of both a voluntary and compulsory nature. The Commonwealth, too, has a judiciary, a government and a bureaucracy doing likewise for the benefit of employers and employees in the Territories. We have an enormous amount of activity consuming an enormous amount of resources at these three levels of operation and yet we still have not conquered the major problems in the occupational health and safety field. The Opposition does not agree with the logic that proposes the establishment of a National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. This is the logic that the creation of special structures leads somehow to the generation of overnight solutions. It assumes that one big body can do the work of smaller bodies more effectively. Regrettably, this reaction to problems has led to an endless proliferation of quasi-autonomous government organisations, or quangos. The coalition disputes that this was the appropriate structure through which to achieve national goals in occupational health and safety. Let me be clear: The issue is national. The Commonwealth has a definite role to play. That role is properly one of direct partnership with the States. The Commonwealth can contribute by co-ordinating the various approaches of the States to the problems in this area. The Commonwealth can contribute by helping to propagate positive attitudes in relation to occupational health and safety amongst both employers and employees. What will the establishment of this Commission achieve that could not be simply achieved by direct interministerial and departmental contact between the Commonwealth and the States? Establishment of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission shows an insensitivity on the Government's part to the decades of positive and productive progress achieved at the grass-roots level in the work place where it counts most. The Government proposes to create a Commission with powers to blunder into the work place, to order the production of documents, to summons witnesses under threat of $1,000 fines or six months gaol or both, and to compel people to give evidence under oath at its inquiries. Is this consensus at work? It is as though the Commonwealth had suddenly found occupational health and safety and intends to descend from above dispatching subpoenas left, right and centre, hoping to change the world. Will it do so? The coalition clearly doubts it. It is pointless for the Government to say that these draconian powers are merely academic and will never be used. If that is so, why are these provisions in the Bill in the first place? Furthermore, the industrial relations consequences of a commission let loose on industry with all those sorts of powers could be horrendous. We must remember that occupational health and safety can sometimes be an extremely delicate industrial relations matter. It is inextricably bound up with the conduct of relations between employers and employees. There is much anecdotal evidence about unions using health and safety matters as a ruse in their conduct of industrial campaigns against employers. There is some very interesting research evidence also on the positive correlation between high levels of absence due to industrial injury and high levels of industrial disputation in industry. Dr Ian Low, the physician who pointed out this phenomenon, also cited evidence that poor industrial relations in an industry reduced employee motivation to resume work after injury and heightened the perceived level of pain an employee was suffering. Another researcher has posed the theory that union interest in occupational health and safety matters tends to heighten during times of wage restraint. Union officials feel that they must be seen to be doing something for the benefit of union members and in the absence of a struggle over increased wages, occupational health and safety comes under greater scrutiny by them. I do not wish to suggest that unionists are not genuine in their interest in health and safety matters, but I do wish to indicate the complex interlinkages between occupational health and safety and industrial relations in general. The Bill proposes the creation of a three-headed structure. Under Part V of the Bill, the staff of the Commission is organised into two bodies, the National Occupational Health and Safety Office and the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. These two bodies, the coalition believes, will have a natural tendency to expand themselves and this will inevitably lead to the establishment of two extra bureaucracies as well as that of the Commission itself. Thus the Bill effectively sets up three new Commonwealth instrumentalities-the Commission, the Office and the Institute. The provisions of clause 38 of the Bill for the establishment of national standards and codes of practice have a particularly grave potential for overriding the jurisdiction of the States in occupational health and safety matters. It is true that they are only advisory, but what if codes recommended by the Commission were incorporated into a Commonwealth award? They would then take precedence over State legislation for all employees covered by that Federal award. This has the potential to create Commonwealth jurisdiction over all employees covered by Federal awards in whatever State they live. The objects, functions and powers of the Commission set out in clauses 7, 8 and 9, are so general as to confer virtually unfettered power on the Commission to range far and wide on the issue. The budgetary consequences if the Commission should ever seek funds to enable it to discharge all its objects, functions and powers could be outrageously large. There are projections in the Interim Commission report that in its second year of operation, should this Bill be passed, the Commission will have an average staff of 300 and a net budget of $33.1m. The Opposition will not seek to amend the Bill. The amendments we could propose would be so extensive as to create a different Bill altogether. In any case, we have a fundamental objection which leads us to reject the Bill outright. We totally reject the notion that the creation of a statutory commission achieves anything more than the expenditure of more Commonwealth funds-funds contributed by taxpayers who are keen to see government expenditure controlled and the tax burden lessened. The Opposition continues to live in eternal hope that the Labor Party may one day grow out of its well-meaning but ever centralist paternalism and that it may critically assess its penchant for quango creation. It is a rather regressive throwback to the heady days of Whitlamism when many optimistically thought that statutory commissions could perform some strange potent magic which could be delivered by no other structures. Time and, more importantly, public opinion have moved on since then and the community wants less bureaucracy, less cost and more action. The coalition gives the highest priority to occupational health and safety matters. As I stated in my opening remarks, the coalition deplores human suffering and economic waste. Regrettably, I feel that we-the Government and the Opposition-are in agreement about the desirability of action in this area but we are doomed to remain divided on how it should be pursued. The Government's proposed Commission begins the task of and possesses an enormous potential for the massive expansion of Commonwealth power over occupational health and safety. That we cannot support. Statutory commissions, once established, tend to take on life and momentum of their own. Many Ministers have rued the day that they or their colleagues or predecessors set one up. It is a great pity that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is bent on pursuing this aspect of his ministerial program. The costs will be externalised upon all of us in the form of increased Commonwealth intrusion, increased Commonwealth expenditure and the upsetting of a very fine grass-roots system of consultation and negotiation between employers and employees on occupational health and safety matters. I reiterate the statement of my predecessor as Opposition spokesman on employment and industrial relations, the Hon. Ian Macphee, who said when the report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission was tabled on 29 May last year: The Opposition strongly supports the role of the Commonwealth in co-ordinating a national occupational health and safety strategy. Indeed, it pursued that objective in office. The question is, how it is most effectively done and cost-effectively done. A statutory commission is not the answer. It is never a satisfactory substitute for the appropriate parties to get together, put their own cases and contribute their own experiences and research to each other. If this could be done directly by and between the governments of the States and the Commonwealth and their departments we could make positive progress in occupational health and safety that much quicker, and at much less expense. Communication, unfortunately, is not the Minister's strong suit. Most of his ministerial initiatives to date have centred on the commissioning of commissions and committees of inquiry-the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry and the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. The Interim Commission was the first of these groups to report. We believe the Minister has uncritically and unthinkingly accepted its recommendations-recommendations which of course perpetuate the existence of the Interim Commission itself albeit, in a more secure form. The exercise of ministerial responsibilities requires more than commissioning commissions and committees of inquiry; it requires action. In this case, it requires direct communication, direct liaison between the State and Federal Ministers and the responsible departments. Creating a new statutory commission is not the answer. Honourable members may be aware that the Confederation of Australian Industry is involved in the present Interim Occupational Health and Safety Commission, that it supports the establishment of the permanent Commission and that if a permanent Commission is established the CAI will be represented on it. The Opposition believes that the CAI has involved itself in the Commission in the hope that it might be used to restrain State governments from the regulatory excesses to which they have tended in recent times. The Opposition judges that this will be a faint and forlorn hope. The attempted Victorian reforms are, of course, the most notorious example of excessive and punitive occupational health and safety legislation. Had the Cain Government managed to push its occupational health and safety Bill through the Victorian Parliament prior to the last election, union-appointed safety representatives would have had the power to shut down any business without warning if a representative considered a situation to be potentially unsafe. Under the proposed legislation, Victorian employers would have faced a fine of up to $10,000 and/or five years imprisonment for failing to obey a safety representative's directive. Victorian employers now fear that if the Cain Government gains control of the upper House they will have the legislation foisted upon them without amendment. The Cain Government has an equally distasteful Bill waiting in the wings which would give it monopoly control of workers compensation in Victoria. The legislation would completely exclude private insurers from the workers compensation area. This is a totally unjust and unwarranted infringement of the right to trade freely in goods and services. The Victorian economy, and employers and employees therein, will suffer if the Government obtains monopoly control of workers compensation. While the Cain Government argues that its takeover would lead to lower workers compensation premiums, it cannot be argued in the short run and it certainly would be shown not to be the case in the long run. Monopoly control inevitably leads to monopoly pricing. Higher workers compensation premiums would be the inevitable result. The Victorian legislation would have terrible consequences for employees and employers alike. Other States have planned similarly damaging legislation. South Australians and West Australians have been threatened with legislation incorporating worker-appointed safety officers with wide powers in the work place. They have been threatened too with extremely heavy penalties under the proposed legislation. In the Act legislation could result in the imprisonment or levying of fines, even against the self-employed and public servants. All of these health and safety overkills are taking place in States and territories governed by the Labor Party. This is no accident. The Labor Party, beholden to the trade union movement, is directly implementing trade union policy on occupational health and safety. Employers will be squeezed by unreasonable union and legislative demands and the Labor governments of those States will not lift a finger to reverse that trend. This Government has only one constituency to satisfy, and that constituency is the trade union movement elite, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Employers cannot realistically expect Labor governments to be very interested in their concerns. They are a party of the trade union movement. This brings me back to the Confederation of Australian Industry's support for the Government's proposed National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. I suggested to honourable members that the CAI was supporting the Commission in the hope that it may act as a restraining influence on the excesses of State legislatures. I am afraid that there is only faint hope of the CAI's wishes being fulfilled. Why should one Labor Government act to curb the excesses of other Labor governments? Is it not more likely that a Commonwealth statutory commission, created and nurtured by a Federal Labor government, will attempt to duplicate rather than restrain the intrusions of its State counterparts? The fact that 12 of 17 members of the Commission are needed to pass any recommendation is irrelevant in this case. The damage is done later when, by the insertion of a commission code in a Federal award, the policing of that code could pass automatically to union organisers, and union organisers alone. The bottom line in all this is the cost. At the beginning of my speech I outlined the coalition's view of the terrible social and economic costs which result from occupational injury and illness. In my closing remarks I would like to explore the economic costs a little more closely. By doing this I am seeking to put the economics of occupational health and safety into its proper social context, and particularly in the context of the greatest of all the social problems facing Australia-unemployment. The Metal Trades Industry Association neatly summed up the problem when it said: The spiralling cost of worker's compensation . . . is reducing industry's capacity to meet international competition, and consequently reducing employers' ability to employ more people. There we have the problem in a nutshell. Improved standards of occupational health and safety are vital if we are to minimise the negative social and economic consequences of industrial injury and illness. As the MTIA quote indicates, the economic consequences have a profound, widely felt community impact. Workers compensation premiums have been said to be the key issue in the cost control problem facing Australian industry. Costs have zoomed alarmingly in all States. Compensation claims by private insurers rose by 148 per cent in the five years to 1982. Over the same period, the consumer price index rose by only 57 per cent. A recent MTIA study revealed that workers compensation premiums were the third-highest cost of employing labour, behind wages and leave entitlements. Clearly, these costs must be contained if our economy is to be placed on an internationally competitive footing. They certainly must be contained if our economy is ever to generate sufficient jobs to make inroads into our very high and entrenched unemployment. The unemployment statistics released today give us no hope for the immediate future. Improved standards of occupational health and safety can contribute to the minimisation of occupational injury and illness. This will lead to less human suffering and less economic pain. Optimally, through a lowering of workers compensation premiums, improved occupational health and safety can restore our international competitiveness and produce new, real jobs for the hundreds of thousands of Australians who want them. Regrettably, the coalition does not feel that the establishment of yet another quango will positively contribute to these goals and we will oppose the Bill. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(11.08) —It is a sad day in this chamber when the Opposition opposes what I consider to be a most significant piece of legislation. It is sad because, in my view, the Opposition is opposing the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill although the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which is now operating, is in fact a unique combination of tripartisan and co-operative federalism. In fact, the current Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the structure of which mirrors that which is provided for in the Bill, includes members nominated by each State Premier and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Every government in Australia has endorsed that proposal. The State and the Northern Territory governments are to be congratulated for their co-operation and support of the National Commission. It is to be hoped that their current positive attitudes will not be influenced by the negativism displayed by the Opposition so far during this debate. As I have said, this Bill before the House is the product of sustained dialogue within the States and Territories with employers and the unions. It has been developed in the full spirit of co-operation. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) has already alluded to the fact that groups such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry were in agreement at all stages of the development of the national focus and strategy. Interestingly enough, on two previous occasions, so too was the Opposition. Further evidence of this universal agreement on the need for a national strategy to improve occupational health and safety is readily obtainable. The National Economic Summit Conference in April 1983 called for a national occupational health and safety strategy. The National Labour Consultative Council has endorsed the establishment of the National Commission to develop and implement a national strategy. Even the Opposition health policy which was issued on 30 October 1984 stated: The Liberal and National Parties support the development of a national strategy to improve performance in occupational health and safety . . . Every employee at risk and every employer with a legal responsibility for the occupational health and safety of employees will welcome the establishment of the National Commission to develop national preventive strategies. It is a pity that it is not being welcomed by the Opposition. Some attention has already been paid to the extent of this problem. Conservative estimates are that more than $6 billion a year is wasted through loss of production and associated costs because of occupational injury and ill health and that about 300 people are killed and a further 150,000 people are injured each year in work-related accidents. This is a gigantic social, human and economic penalty which can be reduced significantly only by concerted action on a national scale. This Bill represents the first substantial legislation by a Federal government to bring about a change for the better in the working environment. Recent New South Wales figures that have come to hand show that about $205m was paid in compensation under the New South Wales Workers' Compensation Act in the financial year 1982-83, which was in fact an increase of nearly $100m over the figure for the previous year. The figures tabled on the first day of the 1985 sittings of the New South Wales Parliament are confirmation of what employers and insurers have known for years-that the cost of workers compensation is not only growing but growing at an alarming rate. It seems that the answer is clear. Injured workers must be rehabilitated and returned to work in the minimum of time. The aim, therefore, of occupational health is quite simply to reduce these sorts of figures and to put industry back on a very strong footing. There is a need to prevent accidents by teaching the right way to handle certain tasks, to treat injured workers quickly and effectively to ensure a speedy return to work and in the process to check the alarming growth in compensation payments and the rises in insurance premiums that go with it. It is important to take cognisance during this debate of some of the areas where occupational health and safety standards need to be improved. I can speak with some knowledge and with some conviction on this subject because, unlike the honourable member for Tangey, I come from an industrial city. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who was in the chamber tonight, and I represent a most significant part of Australia's industrial growth area. During the development of the Interim National Commission an organisation was formed on the south coast. It was called the South Coast Occupational Health Coalition. It was concerned with putting together a package which spelt out quite clearly for all the workers in the industrial scene on the south coast, and certainly extending right to the Victorian border, the need for formal and clear guidelines for occupational health and safety. This organisation had the support of the Illawarra Migrant Resource Centre, the South Coast Labour Council, various unions in their own right, the South Coast Workers Medical Centre and the Wollongong Women's Centre. The South Coast Coalition, in its deliberations in preparing a submission to the Interim Commission, looked at a number of basic problem areas and dwelt upon the problems that would be faced by workers and therefore the need for the National Occupational Health and Safety Commissions. In particular I refer to the problems in the basic metal manufacturing industry for which Port Kembla is famous world wide. Workers within that industry, within the steel works, are exposed daily to a full range of industrial health hazards. These include gases and vapours from carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide and so on, which emanate from slag pits and metal furnaces, and aerosols such as acid mists coming from electrolytic bars. We have physical hazards such as heat, noise and vibration, biological hazards; safety hazards such as fire and accidents; and chemical hazards. The underground coal mining industry, of which again I have some knowledge, is one of the most hazardous areas of work. In the last decade the frequency rate of lost time accidents in the industry in New South Wales has almost doubled. Fifty-five per cent of those accidents occurred in the southern mine districts. Most fatalities and injuries associated with that are caused by difficult working conditions. Within women's occupational health and safety problems, a number of particular issues can be identified. I refer particularly to work where repetitious activity is necessary. Repetition strain injury has become the most important problem. Out-workers, office workers and so on are all exposed to this problem. Shift workers suffer from emotional problems, and occupational health and safety must make allowances for that. I referred to the fact that these were problems which had developed and for which a solution must be sought. I believe some solutions have been advanced. Certainly, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill before us tonight will go a great deal of the way towards overcoming those problems because the problem is first and foremost a national one. In the States a series of different organisations has been established to deal with this problem on an individual basis. But a national program is certainly needed. One such area which unfortunately is handled by private enterprise is the Illawarra Rehabilitation Centre which is located at Thirroul in my electorate. It was set up to look after the interests of people suffering from occupational health and safety conditions. Mr Leo McLeay —It does a good job. Mr MARTIN —It does an excellent job. It does so because it has looked at the problems in the work place and has tried to do something about them by recreating a work environment to teach people how to lift properly and how to carry things properly. Workers are rehabilitated back into the work place as quickly as possible. But it is not a patch-up job. People are not just fixed up to a certain level and told 'Back to work you go, son', and that is it. It is done in stages. Specific testing mechanisms are used to see whether a worker can go back to the work place after a graduated period. A full report is supplied to the employer stating how quickly that person can return to a full working life. That is most important. It is extremely important because it gives a person a sense of self-esteem and, after all, that is really what we are looking for. The Government considers that the establishment of the National Commission is the most cost effective means of achieving an improvement in the appalling record of industrial accidents and injuries. The cost effectiveness, which has been touched on here, of the Government's approach has already been demonstrated through the access to international occupational health and safety data bases which the National Commission has arranged. United Kingdom, Canadian and International Labour Organisation data bases have been provided more readily to the Interim National Commission because it is a single, national body. The Interim National Commission in turn is making information from these data bases readily available to the States, Territories and the social partners. The reduction in occupational hazards which will result from the work of the National Commission will materially assist in the reduction of workers' compensation premiums. These additional labour costs are very significant to medium and small businesses which have the capacity to employ many Australians. Yet we hear those on the other side of the House say that they are not concerned about this aspect. I cannot believe that those who purport to represent small business can come forward and actually say those sorts of things. The National Commission, by this legislation, will be given powers of inquiry which are an essential element of any preventative approach to occupational health and safety. Parliament itself has established inquiries into hazardous chemicals and the exposure of Aboriginal communities to the dangers associated with asbestos. The availability of such powers will contribute to a reduction in the possibility of a major disaster in Australia such as that which occurred at Bhopal in India. I am sure that every member of this House would support such action. In conclusion, I say that the problems to which I have alluded here are problems which need to be remedied. It is my view that the proposed Commission will seek to remedy some of them, not least of which is the Commission aim to provide a forum for the discussion of occupational health and safety issues and, through the promotion of community awareness of occupational health and safety, to redress any notions that injuries and disease resulting from work are an accepted or inevitable by-product of the labour process. Workers and employers will be encouraged to discuss areas of concern in the working environment, including any of the types of problems I have already identified. I certainly commend the Minister for his initiative and foresight in bringing down such an important milestone in industrial legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(11.21) —The purpose of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill is to establish the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, yet another statutory corporation and quango. It is not enough that the Commonwealth has already established 338 statutory bodies and 307 non-statutory bodies. In Victoria the situation is worse. There are 9,000 quangos, of which 1,000 are considered to be significant. Until recently most of these bodies failed to report adequately their activities or financial operations. The public, and perhaps more importantly the taxpayers, hardly know many of them exist, what benefits-or lack of them-they provide, how much they spend, or to what degree they are responsible for the intrusion into and regulation of their lives and work practices. Here we are, not having learnt anything, proposing to set up yet another statutory body that undoubtedly will grow like topsy and demand ever increasing amounts of revenue, all to provide dubious benefits for workers and employers, not to mention taxpayers. Nobody would argue that the health and well being of everyone in the work force and their families is not of fundamental importance. What is of even greater importance is how best we can achieve their health and well being. I do not believe that a Canberra-based bureaucracy will be able to ensure that a worker puts on his protective helmet or ear muffs or even that a worker returns to work as soon as practicable after injury without further jeopardising his own recovery or causing strain or injury to co-workers. Only action on the shop floor, with incentives or even penalties to encourage both workers and management to be responsible for safer work practices, will bring about a situation wherein safety equipment is used and attendance at work brings about greater financial returns than do workers compensation payments at home. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) referred in his second reading speech to the $6 billion wastage through loss of production and associated costs of occupational injury and ill health. I suggest to honourable members that the $6 billion wastage is due more to the lack of incentive to return to work after injury. There are just no incentives in Australia to return to work when workers' compensation payments provide 85 per cent of salary and even 100 per cent when the employer makes up the difference. This contrasts noticeably with the situation in the United States of America, where compensation payments make up 50 per cent of salary, and with the bonus system based on units of output the worker could end up receiving 30 per cent of his normal take home pay. Unless there is an incentive to return to work no amount of expensive, centralised, bureaucratic commissions, institutes or committees will succeed in regulating or educating workers to the merits of working rather than receiving workers compensation premiums at home. The $6 billion will continue to grow. Clause 8 refers to the principal functions of the Bill. Some of these functions have very questionable implications. Take the sub-clause that proposes recommendations for action by Australia, which states: . . . to comply with the provisions of any international instrument relating to occupational health and safety matters. It is bad enough that we have Australian State and Federal politicians and bureaucrats regulating shop floor activity let alone Geneva based International Labour Organisation ideologues telling us how we should manage our affairs. Overseas experience tells us that these sorts of government initiatives provide little benefit at great cost. Alan Saunders, the technical director of the corporate underwriting group of companies from Sydney, when speaking at a national conference on overseas trends in occupational health, quoted the reaction of 1,600 delegates at the National Safety Congress in Chicago. He had this to say: The almost universal reaction from people I spoke to was that the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which has now been in force for ten years, is an abject failure. . . . . the general consensus is the OSHA has cost a lot of money and has not achieved anything very much. Over the past ten years lost time injuries have increased by 25% and lost days have increased by 34%. This is not matched by the population increase over that time which has been about 1% per year. Obviously OSHA is not an occupational and safety health program, but has set itself up as a policeman to report and fine on mechanical breaches of the Act. The proposed budget for the Commission as set out in the report is a minimum of $24m in the first year, and $41m will be required in the second year for the activities of the Commission. The Commission will employ some 300 persons. Also incorporated in that budget is an item of $7.5m for training. There is no allowance for superannuation on-costs. I put it to honourable members that they should consider the full cost of this Commission in 10 years time in real and money terms. Although the Minister says in his speech that the major jurisdiction over occupational health and safety will remain with the States, I can find nothing in the Bill that actually ensures that there will be no duplication of awards or codes of practice. If the intent of the Bill is maintained, why is there any reason to duplicate State regulatory activities with an expensive bureaucracy based in Canberra? I turn now to the Victorian legislation, to which the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) referred. The Victorian Government had a proposal before the Parliament for an occupational health measure, a vital component of which had been drawn up by the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. The safety officer elected by the union officials was to be able to call an immediate stop-work on the shop floor and the management was to have no say in that decision either on the shop floor or in the factory. If this proposal had been incorporated in the Act one could imagine the industrial muscle that that would have given union delegates. The concrete pour syndrome which is so evident in the building industry in Victoria would have been further entrenched. Just imagine what would happen at the Alcoa company, which has a continuous process of manufacture, if a safety official was able to turn off the plant without any redress by the management or any discussion. Further sub-clauses in the Bill refer to the declaration, encouragement and evaluation of national standards and codes of practice. It never ceases to amaze me how we continually kid ourselves that either we or the deputies of the statutory authorities are better placed to set standards rather than those people actually involved in the activities we seek to regulate. The attitude of the management and the work force in the work place are key elements. Other key elements are the human factor and the participation by those involved. I have had occasion to discuss these matters with a major manufacturing company where through a positive approach the management and the unions involved have arranged for a meeting of union personnel and the foreman once a month in eight sections of the plant. There is a meeting at the end of each month where discussions on safety matters take place-matters such as safety glasses, helmets, safety boots and protective clothing. In this arena there has been good progress when there has been an understanding of the problem. I have no doubt that the worker probably faces the greatest risk in travelling to and from the work place in a motor vehicle. How do we propose to solve that problem? We already have an inordinate degree of regulation governing road travel. Police forces try to protect us from ourselves when we drive from point A to point B, but still we have death and carnage on the roads. Million dollar qangos will not fix errors of judgment on the part of individuals. Finally, co-operation, understanding and a degree of common sense between management and the work force will greatly assist in solving this industrial safety problem. I have worked in high risk industry and I am sure that a $41m Commission will not protect other Australians or me from work related injuries. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.31) —It gives me great pleasure to rise in wholehearted support of this historic Bill-the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill. It is an historic occasion that we are tonight debating this all important issue. I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that the Opposition is not inclined in any way to support this historic piece of legislation. This is a Bill which, while long overdue, marks the beginning of a new approach to occupational health and safety matters in this country. At the very heart of this legislation is the fact that, for the first time, we have before us a national strategy which attacks a national problem-that is, injury and disease in the work place. Let us not underestimate the size of the national problem which is involved. What we are talking about, as previous speakers from this side of the House have mentioned, is the fact that some 300 people die per year and an estimated 150,000 people are injured. In anyone's terms the loss and suffering in these two areas is totally unacceptable. I am still bewildered by the speech of the shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), when he said that the Opposition totally opposes this legislation. While there has been reform in a number of Labor States over the last decade, which has led to significant improvements in this area, the fundamental problem of a fragmented and inequitable response remains. This will be overcome only with the implementation of a nationally co-ordinated approach to occupational health and safety matters. For me, occupational health and safety marks one of the Australian Labor Party's most important policy areas. This enabling Bill, which establishes a permanent National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, represents one of the more significant pieces of social reform legislation introduced by this Government. The pitiful neglect of occupational health and safety matters at the national level is well understood by honourable members on this side of the House, if not by those opposite who, when given the opportunity to do something, actually reduced Commonwealth involvement in this area, on the ground that it was a State matter. That is not the view endorsed by my Party. I think it is a mark of this Government's commitment to improving occupational health and safety that we have acted so swiftly in bringing our policy to fruition, especially in the context of the long consultative process entered into with the States, Territories, employers and unions. Of course, without the consultative process we would be debating this legislation in a vacuum. As the Labor Government has recognised in response to many issues, but nowhere more justifiably than in this instance, the success of our strategy depends on the level of support that we obtain from the parties which will have to make this policy work in practice. As the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said in his second reading speech, this Bill has been developed in a spirit of full co-operation and with a recognition of the appropriate areas of responsibility by all the parties. It has the support of the unions' peak council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions-I am always proud to associate myself with the ACTU; I have no problems with that, in view of the criticism of that body by the Opposition in the last couple of days-and one of the biggest employer groups, the Confederation of Australian Industry. The Bill is premised upon a number of principles which indicate a changed conceptual outlook about how we approach occupational health and safety matters. Essentially, this new approach challenges and rejects the antiquated nineteenth century British model, with its emphasis on protection. This is the model upon which all of our original State health and safety laws were predicated. In its place the newer legislation emphasises a preventive strategy which recognises the need for structures, measures and controls directed towards finding and removing the causes of occupational injury and disease. The clearest definition of policy principles on occupational health and safety endorsed by the Australian Labor Party and by the trade union movement are set out in the prices and incomes accord. It says, inter alia, that the work environment needs to be adapted and designed to suit the needs of people working in it. I do not think anybody would disagree with that, or should not. Employers have a basic responsibility to provide a healthy, safe, stress-free work environment, and workers have the right to know what hazards they are exposed to. One thing that is a great worry in my electorate and industries within it is the high component of migrants that work within those industries. One of the great difficulties that employers and workers face is being unable to explain to people who are not able to communicate in our language, the problems or dangers they face on the job. That is a fundamental right that workers ought to have. I believe this legislation will assist greatly in overcoming that problem. The accord further states that peak councils of unions and employers at the national level have the right to set standards of health and safety in the work force and that unions and union appointed workers health and safety representatives, meeting with management in health and safety committees at the local level, have the right to set standards of health and safety in the work place. The basic means by which these principles are to be realised include, first and foremost, the involvement of employers and unions in setting health and safety standards at the national level through the establishment of a tripartite national occupational health and safety commission responsible to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. This Bill represents the fulfilment of that aspect of the accord and the culmination of a consultative process which included the National Economic Summit Conference, the National Labour Consultative Council and the discussions between the various parties and the Minister. In turn, these consultative procedures led to the establishment of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission in 1983. In May 1984 the report of the Interim Commission was released. It laid the foundation for the national strategy and action plan and the enabling legislation which we are now debating. The key elements of that strategy are directed towards overcoming the major deficiencies in our institutional and legislative framework. The major areas of concern include: Developing and co-ordinating national uniform standards; developing procedures for the notification of occupational ill health and injury; information collection, storage and dissemination; research and development; and training and education. We believe that these areas are best developed at the national level so that a uniform approach is adopted and valuable resources are not dissipated. The structures and functions of the Commission, as set out in the Bill, give effect to the Commonwealth's fulfulling this co-ordinating role. The broad objectives of the Commission are as follows: Firstly, to develop amongst the community an awareness of the issues relating to occupational health and safety matters and to facilitate public debate on them. The more we talk about these problems, I am sure all honourable members of the House would agree, the bigger the chances of overcoming some of the injury risks on the job. The second is to provide a forum where all parties can consult and debate matters of relevance in this respect. The tripartite structure of the Commission creates an institutional framework which ensures both a philosophical and practical commitment exists which is necessary to make the national strategy work. The third broad objective is to develop a national focus for activities. Much of the work which the Commission will undertake has been initiated by trade unions in recent years. It should be pointed out to the House that without the pressure which the union movement has applied, this issue would not have received the recognition it so clearly warrants. Many unions have increased their efforts and resources to eliminate hazards in the work place and to heighten awareness of occupational health and safety issues among the workers on the job, and particularly their own members. If the national strategy is to work it is essential that the unions continue with the development of their own policies which can then be channelled into the national strategy. Likewise, it is absolutely vital to have the support of the State governments, for it must be understood that the major jurisdiction in occupational health and safety matters lies with the States. As pointed out previously, some State governments have introduced reforming legislation similar to this Bill. However, as one would expect the Queensland legislation remains in a nineteenth century backwater. Mr Slipper —Nonsense! Utter nonsense! Mr HAND —It is true. I suggest that the honourable member goes up there and talks to the people in the various jobs. Mr Slipper —I come from there. Mr HAND —I know the honourable member comes from there but he does not talk to any workers; we all know that. If he talks to the people on the job he might find out what the problems are. Of all the State legislation, the Victorian Bill represents the model which I believe most closely approximates the aims and objectives of this legislation and the approach taken by the Federal Government. It would be a tragedy for the whole future of this issue if that legislation failed to pass the upper House in that State. If members of the Opposition are genuine in their concern for workers in this country and particularly in Victoria, they will get behind the Victorian Government and support that proposal. They will convince their State colleagues in the upper House to let that legislation go through. I understand that it was introduced in Victoria either today or yesterday. I am not quite sure, but I think it was this morning. The major stumbling block, of course, is that the Victorian Bill provides workers' health and safety representatives with powers which those opposite believe are too great. But if the process is to work effectively it is crucial that union-nominated health and safety representatives are involved in the decision-making process concerning safety on the job. We cannot apply rules and regulations which exclude those people whom they affect. I agree with the Opposition spokesman in this area about the high cost to industry of injury on the job. It is enormous, but it is more of a concern to these people who suffer such injuries. We have to prevent that occurring. The hardship and the suffering of families of workers who are injured has to be stopped and this legislation, as I said, will go a long way towards doing that. The Victorian proposal was endorsed by the Minister when he announced the establishment of the Interim Health and Safety Commission in November 1983. It is enshrined also in the accord. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, this Bill represents one of three in this area. The next will provide a legislative framework for Commonwealth employees and workers throughout the Australian Capital Territory and the external Territories. I believe that if we are genuinely committed to ongoing reform which will improve the quality of working life in this country we must as a government-I hope the Opposition will join us-show the way in this area. The Federal Government has powers beyond those of the States. It has the ability to bring the States together and, by pooling the information that comes through those States that are co-operating, show the other States where they are going wrong. It can bring that information together and improve the health and safety problems that currently exist on the factory floor, at the workface or, for that matter, on the farm of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur). The next phase of our occupational health and safety legislative program will be the testing point. Only if the Commonwealth jurisdiction has an effective legislative model will our attempts to work in co-operation with the States to develop a nationally co-ordinated health and safety initiative significantly reshape the basic framework in which we currently operate. I look forward to supporting that next phase in the implementation of our policy. As a person who worked on a factory floor and who suffered injuries from time to time, as a former member of the blue collar work force, I make a plea to the Opposition. Quite frankly, I find it astounding that people in this House can reject this issue out of hand. I cannot for the life of me understand the Opposition rejecting a proposal such as this when, as a shop steward, I have seen people injured because they are unable to read signs on walls or because they have not been told about the problems of machinery. I cannot understand how the shadow Minister can acknowledge the death of three hundred people in the work force and the fact that 150,000 people have suffered injuries in the work force and, at the conclusion of his speech, say: 'Of course, the Opposition is totally opposed to this proposal'. If honourable members opposite believe that these things are bad-300 people dying and 150,000 being injured-they ought to have the guts to put up the amendments or the alterations they consider necessary to improve the Bill. They have engaged in an exercise of running away from the problem. They have taken the easy way out. Honourable members opposite should go on to the factory floors and tell the people on those factory floors that they are totally opposed to the introduction of legislation that will bring about a change to the risks those people face. Most of those opposite have probably never been on a factory floor and do not know what it is like. They do not know what it is like to be hurt; most of them have never gone on workers compensation and had to rear families, or look after them, while they have been too sick to go to work. Mr Ruddock —That is nonsense. Mr HAND —That is not nonsense. Most honourable members opposite are in that category. It is obviously not nonsense; otherwise they would try to do something to rectify the problems. In seven years of government they did nothing. Now, when we are in government, what are they doing? They are trying to knock over a genuine attempt-in fact a harmless attempt, from their point of view, as it will cost them nothing to support it-to introduce legislation which will bring about the saving of human life and a reduction of suffering in the work force, a reduction in the suffering of working class people. All the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) can do is lie back with a smirk all over his gob, grin and nudge his mate next to him and say that it is all nonsense. Well, it is not all nonsense. He should go out and talk to those people who get hurt and tell them it is nonsense. I make a plea to honourable members opposite. They might reject this legislation here but I ask them to talk about it with their Senate colleagues. Do not oppose it in the Senate. Let it go through, and if the legislation needs improving we will make those improvements as we go along. Do not reject it out of hand. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(11.47) —I begin by re-emphasising that the Opposition is acutely aware of the problems of health and safety in the work place, and it is both intellectually and morally dishonest for people such as the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) to suggest that our commitment to the issues of occupational health and safety is anything less than total. The only basis for debate is determining what is the best and the most efficient way of improving Australia's record in this field. Honourable members are aware that Australia's record in the field of occupational health and safety is, in global terms, one of the worst. In early 1984 the National Safety Council claimed that Australia had the third highest work place accident record in the world. While different industrial and economic structures and different statistical methods, can make international comparisons fairly misleading, such casuistry in no way detracts from the fact that our record is poor. As previous speakers have pointed out, official figures show that accidents at work kill some 300 Australians each year and injure another 150,000. While the human loss is the principle concern, it is also important to remember that the cost of work-related accidents is, as others have said, conservatively estimated at around $6 billion, which is twice the cost to the nation of road accidents and easily exceeds the cost of industrial disputation. In my State of South Australia alone, the annual cost of work-related accidents is around $500m. These figures are at least part of the explanation as to why workers compensation premiums cost Australian industry $1.7 billion in 1982-83, which is the latest year for which I could find figures. I make no secret of my concern about the advent of new technology and the growing use of chemicals in the work place, and the effect that this has on both accidents and the potential for accidents in the future to get worse. The report of the Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission referred to the problem of hazardous chemicals. Those of us who have worked in both the private and public sectors, in particular with keyboard equipment, are only too aware of the problem of repetition strain injuries. None of us is in any doubt that action must be taken to confront these problems. The only question is whether the proposals put forward by the Government in this Bill offer the right path to a more acceptable occupational health and safety record. Several points need to be made about this. Occupational health and safety is constitutionally a matter for State governments except, of course, in relation to Commonwealth employees and employees working within Commonwealth Territories. The responsibility for the high incidence of work-related accidents must rest ultimately, of course, with employers and employees themselves. But it must also rest with State governments. Many State governments have given a rather low priority to occupational health and safety matters for decades and although all States have in one way or another legislated in this field, that legislation is disparate and unco-ordinated. In the case of South Australia, for example, there are 19 pieces of legislation which contain occupational health and safety provisions. Altogether in Australia there are 166 separate and often unco-ordinated pieces of legislation relating to this issue. The fact is that we need some kind of national strategy on this issue. The onus rests very firmly on the States to move to co-ordinate and rationalise their legislation. It is surprising that no real effort has been made already to co-ordinate this legislation through a body such as the National Safety Council which this year received $170,000 from the Federal Government. That strategy has to be worked out in co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth Government. Action should be taken to ensure that firms, particularly small firms and firms involved in new technology which have not maximised health and safety provisions, should be encouraged to do so. A decision by a firm to raise its levels of work place health and safety may well be a beneficial investment, not just in terms of individual welfare, which is ultimately important, but in terms of the overall cost structure of the firm. Instead of taking these sorts of general steps, and doing so in a way which is conducive to the enhancement of employee welfare and corporate profitability, the Labor State governments have been preoccupied with the development of health and safety legislation which, to quote the Business Council of Australia, is 'seriously disruptive and damaging'. This legislation has been introduced without any thought being given to the need to have co-operative legislation and co-operative action with the Commonwealth Government. In my State of South Australia the Labor Government has proposed that a union appointed worker safety representative should have the power unilaterally to close down a plant if that sole representative judges that safety standards are inadequate. Under this socialist legislation, total power would be given to the unions. There would be no negotiations, no discussion and no thought on how to rectify what may be a perfectly simple problem. No consultation would take place with other employees either. The whole plant would be brought to a halt. Victorian members are aware that similar legislation has been proposed in their State. It is also being proposed in Western Australia. As the Business Council of Australia says, these proposals are of 'serious concern'. The South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said that these sorts of proposals were examples of 'the them and us syndrome' typical of the industrial system. The Chamber has gone on to say that the South Australian business community-this is a typical view-is willing to co-operate with the Government and the unions to achieve significant improvements in health and safety and to lower compensation costs. But as the Chamber has pointed out, the proposed South Australian legislation is totally divisive. It would give union appointed representatives a mortgage on work safety and there is no doubt that that position would be repeatedly abused for political rather than safety purposes. For the record, I note that the Victorian Government's legislation of this kind is to proceed following the re-election of the Cain Government. The honourable member for Melbourne referred to it being introduced either yesterday or today. In South Australia the State Government proposes to introduce this legislation in the extremely unlikely and hypothetical event of it winning the next State election. However, I remind the House that both of those proposals have been introduced regardless of anything the Commonwealth Government may have been considering. But what, above all, is worrying is that the Federal Government also intends, following the establishment of its Commission, to proceed with similar legislation. The infamous prices and incomes accord says that union representatives should have the right to close a whole plant pending the arbitration inspector's decision. The whole works, as with the State legislation, can be closed under law at the whim of a trade union official. As with the State legislation, this provision has enormous scope for abuse and is frankly totally undemocratic. It is consequently being vigorously opposed not only by the Liberal Party of Australia, but also by the business community. What worries me is that once this Commission is established this anti-business, union-demanded measure will be introduced as it is signed. If it is, it will be yet another example of the Government putting the interests of the unions before the proper interests of Australians. I should like briefly to make a few specific comments about the Commission which is to be established by this Bill. For all its rhetoric about consensus, the Government has consulted only one business group in the drawing up of the Commission, and that is the Confederation of Australian Industry. While I welcome the CAI's involvement, it is extraordinary that groups such as the Business Council of Australia have not even been notified of the introduction of this legislation, let alone consulted. Yet it is big business, represented in effect by the Business Council of Australia, which has the best safety record in Australia and which has done the most to promote health and safety. The last time the Business Council of Australia and other business groups were consulted on this issue was at an informal meeting in February 1984, convened not by the Government but by the Confederation of Australian Industry. At that meeting, which I attended, the relative business groups all agreed that in taking steps to improve occupational health and safety the Government should avoid costly bureaucracy. They also expressed concern that the public sector could become a pacemaker setting standards which would be too complex and too expensive for business to follow. Yet what the Government has decided to do is to establish a commission with no fewer than 17 members, who have to be flown from every corner of Australia. This Commission is, in effect, with its 17 members, a form of permanent summit. That contrasts rather unfavourably with that irrelevant bureaucracy, the Prices Surveillance Authority, which for all its faults comprises, I think, just four members. I also note that the Commission includes three business members. I welcome the involvement of the business sector in this sort of exercise, but all those business members are to be nominated by just one business association, and that is the Confederation of Australian Industry. There are, again, to be no representatives from groups such as the Business Council of Australia or the Chambers of Commerce and there will be no representative from that great forgotten sector, the small business sector, which will be seriously affected by regulations set down by the Commission. One can only wonder why, with all those members, the Government cannot find a place on the board for small business representatives in particular. The correct solutions to these issues of workers safety will eventually rest with consultation in the work place and not with some sort of corporate State structure which depersonalises issues which ultimately are of very fundamental personal concern to the employees and the employers. It is interesting that the Australian Labor Party, in its policies, has recognised this fact. I welcome its recognition of that and, indeed, it is something which has been recognised by the employers as well. I should like to end where I began and state once more that the whole issue of occupational health and safety is of vast importance to Australia and is a matter of very great concern to the Opposition, just as I concede it clearly is to the Government. This Bill still leaves many questions unanswered. There is still a great deal of work to be done on this issue and there is also a great deal of concern to all of us about the role of the trade union movement in drafting future legislation which may emanate from this Bill. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.59) —The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill is centrally important for it addresses a major problem. There can be few people who have not suffered or who do not know someone who has suffered from a disease or injury related to his or her work. The dangers of industrial chemicals, asbestos, injury from unsafe working conditions in factories and on building sites, and repetition strain injury, for example, are now widely recognised. Yet the lack of an organisational structure for dealing with occupational health and safety has contributed to the neglect of major problems, such as the current epidemic of repetition strain injury. There are no national statistics on repetition strain injury, just as there are no comprehensive statistics on any aspect of occupational health and safety. A recent survey within the Public Service revealed over 3,000 sufferers, almost half of them in Canberra. Yet within Canberra there are no clinics for treatment or support services available for repetition strain injury victims. Until now there has been no national organisation with responsibility for this type of problem. The Government came to office determined to fill that gap. This commitment was endorsed by the National Economic Summit Conference-- Mr Slipper —It was a fraud. Mr LANGMORE —It was an agreed representative summit which stated in its final communique that the summit 'believes that the nation must give occupational health and safety a greater priority and endorses the need for concerted government, employer and union action to improve the quality of the working environment in Australia'. That was agreed by all employers, all community groups, all unions, and all but one State government. The Government acted promptly to achieve that goal. An Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission was appointed. The Commission included members representative of national employer organisations, unions and State and Commonwealth governments. Dr Richie Gun, an expert in the field with international experience, was Chairman. As requested, the Commission completed its report within six months. The report was unanimous and therefore maintained the momentum of agreement based on national tripartite consultation. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who spoke previously, would have us believe that this was all union inspired. It has been just as much endorsed by employers. When the report was tabled it was welcomed and supported by the Opposition spokesman. That bipartisan support continued when the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) announced last October the Government's acceptance of the Commission's recommendations. Since then the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill to establish permanently the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission has been prepared. The effectiveness and speed with which this whole process has been completed is a great credit to the members and staff of the interim and the non-statutory commissions. I particularly praise the dedicated, sustained work of Mr Jim Brassil, Mrs Joan Uhr, and their staff. This Bill is an outstanding result of a process of consultation with employers, unions and State governments. It exemplifies the benefit of close consultation in the context of a strong government commitment to solving a major problem. The Bill involves establishing the institutions which are necessary for a concerted attack on occupational disease and injury. Until tonight there has been no disagreement with this goal or strategy, but tonight the Opposition made the extraordinary announcement that it opposes the Bill. One wonders whether the shadow Minister really understands what he is talking about. There was some evidence in his speech that he does not because he talked about the Commission staff entering work places, imposing fines and having horrendous powers. The Commission will have none of those powers, except to a limited extent in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Braithwaite said that the Commission and Institute will be costly and will involve the establishment of a statutory authority. Of course there is some cost-$12m this year-but that is not the central issue. The important question is whether those funds are being cost effectively spent. There can be no doubt that they are. There is certainly no doubt about the need. The national cost of lost production of goods and services because of occupational injury and disease was greater than that from time lost through strikes, even at the peak periods of industrial conflict in the later years of the Fraser Government. The Opposition surely ought to be concerned about that. As the Minister said in introducing the Bill: The nation as a whole is incurring enormous losses from unsafe and unhealthy working environments. Individual employees suffer the hardship of physical pain, disabilities and loss of income. Employers bear losses through reduced output and higher workers compensation premiums. The community as a whole faces higher prices and taxes to meet the spiralling costs of occupational injury and ill health. The Government's approach will steadily reduce costs for employers and reduce hardship for employees. Some of the States have taken significant initiatives recently. This Bill does not reduce their responsibility. However, it is essential that there be national arrangements for co-ordination and facilitation as well as prompt upgrading of the Commonwealth's activities in its own areas of responsibility-the Australian Capital Territory and Commonwealth employment. Many types of activities, such as research, the setting of standards and the circulation of information, can be cost effectively undertaken only by the Commonwealth and the States acting together. It would be simply wasteful for each State to set up its own research program and to try to collect the huge quantity of information required in isolation from the other States. Establishment of a commission with membership from all States, employers and unions is the most effective means of achieving this. The Opposition spokesman simply has not thought through his opinions. One wonders why the Opposition is opposing this Bill. Is it simply a wish to establish political distance-to show that it is different by opposing anything the Government does? Mr Slipper —It is a bad Bill. Mr LANGMORE —It is an excellent Bill. It is a necessary Bill. It is an essential Bill. Perhaps the Opposition spokesman wants to show that he is a dry; that he is opposed to any form of public sector intervention in the private sector. That is hardly a tenable position in this area because government neglect of occupational disease and injury has allowed the massive national economic and personal damage to occur. That simply cannot be allowed to continue. Government action is clearly essential. That action is being taken with the support of employers, unions and all State governments. All groups recognise the costs of continuing neglect and the enormous benefits that effective preventive action can achieve. Therefore, the Opposition's position is both irresponsible and without support. It is also entirely inconsistent with its earlier policy. Only last October the Opposition spokesman said: Occupational safety, health and welfare is an issue which transcends party policies. He went on to say: The commitment of the Opposition's policy to reduce the personal suffering and economic loss as well as the loss of productivity to the country in coping with these matters is well recorded. It cannot be recorded any longer. The Opposition now seems to be more interested in ideological purity than in the well-being of workers and the economy. The non-statutory Commission has already begun work. One of its first actions was to set up a national committee to report on the repetition strain injury epidemic which I mentioned earlier. That committee has almost completed its report. After it has been presented to the National Commission, it is expected to be released in July. The report will recommend ways of preventing RSI, of managing the problem, and will also suggest types of research which should be undertaken and rehabilitation programs. This is one example of the kind of work enabled by the establishment of the Commission. Before concluding, I briefly mention action planned for the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister mentioned in his second reading speech that later this year he will be introducing a Bill relating to occupational health and safety within the Australian Capital Territory. Drafting of that Bill is well advanced. It covers a general duty of care relating to all workers and work places within the Australian Capital Territory. The responsibilities required of employers, the self-employed and workers are set out. Regulations will be made under the Act relating to specific hazards such as asbestos, scaffolding, machinery safety and noise. This Bill will, therefore, be a great advance on the present situation in the Australian Capital Territory as currently there is next to no legislative coverage of occupational health and safety. The Australian Capital Territory is represented on the National Commission by Dr Ben Sellinger. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission has already established an Australian Capital Territory standing committee. The Executive of the National Commission is to meet with the Australian Capital Territory standing committee next week to discuss particular problems within the Australian Capital Territory. Finally, a Director of Occupational Health and Safety in the Australian Capital Territory is about to be appointed. There has been considerable frustration about the time taken to get to this stage within the Australian Capital Territory. However, the steps which have been taken recently show that the Government is working hard to introduce effective occupational health and safety arrangements here as in the rest of Australia. This is an historic Bill. It will create the basis for safer and healthier working environments. It gives great satisfaction to be able to commend it wholeheartedly to the House. Friday, 10 May 1985 Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(12.10 a.m.) —I would like to thank those members of the Opposition and of the Government Party who contributed to the debate. This is extremely important legislation that the Government is attempting to pass tonight. Indeed, it is historic legislation. I know from practical experience gained when I was Minister for Defence Support of the very considerable occupational health and safety problems that existed within the various government establishments which were part of that Department. One of the things that struck me most forcibly when I was in that position was the lack of basic statistical information in order to be able to build up over a period a picture of the causes of injury and occupational disease. Previously, when I was in opposition, I was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, which carried out a major inquiry into the subject of hazardous chemicals. I believe that that inquiry in many respects was a path breaking inquiry and that the Parliament will come back to its report more than once. It assembled for the first time a limited but, relatively speaking, comprehensive picture of the problems of hazardous chemicals within the community, particularly within industry. In this country we have had a notorious record in terms of the way we have accepted into the country many very dangerous chemicals without any testing whatever having been done in this country. Very often those chemicals have not been effectively tested overseas. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Bill establishes the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Given the statistics to which the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) was referring, it is amazing that in 1985, after the best part of a century of manufacturing industry in this country, we are only now establishing a national approach to occupational health and safety. I must say that I have been somewhat surprised by the attitude of the Opposition. I remember that when the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) was a Minister of the previous Government-I think he was the Minister for Productivity-he concerned himself very much with problems of occupational health and safety as well as with a number of other problems to do with the working environment. Indeed, his work in the Department of Productivity was remembered in the Department of Defence Support, which inherited sections of the Department of Productivity, with considerable admiration because the honourable member was prepared to face issues such as the occupational health and safety issue. I remember a number of occasions in this House when that Minister referred to the disastrous record of this country and the appalling loss of time as a result of occupational injuries. It is very interesting that members of the Opposition who are so enthusiastic about talking about industrial conflict and time lost through industrial conflict so rarely refer to the fact that we lose much more in productivity in this country, as the honourable member for Goldstein often suggested, from the failure to have proper standards in the area of occupational health and safety than we do from our industrial relations problems. Our record in relation to industrial relations may be bad but our record has been absolutely devastating and appalling in the area of occupational health and safety. So it has been something of a surprise to me and, I am sure, to other members of the Government to learn that this Bill will be opposed by the Opposition. I regard that opposition as little short of disgraceful, given the conditions that exist in Australian industry and given the priority that I had thought both sides of the House would give to ensuring not only safety and health but also that Australian industry becomes more efficient and more competitive. A safe working environment can be justified on economic grounds alone, notwithstanding the great contribution that is made to eliminating the needless suffering that occurs in thousands of work places across the country. I understand that the opposition is to the concept of a statutory authority. That would seem to me to be a very insubstantial basis on which to oppose this Bill. The creation of this authority will make possible the development of a co-ordinated national strategy. It will mean that we can begin as a country to seek progressively to achieve the quality of working environment and a safe working environment that many other countries addressed throughout the post-war period. It is belated, but I believe that all members of this Parliament over time will come to recall that the establishment of this Commission meant the beginning of a new deal for workers with respect to a safe working environment. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H.Bowen, Lionel Langmore, J. V.Brown, John Lee, M.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Milton, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, P.Dubois, 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.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J.Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Everingham, P. A. E. Smith, W.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hurford, C. J. Hodges, J. C.Mildren, J. B. Rocher, A. C.Holding, A. C. Cadman, A. G.Hayden, W. G. Fife, W. C.Jenkins, H. A. Aldred, K. J.Tickner, R. E. McGauran, P. J.Darling, E. E. Goodluck, B. 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 Mr Howe) read a third time. House adjourned at 12.26 a.m. (Friday) The following notice was given: Mr Jacobi to move- (1) That a Joint Standing Committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee for Business Affairs, be appointed: (a) to review- (i) Commonwealth legislation with a view to removing- (A) provisions (including provisions that require information to be furnished to a person) that impose or may impose unreasonable burdens on business and on industry, and (B) unnecessary or out-of-date provisions; (ii) the administrative practices of Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities, so far as those practices have an effect upon the operations of business and industry, with a view to ensuring that those practices do not impose unreasonable burdens and demands on business and on industry; (iii) such laws and practices with a view to ensuring that, in respect of business and industry in Australia, they comply with international obligations assumed by Australia, including through the United Nations, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Labour Organisation; (iv) suggestions for the improvement of Commonwealth laws and practices in relation to activities of business and industry, whether made by business, industry or consumer representative bodies or otherwise, and (v) reports of commissions and other inquiries with a view to making recommendations for the enactment of laws that may be made by the Parliament concerning business, industry and consumers in Australia, and (b) to recommend, in relation to the activities of business and industry, appropriate laws that may be made by the Parliament and that may have effect uniformly throughout Australia. (2) That the committee, for the purpose of performing its functions, may consider any proposed law or other document or information available to it, notwithstanding that such proposed law, document or information has not been presented to the House. (3) That the committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee by forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (5) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (6) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (7) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chairman and deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (9) That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter which the committee is empowered to inquire into. (10) That the committee appoint the chairman of each sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of the chairman at the meeting. (11) That the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the members of that sub-committee. (12) That members of the committee who are not members of a sub-committee may participate in the proceedings of that sub-committee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum. (13) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to send for persons, papers and records. (14) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to move from place to place. (15) That a sub-committee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. (16) That the committee, or any sub-committee, have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (17) That the committee in its inquiries take account of the investigations of other parliamentary committees, avoid duplication, and take account of the investigations of other agencies and committees. (18) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (19) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (20) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 9 May 1985: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish periodic report within specified period-Anglo-Australian Telescope Board, report for year 1983-84. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 6 May 1985. Mr Bilney to ask Madam Acting Speaker: (1) How many positions are there in (a) the Senior Executive Service range and (b) the Class 11 range in each of the Parliamentary Departments under Mr Speaker's sole or joint control. (2) Which of those positions are occupied by women (a) as temporary or acting appointees and (b) as permanent appointees. (3) Will she ask Mr President if he will provide similar details in relation to the Department of the Senate.