Friday, 10 May 1985 Madam ACTING SPEAKER (Mrs Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.01) —The background of the Stevedoring Industry Levy Amendment Bill is that over the last two decades the stevedoring industry has undergone massive technological change. The method of cargo handling has changed radically, the location of sea cargo processing has become decentralised into depots away from its point of discharge at the wharves and the skills required amongst waterside workers have changed significantly. Most important in the recent development of stevedoring has been the very large decline in the amount of labour required to handle our sea cargo. The number of waterside workers employed in Australia now is only one-third of that 20 years ago and only one-half of the level of only a decade ago. The number of waterside workers employed in Australia now stands at about 7,000 employees. The decline in demand for the labour of waterside workers over this period was therefore swift. The containerisation of cargo had a profound impact. A 20,000-tonne container ship using two shore-based cranes could offload and load in only 24 hours. The labour required amounts to only the necessary crane drivers and a few assistants. By contrast, the offloading and loading of a vessel two-thirds that size would take two to three weeks prior to containerisation and would require up to 100 wharfies plus supervisors on each shift. As is evident from that simple example, the labour savings of containerisation were enormous. The dislocation of labour within the industry was considerable during these decades of change. While a reduction in the number of waterside workers was achieved partly through natural attrition, a considerable number of redundancies were also necessary. On the initiative of the then Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Tony Street, the coalition Government passed several Acts aimed to promote the smooth restructuring of the stevedoring industry-the Stevedoring Industry Charge (Termination) Act 1977, the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act 1977, the Stevedoring Industry Levy Collection Act 1977 and the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977. The Labor Opposition of the day, through its spokesman, the now Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), did not oppose the Bills. They were generally seen as a positive contribution to industry rationalisation. From 1977 until 1984 the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour financed redundancy payments to excess waterside workers through a system of voluntary levies calculated on the tonnage of cargo handled through Australian ports. In 1984 the AEWL transferred its redundancy financing responsibilities to the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. The SIFC administers levies for a variety of purposes and by statute it must apply levies to local cargo at 75 per cent of the rate levied on overseas cargo. This prevents it from applying a levy for redundancy financing at the voluntary rate of 20 per cent as agreed on and previously administered by the AEWL. This Bill corrects the oversight made in 1984 when the AEWL transferred its levying power to the SIFC. It gives that body the power to set levies on local cargo at less than the 75 per cent rate it is presently forced to charge under the Act. This Bill is really a mechanics matter. It seeks to bring Commonwealth statutes into line with the system which has been operating before the transfer of power. The Opposition supports the Bill. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.06) —I support the Stevedoring Industry Levy Amendment Bill as do other members on the Government side of the House. As my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) has mentioned to the House, this is essentially a mechanical Bill. It has no great discretion within it for differences between that side of the House and this. Therefore I point out that this is yet another example of the Government moving as quickly as possible to remove a burden on an industry which is no longer required or which can no longer be substantiated. It also is another example of this Government maintaining the protection of employees' rights in a rational and concerned approach which has been concluded with the employers. Clause 7 of the Bill currently provides for a 75 per cent levy rate being applicable in this section of the industry as a relative contribution to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority deficit. The amendment before the House effectively means that the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee will have the discretion to recommend a rate less than the 75 per cent of the rate presently applied to overseas cargo where appropriate to reflect more accurately the true nature of the financial burden. There are a number of reasons for this coming about, and that is why the Government has sought to move as quickly as possible. The first reason is, with the long-standing industry deficit, the subject of levies, now fully amortised, the special levies will, from 1 May 1985, solely provide funds to meet repayments on borrowings made to finance redundancy in 1983-84. Secondly, the scope to allow a reduction in the levy on local cargoes will offer some relief to those operating the coastal trade. Coastal operators at present are facing severe competition from road and rail transport, and an improvement in their cost structure will assist the industry to provide a more cost effective service to its customers. By implication, therefore, it will also add to security of tenure of employment in the industry. I therefore support the Bill. I congratulate the Opposition on not seeking to oppose this Bill, and I thoroughly recommend it to the House. Mr BURR(Lyons)(10.09) —As the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) has already said, the Opposition is supporting the Stevedoring Industry Levy Amendment Bill. As he pointed out, it is simply a mechanical device whereby the collection of levies on the waterfront will be transferred from the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour to the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. This measure in fact was introduced by former Minister Street, in 1977, I think, the purpose being to reduce the number of waterside labourers on the waterfront at that time as the waterfront was heavily overmanned due to the introduction of new technology, and a voluntary redundancy scheme was therefore made absolutely necessary. Minister Street introduced the scheme, with the support of unions and employers, to allow for voluntary redundancy. It has worked efficiently and effectively since that time. The numbers on the waterfront have been reduced very substantially, with little disruption to either work techniques or the efficiency on the waterfront. As the honourable member for Tangney has said, this is a machinery Bill. It has the support of all sections of the industry, including the employers. The Opposition is delighted to be able to support the Government on this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Willis) read a third time. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. [COGNATE BILLS: EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1985 CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1985] Debate resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 concurrently with the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.13) —The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 contain a number of changes to the customs tariff which fall into three broad types: Firstly, changes arising from government decisions on recent reports, including the Industries Assistance Commission report on 'Separate Articles, Direction No. 1 of the Customs Tariff', the IAC report on 'Certain Consumer Electronic Equipment and Components' and the report of the taskforce on shipbuilding; secondly, changes relating to government policies in relation to textiles, clothing and footwear sectorial policy, including the motor vehicle plan and the steel plan; and thirdly, changes of an administrative nature involving the phasing of duty rates under the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand, tariff simplification and the updating of names of certain countries accorded preferential treatment. The Opposition supports the general thrust of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill if reductions in protection are phased and gradual but give a clear signal to the industries involved of the changes which we require. Honourable members can clearly comprehend from the outline of the various elements of this Bill to which I have just referred that it is a very complex piece of legislation. However, the second reading speech by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) amounts to only four short pages. Clearly, the Parliament deserves to consider complex and comprehensive legislation in a format that honourable members can clearly understand. It appears to us that there are two options to improve the paucity of information in the second reading speech. They are, firstly, that more information should be provided in the second reading speech or, alternatively, that we should have less complex legislation. The Opposition's request to the Government to improve information provided is not new. My colleague the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), under similar circumstances, drew attention to this matter in the House on 4 April 1984. He was supported by the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). Neither the Minister nor his Department has taken any heed of what still remains a very serious problem. As a result, we have reservations about the manner in which these Bills are handled and about some aspects of the legislation. I will outline our approach as I deal with the appropriate sections. Separate Articles Direction No. 1 arises from the Government's acceptance of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendation to abolish Special Articles Direction No. 1 in section 26 of the Act. The Commission's view was that the impact of SAD 1 as a means of assistance has declined over the years. This is a result of technological change and the narrowing of tariff differentials between machinery and components. As well, it has proved to be difficult for Customs and importers to interpret the Act satisfactorily. The Opposition welcomes any effort to simplify the tariff and the reduction of protection involved. We note that the anomaly involving alternating current generators not exceeding 500 kVA will be covered by a temporary duty charge pending a further report from the IAC. In relation to certain consumer electronic equipment, the major item affected by this section of the Bill is colour television receivers. Essentially, the Government has rejected the IAC's recommendations which involve a reasonably rapid reduction in the tariff on colour television sets. The domestic television industry as currently constituted consists of assembling imported foreign components and placing them in Australian made cabinets. While this obviously creates some jobs, it can hardly be regarded as a major example of value added Australian manufacturing and continued assistance is questionable. The Government has decided on a mixture of a 12-month quota and higher initial duty on larger television sets and a slow phase-down of duty on other sets. Overall, the measures reduce protection in a gradual and predictable way. The imposition of the quota is designed to ease possible adjustment effects following the cessation of licensing agreements and the voluntary export restraint agreement on exports of large-that is, 20 inch and above-screen sets from Japan. This quota limited Japanese exports to 5 per cent of the larger screen market. As I said, the Opposition supports the general thrust of these changes. However, we are concerned with the measurement criteria of 47 centimetres used for inclusion in the quota. Our concern is that it appears that the definition for quota purposes-that is, measuring 47 centimetres or more diagonally across the face of the picture tube-will include 18 inch colour television sets as well. Representations made from industry to us claim that this is not in accordance with international standards, which measure the screen size according to the viewable screen diagonal. The effect of this definition will mean that 18 inch colour television sets will now come under quota, although they were excluded from the previous quantitative restrictions. It appears that if the 18 inch sets are to be now included in the quota, there may be a case for a higher one. These concerns lead us to seek to refer the question of the measurement of colour television sets for quota purposes to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. The Government has already been informed of the intention of the Opposition in this regard. I turn now to the question of shipbuilding. This change follows the Government's decision to remove the 2 per cent revenue duty on components for use in bountiable ship repair and construction. This forms part of the Government's shipbuilding policy, which involves extension of the bounty to include ship construction and repair for exports. Clearly the payment of bounty on dutied and freighted imports would be absurd. There are a number of other changes in the Bill to which I will now refer. Amendments to the tariff in relation to steel cover the removal of developing country preference status for Korea, Taiwan and Brazil on cold rolled steel and sheet excluding tin plate. This follows a report by the Steel Industry Authority in accordance with the steel industry plan. The SIA found that imports from these countries had increased markedly and that over 50 per cent of imports from these countries entered Australia at a general rate of duty, not the DC preference rate. The Authority believed that the evidence showed that these countries in this product category were competitive without the DC preference and recommended its abolition. The Opposition indicated its support for this measure during the election campaign. The changes for motor vehicles, textiles, clothing and footwear implement the administrative details for the sectional plans for each industry. As such they require no real comment. Finally, I emphasise again the Opposition's support for the type of changes in this Bill for gradual but clear reductions in protection. However, these signals to the industries involved will be virtually worthless unless the Government is prepared to get its macroeconomic policies in perspective. Every Australian industry deserves the chance to be competitive, but the Government's present wage-fixing and labour market policies considerably reduce these prospects. Why should a manufacturing sector, such as electronics, which is clearly exposed to import competition, be expected to pay the same wages and fringe benefits as service industries with no real import competition? Where is the logic in cancelling the competitive benefits of devaluation by refusing to discount wage increases for the effects of that devaluation? On top of that, the Government shows no inclination to deregulate areas such as the transport sector, which can impose heavy costs on the manufacturing sector. For example, road freight costs are heavily influenced by government charges. Industries using State railways are required to pay freight rates which bear little relationship to costs and are often levied in an excessively monopolistic situation. Shipping, especially coastal shipping, is extremely expensive. For example, it costs more to ship one tonne of freight from Sydney to Townsville than it does from Sydney to European ports. Similarly, it costs more to freight from Melbourne to Devonport in Tasmania than it does from Melbourne to San Francisco. Is it any wonder that oncosts caused by freight charges are so heavily affecting an island continent such as Australia where industry is so dispersed? Even closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand are affected by the extremely high tariff charge on the trans-Tasman route caused by an effective duopoly situation which is supported by both governments. The House is well aware that Australia is facing a balance of payments crisis. One of the major components of invisibles is transportation, which largely comprises freight, insurance and other costs associated with shipping. In 1983-84 Australia earned $2.373 billion in this area, but paid out $3.849 billion. This left us with a transportation deficit of $1.576 billion. On current trends, the 1984-85 transportation deficit will be over $2 billion-a slide of 25 per cent in 12 months. I turn now to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to amend in a number of ways the Customs Act 1901, the Excise Act 1901, the Distillation Act 1901, the Spirits Act 1906 and the Coal Excise Act 1949. The principal amendments to the Customs Act are the changes to the provision governing tender quota allocations to add flexibility and allowing tariff concession orders to be revoked in three additional circumstances. The principal amendments to the Customs Act and the Excise Act are to provide more effective control over aircraft and ships' stores, especially of excisable products; to impute to a body corporate, the state of mind of its directors, servants and agents acting within the scope of actual or apparent authority where that state of mind is relevant to an excise prosecution of the corporation; and to automatically index the rate of rebate in duty paid on diesel for off-road purposes. The principal amendments to the Excise Act, the Distillation Act, the Spirits Act and the Coal Excise Act will increase the level of penalties and update the prosecution provisions in those Acts. The financial impact of the changes relate to the indexation of the rebate for diesel fuel. The estimated cost to the revenue for the 1985-86 and 1986-87 financial years is $4.3m per annum. This measure was announced in the 1984-85 Budget. On tender quota and tariff concession orders, the proposed amendments will enable the Minister to specify a period for each quota scheme. The amendments are designed to dispense with a quota scheme tied to a year and allow the Minister to determine the periods of validity for which tender quota schemes are to run. This change is necessary for the implementation of the motor vehicle scheme under which certain tender quotas will have a four-year validity. The changes to the Customs and Excise Acts are complementary and are designed to more effectively control imports of excisable products and to index diesel fuel rebates. The amendments in relation to the control of imports of excisable products include the definition of 'Australian coasts' in terms of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973; expansion of purposes for which warehoused goods may be entered by providing for entry of such goods for use as ships or aircraft stores; regulations which may prescribe new criteria relating to the licensing of depots; and the imposition on owners of goods an obligation not to allow the loading of goods unless the authority has been given. Certain exemptions apply. The diesel fuel rebate provisions will provide for six-monthly indexation of the rate of rebate payable to persons who have paid duty on diesel fuel used for certain off-road purposes. This decision was announced in the 1984-85 Budget and it will leave an amount of non-rebatable excise because of the delay in making the compensating decision following the original indexation of excise. I will be putting forward an amendment in Committee to ensure that the rebate is for the full amount of the excise so that the primary industries of Australia are not disadvantaged. Two further provisions are proposed. One is to limit the use of cameras and sound recording equipment in certain areas where questioning of passengers and examination of baggage takes place. Signs to this effect are required to be erected. The second is to facilitate prosecution of corporations where it is necessary to establish the state of mind of the body corporate. The prosecution can do this by establishing the requisite state of mind of the director or agent acting within the scope of his real or apparent authority. I must note that this issue has created some difficulties, both for industry and the Law Council of Australia, which have made representations to us. It was, in fact, the Opposition which made these points initially and I would just like to place them on the record. We have received expressions of concern at the possibility that the changes proposed under clause 23 will allow retrospective Customs duties to be levied. For example, this would make the liability to duty depend on what a Customs official thought the Minister considered was the appropriate order. This could deprive effectively the citizen of the protection of the courts against the enforcement of an erroneous interpretation by the Customs. The provision would put Australia in contravention of a prohibition in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Article 10 (2) to the effect that measures of general application should not impose liability prior to the date of official publication. Mr Barry Jones —We are fixing that up. Mr CONNOLLY —I am delighted to hear that. This clause is incompatible with the notion that liability should be able to be determined in advice from objective instruction of a written tariff and not by subjective and subsequent views of an official. It represents a serious departure from fundamental principles. Naturally, the Opposition is totally opposed to any retrospective action and I am delighted to hear the interjection from the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, that the Government proposes to move its own amendment in this regard. I understand the amendment will be moved in this House. We will review the amendment to see whether it meets this requirement and if this is not so, we will naturally hold our position open so that we can make changes to the Bill in another place. The Opposition has raised with the Government through the Department on a number of occasions the possibility that clause 23 as it appears in the Bill will allow for retrospectivity. As we understand the situation, industry representations plus our own concern have resulted in the Government acting in this way. Depending on the actual details in the amendment, we will make our decision accordingly. A further amendment to the Customs Act provides for decisions under the Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duty) Act 1985 to be applicable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Act is not currently in existence; it was introduced in 1984 but lapsed. It is to be reintroduced this year. The petroleum industry has significant problems with the legislation. However, the Opposition sees no reason why the appeal mechanism should be opposed at this stage if the retrospective legislation is, in fact, valid. Other amendments which are worth noting are essentially amendments which increase the penalty for various breaches of the Excise, Distillation, Coal Excise and Spirits Acts. These new penalties, according to the Minister's second reading speech, are in accordance with penalty provisions contained elsewhere. I take this opportunity also to refer briefly to some of the wider implications of this legislation. As I said, I will move amendments in my name which I shall discuss in detail in Committee. Yesterday the Minister responsible in another place released a White Paper relating to free marketing in crude oil. I wish to put on record that the deregulation of the oil market is supported by the Opposition with the objectives of achieving increased efficiency and reduced costs to the industry and to consumers. However, the White Paper contains a worthwhile analysis of the various aspects of this problem and it is noted that the Government has not yet made a decision one way or the other. There are a number of matters raised which require some brief comment. Should the allocation scheme be retained for small producers? If the free market applies to all but the smallest producers, which are estimated to represent about one per cent of current production, without a guaranteed price for such producers there would be a significant disincentive for further exploration. However, there may be alternatives to continuing the subsidy scheme and we would expect the Government to examine this in more detail. Another question worth mentioning is: Would a free market, with Labor's free market proposals, make all exploration more risky, particularly with the introduction of the resource rent tax and cash bonus bidding? My view is that it would, but again, the Government will need to examine this in the context of this total proposal. Free market pricing may in the short term be inconsistent with energy conservation and self-sufficiency policies. Australia, however, cannot achieve strategic self-sufficiency without discoveries of heavier crudes. I am led to understand that this is unlikely because Australian discoveries to date are essentially of lighter oils. Exports may be consistent with the existing policy of strategic energy conservation. The question needs to be asked: Why export a limited indigenous resource when the world is in an oversupply situation? Exports do provide an exploration incentive, and this should stimulate domestic production. But it could be argued that this too may be inconsistent with a policy of encouraging conservation and self-sufficiency. Therefore I conclude that if we go down the road to a free market in crude oil, the existing policy relating to conservation and self-sufficiency will have to be considerably changed. Does the Government propose to apply export controls to ensure that the domestic market gets first priority as suppliers? The present oil lease arrangements are inconsistent with conservation as fields must be developed when found. This approach is not unreasonable in the light of the taxation incentives relevant to oil exploration at present. With deregulation, however, producers should have a choice between developing a discovery and importing oil. There would be no incentive to explore unless retention leases are introduced, and we support their introduction. Deregulation would also give retailers, whether independents or multinational oil companies, a choice in products from Australian or overseas refineries. Thus it may be cheaper to import petrol from Singapore or the Middle East. It is worth noting that already Darwin receives its supplies from Singapore, as I believe does Port Hedland. One could therefore argue, and perhaps expect, that deregulation would result in a considerably greater degree of refined oil and petroleum being imported from sources such as Singapore or the Middle East. The effect of this, however, would be that less would be purchased from Australian refineries, which currently use mainly Australian crude. This could benefit consumers, but is the Government prepared to embrace a policy which may lead to closure of Australian refineries and increased exports of Australian crude? Australia presently has some excess refining capacity, and especially with the introduction of unleaded petrol, the closure option may be attractive for some refineries. In a re-regulated environment the situation could arise where a government decision has to be made about the appropriate level of strategic self-sufficiency for defence purposes. In a free market there will be no place for common-except for State charges-capital city wholesale prices. The Prices Surveillance Authority would have no role to play in petrol pricing, and, of course, the Opposition, consistent with our policy in this matter, believes that it should be terminated. One of the major issues is whether the Government intends to extend deregulation to fuel prices all over Australia. At present, the city-country wholesale price differential is limited to 1.2c per litre through the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme, which is estimated to cost $123m in 1984-85. Will the Government remove the subsidy in steps so that it applies only for increasingly larger price differentials, or will it be removed altogether? It has been argued that this would be a disincentive for petroleum distributors to increase efficiency. However, no government should ignore the realities of Australia's geography and the impact on the cost structure of the rural and mining industries which provide so much to our balance of payments. The Government's revenue from petroleum, notably crude oil and petroleum excise, will be about 10.5 per cent of total government revenue in 1984-85, which is up from 5.5 per cent in the mid 1970s. This is a very significant revenue component, and deregulation of oil markets could reduce, or at least introduce fluctuations in, the level of crude oil excise. The revenue implications of a free market in oil would have to be considered very carefully in the context of the review of the whole Australian taxation system. But as I have said, as a general principle, the Opposition supports the objective of free markets, wherever they can be achieved. As I also stated in my earlier remarks, we shall be moving a number of amendments to this legislation, which I shall discuss in greater detail in the Committee stage of this Bill. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.34) —It is a pleasure to rise in support of the three Bills before the House in this cognate debate, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill, and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. I commence my comments with the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill. I say by way of introduction that it is a general Bill, but, in particular, it will provide in the area of diesel fuel for the automatic indexation of the rate of rebate which is payable to those people who have paid duty on diesel fuel which is being used for certain off-road purposes. One of the other parts of that legislation is to amend the Excise Act and various other Acts to increase the level of penalties that currently apply and to update the prosecutions. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) referred to those two aspects. In looking at this legislation, it is particularly important, from my point of view in the electorate of Bendigo, to look at the aspect regarding the indexation of the diesel fuel rebate. That was a commitment given by this Government, primarily to the farming sector, late last year. The official announcement was made in the Budget Speech of that year. The purpose of the amendment that we are making through this legislation is to permit that automatic indexation of the rate of rebate which is payable, as I said previously, to those who have already paid duty on diesel fuel but which fuel is purchased for what we call off-road use-in agriculture, mining, fishing, forestry, household, hospitals, and nursing and aged persons homes. As I have indicated, the decision to do that was announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last year in the Budget Speech. The Government has decided that the rate of rebate will be adjusted at six-monthly intervals, and that commenced from February of this year, and that the Minister will, as soon as practicable after the passing of this legislation, publish that information in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, advertising the new rate of rebate. The decision entailed in this legislation has been welcomed, as I have said, by primary producers and by all off-road users of diesel. In principle, it follows discussions held last year between the National Farmers' Federation, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer. The second aspect of the Bill that I mention is the increase in penalties. There has been some debate about that. The question of why the increase in the level of penalties under this legislation is so severe needs to be addressed. I think there are two good reasons for that. First, the Government desires to ensure that the level of penalties in these pieces of legislation is sufficient to act as an effective deterrent to potential offenders. Secondly, the penalties are being increased because of the fact that there has been little, if any, increase in the level of penalties in these Acts since their respective enactment, which in some cases was during the first decade of Federation, so we are going back 80 years. I should like to give an example, Madam Acting Speaker, which I am sure you will appreciate. The proposed increase in the penalty for an offence against section 30 of the Excise Act is from $40 to $5,000. Some would say that that is an horrific increase to be putting on the commercial sector. But the matter must be put in context. The significant factor is to remember that the penalty has not been increased since 1901. There has been no increase over the last 84 years. It was set at #20 in 1901. When decimal currency was introduced, that converted to $40. There has been no increase since that time. Therefore, it is appropriate that it reflects a proper level of penalty. Mr Barry Jones —Like the increase in a member's salary. Mr BRUMBY —The Minister for Science may be able to comment later on that aspect and that comparison in his summing up. It is not something on which I should like to dwell for too long. The fact is that the relationship is there. There has been very little increase in the penalties to which I am referring, and I think the Minister makes a relevant point. With any penalty, it is important that it be set at a level so that it is actually a deterrent. It does not matter whether it relates to Customs legislation, tax avoidance or any other aspect of legal sanctioning; the deterrent must be at a reasonable level if it is to be effective. That is why the increase is of the order stated in the legislation. As the Opposition has noted, some concern has been expressed by the Law Council of Australia and a number of trade consultants about aspects of the legislation. One of those has been mentioned. I was pleased that the Minister indicated that there would be amendments to certain sections of this legislation to reflect some of those concerns, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks in his summing up. I do not wish to say a great deal about the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, except that a number of the amendments contained in the Bill arise from government decisions on Industries Assistance Commission reports such as those on certain consumer electronic equipment and components, separate articles and so on. That is really all I have to say on that Bill. I wish to spend some time talking to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 because it is a most important Bill. Basically, it proposes two things. Firstly, as part of a package of incentives for the oil industry, this legislation reflects the announcement last year by the then Minister for Resources and Energy of the introduction of special excise arrangements for crude oilfields discovered on or before 17 September 1975 but which had not been developed before 23 October 1984. Under this legislation those fields are now eligible for concessional excise treatment under what is called an intermediate excise scale. The second aspect of this legislation seeks to adjust pricing mechanisms for liquefied petroleum gas. I will come to that in a moment. Clauses 3 to 8 cover the intermediate excise scale and clauses 9 to 11 cover LPG. I will comment briefly on those clauses. As I have said, the basic intention of clauses 3 to 8 is to introduce an intermediate excise scale to apply to old oil, that is, oil discovered before September 1975 but which was not in production by October 1984. That intermediate excise scale will apply to oil produced on-shore and from off-shore areas specifically excluded from the greenfields resource rent tax, that is, the Bass Strait area and the North West Shelf. The excise rates that apply to new oil and old oil from fields which have been developed-this is an important point-as at 23 October last year remain unchanged. We are really looking at this new intermediate scale. The new scale imposes excise at rates below that of old oil but less concessional than those applying to new oil. Under the intermediate excise scale, oil production in the range of 300 to 400 megalitres per annum attracts excise at the rate of 15 per cent of the Bass Strait import parity price, which compares with rates of about 40 per cent on old oil and zero on new oil. At the top of the intermediate scale the rate will be 55 per cent, compared with 87 per cent on old oil and 35 per cent on new oil. The selection of these rates reflects the Government's view of the need not to discourage the development of marginal fields. Following the announcement of this decision, the Bass Strait producers, Esso Australia Ltd and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd announced development plans which involve an investment of about $1.8 billion on projects that would attract either the intermediate excise or the revised allowance. It is my view that those projects certainly would not have proceeded had the existing excise arrangements continued to apply. As a result of this change, we are seeing the proof of additional development brought about by a more reasonable rate of return and the benefits that that additional development brings in terms of increased self-sufficiency in oil production and greater investment and jobs for Australian people. It is an important decision. Another point I wish to make is that excise from oil produced under the intermediate scale is not expected to be paid until 1988-98. In a financial sense, it is the Government's view that collections would peak around 1991-92. I mentioned that the other aspect of this legislation was the fairly simple procedural change with relation to the pricing of LPG. The legislation provides for changes in excise on nationally occurring LPG in accordance with the LPG pricing and excise policy originally announced in April 1980, and subsequently amended. The net impact is to reduce revenue from that change by about $1m a year. I conclude by making a couple of brief points on the very important question of the excise on oil. The question is often asked: Why is the Government introducing another tax on oil production? The answer is that the Government believes that the introduction of an intermediate excise scale on old oil production will encourage the development of a number of old oilfields which have not been developed to date, at least partly-and perhaps more than partly-because of the inadequate returns under the old oil excise scale. The excise will provide a higher rate of return and will bring back into production some of the old oilfields, if we can call them that. There is evidence that that has already occurred. I know that the Government is keen to have the Bills proceed as quickly as possible so I will conclude my remarks and indicate my support for the Bills. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.48) —The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills address a number of matters but, because of the constraints of time, I will deal with only a few of them. In particular, I wish to deal with the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill. Clause 23 of this Bill amends section 269P of the principal Act to enable the revocation of tariff concession orders in several additional circumstances. These include where the Minister for Resources and Energy becomes satisfied that an order has become obsolete. I think the Government is now well aware that the decision in this legislation, if enacted, would create a situation of retrospectivity. There have been rumours that the Government proposes some amendments, and I sincerely hope that that is the case. Mr Barry Jones —Yes, that is the case. Mr TUCKEY —I thank the Minister for Science for assuring me of that because, quite clearly, people in the business of buying and selling and bringing in imports would be severely disadvantaged if, having concluded a sale, there was a retrospective decision to the effect that someone had made a mistake and charged the wrong duty. I have been in business for a long time and with relation to sales tax I have always discovered that, if a wholesaler makes the mistake of applying the wrong rate of sales tax, there is no sympathy from the purchaser; the wholesaler is left holding the baby. I welcome the Government's advice that that oversight is to be attended to. The other matter I wish to discuss and to which the Opposition proposes to move amendments relates to clause 37 of the Bill which refers to the indexation of rate of rebate. Clause 37 inserts a new section into the principal Act to provide for the automatic indexation of the rate of rebate on diesel fuel in exactly the same terms as for the Customs Act. What we are talking about here is one of the great attacks upon the primary industry sector in Australia. For many years the primary industry sector was not charged excise on the fuels it used for off-road purposes. This applied particularly to people in my electorate who were farming and using large quantities of fuel, for instance, to plant crops. The off-road sector was recently defined as agriculture, mining, fishing, forestry, households, hospitals and nursing and aged persons homes. To me and my constituents agriculture and fishing in particular are major consumers of fuel and are large payers of the taxes that result. As I have said, for many years those people were exempt from the payment of any excise. Excise, of course, is separate from the other levies that government places on fuel. The excise is now substantial and represents a major burden. When this Government inherited the treasury benches the excise was approximately 5.155c per litre, which, of course, was fully rebated. That situation continued for a little while. On 1 July 1983 the excise was 6.155c per litre, which again was fully rebated. Then things started to change. On 29 August 1983 we saw an increase under the Government's policy of automatically indexing excise and the excise became 7.155c per litre. That was the last time that the full rebate was paid to people in primary industry. The Government, knowing full well what it was doing, announced that it was proposing to freeze that excise. Two factors emerged. The first was that, for the first time in the history of this Parliament, the imposition of an excise was taken away from parliamentary scrutiny. It was taken out of the visible arena. For many years-in fact I estimate 40 or 50 years-the growth of excise struggled along to that figure of 5.155c per litre. As I understand it, that figure included the 1c per litre special Australian bicentennial road development program levy which was negotiated by the previous Government with the community and introduced with its approval. We had 40 years in which to achieve a 5c a litre increase on fuel. Why? Because the excise was visible. The Treasurers of the day, principally from our side of politics, were game to come into this House and take the criticism for announcing an increase in the levy. It gave the community an opportunity to lobby against it because it was usually anticipated as a Budget measure. But what has happened? This Government has chosen automatic indexation-taxation by stealth. Consequently, on 2 February 1985 the excise was running at 9.641c per litre. That means that in the life of this Government, in just over two years, we have had a 2.5c per litre increase. In 40 years we had an increase of 5c and in two years we get an increase of 2.5c-a 50 per cent increase. Why? Because this has been taken out of the public arena; it is no longer visible. The natural result of that is that when people pull up at the bowser there are no double dials on the bowser and there is no dial that tells people how much they are paying in tax, as has been demonstrated recently by various newspapers that have chosen to use the bowser as the indicator of the tax grab. People do not know whether it is a price increase associated with the retailer, the oil company, the oil producer or somebody else. No longer are they told about it. It is a disgrace that governments follow that form of taxation. We have seen this massive increase in the excise levy because of that mechanism. While that has been happening the rebate has remained static at 7.155c per litre. For the first time in our history we find that those primary producers whom I listed earlier are being required to pay a 2.5c per litre excise. This is at a time when there has been a massive growth in the price of fuel because of the parity pricing policy that was introduced by the previous Government and endorsed by this Government-a major turnaround because this Government criticised that policy while it was in opposition. This burden has been placed on the rural community at a time when it is trying to get out of a major drought and is suffering a major deterioration in its terms of trade. There is no secret about that. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recently tried to convince members of the rural community that their figures were wrong, that they were still making a profit, were doing fine and had never had it so good. Of course, the farmers were not believed. They eventually proved that the Government was wrong and that the figures that they had presented to the Government were true. The farmers' terms of trade are disastrous at present and the imposition of this type of burden will not help. Clause 23 of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill is still perpetuating a major fraud on these people. It has been hinted to them that the Government recognises the major burden that has been put on this sector and it is seeking to do something about it. What is this Government trying to do? It is to reintroduce indexation of the rebate. But what is not being said-what is being treated with the same degree of stealth as the automatic indexation of excise-is that the consumer price index is now going to be applied to two different figures. The CPI will be applied to the 7.155c per litre and exactly the same percentage will be applied to the 9.39c per litre. The only certainty is that the larger figure will grow-I am sure that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, could make that calculation very quickly-and this burden of 2.5c a litre on these people, who believe that they are being offered some relief, will continue to grow. Consequently, I welcome the Opposition's announcement and the statement of the shadow Minister handling this matter in this House that he proposes to amend that situation in the Committee stage. I will certainly be pleased to support him. The Opposition is proposing to end the fraud and to return to a position that the agricultural sector has expected for many years and in fact enjoyed under the Fraser Government and all previous Liberal governments. They do not expect to pay excise on fuel that they use when they take the risk of putting a crop in the ground. Excise is a tax on enterprise. It is a tax on people who have to go out and use the greatest bulk of that fuel for the purpose of taking a risk to create an income. I think I have said in this House before that these sorts of up-front taxes can only be equivalent to a worker being required to put, say, $5 a day in a tin at the factory gate as he walks into work for an employer who is in financial difficulties and may not be able to pay him at the end of the week. That is the situation that governments create with these sorts of taxes when they impose them on the rural and other primary sectors. There is no guarantee that they will get a return on their investment; that is up to the weather and other seasonal conditions. Many people are starting to recognise this. The Shire of Narrogin chose to write to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the other day and draw his attention to this fact: Council are particularly concerned at the effect the imposition of taxes on fuel will have to agricultural industry. This is borne out in that 66 per cent of the cost of fuel is directly related to Commonwealth or State taxes. A recent survey indicated that during last season, an average of $14.00 per hectare was spent on fuel. This cost was higher where ground was turned over more than twice. The letter went on to say: On the above figure, removal of the tax would mean a saving of $9.24 per hectare in the operation costs. I am talking about farmers in my electorate who plant up to 25,000 acres of crop and I am sure that the Minister can also do a quick calculation on that. The letter went on to say that this was before the imposition of the 3.9c per litre increase of 1 May. Is that not significant? What did the Prime Minister do while he was, in his words, sitting down and negotiating with the National Farmers Federation-he even had the cheek to call it a summit-and while the Treasury and the National Farmers Federation economists were arguing the farmers' figures? Because of the disagreement over figures the Prime Minister promised these people another meeting at which, he said, he would further consider their very real concern about the deterioration of their general terms of trade. What did he do? He sat down at a Cabinet meeting and took this decision on parity pricing which further deteriorated and reduced the terms of trade for farmers, fishermen, foresters and others. The fishermen, farmers and the mining industry, in particular, use the huge quantities of fuel from which this Government reaps its profits. The Government has imposed an excise of 2.5c per litre on fuel. This has affected the farmers. It has been estimated that it is costing the farmers an additional $25m a year. This is a trick and a fraud. The Government was great on claiming all the things that it inherited, but it is not returning to the position which it inherited in this regard when it was elected to office and assumed the treasury bench. The Government is still imposing a major tax burden on an industry that just cannot afford it. The Government knows that it cannot afford it, it just has different priorities in this whole tariffs arena concerning both the primary sector and the manufacturing sector. The estimated revenue of the Government in its Budget this year is $57,203m. Excise on oil, liquefied petroleum gas and petroleum products, which we find in two different parts of the Budget, is $5,846m. In other words, taxes on fuel now represent 10.2 per cent of total Government revenue. This is for an item which is so important to the Australian community. I heard a Minister in this place yesterday saying something about the amount of money that transport represents in the cost of all goods that we buy. He gave it in dollar terms. My understanding is that approximately 45 per cent of the cost of most things that we consume is represented by freight costs. We transport fuel to the iron ore mine and the iron ore to the smelter and before that iron becomes something that we can use huge costs of freight are involved. Every time the Government increases the tax on fuel it, in turn, increases the cost of freight and the cost of all goods within Australia. But some people bear a much heavier burden than others and people living in the country invariably bear the cost of fuel more heavily than anybody else. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), who should accept responsibility in this regard, giving tacit approval to the legislation we have before us today. As with the assets test, country members on the Government benches seem to have a rather peculiar attitude to all these things. They will not listen to their constituents or to rural-based members on this side of the House. They almost scoff at us at times and say that we are just looking after the fat cats, yet they continue to ignore that a large percentage of people in rural areas are wage earners. A large percentage of people on properties are not wealthy. These are the people who get hurt by these sorts of decisions. There is no doubt that people living in rural areas are forced, whether they like it or not, to use much larger amounts of fuel and this tax bears disproportionately upon them. These people are trying to keep our national economy afloat. They came to the aid of this Government when it first came to office; they produced a record wheat crop for Australia which pushed the economy up. This Government took all the credit. This Government has yet to achieve the economic levels of 1981. It is very strong on percentages. I am wondering whether, at Question Time today, we will be told about the great growth in the value of the Australian dollar! The Government might tell us that the dollar has gone up by 8c from the low of 62c. The fact is that the dollar is worth 30c less, compared to the American dollar, than it was when this Government floated it. That is the reality. We have a wonderful situation of our taxes going up, the price of fuel going up and the value of our dollar going down! That is a better statement of what the Government has done. This taxation by stealth, this automatic indexation of excise, is something that I sincerely hope this side of politics will not practise again. It is quite wrong. I like to use four words about taxation. Many of my words have been ignored in this present confusion that has been created by an indecisive Prime Minister. When he does make up his mind he is bound to change it. He has changed sides on the tax debate almost daily in the last fortnight as he gets his messages from the different factions in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Australian economy is being carried by people such as the farmers-and they are attacked. This legislation does that. On 8 April I drew to the attention of the House the problems relating to the cost of running a truck. I mentioned that an owner-driver had 30 per cent of his revenue consumed by various taxes. But that was before the price of fuel increased recently. That person is now substantially worse off because the tax burden has increased even further. These people are the backbone of our economy. In general, they have the great burden of the policy that is espoused in these tariff amendments today. In today's issue of the Australian Financial Review there is the headline 'Protection ''invisible conspiracy to beggar exporters'' '. The article mentions Professor Kenneth Clements of the University of Western Australia and Professor Larry Sjaastad of the University of Chicago. It states: More than half the cost of protection in most countries is borne by the export industries and in Australia's case it is as high as 70 per cent, according to a new report . . . . . . . . . 'an implicit, indeed an invisible, conspiracy to beggar one's own exporters'. . . . They estimate that 'at least one half of all protection acts as a tax on exporters'. 'Estimates for individual countries range from about 50 per cent of nominal protection being shifted onto exporters in Uruguay to 70 per cent in Australia, and over 90 per cent in Colombia,' the report says. Other examples are given. The Government is going to increase the tax on farmers, it is not going to reduce it, by this legislation. It has already increased the excise tax substantially, as I have explained, on all consumers of fuel. There is no objection to the parity pricing policy as it is aimed at encouraging fuel production and exploration in Australia. That is an excellent policy, but it does not warrant the tax grab that is being practised by this Government through excise in particular. The Government could reduce excise from 9 per cent to nothing as a balance and still see the producers getting a world parity price. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.08) —We need to address ourselves to a number of aspects of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), spent some time talking about taxes and their impact. I propose to address myself to these matters. I shall refer also to excise. Clearly, we need to pay attention to other matters with respect to customs and excise arrangements. The honourable member for O'Connor and other honourable members on his side of the House should recognise that we are trying to establish a comprehensive approach to taxation and the administration and development of taxation law in this country. One of the concerns that the Australian community shares-the honourable member for O'Connor has not taken this on board-is that the administration of tax law in this country under a government of which he was a member became to haphazard and so ineffective that it was necessary for us to try to restructure the whole tax system. Clearly, the inequities that developed in the tax system, with respect to pay as you earn taxpayers having a continual increase in the amount that they were paying in taxes and others having the capacity to evade and avoid taxes, were so rampant under the previous Government that we had to undertake a major overhaul to try to get more taxpayers to co-operate in the administration of taxation. That was not mentioned in the remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor. It should have been. One of the difficulties we have is that there was a substantial-one of the reasons why taxes get to punitive levels-degree of both tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is an issue that we are addressing and one that we are concerned to try to deal with. Mr Tuckey —No, you still have John Dawkins on your front bench. How are you addressing it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor knows that all interjections are out of order. Mr McVeigh —Not from that side-they never seem to be out of order. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —If it is a question of acquaintanceship with tax evaders, perhaps the honourable member for O'Connor should leave the chamber because he is not one of those who should be taking such an approach. Mr McVeigh —Who is one of those who ought not to be in the chamber? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Groom reflected on the Chair with his previous interjection. He has again interjected. He knows that I told the honourable member for O'Connor that he should cease interjecting; he also will cease interjecting. Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise unreservedly for reflecting in any way whatsoever on the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair accepts the apology from the honourable member for Groom. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. An honourable member is not allowed in this place to reflect on another honourable member. The honourable member for Stirling has in a quite unsubstantiated way suggested that I have some connection with tax avoidance or evasion. That is not so, but there is clear evidence, which I have produced in this place, that the Minister for Trade has such a connection. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor knows that the procedures of the House permit him to make a personal explanation later. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I suppose that the Australian community is surprised at the sensitivity of Western Australian members of the Liberal Party with respect to this matter. The record shows that they need to be sensitive. We are also sensitive to the question of tax arrangements. I believe that it is important to understand that the reason why we are undertaking a major review of taxes in this country is that tax administration and tax policy fell into disrepute. That disrepute has to lie with members of the previous Government. The honourable member for O'Connor also spoke about the indexation of excises and rebates. We have chosen to implement a system of indexation of excises and rebates because we are trying to remove political discretion from that administration. The difficulty we had under the previous arrangement was simply that there was always the question of whether political involvement and discretion would be involved in those matters. We have taken the sensible decision of saying, as we did concerning pension payments, that, in relation to excises, we ought to remove political discretion. That is why we have chosen to proceed with indexation. I acknowledge the difficulty in that approach in that, if we get to high levels of inflation and if we have indexed excises, those excises will feed back into the inflationary spiral so that we will have an impact on the consumer price index. But the experience has been in the past two years that inflation has been substantially reduced, so we are not in a situation where indexed excises feed back into the consumer price index at such a rampant rate. I acknowledge the interrelationship pointed to by the honourable member for O'Connor but I deny his conclusion. Once we lower the average rate of inflation, the impact of indexed excises will be reduced. Clearly the objective has to be to try to reduce the rate of inflation, which we have done. I go back to my initial point. The crucial point that we have to establish is that by indexing we will remove political discretion. One of the difficulties we have in this place is that we have to get the trust of the Australian community with respect to decisions we make. If we are always seen as being interventionists, as trying to please some particular pressure group or interest group, we cannot get that support. One reason why we have chosen to float the dollar is that it is consistent with the approach we have taken to economic management. We believe that these forces can work themselves through. The honourable member for O'Connor has to work out whether he wants to be an interventionist, because he is concerned about us floating the dollar, or whether he wants to take a free market approach. With respect to rural industries, I take the point made by the honourable member for O'Connor. He said that a burden is being borne by the rural sector. That is recognised and understood. But he cannot have that approach and at the same time say: 'Why did you turn around and float the dollar?'. We floated the dollar and have seen a reduction in the value of the Australian dollar vis-a-vis other currencies but, at the same time, the honourable member for O'Connor would have to concede that the benefit for exporters has been substantial because they are now operating in a more competitive environment. One cannot always have things both ways. There is a logical connection in our approach. If we index excises, we will be doing so to remove political discretion. If we are also floating the dollar, we are saying that we are not moving in to try to prop up or in other ways manipulate the value of the currency. We are leaving it to find its own value. Whilst acknowledging that there are cost problems for the rural sector, this action has some beneficial effects. I am not saying that some of the points the honourable member for O'Connor has raised do not have substance. However, I think he has to say that we must have a comprehensive approach to economic management. That is what we have. The comprehensive approach is to be seen in the results. That is the first issue to be dealt with. I was talking earlier about the amendment, in clauses 13 and 37 of the Bill, to index the rebate system. It is important that we see that by removing political discretion and intervention, it is much easier for industry to anticipate likely moves in terms of their costs in relation to excises and wages. That has been the approach of this Government, and that approach has been borne out by economic performance. There has been an increase in both farm gross domestic product and non-farm gross domestic product. That increase has been substantial over the period during which we have been in government. We anticipate that those growth patterns will continue. The intention of one of the Bills is to try to remove some diversion of the payment of duty. In respect of controls over the loading and safe-keeping of and accounting for ships and aircraft stores, particularly spirituous liquor and tobacco products, the amendments proposed in clauses 7, 9 to 12, 34 to 36 and 44 of the Bill are intended to correct deficiencies in the present system which is not sufficiently effective in preventing illicit diversions of products with the consequent erosion of Commonwealth revenue. The proposed measures accord with those permitted for adoption under the International Convention on the Harmonisation of Customs Procedures. One of the issues that concerns me in this respect is that considerable debate is taking place in the Australian community currently on our approach to customs matters, in particular the question of inbound duty free products. For some time Australian travellers have been disadvantaged by the need, under current arrangements, to purchase their duty free goods and take them overseas, before bringing them back to this country. One can make a sensible argument that there is benefit in enabling those people to purchase those goods when they return to the country, because it results in a consequent saving of freight costs, particularly to Qantas Airways Ltd, our national carrier, and it also keeps revenue and jobs in the country. Clearly that is an important initiative that we are being pressed by the Australian community to undertake. I believe that there are good reasons for proceeding in that way. Initially it is proposed that we should be looking at introducing that system with respect to alcohol, tobacco and perfume products because they are the products that are in very high demand. Under the current arrangements, we have the serious situation that aeroplanes are literally flying around full of spirituous liquor that people are carrying from one country to another. It would make more sense if people could purchase it when they return to the country rather than having to carry it overseas to meet the requirements of the legislation. I believe that legislation in that direction is very important. We should be examining this, given the pressure from the Australian community. Ultimately, we will come under great pressure to include goods other than those in the three areas specified-alcohol, tobacco and perfume products. Obviously there will be pressure towards electronic goods. Often people are being asked to carry bulky items overseas and then bring them back. One of the benefits of having this purchase at home policy, if I may call it that, is that we also get an after sales service. If an Australian, having returned to the country, finds that the product is deficient, there is a capacity under our consumer laws to remedy such a deficiency. It is a little more difficult under international guarantee arrangements to get deficiencies remedied if one has purchased a product in Hong Kong, Singapore and so on. There are some benefits to the Australian community and to Australian business in this proposal. I have one reservation. If we confine this change to the holders of duty free franchises at airports, those shops which hold duty free franchises in the cities-people would be aware that there are many such shops-may be disadvantaged vis-a-vis those at airports. I have to concede that that is an initial concern. Obviously we have to look at a sensible way of administering that system. We do not want to see the Customs Act and regulations being breached. At the moment the area is being administered effectively but, if we are to proceed with this proposal, obviously there ought not to be a consequent increase in administrative requirements. I am assured by people in the industry that such is the effectiveness of the Customs Service in pursuing these matters that currently the controls are quite considerable and they do not believe that there would be any great difficulty in administering inbound duty-free shop-at-home plan if it were extended to other operators. I believe that proposal is worth considering. It certainly has some merit in that it would reduce freight costs for carriers, keep jobs and money in the economy and, finally, give after sales service to many people in the community. I understand that this matter is being given active consideration and I believe that it is very important. I conclude on this point by saying again that I have one reservation: If this service is to be confined only to holders of franchises at airports others may suffer some disadvantage vis-a-vis those at airports. Another point I wish to address is the changes in the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 that deals with the treatment of both old oil and new oil. Clearly, the changes in policy made by this Government with respect to resources such as oil are quite considerable. We have moved towards a system of resource rent tax. Another matter of concern and interest to us as a government and as a community is cash bidding for petroleum licences. The current system of bidding for petroleum licences imposes a performance arrangement whereby a successful bidder for an area must drill a certain number of holes to try to prove up a field. The difficulty with that arrangement is that if a successful bid made by a company entails that company undertaking 40 drilling operations and if the company, after the first 15, as a result of its seismic work, determines that the field is not worth proceeding with, it is committed to continue as part of its performance arrangement. The advantage of cash bidding is that a market decision is made by the relevant company. The company, by way of its bidding arrangements, decides that it is sensible to bid a certain price to try to obtain the lease of a field. In so doing, the market price that the successful company bids will reflect what that company sees as the desirable or anticipated recovery rate from that field. I can see that the Government has a strong case in its approach to petroleum licences for the use of the cash bidding system because not only will it result in a more sensitive market appreciation by the companies bidding for those licences but also it will mean that the Government will reap revenue from the cash bidding process. One of the objectives of our overall strategy-this is where I go back to my remarks at the beginning-is that we have embarked upon a process of reducing inflation, increasing economic growth and increasing employment. If at the same time we can achieve our longer term target of reducing the deficit and increasing Government revenue through a cash bidding system-evidence from the United States of America seems to show that we can-there is much merit in that approach in dealing with the question of petroleum leases and licences. Very clearly, we ought to be looking at a more market-oriented approach. The problem with the current arrangements is that they tend to be too cumbersome in terms of the capacity of companies to deal with their leases and arrangements pertaining to those leases. I believe that the cash bidding system has some considerable benefits and should be looked at as a government policy initiative. The Government is about putting together a comprehensive approach to economic management. Whether we deal with the questions of indexing excise, of finding a more appropriate and rational system of dealing with customs arrangements, particularly in relation to travellers, or of how we treat our natural resources, the important thing is that, when compared with the approach of the Opposition, we can demonstrate that we have the more comprehensive approach to economic management. That approach is beginning to reveal itself in terms of performance. I say to those members of the Australian community who are concerned about debates such as this and who are interested in the sorts of issues that are being dealt with by honourable members opposite and honourable members on the Government side that, in regard to performance in the field, we have the score on the board. The economic growth performance is there. The rate of inflation has been reduced. We have seen a substantial increase in the levels of productivity and performance in the economy and we have seen reductions in the rate of unemployment. Clearly, the performance is there. We look ahead to the tax summit. This will be the first time there has been such an opportunity. We are saying: 'Let's make a comprehensive review of taxes in this country so that we can get a better system of management and administration of taxes'. We were left with a shambles. There were high levels of evasion and avoidance and we had a tax system that was placing increasing burdens on lower and middle income earners. What we are about is trying to get a more rational approach to tax management, tax administration and tax policy that will result in more effective collection of taxes and, I hope, the achievement of the goals of equity and efficiency that have been talked about by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other honourable members on the Government side. In debates of this kind it is important that we emphasise that the performance of the Government is sound and that the score is on the board. I am pleased to support the Bills before the House. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(11.27) —Much has been said this morning during the debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Bill and cognate Bills about the economic management of the country. I know that that topic does not directly refer to the legislation before the House, but I wish to comment on it for a moment or so. At this stage in the life of the Parliament most Australians would be very concerned to know that much discussion has been held but no firm decisions have been made on very important matters affecting the future of Australia. The Bills before the House this morning deal principally with fuel excise matters. These factors are paramount in relation to the economy and taxation. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) indicated earlier that he wants to transfer the burden of taxation from one group within the community to another and to transfer wealth from one group within Australia to another. Let me emphasise just one thing: It has been proved in the United States of America, under the Reagan Administration, that the person with initiative and drive within the community, be he on a farm, conducting a business or elsewhere, must be allowed to have some relief from high taxation. In moving wealth from one part of the Australian community to another we should always rely upon the fact that it is those people with initiative and drive, who control businesses and so on, who will employ future generations of Australians. That is why some countries today, particularly America, have been able to increase employment. Millions of jobs have been created within that country. The economy has recovered and the value of the dollar has been restored simply because it has allowed private enterprise, by giving it incentives, to increase employment throughout the country. If the Government that is in power in Australia today wants to achieve anything, if we are to get the economic recovery that we need, that is the thrust that the Government must follow. I wish to refer principally to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. Earlier today the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) emphasised and dealt with most of the matters that I would have spoken on. I do not want to retrace the land that he travelled this morning. The thrust of my speech is that there is great concern within the farming and fishing communities that the rebate on diesel fuel that was previously available to them, including those in aged persons accommodation, hospitals and households, is not being kept up percentage-wise with the excise that is charged today. We appreciate that in those earlier days the excise did not actually appertain to the primary producers. It was necessary, over the last three or four years, to bring in legislation, due to the increase in the parity price of oil, to give a rebate to the primary producers and other off-road users in Australia. I go back to the time when we were in government and when we tried to bring in a simple formula so that a rebate could be effectively given to those who were eligible to claim, without too much red tape and bureaucracy being involved. The setup at the moment-let me go over the figures-is that the off-road users now receive a rebate of 7.155c a litre. The rebate was frozen but the rebate that they should be receiving at this time is 9.6c a litre; in other words, the off-road users have been deprived of over 2.3c a litre. That may not seem to be a lot of money, but the fact is that it is a large amount when we consider that the majority of those who receive the rebate are the hundreds of thousands of farmers, fishermen and others throughout the country who are off-road users. The average farmer with a small farm, who may consume only up to 3,000 litres of diesel fuel per year, has already lost over $70 per year. That does not include the grain grower or the person who uses up to 40,000 litres of diesel fuel per year. If we go into the figures for that producer we find that it is costing him $1,000 or more each year in a loss of rebate because of the inaction of this Government in continuing the system that it took over from the previous administration. Fuel is important to all of those off-road users, even the person living in a city who is entitled to claim for a rebate, because the ordinary wage earner in the community is also suffering at the hands of the Government. I want to emphasise this. A fisherman today with a 50-foot or 70-foot boat with a large motor will use at least 400 to 450 litres each day or night he goes out to sea to fish. If honourable members do their calculations for a given period, with costs so high and mounting day by day, they will see that the fishermen receive only a meagre return for their work and the hours involved. They are like the farmers, as it is costing them a tremendous amount simply because this Government has done virtually what it did with the Australian bicentennial road development program. In that case the indexation of extra money on the cost of the fuel was not taken back and put into roads. That loss amounted to $400m. This is not chicken feed. Nobody can turn around and say that is a relatively small amount of money. I shake in my shoes to think of what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) is going to say to this House next Tuesday night. If over $1,000m of expenditure is to be taken away, where is it going to come from? We can already see the problem, although it is being remedied to a certain degree by this legislation. If the Government relates its excise to the consumer price index that will not be fair either because with the price of fuel, if we are to continue using world parity pricing, the rebate will not keep up percentagewise with the cost of fuel to the off-road user or the average person in Australia; in other words the percentage of excise rebate is going to go down as time goes on. With the management of the economy the way it is today I cannot see the Australian dollar returning to a reasonable value. Unless we have productivity, unless we are working and keeping our costs down, how are we going to sell goods on overseas markets? Farmers in America are paying 32c a litre for their diesel fuel, but we are paying 46c a litre. Dr Theophanous —What about the price in Europe? Mr COWAN —The European scene-well, we will possibly get the same situation; I do not know. We could travel around the world years ago- Honourable members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! I am sure the honourable member for Lyne does not need all the assistance he is getting from other honourable members. He is entitled to address the House free from interjections. Mr COWAN —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the fact that all my National Party of Australia colleagues around me at the moment are just as concerned as I am and want to say something about this grave problem that primary producers generally in Australia are facing. When this Government came to power the National Farmers Federation said one thing: 'We will be happy to forgo some of the concessions that we are receiving if the economy of Australia can be strengthened and made sound, if inflation can be brought down and if the value of the dollar can be held'. That was a sensible statement. The Federation is now finding out the truth, what with the cost of fuel, what with the assets test and what with the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the price of fuel would be reduced after the 1983 election by 3c a litre. Do honourable members remember that? Instead it has increased 27 per cent since then. That is a large increase. I hope the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have learnt not to go around the country, in this present economic atmosphere, and promise certain things in relation to pricing and costs. I have said in my electorate that the prices and incomes accord must go on. We have had that in place, but we have never taken advantage of the lower value of the dollar. We have not equipped ourselves to compete with those countries which we have to compete with on the markets of the world. Whilst this legislation may assist a little, it will result in the farmers losing 2.3c a litre because of the failure of this Government to give then back full indexation. The 2.3c a litre is a very large cost to the primary producer. It does not enable him to compete on the world markets the way that we would want him to. I ask the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Government to consider that. The Government cannot afford to turn its back on the primary producers of Australia. They are the ones who have helped the economy to improve. Over 70 per cent of our exports today come from the mining and primary producing industries. These people now have to pay this tax on fuel, which now amounts to over 10 per cent of our national income. Fuel today has become a very great component of taxation. Mr Barry Jones —Who began that? Mr COWAN —We already have an indirect tax. Why does the Government not think about the average motorist in the street? How many times has the Minister, who is interjecting, driven up the main street of his town and seen that the price on the bowsers has increased? I am pleased to say that most of the service stations have now put the price up. It suddenly jumped the other day from about 53c a litre up to 58c a litre. What about working people who often have to travel many miles into town to their jobs? Look at the extra cost. Look at the effect it has on inflation. I ask the Minister to reconsider this Bill. I do not know whether he can backdate something-but I do not believe in retrospectivity anyway. I believe that some aspects of these three Bills, as the Law Council of Australia has pointed out, will be rectified, as the Minister said. However, the Minister should consider the aspects I have mentioned and give to the farmer, not consumer price indexation, but a rebate of the total amount of excise as we gave him when we were in government. We believed the off-road users ought to have this. If the Government wants to assist in this country's recovery that is the way to do it. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(11.42) —I will concentrate my remarks primarily on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 for the simple reason that most of the speeches today have not done so. We have had a very wide-ranging debate on these Bills-the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985-which has covered virtually every aspect of the economy. However, the debate has not really focused much on the whole question of industry development which the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill is primarily concerned to promote. The Bill deals with a very large number of industries, changes to Customs duty and protection for a very large spectrum of our manufacturing industry. If one looks at the details of the Bill and of the Government's approach to the whole question of tariffs one sees that there has been a planned, cautious approach to this complex issue of the protection of industry. This cautious approach, as I will point out later, contrasts strongly with the somewhat emotive statements that have been made by the Opposition, especially by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). The honourable member, in his speech, challenged our general strategy of a cautious approach to the reduction of protection. The policy of the Australian Labor Party on these matters was clearly outlined in its Federal platform adopted last year. That policy is to proceed in a gradual way to phase out protection in some industries and to look at new forms of protection in other industries, with the primary and fundamental aim of modernising and restructuring our manufacturing industry. We have heard a lot here today about the importance of encouraging industry development. We have heard how the Opposition would proceed on the matter. The Opposition has only one policy-about which I will have something to say later-a policy of reducing the real wages of the workers of this country. That is its only solution to the problems of industry development. Let me turn to the question of protection and what has happened in relation to the devaluation of the dollar. It was very interesting to hear, in speeches dealing with the importance of manufacturing industry development, an attack on the devaluation of the dollar by every Opposition speaker. What about the benefits of devaluation? What about the benefits of devaluation from the point of view of increased competitiveness for our manufacturing industry? That has not been emphasised at all. Not only has it not been emphasised by Opposition speakers, but it has not been emphasised by the media. The media have been very quick to criticise the devaluation. Some aspects of the devaluation deserve criticism. Nevertheless, there are positive aspects of the devaluation. The most important positive aspect is the promotion of our manufacturing industry and its competitiveness. Australian industry and industry costs are now much more competitive in relation to other nations. The devaluation is, in effect, the equivalent of a 15 to 20 per cent increase in tariffs in the manufacturing industry. That has not been emphasised. It has not been sufficiently taken up by business and industry spokesmen. Previously, the manufacturing industry councils and the various employer bodies in manufacturing industry, including the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia, were calling for an increase in tariffs of up to 10 per cent. The devaluation provides an effective increase in tariffs. Yet, do we see an immediate, enthusiastic response from the Metal Trades Industry Association and other bodies in relation to investment in manufacturing industries? We do not. At a recent meeting Labor Party members had with the Metal Trades Industry Association it was pointed out by representatives of the Association that they had had discussions with some members of their executive and that the executive was reluctant to invest, notwithstanding the fact that it recognised enormous benefits in the devaluation. I will come back to that later. One needs to ask why it is reluctant to invest, given the devaluation and all the other positive economic factors that the Government has put into place to boost, for example, the profitability of enterprise and to maintain wage costs at low levels. I remind the House, the honourable member for Bradfield and many other Opposition members that the 9 per cent reduction in real wages which occurred during the Fraser period has not been recouped by workers. So let us not have all this nonsense about a further need for cuts in real wages and reductions in the standard of living of workers as being the solution to our problems regarding the modernisation of industry. They are not. Let us look at the question of profitability. Under the Labor Government the share of profits in this country has risen from 12 per cent to 15 per cent-a massive rise. We have had the deregulation of the financial system. We have had a very responsible policy on wages. We have had the devaluation of the dollar. We have had a boost in profitability. Given all those circumstances, one needs to ask why there has been an insufficient increase in manufacturing investment in this country. What is the cause? Is it based on concrete and real economic decisions, or is it based on a climate being created deceptively by the Opposition and by certain sections of the media to discourage investment in this country and to create an atmosphere that there is something wrong with investing at present when, in fact, under rational conditions, investment should be taking place? That is a question which we need to look at. A fundamentally false argument has been presented by the Opposition over and over again. I blame in particular the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), whose behaviour in this matter is contrary to the national interest. Rather than saying that the circumstances are correct for investment and increased production he has tried to put it about that, somehow, because of the Government's wages policy, it is inappropriate to invest. According to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition would alter the wages system and reduce real wages even further than did the 9 per cent reduction to which I referred earlier, as if that were the solution to the problems facing manufacturing industry. Let us look at what happened. In 1981, when the former Government tried the deregulative approach to the wages system, did we have a reasonable and sensible approach to wage increases? Not at all. We had a massive wages explosion in this country under those policies. Let me make it clear to the business sector and those who would be tempted to think that there is anything in the argument of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others such as the honourable member for Bradfield that to move away from the centralised wage fixing system would court disaster, especially for the manufacturing industries of this country. During the period when the previous Government deregulated the system, the area which led in the wages explosion was the manufacturing industries, especially the metal trades industries. So let us not have any nonsense claims that our industry development would be boosted by the policies being advocated by the Opposition in this place. That policy would be in fact a policy for industrial chaos. We would find that there would be catch-up after catch-up, one group following another in an attempt to get some kind of order into the wages situation. There would be a break in relativities and a break with the traditions of this country over many years. These traditions should be respected. A tradition is that workers are fundamentally equal and workers doing the same jobs in different areas of industry ought to receive a similar recompense. That principle would be destroyed by the policies being broached by the Opposition. There is another factor to be taken into account: What happens if we reduce real wages even further? Does this not have an impact on demand for manufactured goods? Of course it does. All the empirical evidence shows that when people's incomes are reduced in this way the first thing they do is cut out the goods which are seen as not absolutely essential to their needs; that area of goods in the manufacturing sector. The reduction in demand that would result from this sort of policy would lead to a situation where there would be decreases in employment in manufacturing and decreases in manufacturing production. In the many discussions I have had with employers in the manufacturing industries they have not emphasised the wages factor-with the greatest respect to the Opposition-but two factors have been emphasised: Firstly, the great incidence of imports and, secondly, the insufficient domestic demand for products. Those two factors would not be cured at all by the approach being put forward by the Opposition. Not only that, but the Opposition has failed to put forward other measures to solve some of the really intricate and delicate problems that exist in manufacturing. Let me go to some of those measures. The reduction of workers compensation costs is a very important matter in this country. Many employers complain much more about workers compensation costs than they do about the costs of wages, with the greatest respect to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who has just come into the House. Let me say to the honourable member that these costs of workers compensation need to be reduced. What has been the attitude of the Liberal Party? When the Victorian Government put forward proposals in a Bill to reduce workers compensation costs there was a massive and totally scurrilous attack on those proposals by the Liberal Party in Victoria. That is the sort of attitude we get from the Opposition in relation to something as important as workers compensation costs to industry. A second matter, which is never emphasised by the Opposition-not by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-is the cost of payroll taxes on industry. In all the speeches that we have heard on the tax debate we have not heard a thing from the Opposition about payroll taxes. This is notwithstanding the fact that the submissions made by the various industry bodies in relation to the taxation summit refer specifically to the serious situation of payroll taxes. Therefore, we need to ask: Is there some possible way in which we can reduce or even eradicate payroll taxes? Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you that payroll taxes are taxes on employment. They are taxes which in fact provide a disincentive for employment in this country. After the taxes were introduced and later handed over from the Commonwealth to the States, there was an increase in these taxes. That increase is now being further increased. Up to 30 per cent, and sometimes 40 per cent, of the total taxation income of some States is constituted by payroll taxes. This is an enormous disincentive for employment and it is a burden on industry. We need in this place a serious debate on the sorts of things which are providing disincentives in the industrial area. As I mentioned, there are many more incentives than disincentives. Nevertheless, if we were to have a serious debate on those issues which provide disincentives we should look at the payroll tax issue. We have heard nothing about it from the Opposition. All we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is this continuous harping on the supposed need for further reductions in real wages and standards of living. As I said, this is economic and industrial nonsense. It does not come to grips with the real problems of restructuring and modernising our manufacturing industry. I support the Bills before the House. I look forward to having further time to discuss these issues with the Opposition. I challenge the Opposition to put up in relation to the taxation issue, especially with respect to industry development. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.58) —The Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, which are the subject of a cognate debate, are quite obviously the full responsibility of the Federal Government. Under the Constitution, as we all know, customs and excise is the complete responsibility of the national Government. Like a President of America many years ago, the Federal Government in this instance has a sign on its table which says: 'The buck stops here'. I support the comments of the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who indicated certain amendments which will be moved. The legislation reminds me of a recent discussion I had with the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Those honourable members who know the Minister have always admired him for his knowledge of all things from A to Z. In that conversation he reminded me of a cartoon in Punch magazine dealing with the curate's egg. I would just like to repeat that cartoon. The bishop said to the curate: 'How is your egg?'. The curate, in his sanctimonious way, always careful to try to say the right thing to the bishop, replied: 'My Lord, it is excellent-in parts'. So it is with this legislation. I want to comment on one matter which, to my mind, is excellent and then I will deal with other matters which I think are certainly doing nothing to increase the international competitiveness of Australian industries. I was delighted to read in Schedule 3, amendment No. 5, that there is to be a decrease in duty for radio receivers and tape players, combined or separate, for tractors. I believe it is appropriate to remind Australian people that farmers have never had the emphasis on research into occupational health and associated matters that people in factories have had. A recent inquiry in my area in Queensland indicated that most farmers had a high degree of deafness. With the introduction of cabs that deafness decreased. I am pleased to note that farmers all over Australia, who unfortunately have to work very long hours indeed, at least have been given some consideration by being able to purchase that equipment at a reduced rate. Of course, they are entitled to exactly the same working conditions as those who work in factories. I mentioned international competitiveness. Recently I talked to representatives of the National Farmers Federation and they are very concerned because of tariff duties and Customs duties placing an enormous cost burden on them. In the recent cost summit for rural industries between the industries and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), there was great disagreement about the cost per farm in tariff protection. It is immaterial to this debate whether that figure is $16,000 per farm or a higher or lower amount. It needs to be pointed out that farmers cannot possibly absorb this very high cost input, particularly when we note that over the next financial year costs will exceed prices received by 2 per cent. It is little wonder that after that conference the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Ian McLachlan, was quite upset. I repeat what he said: It is the Government's prerogative to decide on levels of assistance to any industry, but farmers are sick and tired of picking up the bill. This whole exercise will be viewed by the rural sector as a smack in the face to the farmer facing the cost-price squeeze. I was very disappointed to note that, in reply to what I felt was a valid and constructive criticism by Mr McLachlan, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) described Mr McLachlan's response to the meeting as 'rather immature'. At the same time, the Minister is on record as indicating that farmers are not subsidised. In reply to a criticism by Mr Justice Staples, who said that Australia should not assist primary industries, the Minister said primary industries were not subsidised. One therefore has some difficulty in equating those points of view. I want to talk about the Schedule 2 summary of amendments dealing with the removal of developing country preferences from certain areas. Whilst all of us can understand the difficulties that Australian manufacturers face in meeting competition from overseas, it appears to me that all of us in this country need to take cognisance of the fact that other countries in our vicinity do not have our standards of living, do not have our great natural resources, do not have the opportunity to improve their standard of living and do not have the wherewithal to purchase primary, mining and manufacturing goods from us because of their inability to obtain export income. We should consider sympathetically the developing country margin of preference. I do not want to comment in any great way on the Government's decision to remove the developing country margin of preference in respect of under quota imports of cold rolled strip and sheet steel from the Republic of Korea, Taiwan Province and Brazil. That decision should not have been made then, irrespective of the circumstances, given the enormous pressure and competition that Australian farmers will face from dumped produce from the European Economic Community and other countries. Quite obviously, this is one of the reasons we have missed out on iron ore and coal contracts to South Korea. I want to refer, as my colleagues have done, to a matter of very great concern to primary industry and to many other people engaged in the consumption of diesel fuels. I particularly appeal to the Minister at this stage that, irrespective of other decisions-and we accept that the Government has the right and responsibility to make decisions-the Government should look again at this legislation and try to rebate the total amount of diesel fuel excise to aged persons homes. Like my colleagues on this side of the House who spoke earlier in the debate, I would like to see that total amount refunded to agricultural, mining, fishing and forestry industries, households and hospitals; but, to me, people who live in nursing and aged persons homes and those who build, run and organise those homes are surely entitled to a little extra assistance. This is particularly so when we note the statement in the second reading speech that because of the changes in the legislation the loss of revenue to the Government in a full year will be $4.3m. It seems to me that these grand old pioneers, the pathfinders and trail blazers of our great Australian society- Mr Blunt —The people who built this country. Mr McVEIGH —As the honourable member for Richmond says, they are the people who build this country. Surely, when we have a significant number of Australian people, aided and abetted by the Government, who spend a great amount of their time tugging away at the gigantic udder of social welfare cow, irrespective of whether they require it or not, some special consideration could be given to these aged people. I make that request in a non-partisan way, as a person who is concerned about our elderly citizens. The Government should rethink the matter, and, in a spirit of generosity of heart and mind, amend the legislation to allow the full amount of the diesel fuel rebate to be refunded to nursing and aged people's homes. The full facts about the diesel fuel rebate need to be spelt out clearly in this debate. The excise prior to the 1983 Budget was rebated at the full rate. The first Budget of the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) increased the excise by 1.5c per litre to 9.027c per litre, while the rebate remained constant at 7.155c per litre. The excise was also indexed in accordance with the consumer price index and currently stands at 9.641c per litre. In the Treasurer's second Budget, finally he recognised the inconsistency and announced that the rebate would be indexed in accordance with the CPI. The rebate is currently 7.298c per litre. In 1983 the difference between the excise and the rebate went from zero to 1.5c per litre. In 1984 the difference was 1.872c per litre and now it is 2.343c per litre. We would like to see the total amount in those instances rebated. I also request the Government to come clean on this whole matter of excise duty and taxes on fuel. When we were on the Government side of the Parliament, the then aspiring Treasurer was quite often in the habit of approaching the dispatch box and accusing the then Prime Minister and the then Treasurer of setting up a tax collector's office at every bowser in Australia. That may have been a legitimate expression of opinion. If it was legitimate then, it is still legitimate. I give an instance. In my home city of Toowoomba, the garden city of Australia, well known for its flowers and its municipal emblem of the violet, a sign is displayed outside one service station, which is called the Central Service Station. It is owned by a very distinguished gentleman called Mr Russell Brown. He comes from a long list of Darling Downs pioneering families. His sign says: 'My price for fuel is 26c a litre'. Under that, in the same sized print, he has a sign which says: 'Plus government tax charges'. His price is 26c a litre, plus government tax charges-which double the price. I compliment Mr Brown on his honesty in graphically displaying the rip-off in which the Hawke socialist Government is indulging in this area of taxation policy. I would think that the example of Mr Russell Brown in Toowoomba is an example that every fuel agent in Australia could follow. These insidious government taxes should be made known and made visible. Half of the retail price of petrol goes to the Government. In the few remaining minutes left to me, I want to talk about the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill which contains certain adjustments to the excise rate on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas. I shall not enter the debate about what happened, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your home State of Western Australia. That is history. I refer, of course, to the Woodside development in the great and exciting part of your great State, up in the north-west. I pay tribute to the Woodside company for what it has done, particularly regarding the environment. It has a slight problem with the gas which is discharged from one of its chimneys, but it has top people there working determinedly to overcome the problem of pollution of the atmosphere. I say this to all environmentalists in Australia, and I make no apology whatsoever for being an environmentalist myself: The greatest environmentalists in Australia are the mining companies. It is about time that the greenies of Australia gave them adequate recognition for what they have done. Wherever I go, up in the Pilbara, in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales, on my beloved Stradbroke Island off the shores of that great State of Queensland, I am amazed and impressed, as an environmentalist, by the enormous job that the mining companies have done in challenging nature and returning the areas that they have mined to a greater state of environmental protection than existed when they first went there. So, rather than concentrating on criticism of our great mining industries, it is about time that the greenies and the people of Australia gave recognition to the mining companies for being the real environment protectors of this country and gave them credit for the millions of dollars that they have spent. I have had the privilege of visiting most of the areas concerned. I publicly congratulate the mining company people in Australia, and I shall consistently do so, on the wonderful job that they have done, not only in protecting the environment but also in restoring it to a situation that is far better than that which existed when they found it, thus ensuring that nothing has been depleted and that the people who follow us will have the benefit of a better environment than that which existed when the mining companies took over. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(12.17) —This cognate debate could fairly be described as a wide-ranging debate. Very many subjects, not all of them closely related to the subject matters of the Bills, have been dealt with. I thank the honourable members for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), Bendigo (Mr Brumby), O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), Lyne (Mr Cowan), Calwell (Dr Theophanous) and Groom (Mr McVeigh) for their contributions. I turn briefly to the three Bills, the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill, and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. I think that the major points raised about the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill would be more appropriately dealt with in the Committee stage. We propose to amend clause 23, about which there was some discussion. I know that the honourable member for Bradfield proposes to submit an amendment to clause 37 so that the subjects raised there can be taken out at the Committee stage. I shall not transverse the major arguments there, put by the honourable member for O'Connor, especially, and by several other Opposition members. The honourable member for Bendigo referred to the fact that there has been an increase in penalty, in some cases, from $40 to $5,000. That reflects the Government's intention, first of all, to provide for deterrents in Customs matters, and it certainly reflects the fact that there has been no increase in penalties since 1901. If one puts in the price deflator, obviously the #20 or $40 figure of 1901 would probably be well into the four-figure mark now, anyway-although I am not suggesting that it is quite as high a rate proportionately as is found in the maximum penalty of $5,000. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 provides for a new excise duty scale, an intermediate scale, for crude oil produced from fields discovered before 18 September 1975 and not developed before 23 October 1984. The proposed excise duty scale between the existing old oil scale and the new oil scale was designed to encourage the development of old oil fields which had not been developed as at 23 October 1984. The intermediate excise scale represents a concession against the existing old oil excise scale, but the excise liability is greater overall than for the new oil excise scale. I note the thoughtful point made by the honourable member for Bradfield that the broad question about the free marketeering approach in crude oil has to be considered in the context of whether it is consistent with encouraging conservation and self-sufficiency. It is an interesting consideration-perhaps strictly outside the consideration of the Bill, but worthy of discussion in some future debate. On the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, the honourable member for Bradfield, who led the debate for the Opposition, raised the questions of some industry concern about the 47-centimetre test for television sets. I should explain the way in which the Government has drafted the legislation. The capture of the18-inch sets in the tariff quota arrangements for colour television sets has arisen as a significant issue. A key element of the consumer electronics decision of the Government was the replacement with a formal one year quota of a voluntary export restraint, or VER, by Japan on large sets. As a result of uncertainty concerning the definition of 18-inch sets, some sets previously imported without volume constraint have been included in the quota. A few importers claimed that the application of the quota to large 18-inch sets was not the Government's intention and that the quota and penalty duty imposed on these sets should be removed. It is not proposed to accede to the importers' request to change the Government's decision. The reasons are: The quota period is for one year only and will terminate in October 1985. The low penalty duty for imports above quota provides importers with considerable flexibility. To change the decision would disrupt the local industry and impose costs and import delays on importers. The few importers raising this issue do not have the support of the bulk of the importing manufacturing industry. Long term tariffs on consumer electronics will benefit importers and it is arguable that 47.7-centimetre sets were imported outside the VER. The VER was understood to apply to sets greater than 18 inches. However, there is no formal definition of such sets as the term is generic and reflects the approximate diagonal measurement of the cathode ray tube. One would have thought that the application of a ruler would settle the matter, but it is not as easy as that. Voluntary export restraint has traditionally been monitored by a statistical key in the customs tariff which identified large sets as having a tube diagonal greater than 47 centimetres or 18.5 inches. However, some so-called 18-inch sets have tube dimensions of 47.7 centimetres or 18.8 inches. The new quota and tariff arrangements use the existing 47-centimetre statistical key as the basis for defining large sets and hence the quota has captured some so-called 18-inch sets. Before we proceed to the Committee stage I will, with lightning speed, draw attention to a couple of matters raised. The honourable member for Stirling raised the matter of inwards duty free shopping. The Government has announced that it will introduce an inwards duty free shop system. I thank the honourable member for his comments; they will be taken into account when the system is being developed. The honourable member for Lyne charged that the Government was turning its back on primary producers. We believe that the consumer price index method is the fairest and most equitable one. I will be restating that point when we get to the Committee stage. The honourable member for Groom stated that Korean, Taiwanese and Brazilian steel should not have been removed from developing country preference. The preferences were removed on the grounds that developing country preference was not necessary for the goods in question; that is, these countries could compete against Australian industry at the general country rate. The decision is in accord with the Steel Industry Authority report. I thank honourable members for their general support for the three Bills and commend the Bills to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Clauses 1 to 22-by leave-taken together. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.26) —I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 17 of the Bill which relates to vicarious liability. We have received representations on this matter from the Law Council of Australia. I also note, for the benefit of the Committee, that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has also brought to the attention of that chamber questions of trespassing unduly on personal rights and liberties. It was noted, for example, by the Senate Committee that clause 17 inserts a new section 257 into the Customs Act which makes bodies corporate and other persons responsible for conduct engaged in by, and the state of mind of, their servants or agents acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority. The Committee noted, for example, in relation to a judgment of the High Court of Australia in R. v Australasian Films Ltd (1921) 29 Commonwealth Law Reports 195: . . . that a principal may be responsible for an act done by his or her servant or agent in the course of his or her employment and for the state of mind of the agent or servant in doing that act if that can be said to be the intention of the legislature having regard to the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. However the Committee is concerned that new section 257 may be broader in its scope than the existing law and it raises for the consideration of Senators whether it is just that a natural person in particular should be made criminally liable for the acts of servants or agents of which that person had no knowledge and for which that person had given no express authorisation. I note also in relation to this matter that the Law Council drew to our attention that proposed new section 257 of the Customs Act and new section 145A of the Excise Act would attribute to a company the state of mind of a director or servant acting not only within actual authority but in terms of his apparent authority. The notion of apparent authority has no applicability or usefulness in criminal matters. The Council also drew attention to the fact that an affected employee could in fact therefore be given the means of making a company liable. The Council said: These sections go even further by attributing to a company the intent of a stranger to the company who acts with consent (even implied consent) of a servant acting within the scope only of his apparent authority. While the effect of this clause would be to enable more prosecutions to be successful, it would expose to conviction companies which ought not to be convicted. There is no need for this provision especially having regard to the fact that a company is in any event liable for any duty evaded. The Opposition has examined these matters carefully in the context of the time available to us-I received this advice from the Law Council only yesterday evening-but we have decided not to move an amendment at this stage. However, we will continue to review the matter in the context of the debate that takes place in the Senate on this legislation. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(12.29) —I take note of what has been said by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). The matter has not been drawn directly to my attention but I will draw it to the attention of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). Of course, if it is a matter that appears to need review, it will be looked at in the other place. Clauses agreed to. Clause 23 (Revocation of concession orders). Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(12.29) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 23, page 11, lines 7 to 14, omit proposed sub-section (2B), substitute the following sub-section: '' '(2B) Where the Minister becomes satisfied that, because of an amendment of a Customs Tariff or otherwise, a concession order was not, on and after a particular date (which may be the date on which the concession order came into effect) a concession order in respect of the particular goods in respect of which it was intended to make the concession order, the Minister may, by order in writing, revoke the concession order.' ''. (2) Clause 23, page 11, line 14, omit '' 'or (2A)' '', substitute '' ', (2A) or (2B)' ''. (3) Clause 23, page 11, lines 15 to 20, omit paragraph (c). (4) Clause 23, page 11, line 24, omit '' 'or (2A)' '', substitute '' ', (2A) or (2B)' ''. (5) Clause 23, page 11, line 27, omit ''in respect of particular goods''. (6) Clause 23, page 11, lines 33 and 34, omit ''date on which the revocation of the revoked concession order came into effect'', substitute ''earliest date on which the revoked concession order was not a concession order in respect of the particular goods in respect of which it was intended to make the revoked concession order''. The amendments propose to remove from clause 23 of the Bill the provisions to enable defective tariff concession orders to be retrospectively revoked. The Government now believes that such a provision could in some instances produce an unintended effect by removing entitlement to the order with retrospective application of Customs duty. Tariff concessional orders are normally made following publication of an intention to make and the satisfaction that goods serving similar functions are not being produced or capable of being produced in Australia. In the circumstances where a defective tariff concessional order is discovered it should, therefore, in the view of the Government, only be revoked on the day of the revocation. This is consistent with the other revocation provision contained in section 269P of the principal Act. On the other hand, the instrument to correct the deficiency should be capable of retrospective application to either the date of issue of the defective order or, for example, the day of a customs tariff classification change. The opportunity has been taken to make it clear that the circumstances of the revocation are to relate to the concessional order not applying to the particular goods to which it was originally intended to apply. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.31) —I am delighted on behalf of the Opposition that the Government has seen fit to move this amendment. I had already foreshadowed that, if it did not do so, the Opposition would certainly take the necessary action. I should say, however, for the record that I expect the Minister to give a categorical assurance that there is no retrospectivity whatsoever remaining in the legislation relating to this question. If that is not so we will have to proceed to make a further amendment to the legislation in another place. As I noted in relation to section 17, we have also received representations from the Law Council of Australia as well as the appropriate Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I would just like to draw the attention of the House to comments made by the Senate Committee in its report on clause 23-the revocation of concessional orders. It noted that a new sub-section had been added which will permit the Minister to revoke a tariff concessional order where the Minister becomes satisfied that, because of a mistake, an amendment of the Customs Tariff Act 1982 or otherwise, that the description of the goods in the concessional order was not a description of the goods in respect of which it was intended to make the order. Without taking too much of the time of the House or going through flights of fancy, one can imagine numerous situations where orders for overseas imported goods were delivered in a manner not necessarily totally consistent with what the original, order contained. For example, the Senate Committee drew attention to the fact that a concessional order would be made in respect of brooms. The Minister may become satisfied at some later date that it had been intended to make the order only in respect of millet brooms and not other types of brooms, for example, steel wire brooms, and the proposed new sub-section would enable the Minister to revoke the concessional order ab initio and to substitute a new order declaring that the tariff concessions applied only to millet brooms notwithstanding that this may well have a significant adverse effect on persons who had imported other types of brooms in the belief that the tariff concession applied to them at that time. Consequently, the Committee drew attention to the difficulties in relation to the trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. In relation to this question again, I draw the attention, as I did at the second reading stage of this Bill, to the comments made by the Law Council of Australia: This clause allows the Minister's revocation of concession orders to have retrospective effect. This will make the liability to duty depend on what a Customs official thought the Minister considered was the appropriate order. This could deprive the citizen of the protection of the courts against the enforcement of an erroneous interpretation by Customs. The provision would put Australia in contravention of a prohibition in the GATT Article X (2), to the effect that measures of general application shall not impose liability prior to the date of official publication. This clause is incompatible with the notion that liability should be able to be determined in advance by objective instruction of a written tariff and not by subjective and subsequent views of an official, and represents a serious departure from fundamental principle. For all these reasons the Opposition is fundamentally opposed to the provision remaining in the Act. As I said earlier, I am delighted that the Minister has chosen to support the complete removal of these unfortunate sections from the Act and, provided he can give us a categorical assurance that retrospectivity is totally removed, we are happy to accept the Bill on its merits. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(12.34) —I can give the categorical assurance sought by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) with the exception that there is retrospectivity in respect of the reissue of a new order to replace the defective order. Of course that is essential to correct the deficiency; otherwise we would not be correcting anything. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(12.36) —I move: Clause 37, pages 14 and 15, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Indexation of rate of rebate ''37. (1) Section 78A of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5) and substituting the following sub-section: '(5) Where a rebate is payable under sub-section (1) to a person in respect of any diesel fuel, the amount of the rebate payable to that person is equal to the amount of duty paid by that person upon that diesel fuel.'. ''(2) Sub-section 78A (5) of the Principal Act is amended by this Act applies in respect of diesel fuel purchased after the commencement of this Act.'' The thrust of the coalition's amendment is to reinstate the situation where the rebate payable to persons in respect of diesel fuel for off-road use by farmers and others involved in primary production-mining and so forth-will be equivalent to the amount of the excise. Prior to the advent of the first Keating-Australian Council of Trade Unions Budget in 1983 the diesel fuel rebate equalled the diesel fuel excise for off-road vehicles. It is worth noting in that context that farmers were being disabled-those whom I noted earlier; those in primary industry in a wider context as well as others-to the tune of approximately $25m to $28m due to the extra costs because of the imposition of this arrangement. In the 1983 Budget the Treasurer (Mr Keating) increased the excise by 1.5c per litre and provided that the excise would be automatically indexed over six months in accordance with the consumer price index. The rebate was not indexed nor was it increased and it remained constant at the rate of 7.155c per litre. It should be 9.6c per litre and, therefore there has been a disparity of some 2.3c per litre of which the community, which should have had access to this arrangement, has been deprived. Such action severely disadvantages the users of off-road vehicles, primarily the farming community, which this Government, by its assets test and other recent decisions, treats with no justification as totally different from the rest of the Australian community. In addition, the mining industry, which this Government believes is the goose that laid the golden egg as far as revenue is concerned, along with foresters, the fishing industry, some hospitals and community service groups, all suffer unjustly from the imposition of the present arrangement. Quite clearly, the failure of the Government to rebate the full amount of the excise has severely disadvantaged sections of the Australian community which are outside the major population centres. This is not in accordance with what we understand to be the espoused principles of the Australian Labor Party for equality and the 'fair go' syndrome which we would like to think is prevalent in Australian society. The Treasurer, after receiving numerous representations from affected groups about the decision, decided in the second Australian Labor Party-ACTU Budget of 1984 to redress the anomalous situation that the 1983 Budget had cause by deciding to index the rate of rebate. However, no action was taken to reimpose the rebate at the full rate of the excise even though indexation was introduced but at a different level. Consequently, as indexation proceeds, the gap between the rebate and the excise will continue to grow, thereby making users of off-road vehicles even worse off than they have been in the past. The coalition's amendment will reimpose the rebate at the full rate of the excise upon the commencement of this Act and will ensure that the rebate is indexed at the same rate as is the excise. I simply add that, if the Government has any desire to maintain a shred of credibility, especially for Australian communities who live outside metropolitan areas, it really should support this amendment. The implications of not doing so are very serious. If it fails to do so it certainly must take the responsibility. Another observation that I think it is worth making on the impact of this is that we see this as an undue discrimination against primary producers and the mineral industry. They are being shortchanged in terms of the diesel rebate schemes. The disparity between the excise and the rebate on off-road diesel is costing country distillate users about 2.3c a litre extra. It is worth noting that, under the Hawke Government, there has been a 27 per cent increase in fuel costs. This will, obviously, have a major impact on industry unless this Government is able to reduce other costs-notably labour costs, governmental charges and so forth-and is able to keep them down as a means of reducing the overall impact of the cost structure in Australian industry, which we know too well in the context of the recent devaluation has suffered grievously in recent years. If we are to get the major benefit from that devaluation, we also have to keep our domestic cost structure in order. It must be maintained at nothing more than our comparative costs on overseas markets. If we fail to do that, the traditional comparative cost advantages which Australian industry-especially in the rural sector-has tended to enjoy will simply dissipate over time. The diesel rebate scheme was introduced in 1982 to provide assistance to off-road diesel users in agriculture, mining, fishing, forestry and medical institutions. When it was initially offered to primary industry it was sufficient to cover the amount of excise charged per litre of fuel. With the indexation of petrol excise in 1983-84, the rebate fell well behind the levy and recent decisions to index the rebate came too late and have in fact installed a 2.3 per cent differential between the two rates. I have proposed this amendment to the customs and excise legislation on behalf of the Opposition to bring the rebate paid on off-road diesel into parity with the excise charged by the Government on petrol consumption. Early in the second reading debate I called for consideration of the rural sector and the various proposals which, no doubt, will come before this Parliament from the Government in regard to the introduction of a free market oil industry. The Opposition supports the freeing of all markets in Australia and elsewhere, nevertheless, this must be done in a manner which will protect the interests of the Australian nation as a whole. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(12.46) —The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) because significant budgetary implications are involved in the proposal. Clause 37 of the Bill now before the Committee gives effect to the Government's decisions announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the 1984-85 Budget Speech that the rate of rebate on diesel fuel for certain purposes would be indexed to the consumer price index commencing with the first adjustment in February 1985. Honourable members may recall that in the 1983-84 Budget Speech the Treasurer announced the indexation of excise duty rates, including the duty rate payable on diesel fuel. At the same time, the Treasurer announced that the rate of rebate on diesel fuel for certain uses would remain fixed at the rate of 7.155c per litre. In the 1984-85 Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the 7.155c per litre rate would be indexed to the CPI commencing in February 1985. The February adjustment as effected by regulation and the rebate rate is currently 7.341c per litre. For the information of honourable members, the excise duty, as indexed, on diesel fuel, is currently 9.641c per litre. The Government believes that indexation is a much fairer and more equitable system. It removes the questions of ad hockery and political discrimination concerning even what are seen as being worthy groups. The argument is that, broadly speaking, redistribution can be and is effected by other budgetary means; it is not specifically tied to diesel fuel taxing. The Government is not turning its back on primary producers. The same considerations apply. We have to apply broad macroeconomic policies. Earlier we heard the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) with his well worn campaign oratory talking about taxation by stealth, but the idea of automatic indexation is a well recognised principle. We have it constantly with pensions. Nobody describes a pensions increase as representing the provision of benefits by stealth, it is simply taken as an automatic procedure. The implication that is created is that the application of indexation means that virtually a new tax has been applied which is not then subject to scrutiny. It is not a new tax at all; it is a tax on precisely the same scale. If there is a variation in the scale-in other words outside the indexation procedure-it would be open to scrutiny as suggested before. The Government rejects the amendment. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The House may, at a later hour this day, again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the broad-based indirect tax supported by the honourable gentleman produce an inflation rate of 15 to 20 per cent by late 1987, as alleged recently by Senator Peter Cook? If not, will the honourable gentleman put down that sort of nonsense or, alternatively, will he guarantee that the White Paper to be circulated at the Mother's Day meeting, or the Mother's Day massacre, on Sunday will likewise put down that absolute nonsense? Mr KEATING —The honourable member knows that the Government has not determined a position on tax reform. The whole point of the summit process is to talk to the community about the prospect of some agreement about the general direction of taxation. Speaking in the abstract, if there were to be a consumption tax there would of course be a one-off price effect, but that price effect would be nothing of the order of that mentioned by the senator to whom the honourable member referred. Mr WRIGHT —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Federal Government considering intervening in the current dispute between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Queensland Government? Mr HAWKE —I welcome the question from the honourable member for Capricornia. He refers to the possibility of discussions between the Queensland Government and us. When we talk about the Queensland Government I suppose that basically we tend to think about the Queensland Premier. Unfortunately, when talking about negotiations with the Premier we have to take into account the fact that it is becoming more and more obvious that one cannot trust him. Let me refer to recent evidence of this. I know that those on the other side of the House are open-minded-some people say empty-minded, but we say open-minded-and will listen to the evidence about this man whom their Leader is embracing so enthusiastically. The honourable member for Ryan need not nod his head. I know that he hates the Premier more than his Leader does. Let us look at whether one can trust anything at all that the Queensland Premier says. Those of us who have had the pleasure and privilege of going to Queensland at the time of elections to do a bit of campaigning would know that one of the most widely respected interviewers in Queensland is Haydn Sargent. He gave some prime time airing on his talk back program yesterday to the tape of an interview last month between a Sydney Morning Herald journalist, David Monaghan, and the Premier. I think that in the future that recording will become known as the Joh tapes. In that recording the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, made it very clear that his real motive in dismissing the South East Queensland Electricity Board linesmen was not one of ensuring the continuity of supplies of power to the people of Queensland but of 'embarrassing' the Federal Government, of putting a 'time bomb' under the Federal Government and annihilating it. Those comments are on the Joh tapes. Mr Tuckey —He said that again yesterday. Mr HAWKE —But things have developed since yesterday. I know that the honourable member has not developed for 10 years, but things change from day to day. Now that the Premier's real motives have been exposed so blatantly, he has taken fright. I ask the House to take note of these interesting developments. After Haydn Sargent played the tapes and completed the interview, the Premier, whose real motives had been exposed, said in his defence that the tapes were a fraud. He said, in effect, that Haydn Sargent has pulled off the greatest fraud in radio history and that the voice on the tapes is not his at all. Goodness gracious me! Haydn Sargent has played a tape of what is purportedly the voice of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, but Joh says that it is not his voice at all. It is unbelievable. This is the same Premier who was interviewed on AM only yesterday. The interviewer said to him: 'There is some feeling, Mr Premier, that your real interest in this is not about resolving the dispute but bringing down the Hawke Government'. The Premier replied: Well my main objective is to get rid of the Hawke Government. That is the main, prime objective. That is fairly clear and unequivocal language. That is the Premier's prime objective. That is what he said in the morning. Later the same day he was asked about this matter on Radio 4BC. He is reported as saying that the idea of using the power dispute to bring down the Hawke Government had never entered his thoughts. He said: 'I never thought of it at all'. At the beginning of the day he was talking of his main, prime objective, but when what he had said was brought home to him, he said that he had never thought of it at all. I go into these points in some detail because it is appropriate that this House and the people of Australia, particularly those in Queensland, understand the nature of the person with whom we are attempting to deal in this dispute. The Premier has made it clear that his prime concern in this power dispute in Queensland is not securing the interests of the people by getting continuity of supply, but undermining the Federal Government. That is what he said. When he is nailed, he accuses Haydn Sargent of indulging in a fraud upon the people of Queensland. The position of this Government has remained consistent throughout this dispute. We stand ready to negotiate with the Government of Queensland to try to ensure that there will be continuity of supply in the electricity industry. It is about time that the people of Queensland were better served than they are now by a Premier who is deliberately dishonest and is misusing this situation not to ensure the supply of electricity to the people of Queensland but to engage in a political charade. The greater tragedy as far as Australia is concerned is that those tactics of lying and misrepresentation have been embraced by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Treasurer. Is it just about administratively impossible to implement compensation for a broad-based indirect tax? Mr KEATING —I would not have thought so, but should the Government and the Parliament choose to go down the road of an indirect tax in this country that is something which, of course, will have to be attended to. In my view, it can be adequately attended to. Ms FATIN —Is the Minister for Health aware of an article on the front page of yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald relating to AIDS and haemophiliacs, which states that last November the Federal Government promised funding for more counsellors for haemophiliacs and that there is still no sign of the money? Is this statement correct? What has the Federal Government done to try to prevent haemophiliacs from getting AIDS? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for her question. Yes, the article has been drawn to my attention. I must say, first of all, that the remarks it made about funding are incorrect. Last December the Commonwealth Government committed $5m to $6m in emergency funds in relation to AIDS. In distributing those funds I accepted the advice of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS that a proportion of that money should be allocated for information, education and counselling, including the counselling of haemophiliacs. However, I have to point out that the delivery of actual services in this country is mainly the responsibility of the States, so these moneys have been provided to the States for services in relation to AIDS. We, as the Federal Government, however, have taken specific action in relation to haemophiliacs. First of all, in December 1984 we provided and put aside $10,000 for AIDS anti-body testing, specifically for haemophiliacs. Secondly, the Department of Health has had detailed discussions with the President of the Australian Federation of Haemophiliacs on requirements for that organisation and we have given the Federation a grant of $20,000 for administrative support services. The President of that society has been included on the National Advisory Committee on AIDS. We have covered the expense involved in developing a special method of treating factor 8 by a heat process, hopefully, to eliminate the possibilities of contamination of the plasma provided through factor 8. Those are specific actions that the Commonwealth has taken. I also wish to take the opportunity, because the statement on funding in the Sydney Morning Herald was pretty inaccurate, to indicate just what the Government has done in relation to funding for what is a major public health problem in this country. As part of the emergency grants, we have provided $2,700,000 for the Red Cross Society, mainly for its blood transfusion services in relation to AIDS. We have established, at a cost of $291,000, a national reference centre at the Fairfield Hospital. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have been provided with $350,000 to upgrade their blood processing treatment. Media advertising, with which many honourable members would be familiar, has cost us some $651,000. Pamphlets have been provided at a cost of $131,000. In addition, $1.5m has been provided to the States for education, support and counselling services. In conclusion, I say to all members of the House that we face a major public health problem in this area which will make great demands on both Commonwealth and State health resources. Mr PEACOCK —Will the Prime Minister unequivocally state that he and his Treasurer are fully committed to the introduction of a broadly based indirect tax? Opposition members-Yes or no? Mr HAWKE —I am very worried by this question, as you can see, Madam Acting Speaker! The position that I have made clear from the very beginning of debate on this issue is that I believe we must move from the present position, which has completely broken down. Before I go further, it is perhaps as well that we get this question into its appropriate context. Opposition members-Yes or no? Mr HAWKE —Honourable members opposite will get their answer. They need not worry about that. If we look at Australia's fiscal system we see that for 30 out of the last 35 years the responsibility for the development of the taxation system of this country has been in the hands of the conservatives. The fact is that the taxation system is now regarded as a joke, that it has become a matter of discretion on the part of the rich and the privileged as to whether they make any contribution at all to the revenue of this country-it is a matter of discretion whether they pay-because over a period of 30 years the coalition parties have established themselves as the parties to protect the privileged and to impose greater burdens upon those people in the community who had no opportunity to invoke the services of the tax accountants and the tax lawyers. We have inherited that system. Let me say directly in answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question that in those circumstances it has appeared to me that the only way in which we are able to create a tax system in this country which matches the criteria of economic efficiency, equity and relative simplicity is to introduce the sort of change to which the Leader referred in his question. I, therefore, am committed to the view that that is the course that needs to be approached if we are to remedy the disaster that the coalition parties created in the last 30 years. I will continue to give that course my support. The Treasurer and I, and the Government, will continue in the period up to the tax summit and during the summit to listen to all the arguments that can be advanced in regard to that proposed switch. After the summit we, as a government, will consider all the evidence that exists in deciding what approach should be followed. What is certain is that at the end of the road, when we have considered all the evidence and come to a decision on what should happen, at last the people of Australia will know that they have a government which, when it talks about taxation, will not be trying to further protect the tax evaders and avoiders of this country and to impose greater burdens upon the poor and the underprivileged. They will at last have a government which has the right priorities in the right directions. Mr BILNEY —I ask the Minister for Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Adelaide Advertiser of last week about a type of dog collar on sale in Britain. It is a very cruel device which, when worn, gives a dog an electric shock each time it barks. Is the Minister prepared to use his offices to look into this matter and to ensure that such a cruel device will never be allowed to be imported into Australia? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Kingston was kind enough to draw this horrifying report to my attention. It is indeed a very cruel device. Why a dog owner would be driven to such cruelty defies the imagination. My first reaction was to approach my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, to see about the possibility of putting into effect a ban on the importation of those devices. On reflection, I thought we ought to allow at least one into the country because I thought that the House would be very much obliged if one could be worn at all times by the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr Tuckey —You have to worry about my bite, not my bark. Mr Bilney —Madam Acting Speaker, I take a point of order. Under standing order 77, I ask the Minister to withdraw his last remark on the grounds that it is offensive to dogs. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member would be wise not to raise any more frivolous points of order. Mr GOODLUCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and 400,000 Tasmanians will be listening to it. I preface my question by reminding the Prime Minister that Tasmania is a State of Australia and that the mutiny by 17 bully, thug stewards on board the Abel Tasman, now tied up in Keil, West Germany, since 22 April 1985, is not only a national disgrace but a blot on our nation. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, I think we should say: 'Hear, hear!' It is terrible. Did the Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations offer any assistance to try to overcome this despicable dispute? If not, why not? Why has this Government refused to offer assistance, not to the Tasmanian Government but to the Tasmanian people, in providing alternative arrangements through the Australian National Line-the ANL belonged to us-at a fair and decent cost until the Abel Tasman comes on run? Mr HAWKE —I know it is going to be a great disappointment to every member of this House, but I have to let the honourable member for Franklin down. We all enjoy seeing him in this confected state of indignation which comes so easily to him, but I regret to inform him-I am sure that every other member in the House will be pleased to know this-that the dispute has been resolved. It has been resolved in very large part because, as distinct from this confected fulmination for which the honourable member has become so famous, other people get on with their business and do not try to grandstand and get points. They get down to the solid, realistic business of settling disputes, and that is what we have done. We have settled it. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I know members of the Opposition are so upset that it is settled and that they have nothing else to carry on about. But we have settled it. We have not talked and grandstanded, we have settled it. I had conversations with the Premier of Tasmania last Saturday week on the phone. He expressed his unqualified gratitude to me for my very positive response and attitude. For Robin, he was extremely fulsome in his praise. He understood, as distinct from the honourable member, that we were not about grandstanding, we were about getting things done. Let me say this: Having resolved it, I give no plaudits. In fact I condemn the action of the people who were involved. It reflected no credit on them at all. It was because we took that attitude and because we knew that the interests of the people of Tasmania were involved that we got about the business of fixing it up. Fortunately for the people of Tasmania they have a government here which, when it comes to issues of this kind, has the experience, the commitment to the interest of the people to get things done. I conclude by saying again that I express my regret that the honourable member now has to deflate himself on this one. Mr Goodluck —No, I did not. What about the second part of the question? Mr HAWKE —Oh, no, of course, he will get himself wound up about something else. Mr Goodluck —You won't deflate me; don't worry about that. Mr HAWKE —He has been done on this like the proverbial dinner. But we have no doubt that in the days ahead he will find something on which he will be able to sit down, wind himself up and turn on his act. Everyone in the House will be grateful to the honourable member because in this very difficult life of politics, in which there are so many serious things to deal with, we can always be diverted by the honourable member's confected indignation. We love him for it. Mr FREE —My question is directed to the Minister for Science. What is happening about the Commission for the Future? When will its Director be appointed and when will its forward program be announced? Mr BARRY JONES —The Commission has now held several meetings. The first major task was to appoint a director. Following advertisements in the national Press on 23 February, 144 applications were received from industry, teaching and research, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, welfare organisations, publishing, the media, law, medicine, the church, the armed forces, minerals and energy, engineering, architecture and the Commonwealth Public Service. There were four applications from the United States of America and two from Switzerland. Because of the number and quality of the applications the process of selection by the Commission and the Public Service Board inevitably took longer than expected. I hope to be in a position to announce the appointment of the new Director before the end of the session. The Commission wants to involve the Director in determining the forward program before it is announced. I am confident that the State education departments and the technical and further education institutions will be heavy users of material prepared by the Commission for the Future. I am encouraged by the strong expressions of support from church groups and welfare and community organisations. Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to his Press reports this morning of the appointment of two additional censors to the Commonwealth Chief Censors Office. When will those appointments become effective? Is there still a shortfall of staff required to process more than 2,000 videotape titles waiting for censorship? When will his announcement of an additional censor being appointed be made? Does the Attorney acknowledge the difficulties being faced by distributors of videotapes in terms of their financial viability while this backlog exists? Can he assure the 8,000 employees in the video industry that he will do all he can to have the backlog cleared so that the jobs of these people are not in jeopardy as it is Australia's fastest growing industry? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. It is true that two additional censors have been appointed. That makes a total, I think, of 11 and there is a vacancy for another one. We are looking for a suitable applicant in that sense. I do not know that appointing 12 will solve the problem of the large number of videos awaiting classification. They are usually in the R or X classification and are not usually available for general exhibition. I have had discussions with members of the censorship board and they find that most of their work is in this area which, they say, really is an area of trash. But it does affect the processing of what we would call reasonable and worthwhile material. I notice that 1,800, I think, of the videos that are now awaiting classification have already been exhibited as films. I put a proposition to my Department as to whether we could not release those films virtually as of now because they have already been on exhibition. I think we can overcome that problem by the exhibitors indicating by statutory declaration that the video film is in accordance with a film that has already been exhibited. I think that will go a long way towards overcoming the backlog of worthwhile material. By the same token I have also asked the Public Service Board to look at the personnel of the censorship board because it apparently has on it people who were formerly employed on the basis that they would be involved as projectionists of films which are no longer there to project; in other words, I think there are seven projectionists and only two now are actually projecting. So there appears to be a surplus of five. From the point of view of efficiency of employment it might be better if we made some other arrangement. As of this week there has been an investigation into whether we could better utilise the personnel who are there. In summary, the question is valid. There has been an accumulation of videotapes because of the large concentration of what one calls trash videos that have to be analysed and because there is also thought to be a need to reclassify films that have already been exhibited. If we can overcome those problems, which I hope we can do within the next two weeks, the honourable gentleman's question will be satisfied. Mr JACOBI —Is the Minister for Science able to report on the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Conference on Technological Innovation and Job Creation? What practical measures will flow from its decisions? Mr BARRY JONES —The importance of the Conference lay in the long overdue recognition of the obvious in four major areas by the overwhelming majority of the 24 nations represented in Venice. The first recognition was that the impact, power and pervasiveness of the current technological revolution, especially in information, is of such an order as to take us into a new era in economic history, a post-industrial era in which the largest employment sector will be the information sector. The second recognition was that, while in the long term technology will increase productivity, consumption and living standards, in the short term there will be both losers and winners. The heaviest losers will be the unskilled or semi-skilled who live in economic monocultures such as the sugar towns, coal towns and steel towns where there is not a great variety of alternative new jobs coming on stream. There is now general but long overdue recognition, contrary to the beliefs of many followers of Adam Smith who sit opposite, of the extent of structural unemployment, especially in Europe, in the role of technology as a catalyst in intensifying that structural unemployment. The third recognition is of the significance in the shift in importance away from physical resource capital towards human capital with its consequential savings in space, matter and energy, and implications for education and training. Fourth was the general rejection by the OECD Conference of the idea that technology is just another exogenous variable, as the academic economists say, just as if computers and/or numerically controlled machines were part of a cargo cult that had just arrived, that nobody can to do anything to ensure a technological base. These ideas are not new to this Parliament. I have been talking about them ever since I entered this place. However, they have taken a long time to get general acceptance in Europe. There has been an important shift in perception. The historic role of the Conference was to acknowledge what has been obvious but not recognised for a decade. It was agreed by all that old approaches were increasingly inappropriate and that new approaches were necessary. The appropriate economic and government responses have still to be worked out in detail, but the Conference was a valuable first step. Mr McVEIGH —I refer the Minister for Trade to the Government's decision to pay compensation to Queensland Mines Ltd to ensure that the ban on uranium exports to France remains intact. I ask: Will the Minister tell the House, firstly, what is the breakdown of the first payment of $32m to this company; secondly, has the 20 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar affected the payout; thirdly, if so, what now is the total estimated pay out to Queensland Mines; and fourthly, how many shipments does the $32m cover? Mr DAWKINS —This matter essentially is administered by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy. I suggest that the honourable member put the question on notice and the Minister will provide an answer for him. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I draw the attention of the Minister for Defence to the article in Thursday's Sydney Morning Herald by Hugh White in which it is claimed that the Army's armoured personnel carrier, Project Waler, is to be shelved for five years and probably indefinitely. Firstly, how accurate is the article and what is the future of Waler? Secondly, is the Minister concerned about the possible motives of people in the defence area who leak information related to major contracts potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Australian and/or overseas companies? Mr BEAZLEY —In regard to the first point the honourable gentleman raised, absolutely no decision at all has been taken by Government on the future of Project Waler. There is nothing to hand to Government on that matter at the moment and I do not expect there to be for some little time yet. As I indicated before in an answer to a question in the House, that project is undergoing evaluation in the Department of Defence. As soon as that process is complete I am anxious to have it brought forward to Government for decision as early as possible. On the more general question of leaking associated with defence contracts, it is very difficult to establish what would be a motive in any instance. I guess that motives could range from the malicious to the mercenary through to the altruistic-or a combination of all of them. I have come to discover that the leaking of information is a pretty general habit when multi-million dollar contracts are to hand. I notice that the right honourable member for New England, one of my predecessors, is grinning away on this subject. I am sure that in a bipartisan way we have both experienced the same problem. Suffice it to say that in most of the cases I have come across there is frequently in the various leaks considerable variance from the truth. Sometimes unfortunately the leaks are accurate. But in the main there is substantial variance from the truth. It is a problem that simply exists in this area. In an area where a great deal of commercial activity is involved one is invariably going to be confronted with it. That is not to say that one likes it. One has to live with it. Where one can actually deal with it one does, and we do. To return to the honourable member's more general point, no decision on this matter has been taken by Government. When the advice satisfies me as being appropriate to go to Government there will be a decision by Government on the matter. Mr NEHL —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that there would probably be changes to the assets test to alleviate the desperate situation of so many rural pensioners who have been pushed into poverty by the Hawke Government, will the Minister inform the House and the nation of the nature of the intended changes and when the suffering will end? Mr HOWE —I know of the honourable member's concern in respect of this matter but sometimes his enthusiasm to express that concern might create some misunderstanding. Let me say that I would have thought that it was self-evident that, if any decision were made by the Government, the Government would not announce that decision in advance of that consideration. There has been a great deal of speculation in the media about what decisions might be made by the Government. However, let me calm honourable members in cockies' corner and say that the Government remains firmly committed to the assets test, just as it remains firmly committed to needs based welfare. We will not be throwing money at millionaires while people are in poverty and are very close to starving. We have given a commitment to monitor the test. That has been done during the introductory phase of the test. As a result of that monitoring process the Government will be in a position to consider information that will be made available to the Government. No doubt the Government will make decisions which will be designed to ensure that the assets test continues to be administered in a fair and equitable way. That has been our commitment and it will continue to be our commitment in the future. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Australian dollar risen significantly overnight and, if so, what important economic consequences flow from this movement for our nation? Mr KEATING —I know that in Macquarie Street there has never been any reference in the Parliament to such things as exchange rates and the like, but I can assure the honourable member that the practice here, as distinct from there, is that the Treasurer has never commented on the exchange rate. But I think it is worth making one or two comments-not about its value-to those who have seen no benefit from the depreciation in the exchange rate. The fact is that Australia's competitiveness was dramatically out of line for quite some time. I noticed an admission by the former Prime Minister-which he made to reflect praise upon himself-that the former Government had kept the exchange rate overvalued. The obvious point is that that Government kept the exchange rate overvalued because it had no anti-inflation policy and it relied on the crude device of maintaining an exchange rate which was out of line with Australia's underlying economic fundamentals. The result of that was to destroy large parts of our import competing industries and to detract from our export industries in terms of their capacity to sell on world markets, because the price was being fixed administratively for reasons other than those relating to our underlying state of competitiveness. I am happy to say that this Government had the courage to float the exchange rate, to move away from a fixed exchange rate. The result will be that-at whatever level the exchange rate settles down-the Australian primary export sector will be more competitive than it has been and our import competing industries will be more competitive. The Government has always taken the view that the exchange rate in the long term will reflect the fundamentals of the Australian economy. Like all markets in the short term, short term perspectives reign, but in the final analysis it will be the fundamentals that will determine it. As I said before, perhaps the best decision taken by the Government to date has been to float the dollar and to move away from the managed system which was killing this country in the way in which it was operated previously. The end result must be that we will end up with a much more dynamic, competitive and efficient economy. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to a decision this morning by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to extend the blockade of the State of Queensland for another week, and ask him: 'What are you going to do?'. Mr WILLIS —I have nothing to add to what I have already said in terms of what the Government will do. Unlike the Opposition, we are concerned to address the basic issues involved in this matter. Unless those basic issues are addressed, there can be no resolution of this industrial disputation. Unlike the Opposition, we do not have double standards on these matters. I have not heard any calls from the Opposition for this Government to take punitive action against the New South Wales doctors, despite the fact that they were denying an essential service to the people of New South Wales. I suggest that the Opposition has an enormous credibility gap in its position. In the case of the doctors, the Opposition has no concern at all about the withdrawal of an essential service, but in other areas where it sees political mileage, it thinks it is worth making a song and dance in this place. Let me say quite emphatically that this Government is extremely concerned to resolve the whole matter. Unlike the Opposition, it will not pursue a course of action which would exacerbate the situation and make it infinitely more difficult to resolve. The course of action we have in mind will bring an end to the industrial disputation within the next week and will address the underlying matter in this dispute. Mr CAMPBELL —I refer the Minister for Defence to a news broadcast this morning in which the sterling citizens of Orange were objecting to an Army test artillery range in their area. Will the Minister consider doing a cost-benefit analysis on having this range sited in Western Australia, where people understand and take seriously the need for defence in this country? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank my colleague, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, for his question-without notice. I admire the spirit which motivates the reason for his question. He is a man who takes a detailed and informed interest in defence matters, and he is as aware as I am of the need to ensure adequate location of defence facilities in the State of Western Australia. Indeed, if he is pursuing a strategy of defence self-reliance, he will address the problems of Western Australian defence in a much more systematic fashion than previous governments have done. The point of the honourable member's question related to the objections raised by some of the citizens affected by the Government's decision to conduct an environmental impact study on an area for an artillery and infantry school. First, I offer those citizens some reassurance. We understand and are sympathetic to the fact that when any government-Federal, State or local-moves to acquire land for an essential national purpose it will create considerable difficulties for some people; there is no question about that. The people affected will have ample opportunity to have their views placed, firstly, before the environmental impact study group and, secondly, before Government, so that all the social and economic questions that they have raised in association with their position will have the fullest possible airing. Secondly, after that environmental impact study, if it is decided to proceed to locate the school in that area, they will be justly compensated. The Commonwealth, under this Government and previous governments, has a good record in the area of compensation. We would obviously want that to apply in this case as well. If we are going to pursue the course we have started on, after the environmental impact statement our objective would be to acquire the land as rapidly as possible so that the period of uncertainty, which is inevitable in the legislative process, can be brought to an end as quickly as possible. Although there are objections from citizens in the area immediately affected, there are other citizens in the area who have very much welcomed the initiative of the Government in this regard. Mr Simmons —The majority. Mr BEAZLEY —I know that the honourable member for Calare has certainly welcomed the decision, and I have had messages of strong support from local government authorities in the area which very much welcome the possibility-if and when the facility is developed to its fullest extent-of having some 2,500 people who are likely to be associated with it located in the two regional centres and making a very substantial contribution to the local economy. It is very important to understand the reason why we are seeking this area. It is not a decision that has been taken in isolation. It arises directly from two factors which are of importance to other citizens in New South Wales. One is an undertaking by the previous Government to move the Artillery School from North Head, and that has required us to find another area for that school. The second is the range that is utilised at Holsworthy is becoming an increasing nuisance to the people in that area and has problems associated with the use of Sydney Airport. There is a requirement to address both those problems and to do so in such a way as to provide a solution that will ensure that artillery training takes place in the most efficient and socially acceptable manner possible. All these factors have come into our decision. I repeat: The citizens who are concerned-and we understand their concern-will have ample opportunity to place their case. All I hope is that their current statements, which seem to indicate a desire not to place their case before the Government, will be reversed and that they will take that opportunity. If we decide to proceed after that point, I hope the citizens will accept our assurances that they will be justly and promptly compensated. Dr BLEWETT —I seek the indulgence of the Chair, Madam Acting Speaker. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —You may proceed. Dr BLEWETT —I would just like to correct one of the figures that I gave in answer to a question from the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin). The total amount of Commonwealth funding paid to the States and organisations for education, counselling and support in relation to AIDS is approximately $1m. I think I may have said mistakenly approximately $1.5m. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —This morning during the debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill and cognate Bills the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) stated that I had associated with tax avoidance. Pages 1658, 1797, 1799 and 1800 of the House of Representatives Hansard of October 1983 show that the honourable member for Stirling recorded six votes to support the now Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) against my claims that he evaded $70,000 income tax- Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! This is not a personal explanation. The honourable member will proceed to the point where he personally was misrepresented. Mr TUCKEY —In answer to that allegation, anyone who chooses to check the publicly available probate records of my motor mechanic father will find his full estate was declared and probate was paid. Much of that estate was a share of the Port Hotel which I purchased and worked to build as an asset. I paid the probate on my own efforts. The Minister for Trade refused to pay it on his father's efforts. That is the difference between a bark and bite. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Madam Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr DAWKINS —I do. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr DAWKINS —I just caught the end of some drivel from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). What he claimed was absolutely untrue. On the matter of barks and bites- Mr Tuckey —Get on with the explanation. Tell us when you pinched the money. You evaded $1m in probate. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. The Minister has the floor. Mr DAWKINS —The trouble with the bite of the member for O'Connor is that one would never know what one would catch from it-probably rabies. 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 Australian 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 Chynoweth,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Hawker,Mr Scholes 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 the Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of certain undersigned Australian and overseas students respectfully showeth that: 1. The Overseas student program brings in a multitude of cultural, political and educational benefits as well as a net financial gain of A$5 million p.a., in foreign exchange. (Ref: Goldring Report) 2. Overseas students are under financial constraints. Most depend on their families for this financial support. The Goldring Report found 62 per cent of Overseas students come from families with annual combined parental income of less than A$15,000. 3. The imposition of high Overseas student charges will deprive many overseas students from getting a tertiary education and qualification in Australia despite their academic abilities. High charges will determine education in Australia for Overseas students on economic grounds. 4. The imposition of sudden and drastic increases in visa charges will also particularly disadvantage those current students, many of whom will be forced to discontinue their studies. 5. Overseas students do not displace local students. They represent a mere 3.4 per cent of tertiary students. (Goldring Report) 6. The fluctuations and uncertainty in Overseas students policy has led to uncertainty, stress and fear in Overseas students. Your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray that: 1. The Government re-affirm a commitment to its policy that supports the social and economic development of people and institutions in developing countries through access to Australia's education and training resources. 2. The Government formulate a consistent and considerate policy concerning Overseas students. 3. The Government reconsider, as a matter of urgency, the legislation of such a high increase in visa charges. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall,Mr Cross and Mr Keogh. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Hawke Labor Government's failure to act to correct the anomalies arising from the application of its assets test on pensioners, and the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test, the Government should itself act to scrap this unfair and iniquitous measure. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the ''user pays'' principle in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall and Mr Humphreys. 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 and Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Scott. 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 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 Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the 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 21st March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be replaced before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's bill in the Senate 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 in the Senate to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. 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 brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A., by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter-killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACS, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne. 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menance to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. The humble petitioners hereby show that we have strong objections to the NCDC's approved Policy and Development Plan for Hackett, Section 17 Blocks 11 and 12, for the following reasons: (1) The establishment of a 10 bedroom house or hostel will introduce into the Hackett suburb a type of accommodation not presently in the suburb. (2) Whether operated publicly or by a voluntary group, or a private sub-lessee, such premises will bring into the suburb an itinerant element with the likelihood of- (a) irresponsible and/or undesirable people creating increased security risks for commercial and private properties, especially the proposed town house to front Skeats Street; (b) increased risk to the many school children travelling to and from local schools; and (c) making the area a less desirable place to live and lowering property values. (3) The proposed development will aggravate existing parking pressures in Hackett Place in that vehicle access to the development is provided to Hackett Place and will be likely to imperil pedestrians, shoppers and school children. Your petitioners hereby pray that the N.C.D.C. be directed not to proceed with the proposed 10-bedroom house or hostel in this area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the present Federal tax system is not equitable, readily understandable or manageable. It is making a material contribution to the decline in ethical standards in Australia, and in the opinion of many eminent Australians it is a tax system that basically makes us into a nation of cheats. 2. Some classes of taxpayers are more heavily taxed than others and two groups, wage and salary earners and small businesses, through the impact of inflation on the progressive rate structure, have suffered disproportionately in recent years. 3. A great many people see cheating the tax system as a necessary response to what they regard as cheating by Governments. 4. Through excessive marginal income tax rates, the spirit of free enterprise and hard work is being stifled. The groups in the community who generate savings are being discouraged from investing those savings in capital for business. 5. Any reform of the taxation system needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. Further, it requires an unimpeachable commitment from all political parties and parliamentarians to adopt a totally bi-partisan approach in debating tax reform proposals and legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will use the forthcoming Taxation Summit meeting as the occasion to announce the formation of one or more working parties committed to the development of a taxation system that will ensure that the necessary Government revenue is raised in the most equitable and efficient manner possible and that such working party (parties) be provided with adequate resources so as to permit the tabling of their recommendations in the Parliament not later than June 30, 1986. Further, your petitioners believe that one of the most significant ways this country could celebrate its Bi-Centenary is through the introduction, by 1988, of legislation that will give the people a fair and equitable taxing system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: that the House will act upon these desires. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory draws to the attention of the House: 1. Road access to Bruce from Haydon Drive is unsafe because vehicles entering or leaving Jaeger Circuit turn in, and frequently block, an 80 km/h traffic stream. Additionally, the cycle path crossing Jaeger Circuit is too close to Haydon Drive with poor observation and almost no warning time of possible collision. 2. Bus stops servicing Bruce on Haydon Drive are unsafe. No bus stop aprons are provided and buses block an 80 km/h traffic lane at these stops. Further, the footpath to the stop for Bruce that runs along the kerb of Haydon Drive is inconvenient for the use by residents and is unsafe for use by children. 3. Inadequate crossing facilities exist over Belconnen Way between Bruce and Aranda. Present crossings are unsuitable for the young and particularly dangerous for cyclists and the elderly. Access across Belconnen Way is needed for Bruce residents to attend schools, churches, shops, post office, child care facilities, scouts, public telephone, playing fields and medical and dental services in Aranda. Aranda and Cook residents could also enjoy safer crossing of Belconnen Way to attend Canberra College of Advanced Education, Calvary Hospital, Radford College, Australian Institute of Sport, Bruce TAFE College and use the cycle path which links Civic, Belconnen Town Centre and Ginninderra recreation facilities. 4. That the foregoing safety and functional problems inherent in the present design and development of Bruce would be corrected by the provision of: turning lanes off and into Haydon Drive from Jaeger Circuit; a relocated and improved cycle path crossing over Jaeger Circuit; bus stop aprons for Bruce stops; a more central and direct footpath to the Bruce bus stops; and, a pedestrian overpass over Belconnen Way between Bruce and Aranda. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives advises the Minister to direct the Department concerned to bring Bruce A.C.T. to a safe and accessible standard that is enjoyed by all other A.C.T. suburbs. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The continuing failure of the Hawke Labor Government to ensure the provision of essential services to Queensland. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SHACK(Tangney)(2.57) —Over many weeks now the coalition has raised the illegal campaign which is being waged by the Australian Council of Trade Unions against Queensland and, with today's news, being stepped up. We have continually pressed the Government to fulfil its duty to ensure that essential services-transport and mail services-are delivered to the people of Queensland. We have on many occasions explained to the Government the legislative avenues open to it to bring to an end the unions' guerrilla campaign. We have tried unceasingly to get the Government to live up to its responsibility to the two and a half million Australians who live in Queensland. As we have raised this issue, at one embarrassed moment the Government, recognising its inaction and ineptitude compared to our concern and positive proposals, suggested that we should assume the responsibilities of ensuring good industrial relations in Queensland. I said to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) then and I say to him again now: We are ready at any time to assume the Government's responsibilities. We raise this issue again today because, given that the Government is still the Government-at least in name, despite the ACTU's upper hand and dominance over it-we feel that there is some information we should pass on. The Minister's sole response throughout our exchanges in this House has been to tell us that we know nothing about industrial relations. He professes to be the expert. He claims that the Government knows what it is doing and it knows how to handle this matter. Given the Minister's 12 years at the ACTU, one might have expected that he would have learnt something. But if this Minister is the expert in industrial relations, if he is so hot as a practitioner of industrial relations, how come Queenslanders have been cut adrift from their fellow Australians by the trade union movement's oppressive and vindictive blockage? If this Minister is so knowledgeable and so talented, why are Queenslanders continuing to suffer this outrageous blockade? Let me tell the Minister something about industrial relations, and he had better listen: The rules have changed. The rules have changed, but he has not caught up with the news. He is out of touch. The rules have changed, and it is about time, for the country's sake, that he brought himself up to date with the changed scene. Do honourable members want to know how industrial relations is played out in Australia? Do they want to know how the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) played it out when they were at the ACTU and how, in league with their ACTU mates, they hope to continue to play it out in future? I will tell honourable members how it is played out in Australia. It is called 'upping the ante'. If one is a trade union, one picks a target, and then one hits it; and one hits it harder, and hits it harder again, until one achieves one's target. One does not stop. One does not have any regard for the public interest. One pursues one's target relentlessly, ignoring law and ignoring the public. One ups the ante. It is the bully-boy tactic that the Minister learnt assiduously during his apprenticeship at the ACTU and which he practiced professionally in his time, with great success. But guess what? It simply does not work any more. The Minister, the ACTU, and Transport Workers Union and Simon Crean's Federated Storemen and Packers Union just have not caught up. The changed rules have not sunk in. The Queensland Government is standing firm on behalf of its constituency-the people of Queensland. The Queensland Government has called their bluff, and upping the ante is just not working. Industrial relations will never be the same again in Australia. One man has called their bluff, and their threats and actions are not working-and they are shell-shocked. Their big complaint is: 'He will not talk to us'. How does it feel for the boot to be on the other foot? It is the Minister and his mates who have now been sent to Coventry-something that they have done to the Australian people for years and years and years; and now it is their turn, because upping the ante does not work; abusing the public will no longer work, because governments are resolved to stand up to this sort of technique. Let us not forget whose blockade this is. Let us not forget who is behind this guerrilla campaign perpetuated against the people of Queensland. Is this outrageous industrial action the result of a mass uprising of Queenslanders? Of course it is not. There is no mass uprising of workers in Queensland. There is no outrage. There is simply, in that State, no mass support for this ACTU campaign. Why? It is because the people support the Government. And why? That is because the Government supports the people. This entire campaign is the product of just four groups-the ACTU, the Storemen and Packers Union, the Transport Workers Union and the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union. The ACTU and three unions are behind this blockade. They do not know anything about Queensland and they do not give one damn for Queenslanders. They are sticking the boot in. They are seeking to rely on the old tactic of upping the ante; and it is not working. Their bully-boy tactics will not work. At lunchtime today, as we know, the ACTU co-ordinator of this blockade, Ian Court, held a Press conference in Melbourne, announcing yet more bans against Queensland-a full land, sea and air blockade of Queensland for the duration of next week. A whole week! What is this Minister doing to protect Queenslanders? Absolutely nothing. He has been sitting on his hands for the duration of this blockade campaign. It is absolutely pathetic. At least Australia Post is getting ready to apply stand-down provisions. But do honourable members know the full measure of the Hawke Government's response to this blockade? The full measure, despite all of the legislative action that it could have taken, is to provide two VIP planes today to take members of Parliament home to Queensland. I do not criticise that. It is right and proper that the members representing Queensland should be allowed to go home to their constituency. But that is the full response of this Government to the blockade. What about the two and a half million other people who happen to live in Queensland? What has the government been doing about them? What about the food, the fruit and the vegetables that are rotting in the ports and in the store-rooms? What has it been doing about the produce that has been held up in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria? What about the innocent travellers who will be turned away from airports next week and told to go home because the Transport Workers Union will not service flights to Queensland? Queensland and Queenslanders have been dumped by this Government, and they know it. The Minister's Department sends out propaganda material in envelopes which bear the logo 'The Accord-Building a Better Australia'. I say one thing to the Minister: If he wants to post something to Queensland, forget it, because it will not get through. What an absolute joke. The Minister says that this dispute will be resolved in Queensland and through negotiation. We heard him again today at Question Time. If the Minister thinks that the blockade can be resolved in that way, if he is so hot at industrial relations, he should get on the telephone and ring up Bill and Simon to call it off. That is what he needs to do-call the bans off. Simple; end of story. That would be a basic act of goodwill towards Queensland and Queenslanders that would achieve a lot more than the bans, blockades and guerrilla action that are being put in place. But does the Minister know why he cannot do that? It is because he cannot deliver. The special relationship that this Government has with the ACTU works in one way only: From the ACTU down to the Government. We can see that on almost every policy issue, including taxation. Unless this Government takes the initiative and acts to defend Queensland and Queenslanders, the ACTU connection will sink it. It will sink the Minister and his Government, because the Australian people want a government for all the people, not a government for one isolated sectional interest-to wit, the ACTU executive. There is a home truth for the Minister, and he should not let it stick in his craw. He should do something constructive about it. He should stop sitting on his hands and do something. When will he realise that the facade of warm but independent relations with the ACTU does not fool anybody? Everybody knows that they are as thick as thieves, and they are coming to understand the true nature of this Government, run by the ACTU. What about that quotation from Bill Kelty that I saw in the Sydney Morning Herald supplement the other week? It reads: Bill Kelty telephones Bob Hawke three or four times in an average week. 'I have a fair amount of contact with Hawke', conceded Kelty, who is a tousled, soup-stained image of the old ACTU-days Bob Hawke. 'We're personal friends. I don't inundate him, because he has a lot on his plate'. I'll say he has a lot on his plate. The quotation continued: It's very helpful to have someone who understands unions as well as Hawke does. Next time he rings up the Minister, why does the Minister not say, 'Things are getting a little difficult for us, Bill. Do you think you could please call off the blockade?' After that, the Minister can ask him: 'Do you think we could please have some tax reform? Do you think that we could please do this or that?' Does the Minister expect us to believe that he is not intimately involved with what is going on? The double standard by which he is operating is too obvious for words. He will condemn a blockade of Nicaragua, a Marxist state, but he will not even come out in favour of an Australian State. If ever we needed proof as to the close relationship between the Government and the ACTU, we saw it today at Question Time. In answering a question about the blockade, the Prime Minister said: The position of the Government is clear. We stand ready to negotiate. There we have it. 'We stand ready to negotiate'. A frank admission- Mr Ian Cameron —Who is 'We'? Mr SHACK —Who is 'We'? It is a frank admission that the ACTU and the Government are one. This Government has refused to condemn the ACTU blockade. It says: 'We do not condone it', but it has refused to condemn it, and now we understand why. There was a frank admission by the Prime Minister today that 'we' stand ready to negotiate. 'We' stand ready to negotiate, because the Government and the ACTU are behind this blockade. If the Prime Minister has this special relationship and really cares about a wider constituency, he should use his connections; get on the telephone and give the unions the drum. He should tell them what he has learned today-that upping the ante does not work any more and will not work in industrial relations in the future. If he is serious about consensus and really believes that negotiation can end this blockade, he should get his mates to call it off. It needs a single act of goodwill for a potentially dramatic result. But can he do it? During the week I have heard him talk optimistically about things in train that will hopefully bring a settlement next week. Meanwhile, Queenslanders suffer and people wanting to trade with Queenslanders suffer. Can he do it? He cannot do it because his relationship is one of subservience. This a Government of the ACTU, by the ACTU, for the ACTU. The Australian people understand the true nature of this Government; it is a product of the ACTU. The Prime Minister is a product of the ACTU. He has long heralded the accord as the foundationstone of his relationship with the ACTU, saying that it will bring special benefits to the Australian community. But the Australian community is realising his subservient relationship with the ACTU is a relationship which brings with it great and severe costs. Far from being his foundationstone, the accord will turn out to be his tombstone. This Government's demise will be cheered around the nation by the millions of Australians who simply want the freedom and the legislative protection to get on with their business, protected from union thuggery. If the Prime Minister has a relationship with the ACTU, he has one last chance to get on the phone and tell it to call off this absurd week-long blockade. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.12) —We have heard the usual puerile performance from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). As usual, it was heavy on rhetoric and histrionics and very light on substance. The reality is that this Government, unlike the Opposition, is pursuing a course which is very likely to bring about the resolution of this dispute. But that resolution would not come about if one pursued the kinds of actions implied, but not spelt out, by the honourable member for Tangney. The Opposition implies that the way to resolve this matter is to undertake the use of penal actions which, according to its logic, would presumably bring about a resolution of this dispute. One must ask what would happen if that course were pursued. It is obvious from what has happened in the past, when the Fraser Government tried to resolve disputes by the use of penal sanctions, that that does not resolve a dispute; it does not get to the heart of the matter. What is required is an approach that goes to the heart of the matter. The use of penal legislation, such as the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act and so on which we have been called on by the Opposition to re-introduce, would simply, as it did in the past, lead to more disputation and would, therefore, be highly unlikely to be a very productive course for this Government to pursue. As we have done with the doctors, so are we doing with Queensland-that is, addressing the basic issue. Of course this is made infinitely more difficult for us in the case of Queensland because that Government is determined to turn this issue into a major political exercise. We have heard today and yesterday-I quoted from it yesterday-at least two radio broadcasts on AM in which the Premier of Queensland has made it quite clear what he is attempting to do, that is, to bring about a situation in which he can damage severely and destroy this Government. That is his basic objective. When asked whether he would prefer to do that rather than to negotiate a settlement, he said: 'Of course'. That is his main objective-to bring down this Government. He wants to destroy this Government. This whole issue is a great political exercise. It is an attempt by the Queensland Government to engender an industrial situation which it can use to undermine the Federal Government. The people of Queensland have to understand that that is what this matter is all about. It is not just about industrial relations. It is not just providing an essential service to the people of Queensland, which I say they have a right to expect. The intention is to do damage to the Federal Government. We have now heard that twice directly from the mouth of the Premier of Queensland. Of course, this indicates that the people of Queensland are being used by the Premier for his own political purposes. What the people of Queensland have to understand is that they are not involved in a normal industrial dispute. They are involved in a situation in which the Premier of Queensland is using them for his own political purposes. He is deliberately inflaming and bringing about a situation in which the people of Queensland are being hurt. He is doing that deliberately to bring about some political advantage for himself and for his Government and to achieve a political objective-to wit, the destruction of the Hawke Labor Government. That is what this issue is about; the honourable member for Tangney knows in his heart that that is so but would never acknowledge it. But that is the fact, directly admitted by the Premier of Queensland and therefore undeniably the case. He has stated that that is his objective and that that is what this dispute is about. Now, of course, he has realised the full implications of what he has said and he is apparently attempting to back off. But that is what he is on the record as saying and that is what this dispute is about. Consequently, we as a government have to treat it in that light. This is not just an exercise about industrial relations, but also about politics. Let me say that that does not dissuade us from trying to achieve an industrial relations settlement. Indeed, we are all the more motivated to achieve it because the people of Australia will see from the actions of this Government that what it is doing is addressing the issue directly-unlike the Queensland Government and unlike the Opposition in this place which is purely using the matter for political purposes-and trying to address the basic issues and resolve what is a fundamental industrial dispute. It has been admitted by key employers, with whom the honourable member for Tangney would do well to have some discussions, that the only way to resolve this matter is by negotiation. Key employers have said that. The head of the Confederation of Australian Industry, Ken Williams, has said that the only way to resolve this matter is by negotiation. Of course, that is the reality of any industrial dispute. Employers and people involved in industrial relations know that to be the case. The honourable member for Tangney thinks he has found out something new about industrial relations. I can tell him that the basic issues of industrial relations do not change. In the end, the only way to resolve an industrial dispute is by negotiation. That is the case here, even though there has been injected this massive political element which has destabilised the situation and, of course, made it infinitely more difficult to resolve. This Government is determined to bring an end to this dispute. We are greatly concerned about the dispute and about the disruption which is occurring to the provision of services and to commerce and industry in Queensland and elsewhere. We are also concerned about the matters which lie behind the dispute. We are concerned about the actions of the Queensland Government in refusing to negotiate. We are concerned about the actions of the Queensland Government in passing blatantly undemocratic laws and in breaching international treaties. We are concerned about all of those things. We believe that this matter will not be fully resolved until all of those matters are redressed. Nevertheless, one cannot expect to do all that in a short period. The basic issues revolve around the South East Queensland Electricity Board, the sacking of the linesmen and the need for some reconsideration of that matter. We believe that there is a course of action open, which unfortunately cannot be pursued immediately but which I hope can be pursued in the very near future. I expect that by the middle of next week we will be in a position to pursue that course. As soon as we are in that position we will pursue that course. I believe that that action will be effective in providing a basis upon which all industrial action can be terminated and the basic issues involved in this industrial dispute considered. As I have said, that is not an easy thing for us to do, given the position of the Queensland Government. Nevertheless, I believe that it is achievable. I cannot at this stage reveal anything more about that. Coming back to the position of the Opposition, let me say that there was a time when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock)-who now unqualifiedly supports the Premier of Queensland-spoke more rationally, when he had a view about industrial relations which I believe was very common-sense. But in his new position of Leader of the Opposition and in his desperate desire to make some political capital out of every issue which comes up, he has forsaken all the principles that he espoused when he was Minister for Industrial Relations for a short period and as a general commentator on the state of the world, which role he assumed once he left the Ministry. On 30 May 1981 he had something to say which I believe was very true. It is relevant to the present circumstances. He said: There was sometimes a perception by the government- of course, he was talking about the Fraser Government- that it must be seen to be doing something. I think on occasions the over-use of legislation cannot only obscure the original dispute, but start an argument. He was right in saying that. The honourable member for Tangney would do well to read some of the Leader of the Opposition's earlier speeches because, unlike what he probably tells him now, there was a time when he had a different view. There was a time when he spoke common sense in this place and had a view about industrial relations which I believe had a lot going for it. That quote and many others like it, I believe, show that there has been a fundamental change in the Opposition. From the days when the previous industrial relations spokesman was the Minister and the days when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Opposition has changed greatly in its policies. It has changed greatly in its policies because it thinks: 'To hell with principles. To hell with all that common sense that we espoused in the past. Let us go down the path of union bashing because that is the path that seems to be the one that gets us the most votes.' Of course honourable members opposite know in their hearts, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, that that course is not really productive and that it does not resolve industrial disputes. Nevertheless, that is the kind of thing that they believe they ought to be saying now for purely political purposes. The idiocy of a lot of the actions of the previous Government, despite the common sense spoken by both the Leader of the Opposition and the previous industrial relations spokesmen, was that the Leader of the previous Government, Mr Fraser, demanded a course on industrial relations which led that Government into disrepute of a high order in the whole area of industrial relations. That disrepute has been well documented in a recent publication called 'Control, Consensus or Chaos?' produced by Professors Niland and Turner in which they reviewed the view of business leaders of the industrial relations policies of the Fraser Government. Of course what came out clearly was the way in which they viewed the previous Government as being a pathetic performer in the area of industrial relations. For instance, one quote from this publication is: Many managers saw the Fraser government as inept in industrial relations because of ill-timed interventions in particular industrial disputes, which smacked of grandstanding rather than genuine efforts to get matters sorted out. That is one quote which demonstrates the way in which the previous Government, particularly in its earlier days, ran industrial relations. Later on the publication states: Just how strongly chief executives in Australia objected to the industrial relations styles and strategies of the last Fraser government is a highlight of the survey results. We see there again the total rejection by chief executives of this country of the industrial relations policies of the Fraser Government because they realised that it was fundamentally incapable of pursuing a good industrial relations course. Another quote is: Yet, when it comes to preferred lines of action, the emphasis is on a consensual or co-operative approach, as is evidenced by manager interest in grievance procedures and the desire for improved communication. Initiatives of a harder line, such as the enforcement of penalties, section 45 (d) action, and tortuous liability prosecution, are not well supported. Those and many other quotes are indeed relevant to this debate and to the whole question of what is an appropriate industrial relations policy for this country. What comes out clearly from this survey-which I strongly recommend to the honourable member for Tangney-is that the chief executives surveyed were very strongly of the opinion that the industrial relations policies, the hard line confrontationist policies pursued by the Fraser Government over most of its period of office, were a disaster, that that course was entirely the wrong way to go, and that that action brings about adverse industrial relations situations. Of course, those chief executives recognised that the actions taken by this Government-the consensus approach-has been spectacularly successful and that that approach has brought about the lowest level of industrial disputes in 17 years. Implied in all that is the necessary implication that the Queensland Government approach of absolute, unqualified, total war on the trade union movement is bound to be a total disaster. That I believe is the point that needs to be understood fully, because those who would now advocate that we go down the path of pursuing a more penal course against trade unions should realise that we have got to the point where we now are because of the adoption of that course by the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government has adopted a course of absolute confrontation, of no holds barred, of kick where you see a head. That has brought us to a situation of very widespread industrial disputation. The attitude of honourable members opposite to that is: 'You solve that by the Joh law, by more of this action of kicking heads and using penal powers to the full'. The necessary implication of that would be that we would get much more of the disaster which we now have on a somewhat limited scale in Queensland. Surely honourable members opposite understand that, if that is the kind of approach that brought about the present situation, more of that approach is bound to be infinitely more disastrous. That, of course, is the fundamental point that people have to realise. This Government fully realises it. We believe that the responsible thing for this Government to be doing- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs in the resolution of the House relating to a reference to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Consideration resumed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.28) —It is with pleasure that I second the amendment proposed by my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). Mr Barry Jones —Briefly. Mr BLUNT —As the Minister for Science has said, I will do so briefly. I am aware of the time pressure upon the chamber but I feel that it is very important to explain in very simple terms the import of the amendment that the Opposition is proposing. We are proposing to redress the financial sleight of hand perpetrated by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the off-road users and other users of diesel fuel. The Treasurer, by means of refusing to adjust the excise rebate payable on diesel used off-road, has ensured that the farm sector and other users of this fuel have contributed some $25m or more to Consolidated Revenue than they would have otherwise had the excise been indexed to the rate of the excise imposed. It is important that the Committee be aware that this Government has taken the unprincipled approach of indexing excises in line with the consumer price index. I believe that it is appropriate for governments to be responsible for their revenue raising measures, to come into this chamber and announce that they propose to increase a tax, put it before the Parliament and allow the people of this country and the members of this place to be aware of their proposals. But our Treasurer has sought, by means of regulation, to increase the excise on fuel in line with the CPI. This means that every time the CPI increases-heaven only knows; under the policies of this Government it will increase substantially over the coming months-the excise on fuel will also increase. I believe this is an unprincipled approach. It must be considered in the light of the promises of the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he was seeking election to his high office in 1983. The Prime Minister said: 'Under my Government fuel will decrease in price by 3 cents a litre'. Since the Hawke Labor Government came to office the price of fuel has increased by at least 27.6 per cent and the total revenue raised from fuel has gone up by 56.6 per cent. The impact of this policy falls very heavily on the export, mining and farm sectors of this country. It also affects a very significant and hard done by sector of our community under this Government; that is, the people who are residents in nursing homes. This Government, because of its hunger for additional revenue, is refusing to index properly and completely, and raise to the level of the excise, the rebate on diesel fuel which is used in nursing and old age homes for heating purposes. Any government that intends to pursue the assets test with the vigour of this Government, to the embarrassment, annoyance and personal hardship of a great number of the elderly in our community, could not be expected to do other than adopt such an approach to the cost of heating fuel used in nursing and old age homes. I remind the Committee and those people listening at home that yesterday when the Opposition sought to repeal the assets test the 22 so-called concerned members of the Labor Party who represent rural electorates did not have the courage of their political or stated convictions to support the Opposition's proposal. Today I invite them to join us in supporting this amendment to ensure that country people, people involved in the farming sector and the mining sector of this country and also the old people who live in nursing homes and old age homes, are not further disadvantaged by the Treasurer's financial sleight of hand. I invite the 22 members to vote with the Opposition to support our amendment to reintroduce equity, to balance the rebate with the level of the excise imposed by this Government so there is not a difference between a rebate of 7.55c per litre and an excise of 9.6c per litre. This is a very important proposal. It is a proposal which would reinstitute equity. It would assist the export sector of this country, which is a very important sector of our economy because of the state of our balance of trade and also the condition of the Australian dollar. I conclude by inviting those members of the Labor Party to support the Opposition's amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Connolly's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. G. Mountford) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 65 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M.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. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K.Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C.Conquest, B. J. 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. Smith, W.Fife, W. C. Tuckey, C. W.Fischer, Tim Watson, DavidGoodluck, B. J. Webster, A. P.Hall, Steele Wilson, I. B. C.Halverson, R. G. 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.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. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.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.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.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. Hodges, J. C. Hurford, C. J.Sullivan, K. J. Mildren, J. B.White, P. N. D. Holding, A. C.Spender, J. M. Hayden, W. G.Hunt, R. J. D. Jenkins, H. A.Hicks, N. J. Tickner, R. E.Howard, J. W. Darling, E. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! It being after 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Barry Jones-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 23 April, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Ms MAYER(Chisholm) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 227th report of the Committee, relating to the Finance Minute response to the Committee's 223rd report on HMAS Tobruk, and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts Ms MAYER —Report 227 contains the Government's response to the Committee's 223rd report on HMAS Tobruk. Honourable members will recall that the Joint Committee on Public Accounts was very critical of the Defence Department's Tobruk project, especially the quality of ship construction, the Department's overall management of the project and the death of naval reserve cadet Kenneth Dax. I should like to draw honourable members' attention to the first of the three chapters in this report. In this chapter the Committee has departed somewhat from its usual practice of making brief comments on Government Finance Minute responses. Instead, there is a critical analysis of the observations of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and the Government's responses. The Committee is pleased to note the Defence Department's general agreement with the Committee's findings and recommendations on HMAS Tobruk, in particular that the many rectifications, current and planned, are welcome. The payment of $35,000 to the family of Naval Reserve Cadet Kenneth Dax is also welcome, despite the extensive delays and the poor handling of his family's case by the Department. However, the Committee does not believe that the observations of the Minister for Defence which preface the Finance Minutes are warranted or based on sound advice. Chapter 1 of the 227th report clearly shows that the Department is fully cognisant of the deficiencies of the Tobruk project and that the findings of the Committee's 223rd report on HMAS Tobruk are vindicated by departmental documentation and analysis. The Committee's current comprehensive inquiry into the Defence Department's overall project management and associated administration reflects the Committee's concern for improvement in this area. I commend the report to honourable members. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(3.51) —Misleading the House is, in anybody's terms, a most serious offence and carries with it very serious consequences. I refer honourable members both to the House of Representatives Practice, edited by the former Clerk of this House, Mr J. A. Pettifer, and Parliamentary Practice by Erskine May, particularly the 20th edition, which is edited by Sir Charles Gordon. This afternoon in this Parliament we saw an unprecedented and, in my respectful opinion, unjustified attack on one of the members of this House by none other than the man who currently holds the position of Prime Minister of Australia, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke). In almost 18 years in politics-eight years in State Parliament and, subsequently, nearly 10 years in this House-I have never seen a more disgraceful attack upon a member of parliament than the attack by the Prime Minister on the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). I, like many other members on both sides of the House, am getting sick and tired of this Prime Minister using Question Time as a means of attacking members of the Parliament. The Prime Minister effectively said that the honourable member for Franklin did not have his facts correct. The Prime Minister then proceeded to attack, to insult and to ridicule the honourable member for Franklin. I believe it would be accepted on both sides of the House that the honourable member for Franklin is one of the most decent, honest and honourable members of this chamber. I deplore the bully-boy tactics of the Prime Minister. I deplore the personal way in which he attacked the honourable member for Franklin and I deplore the deprecatory remarks he made about the honourable member for Franklin, about those who represent Tasmania in this House and, indeed, about the State of Tasmania. I put the Prime Minister on notice that every word of his answer this afternoon will be checked very carefully over the weekend. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has truthfully put the position to the House. I believe that a number of statements he has made are simply not in accord with the facts. If it is found that the Prime Minister, in addition to his vicious and disgraceful attack upon the most honest member of the Parliament, the honourable member for Franklin, has also misled the Parliament, the consequences for the Prime Minister will be very serious indeed. He may have the numbers in Caucus. He may be able, with his nulla-nulla, to intimidate honourable members on the opposite side of the House and to make them cower and bow to his will, but he might have forgotten that this House has a Privileges Committee. He might have forgotten that that Committee is bipartisan. If a Prime Minister is prepared to mislead the Parliament, in an attack on a member of the House, claiming that that member's facts are not right, when they are right, I suggest that he is prepared to mislead the House on anything. When I speak on behalf of the honourable member for Franklin I am not just speaking on behalf of members on this side of the House; I am speaking on behalf of members on both sides of the House. I would take precisely the same view if a Prime Minister from my Party behaved towards one of my colleagues, or indeed one of my opponents, in the disgraceful manner in which the Prime Minister behaved this afternoon. Madam Acting Speaker, I am delighted that you are in the Chair, because at first instance matters of privilege have to be referred to you. I therefore put this despicable Prime Minister on notice that his words, uttered in this chamber this afternoon, will be checked very carefully over the weekend. If it is the case that untruths have been uttered and that the Parliament has been misled by the Prime Minister of this country, this matter will be raised when the House resumes next week. I give notice, Madam Acting Speaker, that I regard the matter as being sufficiently serious to be raised as a matter of privilege with a request that you direct that the matter, firstly, be given precedence and, secondly, be referred on a vote of this House to the Privileges Committee. I speak with some feeling because I have never felt more sickened in my parliamentary life than I felt today to see the bully-boy, dictatorial tactics of a Prime Minister of Australia who was prepared to behave in the disgraceful way that he did in attacking the honourable member for Franklin. Shame on him. His disgraceful conduct will be remembered for many years. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(3.56) —One of our daily newspapers carried a story recently quoting an authoritative opinion that today's unemployed are worse off than those in the Great Depression in the 1930s. Because standards of subsistence are so much higher now we need more equipment to keep us afloat in the current of modern living. So it follows that the threshold of suffering when economic hardship begins to bite is much lower than it used to be. All that is debatable, but the argument is reinforced by one point which in my opinion cannot be given too much emphasis-that is, that while the slump of the 1930s was followed by three of more decades of full employment nobody can make such a forecast today. World-wide changes in production methods and demands patterns have become not only more frequent but also more drastic and there is every reason to believe that they will become more so. One segment for our population is particularly affected by these uncertainties. This is the segment we call youth which is roughly defined as those in the age group between 15 and 19. They are the subject of some well-meaning attention in this 1985 International Youth Year. They are also the subject of statistics which show 150,000 of them out of work and some 85,000 of that 150,000 living well below the poverty line. These are the people of whom it is righteously expected that they should be constantly and diligently on the lookout for any job, no matter how temporary or dead-end it might be and regardless of what their educational qualifications might be. It is taken for granted that they should maintain an eager-beaver attitude, whatever the setbacks just as proof that they are worthy of what we may have to give them-short of a job. There is little sign of any general understanding of the discouragement the young jobless might suffer from contact with the numerous learned adult predictions concerning their prospects, short of the one which says that many young people who have never had the experience of earning a living will live out their lives without doing so. From the time they enter high school and begin to think about their future vocations they come into contact with other informed predictions, such as the forecast that many students training for a specific kind of job will see that job vanish in the wake of technological change before they have finished their course. Above all, it is emphasised to them that they should be as versatile as possible in their outlook and training capability, that they should be able to switch from a redundant job to a retraining course at the drop of a hat, perhaps many times in one working life. I think that this is an admirable aim for planners and governments to work on, and I know that much is already being attempted, but I want to stress here as strongly as I can that the allocation of opportunities for retraining must never be allowed to be decided by the personal whims of business executives or become subject to discriminatory bans to suit some facet of a large company's iron-clad personnel policy. I mention this because just such an instance appears to have occurred in my electorate. It resulted in no fewer than 38 apprentices being ruled ineligible for retraining after they were sacked from the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd Whyalla steelworks at the termination of their indentures. The scheme to which they were refused entry was set up by the Federal Government for the benefit of workers retrenched from the steel industry as a result of the rationalisation process agreed to by this Government and BHP in 1983 to rescue the BHP steel division from threatened closure. The retraining scheme is operated entirely at public expense. BHP has no input at all, but it does in effect have an ability to blacklist intending applicants by refusing to classify them as retrenched or surplus to requirements. The company did just this in the case of the 38 apprentices. They were therefore left stigmatised by the implications that they had been sacked for inefficiency or misbehaviour rather than because there were no jobs for them at tradesmen's level. This put them outside the guidelines for the Government's retraining scheme. It also would appear to have established them on BHP's own quite extensive local job blacklist, which gives them all the more reason for acquiring new skills. I do not pretend to know why BHP acted in this apparently capricious manner, to destroy the retaining prospects for its surplus apprentices. One can assume only that it was done for the sake of the records or to suit some quirk of company policy. I have made my own inquiries and I am satisfied that by far the greater part of the reason for the sackings was indeed redundancy, and I hope to have this officially recognised for purposes of retraining where this is sought. I think it is obvious enough that training and retraining must become a crucial part of this country's industrial strategy for the future. It is just not good enough that any workers access to either should be subject to influence from employers unless they are conducting and paying for the training themselves. I commend the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in taking this matter up and doing something about it. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Lyons)(4.02) —I, like the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), was absolutely appalled today at the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the unwarranted attack that he meted out to the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). The honourable member for Franklin very correctly identified a very serious problem that had occurred not only in relation to the State of Tasmania but in relation to the system of industrial relations in this country, whereby a ship, that had been purchased legitimately by this country, was held at ransom by the crew of that vessel in the port of embarkation in Germany. I consider the Prime Minister's ridiculing of the honourable member for Franklin because he had shown concern for that situation to be absolutely intolerable. The honourable member for Denison does too. During that dispute, which lasted 16 days, we heard not one word from the Prime Minister. Yet immediately the dispute was concluded, we heard an unwarranted attack upon the honourable member for Franklin over that dispute. Why did we not hear from the Prime Minister during the dispute? Why did he not offer any form of assistance to the Tasmanian Government to have that dispute settled? The crew of that vessel, in particular the stewards and the members of the Seamen's Union of Australia, effectively took control of it. They used intimidation, violence and criminal methods to take control of the vessel. They forced the master of the vessel and other members of the crew off if and effectively took control of it for 16 days. That in my view, is piracy, which not too many years ago was a capital offence. Yet the crew of this vessel was able to perform that act in Germany, to take control, and we hear not one word of condemnation from the Prime Minister or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The only condemnation we get from the Prime Minister is condemnation of the honourable member for Franklin because he dares to raise that matter in this House. Mr Hodgman —Shameful. Mr BURR —As my colleague from Denison says, that is absolutely shameful. The other matter raised by the honourable member for Franklin in his question today related to a request by the Tasmanian Government for some form of assistance for the leasing of the Empress of Australia for the period that it now has to be put on the run between Tasmania and Victoria because of this criminal act by these unions. Mr Cadman —Thugs. Mr BURR —They are thugs, as my colleague says. Tasmania is now in the position of having to pay the Australian National Line $250,000 a week to lease the Empress of Australia to make up for the period that these thugs have had the Abel Tasman locked up in Germany. Yet in answering the question today the Prime Minister would not even address that matter. So here we have a group of thug unions holding a State such as Tasmania at ransom, acting in a most criminal manner. We hear not one word of condemnation from the Prime Minister or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. All we hear from them is ridicule of a genuine, honest member from Tasmania who has the temerity to raise this matter in this House. In my view it is not the honourable member for Franklin who should be condemned for raising the matter in this House, it is the Prime Minister who should be condemned for the contemptible way in which he has performed here today. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(4.06) —I am almost tempted to say that with friends such as honourable members opposite I am sure the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) does not need any enemies. I am surprised he is not in the House. A look through Hansard would show that since I have been a member of this House I have presented many petitions. Many of those petitions I have agreed with, but naturally there have also been many with which I have been in disagreement. But regardless of my personal feelings on the matter I always present them and acknowledge them to those who send them to me. Recently a number of unsolicited petitions concerning the killing of wild horses were received in my office. They apparently came from a Ms Sue Arnold, the co-ordinator of Australians for Animals. A check by my staff revealed that all the signatures on the petitions that I received were of people who lived in Queensland or in Suva in Fiji. As I was overseas on a parliamentary delegation my staff, after checking, wrote back to Ms Arnold suggesting that as I was overseas and I would have to sign the petitions before they could be presented to the House it would be better if she presented them to one of the Queensland members, and as it was also likely that I would not be back for a month it would only delay the presentation of the petitions if they were held here. It was further suggested by the very efficient members of my staff that it would be more appropriate if Australians for Animals checked the signatures on the petitions and gave them to the member in whose electorate the people lived. This quite friendly letter from my office was posted and this week I received a letter, dated 3 May, from Ms Sue Arnold saying: Dear Mr Hollis, we note your refusal to lodge Petitions on our behalf to assist the wild horses. Accordingly, we will be informing our 20,000 members of your refusal. My office rang Ms Arnold and she was very aggressive. It was pointed out to her that I had not refused to present them but had suggested it would be better to give them to another member. As I recollect, this is not the first time I have been threatened by this group. Sometime last year it made some fairly outrageous claims about the culling of kangaroos. I appreciate that this is a very emotive subject. On receiving letters from that organisation I wrote back saying that in my opinion its language was extreme and the claims made in those letters did not match the facts. I must say that as I represent an area which has one of the highest consistent youth unemployment levels in Australia and is also suffering from a depressed steel and coal industry, these problems must take precedence over wild horses and, indeed, kangaroos. Mr Cadman —You haven't got any wild horses. Mr HOLLIS —True, true. My record on conservation and environmental issues is as good as anyone's on either side of the House. It is pointless people from Australians for Animals making cheap political threats against me. They do themselves no good and they do the cause they espouse no good either. Mr COBB(Parkes)(4.09) —I call for the return of the professional bird harvesting licence of Mr Ray Ackroyd, taken away the day before yesterday by the National Parks and Wildlife Service just because his killing of some birds was shown on television. With his trapping licence, he is entitled to kill birds every day in the field. But because he did it on television the Government decided to take his licence away from him. There were three professional bird harvesters in New South Wales. Now there are only two. They work an area of country New South Wales and use uniform equipment. They do not trap birds cruelly. They use nets. It is all done by regulation. The birds they usually trap are long-billed corellas, sulphur-crested cockatoos and galahs. None of these is a rare bird. Mr Hollis —Did they get you too? Mr COBB —There are a few galahs opposite, I see. None of these birds are rare. We probably have more of them in Australia now than we used to have before white man came to the country. This is because of the water storage areas we have built and the crops that we grow. These birds are devastating crops and lowering food production. They are devastating crops such as sorghum, wheat, oats and sunflowers. I have some photographs with me which show galahs attacking sorghum crops at Dubbo, galahs descending on sorghum at Warren, galahs attacking oats at Wellington and galahs attacking sheep grain lines at Gilgandra. The last photograph was taken during the drought when sheep that were starving were being fed. No sooner was the food poured out than the galahs descended and ate it all. What will happen if these people are not allowed to trap birds in the proper way? The farmers will go ahead and poison them anyhow. Farmers use such things as luci-jet dip, which is an organo-phosphorus poisoning. I have been a veterinarian for one and a half decades or so and have treated a number of animals with this form of poisoning. It is very cruel. Death is prolonged. The poison acts on the nerve endings and stops them firing properly so that one gets salivation, diarrhoea, respiratory embarrassment and, after a period, pain and death. That is the alternative if these trapping licences are taken away. Why will the Federal Minister not let these birds be exported? We are talking only of birds that are in abundance. We are not talking about rare birds. If these birds were exported they could continue to live and would provide some joy to people overseas who have not seen the beauty of the birds we have in Australia. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wants them to be exported. It has long advocated that these birds be allowed for export. Mr Lloyd —Even the RSPCA? Mr COBB —Yes, even the RSPCA. It has long advocated it because it is a less cruel alternative. There is no cruelty in sending these birds overseas. If it were allowed, it would stop needless killing, the waste of bird life, the cruelty of poisoning, illegal smuggling and all the things that are associated with the present situation such as the drugging and smothering of these birds. It would lend enjoyment to people overseas, as I have said, and it may even earn some export income for Australia. If the Government does not allow their export, Australia will have less food from crops, birds will suffer, it will be more cruel and there will be more suffering in the long run. We have plenty of these birds now. Allowing them to be exported is a far better alternative than the present situation. I ask the Federal Minister to have another look at this matter and not just to reject it out of hand. If he does not allow export of these birds he will be condemning tens of thousands of these birds. As I have said, the photographs I have of what has happened to these birds show thousands of them heaped up after poisoning. I ask the Federal Minister to look at the matter in a rational way and not just to see the image in his mind of the birds being stamped to death, as was shown on the Willesee program the other night. I ask him to make a reasonable and common-sense decision for the benefit of the birds and the grain growers of this country and to allow the export of these birds. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(4.15) —On 1 August 1984, the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act came into force. This great reforming step taken by our Government to improve the status of women in our community was welcomed by the vast majority of Australians. We can now begin to assess the early results of having that Act in operation. I congratulate the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pamela O'Neil and her team at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for their excellent and dedicated work in implementing this important piece of legislation. Ms O'Neil and her staff have not only worked hard to see the sex discrimination legislation enforced and fairly administered in this country but also worked to ensure that the community is well informed about the importance of this legislation in guaranteeing the democratic rights and freedoms of all Australians. Their work is particularly impressive when one considers the acrimonious and objectionable rhetoric of the vocal minority who opposed the Sex Discrimination Act. One remembers their usual scare tactics and their dire predictions of the end of society. In fact, we see that, far from destroying society, the Act is reforming discrimination that did exist. In the first six months of the Act's operation 380 formal complaints were lodged with the Human Rights Commission. Seventy per cent were on the basis of sexual discrimination, 20 per cent on marital status and 10 per cent on pregnancy. Over 60 per cent of complaints were in the area of employment, with 15 per cent of these being cases of sexual harassment. Fifteen per cent were for discrimination in clubs, 15 per cent in the provision of goods and services, with the remainder in other areas. It is very sad to see that many complaints of discrimination on grounds of pregnancy came from women who worked in service areas such as shops or travel agents, where their employers told them they did not 'fit the image' the company wanted to present to customers. Women who choose to have children are performing an invaluable service to our society, yet somehow there are still people who stick to the archaic view that when we are pregnant we are not fit for public exhibition. When the Sex Discrimination Act was debated in this place, there were those who irresponsibly propagated a view that it would only serve the interests of middle class career women who liked kicking up a stink on the job. But the facts now show otherwise. In the area of employment, the majority of complaints come from young women in traditional occupations. They work in shops and offices and are often not members of unions. So the Sex Discrimination Act is often their only protection against unscrupulous employers. There were also a significant number of complaints from men-complaints which the fearmongers said would never be heard. Our Government is concerned that all Australians should have equal rights, unlike those who would rather see glaring cases of discrimination quietly ignored. Complaints from men are common in the area of discrimination on grounds of marital status, such as when an employer provides different kinds of housing for married and single workers. For example, in the past our defence forces provided houses, on or off bases, for married employees, whereas single employees were obliged to live in a room on the base. The situation was bad particularly for divorcees with shared custody of children, whom nobody could expect to accommodate in a single room. This situation is now being redressed. It is important to point out that about 95 per cent of complaints under the Sex Discrimination Act are resolved through the Human Rights Commission's informal conciliation process. In other words, the overwhelming majority of cases never reach the point where they have to be dealt with in public hearings. Most complaints do not want or need to go through the trauma of public tribunal hearings which are often sensationally reported in the media. All they want is the dignity and respect that should be the right of all Australians. The Commission has had a very eager response to the assistance it can offer to residents of States where there is no sex discrimination legislation. The Western Australian Government will soon implement its own anti-discrimination Act, but there is little hope of action from the Queensland or Tasmanian governments. This means that inequities will continue to arise where people, such as State government employees, cannot be covered by the Federal Act and will continue to be subject to sexual exploitation. It is the experience of the Commission that the Act is overwhelmingly supported in the community. Far from wrecking the fabric of our society, the Sex Discrimination Act has provided a means for ordinary people to stand up for their basic human rights. I commend the Commission for effectively working towards fairer and more equitable living and work standards for all Australians-not just the privileged few. Mr REITH(Flinders)(4.19) —I rise in response to the self-righteous indignation and rhetoric displayed by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in this House in the last few days on the question of the assets test. My word, we have heard it time and time again-the statement, which is not supported by facts, that somehow the assets test applies equally to all Australians. The facts speak differently. I draw the attention of members of the House to figures as they relate to my electorate of Flinders. The figures have been supplied by the Department of Social Security. Honourable members opposite will be particularly interested to hear that the Minister confirmed them on Melbourne radio last week when, in answer to a question from a listener who asked whether the figures quoted in the Herald the previous day were right, the Minister said: Well I am not sure about all those figures, I think the overall figure of the percentage of pensioners that are affected by the Assets Test is the order of 2.6, 2.7. I think it is true that a higher percentage of pensioners have been affected within rural areas . . . There is no doubt about that. There are a few interesting words at the end of the Minister's answer, when he said: . . . I don't know that those figures shock me too much. I think they reflect what I might have expected anyway. If ever there was an element of premeditation in this attack on rural Australia, there it is, as heard on Melbourne radio last week. I do not suppose that one should be surprised by this. It comes partly from an ideological base, which is of course the Minister's wont. It is well known that he is one of the fractions within the faction which is one of the parties within a party best known as the Socialist Left. He is hell-bent on spending approximately $60m of taxpayers' funds to snare 12 millionaires. I should say also in this context that there is, as usual, a considerable power play going on within the factions, particularly in regard to the tax debate. The Minister may now realise the real implications of this assets test as it affects ordinary Australians. He is starting to say to himself: 'Look, we have a position here, we have to hang in here because we have other positions to put when it comes to the tax summit'. We know what will come out of that summit from the Socialist Left-capital gains taxes and wealth taxes which will be yet another attack on the people of Australia, in particular the rural people and the people in my electorate of Flinders. Let me recite some of these figures. I note that the national average is 2.6 per cent of pensioners affected by the assets test. These are some of the figures in Flinders: Archies Creek, 8.82 per cent; Bayles, Catania, Dalmore, Koo-Wee-Rup, 7.91 per cent; Balnarring, 8.39 per cent; and Bittern, 9.52 per cent. I will give other examples of equal importance: Glen Forbes, 25 per cent-one out of every four pensioners suffering under Labor's asset test. If 25 per cent is high, Krowera has 27.27 per cent of pensioners affected by this assets test. The trouble with Labor politicians, particularly those blokes from Melbourne, is that they think Victoria stops at the end of the tram tracks in metropolitan Melbourne. It does not. There are people living in the country and they believe, quite rightly, that they ought to get some sort of justice from a Federal Government. Moorooduc has 26.47 per cent; Nyora, 14.2 per cent; Pearcedale, Somerville, 12.3 per cent; and the list goes on and on. In Flinders the average is not 2.6 per cent, but 3.98 per cent and on the eastern side of my electorate it is 5.51 per cent. I could not get the figures from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Minister for Social Security was not too happy for these to leak out either. In the rural areas of my electorate, the number of social security pensioners affected by the assets test is 9.18 per cent. That puts to an end the Minister's contention in this place that this assets test treats all Australians fairly and equally. It does not. It is a great injustice to all Australians and we demand its abolition. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(4.24) — A few days ago, on 30 April, it was the tenth anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the end of the war which had wracked Vietnam, that unhappy country, over many decades. In order that my comments will not be misrepresented, let me say at this stage that I do not condemn or criticise any of the servicemen from any country who served in Vietnam. In fact, I feel some sympathy for them. I feel great sympathy for those young men, including young Australians, who were conscripted to fight in that unwinnable war on quite spurious grounds, many of whom died as a result of it. I have great sympathy for the families of those people who were there. I accept that just as in the First World War, which was a war of imperialism, there were men and women who served with great distinction, so too there were servicemen and women who served in Vietnam with great distinction, who displayed great courage, outstanding heroism, bravery, self-sacrifice and commitment. I believe that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who sits in this chamber, is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war. Some comments have been made in this chamber in recent days, and I would like to place on record some of the more impersonal details of that war. The cost to the United States of America alone was $150,000m. Had that money been applied to add to the material achievements of the people of Vietnam, to elevate them personally and materially, there would have been no chance at all that those people would have turned to communism or a change in their social system in order to overcome the type of circumstances in which they were placed. There were three million servicemen from the United States who passed through Vietnam during the period of United States involvement. Sixty thousand of them died, 300,000 were wounded and 3,000 are still unaccounted for. There were 50,000 Australians who participated in that war, including 18,000 conscripts, most of whom had their names pulled out of a barrel by way of a lottery. Four hundred and twenty seven died in Vietnam and 2,400 Australians were wounded. On 11 December 1972, shortly after the election of the Whitlam Labor Government, Australia completed its participation in that war and brought home its servicemen there. The Whitlam Government was a government of substance, courage and morality. If that government had achieved nothing else, its election would have been vindicated and its position in the history of Australia would have been assured by that one decision alone. It was an unfortunate blot on the history of the modern world that such a war should have been unleashed in such circumstances, with such viciousness, venom and destructive power by the largest military power the world has ever seen. The razing of villages, destruction of crops and defoliation of forests took place in a war that brought us My Lai, anti-personnel fragmentation bombs, napalm, free fire areas and photographs in our local newspapers of corpses being dragged behind gun carriages. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. It being 4.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Peter Morris —Madam Acting Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 4.40 p.m. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland)(4.30) —Earlier this afternoon we heard a disgraceful and deplorable attack upon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) by the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). That attack related to the industrial dispute that has been occurring at Rheinsberg, West Germany on the vessel the Abel Tasman, which is the property and responsibility of the Tasmanian Government. The attack was put by those two members on behalf of the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) and it was a deplorable and quite spurious exercise. These three members from Tasmania have shown absolutely no interest in this issue from the outset, from the time the vessel was located and purchased in Europe and work on it began. This lack of interest continued even when the industrial dispute began. One would have thought that had they had as intense an interest as they have tried to exhibit today they would have raised the matter before, they would have tried to assist the Tasmanian Government, they would have made representations to the unions involved; in other words, they would have been trying to find some positive way out of the problems involved. The purchase of that vessel arose from an exercise in goodwill and honour between this Government and the Tasmanian Government. This Government set about solving the problem of providing a better ferry passenger service across Bass Strait, a problem that the three members whom I have just mentioned were not able to solve in their seven years in government. We found a solution to it. We developed a basis of negotiation with the Tasmanian Government and provided it with the sum of $26m to purchase the vessel Nils Holgersson, rename it the Abel Tasman, modify it and bring it to Australia to provide that service to Tasmania. All that has been done this afternoon by the three members with their cheap political grandstanding is to introduce an element of acrimony into an issue that has been handled honourably on a basis of good faith between the Tasmanian Government and this Government. This Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) through the provision of that $26m, has given Tasmania an opportunity it has never had before to develop its tourist industry and to provide a better quality service across Bass Strait for sea passengers. It seems to me that the problem with the three members to whom I have referred is that they have not been able to share any of the credit for that deed. That is their problem. Rather than take an honourable attitude to it they have set about to denigrate the exercise by trying to link the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations with the behaviour of a union abroad. The Prime Minister made clear this afternoon that he deplores the dispute that has occurred. It is not the responsibility of this Government. The parties involved are the Federated Marine Stewards' and Pantrymen's Association of Australasia and the Tasmanian Transport Commission. If the Tasmanian Transport Commission were an agency of this Government, I would understand their wanting the Prime Minister to be involved. They should be directing their comments and their bile to the Premier of Tasmania, not to the Prime Minister of this country. As I said earlier, their concern for this problem is new found. They have sat here mute day after day, week after week throughout the dispute-and it began several weeks ago-and there has not been a word from them. Then this afternoon they launched a cheap hit and run attack during the adjournment debate when the Prime Minister was not here to respond. The Tasmanian Minister for Transport agreed in recent discussions that an open-ended commitment for Australian National Line to operate the Empress of Australia, the existing ferry, until the new Abel Tasman came into service was unreasonable. Based on information provided by him to me, the Federal Government obtained an agreement of ANL to operate the service until 3 June. We made it clear at that point that, from 3 June on, the responsibility for the service rested with the Tasmanian Government. From that date it had to get its own vessel into service and if it wanted to charter the Empress of Australia that was its responsibility. I repeat those facts. In providing the $26m for the purchase of the Abel Tasman, this Government has given Tasmania the greatest opportunity in its history to develop its tourist industry and the current situation that has developed in West Germany has resulted from the Tasmanian Government's actions. It is clearly the responsibility of that Government. From our point of view our financial responsibility ends on 2 June. From there on the responsibility is for the Tasmanian Government either to charter additional ferry space from ANL in a commercial arrangement or to provide some other means of transport. Madam ACTING SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 4.35 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Jacobi to move- That this House- (1) recognises the costs to the community arising out of a lack of uniformity in laws, throughout Australia, providing for the manufacture, packaging, labelling and marketing of food products; (2) notes the failure of the States to legislate in the terms of the model food act endorsed at the Health Ministers's Conference as long ago as May 1980, and (3) calls on the Government to exercise its undoubted constitutional powers and enact national legislation to remedy this state of affairs. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 May 1985: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the date on which sub-sections of the following Acts shall come into operation- Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Act 1984-Sub-section 4 (2)-10 May 1985. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Act 1984-Sub-section 4 (2)-10 May 1985. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws-1985- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 55. Telecommunications (Telex Charging Areas)-Amendment No. 1. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 5) Mr Jacobi asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Having regard to the indirect contribution made to the occurrence of organised crime by inadequacies in the legislation of the Parliament, will he give consideration to the systematic provision to the Parliament of crime impact statements in respect of bills as they are introduced. (2) Will he assure the House he will take steps to ensure that there will be early reference to the National Crime Authority of (a) a general study of the community costs, extent and consequences of organised crime in Australia, (b) investigate the capacity for improvement in the self-policing of professional ethical standards of accountants, lawyers, medical practitioners and other professions, (c) investigate the need for enhanced regulation of banking and other financial institutions in order that their financial services do not facilitate and mediate criminal activity and (d) investigate the need for improved policing, administrative and judicial structures, both State and Federal, and, in particular, the need for specialised courts for the prosecution of organised, corporate and other white collar crime. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The large cost to the Government of fraud in relation to Commonwealth payments including Medicare, Social Security benefits and the Home Buyers Grant Scheme is a matter of great concern. The Government is presently examining the possibility of preparing crime impact statements as one way of ensuring that the potential for fraudulent abuse of such schemes in minimised. The aim of these statements would be to take into account the possibility of persons, particularly criminals, circumventing the legislative prohibitions. It may therefore be possible to overcome some of these deficiencies while developing the legislation rather than trying to deal with these problems once the scheme is operating. The Government is concerned that, in the past, insufficient attention has been given to the possibilities for fraud when developing or refining schemes-the concept of crime impact statements could be of real assistance and accordingly, is being pursued. (2) The National Crime Authority's priority tasks are to investigate serious crime and assemble evidence for the prosecution of offenders. It is authorised by the Act to make recommendations for law reform where, as a result of the performance of any of its functions, in considers a recommendation should be made on such matters to the relevant Minister. In carrying out this function, the Authority could deal with many of the matters suggested by the honourable member. However, the Act does not provide for the giving of a general reference in relation to law reform of the description proposed by the honourable member. (Question No. 12) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What evidence is available to indicate that penalty rates, holiday and other loadings, minimum wages, closed shop arrangements and restrictive trading hours, are factors which make Australia less competitive, and therefore restrict employment prospects, in the tourism, hospitality and catering industries. (2) What action is the Government taking to ensure that these industries have a freer labour market to provide even greater employment opportunities. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Penalty rates have been traditionally viewed as having two functions. On the one hand, shift allowances provide an incentive to and compensate employees for working 'abnormal' or 'unsocial' hours, while on the other hand, overtime premia act as a disincentive to employers to work employees for periods in excess of the standard working week. A 1983 report on the Victorian hospitality industry by the Monash University Centre for Policy Studies found that penalty payments comprised 16 per cent of the total wages bill for the typical hospitality operation. It was further estimated that penalty costs represented approximately one per cent of the costs of a tourist visit to Australia. However, the Report concluded that the abolition of penalty rates would not be the most suitable solution to cost pressures in the industry. Employers would still need to pay loadings on weekends and public holidays in order to attract labour to work in those periods. Studies into penalty rates by the Trethowan Committee of the National Labour Consultative Council and the Queensland Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission proved inconclusive as to the effects of penalty rates upon employment opportunities. Payment of a 17.5 per cent loading on wages and salaries for the annual leave period has been a standard condition of employment in Australia since the early 1970s. Significantly, leave loading provisions were initially introduced through consent variations to awards, that is with the agreement of the employers concerned. Since that time, however, industrial tribunals have accepted the principle of a payment of a loading to compensate employees for the unavailability of additional income whilst on leave (from such sources as overtime and shift allowances). There does not appear to have been any specific study done on the effects of holiday pay loadings on the competitiveness of the tourism industry. The two principle federal awards in the tourism, hospitality and catering industry are the Hotel and Retail Liquor Industry Award 1983 and the Motel Award 1976 which at the end of 1982, covered approximately 60,000 and 10,000 employees respectively. Both awards have identical union preference clauses which provide for employers to give preference to members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees' Union of Australia when engaging new staff and retaining union members in the event of retrenching staff. These clauses do not amount to closed shop arrangements and do not abrogate the right of the employer to dismiss staff for inefficiency, misconduct or neglect of duty. This situation is reflected in existing information on the extent of unionisation in these industries. In 1982, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that only 36 per cent of employees in the Recreation, Personal and Other Services industry-as defined by the ABS-were union members (41 per cent of male employees and 33 per cent of female employees). This was well below the average rate of union membership for both sexes. I am not aware of any major, thorough or recent study of the competitive condition of the tourism hospitality and catering industries in Australia relative to those in other countries. There is, however, evidence of strong growth in these Australian industries over several years. Reasons for this include strong promotional efforts here and overseas and, most recently, relative changes in the value of the Australian currency. This growth experience is likely to be sustained as the latest assessments undertaken by my Department suggest that prospects are good for further growth in a range of occupations based upon the tourism industry. This growth is starting from an already high base. Tourism accounts for a significant and growing proportion of the work force. For example, in 1981-82 the sector accounted for about 340,000 jobs directly and indirectly, about 5 per cent of then existing jobs. Direct employment (i.e. those employed in areas which directly supply goods and services to tourists) stood at about 250,000 with indirect employment (i.e. those employed in the supply of inputs into the goods and services which are purchased by tourists) accounting for the remainder. Of these, one-sixth was generated by the expenditure of overseas tourists. (2) The Government has taken action which is improving this industry's competitive position in both a general and a particular manner. At the general economic level, the Government's prices and incomes policy has brought about a marked improvement in Australia's competitive position. The Treasury index of real unit labour costs indicates that, after adjusting for productivity increases, the real cost of employing labour had fallen by September 1984 to near the levels prevailing in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Inflation has also fallen markedly and is now around the OECD average. In addition, the Government is actively promoting the improvement of the quality and services in these industries by encouraging the improvement of training-both for and within the industry. Thus the Government sponsored National Tourism Industry Training Committee is actively assisting the industry to improve the training and thus services of persons employed in this industry. This quality dimension is no less important than other factors in the competitive position of this industry. It should also be noted that the Australian Parliament is constrained under the Constitution from legislating directly upon wages and employment conditions for the majority of the Australian workforce. However, it is the prerogative of employers and unions to make applications to industrial tribunals to alter wages or conditions of employment. The Government would consider its position, including whether it should intervene before a tribunal, in the light of any application made. (Question No. 28) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What arrangements are made between the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC), Qantas, Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett for the carriage of personnel and freight for the promotion of Australian tourism overseas and within Australia. (2) Do the arrangements allow for free carriage of personnel and freight on official duties; if so, what is the value of this free travel from each carrier to the ATC. (3) If not, what budget is allocated by the ATC for fares and freight in 1984-85. (4) Do foreign airlines offer the ATC any free or discounted travel; if so, which are the airlines and what is the expected value of this contribution from each carrier during 1984-85. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Contra agreement with Qantas-value $130,000. There in no arrangement with TAA and Ansett. (3) No specific budget allocation for fares and freight. ATC operates on a program/project system-provision for fares and/or freight is included as part of Commission-approved programs. (4) National carriers of countries where ATC has offices often provide Free of Charge fares for publicists and travel agents jointly sponsored with ATC. Carriers include Pan Am, Continental, British Airways, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Japan Airlines, Air New Zealand, UTA, KLM, Alitalia, Air India. No estimate is made of the value of this contribution. (Question No. 29) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) In which countries does the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) employ official agents. (2) What are the duties of these agents. (3) Are the agents employed on (a) a full time or (b) a part time basis, in each country. (4) If on a part time basis, for how many hours per week is each agent employed. (5) Are part time agents paid on a contract rate or hourly rate. (6) What is the name, address and period of employment of each agent. (7) What reporting system is used to determine the activities and worth of each agent. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (6) Bahrain: Ms Ilene Morley, Qantas Airways Ltd, Suite 8, 1st Floor, Yateem Centre, Al Mothanna Road, Bahrain. Hong Kong: Ms Kim Chui, Kim Chui Associates, Room 1101, 34-36 D-Aguilar Street, Central, Hong Kong. Austria: Mr Herwig Schachel, Studio zur Ideenfindung, Scheidlstrasse 39, A-1180 Vienna. France: Mr Barry Maybury, Barry Maybury Sarl, 12 Rue Chabanais, F75002 Paris. Greece/Cyprus: Mr Alec Sekulic, Qantas Airways Ltd, 45 Nikis and Fillellinom Streets, Athens 118. Italy/Malta: Mr Brian Hammond, SERGAT Italia SRL, Piazza dei Cenci 7a, I-00186 Rome. Netherlands: Mrs Marga van der Werf, Heemsteedse Dreef 58, NL-2102 KM Heemstede. Scandinavia: Mr Poul Tibaek, Danmarketing, 3, Krystalgade, DK-1171 Copenhagen, Denmark. Spain/Portugal: Mrs Carmen Moras, Qantas Airways Ltd, Torre de Madrid, planta 5, Princesa 1, Madrid 13. Switzerland: Mr J K Zutter, Zutter Sommer Marketing AG, Dornacher Strasse 210, CH-4018 Basel. Canada: Mr Jack Green, Manager Canada, Australian Tourist Commission, Suite 220, 120 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ont. M4P 1E2. All the agents have twelve month contracts. (2) The duties of these agents vary according to area. Their responsibilities are to: ascertain and implement ways of fulfilling ATC's objectives to increase the number of short term visitors to Australia, increase their duration of stay, increase their dispersion throughout Australia, maintain existing and develop new trade relation and handle general media enquiries. (3) All are part time, except the Canadian representative who is full time. (4) Not specified. (5) Contract rate. (7) All representatives are under the control of ATC regional managers and report on a regular monthly basis. (Question No. 30) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What arrangements are made by the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) to have suitable tourism promotional material placed in the offices of all Australian Embassies, Consulates and Trade Offices. (2) Has his attention been drawn to the criticism by some offices that they never see much in the way of promotional material from the ATC; if so, will he give an assurance that full promotional supplies will be sent to all official Australian offices as soon as possible. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian Foreign Affairs posts are kept advised of tourist literature available through ATC offices-supply is on demand. (2) No. Regular liaison takes place between ATC offices and Department of Foreign Affairs posts. (Question No. 31) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) In which overseas offices of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) are individual State tourism bodies represented. (2) Who are these State representatives and what are their designations and duties. (3) What financial arrangements are made between the ATC and State bodies to maintain State officers in these overseas posts. (4) In which countries and cities are State tourism bodies represented individually, rather than through some arrangement with the ATC. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- Office State Designation Asia Mr Vince Shanahan Queensland Secondee Mr Mike Diakomichalis South Australia Secondee Mr Rick Matkowski Tasmania Secondee Mr Harry Helliwell Western Australia Secondee Japan Mr Tony Luxton Queensland Secondee New Zealand Mr Greig McAllan Western Australia Secondee Mr Robert Tregoweth South Australia Secondee North America Mr Roman Zawadski South Australia Secondee Mr Jac Eerbeck Western Australia Representative U.K. Ms Mary White Western Australia Representative Ms Sonny Kent Northern Territory Representative Europe Mr Rudy Heymann Northern Territory Representative * All are Marketing Officers (3) For Secondees: States pay salaries and ATC pays Determinations Relating to Overseas Service (DROS) allowances. For Representative: States pay all costs. (4) Auckland, New Zealand; Christchurch, New Zealand; Bahrain; London, England; Los Angeles, USA; Tokyo, Japan. (Question No. 32) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Will Australia and the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) be represented this year at the major internationale Tourismus Borse (ITB) Travel Fair in Berlin. (2) Which non-ATC organisations will be represented at the Fair. (3) Is it a fact that only three ATC personnel, including the Chairman and his wife, will be attending the Fair. (4) Is it also a fact that the Australian co-ordinator for ITB, the ATC Marketing Manager, Mr John King, will not be attending, because there is no budget allocation for him to do so. (5) Is first hand marketing knowledge of Australian destinations essential at major travel promotions such as the ITB; if so, will he move urgently to ensure that Mr King is sent to Berlin to facilitate the task of marketing Australia at what is the most influential travel fair in Europe. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Australian participants Accommodation and resorts Air Queensland Ambassador Hotels Ansett Hotels Australian Kakadu Tours Best Western/Homestead Motor Inns Conrad International Hotel &Jupiters Casino Federal Pacific Hotels &Casinos Flag Inns Fremantle Esplanade Hotel Grosvenor Hotel Ltd. Hilton International Australia Hotel Intercontinental Sydney Hyatt Kingsgate Hotel Sydney Lizard Island Manly Pacific International Hotel Maritime World Menzies Hotel Sydney Mirvac Hotels Oberoi Hotels Australia Orpheus Island Resort P &O Resorts P/L Princess Hotel Regent Hotels of Sydney &Melbourne Southern Cross Hotels Southern Pacific Hotel Corporation Ltd. TAA Resorts Telford Hotels of Australia Victoria Holdings Hotel Group Ltd. Adventure, camping, safaris and unusual tours AAT Kings Tours P/L Air Queensland Ansett Trailways Australian Kakadu Tours Australian Pacific Tours P/L Central Australian Tours Association (CATA) Centralian Frontier World Going Places Adventure Travel Greater Northland Air Safaris Maritime World Wanderer Tours of the Silver City Maritime operators Captain Cook Cruises Maritime World T-T Line Self drive vehicle hire Avis Rent a Car Budget Rent a Car Centralian Explorer Motor Caravans Frontier World Hertz Rent a Car (N.T.) Holiday Motorhome Rentals Newmans Tours Australia Thrifty Rent a Car Railways Frontier World Tourland (Railways of Australia) Airlines and air tours Air Queensland Ansett Airlines of Australia East West Airlines Frontier World Great Australian Aircruise Greater Northland Air Safaris Maritime World Qantas Airways Skywest Trans Australia Airlines Attractions Frontier World World Expo '88 City and area tours AAT Kings Tours P/L Air Queensland Ansett Briscoes Ansett Trailways Australian Kakadu Tours Australian Pacific Tours P/L Captain Cook Cruises Central Australian Tours Association (CATA) Frontier World Maritime World Pioneer International P/L Wanderer Tours of Silver City Coach tour operators AAT Kings Tours P/L Ansett Briscoes Ansett Trailways Australian Pacific Tours P/L Central Australian Tours Association (CATA) Centralian Frontier World Greyhound Australia P/L Newmans Tours Australia Pioneer International P/L Inbound tour operators Atlantic &Pacific Travel (Australia) P/L ATS Pacific P/L Frontier World Landmark South Pacific Majestic Travel P/L Motive Tours Mount Cook Australia Tours Newmans Tour Australia QH Tours-Jetabout Tourland Trips Travel P/L Uniting Touring Australia P/L West Coast Aussie Holidays P/L State and region Australian Capital Territory Kalgoorlie-Boulder Tourist Bureau Inc. Melbourne Tourism Authority Northern Territory New South Wales Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia (3), (4) and (5) No. (Question No. 33) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) In which international travel trade shows and exhibitions was the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) represented in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to the date of the answer to this question. (2) Does the ATC monitor the effectiveness of these trade shows; if so, which shows are to be deleted and which shows will be included for ATC representation during the next two years. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) FITUR Madrid January and February 1985 BIT Milan February each year Salon Mondial du Tourisme, Paris February 1985 ITB Berlin March each year International Travel Fair, Singapore March 1984 ACTA Winnipeg May 1984 ASTA Seoul September 1983 ASTA Las Vegas November 1984 PATA Sri Lanka April 1984 TTW Montreux November 1984 Reiseakademie, U.K. December 1984 World Travel Mart, London December each year JATA, Tokyo December 1983 (2) ATC monitors the effectiveness of all its activities. Trade Shows are part of closely integrated marketing activities and must be weighed against a whole range of criteria. Of the Trade Shows listed, it is likely that ATC will not be represented again at FITUR Madrid and TTW Montreux. (Question No. 36) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Does the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) maintain a lending library of film and video-tape, for use in the promotion of Australia both internationally and domestically; if so, what is the title of each ATC produced film or video-tape and in what year was each production made. (2) Does the ATC receive material from State tourism bodies and private industry to supplement its own library; if so, what productions are currently held by the ATC. (3) Are these productions, ATC and otherwise produced, held in all overseas offices. (4) What efforts have been made to provide copies of these productions in foreign languages, particularly in Japanese and German. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Waltzing Matilda -1981 Australian Overture -1981 Australia Naturally -1981 The Great Barrier Reef -1980 (2) Yes. All State/industry material is generally available to ATC and is supplied direct to various offices. It is not currently feasible, given staff resources, to provide a list of this material. (3) All offices hold copies of ATC productions. (4) ATC produces promotional material and market briefs in the following languages. German Japanese French Cantonese Mandarin Italian Spanish Dutch These productions are made generally available in the markets to which they refer. (Question No. 37) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) Which tourist industry bodies, Government and semi-Government groups, and tourist advisory committees maintain a formal or semi-formal liaison with (a) him, (b) his Department and (c) the Australian Tourist Commission. (2) How often and for what major purpose does each group meet with (a), (b) and (c). Mr John Brown —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: 1 (a) Australian Tourist Commission (ATC); Tourism Advisory Council (TAC); Tourist Ministers' Council (TMC); 1 (b) Association of Australian Convention Bureaux (AACB); Australian Accommodation Council (AAC); Australian Automobile Association (AAA); Australian Bus and Coach Association (ABCA); Australian Federation of Travel Agents (AFTA); Australian Historical and Tourist Parks Association (AHTPA); Australian Hotels Association (AHA); Australian Institute of Travel and Tourism (AITT); Australian Resort Timesharing Council (ARTC); Australian Standing Committee on Tourism (ASCOT); Australian Tourist Commission (ATC); Australian Travel Industry Association (ATIA); Caravan and Recreational Vehicle Council of Australia (CRVCA); Inbound Tour Operators of Australia (ITOA); Motor Inns and Motels Association (MIMA); NSW Tourist Attractions Association; National Tourist Industry Training Committee (NTITC); National Restaurant and Caterers' Association (NRCA); Tourism Advisory Council (TAC); Tourist Ministers' Council (TMC); Melbourne Tourism Authority (MTA); State/ Territory Tourism and Consumer Affairs Departments; Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers (SCOCAM); Joint Commonwealth/States/Territories Working Group on Uniform Regulation of Travel Agents; Domestic (TAA, Ansett, East West etc.) and International (QANTAS) Airlines 1 (c) Australian Association of Visitor and Convention Bureaux (AACVB); Australian Federation of Travel Agents (AFTA); Australian Standing Committee on Tourism (ASCOT); Australian Tourist Industry Association (ATIA); Inbound Tour Operators of Australia (ITOA); Inbound Travel Marketing of Australia (ITMA); Pacific Area Travel Association (PATA); Tourist Ministers' Council (TMC). 2 (a) I have portfolio responsibility for the ATC, the Government's tourism marketing arm which meets eight to nine times annually. I chair the TAC which meets two or three times annually to provide me with advice on industry conditions development and viability. I am a member of the TMC which meets annually to fulfil a tourism consultative/policy/co-ordinating role between Governments. (b) My Department provides: (i) Public Service member on the ATC. (ii) representation on the TAC and provision of Secretariat. (iii) the TMC Secretariat. (iv) the ASCOT Secretariat which meets three or four times annually to co-ordinate government tourism activities and policies at 'officer' level. There are no formal liaison arrangements for regular meetings with other organisations under 1 (b) but, rather, ad hoc discussions on current issues of mutual interest and relevance (for example, the uniform regulation of travel agents and the Export Market Development Grants Scheme). 2 (c) Irregular meetings by the ATC to exchange views on current and proposed activities of common interest, particularly on tourism marketing matters. (Question No. 39) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) In view of the success of the Paul Hogan tourism promotion in the USA, what arrangements, if any, are being made for market research by the Australian Tourist Commission in order to conduct similar campaigns in countries other than the USA. (2) Does this market research indicate the possible involvement of Paul Hogan in any proposed campaigns. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the success and acceptance of Paul Hogan's television comedy programs in Great Britain and South Africa; if so, is he prepared to allocate funds for major promotions, based on the Paul Hogan US concept, in these two lucrative travel markets. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In view of limited funding available for extension of 'Hogan-type' TV advertising in other markets, no specific research has been undertaken. Research on marketing (including other means of advertising) is continuous. (2) Yes. (3) Yes, I am aware of the success of these programs in Great Britain and South Africa. Any future decisions concerning expansion of Paul Hogan style campaigns into these markets will depend on decisions to be taken by the ATC in the budgetary context, and, in the case of South Africa, Government policy concerning relations with that country. (Question No. 40) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) How many staff are employed by the Australian Tourist Commission within Australia and how many are involved in (a) administration, (b) marketing, (c) research and (d) policy advice to the Government. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are 54 staff employed by the ATC within Australia, comprising: (a) Administration 8; (b) Marketing 42; (c) Research 4; (d) Policy advice. (Question No. 45) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) In which overseas cities are offices of the Australian Tourist Commission (ATC) located. (2) Which countries are served directly by these offices. (3) At each overseas office, how many staff members are there and what are their designations. (4) What is the budget allocation for each office in terms of (a) administration and (b) promotion in 1984-85. (5) How is the promotional budget allocated for each country served from each ATC office. (6) What sum is allocated to each country by each office in 1984-85. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2), (3), (4)- Administration Operations $ $ Auckland New Zealand and South Pacific 5 1-Class 2/3 137,000 581,600 2-Class 4 1-Class 7 1-Class 10 Los Angeles Western USA, South America and Canada 5 1-Class 4 447,600 8,440,000 1-Class 5 1-Class 6 1-Class 8 1-Class 10 New York Eastern USA and Caribbean 3 1-Class 2/3 447,600 8,440,000 1-Class 4 1-Class 8 London UK and Ireland 7 3-Class 4 202,000 1,383,300 2-Class 6 1-Class 8 1-Class 10 Frankfurt Europe 5 1-Class 4 233,000 1,241,000 1-Class 5 1-Class 7 1-Class 8 1-Class 10 Tokyo Japan and Korea 5 2-Class 4 179,400 1,653,900 1-Class 7 1-Class 8 1-Class 10 Singapore Asia 4 1-Class 4 211,000 1,432,400 1-Class 6 1-Class 7 1-Class 10 (5) Priority markets and segments have been defined through research and market intelligence and programs and budgets are approved by the Commission accordingly. (6) Allocations are not made by country but by market opportunities. (Question No. 58) Mr Aldred asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) How many people have been (a) killed or (b) injured from lightning strikes on telephones during each of the last six years. (2) How many supposedly unexplained household fires may have been caused from lightning strikes on telephones during each of the last six years. (3) What is the estimated cost in 1984-85 of the newspaper and television advertising program, in relation to the danger of using telephones during thunderstorms, being conducted by the Customer Information Service of Telecom. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) There is no conclusive evidence of death due to lightning strikes on telephones. Most lightning incidents involving telephone users originate from sources other than direct lightning strikes on the telephone system. Most incidents result either in no injury or short term minor electrical and acoustic shocks with a few cases of physical injury. The totals of reported incidents for each of the last six years are: 1979-11 1980-10 1981-94 1982-34 1983-63 1984-58 The higher figures since 1980 result from greater awareness and an improved reporting system. (2) There is no record of a household fire directly caused by lightning strikes on the telephone system. (3) Media advertising costs during 1984-85 will amount to approximately $4,300. Lightning warning information is also prominently published in telephone bill inserts (approx. 15 million p.a.), in all telephone directories (distribution 17.5 million), and in a number of other Telecom publications. (Question No. 61) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What are the details of grants from his Department to each of the following groups involved in the Roxby Downs Blockade during August 1984: Total Environment Centre NSW, Movement Against Uranium Mining (NSW), Friends of the Earth (NSW), People for Nuclear Disarmament (NSW), Friends of the Earth (Vic), People of the Earth (Vic), Friends of the Earth's Food Justice Centre, Chain Reaction (Friends of the Earth magazine), Friends of the Earth (National Office) and Northern Territory Environment Centre (a) between July 1983 and April 1984 and (b) since April 1984. (2) Is it anticipated that any of these organisations will receive further grants. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Specific information on those groups which were involved in the Roxby Downs blockade is not kept by my Department. The following is provided in respect of Community Employment Program (CEP) grants made to organisations mentioned in the question. TOTAL ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (NSW) (1) (a) Grant of $41,104 approved on 13.2.84 employing 5 people on a project which involves the computerisation of environmental data to increase public access. (b) Nil. (2) No outstanding application. MOVEMENT AGAINST URANIUM MINING (NSW) (1) (a) Grant of $32,692 approved on 23.2.84 to employ two people to help in the preparation of resource material on nuclear and energy issues. (b) Nil. (2) No outstanding application. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (NSW) (1) (a) Grant of $23,697 approved on 23.2.84 to employ two people to research areas of potential job creation in recycling. (b) Nil. (2) No outstanding application. PEOPLE FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT (NSW) (1) (a) Grant of $80,638 approved on 13.2.84 to employ 10 people on a mobile facility for community education of disarmament issues. Grant of $15,392 approved on 7.2.84 to employ one person to co-ordinate voluntary activity to promote community awareness of disarmament. (b) Nil. (2) No decision has been made on an outstanding application for a grant of $13,694 to employ one person to update the organisation's Disarmament Library. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (VIC) (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (2) No decision has been made on an outstanding application for a grant of $66,540 to employ four people on an ecology information project. PEOPLE OF THE EARTH (VIC) (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (2) No outstanding application. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH FOOD JUSTICE CENTRE (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (2) No outstanding application. CHAIN REACTION COLLECTIVE (NSW) (1) (a) Nil. (b) Grant of $34,696 approved on 22.6.84 to employ two people to expand the sale of the Chain Reaction Collective magazine in NSW, provide general office work, soliciting of advertisements and editing of articles. (2) No outstanding application. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH NATIONAL OFFICE (1) (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (2) No outstanding application. NORTHERN TERRITORY ENVIRONMENT CENTRE (1) (a) Nil. (b) Grant of $17,880 approved on 15.3.85 to employ one person to provide clerical support for the Centre's co-ordinator. (2) No outstanding application. (Question No. 69) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What was the Australian Government's total financial commitment to Australia's exhibit and representation at the International Trade Fair in New Orleans in 1984. (2) Did the Government recoup any of this expenditure by any means; if so, by what means. (3) Is the Government still owed any money in connection with Australia's representation at this Fair. (4) What were the tangible results of Australia's representation at the Fair. (5) What was his contribution to Australia's representation at this Fair. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) An amount of $7m was appropriated for Australia's participation in the 1984 Louisiana World Exposition held in New Orleans in 1984. (2) No. (3) No. (4) The Louisiana World Exposition was a special category Exposition sanctioned by the Bureau Internationale des Expositions (known as the B.I.E.) in accord with the Convention Relating to International Exhibitions. An Exposition is a display which has as its principal purpose the education of the public; it may exhibit the means at people's disposal for meeting the needs of civilisation or demonstrate the progress in one or more branches of human endeavour, or show prospects for the future. They are not trade fairs as products are not displayed or demonstrated for sale. Immediate returns are difficult if not impossible to quantify in monetary terms. Nevertheless, substantial goodwill and benefits would have been gained in the cultural, educational and tourism areas in addition to the unique opportunity that was availed of, to present Australia's achievements, resource capabilities and potential to the very large receptive, concentrated and somewhat captive audience. (5) At the time of the Louisiana World Exposition, responsibility for Expositions rested with the portfolio of the then Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. (Question No. 80) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Was the purpose of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act partly to prevent the compromising of Australia's relations with the governments of foreign countries. (2) Would the possession of arms of Australian origin by groups engaged in hostilities against foreign governments tend to compromise relations with those governments. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I find it too difficult to respond to this hypothetical proposition. (Question No. 104) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report in the paper Il Globo, of 24 December 1984, reporting on the closure of the Woolloomooloo Spanish School 'Miguel de Unamuno'. (2) Is it a fact that the school has been forced to close down at the end of a long, vicious and well organised campaign of terror in which class rooms were wrecked, teachers beaten up, and students terrorised. (3) Were requests for assistance ignored. (4) Has the Minister been requested to investigate these allegations; if so, what investigations have been carried out. (5) What have been the results of these enquiries. (6) What action has the Minister taken following these investigations. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) I understand that a report on the matter has been made to the New South Wales Department of Education when the school in question was operating in classrooms in the Woolloomooloo Public School. My understanding is that the report indicated that incidents of harassment and vandalism involving the Spanish School occurred at that location but not to the degree implied in the newspaper article. (3) Requests for assistance were directed to the New South Wales Education Department through the Ethnic Schools Liaison Officer, and action was taken by the local Regional Office of that Department. (4) I was not asked to investigate the matter. (5) and (6) I understand that from discussion between officers of the NSW Education Department and the school authorities, the solution to the problem was seen as the relocation of the school to an area where harassment was less likely to occur. Alternative accommodation was duly arranged at Waverley Public School. It is understood that no further incidents have occurred in the new location. (Question No. 127) Mr Moore asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Is it a fact that (a) Telecom has granted a contract to Volt Information Sciences Incorporated of USA to supply advertising for the Yellow Pages for all Australian States except New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory and (b) Telecom assured the Australian Printing Chapel in 1981 that it would have nothing to do with this company. (2) Can he explain this about turn by Telecom. (3) Is it a fact that such a decision was at the expense of jobs for Australians. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: 1. (a) Yes (b) No. 2. Not applicable. 3. No. Whilst ownership of the new contractor is overseas (as is the case with the current contractor), the contract work will be performed entirely in Australia and, except for a few management and technical experts, the work will be carried out by Australians. (Question No. 144) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: Has any haemophiliac received a transfusion of an untreated blood Factor 8 concentrate at any public hospital; if so, what action is being taken to ensure that haemophiliacs receive transfusions of heat-treated blood concentrate. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Prior to November 1984, no factor VIII was heat treated and hence all haemophiliac patients who receive factor VIII, receive non-heat treated material. Since then the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (CSL) have recommended use of, and have been supplying, heat treated factor VIII to their usual outlets. Production of heat treated factor VIII has kept pace with demand. However, due to a sequence of events consisting of maintenance closedown, power failures and malfunctions, they have not built up stores of heat treated factor VIII; their current program is redressing that now. However, there are reported cases of patients having been given non-heat treated factor VIII. It is not expected that these circumstances will recur, because CSL will, in addition, be heat treating their existing old stock of factor VIII which will then be released. I have advised all State and Territory Health Ministers of the situation. (Question No. 146) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) How many staff were employed by his Department on (a) 30 June 1981, (b) 30 June 1982, (c) 30 June 1983, (d) 31 December 1983, (e) 30 June 1984 and (f) 31 December 1984. (2) How many additional staff were employed to handle (a) the increase in unemployment beneficiaries and (b) the increase in supporting parent beneficiaries in (i) 1980-81, (ii) 1981-82, (iii) 1982-83, (iv) 1983-84 and (v) 1984-85 to the date of the answer to this question. (3) How many staff were employed in 1983-84 to implement and administer (a) the assets test and (b) pensions. (4) How many staff are expected to be employed to implement and administer (a) the assets test and (b) pensions in (i) 1984-85, (ii) 1985-86, (iii) 1986-87 and (iv) 1987-88. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) 11,544; (b) 12,447; (c) 15,696; (d) 16,997; (e) 17,402; (f) 17,415; (2) The answer to part (2) of the question should be qualified as follows: Staff engaged on Unemployment Benefit and Supporting Parent Benefit are not identifiable directly by the Department's staffing statistics. The figures quoted are estimates based on proportions of workload of larger organisational groups. In particular Unemployment Benefits staff were estimated as a proportion of staff engaged in Unemployment Sickness and Special Benefit Sections; and Supporting Parents Benefit staff were estimated as a proportion of staff engaged in the Pensions Sections. The figures quoted are only for staff engaged directly in these functional categories: Unemployment Benefit, and Supporting Parent Benefit. The figures do not include regional office staff who support those direct functions. Support staff are, for example, counter staff and field officers. (a) (i) Not available; (ii) 13; (iii) 552; (iv) 310; (v) -76; (b) (i) Not available; (ii) 9; (iii) 11; (iv) 16; (v) 18; (3) (a) 693; (b) 1204. (Question No. 150) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the January 1985 statement of Commonwealth Government Financial Transactions, shows recurrent costs of his Department are $36 million higher than for the same period in 1983-84; if so, what were the recurrent costs within his Department for the 7 months (a) to January 1984 and (b) to January 1985. (2)To what extent is the increase in recurrent costs due to increases in (a) salaries due to national wage cases, (b) salaries due to reclassification of positions within his Department and (c) staff numbers. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes-the schedule below itemises the recurrent expenditure for the 7 months (a) to January 1984 and (b) to January 1985. (2) of the $36m variation, $28.1m (78%) relates to salaries and allowances. This includes: (a) Salaries due to national wage case-$9.2m (b) reclassification of positions-$.1m (c) increased staff numbers (+858)-$17.1m DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY - RECURRENT EXPENDITURE Expenditure Expenditure 1 July 1983 1 July 1984 Item Description to 31 Jan. 1984 to 31 Jan. 1985 $m $m $m 077.105 First Div. Officer .042 .048 .006 077.150 Holders of public office .045 .075 .030 353.1.08 Repairs and maintenance .353 .521 .168 560.1.01 Salaries and allowances 162.000 190.100 28.100 .02 Overtime 2.017 2.455 .438 560.2.01 Travel 4.539 6.587 2.048 02 Office requisites, printing etc 5.522 6.805 1.283 03 Postage, telephones 26.574 25.848 -.726 04 Office services 1.585 2.203 .618 05 Motor vehicles 1.798 1.946 .148 06 Training services .297 .527 .230 07 Medical expenses 1.360 1.327 -.033 08 Computer services 4.952 7.501 2.549 09 Publicity .650 .663 .013 10 Fees and allowances appeals .647 .620 -.027 11 Freight and cartage 1.361 1.943 .582 12 Consultants .147 .476 .329 13 Compensation .499 .879 .380 15 Incidentals .627 .537 -.090 560.3.07 Payments to universities .462 .537 .075 09 Payments Section 34 (a) .056 .061 .005 215.533 251.659 36.126 (Question No. 158) Mr Aldred asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) What amount of Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) fuel levy funds is being directed to public transport projects. (2) What funds from the ABRD allocation will be available for roadworks. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Trust Fund Act 1982, a State may, if it wishes, seek the Minister's approval to direct part of the funds allocated to it for urban arterial roads to urban public transport capital projects. The Minister may approve expenditure of ABRD moneys on such projects provided he is satisfied that they will reduce traffic or wear and tear on urban arterial roads. Approval of urban public transport projects will be limited to a maximum of 25 per cent of the funds expected to be available for urban arterial roads. Since the commencement of the ABRD Program in 1982, approval has been given to urban public transport projects which will involve estimated expenditure of $114m. If all States were to exercise the option to direct 25 per cent of urban arterial road funds to urban public transport projects, a maximum of an estimated $187m would be made available for this purpose over the life of the ABRD Program. All moneys provided under the ABRD Program (other than amounts which States propose for expenditure on urban public transport capital projects) are required to be spent on roads. As a consequence, the minimum available for road-works over the life of the Program is estimated to be $2,313m based on an estimated revenue target of $2,500m to 31 December 1988. (Question No. 166) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is he able to say whether Vietnam issued a warning to oil explorers in March 1983 that they would have to bear all the consequences of accepting leases from China to explore for oil in disputed waters of the South China Sea? (2) Is he also able to say whether the oil drilling ship Glomar Java Sea was sunk during a cyclone on 25 October 1983, some 100 km off Da Nang? (3) Is it a fact that divers inspecting the hull of the sunken ship found a 2 metre hole caused by an external explosion against the hull; if so, has any investigation been conducted to determine the nature of the explosion and what were the findings? (4) Is he able to say whether any members of the crew of 81 have been found, either alive or dead? (5) Is it a fact that one member of the crew was Garry Looke, an Australian; if so, what steps has he taken on his visits to Vietnam to ascertain Mr Looke's fate? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. However we have been advised that the official Vietnam News Agency (VNA) issued a statement on 25 September 1982, to the effect that anyone who chooses to engage in oil exploration in disputed waters would have to bear full responsibility for all the consequences arising from their illegal activities. (2) Distress signals picked up from the oil-rig Glomar Java Sea indicate that the vessel sank off the coast of Vietnam on 25 October 1983, at the height of Typhoon Lex. (3) A full underwater inspection of the vessel was conducted by divers employed by Global Marine, the parent company. They located two fractures in the hull which had caused it to take in water and become unbalanced. A United States Coast Guard inquiry has found that, based on all available evidence, the sinking was not due to hostile activity. (4) The United States Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation, upon completion of its investigation into the sinking, issued a notice indicating that 31 bodies had been recovered. Of the other 50 crew members, no survivors have been found. It declared that the likelihood of finding survivors was nil, and issued presumption of death notices for the 50 persons on 1 June 1984. (5) Mr Garry Looke, an Australian citizen, was employed on the drill ship. His body was not recovered from the ship and he is presumed dead. There was no reason to raise the matter in my discussion with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, Mr Thach, in March this year. The Australian Embassy in Hanoi had received the full co-operation of the Vietnamese Government during investigations into the fate of the crew members during 1983. The Embassy and departmental officers worked in close association with both the relevant Vietnamese and United States authorities. We are fully satisfied with the outcome of the investigations and regrettably were unable to find any evidence to suggest that Mr Garry Looke could have survived this tragic incident. (Question No. 186) Mr Hunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Did the New South Wales Court of Appeal, on 12 October 1984, find in favour of the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), in its appeal against a decision by the NSW Equity Court, that Treka/Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd be paid an Australia Council subsidy which had been earlier re-directed to the ADC company, Inada Holdings Pty Ltd. (2) Is he able to say whether this has set a precedent whereby public moneys can be allocated to a third party and the moneys then transferred to a fourth party shelf company without redress in law. Mr Lionel Bowen —I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) On 12 October 1984 the NSW Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by the Aboriginal Development Commission and Inada Holdings Pty Ltd against a judgment of the NSW Supreme Court, Equity Division, that the Commission received from the Australia Council, through the Aboriginal Arts Board, a sum of $190,000 as trustee for Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Ltd and that accordingly Treka was entitled to have that money paid to it. The Commission had in in fact paid the money to Inada, a company which, according to the Supreme Court judgment, had been formed by the Commission. (2) The basis of the judgments of Hutley J. A. and Glass J. A. in the Court of Appeal was that, having regard to the governmental nature of the Australia Council and the Aboriginal Development Commission, it was impossible to attribute to them the intention to create a trust in favour of Treka. The only body which could have complained about the disregard of its directions was the Aboriginal Arts Board but it had not complained and was not a party to the proceedings. Priestly J. A held that both the Council and the Commission are, or represent the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and that, whilst the Crown can by clear words constitute itself a trustee, there was no such intention in this case. The Court of Appeal's decision is not a precedent for the wider proposition stated in the question. (Question No. 190) Mr Shack asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 March, 1985: (1) Why are his Department's envelopes printed on the face side with the logo 'The Accord. Building a Better Australia'. (2) For what period have departmental envelopes carried this logo. (3) What extra cost has been incurred by having this logo printed on departmental envelopes. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)-(3) The logo, 'The Accord. Building a Better Australia', has been overprinted on envelopes, both paper and plastic, used to mail news releases and other publicity and public information material. The logo has not been overprinted on other envelopes used by the Department. The reason for the logo being printed on the envelopes is to help increase public consciousness of the Accord, and by the short message 'Building a Better Australia', reinforce the Government's view that the Accord is a cornerstone of the nation's continued economic recovery and prosperity. The envelopes were overprinted in the period March-April 1984 at a time when new stocks were required for publicity/public information mailings. A total of 400,000 paper envelopes and 50,000 plastic envelopes-an 18 months supply-were printed. No extra cost was incurred in having the logo overprinted on the envelopes, as the Department uses a set contract for overprinted envelopes. Traditionally the Department's name and address is overprinted on envelopes and the addition of the logo was covered in that set contract price. Additional costs were, however, incurred in providing the artwork and the printing plate for the logo. These were (a) artwork-$163.50 and (b) printing plates-$45.00 making a total additional cost of $208.50 (Question No. 198) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) One. (2) Yes. (3) My Department observes the requirement under the relevant Public Service Board guidelines for an annual review to ensure a continuing need for the skill. (Question No. 200) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Nil. (2) A register is kept of officers claiming proficiency in a language other than English. Officers registered with the Department are in the main those whose first language is not English and who claim proficiency in their native language. On an ad hoc basis officers are paid an allowance for occasional performance of interpreting and translating to meet the needs of clients. (3) Due to the limited need for translating and interpreting services in the department, occasional linguistic performance allowance is paid as required in preference to an annual linguistic availability performance allowance. A central register is maintained within each State and the availability of the register is publicised internally. (Question No. 202) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) 191. (2) State and Territory Offices of the Department maintain registers of bilingual and multilingual staff. Each register records names, locations, contact numbers and language skills and is updated every six months. All Commonwealth Employment Service staff have access to this list, to enable them to meet the needs of clients. (3) Operational procedures specify that receipt of the allowances is subject to a number of conditions including, inter alia, there being an identifiable and continuing requirement for a particular linguistic ability possessed by a particular staff member. Managers and supervisors are required to report on particular language needs and the incidence of demand in a given area. These considerations are used in the assessment of applications for a language availability performance allowance by Department staff members. Reviews are undertaken of Allowances recipients to ensure their claimed linguistic skills are of a proficiency required for Departmental and client communications. (Question No. 208) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Nil. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (Question No. 216) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) No, since no employees have been paid a Language Availability Performance Allowance. (3) No specific operational procedures are in place concerning the use of language skills as no staff are being paid the associated allowances. (Question No. 222) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question, with regard to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, is as follows: (1) Two officers are presently receiving the linguistic availability performance allowance. (2) The Northern Territory Region of the Department maintains a register of languages spoken by staff. This action is not performed elsewhere in the Department. (3) No formal operational procedures are currently in force. (Question No. 223) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) No officers of the Department of Veterans' Affairs are receiving a language availability performance allowance (LAPA). The overwhelming majority of the Department's clients are Australian-born English speakers and the criterion that there should be an identifiable and continuing requirement for the particular linguistic ability would not be met. (2) While there are no officers receiving the LAPA, lists of officers capable of speaking foreign languages are maintained. (3) Lists of officers speaking foreign languages are maintained by Personnel Management areas and made available to other areas of the Department dealing with the public. (Question No. 224) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many employees of the Minister's Department receive a language availability performance allowance. (2) Is any record kept of the languages spoken by the staff and the ability of such staff receiving this allowance to meet the needs of the clients of the Minister's Department. (3) What operational procedures are in place to ensure that all such skills for which allowances are paid are effectively used in pursuit of the Minister's Department's objectives. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) Records of languages spoken by staff (other than English) are kept. These staff have not yet been required to perform interpreting duties. (3) With reference to (1)-not applicable. Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Queensland: Provision of Essential Services Joint Committee of Public Accounts Joint Committee of Public Accounts (Question No. 230) Mr Howard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) How many (a) entitlement reviews and (b) assessment reviews, were determined by the Repatriation Review Tribunal in 1984 and what were the (i) minimum, (ii) median and (iii) maximum, number of days between the date of the Tribunal's decision and date of notification to the applicant. (2) What were the major reasons for notification delays and what steps have been or will be taken to reduce such delays under the new system introduced from 1 January 1985. (3) How many of the cases referred to in part (1) were the subject of appeal, or a question of law to the Federal Court by (a) the applicant and (b) the Repatriation Review Tribunal. (4) How many of these cases remain to be determined by the Federal Court. (5) In those 1984 (a) entitlement and (b) assessment cases which were not subject to appeal, what were the (i) minimum, (ii) median and (iii) maximum number of days between the 28-day appeal period expiry date and the date of formal notification by the Minister's Department to the applicant. (6) Were any applicants notified before the expiry of the 28-day appeal period; if so, why and how many were to be notified. (7) In how many 1984 cases, was the repatriation benefit eligibility backdated for a period of 4 years from the date of the Repatriation Review Tribunal's decision. (8) In such retrospective eligibility cases (a) what repatriation and related benefits, other than the repatriation pension, is a war widow entitled to claim for, (b) how is information on this eligibility provided to a war widow and (c) what procedures apply and what supporting information is required. (9) What arrangements have been made between the Minister's Department and the Australian Taxation Office to ensure that a war widow without dependents, receiving a full retrospective eligibility has her 1983-84 tax assessment amended to eliminate the 1983-84 Medicare levy and the unspecified Medicare levy composite of her 1984-85 provisional tax. (10) Does the Minister's Department advise a war widow of her exemption or possible exemption from the Medicare levy; if not, why not. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) During 1984 the Repatriation Review Tribunal (RRT) completed: (a) 1513 entitlement reviews; and (b) 1215 assessment reviews. A sample of cases suggests the number of days between the date of the Tribunal decision and the date of notification to the applicant to be as follows: (a) entitlement reviews-(i) minimum 0 (i.e. posted same day); (ii) median 6 days; (iii) maximum 60 days. (b) assessment reviews-(i) minimum 0 (i.e posted same day); (ii) median 13 days; (iii) maximum 43 days. (2) The time taken by the RRT to notify applicants of decisions would be influenced by: the amount of travel of members of the Tribunal which reduced the opportunities members had to finalise reasons; and the limited availability of some part-time members because of other commitments which reduced the opportunities members of some panels had to finalise reasons. In arriving at its decisions and preparing reasons, the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) which commenced operating on 1 January 1985, is subject to the same legislative requirements and many of the same restraints as the RRT. At this stage it is a little premature to gauge the performance of the VRB but the time taken to notify applicants of a decision is expected to be less than with the RRT because: members of the Board are based in each Capital city and will travel less than was the case with RRT members; and the Board has better equipment than the RRT. (3) There were: (a) 12 appeals under the former section 107VZZH of the Repatriation Act 1920 and 2 applications for an order to review under the provisions of the Administration Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 brought by applicants for pensions; and (b) 5 appeals under the former section 107VZZH of the Repatriation Act 1920 brought by the Repatriation Commission (no appeals were brought by the RRT), against determinations made during 1984 by the Repatriation Review Tribunal. (4) Of the 19 Federal Court actions referred to in the answer to part (3), 11 remain to be determined, including one action where an appeal by an applicant for pension to the Full Court of the Federal Court from a decision of a single Federal Court Judge is pending. (5) and (6) The intention of these parts to the question is unclear. Under the former section 107VZZH of the Repatriation Act, the 28-day period for an appeal to the Federal Court commenced on the day after the decision was served on the applicant. That is, the appeal period commenced only once an applicant had been notified of the decision. (7) For the period 30 December 1983 to 14 December 1984 the RRT set aside 2192 decisions. It is not practicable to obtain the information required on each of these decisions. However, a sample of 100 decisions during 1984 reveals that the dates of effect were: * 4 years prior to date of RRT decision-6 * more than 4 years prior to date of RRT decision-36 * less than 4 years prior to date of RRT decision-58. (8) (a) The repatriation and related benefits, other than repatriation pension, available to a war widow with retrospective eligibility of a period of 4 years from the date of the RRT's decision, are the same as those available to other war widows. These benefits include: (i) Domestic Allowance of $24 per fortnight which is payable to a war widow if she: * is over 50 years of age or over; or * is permanently unemployable; or has a dependent child, or children under the age of 16; or * has a child 16 years of age or over who is undertaking full-time education or training and who, in the opinion of the Commission, is not receiving an adequate living wage. (ii) free medical treatment; (iii) free dental treatment; (iv) assistance towards education and training of children; and (v) funeral assistance grant. In addition to the above, a war widow may be eligible to receive: (vi) telephone rental concession; and (vii) various other benefits provided by State and Local Government authorities which vary from state to state. (b) and (c) At the time of putting a war widow's pension into payment, my Department writes to the widow advising her of the details of payment and explaining the conditions applying to Domestic Allowance and benefits under the Soldier's Children Education Scheme. The widow is asked to contact the Department if she believes she is eligible for either benefit. Enclosed with the advice is a Departmental pamphlet specifically produced for the benefit of war and defence widows which includes some advice on other benefits available from Local and State Government authorities. (9) My Department has not made arrangements with the Department of Taxation to amend tax assessments for persons receiving full retrospective eligibility. All beneficiaries, including war widows, are notified of any change to their entitlements and the date of effect of this change. This advice may be used by the beneficiary to have his or her tax assessment amended. My Department issues Medicare levy exemption certificates to all Repatriation beneficiaries entitled to full or part exemption from the levy. The certificate shows the number of days a beneficiary was exempt from the levy during the financial year and can be used to support the beneficiary's tax returns. (10) My Department issues Medicare levy exemption certificates to all beneficiaries eligible for exemption from the levy. The impact of the Medicare levy on Repatriation beneficiaries has been extensively publicised in Departmental publications and press releases. (Question No. 232) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Of the 18,293 recipients of special benefits in 1983-84 (a) in what categories of circumstances were recipients paid special benefit (e.g. period while awaiting another pension or benefit, ineligible for pension or benefit due to not meeting residential requirements), (b) how many recipients were paid special benefit in each category and (c) what amount of special benefit was paid in each category. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) and (b) The 18,293 recipients of special benefit to which the honourable member refers was the number as at 29 June 1984 derived from my Department's monthly statistical collection. Details of numbers of special beneficiaries by circumstances are available only from the Department's quarterly computer based surveys. The table below provides figures for 25 May 1984, the nearest date to 29 June 1984 for which survey data are available. It should be noted that the method of collection in surveys is different to that used in monthly collections and results in slightly different total numbers. There are particular problems associated with the coding of categories of special benefit and the figures should be regarded only as providing a general guide to the situation. (c) Data relating to total expenditure on special benefit by category are not available. However the total expenditure on all special benefits during 1983/84 was $92.8m in respect of an average number of 19,100 special beneficiaries during the year. NUMBER OF SPECIAL BENEFIT RECIPIENTS CURRENT BY CATEGORY AUSTRALIA- 25 MAY 1984 Special benefit category Persons 1 Person caring for invalid near relative (other than 2) 1,602 2 Person caring for sick or invalid spouse or de-facto spouse 443 3 Parent who ceases to work temporarily to care for child (other than 10 or 16) 167 4 Near relative who ceases work temporarily to care for child (other than 3) 110 5 Maternity confinement (other than 6 or 7) 3,564 6 Maternity confinement-under 16 or student, who is neither living at home nor a bona fide member of the workforce 34 7 Maternity confinement-under 16 or student, who is living at home and is not a bona fide member of the workforce 58 8 Person not residentially qualified for age pension (other than 11) 2,284 9 Person not residentially qualified for invalid pension (other than 11) 225 10 Person not residentially qualified for other pension (other than 11) 1,071 11 Person admitted to Australia under maintenance guarantee 742 12 Migrant in hostel or accommodation centre (other than 13) 1 13 Refugee 290 14 Person over age for unemployment or sickness benefit 211 15 Person under age for unemployment or sickness benefit 962 16 Claimant for pension pending determination 804 17 Hardship during waiting period for unemployment or sickness benefit 353 18 Spouse of person whose unemployment benefit has been postponed or suspended. 12 19 School leaver 11 20 Person who is permanently incapacitated for work to a lesser extent than 85 per cent, with no prospects of employment, and who has been on unemployment benefit continuously for 12 months or more 1,567 21 Woman not qualified for widow's pension or supporting parent's benefit, with no recent employment history, and unable to qualify for unemployment or sickness benefit 579 22 Woman who having remained at home to care for aged or invalid parent is left without support on death of parent, and who has little or no prospect of obtaining employment. 57 23 Person who has been on unemployment benefit for 12 months or more, with limited prospects of employment, and for whom work of a particular type is no longer available 1,512 24 Self employed 5 25 Alcoholic 132 26 Family of person remanded in custody 49 27 Person newly discharged from gaol 263 28 Person under age, undertaking rehabilitation or sheltered employment 21 29 Person confined as infectious disease contact 17 30 Person certified permanently incapacitated for work who refuses invalid pension 31 31 Person providing companionship in an emergency 29 32 Payment in lieu of pension or benefit where lodgement of claim is in doubt 5 33 Victim of natural disaster 3 34 Other special or unusual cases 543 Special benefit category not coded 806 Total Special Benefit Recipients 18,563 (Question No. 239) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Did the Auditor-General in his efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration report that at 30 November 1983 only 27 of the 40 investigation positions in his Department were staffed. (2) How many investigation positions were (a) available and (b) staffed within his Department at 28 February 1985. (3) What are the results of his Department's inquiry into the methods of detection based upon statistical analyses of illegal immigration population. (4) As a result of the study, what further recommendations have been made and what steps have been taken to implement them. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The Department's Investigation Branch which is responsible for the investigation of organised immigration malpractice has thirty-seven (37) approved positions. Thirty-four (34) of these positions are filled and recruitment is underway in respect of the three (3) vacant positions. The Department's Entry Regulation Branch has eighty-eight (88) positions of which seventy-nine (79) are filled. The positions include those engaged full-time and part-time in activities associated with the detection, location, apprehension, prosecution and removal of prohibited non-citizens. (3) and (4) My Department has advised that initial statistical analyses of the known overstayed visitors which comprise most of the illegal immigration population have provided some broad pointers to the characteristics of illegal immigrants, e.g., age, sex, previous status, nationality. However, these analyses are of little use in detecting illegal immigrants. The Department's computerised system provides it with the names of overstayed visitors but it cannot provide accurate information about the current addresses of people who, for the most part, are concealing themselves from the Department. The studies do not amount to an inquiry into methods of detection, or constitute finite analyses with conclusions and recommendations. They are on-going studies designed to analyse the characteristics of the illegal immigration population so that information can be supplied to overseas posts and the Department's regional offices in Australia. (Question No. 254) Mr Connolly asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use. (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department. (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production. (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use. (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Department produces its own video for use with its departmental training courses. Copies are available for use by other Commonwealth agencies. (2) All pre-production work (planning, scripting and filming) is carried out either within my Department or at external locations as appropriate. Post-production editing is carried out by using equipment of the Public Service Board or by private contractor, depending upon the technical complexity. (3) In the 1983-84 financial year, production of one video, The Cabinet Process, was commenced but was not completed. Production costs in 1983-84 were approximately $2000. (4) Equipment held by the Department for the production of videos is as follows: one camera and tripod one low band portapack one portapack battery charger one floodlight set one shotgun type microphone and headphone set (5) No officer is engaged full-time on the production of the Department's videos. One officer is engaged intermittently in this role. His current salary is $23,862 per annum. (Question No. 261) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use? (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department? (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production? (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use? (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) If the need arises, the Department would approach private companies as Departmental staff do not have the expertise to produce films or videos. (2) No. (3) Nil. (4) The Department has a colour TV Monitor, 3/4'', U-matic VCR unit and black and white camera to record simulated activities during training courses for evaluation of participants' performances-this equipment is held in the Personnel Development Unit and used by the training officers. (5) No officers are employed for production of films or videos. (Question No. 280) Mr Connolly asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What arrangements does the Minister's Department make for the production of films and videos for both internal and external use? (2) Is any production carried out within the Minister's Department? (3) How many films/videos were produced for or by the Minister's Department during 1983-84 and what was (a) the title and (b) the cost of each production? (4) What film/video production equipment is held by the Minister's Department and what is its primary use? (5) How many officers are employed in this area within the Minister's Department and what are their salaries? Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The Department uses in-house equipment operated by Departmental officers, as well as the services of Film Australia and private contractors. (2) Yes. (3) In 1983/84 the titled productions and their approximate costs were: $ Sports &Recreation for the Amputee 500 Ileo-anal anastomosis, with a reversed ileo loop-an experimental study in dogs 130 Repat Folk Festival 500 Scrubbing, Gowning &Gloving 100 Making Upper Extremity Interim Prosthesis &Training pin use 500 Evaluating New Contour Hook Terminating Device for Upper Extremity 500 Prosthesis for primal femoral focal deficiency 500 Silicon Sockets, below and above kneed prosthesis 200 Basic Operation Hygiene 100 Hip replacement operation before and after 50 Stepping out at 92 150 Veterans' Affairs Cares 2925 (4) The Department's equipment distributed throughout its Central Office in Canberra and 6 State Branch Offices includes: Video equipment:- 16 cameras (colour and black and white) 2 colour encoders 2 sound mixers 2 edit controllers 2 video typewriters &keyboards 3 VCR editing units 1 colour control unit 1 editor 1 portable VCR &AC power adaptor 1 JVC AC power adaptor 1 condensor microphone 2 14'' monitors 2 black and white video recorders 1 editing suite with special effects generator 2 colour monitors 2 VCR editing machines 1 ''Porta Pack'' VCR Lights (various) 2 Beta VCRs with monitors 3 VHS recorders with monitors 2 3/4 inch VCRs with monitors 1 1 inch recorder 5 National VHS VCRs with monitors 1 Hitachi 3/4 inch VCR with monitor Film equipment: 1 professional camera with spare lens 2 sound recorders 1 synchroniser 1 shotgun microphone 1 film titler 1 16mm film editor 1 light meter 2 synchrometers 3 16mm cameras 1 film splicer and joiner 1 film editor. The primary use for the equipment in 1983/84 was the production of training videos/films for Departmental officers and medical staff. (5) The Department has a Chief Films Officer position (Clerk 6), $23,793-$25,494, located in Central Office, Canberra. This position has not been occupied since April 1984. South Australia is the only other office to have a films officer's position and that officer is employed at a salary of $16,490. In all other States and Central Office the productions are handled through the existing available resources in the Staff Development, Public Relations and user areas. (Question No. 282) Mr Connolly asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What is the resignation rate of (a) occupational therapists and (b) physiotherapists in Commonwealth employment during the last two years. (2) What are the reasons for the high level of resignations from these professions. (3) How many of the professional therapists who have resigned over the last two years have abandoned their professions to take up employment in a different field. (4) What steps are being taken to overcome the current drastic shortage of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in Commonwealth employment. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a)- No. of No. of resigna- Per Class positions tions cent 1983 Occupational 1 83 20 24.1 Therapist 2 60 7 11.7 3 18 2 11.1 4 8 1 12.5 1984 Occupational 1 97 11 11.3 Therapist 2 80 10 12.5 3 19 2 10.5 4 10 0 0 (1) (b)- No. of No. of resigna- Per Class positions tions cent 1983 Physiotherapist 1 104 20 19.2 2 49 7 14.3 3 17 1 5.9 1984 Physiotherapist 1 108 20 18.5 2 57 4 7.0 3 15 1 6.7 (2) Reasons suggested for resignations by employing Commonwealth bodies include pay rates lower than those offered by State and private enterprise employers, and lengthy recruitment procedures. (3) The Public Service Board and employing Commonwealth bodies do not collect this information. (4) Action being taken to overcome shortages where they exist include: increased advertising, including in relation to physiotherapists; an overseas advertising campaign; streamlining recruitment processes and establishing contacts with training colleges and universities in an attempt to recruit new graduates; and improving systems for temporary employment for relief work. (Question No. 283) Mr Connolly asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What professions in Commonwealth employment require a Bachelors degree in Applied Science. (2) What is the duration of this degree course. (3) Are all people employed in the professions referred to in part (1) employed by the Commonwealth within the common science salary structure: if not, which professions are not included. Mr Willis —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (i) Occupational Therapist; (ii) Physiotherapist; (iii) Speech Therapist; although the degree involved may be designated by another name, such as Bachelor of Occupational Therapy. (2) A check of several institutions indicates the following: (i) Occupational Therapist 3.5 or 4 years; (ii) Physiotherapist between 3 and 4 years; (iii) Speech Therapist 3.5 or 4 years. (3) None of the above professions is included in the common science salary structure. (Question No. 289) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Was the removal of asbestos from the roof of the National Library against the recommendations of the Government's expert advisers on occupational health. (2) What reports have been prepared on the question of asbestos in the National Library. (3) Why did the fire protection system fail to prevent the recent serious fire damage to the National Library. (4) Did the fire or the extent of the fire have anything to do with the removal of asbestos from the roof. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Institute of Health, in a report to the National Capital Development Commission in July 1983 on the Asbestos in the National Library Building, concluded generally that 'in the absence of any modifications, the existing asbestos-containing material in the building should be left in place and kept under surveillance, say, annually by an experienced person. Should any deterioration be detected the appropriate remedy should be decided at that time'. Subsequently the arbitrators appointed by the Government, K. Purse and I. Furness, reported that 'The health risk to staff in the Library does not appear to be significant'. However, they considered that 'the degree of damage to the asbestos to be sufficient as to warrant removal' (Purse and Furness: Report on asbestos in the National Library and Watson High School). (2) The reports are K. Taylor and L. Bluff, for the Workers Health Centre, Lidcombe, N.S.W.: Report of Asbestos Inspection, National Library, 23 May 1983. S. Altree-Williams and A. Altree-Williams, for Occupational Hygiene Consultants, Canberra: Asbestos at the National Library-Environment Air Monitoring, Compositional Analysis of the Roof Insulation Material, and Recommendations for Further Action, 29 June 1983. G. Major and A. J. Rogers, for the Commonwealth Institute of Health, Sydney: Health Aspects Involved in the Occupancy of Building Incorporating Sprayed Asbestos-Containing Material for Fire Protection, Thermal and Acoustical Insulation, 15 July 1983. G. Major and A. J. Rogers, for the Commonwealth Institute of Health, Sydney: Asbestos As It Concerns the Occupants of the National Library Today, 18 July 1983. A. J. W. Powell, Commissioner, National Capital Development Commission to the Minister for Territories and Local Government: Asbestos in the National Library, 8 August 1983. K. Purse and I. Furness: Report on Asbestos in the National Library and Watson High School-A Report to the Federal Government and the A.C.T. Trades and Labour Council, October 1983. If he wishes, I will make available to Mr Connolly copies of these reports. (3) and (4) The cause and nature of the fire is the subject of a coronial report. It appears, however, that the fire protection system, which was activated at 7.08 p.m. on 8 March, worked effectively. (Question No. 290) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Did his warning on travel to Taiwan by Members and Senators also apply to travel to (a) Cambodia, (b) Estonia, (c) Latvia and (d) Lithuania. (2) Which other de facto governments did Australia not recognise. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Australia does not recognise any government in Afghanistan and Cambodia. (Question No. 292) Mr Donald Cameron asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Is it a fact that Telecom intends to introduce time charging on local calls; if so, is it intended to introduce this charge initially in rural areas. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: Telecom is monitoring the worldwide trend towards charging for all calls on a timed basis but at this stage it does not consider it appropriate to introduce the timing of local calls. (Question No. 296) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) 41; (b) 94. (2) 122 females; 13 males; 116 claims accepted; nil claims rejected; 19 claims to be determined; 105 keyboard duties; 28 clerical duties; 2 cashiers. (3) It is difficult to assess when rehabilitation is successful or complete. There is only a very small number of staff considered to be completely rehabilitated. The most common aspects of the rehabilitation procedure are redeployment from keyboard to clerical duties, reduced hours of attendance, light duties of a non-repetitive nature with gradual return to full employment. Progress is regularly monitored by the Commonwealth Medical Officer. (4) The department has adopted many measures recommended as a result of investigation of the disease and assessment of its causes, e.g. provision of ergonomic furniture, rest breaks, exercise and educational sessions. (Question No. 301) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (figures quoted represent total claims for the Department including the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and the Office of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust) (1) (a) 34; (b) 33. (2) 1983-84: 4 male 30 female 18 Data Processing Operators 6 Typists (including Word Processing Typists) 5 Steno-Secretaries 5 Clerical 31 Claims accepted 3 Claims pending determination nil Claims rejected nil Claims finalised. 1984-85 (to 20.3.85): 4 Male 29 Female 11 Data Processing Operators 7 Typists (including Word Processing Typists) 8 Steno-Secretaries 7 Clerical 14 Claims accepted 19 Claims pending determination nil Claims rejected nil Claims finalised. (3) Of the 67 employees who have claimed compensation in relation to repetitive strain injury, 17 are considered to have been rehabilitated in the sense that they have returned to normal duties without suffering a recurrence of this injury. A further six staff have been permanently moved to alternative suitable positions either by promotion, transfer or redeployment under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979. The steps taken to achieve the rehabilitation of staff suffering from repetitive strain injury vary to some degree in individual cases dependent upon the advice and recommendations received from the Commonwealth Medical Officer and private medical practitioners. Frequently, employees first proceed on a (variable) period of sick (compensation) leave and often undertake physiotherapy. On returning to duty they may be placed on light duties of a non-repetitive nature and, in the case of keyboard staff, may then be re-introduced to keying duties for a limited period per day. This period of keying is gradually increased, provided there is no recurrence of the injury, until full keying duties are resumed. Where it is recommended that staff either undertake light duties for a specific period or are deemed permanently unfit to resume their previous duties, emphasis is placed on retraining. Such retraining may take place in an alternative Department where appropriate. (4) A range of preventative measures have been or are being introduced within the Department of Finance with the aim of obviating the occurrence of repetitive strain injury. These measures have included the acquisition of ergonomically designed furniture and equipment; the development and application of suitable policies, work practices and training programs, involving the use of occupational therapists and relevant medical practitioners, designed to minimise the risk of injury. (Question No. 306) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There have been no compensation claims for repetitive strain injury by statutory authorities staff under my control and the following details relate to Departmental staff only. (1) (a) A total of 22 claims were received in 1983-84; (b) 92 claims were received between 1 July 1984 and 20 March 1985. (2) Analysis of claims is as follows: 72 claims lodged by females, 42 by males; 75 claims accepted, 39 not yet finalised; 49 claimants were employed in keyboard positions; 21 employed in combined clerical/keyboard positions; 10 employed in clerical positions; 34 employed in meat inspection positions. (3) 33 meat inspection staff have been successfully rehabilitated. Rehabilitation measures taken in relation to keyboard staff include individual counselling for all RSI sufferers and the provision of training courses to encourage assertiveness and to expand employment opportunities. Some RSI claimants have been gradually re-introduced to keyboard duties, through a staged approach and on the advice of their medical practitioner, others through their own initiative have found positions in other non-keyboard areas. While the latter staff are adequately coping with their new duties, they are still experiencing some recurrent RSI problems. (4) Preventative measures taken include the installation of ergonomic furniture and equipment, accompanied by training by physiotherapists on its use and on correct posture. The Department has also run a number of RSI awareness seminars for both managerial and keyboard staff. Rest breaks of 10 minutes each hour have been introduced for staff who are engaged in sustained keyboard activity and the Department is encouraging exercises to be undertaken during some of this time. The Department is also trialling equipment which monitors keystroke rates and alerts the operator when he/she exceeds a safe limit. (Question No. 308) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated, and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as shown on the following tables: Table 1 ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS RECEIVED DURING 1983-84 Sex of claimant Received Accepted Rejected Outstanding Male Female Type of duties performed 65 65 1 64 Typing 33 33 33 Visual display unit 33 33 33 Data processing 41 40 1 4 37 Clerical 1 1 1 Physiotherapist 5 5 5 Storehouse 3 3 3 Fitter and turner 2 2 2 Painter 2 2 2 Carpenter 2 2 2 Cook 2 2 2 Kitchenhand 7 7 6 1 Cleaner 20 20 20 Labourer 2 2 2 Driver 25 25 25 Machinist 1 1 1 Tailor 2 2 2 Waiter 2 2 2 Mechanic 9 6 3 9 Process worker 1 1 1 Gardener 258 254 - 4 51 207 Table 2 ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS RECEIVED DURING 1984-85 TO 20 MARCH 1985 Sex of claimant Received Accepted Rejected Outstanding Male Female Type of duties performed 124 101 23 1 123 Typing 39 30 9 39 Visual display unit 30 23 7 30 Data processing 48 32 16 7 41 Clerical 2 2 2 Storehouse 1 1 1 Fitter and turner 2 2 2 Painter 2 2 2 Carpenter 1 1 1 Cook 2 2 2 Kitchenhand 8 5 3 5 3 Cleaner 32 24 8 32 Labourer 1 1 1 Driver 36 27 9 36 Machinist 1 1 1 Tailor 10 5 5 2 8 Waiter 3 3 3 Mechanic 11 6 5 11 Process worker 2 2 2 Gardener 1 1 1 Butcher 5 5 1 Quality Controller 1 1 1 Printer 362 275 - 87 63 299 Table 3 SUMMARY OF THOSE SUCCESSFULLY REHABILITATED, NOT YET RESUMED AND RETIRED DUE TO RSI Resumed normal duties Full Part Re- Not yet time time deployed resumed Retired 291 8 147 156 18 Where an employee's disability is of a substantial nature and likely to incapacitate the employee for a considerable period, the employee is referred to the Rehabilitation Service Centre following completion of intensive medical treatment, to determine whether rehabilitation treatment will materially assist the employee's return to employment. An individual treatment and training program is compiled for each disabled person selected for rehabilitation. In addition to rehabilitation through the Service centre employees are being rehabilitated after treatment and advice from doctors recommending resumption on full time duties or on a part time basis with a gradual increase in hours to full time normal duties or redeployment. The following steps have been taken to prevent repetitive strain injuries: (a) A departmental survey/study of all keyboard operator positions in Central Office (344 positions) was completed in March 1985. The primary objective being the measurement and recording of physical parameters which might be contributory factors in the incidence of injuries and to determine the most effective methods of reducing the incidence of such injuries. (b) Alleviation of workloads (c) Working environment (d) Ergonomic furniture being phased in (e) Education/Training (f) Medical testing (g) Exercise (pause gymnastics) (h) Engagement of a Physiotherapist (i) Counselling (Question No. 320) Mr Ronald Edwards asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) How many compensation claims for repetitive strain injury were received by the Minister's Department and statutory authorities under his control in (a) 1983-84 and (b) 1984-85 to 20 March 1985. (2) What is the analysis of these claims giving details of sex, type of duties performed and the number of claims accepted, rejected and finalised. (3) How many employees are considered to have been successfully rehabilitated and what steps were taken to achieve rehabilitation. (4) What steps are being taken to prevent this type of injury. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) 39; (b) 111. (2) The analysis of these claims is as follows: 1984-85 to 1983-84 20.3.85 Sex 37F, 2M 97F, 14M Duties - Keyboard (Steno-secretaries, typists, word processing typists, data processing operators) 23 58 Clerical Administrative 6 31 Hospital Assistant 8 9 Laundry Assistant 1 - Orderly 1 - Telephonist - 1 Accounting machinist - 2 Nursing Staff - 2 Medical Records Officer - 1 Gardener - 1 Computer Systems Officer - 6 Number of claims accepted and finalised 35 45 Number of claims rejected Nil Nil (3) 85. In order to achieve rehabilitation, employees have been redeployed to other duties of a less repetitive nature. Those employees who are less seriously affected by RSI and who are able to continue their normal duties are given priority for ergonomically designed furniture and equipment. They are encouraged to take regular rest breaks and to perform beneficial exercises. (4) The following steps have been taken to minimise the occurrence of RSI: ensuring that supervisory staff are fully aware of their responsibilities for preventing RSI training sessions on RSI awareness are held for all members of staff ongoing evaluation of work practices, job design and the working environment job rotation and regular change in work preparation of a code of practice for the selection, installation and use of screen based equipment. (Question No. 322) Mr Slipper asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the large numbers of organisations seeking the supply of cassettes of Australia's Royal Anthem God Save The Queen as a free-issue item. (2) Is it a fact that the Government is refusing to supply cassettes of God Save The Queen as a free-issue item; if so, is this an attempt to erode loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen in Australia. (3) Will the Government consider immediate restoration of the right of eligible Australian organisations and persons to receive cassettes of the Royal Anthem as a free-issue item. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Records in my Department show there are few requests for cassettes of the Royal Anthem under the Government's national symbols free-issue program. (2) and (3) Under the Governor-General's proclamation of 19 April 1984, the Royal Anthem is to be used only in the presence of the Queen or a member of the Royal Family in Australia on an official visit. On these occasions it is anticipated that a band, orchestra or group of musicians would be in attendance to play the appropriate music in accordance with arrangements made by organisers of particular functions. There would, therefore, be no need for cassette music. Cassette recordings of the National Anthem Advance Australia Fair are available under the Government's free-issue program to eligible organisations. (Question No. 324) Mr Goodluck asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Is it a fact that the cost of posting a parcel, under 500 grams, from Hobart to London by surface mail costs $2.80, whilst a parcel of the same size posted from Hobart to Sydney by surface mail costs $4.40; if so, will he give the reasons for this cost discrepancy. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: No. The maximum cost of posting an article, weighing under 500 grams, by surface mail from Hobart to London is $3.30 and from Hobart to Sydney, $1.55. (Question No. 327) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) What are the terms and conditions placed on road funding provided by the Federal Government to local authorities in Queensland. (2) Is it a fact that all moneys must be paid directly to the State Government: if so, what is the percentage breakup for the various road categories. (3) What direct say do local authorities have in determining specifically how and where road funds should be spent in their council areas. (4) Will he consider a different funding arrangement whereby local authorities have a greater say in how and where funds are spent. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Funds provided by the Federal Government to local authorities in Queensland are distributed by way of a set of agreed principles. Local authorities are allocated 52.75 per cent of the total grant available for local roads in Queensland. Funds to local authorities are distributed to individual authorities in proportion to their specified 1981/82 base grants. The balance ie: 47.25 per cent is retained by the Queensland Main Roads Department for works on roads under its control. (2) Yes, all money is paid to the State Government. In the case of the Roads Grants Act the legislation provides the actual amounts which will be provided for each category of road eg. for Queensland in 1984-85. %'000 % National Roads 72,164 42.99 Arterial Roads 57,770 34.41 Local Roads 37,931 22.60 The Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act provides that 40 per cent of the total amount collected in 1982-83 and 42 per cent thereafter would be used on National Roads. The percentages of total collections to be used for other categories in Queensland are: 1982-83 1983-88 Per cent Per cent Urban Arterial Roads 6.51 6.51 Rural Arterial Roads 3.255 3.472 Local Roads 2.925 2.340 Further details of the allocation and actual amounts provided are given in the ABRD Annual Report 1983-84 pages 27 and 28. (3) In so far as the Federal Government is concerned Local authorities are free to determine how and where road funds provided for roads under their control are expended. (4) Similar provisions enabling the establishment of principles for the distribution of local road grants to local government authorities will be contained in the recently announced Australian Land Transport Program legislation. In Queensland the form of these principles will depend on the outcome of discussions between the Federal Government, the Queensland Government and the Queensland Local Government Association. (Question No. 330) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Are New Zealand security personnel working in ASIS no longer permitted access to intelligence information collected by the USA; if so, are these officers to be sent home? (2) How many officers are involved? (3) Will the Australian Government be required to replace some or all of these officers; if so, what is the expected cost? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3): In accordance with the well-established and bi-partisan practice followed by successive Australian Governments, I do not intend to comment on the matters raised in these questions. (Question No. 334) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Is it a fact that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act has been out of print for 18 months and that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act is also out of print. (2) What are the reasons for the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act being unavailable to the public for this length of time. (3) When will these Acts become available. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 had been out of print since January 1984 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 has been out of print since November 1984. (2) Approval and funding of reprints of Acts is the responsibility of the Attorney-General. In both cases, amendments were required to be included in the Acts before reprinting. (3) Reprint No. 2 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act became available through AGPS bookshops and mail sale outlets on 10 April 1985. A reprint of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is scheduled for delivery by the end of June 1985. (Question No. 335) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: Why is section 75 of the Taxation Act, relating to on-farm conservation measures, excluded from section 7c of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme application form relating to business deductions. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The parental income test for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) is applied to the parents' gross income less two types of deductions. These are a deduction for each dependent child other than the applicant and deductions allowable under sections 51-54 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. As far as possible the income test seeks to provide a comparable basis of assessment applicable to all applicants. For this reason, while the Income Tax Assessment Act provides for a wide range of deductions and exemptions, the TEAS income test seeks to confine allowable deductions in general to losses and outgoings incurred in the gaining of an income as provided for under sections 51-54 of the Act. It is considered inappropriate to extend the deductions to those relating to losses and outgoings of a private, domestic or capital nature or to those relating to expenditures which might be regarded as discretionary. (Question No. 352) Mr Scott asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What is the form of the decisions taken by the National and International Security Committee (NISC) of Cabinet. (2) Are such decisions written up and recorded; if so, who records the decisions. (3) Are there other Ministers present during meeting of the NISC; if so, whom and on whose authority. (4) On what dates were meetings of the NISC held between (a) 5 March and 31 December 1983, (b) 1 January and 31 December 1984, and (c) 1 January and 22 March 1985. (5) How many decisions were made by the NISC during each of these periods. (6) How many of these decisions (a) were reported and (b) were not reported, to Cabinet. (7) What decisions were not reported to Cabinet and what were the reasons. (8) How many decisions related to the United States MX missile tests involving Australian facilities or support and what were they. (9) How many of the decisions relating to the MX missiles were not reported to Cabinet and what were the reasons. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The recording processes and procedures for all Cabinet Committees (including the former National and International Security Committee now known as the Security Committee) are the same. The recording of decisions is the responsibility of the Secretary to Cabinet assisted by officers of the Cabinet Office. (3) to (9) I have previously indicated that I do not propose to answer questions on the detailed operations of the Cabinet or of any Cabinet Committee (see my answer to Question No. 50 House of representatives Hansard of 16 April 1985, pp 1228-1229). (Question No. 353) Mr Scott asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the section of the Cabinet Handbook on 'Cabinet conventions and principles-Collective responsibility', at section 2.5 and 2.6 on page 3. (2) Can he state whether the reason for the National and International Security Committee (NISC) not reporting to Cabinet on its decisions on the MX trials came under the definition of 'documents of special sensitivity' referred to in section 2.6 of the Cabinet handbook. (3) If so, did the NISC consider the distribution of the document in the Cabinet room as provided for in section 2.6; if not, why not. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (3) The 'Cabinet Handbook', as I have stated in the foreword, lays down procedures by which the Cabinet system operates to facilitate the handling and presentation of issues arising for Cabinet consideration in an orderly and effective manner. there are, as the 'Handbook' notes, exceptions to any standard practices. In respect of the particular issue of the MX missile trials there is nothing I would wish to add to the extensive public discussion of the matter that has taken place. (Question No. 361) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 March 1985: (1) What (a) statutory authorities and (b) advisory panels come within the Minister's jurisdiction and what is the (i) name, (ii) date and period of appointment of each member; and (2) what (a) remuneration and (b) travelling allowance, is payable for each position. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The requested details are listed on the tables below. ATTACHMENT Note: Appointment dates are current and are not necessarily the date of first appointment. Remuneration includes adjustment for the National wage case decision of 4 April 1985. A. Statutory Authorities AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY AUTHORITY Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.d. Senior member W. G. Hunter 24.10.84 5 years 312 Member C. W. Conron 24.10.84 5 years 255 Member R. Gietzelt 24.10.84 5 years 255 Assoc. member W. I. Scales 17.10.84 5 years 255 Travelling allowance per overnight stay: Capital City $125-other $95. STEEL INDUSTRY AUTHORITY Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.d. Chair M. J. Roberts 1.1.84 2 years 312 Member (DITAC) F. R. Somes 1.1.84 2 years No fee Member (a/g) M. J. Dolan* 23.10.84 267 * Appointment action in progress. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: F. R. Somes: Capital City $100-other $70 Others: Capital City $125-other $95. AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.a. Chair Sir R. Gordon Jackson 21.12.83 5 years 26, 940 Directors D. Charles (Secretary, DITAC) Ex officio . . A. J. Woods (Secretary, Resources &Energy) Ex officio . . D. McLeish 14.4.83 3 years 11,261 W. D. Ferris 28.7.83 3 years 11,261 J. G. A. Davis 3.11.83 3 years 11,261 Sir L. Froggatt 19.11.84 2 years 11,261 D. Cullity 18.10.84 5 years 11,261 Chief Executive J. R. Thomas Ex officio . . Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $125-other $95. MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES LICENSING BOARD Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.a. Chair C. R. Ward-Ambler 1.2.84 3 years 13,564 Members J. R. Thomas 1.2.84 3 years 6,781 E. D. Cameron 1.2.84 3 years 6,781 A. V. Gorman 1.2.84 3 years 6,781 W. J. Marron 1.2.84 3 years 6,781 P. D. Agars 1.2.84 3 years 6,781 J. O. Miller 1.2.84 3 years 6,781 D. Sligar (DITAC) Ex officio Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: D. Sligar: Capital City $100-other $70 Others: Capital City $125-other $95. AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BOARD Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.a. Chair K. J. Foley 21.10.83 2-8 years 16,860 Members C. K. Coogan 1.7.83 3 years 6,781 P. J. Redlich 1.7.83 3 years 6,781 W. Howarth 20.12.82 3-6 years 6,781 J. H. Andrews 1.7.84 3 years 6,781 W. A. Krickner 1.7.84 3 years 6,781 B. D. Anderson 1.7.84 3 years 6,781 P. K. Macgregor 1.7.83 4 years 6,781 A. Pucci 1.7.83 4 years 6,781 Sir Gustav Nossal 1.7.83 4 years 6,781 J. Clark (DITAC) 1.7.83 Ex officio - Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: J. Clark: Capital City $100-other $70 Others: Capital City $125-other $95. INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.a. Chair Vacant Commissioners G. F. Johnson (Acting chairman from 14.3.85 until vacancy is filled) 1.1.84 2 years 62,718 J. L. Sheaffer 1.1.84 2 years 62,718 J. C. Carey 2.4.84 5 years 62,718 D. L. McBride 1.7.81 5 years 62,718 R. G. Mauldon 1.1.84 5 years 62,718 W. B. Carmichael 14.9.84 5 years 62,718 Associate Commissioner J. Hunt 26.6.84 30.9.85 *58,318 Associate Commissioners, part-time, appointed for particular periods for the duration of a particular reference. p.a.* W. M. Blacklow 26.10.84 26.7.85 255 R. J. Blandy 17.10.84 16.5.86 255 B. Catchlove 17.10.84 17.10.85 255 J. L. Dillon 26.9.84 3.9.85 255 P. D. Elsworth 6.9.84 28.2.86 255 C. Fitzgibbon 17.9.84 31.10.85 255 C. Harvey 27.3.85 13.2.86 255 J. C. McColl 26.10.84 25.4.86 255 C. R. Meares 7.2.85 6.2.86 255 A. W. Mumme 25.3.85 19.6.85 255 N. Sarah 14.2.85 13.2.86 255 N. Tinkler 17.9.84 31.10.85 255 H. E. Torrens 26.9.84 3.9.85 255 R. H. Wallace 17.10.84 17.10.85 255 A. S. Watson 27.7.84 19.10.85 255 * Remuneration increases to $60,267 p.a. when presiding. * Remuneration increases to $267 p.d. when presiding. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Chairman and part-time Associate Commissioners; Capital City $125-other $95. Commissioners and full-time Associate Commissioners; Capital City $100-other $70. B. Advisory Panels or Councils NATIONAL CUSTOMS AGENTS LICENCING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.a. Chair A. T. Stubbings 10.9.84 2 years 211 Member D. Cable 10.9.84 2 years 180 Member J. Conlon (DITAC) Ex officio 2 years - Deputy Member E. K. Anderson 10.9.84 2 years 180 Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $80. TEXTILES, CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR SPECIAL QUOTAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair D. L. Elix 1.1.83 3 years 16,860 Members K. Purcell (DITAC) Ex officio 3 years - D. Wood (Trade) Ex officio 3 years - Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: D. Elix: Capital City $125-other $95. Others: Capital City $100-other $70. SMALL BUSINESS COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair J. H. Boorne 8.3.84 2 years Members J. M. Wood 8.3.84 2 years E. E. Falk 8.3.84 2 years W. M. Lamond 8.3.84 2 years P. A. Neck 3.3.84 2 years J. L. Tune 16.5.84 2 years J. B. Maher 8.3.84 2 years A. J. Moran (DITAC) 8.3.84 2 years A. W. Matheson 23.5.84 2 years B. H. Powell 8.3.84 2 years D. G. Morgan 8.3.84 2 years D. M. Gibbons 8.3.84 2 years J. R. Lance 8.3.84 2 years P. Acton 8.3.84 2 years E. A. Alexander 8.3.84 2 years J. W. Fletcher 8.3.84 2 years *No remuneration is paid. Travelling allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. BUREAU OF INDUSTRY ECONOMICS COUNCIL OF ADVICE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair B. Kelman 1.8.84 3 years Members R. Allen 1.7.84 2 years M. Johnson 1.8.84 3 years J. MacLeod 1.8.84 2 years A. Jolley* 1.1.82 2 years J. Keegan 1.8.84 2 years J. Freebairn 1.8.84 3 years D. Lansley* 1.5.82 1.12.84 * Reappointment action in progress. No remuneration is paid. Members are entitled to air fares to attend meetings. NATIONAL BIOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM-RESEARCH GRANTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.d. Chair B. Holloway 1.10.83 3 years 163 Members B. Booth 1.10.83 3 years 131 A. Clark 1.10.83 3 years 131 W. Elliot 1.10.83 3 years 131 K. Boardman* (CSIRO) 1.10.83 3 years 131 D. Dyer* (AIDC) 1.11.84 3 years 131 Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $80. * Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $125-other $95. AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BOARD TECHNICAL STANDING COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.d. Chair M. Farrell 1.8.85 3 years 163 Members D. Smith 1.11.84 2 years 131 D. Callow 13.9.81 4.25 years 131 H. Vorrath 1.1.85 2 years 131 Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $80. SMALL BUSINESS WORKING PARTY Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Members A. Stuckey Ex officio A. Nelson Ex officio R. Harrison Ex officio P. Weightman Ex officio R. Flavel Ex officio B. Ashworth Ex officio R. Phillips Ex officio J. Larkin Ex officio J. Purcell Ex officio B. Hegarty* Ex officio H. Croft* Ex officio * From the Commonwealth Public Service, remainder are from State Public Service. No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: H. Croft: Capital City $76.45-other $58.90 Others: Capital City $100-other $70. OFFSETS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Interim Chair K. J. Kirby 14.2.83 3 years Members A. L. Paton 15.2.83 3 years J. G. Keegan 15.2.83 3 years A. C. Evans 1.5.82 3 years B. H. Powell 15.2.83 3 years M. Terlet 14.2.82 3 years G. Siebenhausen 1.2.83 3 years R. A. Wheeldon 15.11.83 3 years R. L. Seares 15.11.83 3 years A. Waugh 14.2.83 3 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair B. Scanlen 1.1.82 3 years 11,261 Members P. Richards 1.1.82 3 years 4,604 P. Grant 1.1.82 3 years 4,604 N. Stephenson 1.1.82 3 years 4,604 R. Symons 1.1.82 3 years 4,604 D. Beanland 1.1.82 3 years 4,604 G. Raymond 1.1.85 2 years 4,604 B. Nolte 1.1.85 2 years 4,604 P. Haddon (DITAC) Ex officio . . Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: P. Haddon: Capital City $100-other $70 Others: Capital City $100-other $80. RECOMBINANT DNA-MONITORING COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.d. Chair (Part-time) N. F. Mills 1.10.83 3 years 163 Deputy Chair (Part-time) B. D. Booth 1.4.85 3 years 131 Members (Part-time) L. Dodson (Health) 1.10.83 3 years . . R. B. Brooks 1.10.83 3 years 131 R. W. Gee (Primary Ind) 1.10.83 3 years . . F. Gibson 1.10.83 3 years 131 G. Kelleher 1.10.83 3 years . . D. Whalan 1.10.83 3 years 131 M. Whitten 1.10.83 3 years . . W. R. Albury 1.4.85 3 years 131 D. Danks 1.4.85 3 years 131 R. Gould (DITAC) 25.3.83 30.9.86 . . Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: R. Gee and R. Gould: Capital City $100-Other $70. Others: Capital City $100-other $80. RECOMBINANT DNA-SCIENTIFIC SUB-COMMITTEE Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.d. Chair (Part-time) F. Gibson 1.10.83 3 years 163 Members (Part-time) M. Sleigh 1.6.84 30.9.86 . . J. Pittard 1.10.83 3 years 131 D. Danks 1.10.83 3 years 131 P. Whitfield 1.10.83 3 years . . I. M. Parkinson 1.4.85 3 years . . Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $80. INDEPENDENT ADVISER TO THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY, TECHNOLOGY AND COMMERCE ON TEXTILE, CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY IMPORT QUOTAS Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ p.d. K. Archer 20.12.81 Indef 255 Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $125-other $95. AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term* Remuneration $ Members Hon. E. L. Bedford Ex officio Hon. R. Fordham Ex officio Hon. M. Ahern Ex officio Hon. M. Bryce Ex officio Hon. J. C. Bannon Ex officio Hon. L. M. Arnold Ex officio Hon. R. Gray Ex officio Hon. B. Lyons Ex officio Hon. N. Dondas Ex officio Hon. D. F. Caygill Ex officio *All remain members of the AITC for the period of their office. AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair J. T. Ralph 26.3.84 2 years Industry Representatives A. R. Berg 26.3.84 2 years W. H. Blair 26.3.84 2 years J. W. Blood 26.3.84 2 years D. J. Brydon 26.3.84 2 years K. W. Court 26.3.84 2 years W. Cushing 26.3.84 2 years W. L. Dix 6.9.84 2 years I. A. Gittus 26.3.84 2 years C. M. Deeley 26.3.84 2 years B. S. Price 25.10.84 2 years P. J. Laver 26.3.84 2 years R. Pratt 26.3.84 2 years D. L. Wills 26.3.84 2 years Union Representatives L. Carmichael 26.3.84 2 years J. F. Halfpenny 26.3.84 2 years C. L. Harvey 26.3.84 2 years W. C. Mansfield 26.3.84 2 years C. S. Northover 26.3.84 2 years F. E. Peterson 26.3.84 2 years Other Representatives R. M. Brown 26.3.84 2 years H. Hughes 26.3.84 2 years M. R. Johnson 26.3.84 2 years R. D. Johnston 26.3.84 2 years P. J. Lloyd 26.3.84 2 years Government Representatives R. J. Fisher 26.3.84 2 years D. Charles 13.3.85 2 years Secretariat T. M. Hogg 26.3.84 2 years *No remuneration is paid. Travelling allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair W. L. Dix 6.9.84 2 years Members K. Babidge 6.9.84 2 years I. W. Cameron 6.9.84 2 years L. Carey 6.9.84 2 years C. S. Chapman 6.9.84 2 years D. I. Donaldson 6.9.84 2 years J. Field* 6.9.84 2 years I. F. Grigg 6.9.84 2 years G. Harris 6.9.84 2 years J. R. Manning* 7.2.85 2 years S. H. Maurice 6.9.85 2 years J. P. Maynes 6.9.85 2 years C. Nelson 6.9.85 2 years H. Rai 6.9.85 2 years J. Savage* 6.9.85 2 years G. G. Spurling 6.9.85 2 years H. Tamura 6.9.85 2 years L. C. Townsend 6.9.85 2 years J. Walldorf 6.9.85 2 years R. Williams 6.9.85 2 years J. A. Wise 17.10.84 2 years D. J. Fraser (DITAC) 6.9.84 2 years * Members of State Public Service. No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. BASIC METALS INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair P. J. Laver 7.11.83 2 years Members J. E. Catterall 3.10.84 2 years J. M. Crane 7.11.83 2 years L. Evans 7.11.83 2 years W. P. Hopkins 7.11.83 2 years P. J. Kolliner 7.11.83 2 years J. Lawrence 7.11.83 2 years W. Martin 7.11.83 2 years F. H. Osborn 7.11.83 2 years K. W. Peterson 7.11.83 2 years I. J. Polmear 7.11.83 2 years A. F. Reid 7.11.83 2 years J. O. Reynolds 7.11.83 2 years J. A. Strong 7.11.83 2 years K. R. Williams 7.11.83 2 years F. R. Somes (DITAC) 7.11.83 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. AEROSPACE INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair B. S. Price 25.10.84 2 years Members P. Abrams 25.10.84 2 years T. T. Anderson 25.10.84 2 years J. Bornstein 18.2.85 2 years C. Bosworth 25.10.84 2 years J. Corby 25.10.84 2 years D. Dalziel 25.10.84 2 years T. Johnson 25.10.84 2 years A. Lewis 25.10.84 2 years B. Lovelock 25.10.84 2 years K. G. McCracken 25.10.84 2 years I. M. McKenzie 25.10.84 2 years S. Maurice 25.10.84 2 years C. S. Morgan 25.10.84 2 years R. Pascoe 25.10.84 2 years D. J. Fraser (DITAC) 25.10.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. CHEMICALS AND PLASTICS INDUSTRIES COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair C. M. Deeley 19.3.84 2 years Members S. Braini 20.3.85 2 years J. P. Cordner 19.3.84 2 years S. P. Harrison 19.3.84 2 years J. F. Joiner 2.1.85 2 years S. K. Langley 19.3.84 2 years F. C. Lawson 19.3.84 2 years D. R. McGuffog 19.3.84 2 years H. E. Mitchell 19.3.84 2 years A. A. Pucci 19.3.84 2 years D. H. Solomon 19.3.84 2 years T. W. Sullivan 19.3.84 2 years V. Stretton (DITAC) 20.6.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. ELECTRICAL, ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION INDUSTRIES COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair W. C. Mansfield 27.3.84 2 years Members R. E. Brett 27.3.84 2 years L. Cattermole 27.3.84 2 years P. J. Claringbold 27.3.84 2 years M. T. Cole 27.3.84 2 years E. Cowell 27.3.84 2 years B. R. Goddard 27.3.84 2 years G. Harrison 3.5.84 2 years D. J. Hartley 27.3.84 2 years D. J. Hutchinson 27.3.84 2 years R. K. McKinnon 27.3.84 2 years D. J. McNeill 27.3.84 2 years E. Oliver 27.3.84 2 years R. Perriam 16.5.84 2 years E. T. Robinson 27.3.84 2 years P. B. Travers 27.3.84 2 years R. J. Weatherhead 27.3.84 2 years D. J. Fraser (DITAC) 27.3.84 Ex officio No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. FORESTRY AND FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair C. S. Northover 26.3.84 2 years Members R. G. Bunning 26.3.84 2 years D. M. Cullity 26.3.84 2 years R. B. Cumberlidge 26.3.84 2 years I. S. Ferguson 26.3.84 2 years A. Findlay 26.6.84 2 years S. W. Gentle 26.3.84 2 years R. J. Grose 26.3.84 2 years M. J. Hall 26.3.84 2 years C. L. Harvey 26.3.84 2 years W. Hewertson 26.3.84 2 years D. S. Jackson 26.3.84 2 years I. Lele 21.1.84 2 years M. J. Lynch 18.4.84 2 years G. Mackey 26.3.84 2 years P. J. McNamara 26.3.84 2 years F. J. Marr 26.3.84 2 years B. Meiklejohn 9.6.84 2 years J. C. Milton 26.3.84 2 years J. R. Quick 26.3.84 2 years J. A. Smart 26.3.84 2 years P. M. South 26.3.85 2 years C. G. Youren 26.3.85 2 years V. Stretton (DITAC) 20.6.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. MACHINERY AND METAL ENGINEERING COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair J. F. Halfpenny 27.3.84 2 years Members I. S. Brammar 27.3.84 2 years J. G. Caesar 27.3.84 2 years A. W. Connor 27.3.84 2 years A. D. Massey 27.3.84 2 years P. O. Miller 27.3.84 2 years R. Morgan 27.3.84 2 years E. Phelan 27.3.84 2 years J. D. White 27.3.84 2 years G. N. Whitehead 27.3.84 2 years D. T. Wright 27.3.84 2 years M. Corbett 21.3.85 2 years F. R. Somes (DITAC) 27.3.84 2 years C. T. Edwards (DITAC) 27.3.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. METAL FABRICATION INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair D. L. Wills 27.3.84 2 years Members R. H. Brown (CSIRO) 27.3.84 2 years A. C. Evans 27.3.84 2 years W. A. Greig 27.3.84 2 years A. W. Gwinnett 27.3.84 2 years R. Morgan 27.3.84 2 years R. Redmond 27.3.84 2 years P. N. Richards 27.3.84 2 years G. H. Slee 27.3.84 2 years G. W. Stuart 27.3.84 2 years N. A. White 27.3.84 2 years B. Johns (DITAC) 27.3.84 2 years F. R. Somes (DITAC) 27.3.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. PAPER CONVERSION, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair R. Pratt 26.3.84 2 years Members R. Boyer 26.3.84 2 years J. Cahill 26.3.84 2 years R. W. Davies 24.8.84 2 years J. A. Dunlop 26.3.84 2 years C. L. Harvey 26.3.84 2 years J. A. Hemming 26.3.84 2 years S. Lattimore 26.3.84 2 years G. A. Luke 26.3.84 2 years D. B. Macfarlane 26.3.84 2 years S. Maurice 26.3.84 2 years B. C. Price 26.3.84 2 years P. H. Wade 26.3.84 2 years L. Walker 8.6.84 2 years J. R. Walsh 26.3.84 2 years V. Stretton (DITAC) 20.6.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payble per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. PROCESSED FOOD INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair I. A. Gittus 27.3.84 2 years Members J. Christian 27.3.84 2 years B. J. Eames 27.3.84 2 years D. S. George 27.3.84 2 years J. Glidden 27.3.84 2 years G. J. McGregor 27.3.84 2 years P. J. Meddings 27.3.84 2 years S. W. Nowack 27.3.84 2 years L. W. Richardson 27.3.84 2 years L. Shelley 27.3.84 2 years F. J. Swan 27.3.84 2 years K. G. Purcell (DITAC) 27.3.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70. TEXTILES, CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY COUNCIL Appointment Office Name date Term Remuneration $ Chair J. W. Blood 27.3.84 2 years Members S. Bitmead 27.3.84 2 years P. Brass 27.3.84 2 years C. J. Dowd 27.3.84 2 years H. J. Griffin 27.3.84 2 years R. E. Griffith 27.3.84 2 years W. Hughes 27.3.84 2 years G. Innes 27.3.84 2 years B. Koo 27.3.84 2 years H. May 27.3.84 2 years P. Morgan 27.3.84 2 years F. E. Peterson 27.3.84 2 years F. Rafaelli 24.10.84 2 years K. J. Stevenson 27.3.84 2 years D. Taylor 27.3.84 2 years K. G. Purcell (DITAC) 27.3.84 2 years M. Cronin (DITAC) 27.3.84 2 years No remuneration is paid. Travelling Allowance payable per overnight stay: Capital City $100-other $70.